The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1881-11-06
ARE THEY FRAUDS?
Robert c. Ingersoll Brings His Intro
ductory Argument to q Close.
Chandler Opens in Defense Of Brady
in the Star Route Cases.

Washington. Nov. 5.-Ingersoll con-
tinued his argument In the star route
cases this morning. He contended that
the charge of conspiracy was absurd.
He contended that some of the acts
done by Brady in his official capacity,
were absolutely lawful in themselves
and within bis discretion. The unlsw-
full acts done by him must, therefore,
be particularly set out or the informa-
tion must fail. He criticised the affi-
davits on which the information was
based, and showed they were hearsay,
and were not such evidence as could
60 before q grand jury or petit jury.
In this case ignorance and malice had
united, and honest ignorance had done
the swearing. Laughter.) The ques-
tion is. will this court abandon the
practice of 100 years, or will it say to
all persons wishing to indict others for
offenses of this gravity, ''you must go
before the grand jury?" That is the
question. state that the law is that
this court has no Jurisdiction over this
offense until an Indictment has been
presented. 1 state that even il the
court has jurisdiction, there must be
probable cause" There must be an
affidavit by some man who knows and
states facts. state that the practice
of allowing men to be arrested without
oath and affirmation is simply infamous,
and that any judge Of the United States
who does it, ought TO be impeached.
Another thing that I insist upon is,
that the indictment itself must be
reasonable and not contradictory, and
that the pleader must set forth the
facts.
JEFF Chandler, of the counsel for
Brady, addressed the court. He said:
'If section $40 were to be construed
alone, it was too uncertain to be en-
forced as criminal statute. The con-
spiracy alleged in this case did not
contain elements out of which con-
spiracy could be constructed. All the
acts complained of could have been
done as well by Brady alone as with
others, and If done by Brady alone
would not have teen indictable. Con-
gress had given Brady discretion, anG
had given to this court no authority
to review his action. If Brady could
be brought here and held to explain
everything that he had done, and be
consigned to prison, then, Of course,
the postmaster general could also be
brought in and bc compelled to give an
explanation of his action, because it
was claimed that Brady had done q
heinous wrong. BY virtue of finding
himself in the power Of the postmas-
ter general, 1t was excused by the au-
thority which had been reposed in the
postmaster general, and which was al
legged to have been abused. An alleged
abuse in the discretion of high execu-
tive officer could not, he contended, be
tried by the courts. To subject a su-
perior officer of the government, upon
whose uninterrupted presence at the
helm the safely of the state depended,
to indictments for misconduct in office,
would be injurious to the body polite,
and consequently in such cases i'm
parchment was the sole instrument of
revision. The defense held that an
executive officer could not be subject
to the jurisdiction Of the court for an
abuse Of the discretion given him by
congress-"
Adjourned.