New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-10-21
MELLEN HOPES
FRIENDS GO FREE
Continued from page

,ostimonv. He said before he took the
stand that he felt well disposed TOWARD
them. ID
"but / am here under subpoena IRON
the Government and ] must tell 'h'
truth. But can't help saying nope
those defendants win their case.
Warren d. Chase, known as td"ar'
u Robbins's handy man, who iaiIed %
answer when called as witness th'
doy before. was in court yesterday h'
exclaimed his absence by saying ina
no had been told his presence "oNl'
not be needed before the 2Otn.
Tho Grst two witnesses Of the ira
.,cr. Artbrr r Clark. secretary OF me
Vow Haven. and Arthur ?. Russell. us
/ ,aida+iou counsel. They were calleo
simplv 10 identify the mass OF direG'
-ors' and presidents records on Whlch
the goverr ment will found the super
structure of its case.
Although Mr.. Clark only identiheo
record books. the first skirmlsh OF the
trial. which resulted in an nour o
Heated argument. was started by a
question addressed TO him. IL mao 10
do with an agreement made in lo'| De
tween the New Haven and two other
roads relative 10 the use OF the Graho
Central Terminal. the government as.
sorting il would show the des-gn o.
-rc agreement was 70 create monop
DIV by keeping any competitor OUT o.
the terminal facilities.
When Mr. Clark was asked 10 ldeh-
tifv this document the argument ~
once developed on the question OF the
order Of proof Counsel for deiehH-
ants ccntcnded nat il must be shown
that the crime charged took place WIN
i'm three years prior 20 the lndic'men
and that this fact must be clearly lhdi-
Gated before any antecedent acts lead
inr M 70 the conspiracy could BE gone
into. -
Thomas Thacher. OF counsel for u.
Newton Barney. Frederick +. Brewster
and Henry McHarg. and John q. Mil
burn. of counsel for Charles NJ. Pratt
conducted this argument for the de-
fence. APPLYING the statute OF ilmita-
tions 10 the point at issue. The pur-
pose was 10 force the government at
torreys TO try to prove the crime
charged without the opportunity OF
first LAYING basis for its proof.
"It will not be disputed, Of course.
said Mr.. Thacher. that under TINS in
dictmcrt no crime can be prosecuted
except such as was committed during
the last three years before the indict-
ment was filed. which was on February
IS. 1915
Mr.. Nilburn said: If anything that
occurred rrior 20 1912 is only relevant
20 this case TO throw light on some
thing done after the beginning of 1872
then iu the name Of goodness shouldn
we have the thing upon which the
light ie 70 be thrown first, before We
have the thing which throws the
light"
Mr.. Milburn went back 20 the trial OF
Aaron Burr for treason for a precedent
to support his argument.
"Chicf Justice Marshall ruled quot
ed Mr.. Milburn. that il is essentially
repugnant to the usages of courts and
10 the declarations Of the books by
whose authority such testimony is re-
ceived. that corroborative or confrma-
tory testimony should precede that
which il is TO corroborate or confirm.
The jury here has simply to pass or
whether a conspiracy was committed
in 1912. 1918 or 1914, and they should
not be carried into wilderness OF
matters only remotely bearing on the
main charge. beginning twenty or
thirty years before. We are starting
wrong end to-.
You don't mean to contend that the
conspiracy must have had its birth in
1912. 1913 or 1912" asked Judge Hunt
NO" replied Mr.. Milburn. "The *
istence of the child must be shown in
1912. 1918 the acts must be shown, 70
show that there was something in ex-
istence.'
81 viii go further than that" said
Judge Hunt. 81 will say that the eX-
istcnce of the parent must be shown
before you can show an offspring. That
is the point we apparently diverted en-
Judge Hunt refused 20 rule that the
prosecution should abandon its pro-
posed presentation OF proof in chrome
logical order, beginning II 1872 and
coming down to the period covered by
the Indictment.
IF a conspiracy is Matched FIVE, ten
fifteen or twenty years ago" Judge
Hunt said, "and runs along, and "A
joins it only last year, A, of course
can only be convicted Of having joined
il within the period that he is charged
10 have come IN. But the origin Of the
conspiracy ought 20 be shown in order
10 establish prima facie the existence
Of the conspiracy"
This adverse ruling was obviously a
disappointment 70 the counsel for the
Cofcnce. The effort TO force the gov
eminent attorneys 10 turn their case
topsy-turvey had been planned at Il
meeting Of counsel for the defence the
night before, and was counted upon 20
put the governments case out Of Joint