The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-01-11
rRAUDuLENr LEGISLATIVE Bill
First Day Of tho TrfnI Of This re.
narIKRble Case.

Raleigh, y. c., Jan. 10.-The County
court-itAm here was filled to-day. the
attraction being the trial of p. Satter-
field. principal clerk of the lower housr
OF the last Legislature for fraudulent
~ procuring the enrolment and rattfi-
cation OF the assignment act which
never passed the other branch Of the
Legislature. and which was tabled I'm
the iiImsc. The Speaker of the House
Walscr, was the first witness, and tes-
titled that on March 18th he ratified 3Gl
biils, and that he had no doubt the
ute OF this bill was read aloud In bot II
houses; also that 4 majority Of the
enrolled bills committee must sign
every piii before 1t could be ratified
tie acknowledged his signature to the
act.
*. L. smith, member Of the House.
testihed that on the night of March
I'm he mot Satterficld with several
bi,ls IN his hand. and that the latter
and then showed him the assignment
act, but that the latter was not stamp
cd tabled. and that Sattcriield said he
was taking the bills to the enrolling
clerk, or to be enrolled: that Smith told
him this particular bill was tabled and
his desk
MISS Daisy Bronson swore that she
made the enrolled copy of the original
Dill, having been given the bill by En-
'olling Clerk Brown. or clerk in his
,liice' ahat she took ii back there; that
lSro~n verified it. This was the most
damaging evidence of the day and
created sensation
William l.. Christian confirmed the
statement OF r. l.. Smith. These were
all State witnesses.
Ihen the defendants witnesses testf-
llcu. Rouse journal Clerk Ed Stanford
said he and his assistant made nm no
Journals; that on the 12th OF March he
saw the assignment bill in the Sppa;,-
Grs room stamped tabled: that Sattcr-
iicld dld not examine the Journals: that
there was no entry of the tobIins ot
the bill, but that this omission was Nv
mistake; that the House corrected such
mistakes and not the Clerk Satt,r-
lield men Sworc he did not deliver the
Dill TO the enrolling clerk. An article in
Il newspaper written by him was read
in which lie said positively that the hill
was tabled March 18th. when slammed /.
but to-day he said II might have been
on the night of the l1th. and that he
iniCht not have stamped IL until the
l2th, though 1t was his duty to stamp
IL as soon as acted on. The examination
of Satterfcld by Solicitor Pou Was Very
searching and witness did not make a
favorable impression. He sworc that rs
lar as he knew the bin never left his
possession 10 go to the enrolling clerk
He denied the evidence of r. l.. Smith.
to the enrolling clerk He declared Miss
Bronson was mistaken when she sworc
she copied this identical bill He said
he never said anything about the bill
being tabled until it was found after
the excitement about it had brought
Congressman and others here to search
for It, He was summoned here to jnin
in the search and found the bill He
said the public had access to his Of
flee. Representative iIilenran swo,
that the bill was tabled on the night
of March l1th and that on the night of
March 18th he was standing by the
Speakers desk Watching the enrolled
bills and did not notice this one passed
up to be ratified.
Another witness swore to Satter-
fields good character. Argument then
began. II. r. Purneil. of defense, asked
for special instruction to the jury, and
contended that the assistant clerk
were State officers and they were. equal
~ responsible with Satterfeld Solicit
tor Fou said If Satterfield was so negli-
gent as to allow the bill to be taken
from the office and enrolled he was
guilty of misdemeanor, whether with
corrupt intent OF not. or If he permit
ted II to be enrolled he was guilty OF
corruption. The Solicitor said II was
incomprehensiblc that this great crime
could have occurred without Satter-
fields knowledge and that the first step
towards fraudulent enrolment was the
silence OF his journal as to the bill being
tabled that he was seeking to shift
tho responsibility on his asSociat es
that the identical bill was copied for
enrolment and he asked from whom
did the enrolling clerk get It except
from Satterfield, and IL there was no
collision between them why did he not
put the enrolling clerk on the witness
stand.
At the conclusion of his argument the
court took q raca<,l NINTH fO-nnrrn,.,