Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-11-28
CLAIM COURT erred
Attorneys for Schneider and
Hyde Ask for Review.
TWO GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Jurisdiction and Statute of
Limitations.
CRITICISM OF THE RULING
Contention of Government in Land
Conspiracy Cases Analysed in
Petition to Highest Tribunal.
CRITICISM OF THE RULING

| The Supreme Court Of the United States
was asked today to review the trial OF
Frederick A. Hyde and Joost II. Schnei-
der on charges Of conspiracy with John
A. Benson and Henry P. Dimond to de-
fraud the government out OF lands in
California and Oregon. The trial was
held in the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trict of Columbia on the theory that an
overt act under the conspiracy had been
committed within the District. Hyde and
Schneider were convicted and each sent
enced to Imprisonment and to pay fine.
while Benson and Dimond were acquitted
IF these rulings are correct. attorneys
! for Hyde and Schneider protest In ais
| cussing in their petition to the Supreme
! Court rulings of the trial court, any
person who writes letter to any off1cial
! In Washington or employs an attorney
/ here in connection with any claim against
| the United States becomes Liable TO
prosecution here for conspiracy
Review Asked on Two Grounds.
The attorneys for Hyde and Schneider
ask for review on the two grounds
that the statute of limitations should
have been applied for the benefit of the
defendants, and that the Supreme Court
of the District Of Columbia did not have
Jurisdiction over the case.
Speaking of the application Of the
statute of limitations, in contending that
the lower court erred, the brief says:
1.-THE rule on this subject. approved by
the Court Of Appeals in this case, practt
caly repeats the statute of limitations
| i'm conspiracy cases to all persons not
shown to have been engaged in the Of
| Tense within three years.
Where two or more persons are actual
participants in doing something that Is
| 30 a
conspiracy alleged to have been entered
| into many years before, there may at
least be a PLAUSIBLE reason for urging
that. by such joint action. they either
renew the old conspircy or enter into q
new one. so as to take away the benefit
Of the statute. But If such acts are to
have the same effect against other per-
| sons, not concerned In or having knowl-
edge Of them the statute as to them
might as we'll never have been passed"
Government Contention Opposed.
1t is pointed out that Schneider was but
one Of several OF Hyde's employees who
aided him in obtaining land in forest res
ervaions in Oregon and California. 1t
may require thirty. or even fifty. years
to complete the business of exchanging
the land involved.
According to the contention Of the gov
|
| the defendants in either case. not only
Schneider. but any other of the employees
| who worked for Hyde In 1893 or 1899 and
| then left his service. they may at any
time, until the land is exchanged. be
called upon to respond to a charge Of
conspiracy for acts done in 1893 or 1893,
when every particle Of evidence in his
favor has been destroyed and the facts in
the case obliterated even from his own
| memory.
Let US suppose continues the brief,
"that influenced by this prosecution Hyde
refrained for twenty years from taking
any further steps to complete the ex-
change of his school lands or Of those
of his clients for government lands.
Every one must concede that then the
| statute of limitations would protect him
and all concerned from further prosecu-
| ton.
But II at the end of that time, on his
own motion entirely. he should send a
| letter to the commissioner of the general
| land Office asking for action in one of
these cases. instantly, as the government
claims. said conspiracy is brought to life
and everybody who had any relations
| with Hyde in acquiring the school lands
in 1893 or 1890 becomes the subject of
prosecution