CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA AT THE OCTOBER TERM, 1968. HENRY BOIMA FAHNBULLEH, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued November 11, 12 and 13, 1968. Decided January 7, 1969. 1. Where the law makes available to a party a vehicle for protection of a right, he may not thereafter claim denial of a right upon failure to exercise his prerogative, as in the instant case where denial by the trial court of an application for letters rogatory authorized defendant to apply for a writ of mandamus to a Justice of the Supreme Court, and he failed to do so. 2. A question which merely tends to elicit and not suggest testimony from a friendly witness on direct examination, is allowed. 3. Whenever any article is found at or near the scene of a crime, and belonging to the defendant, it may be introduced in evidence if it tends to explain testimony ; so in the instant case, documents and writings in the possession of defendant could be introduced to prove the crime of treason. 4. Once the authenticity of an instrument has been established by facts and circumstances, it may be admitted into evidence, even though its proof is by indirect means ; but a document purporting to be that of a defendant must always be admitted, even without proof of authenticity, where defendant fails to deny its execution while under oath. 5. No party shall assign as error any portion of a charge to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury retires, stating specifically the matter, or omission, to which he objects. 6. An indictment which charges any act tending to overthrow the authority of the Government or any act of treachery against, or commission of, a breach of allegiance to the Government, is sufficient to support a conviction of treason, even though the same acts may constitute the crime of sedition. 99 100 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS The defendant was charged with treason in an indictment which named others who were not tried. He was found guilty after trial by jury. His appeal is from the judgment of the trial court, after affirmation of the verdict. Judgment affirmed. Momolu S. Cooper and Momo Fahnbulleh Jones for appellant. Attorney General James A. A. Pierre, Solicitor General Nelson W. Broderick, and J. Dossen Richards for appellee. MR. court. JUSTICE SIMPSON delivered the opinion of the Henry B. Fahnbulleh, a former Ambassador of the Republic of Liberia, was indicted by the grand jury of Montserrado County, on March 5, 1968, for the heinous crime of treason against the Republic of Liberia. A great furor thereupon swept the nation to an extent theretofore never seen in this Country. Public sentiment immediately commenced to run very high, thus making the cold neutrality required by law in such instances rather difficult to achieve. However, we, the judges of the law, must look neither east nor west, but straightaway ahead of us and, in so doing, interpret the laws as have by the people of the Country been enacted for their guidance. Due to the enormity of the crime with which the appellant has been charged, we felt it our bounden duty to, in the first instance, effect a complete recital of the relevant facts, and thereafter view the law, for a determination of whether or not the facts as recited constituted a violation of the law to an extent that requires the imposition of legal sanctions against the appellant. In order to place the relevant facts in their perspective, we must first of all look at the indictment for the purpose 101 of obtaining the gravamen of the offense charged therein. Count one of the indictment reads as follows : “The aforesaid Henry B. Fahnbulleh, defendant, a citizen of the Republic of Liberia, between the 19th day of January, 1967, and the 25th day of January, 1968, and on divers other dates, the exact dates and times being to the grand jurors unknown, while in the employment of the Liberian Government, serving in the capacity of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Liberia to the Republic of Kenya and other East African States and Governments, resident near Nairobi, Kenya, and under the protection of the laws of the Republic of Liberia, and owing allegiance and fidelity to the Government of the said Republic of Liberia, he, the aforesaid defendant, not having the fear of God before his eyes but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil and his own wicked heart, did then and there, in utter disregard of his allegiance and fidelity to his country, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously and traitorously plan, conspire, contrive and combine with divers other evilly disposed persons, both Liberians and foreigners to the grand jurors unknown, with intent wickedly, unlawfully and traitorously to seize and control by force, and to overthrow the legally constituted authority of the Government of Liberia, contrary to the laws in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the Republic of Liberia.” From the above quotation it is readily discernible that the State’s basic concern is with the breach of allegiance and fidelity on the part of the appellant while he was gainfully employed by the Government in the capacity LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Governments of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. In an endeavor to establish the existence of the aforemen- 102 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS tioned breach, the Government procured the testimony of several witnesses for the prosecution. The first witness to take the stand was Nathaniel Baker, who identified himself as the Director of a Law Enforcement Agency of the Republic of Liberia. Baker testified that in the month of February, of the year 1968, and on or about the third day thereof, he, in company with Under Secretary of State Oliver Bright, Jr., left Monrovia and proceeded to Nairobi in Kenya upon instructions of the Government of Liberia, for the purpose of obtaining and correlating information in respect to certain activities of the then Ambassador of Liberia to Kenya, to determine whether or not he had continuously maintained his oath of office to the Government of Liberia. The necessity of this trip to East Africa had been brought about, among other things, by a series of confidential reports received by the Government against the then Ambassador. The first of these reports states that as far back as March 29, 1962, appellant, while conversing with a European friend, made certain derogatory remarks concerning the Government of Liberia and officials thereof, including the Chief of State. In this conversation the appellant is alleged to have stated that the economic policy of the Government was poor, disastrous, and lacking forceful economic nationalism. He further stated that Liberia was suffering from a frustrating nationalism under the leadership of a politically dominant group who styled themselves Americo-Liberians. According to the testimony of Baker, the conversation of March 29 continued, appellant asserting that the natives lived a life of virtual serfdom after having their lands taken over by the so-called Americo-Liberians and converted into large rubber estates. Continuing, the witness stated that the defendant further said that concession agreements entered into by and between the Liberian Government and foreign investors always prove disastrous and that the open-door policy of the Government LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 103 was a mockery from which the Americo-Liberians derived all benefits and the foreign investors carried away from the country all profits, leaving no actual benefits for the masses. The then Ambassador thereupon allegedly ended his conversation with his European friend, stating that after three to five years he would himself actively join the struggle for eradicating the purported oppressiveness of the Government and positively himself embark upon a political life that would include an endeavor to become president of the nation. He lastly held, according to Baker, that he was in the process of preparing a book that would reveal facts about the past and present of Liberia concerning the social structure and unwholesome political practices of the Government. Continuing, Baker maintained that on January 29, 1967, an anonymous letter was addressed to the present incumbent of the office of Attorney General, signed by persons who merely called themselves aborigines. The contents of this letter were substantially similar to the pronouncements previously attributed to the appellant in respect to the March 29, 1962, conversation. The testimony further revealed that on January 6, 1968, another similarly anonymous letter containing similar expressions was directed to the Israeli Ambassador accredited to Liberia, vehemently attacking Israeli involvement in the historical Israeli-Arab conflict. Copies of this letter were allegedly dispatched to the President of Liberia, the United States Ambassador to Liberia, and the Director of the United States Agency for International Development. The closing paragraph of the January 6 letter intimated that there was, in fact, an underground movement in effect. Baker then stated that the similarity of the contents in the two letters to the conversation of March 29, 1962, pointed a finger in the direction of appellant, then Liberian Ambassador to several East African Countries. 