National Republican., 1881-11-07

which l do not conscientiously believe well
10, i,ouIued; nave not sought and do not seek, and
40 not mean TO allow myself TO seek, in tho fur-
!ner progress of this case. to do anything except
luStce 10 the Government; Justice to the accused
9usuce 70 the profession TO which / belong, aud
Mr.. n. @. Inge,soII's Argument.
May IL please the Court l call the atten-
ton OF Your Honor first to the question Of proba-
pie causei and In the examination Of that qucs-
ton not only have the right, but must neces-
sarily inquire as to what is charged In the inform
alton ITSELF because the court will remember that
the charges In the information were made partof
the ailidavlts and these afidavlts. together with
the Information, are all the evidence Of probable
cause In this case. do not examine the informa-
ton Tor the purpose OF demurring TO It, for the
purpose OF moving 10 quash either ono or all OF
the counts, but simply for the purpose Of showing
now much 1t amounts to as evidence ns TO proba-
bic cause In this case and want II distinctly un
derstood that that Is the only reason for which l
examine IL Mt nll.
how MUCH DOES 1T PRovE3
Whit Is here charged2 And when / say what does
1t prove. mean what does 1t provo against my
clientH appear for Mr.. Brown, one of the defend
ants, consequently 1 shall examine this informa-
ton for tho purpose Of finding what is charged
ngainst my client This appears to have been pre-
sented to this Court not by the Attorney General
and may say that In my Judgment the Attorney
General has no standing in this court-at least we
have not borrowed that from the common law.
There Is here the District Attorney, who hps a
statutory duty to perform, aud everything that he
ms right to do you can find in the statute. This
is presented by the District Attorney, in partner.
ship with certain other persons, aud l somewhat
doubt whether the District Attorney has II right to
divide the responsibility. When tho law places
the duty upon him. If he has the right to file this
Information ut all II Is upon his own Judgment,
and
UPON NO DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY.
We find, then. that 1t is filed by the District Attor-
ney, In partnership with certain others. But,
waiving that, what does II say2 l direct your at
tention to the first count This charges that, in the
first place, certain duties devolye upon the Post
master r-Genoral-I admit they correctly stated
certain others upon the Second Assistant aud Third
Assistant Postmasters-Gencr and certain other
duties upon certain clerks, all Of which, presume,
are In accordance with law. That part will omit
iead first from tho flllh page Of this information
in the first count that OH the first day of October,
in the year of our Lord 1875 at the city of Wash
ington In the County Of Washington, in the Dis
trict Of Columbia, within the jurisdiction of this
court, the said Thomas j. Brady, who
Is DESCRIBED IN THIS INFORMATION
as Second Assistant Postmaster General; John l..
French and William II. Turner both of whom are
described rs officers In the Post Office Depart
ment, together with George H. MaeDonough, who
will appear hereafter as n contractor, and Samuel
p. Brown, and certain other persons to the attor-
ney aforesaid and to the said special attorney un
known, knowingly. willfully, fraudulently and
corruptly did conspire, combine, confederate, and
agree together between and amongst themselves to
dciraud the United States Of America out of large
sums OF money In amount to the attorney afore-
SAID unknown and TO the said special attorney,
by unlawmlly, willfully, fraudulcntly and cor
ruptly and from wicked and corrupt motives and
through wicked and corrupt influence and means
causing and procuring unnecessary I'm roper and
{, esXtrayngant additional COMPENSATE. be paid
by the United States of America for additional
services IN carrying the mails on certain route
THE FIRST OBJECTION
l make to this is that II Is left to them to soy
what is unnecessary. That Is q question first
To be decided by the Post. Office Department as
to whether 1t Is necessary to carry mails upon
certain route once week CT seven times per
week. whether II is necessary or proper ~ travel
Ihat Is question that is to bo settled not by the
district attorney, not by the person who drew this
information, but 1t is to be settled at the Depart
ment; ana, IL corruptly done, II Is then for the
court to say whether IL was unnecessary, provided
the court has Jurisdiction. II is not forthc peader
TO say unnecessary and improper" He must set
forth the circumstances, aud this court must be
allowed to Judge whether, from those circum-
stances IL was or was not necessary. This court Is
to be allowed the privilege of deciding whether or
not inc Steps taken were improper and 1t Is not for
the pleader.
