It will be seen at a glance that the affidavit and oral examination of Mr. Douglass fully sustained the allegations of the motion of the District Attorney, and that the utter disregard of all the most essential requirements of the law could have easily been made to subserve a corrupt purpose. Without charging fraud in the case, we can easily see how the clerk of the city of Georgetown, who drew this jury, and who had no right to put his hand in the box, could have carried in his own hand names of his own selection for that special purpose, and from this store to have drawn a jury without taking a single name from the box. The substance of the affidavit and oral examination of Mr. Douglass having been incorporated with the motion of the District Attorney, the defense made the following replication:-- UNITED STATES } VS. } _In the Criminal Court of the JOHN H. SURRATT.} District of Columbia, No. ----._ And thereupon, the defendant saith the said motion is bad in law and in substance. The facts stated do not constitute any ground in law for a challenge of the array. BRADLEY & MERRICK, _for defense_. _Mr. Pierrepont._--We join in the demurrer. The question now before the court was simply one of law and of fact, and whether the facts in the case admitted by all, constituted such a violation of the law as justified and required the setting aside of the array. It would seem that it ought to have been easily settled, and the fact the motion was hotly contested by the defense through a discussion of three days continuance, would seem to indicate that for some reason they had a special desire to have their case tried by that particular jury. The argument was opened by Mr. Merrick for the defense. His argument was first addressed to the construction of the statute, and to the contention that the facts alleged and admitted did not constitute such a violation of the law as would justify the setting aside of the array. And then as there was no statute in regard to the quashing of the panel the question was argued on the principles of the common law, and many decisions were invoked, both in England and in this country, to show that the failure of the officers to comply with the law was not such as would vitiate what they did.