104 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS By virtue of the gravity that the Government attached to these findings it was determined that all efforts should be directed toward obtaining the book which Ambassador Fahnbulleh was reputed to be writing. However, before a decision could be made as to the approach to be employed in obtaining the book being written by the Ambassador, the President of Liberia, while making certain remarks at a reception held in his honor by ranking Liberian Foreign Service officers, intimated that one of these officers had not kept the faith and had reportedly engaged himself in activities unbecoming an envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Liberia accredited to a foreign Government. The sequence of events showed that immediately subsequent to this remark by the President, the Ambassador proceeded to make a long distance telephone call to his wife at Nairobi, instructing her to permit no one whomsoever to enter his study at the Embassy. This telephone call was followed by a cablegram dispatched to a Doctor Yusuf Ali Eraj, at Nairobi, emphasizing the instructions to his wife that no one should be permitted entry into the study. These actions imputed to the appellant precipitated the Government’s decision to send Baker along with Under Secretary of State Bright to Nairobi in order to search the Embassy, in an endeavor to discover the material therein of such prime importance that necessitated use of these various communications media by the Ambassador for the purpose of forestalling entry into his study. Upon arrival at Nairobi, and an encounter with Mrs. Fahnbulleh on the morning subsequent to their arrival, they were informed by the lady that she had been instructed by her husband to deny anyone entry into his study. At that time it was also learned that Dr. Eraj had, upon instructions of the Ambassador, been given the keys to the study. The testimony of Baker, which was subsequently corroborated by a witness named Bright, LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 105 recited that they temporarily refrained from pressing the issue of obtaining the key to the study. Mrs. Fahnbulleh requested permission to withdraw and prepare herself to accompany them to Dr. Eraj for the purpose of retrieving the key to the study. After she had tarried a while longer than that usually required for dressing, they decided to inquire into the causes for this delay. It was at this time that upon mounting the stairs they discovered the lady and a youngster, with certain files in their hands and, to their amazement, the supposedly locked study had its door open. Whereupon, they entered the study and proceeded to make a cursory search thereof. Many books and other materials which were of the nature being searched for were found lying about the study, and among these was the now famous book being written by Ambassador Fahnbulleh and entitled : “Liberia Within Independent Africa.” Upon the insistance of Messrs. Bright and Baker, it was decided that Dr. Eraj would be contacted for the purpose of recovering any additional files in his possession that belonged to the Government. Mrs. Fahnbulleh at first stated that she would accompany them to the home of Dr. Eraj to effect the recovery of any such document. Later they discovered that her promises were not in� tended to be thoroughly honored, and, thereupon it was decided that they would seek the intervention of the Kenya Government since they did not possess police powers and, therefore, might not be able themselves to recover these documents. After a protracted period of delay they obtained police assistance, and discovered from Mrs. Eraj that after her husband had returned from hunting that day he had dressed and gone to dinner. She further contended, however, that upon learning of the alleged contents of the files that had been sent to their residence earlier by Mrs. Fahnbulleh, her husband had decided that he wanted no involvement in the political affairs of Liberia. They 106 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS were subsequently instructed to send these files to Dr. MacKennon, and this was done. Dr. MacKennon, the testimony revealed, was a close friend of Ambassador Fahnbulleh, who had earlier in life pursued studies in the United States and the United Kingdom. He had later come to Africa as an advisor to the deposed President of Ghana, Dr. Kwane N’Krumah. As testified to by the defendant, he first met Dr. MacKennon while he was accredited to Sierra Leone as Liberian Ambassador, and this acquaintance was renewed at the time of his arrival at Nairobi. This gentleman, according to the facts, was a very close friend of the Ambassador and the friendship had extended to the point where, on one occasion at least, Dr. MacKennon lived in the Liberian Embassy while being nursed back to health by persons there, including the Ambassador’s wife. Actually, this friendship extended to the point where Dr. MacKennon was granted access to the Liberian Embassy’s post box at Nairobi for the purpose of communicating with persons outside the country. The doctor’s use of the privileges to him granted by the Ambassador extended to the point of his writing letters to the deposed President N’Krumah and receiving correspondence from him via this Post Office box which had been procured for the official use of the Liberian Embassy. In one communication between N’Krumah and MacKennon, the latter told N’Krumah that he was pleased to advise that while in Nairobi he had encountered, and renewed friendship with, an old friend of his from Liberia whom he had earlier met in Sierra Leone, and that this friend had assisted him greatly. It was at the home of this Dr. MacKennon that the files initially sent by Mrs. Fahnbulleh to the residence of Dr. Eraj were recovered. Turning back for a moment to the study of Ambassador Fahnbulleh, the testimony reveals that upon his desk was found an envelope with a Red Chinese postscript thereon. There was also a Mao pin, which reportedly was sent to LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 107 Mao’s popular front members in different parts of the world. Additionally, there were several books on the teachings of Chairman Mao of the Chinese Communist Party, which had been sent to Ambassador Fahnbulleh by his colleague, the Chinese Ambassador in Nairobi, who, in the letter of transmittal, stated that he was pleased to direct this literature to appellant and to know of the appellant’s keen interest in the writings of their great leader. Oliver Bright substantially corroborated the testimony of Baker insofar as the same related to their journey to East Africa and the several occurrences thereat as hereinabove enumerated. Thereafter C. Wellington Campbell took the stand, and corroborated in a large measure the testimony of Baker in respect to domestic occurrences relating to the appellant which were deemed inimical to the interests of the Government of Liberia and constituted a breach of allegiance to the Government by an official thereof. Campbell mentioned in his testimony that in the execution of his duties, which included the acquisition of information concerning the security of the State, either by overt or covert means, his attention had been drawn to information relating to “un-Liberian” activities that were being carried out by a certain group that called themselves aborigines, who distributed leaflets under the cover of darkness. These leaflets and other writings were in the manner of threats against the President, the VicePresident, and Chief Justice, and other officials of the Government of Liberia. Additionally, they had the tendency to accentuate tribalism, a credo that had become extinct in Liberia. According to further testimony given by Campbell, these scurrilous and surreptitious writings, which were distributed under the cover of darkness, claimed that the Americo-Liberians were depriving the aborigines of their just revenue and depositing funds in banks in America and Switzerland. One of these documents further 108 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS claimed that the national Legislature was but a rubber stamp ; that Vice-President Tolbert was a shopkeeper and greedy spider ; that William V. S. Tubman, Jr., was a blockhead ; Chief Justice Wilson was inefficient and incompetent and President William V. S. Tubman, a stooge of American imperialism. The writing continued by saying that the land belonged to the aborigines and they were sounding a note that they would eliminate every Americo-Liberian, take over the land, and become their own bosses. The Americo-Liberians would be enslaved, and all would be accomplished by “violent force.” Campbell also mentioned that his Agency had received information to the effect that Ambassador Fahnbulleh was writing a book termed : “Independent Africa.” Furthermore, upon the review of this book it was discovered that most of the derogatory remarks and statements concerning tribalism contained in the above-mentioned anonymous writings were also evident in the book being written by the Ambassador. The indictment included a document entitled : “Secret Memo,” which the prosecution alleged had been prepared by Ambassador Fahnbulleh. This memo included twelve counts, describing the initial machinery that had been established by the movement controlled by Ambassador Fahnbulleh, for the purpose of implementing his design to effect a change in the political scene in Liberia by the invocation of forcible means. The memo mentioned names of persons resident in Kenya and in Liberia. It alluded to requests made by foreign nationals to come to Liberia and enter the employ of the Liberian Government as a basis for further steps toward overthrowing that Government. This famous secret memo also mentioned names similar to those of persons of political prominence in Liberia, and stated that these persons were either actively engaged in the movement or their services were being sought. Due LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 109 to the necessary implication, we feel it desirable and legally correct not, at this time, to delve further into this particular aspect of the case, since it may at a subsequent date become the subject of judicial determination. However, on the reverse side of the secret memo was a poem, written in the hand of the appellant entitled : “Awake, Captain.” This poem is an invocation to the sons of the land to awake to the clarion call of war. The budding poet, in the second paragraph of the poem, stated that the hand that brings pestilence to the land should be crushed and all fears allayed until such time as tyranny is brought to an end. We shall discuss in detail the appellant’s explanation of this poem and its meaning; however, for the time being we will only state that he acknowledged this poem to be a literary work of his done in his own handwriting. Included in the evidence introduced by the prosecution was the manuscript of a book entitled : “Liberia Within Independent Africa,” the authorship of which was not denied by the appellant. In the introduction to this book the appellant said : “In our own time, especially in the years following the second World War, came the turn of dependent and colonial peoples in Asia and Africa [sic] who, by force of arms or by force of arguments, are casting off one by one the fetters of foreign rule and winning not only national independence but also a new sense of individual dignity and responsibility. “Yet in the West Coast of Africa a tiny country somewhat paradoxically named Liberia and originally’ founded specifically for the purpose of upholding the moral and social values which were then beginning to win recognition both in the new and old world, remained impervious to the very .concept of freedom and the changes it was meant to symbolize By reason of unique historical, political and psychological circumstances–some beyond the control of its 110 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS leaders, others deliberately created by them–it has gradually turned back the clock of history restricting more and more the freedom of its citizens and reducing the immense majority to the level of peasants and ineffectual individuals. “In the past quarter of a century, as nations all over the world won their freedom from domestic or foreign oppressors, depotism [sic] in the little negro Republic has intensified. It survived the fall of Hitler and Mussolini, the death of Stalin and of Senator McCarthy, the collapse of Colonialism in Asia and Africa and the liberalisation of the remaining dictatorship in South Africa and Latin America. “In an age when the condition of workers in all countries, both socialist and capitalist, shows unmistakable signs of improvement, when wages are being steadily increased, of ten two-fold, and working hours reduced, the last regime of the Republic, much publicised for its ostensible socialism, ordered Legislation to be passed to make labourers work longer hours for the same pay, and this at a time when both the Government and the employers were supposed to be reaping the benefits of a tremendous economic boom. “Liberian and foreign apologists of the oligarchic leadership which has ruled the country since its inception can boast of many achievements ; continuity of Government over more than a century, a record unequalled almost anywhere else in the world–a socalled democratic Constitution and Bill of Rights, modelled on those of the United States which, with minor amendments, have remained in force for over a century; a history untarnished by any major war or revolution; so regarded, a Christian off-shoot of Western civilization, a supposedly large measure of economic and social development greatly intensified in recent years, a new Legislative building as imposing as any in the world ; and, above all, perhaps, the privi- 111 lege of having established the first independent Negro Republic in Africa with a lead of one hundred years over the rest of contemporary African nations. “On closer examination, however, the much publicised continuity of Government testifies more to the imperiousness and savagery with which the small ruling clique has consistently suppressed all opposition, than to a genuine attachment to democratic principles. “It is sufficient to recall that the so-called ‘True Whig Party’ has by the same brutal method managed to maintain itself uninterruptedly in power for over eighty-seven years, automatically winning every election with majorities reminiscent, more or less, of Nazi mock elections than of American polls on which the electoral system is supposed to be based : suffice it to say that genuine opposition has never been allowed to exist in the Republic for more than a few months, much less to win a seat in the House of Representatives or the Senate; that the Liberian Legislature, consisting as it does entirely of Presidential nominees, is in fact nothing more than the rubber stamp machine of the one-party system and its leaders, housed in a sumptuous building which the country could ill-afford to build and bearing much more appropriately than the American Senate the pompous name of ‘Capitol Building’; that such opposition as has existed at times has always been ruthlessly suppressed by means, foul or fair; that framed-up charges of sedition or treachery (followed by long terms of imprisonment and occasional liquidation) have been proffered against nearly all those who, throughout our history, have been daring enough to attempt to expose this lamentable state of affairs; that nearly all Presidents, hitherto, have been able either to perpetuate themselves in power or multiply the term of office for which they had been elected and eventually to select their own successor (the longest term being that of Mr. Tubman LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 112 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS from 1944-1968) ; that even within the small circle of the ruling clique, intrigues, blackmail and backstage machinations have always characterized its treachery and played a more important role in the selection of the Chief Executive and his henchmen, than polling at the party caucus or the weight of public opinion; that although ninety-nine per cent of the country’s population consists of native elements, every President since the founding of the nation has so far been a descendant of immigrants from the United States of America or, as they are popularly known, the ‘Americo-Liberians’: that until very recently this insignificantly minuscule group filled also all the important posts in each Administration, the Civil Service and the Legislature, and that even now the vast native population has only a token representation in the Legislature; that the great majority of the native population is deprived of the franchise (for what it is worth) and of nearly all other civil rights; that while jealously preserving their ruling caste privileges against any encroachment on the part of the native population, the Americo-Liberians have been equally determined up to 1958 to prevent other coloured people, especially from the United States, from Latin America and Asia, from sharing their privileges and have consistently discouraged them from settling in the country, originally founded for the benefit of the suppressed black man, lest the greater skill and efficiency of new-corners might jeopardise their position, and this in spite of the fact that Liberia would have greatly benefited from an infusion of fresh blood, skill and enterprise, no less increase the greatly needed population. “The fact that the century-old Liberian Constitution and the Bill of Rights are still in force testifies more to the little