The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-24
ANSWER TO
GRAND JURY
Sabate'S Offense
a Technical
One.
MUST NOT
DETAIN MAIL
Commissioner Holds that Though
Offensc is Technical, Example
Should Be Made.

| Jean soaDdIG Was IlGlQ u wait TIE dCl4OAi
of the Federal grand jury by United
States Commissioner Robinson last eve
ming. on charge Of OBTAINING mail mat
ter His bond is fixed at $500, and SA-
bate will be released today, to appear
before the grand jury, which does not
meet until next April. There was no ev-
idence introduced by the defense, and at
the conclusion of the government case
the motion to discharge the defendant
was denied, Commissioner Robinson
holding that, though the charge was
merely technical one, an example
should be made of Sabate, for the benefit
Of letter carriers generally.
George T. Walker, the prosecuting Wit
ness, was the first to take the stand for
the government. He testified that on
October %, he was running the Mabiki
store of the Mercantile Company, and
that Sabate came frequently to the store,
and on several occasions had been given
letters to mail. On the date mentioned
Walker requested Sabate TO go to his
room and get package to mail on the
steamer. due to sail in the afternoon.
Twenty-Five cents was given Sabate to
pay the postage. The package was ad-
dressed to Miss Dale Hartley, of Auburn,
Cal. and contained a Samoan tapa
cloth.
| About a week after this event Sabate
was asked by Walker if the package had
been mailed and he replied that it had
been, and the postage, nineteen cents,
paid.
| On cross-examination by Mr.. GIL, wit
ness said that he made the request of
| Sabate just as he would of any other
friend that his house was not in Sa-
bates district, and he didn't know
whether the defendant had been on duty
or not at that time. He considered the
matter more as d personal favor than
anything else. The package was not
ready for mailing at that time, was not
tied up nor was it stamped.
Louis T. Kenake, cashier at the post
Office testified that he saw the package
| in question for the first time about the
middle of November, when he discovered
| it in Sabate's desk. Upon the return OF
the carrier from his route he was called
| up before Kenake and asked about the
package. Sabate then said that the par
| it at once. On December Bird Kenake
again found the package in the desk of
| Carrier No >, and il had not been mail
ed.
In the cross-examinat:on of Kenake At
| torney Gill raised some interesting
questions.
Are not all carriers of the United
States supposed to be citizens of the
United States?' asked Mr.. Gill.
Il suppose so; my duty is not to in
quire into his citizenship. The carrier is
certified TO by the Board of Examiners"
Was this package mailable?"
Anything in the line of merchandise
is mail matter unless it is barred from
the mails
Does it not have to be STAMPEDE"
Not before it is mailable, but before it
can be dispatched"
This package does not indicate wheth-
er it was to be mailed or expressed, does
it?''
Anything that comes within the post
office is considered as mail matter
Is not the postmaster responsible for
the acts Of the carriers?'
For the proper conduct of the Office
and carriers. yes"
Mr.. Kenake also testified that the pack
age was not concealed when found; and
also that Sabate resigned some time be-
tween November p and 80
W. 5. Marchant postofnce inspector,
testified simply to being present when
the package was found, December 9Th,
and that when opened he saw that II
contained tapa cloth.
Marchant was the last witness for the
government. and Mr.. Gin thereupon
moved for the discharge of the defend
ant on the ground that the package had
not been properly mailed: that Sabate
had been given the package to mail SIM
ply as personal favor. and if guilty OF
anything it was a breach of trust He
contended that no violation of the law
had been shown. and that the govern
ment failed to prove that the matter was
mailable. He quoted the case of L. S. !
vs.. Taylor, wherein d man was diScharg-
ed who had received a letter and SIS TO
register. because the letter had not been
properly stamped. In this case it was
neId that the postmaster was simply act
ing as an agent.
Mr.. Dunno replied, saying that the de- |
PENDANT was not charged with embezzle- |
ment. but simply with OBTAINING mail !
matter. The statutes, he said, referred |
TO mail as matter intended to be mail |
ed, and this was clearly shown. He |
thought it extraordinary that the defend |
ant could plead the embezzlement of |
twenty-five cents given him for postage |
as a defense for OBTAINING mail matter. |
Mr.. Gill did not believe the mailable
character of the tapa cloth VAS proven. !
Sabate had simply gone to Walkers |
room and tied up the package and TAX !
an it 10 the postoffice as a personal fav- |
or; that he was not acting in his official |
capacity AT the time, nor was it in his |
own district.
Commissioner Robinson denied the mo- !
ton. stating that il would be impossible |
to say where the defendants postal duty !
ended and his personal service began |
" lille the offense was a technical one.
De did not believe that letter carrier |
should be permitted 10 withhold matt /
matter. and an example should be nads