National Republican., 1881-11-07

ought to do what he has already conSoired 10 do.
ana the next hard work he undertakes with Brady
~ the former conspiracy; and not only my client
does this, but McDonOugh himself The second
s0rnev oT 'n@GSs Rrpgy tns III pursuance Of he con-
McDonough falling contractor and therenpon
awaried the finishing Of the contract for carrying
the mails on this route to Kirk and Gleason who
were The suretcs OF McDonough and that nlter-
wart he declared Kirk and Gleason to be falling
contractors and would not allow them TO finish
tue contract; aud that then. in pursuance of the
same conspiracy, the contract was awarded to
Nnsh. Aud hero let me remark that, in my
r,digmen, lhey have put two onenses I'm the same
Information, simply because, ms they declare, they
happened In reference to the same route, No.
d1l0l 1t Is perfectly consistent to say that Brady,
Turner, French, McDonnugh. and Brown con.
splrcd To give contract to McDonough conspired
To increase that contracts conspired TO expedite IL
and TO increase IL beyond what they had right to
Then 1t would be perfectly consistent to say that
SMiepWaId bmdy Turner frenoh and Walsh con;
give IL TO walsh; but insist that
IT Is ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT
to say that McDonough conspired to get a contract
inr himself aud then cousprcd to have himself
declared q falling contractor-absolutely absurd.
spired To get contrict for McDonough, as he was
20 receive from $1,000 to $4,000 according to what
Is charged here. but y is absolutely inconsistent
70 say that he conspircd to have that contract
taken from McDonough. That, in my judgment,
is the trouble not only with the 1rst aud second,
have been united which are Inconsistent as 10
some PERSONS or Mt least as to one The 1rst count
Is inconsistent as to McDonough and Brown; the
scconu Is the same, and the third the same. The
first charge in the first count Is consistent as ia
brown and McDonough, but the second, that they
eonspired against themselves is Inconsistent
NOW, so Tar ns am concerned, l know of no law
TO prohibit man from conspiring against him.
SELF There may be such statute, butt ifso
HAVE NEVER HEARD oP IT.
Afler stating that we conspired TO take the con.
nj nd fhal tpa nj roA
10 prevent our suretics from fulfilling IL, the nexi
charge Is that Brady collected money from con.
TO be the main charge In this case, and presume
u is brought in simply to prejudice the case
inrely we are not upon trial for having raised
neil because II Is charged that we have consplred
TO deiraud the United States, not that we have
been endeayoring to corrupt the Legislative De-
that that might Just as well have been len out
There Is no pariicularproprietyi in one department
prlety in putting In an information Of this kind
general charge that money was raised 10 cor.
runt Congress, II has nothing TO do with tho
matter, ana 1t had much better have been left out
IN THIS SECOND COUNT
not another word Is said about Mr. Brown. Now.
when we come to boil down what Is said about
him II amounts to this that Brown used his in.
huence with Brady In favor of McDonough Brady
had already agreed to do this thing, according "a
The second count, one year before. According "a
this second count this conspiracy was entered into
spiracy consisted in the fact that they agreed to-
gether! Consequently, after Brady had agreed
with McDonough .MoDonough went, one year
nnerward, and employed Brown so that he might
influence Brady to carry out the econspiracy Your
Honor must recolect that Brown himself had
Spnspired i, ore year before he was CO. con-
Brady IN spite Of the fact that Brady had conspred
with MoDonough,. In spite of the fact that Brown
declared McDonough to be a failing contractor,
declared his sureties falling contractors took the
contract from him and from them
AND LET 1T TO ANorHERi
That was the result of that Conspiracy" That
was the result Of Browns Influence" with
Brady II eliminated at that time and in that
way, There Is no allegation that Brown ever
was interested, directly or indirectly, in the con-
tract given to Walsh; there is not the slightest In
aal that o1 he did HDyaRg Or aqw 4
charge that Brown made, or intended to make
any corrupt use Of money that he received; there
Brady, no change that he was TO give one dollar to
French or To Turner not one not the slightest in
Iimation. not a suspicion. that he was to divide
money to corrupt Brady. That would of itself
have been entirely inconsistent with the charge
that Brady had already conspired.
