Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-16
ARGUMENTS IN C0URTTODAY
Destruction Of Official Records is Ale
legged.
CONVENTIONS OF THE DEFENSE
Affairs Of the General Land ONCE Ina
volved - Justice Gould Ex-
presses His Views.

SuStiSc 1cuiu, III SFiIniuAl court no. II
today overruied the demurrer to the indlcts
ment charging Representative Binser Herr
mann Of Oregon with the destruction OF
certain official records OF the government
concerning the affairs OF the general land
office The ruling OF the court followed an
extended argument between Attorneys A.
s. Worthington and H. Prescott Galley,
counsel for the defendant, on behalf of the
demurrer. and United States Attorney
Baker and Assistant United States Attor-
ney Adkins, for the government, I'm opposi-
ton to the motion.
1t was contended by counsel for the de-
fense that the Indictment was defective on
the ground that the alleged offense was not
set out with sufficient certainty and COM
pieteness; also that il failed to state the
commission of any offense under section
54cS OF the Revised Statutes. and that ir
did not set forth any specific record alleged
to have been destroyed.
In overruiing the demurrer the court OBJ
served that the objection of counsel for the
defense to the indictment, that of the in
definiteness of the allegations, seemed to be
answered by language employed in the in
dictment in averrlng that the letters in
question were official that they concerned
the affairs and business of the office; that
the copies were required to be kept and
the defendant at the time was IN charge of
the United States land Office and had tho
care ana supervision or all Such papers ana
documents. Justice Gould thought these
allegations were sufficient to designate tho
copies alleged to have been destroyed as
official records.
Impressed With Argument
Justice Gould said he was somewhat inn
pressed with the argument of counsel that
the defense was entitled to a more definite
description of the charges against him, but
In the opinion of the court this consdsra-
tion was met by the express declaration OF
the grand jury in the language of the in
dictment that further facts concerning the
records IN question were unknown to the
jury.
The indictment. which was reported
March 3, 1905, charges Mr.. Hermann with
destroying thirty-fv letter press copies OF
certain official letters concerning the affairs
of the general land Office, January 13, 1903.
at time when the defendant was commits
sioner Of the land office.
The argument began shortly after court
opened this morning at 10 o'clock Attorney
Galley first addressing the court
The flrst contention made by counsel for
the defense that 1t did not appear from
the Indictment that any public record had
been destroyed. Counsel pointed out that
there was no reported decision OF prosecu.
ton under section 540s. under which the ins
dictment was drawn, or a judicial tnterpres
tation of 1t to be found in the reports.
As to Official Records.
commenting upon tno language or the llS
dictment. counsel contended that 1t did not
show that the letters mentioned were on
cial letters and that the books containing
them were official records. 1t was urged
that there was nothing to show that the
letters were written by an officer of the
government or that they were of any pub
lie importance or any permanent value.
THE mere allegation that the letters
concerned the affairs and business of tho
Office" counsel asserted, does not make
them official for many letters might refer
to such affairs and business without being
official in their character"
Counsel further contended that even II
the letters were assumed to be official there
was nothing in the indictment TO show
that the books containing them were pub
lie records.
What is and what is not a public rec
ord, II was stated, lis a question OF law
try have dealt with from time immemorial."
In order that the court might determine
whether or not the letters We're in fact
official letters or whether or not they con-
stituted public record, facts should be
stated counsel contended, and not con-
clusions OF law alone
Letter-press Copybooks.
In reference to the allegation that the let
ter-press copybooks contained letter-press
copies of certain official letters, II was con-
tended that II the grand jury had before it
evidence sufficient to enable IL to say that
the books contained official letters it would
follow as a necessary consequence that
such evidence would have enabled the jury
to give a more definite and certain descrip-
ton Of them.
Assistant United States Attorney Adkins
in answering the argument OF Mr.. Galley
asserted that the letters In question had
been sufficiently set out as official papers.
Mr.. Adkins said there was no question
to the charge that the defendant had the
care of the letters, and was responsible
for their safe keeping.
with citation of authorities to show that
stroyed the courts do not require that every
fact shall be set forth In the indictment.
Views Of Mr.. Worthington.
Attorney Worthington contended that the
grand jury In the case before the court did
not know enough about the matter to DO
able to say whether or not crime had
been committed. He pointed out that let
ters relating In a way to the business OF
an office OF the government. but not OF an
essentially important character, might be
DESTROYED without the slightest violation
either of law or propriety. After the de-
murrer had been overruled the United
states attorney moved TO have the case set
for trial April o. but this motion was with
drawn and the date left undetermined,
nendine the submission of a bill of particu-
lars by counsel for the government