The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1904-04-01


But McEnerney had other shot for
the Government and the battle of the
skillful leaders was kept up for many
rounds.
Why" asked Hyde's counsel, docs
the prosecution. object to calling it's
witnesses now and taking their testi-
:mony, when these same witnesses have
already given the same testimony in
the. Benson hearing in New York ?"
Because your. demand here is not
made in good faith" Heney retorted
-and because the testimony taken in
New York against Benson did. not
bring out half the case against HYDE.
II still insist on the Governments
witnesses being produced said Nc
Enerney in conclusion, because am
satisfied that their combined testi-
mony will not sustain the indictment
or make a case for the prosecution"
- The argument for the defense closed
with a recapitulation by Samuel
Knight of the points made on that
side. This brought the hearing up to
the noon. hour and an adjournment
was. taken for luncheon.
HEACOCK DECIDES.
The Commissioner announced his
decision Immediately upon the reopen
ling of court. He said;
!. Il have been deeply Interested in this long
argument. The case is the most important and
involves the most important questions / have
been called to pass upon during all my twelve
nor the strength to present lengthy written
opinion, but will briefly state the decision
Which have reached according to my best
judgment.
The only evidence introduced on the part Of
the Government is the certified copy of the
Indictment found in the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia. In spite of the objec-
| tiqhs of the. defense am compelled to hold
that this makes sufficient prinia facie case,
Indeed it is not disputed that all the decisions
of the Federal courts without a.. single dis.
serting opinion agree. that suck an indictment
I esta blshes prima facie case. against the de-
PENDANT. .
Mr.. schlesiager has very ably pressed the
! respects fYss. that IT IS alternative. and Sec
o,,d tina, Il ;a!ls TO charge any public offense
against the United States.
AS 10 tie first point. We find on inspecting
the indictment that !. contains the following
allegation: ''S:aid school lands gegc "a be
the purchase OF the same and assignments OF
the same and Of the certificates of purchase
thereof. in the names Of fictitious persons and
in the names of persons not really desiring
and not qualified tn purchase the same, ana by
supporting svrh applications with forged and
Fraudulent aftidayits and RffidavitS false and
k;:own "a the said frederick 4. Hyde and
John 4. Henson 20 be false In this. that they
real persons and others, bona ht;e sworn attn.
tI.vitS OF the persons s. whose :. names - were
signed thereto. whereas III truth the former
w0lid be- affdayits OF fictitious persons ard
moi sworn 20 by any person. and: the latter
would not hc the bona fde or sworn afadssita
OF tho persons whuse: names =: were q signed
thereto. because alec the latter afiidasits
| by any OF The persons wllosei names wers
Eoy, ti,e. simple reading Of these Allegations
shows that they are coniunctive and: cumuie.
titr. h:ncc NOT distinctive. II any one OF these
three methods :of alleged fraud 4. established.
eveY thousi1 the proof faiis as to &the other
two. ,t will be sufficient. and the indie,inent
will stand. 80
CRIME FULLY CHARGED.
|. As 10 Mr. .Schesingers second objection.
Mr. Pugh made the matter so plain yesterday
| that Il cannot in my judgment be questioned.
had previously arrived at the same con
clusion from study of the indictment 1t cor
| clusively appears from the regulations of the
land office that when the parties made their
| selections of lieu lands they at once received
the use thereof. Hence the Government was
defrauded out OF the and possession Of
those lands. The United States were thus
clearly prejudiced. under the language of the
Indictment Many minor questions relating to
the Indictment have been argued at great