use that has been made of these LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 113 mocked documents than to any love of tradition and for the principles they embody. “Quite apart from the fact that many principles crystallised in these documents can no longer be regarded nowadays as being progressive, let alone nationalistic, as they appeared over one hundred years ago, there is hardly a clause or article that has not been ignored or violated ; and in some cases when the spirit of a clause or an article could not be infringed without blatantly breaking the letter as well, appropriate constitutional amendments have been rubberstamped by the Legislature. Indeed, the pretended legalistic skill of our lawyer-Presidents, or that of their confidential friends, seems to have been devoted more to circumventing the Constitution than to observing it. “The peaceful record which the Republic is supposed to have enjoyed ignores the fact that the country was never in a position either to wage war or to defend itself against would-be aggressors to whom the rulers have always had to give in, lest they should risk their own positions; and that such armed forces as could be relied upon to remain loyal to the Government were deployed time and again to crush internal opposition and local native insurrections with a ruthlessness that would have made the French columns in Algeria green with envy, or made Hitler’s soldiers look like a benevolent arm of the Nazi Party. “The Christianity and Western cultural values which their forefathers were supposed to have brought over from the United States have often become stale, petrified and anachronistic in their descendants, who have preserved the appeal of that civilisation as a mark of social distinction, ignoring its true spirit and failing to adapt it to local and changing conditions, while continuous attempts have been main- 114 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS tamed by them to destroy the indigenous culture long established on the West Coast of Africa. “This is evidenced most glaringly and pathetically by the dogmatic approach to religion, the corrupt habit in Western manners, and the biblical terms in which the leaders have glorified their achievements and virtues, the grotesque and incongruous style or dress (including top hats and morning coats) to which they cling as a passport to Western society, and last but not least, the psychological aversion to manual work which is regarded as incompatible with the dignity of civilised people. “The spirit of Christianity, largely imparted by white missionaries, has found perhaps a healthier and readier response in the hearts of what were formerly the ‘uncivilized’ elements of the indigenous population, who have also proved able to digest and adapt to African conditions some of the Western values, thus creating the embryo of a new civilisation, deeper rooted in African soil, rather than transplanting wholesale the superficial and defunct habit of an alien way of life. “The much publicised economic development for which the Tubman Administration has claimed sole credit, was due almost entirely to unsuitable foreign initiative and inequitable enterprises, and hardly anything has been contemplated so far to take advantage of the present circumstances to ensure equitable and continued further progress and security under our own initiative and steam. Immense and valuable resources have been conceded with little regard to the long-range interest of the country, and with hardly anything else in view, other than to enrich still further the few and to thrust the majority of the country’s inhabitants into a worse state of penury. Political and social problems are thus created which may sow the germs of future strife, bloodshed and instability and LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 115 which may well take decades to solve. Thus, few provisions, if any, have been made to train Liberians to exploit for themselves the country’s natural resources, first on behalf of the foreign concessionaires and later, when the present agreements end, as Liberian enterprises. Nor has any progress been made in building up Liberian enterprises side by side with the foreign concessions. “As things are at present all we can expect is to exchange one day some of the foreign concessionaires for others, or dare to thrust thousands of our finest young men into blood conflict under conditions similar to the unhappy events that occurred recently in the Congo. With something like eighty per cent of the national income originating in some other way, or from these concessions, utter disaster would face the country in the event of the foreign concessions appearing unwilling or unable to continue their work on the present scale, or in the event that future patriotic Liberian leaders become unwilling or unable to continue work on the present scale under the conditions in which these concessions have been granted. Even assuming the continued goodwill of the concessionaires, there is invariably the risk of circumstances beyond their control, such as a slump in the market for natural rubber, or the exhaustion of the most profitable iron ore deposits, the exact extent of which has become clear in recent years. . . . “As a result of the concessionaires’ activities tens of thousands of the indigenous population have been uprooted from their traditional way of life and turned to all intents and purposes into proletarian wageearners at the minimum, dependent for their daily livelihood on the work of the concessions. “Naturally, the process of proletarianisation is almost irreversible, and could only be justified if coupled with the training of technicians at other levels 116 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS than the lowest, the earning compatible with the standard of living, the accumulation of native capital and the building up of organisations capable of exploiting the natural resources and providing employment without foreign assistance. Nor have any provisions been made to develop secondary industries, however small, and to place native agriculture on a sounder basis. All the major public works and development projects carried out during the last twenty years, such as the completion of the Monrovia deep-water harbour, and other ports, and the building of some roads and airfields, came chiefly from deleterious foreign aid. Considerable Government resources derived from the foreign concessions, the registration of foreign ships–or, more directly speaking, from selling the soil and the flag of the country–have been squandered almost entirely on luxuries for the few, on unnecessary frivolities and the hedonistic satisfaction and personal vanity of the leaders and their friends and hardly anything has been done so far to take advantage of the present favourable circumstances and lessons of the hard past to ensure continued and further progress under our own steam. Immense and valuable resources have been conceded with little regard to the long-range interests of the country and with little else in view than to enrich still further the few and to impoverish the majority. Up to the present the budgets of the foreign concessionaires are burdened with the heavy payrolls of white employees naturally requiring considerable expatriation allowances and financial compensation for living in what is often called ‘uncongenial environment.’ “Nor has any progress been made in building up Liberia enterprises side by side with the foreign concessions or in developing secondary industries, however small, to provide alternative employment and sources of revenue. Even such half-measures as have LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 117 been taken to place the remaining native agriculture on a sounder basis and to enable it to compete against the big foreign concerns have proved a total failure owing to corruption and mismanagement on the part of higher Government officials, of whom there are a few exceptions. “In general terms, the Government’s agrarian policy in the past twenty years or so has amounted to a long series of callous injustices against the native population and waste of vaste resources to some extent, to the enrichment of a few officials and the draining of the national budget, some so ruthless as to make the game of the oppressive colonial exploitation look like a minor trick. “Political and social problems are thus created which may sow the germs of future strife, bloodshed and instability and which may take decades to solve or prove insoluble. “Socialist or even liberal-minded Governments in various countries have at times expropriated big landowners, with or without compensation, ostensibly for the purpose of redistributing their properties to landless peasants, but the unprecedented step of reversing this process and, in effect, expropriating, without any compensation, millions of acres of the most fertile and developed land belonging to the native population– small holders were thus deprived of their ancestral properties for the benefit