The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-02-14
THE TALKS BEGUN
COUNSEL ARGUE POINTS OF LAW
IN EXPERIMENTATION TRIAL.
DEMURRER TO THE PLEAS.
GOVERNMENT SAYS NO REASON is
SHOWN FOR oUASHING IN
DICTMENT.


Lost All Rights they Ever Had by
Failure to Appear and Plead mt
Proper Time-Directions ms to EN-
paneIIing of Grand Jury Directory
and Not MandatOry-Defend nts
Except to Courts Rulings ms Case
COntinueS-Onc Defendant Not
Present at Trial.
Arguments upon the pleas in abate-
ment fled by the defendants and the
demurrer to these pleas filed by the
government marked the trial of Ben
jarhin ID. Greene. John F. Gaynor, Ed
ward H. Gaynor and William T. Gay
nor, all charged with high crimes and
misdemeanors, in the United States
District Court yesterday.
The pleas of the defendants in abate-
ment of the indictment, that had been
filed when the defendants were ar
raigned and required to plead on
Tuesday, were first read. These pleas
in abatement had not been read when
they were filed and Judge Speer ex-
pressed a wish to hear upon what
grounds the defendants contended the
indictment should be quashed. The
pleas were read by Mr.. Fielder. Their
substance has already been given in
an account of their purpose and terms
that was printed in the Morning
News.
To the pleas in abatement a demurrer
was filed and read by the district at
torney. which in substance and effect
alleged that these pleas were not suf-
ficient in law, that they showed no
good reason why the indictment
should be quashed and that the trial
of the case should be suffered to pro
coed on the merits.
The pleas in abatement were fully
discussed in the demurrer filed by the
district attorney, but the points upon
which counsel for the government
principally relied to support the con-
tentions made were two. These were,
first that by the lapse of, time the
defendants had lost their right to make
formal and technical objections to the
indictment, and, second that the pro-
visions of the law, detailing the man.
ner in which grand ,juries should be
drawn, summoned and empanelled,
were directory merely and not man
datory. If these provisions were not
mandatory. it was contended on be-
half of the government, the failure to
observe them could not result in a
right on the part of the defendants to
have the indictment quashed, unless
they were able to show that substan-
tial injustice had been done.
These were the principles of law re-
lied upon by the government and ex-
pressed in the demurrer filed. In adj
dition thereto. however it was con-
tended in the demurrer that the pleas
IN abatement were void for dupliafty
and uncertainty
When the demurrer of the govern
ment had been read Mr.. d. w. Roun-
tree, of counsel for the defendants
asked permission to introduce evidence
TO support the allegations made in
the pleas in abatement. This was
after an adjournment for an hour had
been taken and counsel thus given an
opportunity to confer as to their prop
er course in the premises Mr.. Rom
tree asked that Mr. S. F. B. GilIespie.
deputy clerk of the court, take the
stand
Mr. Erwin objected to the introduce
ton OF evidence on the demurrer and
there was an animated controversy on
this point. 1t was the contention of
counsel for the government that on a
demurrer evidence could not properly
De admitted. The court sustained the
position of the district attorney and
the offer to introduce evidence. made
by the defendants, was overruled. To
this ruling the defendants excepted.
Mr. Kountree then filed a motion to
strike the demurrer, on various legal
grounds, which was also overr,led nv
the court. Then it was that the defend
ants filed formal joinder of issue on
the demurrer and the arguments on
the demurrer to the pleas in abate-
ment began.
But one was made-this by Mr.. Sam
uel b. Adams. Mr.. Adams began to
speak shortly before / o'clock and con-
unueo until the hour of adjournment
his speech was a mastery exposition
OF the law governing the question at Is
sue, clear, succinct and logical analv
SIS or what he contended was the en-
urely faulty and legally insufficient
position taken by the defendants.
Inc OBJECTIONS to. the indictment
made in plea in abatement. said NJ
Adams, must be made properly and
IN accordance with the strictest re-
qulrements OF law. In support of this
proposition numerous decisions of the
supreme Court of the United States
were cited. ... ..
such objections must be made
promptly said Mr.. Adams. 'if tbev
smack of dilatory tactics they will NOT
De aIloWed, not matter how meritorio,is
they would have been considered 40
made at proper time and in a nronar
way. ~ Pioper
MT. Adams said that any rights tba
oelendants may ever have had TO OH
Ject TO the form of the Indictment nv
the manner in which the grand iury
had been empannelled had been lost hy
tnelr failure to appear and make these
pleas early after the return of the in
ulctinent and by reason OF their resist
ance TO thR, motion and effort to bring
them TO Savannah and cause them 10
plead TO the indictment in the tribunal
IN which the case must of necessity be
tried. "e
AT this point Judge Speer interrunt-
ed the argument of Mr.. Adams 10 ash
now much time would be required NV
counsel 10 argue the demurrers The
court reminded counsel that there was
a rule limiting arguments on demur-
rers and such preliminary motions 10
one hour for each side.
Il seem to remember reading I'm n
copy book In my younger days" said
Judge Speer, that life is short. but
art In long would like to know IN
counsel can furnish the court with an
Indication Of how long the art forensic
viii be likely 10 extend these argu-
ments"