Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-04

Gaynor, e. II. Gaynor, w. It. Gaynor.
of New York; ex-Captain o. NJ Car
ter and others for alleged conspiracy to
With the improvements in Savannah
river and harbor and Cumberland
sound. 1t was developed during the
proceedings that the attention of Presi-
dent Mckinley himself had been direct
ed to the matter as long ago as last
December in L letter written to him
by Judge Speer.
GRAND JURY MOVES.
The grand jury made n special pre-
sentiment. i'll which it asks that Con-
sress amend the laws of the United
States so that something can be done
to bring men indicted by the United
states grand juries from one State to
another without such lengthy delays
IT also pointcdly criticises United States
Commissioner Shields in holding up for
so long u time the hearings before him.
and Judge Addison Brown, of New
York. for his dilitatoriness in arriving
at a decision in the matter The grand
jury requests that Its presentment be
sent To the President, the Attorney
General and the Senators and Repre-
sentatiVeS in Congress with the reuues st
that they take whatever steps in the
premises they may deem to be neces-
sary.
THE PRESENTAfENT
Inc oresentment recounts that ION
December s, 1899. the grand Jurors OF
the United states for this district re-
turned true bill of Indictment acainet
Benjamin D. Greene, Edward n Cav
nor John T. Gaynor, William r. Cav
nor ana others, contrac tors charged
with conspiracy with Oberlin NJ. Car
yer, engineer officer in charge OF river
anu harpor improvements in this dis
trlct through which it Is charged the
government has been defrauded To tho
amount of several million dollars of tho
moneys appropriated by Conrress for
the Improvement OF the harbors of
savannah. Brunswick and Cumberland
Sound" !" 'iu
On December 14th the defendants wero
arrested in New York and taken bc-
Tore Commissioner Shields.
Inc disposition OF such matters nv
requiring the defendants to give bail
ior appearance ut the court where the
INDICTMENT had been found, or by war
rant OIL removal where bail is not given.
ms generally been, as this body is
ADVISED. a matter simply of identifying
me defendants as the persons indicted
and examining into the legal sufficiencv
VI the Indictment, usually taking hrt
q DAY or TWO at most. This body is
iifioi med. however, that the PROCEEDINGS
IN New oriS In this matter have been
dragging along now for over thraa
months and Il half. The commissioner
holding his finding up two months. and
since his decision the matter of issuinp
the warrant of removal having benn
pending before the District Judge there
ior over SIX weeks with no docision
thereon. In the meantime the defend
ants are at large on bond there in the
sums OF $4,000 and $4,000 ONLY. re-
ie
careful estimate made by the eng,-
ileer officer now in charge of the dis
trlct indicates that the defendants nh
tanned Illegally during the wears from
1871 10 1897 sums aggregating 81, 532. 676.
II the Indictment be valid there should
nave been prompt removal
No court has held the Indictment do
fective. If defective, as it is stated
the defendants claim in opposition to
the proceedings for removal. there
would seem to be overwhelming reas-
ons why there should have been prompt
action on the part of the courts It
appears upon the face of the indict
mcnt that against all the acts charged
in the indictment the statute of limi-
tatlons VIII have run within three
months from this date, and has already
run on some of the acts charged. If
defective in form a prompt decision
would have enabled another grand Jury
L.
with the delays already had-three
months and a half on the simple pro-
ceedinSs before the commissioner and
judge under section 1914 of the revised
statutes-and with probable applica-
tons for habeas corpus. it is probable
that If the courts finally conclude the
present indictment is defective that the
Statute of Limitations will have run
and the parties charged by a grand
jury of the United States with the
most gigantic fraud of the century
against the Government will escape
even arraignment before the bar OF
Justice"
a COMPARISON.
The presentment calls attention to
the fact that since these proceedings
were instituted in New York a defend
ant indicted in State court in Geor-
gia for embczzling some $4,000 was ar
rested in the Jurisdiction of the Sultan