Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-19
ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL
Hearing of Post Office Con-
spiracy Case Resumed.
COURT ROOM CROWDED
COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT CON-
TENDS THERE WAS NO ERROR.
Reply to Challenge Of the Indictment
Position Of the Defendants
Counsel Stated.
COURT ROOM CROWDED

The arguments Of counsel on appeal In
the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Post Office De-
partment conspiracy case were resumed
this morning before the Court Of Appeals
A change was made in the order Of speak
ing. Immediately after the opening of
court Mr.. Samuel Maddox, attorney for Dill
Ter B. Croft and Samuel A. Croft, continued
his remarks. He was followed by Mr.. John
F. Kumler of Toledo, Ohio attorney for
George e. Lorenz. The opening argument
for the government was made by Mr.. Nor
gan H. Beach, United States attorney for
the District of Columbia. He will be fol-
lowed by Mr.. Charles A. Keigwin, assistant
United States attorney for the District Of
Columbia. Mr. Holmes Conrad, special
counsel for the United States, will close for
the government. Unless the court allows
the appellants additional time for reply, the
hearing will be concluded tomorrow.
Again today the court room was crowded.
Samuel A Croft was the only one of the
appellants in attendance. The audience in
cluded two ladies.
Counsel for the government contend that
an examination of the record falls to dis
close any error therein to the prejudice Of
the appellants and therefore the judgment
Of Criminal Court No. should be affirmed
In reply to the challenge of the appellants
that the indictment is not sufficient. the
governments counsel argued that as the
Indictment AYERS the fact of conspifing
directly and sets out the nature of the
scheme Of fraud agreed upon the offense of
conspiracy is sufficiently charged.
In Arrest Of Judgment.
The motions in arrest of judgment, ac-
cording to the prosecution, suggest that
the scheme to defraud, set out in the in
dictment. would not, even if executed, con-
stftute a fraud upon the United States TO
this the prosecution says that the scheme
of the conspirators, as alleged, was design
ed to cause the government to pay more for
the Croft fastener than the owners of that
article were willing to sell it for. 1t is
averred that the Groffs were able and will
ing to furnish the fasteners at 10 cents
apiece. Further, it is urged the defendants,
knowing this fact, agreed and combined to
procure large purchases to be made by the
government at 81 %. The sufffciency of this
scheme as a scheme to defraud the United
States, it is declared, is obvious.
The stand is further taken by the govern
ments legal representatives that a number
Of exceptions reserved in the record relate
to matters which are in the discretion OF
the trial court and are not renewable on
appeal.
Statements Made to Inspectors.
A number of exceptions relate to the adj
mission in evidence Of statements made by
tie several defendants to post office inspec-
tors who were Investigating the purchase
of Croft fasteners. The general ground OF
objection is said to be that the statements
are the declarations of individual conspira-
tors made after the conspiracy was ended,
and are therefore incompetent as against
others than the declarant. The relevancy
of these statements. 1t Is presumed by the
government, will not be doubted In view OF
the general rule that whatever Is said or
done by a person charged with or suspected
Of crime may be shown upon the question
of his guilt.
The defendants claimed that they were
in irnpaneling the jury The triad court
ruled that they were entitled collectively to
that number. The basis of this exception
is the construction sought to be given by
the appellants to section 918 Of the Code Of
the District of Columbia. The governments
counsel say that the undoubted effect of
the law is to limit joint defendants in all
cases to the number Of peremptory chal-
lenges allowed to sole defendant.
Instructions to Jury.
Questions raised by the appellants ex-
ceptions to the granting and refusal of in
structions to the jury called forth replies
from the attorneys of the government.
The appellants twenty-ninth assignment
of error relates to certain language used by
one of the counsel for the government in
the final argument to the jury. AS no ex-
ceptfon was taken upon this point the pros
ecution now say, 1t is difficult to see how the
Court of Appeals is expected to consider
1t. 1t is added: Moreover, the language
itself. SO far as 1t goes, is not prejudicial.
Evidently counsel for the defendants ap-
pretended that these remarks were leading
up to something more dangerous, and on
that ground objected to this line of COM
ment. But as the speaker desisted upon OBJ
lection hiade, 1t is impossible to say what
would have followed, and at the point
where he was interrupted no harm had been