Evening star., 1926-12-15

ments, education, powers of observa-
ton, etc; and what may seem to be
reasonable doubt to one may not
SO appear to another. Quite naturally
and in order to make a proper ad-
iustmenr of the individual in his re-
lation to his fellow man, it was long
ago found necessary to set up fixed
legal standard of man, from which to
measure a great variety of things con-
corning human conduct as applied
both to civil and criminal matters.
obviously would not serve any useful
purpose to select as standard of
comparison n man who in human
traits, characteristics, and condu
was below the average; and it would
be equally undesirable, as it would be
unfair, to select the exceptional man
who possessed those human qualities
20 a degree which elevates him above
his fellow men; SO the proper adjust
ment of the matter came to be and
Is an average man. who is supposed
to view things with reason and with
prudence.
Proof of Conspiracy.
addressing myself now particular
ly to the matter of proof of con-
spiracy 1t has been many times
stated that conspiracies are very sell
dom reduced to writing. Conceivably,
they might bes but, ordinarily at
least, that is hardly to be expected;
and there is no rule of the law which
exacts or requires that standard of
proof in cases of conspiracy. In this
case, quite a number Of documents
using that word in the sense of writ
'ngs-have been placed before you;
the one side claiming that these sew
eral documents, together with the
nf lpn in l1n n
establish the conspiracy charged;
whereas, the other side contends the
reverse. There is no requirement of
the law that conSpiracieS should have
been formed by express words: in
deed they may be entered into in an
Informal way; but the essence of it
that there was a common corrup
understanding and purpose no matte
how 1t came into being. One ma
join a conspiracy by doing anything
to help 1t out. provided, of course, III
knows the object and purpose of the
conspiracy. and if he intentionally
does anything to help it on, he joins
it. 1t is not necessary that the
parties actually and physically come
together; they may even be in diff
ferent parts of the country; but If. by
any method or means of communica-
ton, be 1t the mail, the wire, spoken
words, or acts, the parties concerned
come to a mutual understanding for
the purpose of doing a corrupt thing
Il mean, OF course, as applied to this
case, for the purpose of defrauding
the United States, as charged; and
then do an act or acts in pursuance,
and to effect the object. of the con-
spiracy charged, the statutory offense
is complete.
Conspiracy and Overt Acts.
''If the defendants actually con.
spired to defraud the United States
as here charged, and to accomplish
their purpose by doing or having done
any one Of the things alleged to have
been done. and if any of such things
were done, or caused by the defend
ants to be done. in pursuance of the
conspiracy, then 1t is the same as if
the defendants had been personally
present and actually engaged in the
doing thereof. In other words, so far
as any acts of that kind are concern
ed, they are to be treated as having
been performed by the defendants in
person, doing the things with the
common intent and purpose which
contemplated them. Where the overt
act is committed by one of the parties
to conspiracy, or by his agent, all
ent, and then and there renewing and
prosecuting the original agreement.
"A conspiracy may be proved by
such acts and circumstances as con-
vince the jury that the existence of
the conspiracy Is the only way in
which to account for the existence of
the state of facts proved. 1t is not
necessary that any witness should
testify to the fact that there was, in
fact, a conspiracy; nor is it necessary
that the persons charged as conspira-
tors should ever have been seen or
heard conspiring; nor is it necessary
that either or both of the parties
charged should have expressly admit
ted the existence Of the conspiracy.
Considered Act of Both.
"And that suggests a matter con-
corning which it is proper that 1 ad-
wise you. AS has already been stated
to you, it is here charged that an
unlawful combination and conspiracy
existed between these defendants dur
ing the period July /, 1921-December
IL, 1922. II, therefore. and from the
evidence, you shall believe and find
that an unlawful conspiracy or COM
b.nation existed between the defend
ants, at any time within the limits of
the period of time mentioned; then
advise you that the act Of one
of the parties in the prosecution and
furtherance Of the unlawful enterprise
Is considered to be the act Of both.
and is evidence against both.
But, after conspiracy has come
to an end, and whether by success
or failure, the statements or admis-
sions Of one conspiratOr, by way Of
narrative OF past facts, are not ad-
missible against the one making the
statement or admission; and you are
entitled to consider the same to prove
the relationship or connection of the
defendant making such statement Or
admission may have had to the con-
spiracy, If any, which may have ex-
listed prior to that time.
Proof by Evidence.
1.-The fact OF the existence Of a
conspiracy may be proved by any CON-
petent evidence, be 1t direct or cir
cumstantial; direct evidence thereof is
not indispensable, and circumstantial
evidence is competent to prove the
conspiracy.
"In the reception of circumstantial
evidence, great latitude must be al
lowed. You should have before you
and are entitled to consider every fact
which has a. bearing on and ten
dency to prove the ultimate fact in
issue, and which will enable you to
come to a satisfactory conclusion.
"As already indicated, great deal
Of written evidence is before you
which concerns the general subject
matter of the present inquiry, and
the same may be used by you as cir
cumstances in the case tending to sup
port or defeat the charge, accordingly
as you may believe and find. 1t is fol
YOU to find and determine from the
evidence what the circumstances are,
what they mean and what conclusion
or conclusions. fairly and reasonably,
NAV he deduced therefrOm