of wealthy Monrovia politicians or foreign concessionaires. The only redeeming feature of this depressing system was the privilege accorded in some cases to the natives of buying their own lands from the Government, provided they could afford the sums the resale required–a privilege of which few were able to avail themselves. “Successive Administrations took it for granted that all the land in the country belonged by right to the State (represented for this purpose by its more affluent 118 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS and bureaucratic leadership) and was theirs to sell to the highest bidder. The corollary to this groundless assumption was that the people who had toiled the land for centuries and regarded it as theirs under established native laws and customs have been treated like squatters and forced to work for new masters or starvation wages or move further back into the bush, unless, of course, they could afford to buy their own lands from officialdom–a situation no different from that of Verwerd’s apartheid system in South Africa.” Testifying also for the prosecution was Mr. Patrick Minikon, who identified himself as a member of the Law Enforcement Agency of Liberia. He testified to the effect that just subsequent to the departure of the President of Liberia for the United States in March, 1968, several clandestine writings were found in different sectors of the City of Monrovia. His agency had taken pictures of these writings, and he was called upon to identify them by the prosecution, which he did, and was thereafter discharged with the thanks of the court. Lafayette Diggs, who was then the First Secretary attached to the Liberian Embassy at Nairobi, in testifying stated that the Ambassador was generally averse to celebrating numerous Liberian holidays. The witness also stated that the Communist Chinese Ambassador was a frequent visitor to the Ambassador of Liberia, and that on one occasion he entered the Embassy early in the day for a meeting and did not leave the premises until early evening. He additionally stated that the appellant would attend upon ceremonies commemorating National days of Communist China even in instances wherein all Western diplomats would concertedly refrain from attendance. Foreign Service Officer Diggs, in continuing his testimony for the prosecution, mentioned that the affinity extant between the appellant and the Chinese Ambassador at Nairobi carried over to include their wives. He alleged that this relationship carried to the extent of LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 119 the exchange of several visits between the ladies. The appellant’s wife in her testimony admitted the relationship and further stated that the exchange of visits included her children who accompanied her on visits to the Chinese Embassy, although Liberia does not recognize Communist China as a sovereign State. Another witness for the State was Christian D. Maxwell, Inspector General of the Department of State. This Foreign Service officer testified that on an investigation of the Liberian Embassy in Nairobi he had observed certain irregularities in the Embassy in that the Liberian flag was never hoisted as a mark of identification of the Republic, there were no adequate pictures of the Chief of State in the building, nor was there a proper Seal of the Republic to identify the building. Maxwell stated that he had made these facts known to the Department of State and had also communicated with the Department to the effect that Ambassador Fahnbulleh had actively interfered in the political life of Kenya by his open criticisms of the Kenyan Government, and his friendship was carried to the extent of employing a Mrs. Emma Pointo, the wife of an opposition member, to work in the Embassy. Mr. Maxwell also testified that while at Nairobi he came in contact with Dr. MacKennon. Mr. Maxwell was told that he (meaning MacKennon) was happy that the border restrictions on travel between Liberia and Guinea had been removed, for he had been promised a safe journey through to Conakry to join former President N’Krumah of Ghana. The witness said that it was also revealed to him that Dr. MacKennon was an avowed communist and that his association with the Ambassador was generally considered undesirable by members of the Kenyan Government. With respect to some of the activities allegedly imputed to the appellant as being part of an underground movement located in the City of Monrovia and other parts 120 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS of the Republic, General George T. Washington testified to the effect that a young Lieutenant in the Armed Forces of Liberia had introduced to him two Liberians by the names of Daniel Myers and S. N. Johnson. It was also stated that the matter of the visit was of vital importance. When the interview was allowed, Johnson spoke and intimated to him that there was an underground movement aimed at eliminating the Americo-Liberians and some aborigines who were staunch supporters of the Tubman regime. Johnson further intimated to Washington that he (Washington) had been deemed a disfavored aborigine and in the circumstances would have to be either kidnapped or murdered. Thereupon, General Washington sent Johnson, together with Myers, to Director Campbell of the National Intelligence and Security Service. Director Campbell met with the above-named two gentlemen, in company with Mr. Patrick Minikon of the National Bureau of Investigation, and Mr. Thomas Nelson, the then Acting Director of the Executive Action Bureau. After the testimony of General Washington, S. N. Johnson took the stand and himself testified in corroboration of what had been previously testified to by General Washington. He additionally stated that one night in late January of 1968, he and his wife, while standing outside were met by a gentleman bearing the name Horatious Nimley. After telling Johnson that he had something secret to discuss with him, they withdrew from the immediate presence of Johnson’s wife, at which time he ( Johnson) was told that Nimley was going around campaigning for the appellant and that all aborigines were supporting the appellant. According to Johnson, Nimley told him that he, too, was supporting Fahnbulleh ninety-nine percent. When asked by Johnson who the leader was, Nimley said that they included Momolu Perry and Momolo Dukuly. He further said that he was employed at the Education Department and that Augustus Caine was also one of the supporters. Nimley LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 121 also told him that the activities of the movement would lead to a violent overthrow of the Government. According to Johnson, he told Nimley that he would have to think the matter over; however, on the following morning a young fellow came into his backyard and shot his son, which necessitated a trip to the hospital to have the bullet extracted. Being further concerned about the turn of events, Johnson then again sought Nimley and requested him to proceed with him to his home for a drink. However, during this conversation nothing materialized, for Nimley abruptly left. Subsequently, one Isaac T. Wisseh allegedly approached Johnson, and in a conversation with him confirmed what had been stated by Nimley. They thereupon got into a taxi-cab and went driving first to Gardnersville and thereafter on the Bomi Hills Highway. During the conversation Wisseh informed him that there were over four hundred young men supporting the movement and that they had had a meeting at Voinjama, the Capital of Loffa County. Lastly, Wisseh told him that the plan would materialize in the year Pro. In concluding, Johnson stated that after the conversation with Wisseh, he had been invited for drinks by certain folks. Not being accustomed to drinking alcohol, he was offered a bottle of Coca Cola, and he concluded by this statement: “After drinking this Coca Cola, I became ill, vomiting blood, and went to an herbalist who told me that there was something wrong with the Coca Cola that was offered me. I have seen the young men [sic] who offered me the Coca Cola even though I knew him as Wisseh.” There were two witnesses who deposed in favor of the defendant, himself and his wife. Upon taking the stand the appellant testified that he had never been disloyal to the country or the Administration. He contended that he had faithfully served the Government for many years, beginning with his service in the Department of State. 