Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-04
DEMURRER ARGUED
MIR. WoRTHINGToN IN BEHALF
OF WIN. q. CRAWFORD.

Nearly the entire session of Criminal
Court No. today was occupied with the
arguments in connection with the demurrer
of the defendant Crawford to the indict-
ment recently reported against August W..
Machen, George E. Lorenz and William G.
Crawford, for conspiracy to defraud the
United States, one of the cases growing out
of the Post Office Department irregularities.
Attorney A. 8. Worthingtop of counsel for
Crawford made the argument in support of
the demurrer. United States Attorney
Beach, Assistant United States Attorney
keigwin and Mr.. Holmes Conrad, the latter
special counsel for the government in the
post office cases, were present at the hear
ing as representative of the prosecution.
The principal argument in opposition to the
demurrer was made by Assistant United
States Attorney Keigwin, who insisted that
the indictment was not defective.
AT the close of the argument Judge
Wright took the papers under advise
ment.
Mr.. Worthington's Argument.
In most of the counts Mr.. Worthington
claimed that the allegation of fraud and
conspiracy was subsequent to the entering
into of the contract and that the agree
ment between Crawford, Lorenz and
Machen could not cause the government to
pay more tEdIl Tue IOStdl DGEic1 anu LOCK
Company was willing to sell the satchels
for In regard to the sixth count Mr..
Worthington said:
This count is an extra ordinary tumble.
1t charges page 5S) that the defendants
conspireG in the manner and to the effect
and purposes following that is to say
The words to defraud the United States
are here carefully omitted. Yet a little
further along certain acts of Machen are
referred to as part of the said dishonest
scheme and arrangement to dsfraud the
United States, whereas up to that point in
the count nothing had been said about de-
frauding the United States.
1.-The scheme to which the general charge
of conspiracy refers is alleged to be that
Crawford was to get his company to bid,
and to enter into a contract with LorenZ
to pay him all over twenty-five cents per
Satchel profit; that Machen was to procure
and be instrument in procuring the accept
ance of the bid, and in having purchases
made and bills paid hereunder, and that
the money to be received by LorenZ was to
be divided between the three defendants.
$50 far this count resembles the first
count, and is open to the same objections
and to the additional objection that it does
not charge that the arrangement was in
tended even to defraud the United States.
But the count then proceeds to charge
that Crawford and LorenZ bribed Machen,
and on page GA that Machen agreed to re-
ceive the bride.
Here, then, are four separate and distinct
charges: First, the charge of a common
law conspiracy; second, the charge (by ref
erence to the former part of the count
which is silent on the subject) of a conspir
acy to defraud the United States; third, the
charge that LorenZ and Crawford bribed
Machen; and. fourth, the charge that Ma
chen received the bride.
A Further Objection.
"a further objection to this count is that
while it is charged that Machen was to do
IN, in howl
tered into and that he was to receive a
part of the money to be paid by the United
States under the contract, it is not averred,
directly or INDIRECTLY, that his actions were
to be otherwise than for the best interests
of the United States or that he was in
fluenced, was to be influenced in any
way in the performance of his official du-
ties. OF course, what Is charged, if true.
would be pretty persuasive evidence of the
existence of corrupt intent, but state
ment of the evidence relied upon to prove
a charge will not take the place of the
making of the charge itself.
Yet, strange it may appear follow
ing all these averments there is the fur
ther statement that thereafter-'that is to
say. on the 25th day of June 1902-the
Postmaster General entered into the con-
tract with the Postal Device and Lock
Company to pay certain prices for certain
satchels which might be needed in the
department within the next four years
from 1902, and there is no suggestion and
here as in all other counts there is an en-
tire absence of any intimation of any kind
that this contract was brought about, or
its execution in the slightest degree influ-
enced by anything that any of the de-
PENDANTS had done or had agreed to do so
that this count like all the others, shows
on its face that the government was not
defrauded and could not have been de-
frauded or injured in any way by the al
legged crimes or acts of the defendants