Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-01
FILING Of DEMURRER
Case of :Machen, Lorenz and
William G.. Crawford
ACTION OF COUNSEL
ALLEGED THAT INDICTMENT Is
BAD IN SUBSTANCE.
Arguments to Be Made Before Justice
Wright Thursday Next-Allega-
tions by Defendants.

In the case OF August w. NdCHei,
George E. Lorenz and William u.
Crawford, indicted for conspiracy
to defraud the United States in con-
,ction with the Post Office Depart
ent irregularities, the defendant,
Crawford, through his counsel, tor
mer Secretary of the Treasury john
G.. Carlisle, and attorney A. ,.
Worthington of this city, today hieo
demurrer, alleging that the lndlct-
ment in the case and each count
thereof is bad in substance.
Among the matters of law intended to be
argued before Justice Wright in Criminal
Court No 1 next Thursday in support OF
the demurrer are the following:
THE Indictment does not set forth anE
odense under section $40 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, as amended
or does any count thereof
! .r'he Indictment does not set forth any
ns.. under any statute, or the common
or does any count thereof.
to the first count-While in TINS
il is atteNpltu " N4''t
iracv to defraud the United States II
es not appear how the government couiu
p been defrauded by the alleged schenle
consniracv: while il is averred that the
fendant. Machen. was to receive part
If the proceeds of the contract referred TO-
Il is not ayerred directly or indirectly that
tbis was intended to influence the oh'c'i1
ac-ion of tina. defendant; it is not aFerr@n
that bv the contract referred TO IN the III
Idictment the government was TO pay n-orc
|than ii would have had to pay II 'le
alleged agreement between the oeiehdah's
had not been entered into; and 1t IS no'
averred that the contract was not hoAestis
awarded.
The Second Count.
as 10 The 2econd count-The same on
nee lions as to the first count; dlso' lhis
count shows that the contract was ehte'eo
into and the rights of all parties there'o
6xad before the date of the alleged loh-
spiraev. so that no possible loss could nave
resulted to the United States
"As to the third count-The same geh7rAi
objections. with one exception, as 10 she
first count, and. also, while it is charged
in this count that the conspiracy was 10
cause the United States to pay more lot
the satchels than the price at whlca me
Postal Device and Lock company VIZ
willing to sell the same. there Is hothius -
the scheme of the alleged conspiracy is SET
out In this count TO indicate now una re-
suit could possibly have been acconphsheu;
In is not averred that the Postal Device ana
|other price than that fixed by contract;
las to the fourth count-The same opJec-
as TO the first count; also IN Us
ut it appears that the contract was con- CON-
| ct before the alleged conspiracy was
~ INTO so that no possible loss could
"a esulted to the United States.
: to the fifth count-The same opJec-
IS as to the first count
Objections to Sixth Count.
LAS TO the sixth count-Th's count Is oad
for duplicity. because it attempts TO charge
n conspiracy at common law, conspiracy
in. violation of section $40 of the ReVlseu
Statutes of the United States, and the OF
fense of bribery-the latter consisting OF an
alleged corruption of the defendant Mach-
on nv the defendants. Lorenz and Craw-
ford. IL is assumed that the conspiracy
charged is one to defraud the United States,
whereas the conspiracy charged covers no
such charge; while 1t is charged that the
defendant Machen, was to assist in pro-
curing the award of the contract, ana IN
having purchases hereunder made ana
bills paid. it is not charged that he was 10
do this otherwise than in good faith, and
for the best interests of the United states,
nor does this count contain any equivalent
charge: while 1t is charged that the de-
fendant Macheu. was to receive part of the
money to be paid by the United states
under the contract. il is not aVerred dlrect-
lv or Indirectly that this was TO be done 10
corrupt him or 70 influence him in any way
in the performance of his official duties;
and while this count shows that the con-
tract was awarded and that the rights OF
Ill parties were fixed by the contract, 1t
c not charged that the contract was award
ID through any influence exercised by the
defendant, Machen, or any or the other de-
PENDANTS. or that il had any relation TO the
alleged agreement between the defend
z,,s-