Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-12-28
THE HOWGATE CASE
Counsel Attack Evidence Given Be-
fore the Grand Jury.
CLAIMS IT WAS HEARSAY
Mr.. Birney and Mr.. Worthington
Argue the Matter.
D Ell AY r E T U S E D

other forgery. Besides the offenses alleged
in them, the indictments also charge that
Capt. Howgate was a fugitive from justice
from April II, 1882, until September "a 1894,
on which last mentioned date he was ar
rested in New York and brought on here.
This charge in regard to the defendant be-
ing fugitive from justice was inserted by
the government in order to avoid that
clause in the statute of limitations which
provides that no indictments shall be FOUND
against any person three years subsequent
to the commission Of the alleged offense.
To each of the three new indictments Capt.
Howgate today entered plea In abaJe-
ment praying that they be quaShed, Tor the
reasons set forth IN the pleas.
To the pleas District Attorney Birney en-
tered demurrer, on the ground that they
were bad in substance. Judge McComas, In
the hope Of saving time, was anxious that
counsel should proceed at once to argue the
case, but Messrs. A. S. Worthington and
Jere NJ. Wilson, counsel for Capt. Howgate,
stated that they preferred TO walt untii the
District attorney had submitted the demur-
rer in writing, explaining that until Mr
Birney had so set forth the points of the
demurrer they would be unable TO know 10
what to argue.
Judge McComas therefore directed
recess until 1230 in order to allow the DIS
trict attorney time to draft his demurrer.
Mott IN to Qunsh.
The motion to quash the three indict-
set out that the grand jurors, in finding
and returning the indictments. heard and
considered statements in regard to ma
terial ard essential matters contained
therein made to the grand jurors by divers
persons who were rot sworn or witnesses,
nor in any other way qualified to TESTIFY
before them, and whose names are to the
defendant unknown, and that no one or
the grand jurors had any personal knowl-
edge in regard to said matters or OF any
OF them; all of which the defendant Is
ready to verify. Wherefore he prays that
the indictments be Quashed.
The motion to QuaSh further reciteS that
the same allegations contained in 1t apply
to the charge in the indictments alleging
that he was q fugitive from justice from
that he was arrested in New York on the
last date, as we'll as to the charge in the
indie tments as to the whereabouts of the
defendant or to the name assumed by him
between those dates.
The motion to quash to each of the
three indictments was based upon an afti-
davit of Capt Howgate to the effect that
to the best Of his knowledge and belief
none of the witnesses indorsed on the in
dictments, and none of the grand jurors
either met saw him at any time be-
tween April II. 1882, and September "a,
1894, or had personal knowledge as to his
whereabouts or to the name by which
he was known during that period, or as to
the alleged apprehension and arrest by the
United States authorities, and thereafter
being brought here by the said authori-
ties.
Grand Jury Information.
Explaining that he would permit no light
or trivial objection to the indictments to
delay the trial of the cases against Capt.
Howgate, Judge McComas remarked that
the defendants motion to quash could
have been based upon his personal belief,
and not upon his personal knowledge of
what transpired in the grand jury room.
Judge McComas also remarked that If 1t
should appear that any member or men,
bers of the grand jury had disclosed the
secrets of their deliberations, the court
would fully investigate the matter, and If
anyone had offended, would punish those
offending
Mr.. Worthington, however, explained to
the court that no Information in the mat
ter had been obtained or had been sought
to be obtained from any member of the
grand jury, and, of course, none from the
district attorney from his officers.
recess was then taken to await the
filing of the district attorneys demurrer.
MIR. Birney Demurx.
When the court reconvened after recess
District Attorney Birney submitted his de-
murrer to the pleas In abatement filed by
Capt. Howgate. The demurrer was the
same as to each Of the three indictments
declared the pleas to be bad for two rea-
sons. First, because 1t is incompetent for
the court to inquire upon a plea in abate
ment into any of the matters and things
set forth In the several pleas, and, second,
because no issue of fact may lawfully be
made or turn upon the matters in the said
pleas.
Delay Asked.
The demurrer having been read, counsel
for Capt. Howgate asked for five days in
which to answer the demurrer. The Ques-
tions raised by the demurrer were, they
urged, Of much more than ordinary interest
and Importance, and Mr.. Worthington re-
marked that IL permitted the opportunity
the defendant would show tina. he had, in
the recent indictments, been indicted more
upon hearsay evidence than upon anything
else. While 1t was not contended that the
Of the grand jury could be in
Quired into previous to Indictment, the de-
fendant did contend that after an indict-
ment had been duly returned matters trans
piring before the grand jury could be in
Qured into. While he was district attorney,
said Mr.. .Worthington, he had time and time
again given counsel for accused persons the
notes of the testimony taken before the
grand jury
Judge McComas, however, overruled the
motion for a delay of five days, and also
motion for three days time in which to
answer the governments demurrer. Dis
trict Attorney Birney then briefly address,
ed the court in support of the demurrer,
claiming that 1t was settled that the court
could authorize no inquiry as to the trans
actions of the grand jury.
Mr.. Birney spoke but a few moments, and
when he had concluded Mr.. Worthington
again pleaded for time in which to reply.
Mr.. BirneY remarked that he had taken
but a few minutes to discuss the matter,
whereupon Mr.. Worthington replied: 1T is
quite different matter, your honor. The
district attorney can go to his home, while
the defendant If this motion is denied,
may go to the penitentiary.'
Mr.. Worthington's Argument.
The court thought, however, that counsel
should proceed at once, and Mr.. Worthing-
ton then proceeded to argue in opposition
to the demurrer filed by the government
He, OF course, contended that the court
could by jury try the questions of fact
raised on the pleas in abatement. Capt.
Howgate, he claimed, had been indicted on
really no evidence at all. and If that mat
ter could not be inquired into, Then" ex-
claimed Mr.. Worthington. The sooner We
dispense with the grand jury system the
better IT will be for US all We will prove
all this, your honor" explained Mr.. Worth
ington, by the testimony of the district
attorney himself, and by his associates, IL
given the opportunity. And, your honor
that what We allege is true, the
district attorney has sought to escape by
means OF this demurrer"