Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/752

 744. FEDERAL ECPORTER. �interview with Miller was had substantially as stated. Ec- spondent bad no power to prevent Miller from conversing "with him as he did, and suggssting that money might bo made ont of the case, but he should at once have disclosed the fact to the court; or, at least, he should not have assumed to take on the character of a detective and work up a case for the government without consultation with the olfieers of the government. If, as Miller said, he had been present scv- eral days during the trial, he was probably present during Bome of the days that succeeded his interview with the respondent, and might have been identified. Eespondent, however, seems to have made no effort to ascertain whether Miller was in the court room, but keeps the facta to himself for a whole week, and at the most critical moment of the trial, after the arguments had been concluded, and the evening before the jury were to be charged, goes to the house of one of the defendants after dark to ascertain whether Miller rep". resented him or any of the other defendants in the case. What business was it to him whether Miller was sent by the defendants or not? Suppose he had been sent by Burnstine, what was the respondent to do about it ? He was not even content to take Burnstine's word that he knew noth- ing about Miller, but consented to make another visit at a late hour in the evening, in the meantime suggesting to Burnstine that he see Rothschild and learn whether he knew anything of Miller. The records of the court show that the jury in this case disagreed. It does not, of course, show how they stood. But the respondent, in his answer, admits that he continued to vote for an acquittai until the end, giving, among other reasons, that he thought Miller had been trying to prejudice him against the defendants, when he admits that Miller had talked of the innocence and good standing of the defendants, and had suggested that money might be made out of the case. �Suppose a verdict of guilty had been rendered, or, to put the case stronger, suppose it had been a civil case and a ver- dict had been rendered for the defendants, would it not have been the dntj of the court, on respondent's own siiowing, and ��� �