122 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS He subsequently proceeded to join the Foreign Service in 1957, and was assigned to the London Embassy as First Secretary. Appellant stated then that during this period of service at London he had been instrumental in bringing many new businesses into Liberia and these had included the Rediffusion Television Service and the Reuters News Agency. The former Ambassador also said that he had in a large measure contributed to the visit of the Queen of England to Liberia and the subsequent return visit of the President of Liberia to England. It was in consequence of these activities, he said, that the Government of Liberia had rewarded him by making him an Ambassador and assigning him to Sierra Leone. The appellant, in his testimony, mentioned further that the many services he had rendered the Government during his period of office in Sierra Leone had assisted in renewed confidence of the Government being reposed in him, overtly manifested by his transferral to East Africa and accreditation to three Governments thereat with residence in Nairobi. Mr. Fahnbulleh further testified that the testimony to the effect that he had been involved with opposition members in Kenya was completely incorrect, since it was his association with members of President Kenyatta’s Government while still in London at the Liberian Embassy that gave impetus to the State Department’s determination to accredit him to Kenya. With regard to Dr. MacKennon, the former Ambassador testified that he had met Dr. MacKennon for the first time in Sierra Leone while serving there. Their reunion in Nairobi had been purely accidental. When they met on the street Dr. MacKennon had mentioned to him that he had been unable to receive letters from relatives outside of Kenya. He then suggested that this failure had possibly been occasioned by the lack of adequate postal facilities. It was then that permission was by him granted to LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 123 Dr. MacKennon to use the Embassy Post Office box to receive mail from his family. The appellant vehemently denied that his making these facilities available was for the purpose of having the Embassy serve as a conduit for clandestine mail between Dr. MacKennon and N’Krumah, and that if he had known that this was what Dr. MacKennon was doing he would have immediately put a stop to it. On the subject of the many books that were found in his study at the Embassy in Nairobi and his home in Monrovia, he asserted that these constituted but a portion of the books that he owned and that he also had in his possession innumerable works by Western authors. Most of the materials on communism had been made available by the Chinese Ambassador at Nairobi upon request from him, to better enable him to compare conflicting political and economic ideologies. The Mao pin that had been found in his study, Fahnbulleh claimed, had been put there by him to eliminate any further confusion between his two children. He said that on a visit to the Chinese Embassy by his wife and children, two of these pins had been given the children but one had subsequently been lost, causing a confusion to ensue between the children. It was for this reason that the remaining pin had been taken and put into the study to avoid fighting between the little children. The pin, he contended, was never intended to serve as an indication of association with the Chinese Communist Party. On the question of the poem, “Awake, Captain,” the former Ambassador asserted that this poem had been composed by him while sitting at the Salisbury Airport in Rhodesia, waiting in transit. The poem, he contended, was his reflection upon the struggles of the Africans in Rhodesia and constituted a translation of his feelings into words. The former Ambassador vehemently argued that the poem bore no relation to things of, or concerning, Liberia. Thereafter, moving to the issue of the secret memo, he contended that this work had been the creation of C. Wel- 124 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS lington Campbell, in an endeavor by that individual to implicate him wrongfully. He held that Campbell had adroitly taken several documents and correspondence from his private files upon his arrest and had used these to manufacture the secret memo. Campbell had additionally used other files from the Security Office to add to the memo, but had not been “clever enough,” for he had previously exhibited the supposed memo to the President and Cabinet, and it was only subsequently when he, the appellant, had intimated to Senator William V. S. Tubman, Jr., while in prison, that the poem had been written in Salisbury Airport and left in the top drawer of his desk in Nairobi that Campbell (who had received this information by use of a tape-recording device placed in the cell of the appellant), proceeded to type the memo on to the back of the poem which was in appellant’s handwriting, to give the impression that it, too, had come from Nairobi with the poem. Lastly, the appellant admitted that he was in the process of writing a book about Liberia. He, however, contended that what he had up to that time done was but a compilation of excerpts from various authors who had previously written about Liberia. He strongly argued that the adverse comments were not personally his but constituted the thought of others that had been made in the literary world and he was in the process of collecting all sorts of literature preparatory to writing his own book. On cross-examination it was brought out that even portions which were allegedly the works of others contained pen interlineations that were in the handwriting of the appellant. This must have been given a substantial amount of credence by the jury. The last witness to testify for the defendant was the wife of the defendant. The major part of her testimony endeavored to discredit what had been said by Diggs in respect to the activities of her husband at Nairobi. She also stated that Nathaniel Baker and Oliver Bright had LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 125 been in her home, which was the Liberian Embassy at Nairobi, and conducted a search thereat at which time the “unfinished work” that was produced in court was obtained by them. Mrs. Fahnbulleh, in addition to the above, testified that she gave to Bright and Baker a valise to bring to her sister, since she felt that she, too, would have to be coming to Liberia in the near future. She, however, mentioned that she had left the valise open, giving the keys to Baker and Bright and informing them that they could search the valise if they desired. After the defense had rested, the trial judge, John Africanus Dennis, charged the jury, and thereafter sent them into their room to deliberate. The jury, after considering the facts, and the law applicable thereto as they had been apprised by the trial judge, returned a verdict of guilty. Thereupon, the defense filed two retrospective motions, one for a new trial, and the other in arrest of judgment. Both of these were denied by the trial court, predicated upon opposition filed thereto by the prosecution. Exceptions were taken to these rulings and appeal prayed for to this Court of final resort for a review of alleged errors committed by the trial judge during the conduct of the case in the court below. A bill of exceptions containing thirty-one counts was thereupon filed, and, thereafter, the other requirements for the perfection of an appeal having been complied with, jurisdiction attached and this Court has now been called upon to examine and pass upon the several assigned errors and thereafter make a final determination either in affirmation or reversal of the judgment of the lower court. We have now meticulously scrutinized the facts as presented to the jury in the trial of the case in the court below. Having done this, we shall concern ourselves with the application of existing law to these facts. In the first instance, we consider it proper at this time 126 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS to set forth a verbatim inclusion of the definition of treason in accordance with the laws of Liberia. It is pertinent to note at this time that criminal law constitutes a particular body of law that is peculiar to a particular country and is but the refined will of the people, which is enforced solely within the confines of that State and not by any other. A penal law is one that awards a penalty to the State for the violation of its mandate by one within its confines. The purpose must be, not reparation to one aggrieved, but vindication of the public justice. