The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-10-06
EVIDENCE WAS CONCLUSIVE
THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS LIVING
FAR BEYOND HIS leans
Statement that His Father-in-Law
Provided Money Not Credited, as
Mr.. wescott Failed to Testify.


charges as unproven the attorney general
takes up the more serious questions in
yclved, first considering the objection that
the charges upon which Captain Carter was
found guilty were incongruous. he says
that unlike the ordinary criminal procedure
the military usage and procedure permit OF
an Indefinite number of offenses being
charged and adjudicated together in one and
the game proceeding. ut is not necessary
he says. ito discuss whether this practice is
wise, or whether It is prejudicial to the
rights OF the accused. 1t appears TO be
established by long-continued practice, and.
so far as I am able on investigation 10 dis
cover. without previous challenge" But
even IL this objection were well founded, the
attorney general says he does not think the
accused should be allowed to avail himself
of the objection now. because he proceeded
to trial without objection to this alleged
misjoinder. and permitted the court to en-
ter on an Investigation Of all of the different
specifications, and himself brought forward
his defense as TO each of them. The OBJ
lection should have bean promptly taken to
be avails ole.
The objection concerning the admission OF
evidence barred by the statute OF limitations
is disposed of by saying that this evidence
was not offered for the purpose of proving
against the accused the particular onense as
10 which he had interposed this protective
plea. nor Of having him declared guilty
thereof. but for the purpose of showing the
relation between the accused and the other
alleged conspirators. and their course and
conduct with reference to matters of a
nature similar to those and in many respects
connected with those involved In the trans
action under trial." For this purpose, he
thinks, the evidence was admissible. Other
nhfoQffnna ralQrinR TO the ADMISSION OF EVIL
dence Of conversations and acts or alleged
conspirators antedating the time of the
particular conspiracy charged he also thinks
were admissible.
SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PAPERS.
Referring to the seizure of the private pa
pers Of Captain Carter Mr.. Griggs says the
facts do not show tina the seizure was un-
reasonable and that Carter practically con-
scented to the use made Of the papers. The
point Is made in this connection that even
in the absence of such consent il was not
incompetent to offer the papers as evidence.
The use of the letter written by the wit
ness, Cooper. to Captain Gillette. is con-
demned. but 1t is argued that the admis-
sion Of the letter did not injure Carter. The
attorney general also finds that the court
did not err in refusing to admit certain evil
dence offered by Carter, including the letter
S %n,I MS sr, iatne fba ina%iiry M ~ t X i r. WssGioI
OF the main. charges upon which the con-
viction was based.
Summing up many of the specifications.
including Captain Carriers intimacy with
Greene and Gaynors, the method of adver-
Using for the work and of letting the con-
tracts, the character of the Atlantic Con-
tracing Company, the large profits made
on the contracts, ETC., the attorney general
says they might Justly De considered as
knowledge and purpose TO defraud the gov
eminent IL IL were shown that he had no
corrupt personal motive, and that he had
not prohted by these loose methods and i-
regular and questionable proceedings. He
then proceeds TO the investigation OF these
motives. He shows that In 1881 the captains
salary was only s252 per month. and that
from that time forward his personal ex-
SyN7 in 1891 and s29 ,s11 in 1896. The fact is
also pointed out that in 1892 Captain Carter
began TO make notably large deposits in the
Union Trust Company of New York, and
also to buy investment securities. these in
creasing until 1895. when his holdings had
increased TO the market value of $4,000.
Mr.. Griggs does not accept Captain Car
ter's explanation that he was dealing in
securities and with the funds of his father
in-law. Mr.. Wescott, and was the recipient
of 1t. Il is" he says, AN improbable story,
and 1t was incumbent on him, for his own
protection. to sustain it by all attainable
wESCoTT DID NOT TESTIFY.
Speaking further on this point, the attor-
ney general says: IF Mr.. wescott. the
alleged donor. had come upon the witnes.
stand and corroborated the story IT would
probably have been sufficient. but he did not
come. 1t Is contended, on behalf of Captain
Carter. that Wescott was, at the time OF
the trial, In Europe with a sick daughter.
and was In a nervous state himself. so that
he naturally shrunk from the ANNOYANCE
and trouble to which he would be subjected
by coming home to testify in his son-in-
laws behalf. The evidence as to the i'm
health OF his daughter and his own condi
ton OF ner vousness Is very sparse and
cannot be deemed satisfactory. The letter
which Mr.. Wescott sent TO Captain Carter
wherein he declined TO appear before the
board OF inquiry. in the fall OF 1897. does not
put his refusal upon either of these grounds,
but rather upon the ground that his test
mony was unimportant and could be sup
IF IL be true. as commended, that Mr.. Wes,
colt had such an extravagant affection and
To- ess sona ISs to n,s h i0n- :o srsa as a 10 tr induce s5d him N
make him the donee or such large sums
of money, then the natural suggestion
would be that he would be interested in
tensely in the result of the trial, In which
the honor. as well as the liberty, or his SON.
, ihIIs was involved. 0ne would naturally
his son-in-lav's interests would be quick
TO rush to his defense and by his oath to
add confirmation to the story which. II
true. would exculpate him from these
1T is said that Captain Carter made
great Efforts TO secure the attendance OF
Mr.. Wescott as a witness, but there is nc
proof of IL. There is no evidence that he
wrote him or re 4uested him in any wise 70
appear as a witness before the court-mar.
tial. The inference is that his testimony
would not have benefited Captain Carter
II he had appeared. Such Is the Irresistible
conclusion, and therefore, finding that the
cae witness in all the world who could have
created conviction in the minds OF the court
as 20 the truth OF this extraordinary story
withholds himself. and that there is nc
satisfactory evidence that the defendant
made any exertion TO produce him. we mus,
conclude that his testimony would not have
been useful. IL Is also noteworthy tina
wescott Cancelled the power OF attorney
which Carter had almost Immediately after
the accusation against Carter became pup
lie, i'm the fall of 1897
A SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
The attorney general then shows by ar
analysis Of Captain Carriers testimony thai
IN his dealings with his father-in-law hi
rendered strict account TO that gentleman
and that carter's funds In the Union Trust
Company were in excess or those of Mr.
Westcott during the entire time that he haC
control OF the latter's affairs "The testi
mopy," he adds. does not strike me as thai
Of a man possessed Of a clear idea OF the
truth and determined TO tell II. but rather
- q clever evasion Of one who is endeavor