The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-02-28
MEN ARE GIVEN TWO YEARS EACH Fine of $1O,OOO Each is Im-
 posed by Court MACHEN MUCH AFFECTED Counsel for Each Defendant Makes a Motion for New Trial and Pris-
 oners Are Released
 On Bond.
MACHEN MUCH AFFECTED

Washington, February 2z-August W. Machen. formerly general superintendent of the free delivery division postal service; Dr. George E. Lorenz. of Toledo O., once postmaster of that city, and Diller B. Gron. of this city, all of whom were con- victed of conspiracy against the govern ment In connection with the supply of Groff fasteners to the postofnce depart ment, today were sentenced by Justice Pritchard to two years Imprisonment in the Moundsville. W. Va. penitentiary and a fine of s1O.OOO each.
 The defendants immediately gave mo- tlce of appeal to the court of appeals, and were released on s20,OOO bail each.
 Samuel A. Groff, as to whom Special Counsel Conrad for the government, said some days ago that there was not sufh- cient evidence to convict. was recognized, his motion for a new trial and arrest of judgment being allowed further consider- ation. His counsel was given four days in which to prepare the motions.
 Given Maximum Sentence.
 The sentence imposed on Machen, Lo- renz and Diller Groff is the maximum al- lowed by the law, although the court contrary to the contentious of the prose- cution, decided that the several counts in the indictment constituted but the one orense. The appeals to the upper court will be pressed as rapidly as possible. ac- cording to the defense. but months may elapse before the appeals can be heard.
 The government has not yet decided on It's next steps in the prosecution of the postal eases in which there have been so many indictments returned When tho jury brought in its verdict last night, a new trial was immediately asked for. The court overruied the motion save as to & Inuel A. Groff
 The defepse then moved for arrest og tucgement fa the case of Machen, Lofcnz. Diller and Groff. This motion was prompt ly overruled Exceptions to the rulings on both motions were noted and counsel argued the question where the penalties under the twelve counts of the indict- ments should be cumulative, or where the various counts should be held to con- stitute one offense.
 Asked for Full Penalty.
 The prosecution asked the imposition of the full penalty on each count the adop- tion of which. 1t Is pointed out, would involve a total of twenty-four years im- prisonment and a fine of $120O00 The de- fense characterized this as an outrageous and absurd position, arguing that as there had been but one ofrense alleged in the whole indictment, the court had no power to impose penalty on more than one of the counts.
 Judge Pritchard stated he was satts- ned that the verdict of the jury was cor- rect but he did not know whether ths imposition of penalty in a single count would be heavy enough He decided this question after recess. holding that he could impose a penalty under only ono count
 Stood Up for Sentence. 7
 The prisoners then stood up for sen- tence. Machen was first called. When the court sentenced him to two years imprisonment, the term to begin on arr rival at the penitentiary, and $10,0OO fine. Machen's eyes filled, and he trembled slightly as he resumed his seat. Then he clasped his hands and sat staring ahead of him as the two others were given the same sentences. Bonds were then furnished by each of the three men and the court adjourned