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 651 (1892). Our Penal Law, 1956 Code 27:50, defines treason : t`t. A person is guilty of treason who : “(a) Levies war against the Government of the Republic or against any territorial division thereof in an overt manner; or ” (b) Adheres to the enemies thereof, giving them aid, comfort or advice; or “(c) Betrays the Government or any division thereof into the power of the enemy; or “(d) Acts treacherously against, or commits any breach of allegiance to, the Government; or “(e) Commits any act, overt or otherwise, tending to overthrow the authority of the Government; or “(f) Carries on private warfare by hiring mercenaries, or stirring upt one tribe in the territory of this Republic to attack another, without a commission to do so based upon an act of the Legislature, or not acting by order of the President of the Republic in the public defense against some unprovoked attack; or “(g) Invites any tribe to commit acts of hostility against the Government or to disobey its orders. “2. The penalty for treason is death by hanging where death ensues from the acts of the offender; imprisonment for not more than twenty years, where no death ensues from the acts of the offender; and, in either case, confiscation of all real and personal property.” LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 127 The first issue which we have been called to pass upon has to do with obtaining the testimony of several persons who were included in the indictment as particeps criminis in respect to the alleged criminal acts of the then Ambassador of Liberia to Kenya. It is contended by the appellant that they requested the trial judge to issue and have subpoenas served upon five witnesses residing in Kenya to testify in behalf of the defendant. The trial judge, however, upon objection by the prosecution, denied issuance of the requested writs. Additionally, it was determined that letters rogatory, interrogatories, and cross-interrogatories be directed to the prospective deponents by virtue of the court’s lack of jurisdiction over their respective persons to compel their attendance at court. The appellant contends that letters rogatory were consequently prepared and filed, together with cross-interrogatories of the prosecution, with the clerk of court to be forwarded to Nairobi, Kenya. The clerk was ordered by the judge to send the said letters rogatory and the cross-interrogatories to His Excellency, the Secretary of State, to be forwarded by the Department of State to the named Commissioner at Nairobi, Kenya, for his attention. Appellant asserts that the above-named documents were never sent to Nairobi by the State Department and when this fact was brought to the attention of the judge he sent for the Secretary of State, who held that he had ordered those documents turned over to the Legal Section where its head, Hon. Herbert Brewer, discovered certain irregularities and sent the documents back to the Attorney General who made the, corrections in ink on the crossinterrogatories. These documents, appellant argues, were exhibited in court by the Secretary of State, evidencing that they had not been sent as directed, and this to the prejudice of appellant. A look at the record evidences that five interrogatories were prepared by appellant for transmission to Nairobi. Additionally, there were three cross-interrogatories filed 128 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS by the prosecution. These documents were shown in the record together with the amended application for the issuance of letters rogatory. However, the letters rogatory never issued out of the lower court. The assistant clerk of the trial court, upon directions of the judge, enclosed these in a letter to the Secretary of State requesting that the interrogatories be sent to a Judge Miller of the High Court of Nairobi for the purpose of obtaining statements of witnesses in this case. No letters rogatory issued out of the Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, to the High Court of Nairobi. Therefore, there was a vital missing link and the documents presented by the court to the Department of State could not be transmitted without the letters rogatory. Letters rogatory are defined as follows : “A request by one court of another court in an independent jurisdiction, that a witness be examined upon interrogatories sent with the request. Magdanz v. District Court in and for Woodbury County, 269 N.W. 499 (1936). The medium whereby one country speaking through one of its courts, requests another country, acting through its own courts and by methods of court procedure peculiar thereto and entirely within the latter’s control, to assist the administrators of justice in the former country. Tiedemann v. The Sign, et al., 37 Fed. Supp. 819, 820 (1941). The record transmitted to us is silent in respect to a request to this Court for the letters rogatory to issue after the request upon the amended application had not been complied with. Had there been a noncompliance with such a subsequent request, we feel that the proper step should have been an application in chambers to a Justice of this Court for the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus upon the trial judge to perform a ministerial duty by law imposed upon him. See definition of mandamus, Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6 :1210. Where the law makes available to a party litigant a ye- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 129 hicle for the protection of rights vouchsafed to him, and he refrains from availing himself of the maximum utilization of the machinery established for his use, he cannot then be heard to complain that a right reserved to him has been violated. The next issue concerned a question put to Oliver Bright by the prosecution on direct examination. The question contained the words, “Say whether or not you know the Post Office box of the Liberian Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya ; and if so look at this document marked by court Pit and say whether or not the P.O. box number appearing thereon is that of the Liberian Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.” Appellant objected to this question on the ground of being leading and instructive. In his brief, appellant has referred us to 70 C.J.S., Witnesses, �� 677, 678. We have carefully scrutinized the two sections and completely agree with the general proposition to the effect that leading questions on the direct examination of a witness who is probably friendly are improper and should be excluded. We feel, however, that section 678 (b) does not square with the proposition that any question which suggests an unequivocal answer of “yes” or “no” ipso facto constitutes that question a leading one. Quoting therefrom we find : it . . . . Merely mentioning or directing attention of the witness to the matter as to which information is desired, or the nature thereof, does not render the question leading as suggesting the answer, and this is true of a case where something of detail is included in the question in order to bring the matter to the attention of the witness.” A question which merely tends to elicit and not suggest testimony will generally be allowed.: The reason for the rule is that it is impossible to examine a witness without referring to, or suggesting, the subject upon which he is to answer. DeHaven, et al. v. DeHaven, et al. 77 Ind. 236 (t881). There being literally millions of Post Of- 130 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS fice boxes in the world, and innumerable amounts of cities that had post boxes under rental by millions of persons, the question is legally allowable, for the detail therein included is essential to the sensibleness of the query posed. In the circumstances, the particular question cannot be said to be leading and instructive but, instead, is possessed of a tendency to elicit information. Count four of the brief, which had been preserved for appellate review by count five of the bill of exceptions, contended that the opening question to Lafayette Diggs by the prosecution, whose witness he was, constituted a leading question. A look at the question shows that it contains only matters that had been specifically laid in the indictment and constituted a recital of portions of the charge. Therefore, we, too, are of the opinion that the particular question did not constitute a leading question. Turning to count seven of the bill of exceptions, it is contended by the appellant that the trial judge erred in sustaining an objection of the appellee to a query propounded to Diggs on cross-examination. The witness was asked whether, as a matter of fact, Ambassador Fahnbulleh had gone to Conakry, Guinea, after leaving Nairobi, Kenya. The objection interposed was predicated upon the legal proposition that the best evidence for establishing whether the Ambassador visited Conakry was the Ambassador himself and not the witness. In our view the best evidence rule obtains here, and the best evidence for establishing whether the Conakry trip was made was the individual who was supposed to have been there. Our Civil Procedure Law says : “The best evi- � dence which the case admits of must always be produced ; that is, no evidence is sufficient which supposes the existence of better evidence.” 1956 Code 6:685. Appellant further objected to the admission into evidence of sundry documents offered by the prosecution. In point of fact, there were ninety-one pieces of evidence which defendant in the court below objected to for some reason or other. The types of evidence with which we LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 131 are confronted here are of two distinct categories. The first is demonstrative evidence and the second is documentary evidence. On demonstrative evidence, the following has been said : “Proof which is addressed directly to senses, generally characterized as real or demonstrative evidence, while comprising a comparatively small portion of the evidence ordinarily produced in the trial of a case, is a most convincing and satisfactory class of proof, and its importance in the determination of controversies is relatively great. Testimony of this character includes objects brought into the court and exhibited to the court and jury, such as the instruments and devices used in the commission of a crime, the exhibition of the person as well as objects, the use of maps, plats, and diagrams concerning some fact in issue, the use of photographs, moving pictures, and X-ray pictures, and the conducting of experiments and tests either in or out of court.” 