, 1886-06-13
THE ALLEGED LAND FRAUDS.


Proceedings in the coal land cases.
which created considerable interest
throughout the community at the time the
charges were first made. came to a sudden
halt Yesterday by reason of the decision Of
Judge Lacey, holding the Indictment in
sufficient for want of certainty in the aver
ment of the facts relied upon to constitute
the %ofense. 1t will be remembered that
the charge was originally made by affidavit
against L. j.. Baker, liver johnson, f. j.
Stanton and Abraham Harper, that they
had combined to defraud the United
States of certain valuable coal lands. some
$500 acres in aggregate extent. Stanton
acted as notary, taking the acknowledge
ments to the declarations, and Harper as
general utility man in the premises. The
facts upon which the charge was based
arc understood to be that a number of
t~houghtless or ignorant persons were in
duced to sign the papers necessary for
filing upon coal land, swearing in each in
stance that they had made improvements
to a certain value by their agent, and to
supplement this rash document with a
power of attorney to Harper. For this
service the parties received various small
sums, and herein consists the principal
connection OF Messrs. Baker and johnson
with the affair, as paymasters and sup.
posed beneficiaries. Judge Lacey held all
the accused parties to answer at the next
term of court under a bond of 81, 1000 each,
and so, for the time being, the cases rest.
The following is a synopsis of Judge
Lacey's opinion:
The charging part of an Indictment for
conspiracy under the United States statute
must consist of two distinct elements:
First-There must be a sufficient charge
of conspiracy.
Second-There must be a sufficient
charge of some overt act in furtherance of
the object Of the conspirators.
Each of these parts of the indictment
must be complete in itself. Neither will
be aided by anything contained in the
other.
In this case it is contended that that
portion of the Indictment which charges
the conspiracy is insufficient.
| have no question that AN indictment
charging a conspiracy to deiraud the gov
eminent out of certain specified lands
would be sufficient, without setting forth
the means by which the fraud Is to be con-
summated. Indeed, it is not necessary
that the conspirators should agree upon
any particular method of carrying out the
unlawful deslgn-it is enough that they
combine to accomplish by their united
action the criminal or unlawful purpose.
1t will probably be found that in many
cases Of conspiracy the agreement has ref
erence only to the end to be accomplished,
leaving to the individual judgment of each
conspirator the details of the scheme or
plan by which the end is to be reached.
Our statute, therefore, wisely looks only
to the end to be accomplished, and this
Indictment on this point would be INSULT
clent if its averments stopped with the
statement of the combination for the I'M
lawful purpose.
But the pleader has gone further. He
charges that the agreement between the
defendants not only embraced the unlaw-
ful end, but also specified the means of
its accomplishment. 1t is alleged to have
been an agreement between these defen-
dants hat they should do and cause TO be
done, certain specified acts, and thereby
defraud the government.
Manifestly if the acts thus agreed to
be done are OF themselves reasonably
calculated to accomplish the end charged,
the agreement constitutes a conspiracy to
detraud, otherwise not, since these must
be held to be the only acts intended to be
done.
All averments that are wholly uncertain
must be rejected, and what remains must
be taken as the agreement as to the acts
to be done, and it does not seem to me
that the acts thus charged as the only
ones to be done under the conspiracy are
reasonably calculated of themselves to ac-
complish the fraud upon the government