The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-09-29
briggs INDICTMENTS STAND,
JUSTICE THOMAS DECIDES
AGAINST DEMURRERS.

Reasonlng." He Says. and tho Very
Statement Of the Defendants Position
should Demonstrate Its Invalidity."
United States Justice Thomas in the Cir
cult Court, Brooklyn. yesterday handed
down a decision ON tho demurrers to the
indictments against ex-CongressmAn Ed
mund H. briggs, who was charged. In aheot.
with receiving money from George F..
Miller Of the Brandt-Dent Automatic
Cashier Company Of Wstertown, Wis.
while Member Of Congress, - payment for
securing a contract for the sale Of $50
machines OF the company. Tho decision
was against the dsmusrxs and upholds the
indictments. In part It = - follsws:
AN Of the specific deliveries and receipts
Of drafts upon which tho indictments are
based were within three years next pre-
ceding the finding thereof. When the con-
tract was made and the instrument OK
May rs, 1890. was delivered to Miller by the
company and by Miller to Driggs it ID
alleged that briggs was Member Of Con-
gress.
The demurrers should he overruled The
important questions are: First, whether
briggs was Member Of Congress when the
offences charged in the indictments were
committed, and second, whether the statu to
Of limitations has run against tho actions
or any Of them. Tho indictments charge
sufficiently that briggs was such Member
Of Congress and that Miller had knowledge
thereof
Therefore the first question cannot be
determined at this time. although u tho
facts be 40 claimed by the defsndants. q
decision Of the matter before the trial
might be due both the Government and the
defendants. 1t may be that tho statute Of
limitations has run against the actions and
cannot be taken by demurrer. but that
objection has not precluded the Court from
examining and deciding tho question, and
It is concluded upon the facts gathered from
certain of the Indictments (although several
OF them do not show such facts) that tho
actions are not barred. 1t is not deemed
necessary to state at any considerable
length the reasoning by which this deci-
sion is reached.
The instrument dated May rs, 1890. was
not negotiable and therefore NO value
could be added to 1t by transferring It. In
any case whether it was property or a
valuable consideration within the meaning
OF the statute, SO that an indictment could
be based upon it within three years after
delivery to briggs. depends upon its merits
and value at the time OF such delivery.
The instrument OF July rs has the same
qualities as if it contained all the terms Of
the agreement An indictment otherwise
correct charging the defendants offended
by making the agreement or by being par
ties thereto would have been valid II found
within three years from the time OF making
it, as Section 1851 in terms forbids such an
agreement to be made. But an indictment
based upon the instrument as embodying
the agreement is quite different from an
indictment for giving or receiving money
property or other valuable consideration,
upon the theory that such agreement was
in itself property or other valuable con-
sideration.'
"A statute that at ono and tho same
time could make the creation Of an agree
ment a felonious offence and yet esteem
the very same agreement as property
and valuable consideration between the
felons would be curious in law and logic.
"The occasion demands no niceties OF
reasoning; The very statement e,1 Of the
strate it's invalidity. II any one shall de-
eide or has decided that statute may be
interpreted to denounoe an agreement as
impossible of worthy existence and, after
1t has come forbidden into the hight. declare
that it has such worthiness that it may
consideration. for the purposes Of the same
statute, the responsibility OF such de-
cision shall not rest upon this Court.
But it may be urged that the agree
ment does not embody the agreement
between parties. 1t was given to Miller,
the agent Of the makers, for delivery to
briggs. 1t was not issued or uttered by
delivery to Miller. He received it as agent
from principal for the very purpose Of
delivery to briggs. To what end? To
show by writing in whole or in part what
agreement the makers through Miller or
otherwise had made with briggs. 1t en-
bodied that agreement in part. To what
extent it contained it is unimportant
"The defendant Miller is charged in GER
tain indictments drawn under Section 1881
for making such delivery OF certain such
drafts to briggs; and briggs is charged sep
arately in several indictments drawn. somo
under Section 1882, OF receiving drafts from
Miller, the charge being that Miller gave and
briggs received such drafts for procuring
contracts while briggs was a Member OF
Congress.
Judge Thomas in his decision calls at
tention to the agreement and quotes from
it. Hugo Hirsh was counsel for briggs and
Kellogg Rose for Miller
The briggs demurrer was entered on the
ground that the facts set forth in the In
dictment were insufficient to constitute
a crime that the case as alleged was barred
by the statute Of limitations, and that
the sections under which the indictment
was found were unconstitutional
GREEN GAINS A POINT.