20 AM. JUR., Evidence, � 716. Continuing the issue of admissibility of demonstrative evidence, paying particular attention to criminal prosecutions, the law writers have given us the following as a guideline : “The right to introduce and exhibit to the jury articles or objects to which testimony relates or which tend to elucidate or explain issues in a case exists to the same extent in criminal prosecution as in civil cases. Whenever in such cases it is necessary to show the condition or quality of a certain article or substance, the thing itself is the most powerful evidence that can be produced ; and it may be introduced in evidence as supplementing the testimony of the witnesses or as direct evidence when properly identified. Any article found at or near the scene of a crime, which belongs to the defendant, is admissible in evidence. If � � � 20 AM. JUR., Evidence, � 718. From the above-quoted provisions of the law it is read- 132 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS ily seen that real or demonstrative evidence forms an essential part of the evidence that goes before the jury for a determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore, this particular specie of evidence constituted both competent and relevant evidence. The appellant has relied upon Yancy et al. v. Republic of Liberia, decided during the March 1967 Term, as a basis for excluding articles that constituted demonstrative evidence. In this regard, we must assert that there exists a wide and distinct difference, for in Yancy the guns and ammunition that were admitted into evidence bore no relevance to the killing of Gabriel Diggs, which had not been committed by the use of firearms. Whereas, in the case at bar, the books and other articles that were offered and subsequently introduced into evidence were relevant to the proof of guilt of treason by covert means or otherwise. In the premises, their admission into evidence was in keeping with law. On the question of the documents offered into evidence over the objection of the appellant, the Court has the following to say. The anonymous letters were improperly . identified to allow admission into evidence. Their admission, however, does not constitute reversible error or errors of the magnitude that would permit of a reversal of the lower court’s judgment. On the question of the poem, “Awake, Captain,” and the secret memo found on the opposite side thereof, the defendant during the trial admitted authorship of the poem. Therefore, its admission into evidence could not be denied. What constitutes sufficient authentication of documentary evidence is always a matter of discretion with the trial court. Londgre v. Union Indem Co., 52 A.L.R. 580. It is to be noted in this connection that an instrument purporting to be that of a defendant must be received in evidence unless the execution thereof is denied by him under oath. Pollak v. Brush Electric Assoc., 128 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 133 U.S. 446 (1888) . As regards the case under review, while under oath the defendant admitted authorship of the poem. In respect to the secret memo, it has been said by law writers that the proof of authenticity required preliminary to the introduction of an instrument in evidence need not be direct proof. Authenticity of documentary evidence may be shown, so as to render it admissible in evidence, by indirect or circumstantial evidence, that is, by facts and circumstances from which the jury may infer the execution of the documents. 20 AM. JUR., Evidence, � 93 0. Continuing, it is held, and the authorities generally concede, that under proper facts and circumstances the authenticity or genuineness of a letter may be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence, without resort to proof of handwriting. Dunbar v. U.S., [1895] USSC 27; 156 U.S. 185 (1895). The authorship of a writing may be proved by the character of spelling or style of composition, and the proof of such peculiarities may be made in any way that is appropriate in other cases. Stitzeld v. Miller, 95 N.E. 53. In counts 19 and 20 of appellant’s brief, it is strongly urged that the judge, in portions of his charge to the jury, committed prejudicial error by quoting matter out of context which definitely had a tendency to influence the jury against him. In count twenty, specific reference was made by appellant to that portion of the judge’s charge which appellant felt was most prejudicial. We shall quote specifically from that portion of the charge. It reads: “Finally, I charge you that the allegations laid in the indictment have been testified to by witnesses for the prosecution, as well as the essential elements of the crime of treason. The defense of the defendant as contained in his testimony has not been corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses to entitle him un- 134 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS der the law quoted herein to an acquittal, but conviction.” This particular act of the trial judge was patently erroneous, for this is a criminal and not a civil suit. It is nevertheless by us regretted that we are unable to pass upon this particular point to give it its proper legal effect, for the defendant in the court below did not properly avail himself of the statute, which reads : “At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time during the trial as the court reasonably directs, any party may file a written request that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the request. The court shall instruct the jury after the arguments are completed. No party shall assign as error any portion of the charge or omission, unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects [emphasis supplied] and the grounds of his objections. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.” Criminal Procedure Law, 1956 Code 8 :267. In the instant case, the record reveals that only general exceptions were taken to the charge to the jury. This was insufficient to constitute a proper exception to which judicial cognizance could be given by way of preservation of the particular point for appellate review. The last major point in the bill of exceptions that we are called upon to deal with has to do with the contention of appellant that there existed a variance between the indictment and the proof adduced at the trial. For treason was the charge, while the State proceeded to prove sedition against the defendant. Our Criminal Procedure Law, 1956 Code 8:310 provides, “A motion in arrest of judgment based on failure of the indictment to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense may be made before the rendition LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 135 of final judgment, whether or not a defense or objection on such ground was previously raised.” The pivotal issue here is concerned with whether the indictment charges an offense under the law. A look at subsections “d” and “e” of section so of our Penal Law clearly shows that any act tending to overthrow the authority of the Government or any act of treachery against, or commission of, a breach of allegiance to the Government constitutes treason. Now, the mere fact that sedition may also be committed by subverting or overthrowing constituted governmental authority does not detract from having similar acts constitute treason. The cause of action predicated upon the particular theory of the case is left with those who draw the indictment, so long as the essential averments constituting the particular crime are included in the gravamen of the offense. In view of these facts the opposition to the motion in arrest of judgment was properly sustained. The Republic of Liberia charged the defendant with the commission of the crime of treason. Subsequent to the returning of a true bill by the grand jury, an indictment was drawn, and based thereon his body was subjected to arrest. A regular trial jury drawn from the vicinity found the defendant guilty of the offense charged. We have carefully reviewed all of the evidence and applicable laws and are unable to accept the thesis that prejudicial error was committed in the lower court to allow us in accordance with the laws of this Republic to effect a reversal of the judgment of the lower court, which confirmed the verdict of the jury. In the circumstances, we must conclude by affirming the judgment of the lower court. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed.