Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-14

Won. parents. sisters. and brothers; hop
ing to see you very soon In happihe7S
and 10y. MargoIia Frank Is my nafne'
and AZ Margolia Frank / Will arrive III
America.
At this point the District-Attorney
stated that the government would rest
its case.
CRUTcHFIELD'S TESTIMONY AZ
SAILED.
Colonel A. w Archer was first called
for the defence. He stated that ne was
in the Hastings Court on the 4th OF Janu-
AIRY. He seryed on the jury at that time
with MIR Samuel Stern. Witness was
then asked whether he had been present
when Becker applied for his naturaiiza-
ton certificate. Mr.. Allan said ne wouio
take exception 10 all evidence tending 10
contradict the~fecord OF the Hastings
Court.
Mr. Wise replied to Mr.. Allan's ooJec-
ton. that the Clerk OF the court had oeeh
introduced by the government, and allow
ed 10 make statements outside the record,
and in many respects contradictory 10
that record The present line OF testi-
/ rony was introduced 10 show that the
memory OF Mr.. Crutchfeld was at fault.
They did not wish TO impugn the veracity
Of this witness.
Mr.. Allan responded that ali the testi-
mony introduced was to show upon what
testimony the naturalization papers had
been granted. 1t was Impossible TO go
behind the record OF a court. and no tes-
timony could be introduced to assail that
record.
After further argument the Commits
sioner overruled Mr.. Allan's objection.
NO ONE WAS SWORN.
To- ~
| 4th he was I'm the Clerks Office waiting
! for Judge Witt Mr.. Stern introduced
Becker to Judge Witt, saying, Here's a
| gentleman who wants his naturalization
papers Judge Witt turned to Mr. Crutch-
/ neld and told him to dx the papers up.
Becker was asked how old he was, and
replied 80 years, and stated further That
when he came to this country he was
under Is years of age. No oath was ad-
ministered, and Mir. Stern did not hold up
his hand but as soon as these questions
had been asked and answered Mr.. Stern
put his arm through witnesses and they
went together to the courtroom, and sat
upon the jury. No remarks were made
as TO the dates on which Becker came
here.
Colonel Archer said that when he first
/ saw the statement of Mr.. Crutchfeld in
! the paper he was so surprised that he
sought out Mr. Stern and expressed his
surprise Replying TO Mr. Henry Flegen-
hcmer Colonel Archer said that when
the jury adjourned he left the City Hall
with Mr. stern. Cross-examned by Dir.
Allan. witness said IL was about ! O'Clock
when the jury adjourned Mr.. Stern was
in the jury-room from 1855 until
1 o'clock. to the best of witnesses recollec-
ton. 1t was about half an hour from the
time of the episode in the Clerks office
to the time the jury was empanelled.
To the best OF his belief Mr.. Stern did
not leave the courtroom, though he could
not swear that he had not done so.
Replying TO the Commissioner, witness
stated that he did not see Mr.. Stern give
any dates TO Mr.. Crutchfeld.
Mr.. Wise said the defence would not
introduce any more evidence at this time.
They did not think It necessary. he said.
speaking for himself and other counsel
in the case.
BECKER'S NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT.
Mr.. Allan said he had an affidavit to
introduce in rebuttal, which would show
that the statements made by Becker
when he applied for naturalization papers,
were I'm conflict with this affidavit.
This affidavit was made before officers
OF the immigration Bureau, at the barge
Office, in New York, two days before
Becker took out his naturalization papers
in Richmond. In this AFFIDAVIT, Becker
swore that he had only been in this coun-
try six years. Mr.. Wise objected 10 the
introduction OF the affidavit at this time.
Mr. Allan stated at the outset that he
was proceeding under statute 5i25. which
referred only to obtaining naturalization
papers by fraud. Mr.. Allan said the
government was proceeding under two
warrants, one of which charges perjury.
He was convinced. however, that a con-
viction could not be obtained on this
charge, and he had stated that he would
withdraw the warrant charging perjury.
Mr.. Wise commended that the affidavit
could only be introduced in rebuttaI OF
Mr.. Archer's testimony. and Mr.. Archer
made no statement which affected
Becker Mr.. Allan could only rebut Col
onel Archer, but this affidavit referred
only TO Becker.
There was a lengthy argument as TO the
license allowed in examining witnesses
before O. commissioner, and Mr.. Allan
argued that as the commissioner Is not
required 10 express an opinion as TO the
guilt or innocence Of the accused, the gov
eminent need only introduce sufficient
testimony to call for the case TO be sent
on 10 jury.
Mr. Wise said there was nothing in the
affidavit that conhicted In any way with
Becker's former statements. II had been
brought out in testimony adduced by
the government that Becker had been
married in Russia six or seven years ago.
He had been in this country before that,
and had gone home upon the death OF his
wife. to look after his children.
GOVERNMENT CASE sUCCINCTLY
DEFINED.
Mr. Allan said this argument would not
| hold. because the law required an alien
10 reside for six years continuously in
the United States. THAT is the whole
gravamen Of the government case" he
said
Mr.. Wise took issue with Mr.. Allan
and said the law did not hold this.
Mr.. Henry Flegenheimer argued that
! Congress had amended the law
Mr.. Allan: That's all right; 1 stand or
| fail on that point.
! Mr.. Wise: Then you'll fall.
| Authorities were introduced and dis
cussed and Mr. Henry Flegenheimer, Of
counsel for the defence, stated that they
rested the defence on the act Of Con-
gress Of June 2G. 1913 which struck out
! from the then existing statute the words
without being at any time during said
/ five years without the territory Of the
United States"
Counsel agreed to submit the case with
| out argument.
Commissioner Peasants said that in his
- .sfaa ttFsr