The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-11-04
THE STAR REUTERS.
THE OPENING OF THE ARGUMENTS.
The Day SpsAt in WIndy EIOqusnes-Ths Pleas Of
the DsfsnSs-BOb IuEsr'Oll'E VII IIsItss
the RIsIblSs Of the COurt-An AdJOura.
mSRt Taken uatll To-Day


Corkhill, Messrs. Brewster, of Philadel-
phia, Bliss, OF New York and Cook, oil
Washington, and the defense by Messrs,
Totten, Wilson, shelIabcrgeF, Robert G,
Ingersoll, sypher and Jefferson Chandler
OF st, Louis.
The argument was opened by Jeremiah
NJ. Wilson. He recited the steps already
taken in the case, and said there could be
no authority found in any statute for filing
criminal information, lie challenged the
counsel on the other side to point to any
such statute. 1t it could be filed ut all, It
could emily be filed because OF its being a,l-
thorized by the common law. There had
never been in this country prosecution
by information, except in Cases OF minor
otIenses, such as violations OF tho revenue
laws, where that mode OF proceedings has
been expressly authorized by statute. The
grand jury was the only recognized MI.
thOrity for the prosecution Of parties for
crime, but II these proceedings should pre-
vail the grand jury might as well be dis
pensed with In the future, but II the prose-
CutiOn relied on the common law then
they must be bound by It's rules.
In this case the court was asked TO allow
this information TO be filed and warrants
issued on the afIidavils OF the Postmaster
Genera and Woodward. lie read those
alIidavits and argued that not single fact
was sworn to in them. There was nothing
in them but information and belief from
beginning to end. There was nothing but
hearsay In them, and he had never heard
Of any body being indicted simply OH be.
lief.
Mr. Wilson proceeded to criticise the
information for lis verbiage, contending
that adverbs did not constitute case,
and characterized the gentlemen who
drew upthe information the echampiongo.as-
you-please adverb and adjective slingcrs. 1t
was a matter OF public history that as much
as two years ago Congress Glaborately in.
vestigated this identical matter, and apprO.
priated money 10 carry out this very con-
tract which, It was said, was SO very cor.
rupt. The facts have been notorious for
more than two years, and what excuse Is
given for the delayP None whatever. True,
the court was asked 10 allow the infOrma.
tion to be filed because three years had
about elapsed, which, the prosecution said,
would work ut the bur under the statute OF
limitations. That was no excuse. II was
the fault OF the prosecution that they had
delayed. As long ago MS June lust, In this
court, the defense asked for action In these
cases, but the government refused to act.
The prosecution avoided the Grand Jury,
Why? Because II they had gone before
the Grand Jury, the documents and papers
James spoke OF would have to bc produced.
james "say.so" rs to their contents would
not have been accepted, nor his statement
as 10 what has been told him by somebody
received. They kept away from the Grand
Jury because II wAs necessary to suppress
the truth,in-the matter in order to got q
standing In this court. There has been the
grossest Misrepresentation In thisca and
the grossest suppression Of the truth.
lie then proceeded to argue that II the
law called upon m executive officer TO
make decision, the law which required
him to do SO projected him in his decision,
and he contended that the judicial branch
Of the Government could not In sucha case
infringe upon the executive. The pr0seCu'
ton said that the law gave General Brady
authority TO make decision, but that he
did 1t corruptly. Any inquiry as to that
should not be conducted In this court, but
in another tribunal-the High Court Of
Impeachment. II the contrary were main.
tanned, the prosecution could come In with
information and arraign tho Legislative
branch OF the Government Tor the votes
given in the discharge of official duties.
They could arraign every member who
voted for the appropriation out OF which
the contract complained OF was paid.
The Government had three coordinate
branches, each the equal ofand independent
OF others, and this court had no more right
to try an executive officer, or Senator or
Representative for acts done by them IN
the discharge OF their official duties than II
had to try the Chief Justice Of this dlstln-
guislled court. II wasprepo yerous to say
that some man through malice, or on nc.
count OF public clamor, could come and
file information in this court against the
President Of the United States, charging
him with corruption In the discharge Of the
duties devOlving upon him.
III you can do this, y lie said-addressing
directly Judge Cox, "yoti can do TINT; II
you allow this, and some man comes in
and offers you that, YOU cannot deny II.
He then proceeded to enunCiate mother
proposition, which he regarded rs fatal to
the prosecution; namely, thAt In order to
constitute an oiTensc ngainst the United
States, under the revised statutes, the fraud
conspired 10 bo performed must be such an
one as has been defined by the statutes
and made Crime-ln other words, the
conspiracy must be 10. do TINT which, II
done BY any one, would be u crime defined
by the statutes. Suppose, for the. sake Of
argument, that the accused had unlawfully
expedited the Star route, and increased the
service thereon, was that an oIEenceagain
the United States7 No. No statute had
said 40. Suppose that the accused did
everything Just as they were charged to
have done had any statute stated that II
was iraul2 Therefore this case did not
come within the provision OF section b,440.
He then proceeded 10 criticize and
ridicule the various Counts In the
information, denying that the prosecution
had shown any offence which had been
defined rs sucll by the statutes The last
reason which he presented In support Of the
lIlUtlUu W Iutnll Wus JOlloulutlSllhi Oltt.
Under the constitution no person could
I've held 10 answer for any capital or other
infamous crime, except upon tile present
ment or indictment by the grand jury, lie
argued that the crime here charged was
infamous, and that therefore II could not
be prosecuted by information. lie quoted
number OF authorities In support Of Ills
proposition, and called attention to the
fact that Section l04g, Revised Statutes,
gave the Police Court the exclusive jufis.
iiction over all crimes and tnisdemeahors
not infamous, thus implicitly defining all
crime punishable by Imprisonment In the
penitentiary, as infamous, In concluding
his Argument, Mr.. Wilson said: II know
that your Honor appreciatesthe Importance
Of The question presented by this proceed.
ing. ftisnot thea accused alone whoafe inter
ested In their rights and interests, All the
II tatts,ls.nl Ia. Il