Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-01-29
D[MURREROVERRULEO
Prosecution Sustained in Beav-
ers-Green-Doremus Case.
POSTAL IRREGULARITIES
Governments Objections to Pleas in
Abatement Upheld.
SACRIFICE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE
Unless Special Appeal is Taken Trial
VIII Commence Monday.
February 12.

Justice Could in Criminal Court No. .,
To-Day overruied the demurrers filed by
George w. Beavers. former chief of the
division of salaries and allowances Post
Office Department. to the indictments for
conspiracy and bribery against him in con-
nection with the Post Office Department
irregularities. The pleas In abatement
fitd by George Z. Green. former state SEN
ator of New York. and Willard D. Dore-
mus OF this city. indicted Jointly with
Beavers. were held to be insufficient and
the demurrer of the government to the
pleas was sustained
Should counsel for the defense not seek
the allowance of n special appeal by the
Court of Appeals the cases will probably
be called for trial Monday. February H.
Ia overruling the demurrer to the indct-
ments Justice Gould said that to hold the
indictments void on the ground that they
failed to charge the commission of crime
under the statute would be to sacrific the
administration OF public Justice to excess
siye Subtlety and overstrained observance
of form. The defendants counsel at the
hearing had urged that the indictments
were bad because the check that was al
legged to have been given was not obli-
cation within the meaning of the statute.
Justice Gould held that the the word "obli-
cation" as used in the statute under which
the indictments were framed, should be
construed to include check
The court discussed at length the eyolu-
ton In the meaning of the word "obIga-
tion," saving that originally, as a legal
term. II meant stolen instrument, but
than an examination of modern de-
ctsons and a reference to text books show
that there has been Il marked departure
from the original significance. and that it's
meaning now depends largely upon the con-
text. In none of the more recent analytical
treattses the law of contracts II was
stated. is the word given its archaic mean
ing Of a sealed instrument. 1t is rather
defined a rule against a person REDUCE
Die to a money value.
Meaning of OBLIGATION"
The court stated that it was evident that
the word obligation as used in the stat
ute, was not intended to include sealed in
struments only, for the word contract"
which precedes it in the section in question
must be, held to include sealed instruments
and. therefore. the term "obligat ton" would
be rendered useless and meaningless If con-
fined to that construction
The court held a check to be an obligation
IN two-fold character in being written
eviaence that the maker is under pecunlary
obligation to the holder and in signifiyinS
obllgauon on the part of the bank upon
Wnlch 1T Is drawn to the drawer to honor
the same when duly presented. sufficient
piled.
The court discussed the second objection
urged by the defendant to the Indictment
which was that check, If held to be an
obligation, had not been set out and suffi
cieatly described in the Indictment Jus-
tice Gould said that he had been unable to
lind any authority which holds that writ
ten instruments shall be set out in ha &c
verba, excepting in cases of forgery and
libel. THE error of the opposite conten-
ton,' the opinion stated, lies in assuming
that the graVamen of the offense is in the
means or instrument used as a bride The
To
public officer; the character and description
of the means are simply Incidental"
The third contention made by counsel for
the defense, to the effect that if the check
De an obligation and properly described it
IS void one and of no value, and hence
could not perform the function of a bride
was refuted by the court. It was held that
a section of the statute under which the
indictments were framed clearly made pro-
vision for that particular point. Opinions
in line with the position of the court were
quoted.
Sustained the Demurrer.
At the conclusion of the announcement of
the opinion on the demurrer, Justice Gould
sustained the demurrer filed by the gov
eminent to the pleas in abatement in the
cases of Geen and Doremus The court re-
hearsed the history or the cases, taking up
the Green case first. 1t was stated that
cases of Gren and Doremus The court re-
stitutional rights of the defendant had been
ignored when he had been called upon to
testify before the grand jury which was in
YeStigating his conduct and which subse-
quently indicted him.
The court said that an examination of
the records showed that Green had de-
C:nGd 10 answer most uC the aul slions
pu. to him. claiming his constitutional
iEleges in immunity. 1t was shown that
he had answered one question in full alone
and that said question was considered by
hfa writ no &c nj h.afVz Of ,T.-
longing to the others. The court said Il
was taken that grand jury had not been
confined to the statements of the witness
in making the finding. The influence his
answers had on the question of guilt was
not the cause of the finding of the jury,
the court held.
1t was stated that the court would not
attempt to segregate the competent from
the incompetent testimony given before
a grand jury. The justice held that no
constitutional rights of the witness had
been violated. 1t was stated that the
statute simply declares that a witness shall
not be compelled to testify against him
self. The court further stated that even
If Green be assumed to have been a de-
PENDANT, which he was not technically in
his examination before the grand jury, he
had no more rights than any other wit
ness. Here the court recites statutes gov
erning this point and quoted legal opinions
in such cases.
Among other cases cited was one which
had been passed upon by Chief Justice
Marshall of the United States Supreme
Court, in which 1t was held that a witness
must say upon oath to whether his an
swer might tend to incriminate him. Other
cases were referred TO showing that the
court must see that there is reasonable
ground for the position taken by the wit
ness even when his statement respecting
his testimony is made under OATH Further
more the court stated that the mere ad-
rninistering of an oath cannot deprive a
witness of his constitutional rights and
that a witness should not refuse SUBJ
poena and should not refuse to be put un-
der oath.
Turning Point of Question.
The whole question. the court stated,
turns on what Is eompulsion. each case
standing on its own merits.
Justice Could took occasion to remark