National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-07
rntrh Of A nrcnNrcA1IrY.

a Business Man Conceded to DO lnno-
cent Put on Trial to Test Question
of Law.
In the criminal court yesterday the trial OF
August Burgdorf. charged with presenting four
false vouchers to the bureau of medicine and
surgery of the Navy Department, was resumed,
the testimony closed, and then rcopened. The
government continuing its testimony called y.
L. Baldwin, paying teller at the National BANK
ofthe Republic who identified the signature
on the back OF two checks as being that oil MI
With this testimony the government an.
nounced its case closed IN chief.
MIR. Burgdorf was called in his own defense
and testified to having done business with the
departments for more than fifteen years. lie
reCollCCtcd collecting money from the depart
ment in juno, 1883. He made cases, tables
chairs and did considerable work for the
bureau. lie furnished the material and work
called for in the vouchers, and the bureau still
owed him 81: He had copiesoi the bills iur-
nished and they aggregated 81 more than We
furnished were correct. He lett them, he
thought with Kirkwood, and he would either
call Tor the vouchers or they would be mhued
to him. Then he would 20 to the pas. ohce
check He was never paid on the bills pre-
sented. When he received the vouchers ny
looked at the amount, and ifth0t was correct,
he would sign, not noticing the particular
"a Alter he was indicted he tried to get q trial
but falling in that, he with ten. liuuton
called on DR.. Van Rcypcn, and The latter made
Thorough Investigation Of the witnes,.s deal.
ings with the bureau, and the result was 4
letter from DR.. Van RCypcn IN tue District A.
torney, stating that the witness arpearrd TO bc
wholly innocent.
The counsel called for the letter hut Il wa
ruled out. IL wasa follows
"NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU Or MrpiCiNI
| AND SURGERY WASHINGTON, June ~, la,5- w
lIUmtVn.
| Burgdorf, and myself have carefully compared
| Mr.. Burgdorfs bills with the. work done by
| him, and am assured that the work actually
done or articles supplied for what he has pre-
sented bills equal In amount the nmount
! charged in the indictment vouchers, and
have no hesitation In saying that Mr. Burgdor
appears to be wholly innocent of any guilty In
tent or attempt TO dclraud the. government
| Yours very truly w. X. VAS REYPEN.
"HoN. <. S. WoRTHiSGToN, District Atty,
The witness said DR.. Van Reypcn, after thu
| investigation, complimented the witness tina
everything was all right, and wrote n report Il
| the district attorney, which the witness dellv
cred in person. He was congratulated by tina
officer and also by his assistant, MT. Coyle
| who said he was glad TO see any man prove hi
innocence.
He expected his case to be tried, and though
that he had been very badly treated. He de
| MED ever presenting bill for work not per
formed or receiving money from the govern
| ment not due him.
| on REORGANIZATION the witness stated tina
| lie Kept an account Win llle BONcIilmpul, lll'
still had the books in his possession and II
"Will you let mc look at them" asked tn
| district attorney.
| off MIR. Chandler does not object" replied
~ believe Mr. Burgdorf to be an honest mai
and trying TO be fair In his dealings" said th'
district attorney, and am willing TO tax
his books and see the explanations he cal
Mr.. Chandler was glad the government ha,
made that much OF a discovery, and, Will
| insisting that, as Il legal right, the government
was not entitled to inspect the books, he agree
| that It should be done.
The books, upon examination, showed thu
bona ilde bills had been presented to the burea
for sl09S5O, and the vouchers were 70
| sl,007.6O but enumorating other articles tina
those mentioned IN the bills.
Justice Macarthur said that u appeared tha
these bills cofrcspOuded very closely with th
amounts set out In the vouchers, aud II tbs
was the case he wished TO know what was th
theory Of the government.
District AuornSy M9rthl.sp 70, sail that
law whether or not in furnishing tho
goods they were ret out IN voucher a. III
ierent articles than they were In fact, or sal
to have been furnished at places where tho
false voucher In the meaning OF the law, an
upon which the court would be called 70 rul
MERELY technical violation then" sal
District Attorney worthington said that WI
so in this case. lie believed Mr.. Burgdorf
be an honest man trying to do an honest bus
tho material furnished, and his bills as co
rect. If II was construed that he had pr
sented n false voucher in presenting tn
voucher for payment, he was willing the small
est sentence should be imposed, If u was n
more than 81. All that was wanted was u
ruling, in order TO govern the cases to come
| hereafter.
Justice Macarthur said that If the tradesmG
did his work and presented his bill to the b
| reau and then IL was changed into vouche
he did not see how the tradesman could
| held responsible. H.
was exactly on that point they were trying
| secure the ruling. .. ...
Mr.. Burgdorf then proceeded to explain no
| he did the work and where heldid IT, and adj
cd: "That Is the whole substance OF II ar
best explanation can make"
"And you did not intend to defraud an
body" asked the Judge.
| my dear! no, sir he answered, II new
thought of such thing"
With the examination of the witness the
fense rested, stating that they had witnesses
to character, which the court said was unnecC
sary.
District Attorney Worthingto nsaid he won
certify TO Mr., BuTgdoTfs character.
"He had good character up to this prosec
ton" said Mr.. Chandler.
Tie will survive It," replied the couIt.
By common consent the report of the distrl
attorney to the Attorney General In regard
| the prosecution Oh lne navy lTHuu Cuhcb W
read. In It Is admitted the innocence of Bul
dori, except technical violation of law
presenting false voucher, and willing to
, him oil by payment of nominal fine, but Y
/, willing to dismiss the case on account of /
effect Il would have in the remaining cas-
! The letter previously ruled out was also rel
, The argument then followed on the statute
law and its applicability to the case at b
( During the discussion difference arose rs
what The testimony established, and II fina
resulted In the reopening OF the case and
taking of further testimony.
, The case was not concluded at the hour
J adjournment.