New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-09-01
THE INDIf TMINT AZ AfN>T WEdDF.



When Mayor Grant ,"r,in"~i rr'd"r'k = '.'hh'1
hacker g. " Meade. r,ii," Ju>ti'' II w. al 'hse
ali the charges against M"ah"s 'har'r'"r s'nh -
ful, di.rroyrd ly r-rr AN letter - l." pull h~ later.
Thc>. have trcn gwen GA 'D" w. ff"r '"n'fal
..vari l.. Wv&if,ri. who was hi''' states R''r's-
Attorney when Mcsdc 49, indicted TT '"n'prsv
against the I'nii,l STATE. IN :hs' ~ Assistant Np'
pra.rr 30 pa,-d certain : 81 under f'i-' rl'-1'
cation tor a consideration ot $50 Ihi' F''"r "'A
~ follows:
New. YORK Julv - i-r'
After examination Of indi',n,'nt as'n. car n'1
W Mad. snd nNcstigAt.v, ~ tn rif""n 't'''' '''r
which IL Was ori..i %, a." '-ani Juv i"''"' 'n'A
that ,, Indictment should no. h,,' Doe u f'"nf 'f 800
II. dismissal wh,cl, wa> o't' hy Nh cont IA i-~i
sTEwAEr 2. wooDf"Rp.
Formerly rnl'oa >,at- A'torn'y.
The other better VII. from BENJAMIN =. f~'"F. "na
va, Assistant District .Niohev under 'c"r'i ""''
ford. Mr. Foster wrote
In 49,. ~h,i- va, a-.-,an, ~" rnItd STATE ~.
,orr~y woodford indictment Ma ;""nd und'f >'t""
S.3Oi United Stairs K",isd statn' = No preliminary
examination had aud the indi r,rut wa pr" urea
chiefly ON the testimony 6hr Sherlock. who was hins'e
At time aid on ~ own ",id"n'" ind'"i ~ hS
sane "a, Nee Mad std ot required Z" fns
nish ball. poprity Of tn" -e'Nti"' b-ir doubt q.
The prosecution subsequently, abandoned and h"S
PRO-. entsrrd ccrtii"a" Of C"rh Of Circuit 'onit
General woodford does not give the cr"nnd up'V
which the indictment against Meade wn> dl>ml">cds
and II Is left 10 b. Inferred that u Wa di>mi'-"a
bcrAiSe the evidence IN ~ ~ Wa sc"S
II has been impossible 10 get AZ the record, "f tie
District Attorneys oyI'c 10 show the truth ~ KY
case but from the public r,'oor!> Washington 10
has been found that tile Indictment wa> di>miS>"d
solely the ground that It wa not found "IthN mo
period prescribed by the statute Of Limitations az
appears BY the following letter:
F~nrarv - 1879.
,,o, ,ha,,n n.,,n. Altonry.; ncra n. "a
Sit have t-,uc.t authority to 'n''s nor pro>'qri
In tho "a. II IN. Tint stA,"- " ,,rn" " M'ad' ne
dlc.d under sol tn ronni ;aat following 40
d.c!-s.., Of the supreme Cont In N" cas- Of ths
United Stat.s Herman Illt-ch - al III" S;atut' 81
Limitations, So ton l,oii. i COMPETE lar " lie
prose- uton. NrIy pcuuly.
sItwA.i H. w"pDtoEU
United Attorney.
The case Of the United stni-> against iiir>'h
Il OO. $3.50. which appear. Ia have controlled III" bi''
tiict Attorney In the Meade case. held That cone
srracy 10 dcfrud the nl;cd state, Of TIE dnt", ID
imported goHl>. j. not "a crime arising htd"r me
revenue laws and that persons charged with su'u
conspiracy cannot H. prosecuted therefor unless ihcy
be indicted within three Years after the ALLEGED ".co
Is committed by section loi6 Of the | ltcd ri1Ts
Revised it Is provided thai TO person hall 10
laws unless the indictment Is fouhd within I'VE years
after the committing crime. and by section loA
Il Is piuNded that person shall pc prosecuted or
any offence other than those specified IN ncttOn 49,
T w., @ ma" tn +, i"'I M.' sas midi ted or
conspiracy to icfraud the revenue laws and haIihS
YEAR, after the commission Of The offence the guess
ton arose as "a whether An indictment Tor c"n,lI%.'
even though spricv drtaid Che revenue Ia"
must be- found Within three sea'> Ihc si'' n" nnio
held that the essence {" III" ohene" MAS .onspr',Sy
and the frund on the merely an overt ACT inc
indie tulcGt must De found within three wears
In Ike manner tn" count ~ tho ndirtnent a2hV>s
Meade on which the Government relied. was COM
spiracy to defraud the revenue ana noi iIaud OR tS
wss decided by the Supreme Court While the ihdct,
u mt against Meade WAS pending the nistrct Asiorncy
.t, mined thai II useless ~ continue f,ufhrr the
Prosecution % Meade and h" caused The Indictment 20
he di,m.ri without pdting Meade t. IN unnecessary
~ MID tn