26 FEDERAL RE1>onrER.
ways availed himself of every precaution in his power to guard against
frauds on the government.
I think that it would be very unjust, and contrary to the general and
familiar rules of evidence, to infer fraud and crime from circumstances,
which may reasonably be supposed to be accidental or inadvertent, against
the positive affidavit of a public officer whose good personal and official
character is sustained by the evidence of many of his fellow—citizens.
The law never presumes fraud, wrong, or guilt, but rather imputes in-
nocence and honesty to the conduct of men; and the principles of com-
mon justice, and the fundamental rules of evidence, require charges of
V serious misconduct to be clearly proved before the person accused shall
be condemned by a court of justice. There isan old and well—sett1ed ·
rule of evidence, that when acts are of an official nature, or require the
concurrence of official persons, everything is presumed to be rightly and
E duly performed until the contraryiis clearly shown; and this rule is es-
pecially applicable when a person is required by law to do an act the not
doing of which, honestly and faithfully, would make him guilty of a crim-
inal neglect of duty. Broom, Law Mer. 730. _
ln one of the affidavits upon which this rule is founded there is more
than criminal neglect charged,—there is a positive and serious crime al-
leged. Before the respondent could be criminally punished for this al-
leged offense, so positively denied, he would be entitled to the common·
law and constitutional right of trial by jury. In this civil proceeding,
which so seriously affects the reputation and other interests of the re-
spondent, he is entitled to all the presumptions of law as to innocence
which are allowed on criminal trials. The counsel of respondent in their
argument and brief insist, with much force, that, as the evidence shows
nokmotive for wrong, there arises a strong presumption of honesty and
integrity of purpose. The actions of rational men are usually prompted
by some motives. A motive is some cause or reason that moves the will,
and induces action. A crime is a voluntary act, proceeding from a
wicked motive, and while it is sometimes difficult to trace the connec-
tion between the wrongful act and the inducing motive, human reason
and experience teach us that few men will voluntarily expose themselves
to criminal punishment, contempt, and infamy without being influenced
by some strong impelling cause. ·In the investigations of alleged crime,
there is a just and reasonable rule. that, when the evidence of the offense
._ charged is conflicting or doubtful, the absence of all proof of an induc-
ing motive gives rise to a strong presumption of innocence. In this case
there is no evidence that the respondent derived or expected to derive ben-
, ents of any kind from the seemingly fraudulent accounts of the wit-
nesses, and they were not his familiar acquaintances or friends.
There are many presumptions of law and fact in favor of the respond-
ent, and they are sustained by a very decided preponderance of the evi-
dence, and I am satisfied that he is not guilty of any fraud or dishonesty
in the transaction mentioned in the third specification of this rule, in re-
lation to fraudulent mileage. I deem it unnecessary to make any ex-
tended reference to the circumstances of a personal nature connected with