The Washington times., 1904-02-26
Continued from First Paee.3

lNonttnued from FIRST Page-)
set forta that 40 per cent OF the Sl.25
paid for the fastener went to Lorenz.
who. in turn. paid half the 40 per cent
10 Machen
Continuing. the Justice said
There are twelve counts in the in
dictment. and the only difference is as
to dates. That is to say. each coun-
contains the same allegations except as
to the date upon which the offense is al
legged to have been committed.
The defendants named in the indict-
ment are charged with the crime Ot
conspiracy 10 defraud the United States.
count to which have just called atten-
tion.
They are presumed TO be innocent.
and thar presumption amounts to evil
dence introduced in their behalf. ana
remains with them until you are salts
fed by evidence that convinces YOU be-
yOnd A reasonable doubt as 10 thei.
guilt. 1t is incumbent upon the Gov
eminent to prove the allegations con
tanned in the indictment by evidence
sufficient to satisfy YOU as to their
guilt beyond n reasonable doubt"
Then came the definition Of reasonable
doubt. which appears below:
Sole Judge of Fact.
you are the sole judges of all ques-
tions OF fact. and in this respect the
court cannot be OF any aid TO you. It
IS for you to say as 10 the weight which
you may give to the evidence of any
witness who may have testified during
the progress OF this trial. and in pass
Ing upon the question as to the credi-
bility of the different witnesses YOU
should carefully weigh every fact and
circumstance In connection with the
evidence which has been submitted to
you for consideration
You have had an opportunity of OBJ
serving the conduct OF the witnesses
while on the stand. as we'll as the In
terest which any witness may have had
in the transaction about which he may
have testified, and these are matters
which should be considered by you in
determining the question as to the
amount Of weight that YOU are TO give
the evidence Of any witness who may
have been introduced either by the Gov
ernment or the defense.
1T Is your duty TO arrive at a con-
cIusion in considering the facts and cir
cumstances Of this case the same as you
would come to a conclusion upon any
other set of facts in life. There IS no
technical rule which prevents YOU from
applying TO them the same rule OF COM
mon sense that you would apply TO any
other subject that might come under
your consideration.
An abiding Conviction"
If. therefore. after an impartial con-
sideration OF all the evidence you can
candidly say that you are not satisfied
with the defendants guilt, you have a
reasonable doubt: but IL. after such i'm
partial consideration of all the evidence,
YOU can truthfully say that you have an
abiding conviction OF the defendants'
guilt. you have no reasonable doubt. and
u viii be your duty to return a verdict
The defendants are indicted under
section $40 OF the Revised Statutes of
the United States. which provides:
II two or more persons conspire
either TO commit anV CffeDsa aRai0ef
the United States. or 70 defraud the
United States. in any way or for any
ties do any act to effect the object OF
the conspiracy. all the parties TO such
conspiracy shall be liable
A conspiracy has been defined by the
Supreme Court of the United States 10
be a combination Of two or more per-
sons by concerted action to accomplish
a crime or unlawful purpose
You will observe that the provisions
of this section are very broad. Among
other things, IL provides that If two on
more persons conspire TO defraud the
United States in any way or for any
purpose. Under this section, Il is not
necessary that the conspiracy should be
successful
Need Not Be Accomplished.
The design to defraud need not be
accomplished. II a conspiracy actually
existed. and any party TO the conspiracy
committed any act in furtherance OF the
common scheme or object OF the con
spiracy-that is. toward eftecting the
fraud-the offense under the statute IS
complete. even though Il does not appear
that the Government was actually de
1rauded.
This section is sweeping in its terms
and was evidently intended to mee'
the parties who attempted TO de
fraud the Government ut the frs
step. even though their acts may
rot have resulted in defrauding tn,
Government The CfaffTfnrrr q.
OF conspiracy under the laws OF tn,
United States is not complete unit
an act is done by some OF the parties
20 carry into execution the fraud aIlegeC
20 have been committed IN the indict
-nent- The combination or crime Is IN,
offense, but the alleged fact to effectu
ate II is necessary 10 make IL indictabl'
in this court
Proving-a Conspiracy.
Justice Pritchard went into the ma
ture OF a conspiracy. The secretive
ness OF those who conspire necessl
tates the proving OF the crime by in
direct and circumstantial evidence.
IL the effect Of the facts and cir
cumstances is sufficient TO satisfy tn
jury that the defendants combined an
cOncurrcd In the adoption OF means q
be employed in furtherance OF the com
mon design. the conspiracy Is proved
II su-h circumstantial evidence wer
rot admitted. the law in many instance
would be impotent TO protect socict,
from crime.
No General Rule.
The charge continued. as follows
Il am unable 10 give you n genera
s7lle as 70 what constitutes proof I'm an,
particular case. Each is a rule unto II
self. and is 20 be determined upon II
peculiar circumstances, but al circum
stances as proved must be consisten
with each other. and. taken together
they must point 70 guilt beyond rea
sonable doubt.
I'm considering this case. II may con
cern you 70 know the law as 10 the Grim
inaiity OF one who becomes a party 20
combination 10 DO an unlawful thing al
ter those who were originally in II ha
already formed the unlawful design, OF