WHAT, THEN, DID DROWN DOT
IIo simply used papers designed to "corrupt the
Second Assistant Postmaster General" What
paners2 The pleader does not have the kndness
o Inform US. We're they papers designed to cor
-upt an officer Of the Government? That is what
he pleader says. What does the Court say? Moth
ng because the Court has never those papers.
hat 1t conveys no Information with regard to what
hose papers were. This, believe, is all there Is
N the second count. don't know but am vast
waste a little upon the third, because understood
Colonel Bliss 10 substantially admit that tho Sec
Mr. Cook-Aiow me to say, lest YOU should be
nisled that 1t is expected that It will appear that
zach of the counts is good, Colonel Bliss simply
hose counts. from your keen criticism, would be
eff to others.
Mr. Ingersoll--Ahl then, as I understand 1t.
Colonel Bliss fathered the first count, and TO the
rest, he disclaimed being relative.
Mr.. Cook-But they will have father.
IS charged that Brady, Brown and others con.
,pircd to defnud the United States of some $780,
100. and by divers false representations and
unjust and dishonest gain and lucre In connection
with carrying theUnited States mails, from the 1si
lay Of 8SoS iS e the S9h Of - & on
iDtil we arrive ut page 39 and then Il Is charged
hat ON the LIST day OF October, 1878,
IN PURSUANCE or THIS CONSPIRACY,
Brown placed himself in communication with
Brady and had an interview and consultation with
hm in relation 10 the Increase of service and ex-
pedition and of pay and compensation 20 Nc
Donough for carrying the mail on route 40l0l, and
that Brown, in said interview requested All in
crease of compensation, and obtained from Brady
that a large increase Of compensation
as to make the whole compensation ss7,s6s
per year on an inerease Of service from four
Of time sI from one Phi hundred and % f,S hoGrs 70
ninety hours per trip and that the said Increase
was not necessary nor requisite for the public
that the Second Assistant or the Postmaster Gem
era shall Judge in the first instance but In casa
Ike this Your Honor Is to Judge, and in order that
Your Honor may judge
THE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GWEN
1t is charged that on the 1st day of October 1873
In pursuance Of the conspiracy, Brown and Brady
met together, consulted, deliberated, and agreed,
aud, without any necessity therefor, and without
any reference to the public good, and from cor.
rupt and improper motives and ends, TO increase
carrying the malls on the route aforesaid so that
the entire compensation should be SS7,8G3 per an
mum that afterward Brady allowed McDonough
TO sublct his contract to Walsh. knowing that
Walsh was going 10 carry 1t for S7i, $50; and that
afterward Brady, in pursuance of the conspiracy.
declared McDonongh to be falling contractor
aud then declared his sureties to be failing con.
Tractors, and then, IN pursuance Of the conspiracy,
gave the contract TO another. have now gone
over all that there Is In the first second and third
counts In relation 10 Brown. II may be observed.
however, here, that the third count does not even
conclude, according to the form of the statute In
peace and Government OF the United States"
have read this information simply that might
THROW LIGHT UPON THE VALUE
Of tho aftidayits, and tho question now is: AMI
right in holding that the pleader cannot merely
state that thing is improper" or that contract
Is iextraynganti'' and stop there without stating
Ihe facts so that the court may judge whether or
no It Is improper, or whether or no IL Is extraya-
CANT? Am | right when j say that he cannot
merely state that thing Is "unlawfui" without
setting out why and wherefore IL Is unlawful2 Am
right when say that when the pleader declares
that the increase OF compensation bears greater
proportion TO the increased stock employed than
Ihe law allows he must show what the increasa OF
stock WASP Is this court bound to take the plead.
nrs conclusions upon these points? Have they
right TO usurp the judicial function2 In Other
words, must these gentlemen state facts, aud such
facts would be required TO prove the alleged Of
iensc before petit JuryY On this question call
ltenon 70 the cases OF the state vs. Parker, 43 N.
IL So and read from the opinion ofthe court: