New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-04
THE STAR ROUTE CASES.

WITH THE GRAND JURY-OTHER POINTS RAISED
MIR. INGERsoLL STATES HIS POSITION AND
RAISES A LAUGH.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3.-Argument on the
motion to set aside the criminal MISUNDERSTANDING the
place OF an indctmentin the Star Route cases was be-
gun this morning before Judge Walter s. Cox IN tho
supreme Court Of the District, holding criminal
The Government was represented by DistrctAttorney
Corkhi and by Messrs Brewster of Philadelphia Bliss
of York and Cook, of Washington, and the defence
by Messrs Totten wilson sheabarger Robert g. Inger
soil, Sypher ex-Represenative from Louisiana. and
Jefferson Chandler, of St. Louis. The argument
opened by Jeremiah NJ Wilson, He recited the step al
ready taken in the case, and said authority
could be found in any statute for filing criminal
information II it could be fled at ALL he said,
it could only be fled because Of its being
authorized by the common law. The proposition
to ignore the Grand Jury in important as this
must have been great surprise 30 the Court as IL
ainly and continued to be- to the entire profession
outside of the circle of learned attorneys the part OF
tine Government. II has always been regarded
tra0rdinary remedy in England, and extraordinary
that the Court always Except in the OF that monu
of wrong and oppression the Court Of Star Cham
ber regarded and treated 1t with dsfavor While II had
been recognized instrumentaty, It had been known
the representative Of arbitrary irresponsible powera
weapon OF offence In the hands OF monarch against the
people, when the will OF the monarch was everything
and the rights OF the people nothing. II had been
years of national life In this country there had not
been single instance Of attempt TO resort to that
proceeding the prosecution OF great crime There
had been In this country a prosecution by infor
nation except in the Of minor offences such yio
ations Of the revenue laws where that mole of pro-
ceedng has been expressly authorized by statute.
THE GRAND JURY THE RECOGNIZED. AU THoRITY.
The Grand Jury, he contended, was the only recog
nized authority for the prosecution Of persons for crime;
but If this proceeding should prevail, grand juries
might as well dispensed with But If the prosecution
relied the common law, then they must DC bound Dy
s rule4 they would live by the sword they might
perish by the sword. At common law the Attorney
General, representing the Crown, might file an nforma-
ton in the Court Of Kings Bench at his own discretion
and his own responsibility. The Attorney General
need not ask leave Of the Court 1t the Kings own
Court and he the representative OF the King The
Court would not grant him leave If asked it, No oath
was necessary for such information aud no wit
nesses No would pretend that such proceeding
that could prevail in this country. The fourth article
OF the amendment Of the Constitution had made that
impossible That article read "The right OF the peo
pie to be in their PERSONS houses papers, aud
effects against irresponsible search and seizure shall not
be violated; and warrant shall issue but ON prob
able cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the person or things be seized" Since that amend
ment OF the Constitution Atorney-General, Dis
trctAttorney, Assistant DistrctAttorney, no COM
bnation of lawyers anybody, could on his own dis
cretOn and responsibility present TO this or any other
court Of this country information There must DO
accompanying IL oath affirmation, and that oath OF
Affirmation must be sufficient ) show probable cause,
but In this case the Court was asked to allow this In
formation to be filed and warrants TO he issued on tho
aidavits of Mr. James, the POsmasterGcneral and M.
r. Henry Woodward He read those atitavits to the
Court and argued that not single fact was sworn to In
them. There was nothing in them but information
t,fg.F min IN
but hcarsay in them He had never he said heard OF
anybody being indicted simply on belief That was no
evidence which the Court would allow to go before
grand jury before tIial jury 1t might be sufficient
to base newspaper indictment upon, but 1t would nos
be allowed in TOmbs Police Court.
NOTHING BUT THE BALDEsT HEARsAY.
He asked the Court read those aiiiavits and 70
state what there was them which not the badess
hearsay; whether there anything in them which
would warrant either grand jury in finding an indict-
ment or the Court sitting as the grand inquest
Of one, in allowing an information to
be filed. He proceeded TO crttcise the
information for its verbage, contending that adverbs
did not constitute and characterizng the per-
sons who the information as the champion go-as'
youplease adverb and adjective singers"
Atnoon recess was taken for twenty minutes. After
the recess Mr. Wi son continued his argument He
tended that under the common law the proceedings
should be prompt and that there should be no delay
III
TO be offered According 10 one Of the counts In
the information the conspiracy formed 1877 and
according TO two others in October, 1873, the overs
acts were laid far back october 1873, ana some
prior to that time 1t was matter or puDnc history
that as much as two years ago Congress had eaboratey
investigated this identical matter and had appropriated
money to carry out this very contract which IL was sd
WAS so very corrupt The facts had been notorious for
more than two years. What excuse was gwen Tor tho
delayi None whatever. True the Court was asked 70
allow an information to be flied, because three
wears had about elapsed, which, the prosecution
said would work Il bar under the statute OF
limitations That was no excuse; 1t was the
fault of the prosecution that they had delayed.
A long ago as June last in this very Court the defence
had asked for action in these cases but the GOVernehs
had refused to act The prosecution had avoided tho
Grand Jury. Why Because If they had gone peioro
the Grand Jury the documents and papers that MI.
James spoke OF would have had to be produced Mr.
Jamess sayso their contents would not nave Teen
occented nor would his statements what had been
told him by somebody been received They had kept away
from the Grand Jury because 1t was necessary 10 sup
re,s the truth In the matter order 10 get etandngn In
this Court.
SUPPRESSION OF TRUTH CHARGED.
There had been the grayest Misrepresentation In tnh
case, and the grossest suppression Of the truth.
Mr. Rliss here nterposed stating taat be did not de-
sire by his silence be estopped from oheeng to the
defence doing anything in the nature of dehurreS "
the information la form OF in fact.
Mr. Wilson replied that his friend would not BE- con'
sidered as waving anything Nothing had been pre-
sented in the nature demurrer 1t was not that IL
Was question entirely above and beyond and back @
that IL was a question whether the prosecution had
come here IN such way to ertitle them 10 the con-
alteration of and TO entte them to HE an ins
formation The defence was showing cause. His friend
Bssl said TO the Court 81 Let me fle that paper" Hs
fWilson) said, DO not allow him.
WHIT Because the truth wasnot tolc in that paper.
The defence was not demurring or plesdng to ths
paper; they showing It's iniquy The prosecution
relied upon the law, but the common law sao
tha; the prosecution must have clean hands Let tnem
wash their hands, not :" with invisible soap In imper