HE MUST SET FORTH
the facts he must set forth accurately
the circumstances under which tho thing was
done; he must not only charge that II was unlawful
but must shOt0 that II was unlawful by proving what
was actually done. IL is not for the pleader TO saw
that Il was extrayaganti he must set forth the cir
cumstances, so that the court may be allowed to
whether II was eXtravagnnt. A remark
was made which throws some light upon what
they deem cNtravagant. It was remarked that the
received A
tain route by the United States was a mere bagn-
telle Is that The only evidence Of extravaganza?
Has the United states no reason for CARRYING the
mails except Simply rs n means Of profit? Or do
the people of the United States regard the carry
ing OF the mails as one of the great instrumental
Ties OF ClYlliZatonY Do we not carry the mails of
many States from which we do not receive half
enough money TO pay the expenses2 And
WILL 1T BE SAID
that II Is extrayagant to carry the mails once
II week, or once day, IL may be, in the case of
some settlement In the Rocky Mountains or In the
Sicrrns, simply because there nre not letters
enough IL the bags to pay the expenses? Is that
Of the United States have n right to have letters
brought to their homes; claim that the miners,
who have since lsi9 added to the wealth of this
world over S2i00,O0O,0O0, have as much right to
receive mail once week as my friend from New
York has to have four distributions per day.
That Is my doctrine. That shows that there is a
AS To WHAT ExTRAvAoANCE IL.
Consequently Ii shows that there Is a difference
of opinion as to what extravaganza is and have
made these remarks simply to show that 1t is not
for the plendcr to say extravaganza"
unless he sets forth the facts so that Your Honor
may Judge whether there Is extravaganza or not
The count then goes on to say that on the LIST day
OF October, In the year 1873, George L. McDpnough
made certain contract, aud that the contract was
ldntm IL Is alleged hero that the
CONTRACT WAS LAWFUL;
that he was bound by n certnn contract which
had Heretofore been duly and lawfully made,
then there gllbsiginn N ltll
force 10 carry the mails on this very route; that
on the Isl day Of october, in the year of our Lord
1873, the said Thomas ]. Brady had the lawful
right and authority TO order aud direct that the
mail service upon said route, No 40 l0i, should be
increased by increasing the number OF trips per
week" Aud right there IL may be we'll enough
for mo TO speak Of the Coleman case. 1t is stated
here that the said Thomas J. Brady
HAD THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY
to expedite this route, and that ho had the lawful
to increase the compensation so that this
Is charge that he did n lawful act unlawfully;
that Ia, for mn unlawful purpose that he exceeded
his power, abused his discretion, or, rather, that
nnd the question arises Is II necessary for them to
point ont the unlawful means that he used TO
point out the unlawful acts that no tins dld2 Now,
In the Coleman case II decided that it must be
set forth h0ig the man was IN use the paper, what
unlawful tllns he was 10 do, and by Whdt means
So insist that In this first count they should not
Dnly set out what this man did In a general way,
but they should tell
HOW HE DID IT.
It Is not sufficient TO say that he knew that the
public good did not demand IL. How do Won
know he knew that2 How was II possible for the
pleader To be In tho brain of tho Second Assistant
Postmaster. General2 Tho pleader says That Ihe
Second A'si tant did this knowing thar II was uos
for the public good. How does tho plcader know
Ihat2 He must set forth the hpctS so that this
court can Judge and then, II sworn 10, It becomes
4 part Of the testimony, ana us slch tho probable
cause. This route was expedited on the lst day OF
October 1878, TO seven times week, and /! is
charged here TINT that was all wrong, Improper
extravagance; but the plcadcr gives none of the
ficts. THAT on the LIST day of October, Thomas j.
eral,