The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1881-11-10
THE NEWS.
The Arguments in the star Ronss oa.es-

/ 10 AtdOW l0kOIlahubAOdA W DC ON-ldA6C
| three years had about elapsed, which
| the prosecution said, would work to bar
| under the statute of Limitation. That
was no excuse. 1t was the fault OF
the prosecution. They had delayed as
long ago rs June last, this very court.
The defense asked for the action in these
| cases, but. the government has refused TO
act. The prosecution avoided the grand
jury. Why! Because il they had gone
before the grand jury, the dOcuu1eAis
| and papers James spoke of would have
10 DC produced, James says, so as their
contents would not have been accepted
nor his statement as to what had 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 get a stand in tails
court. There has been
THE GROSsEsT MISREPRESENTATION
of this case and the grOssest suppression
of the truth.
He then proceeded to argue that if the
law called upon the executive officer to
make a decision, the law which required
him TO do so projected him in his de-
cision, and he commended, the judicial
branch of the government could not, in
such case, infringe upon the executive
The prosecution said, the law gave Gen.
eral Brady authority to make decision
but that he did it cOrruptly. Inquiry
as to that should not be cOntradicted in
this court, but in another tribuual-the
high court Of impeachment. If the
contrary were maintained the prOsecu-
ton could come in with information and
arraign the legislative branch of the
government for the votes given in the
discharge of its official duties. They
could arraign every member who
out of which the contract complained of
was paid. The government had three
coordinate branches, each the equal of
and Independent of each other, and this
court had no more right to try an execu-
tive officer, or senator, or representative
for acts done by them in the discharge
of their official duties. than 1t had to try
the chief justice of this distinguished
court. It was prepOsterOus to say some
man, through malice or on account of
public ciamor, could come and file in
formation in this court against the pres
ident of the United States, charging
him with corruption in the discharge of
the duties devolving upon him. If you
can do this, he said, addressing directly
Judge Cox, you can do that. He then
proceeded to enunciate the proposition
which he regarded as fatal to the prose
cutiOn, namely, that in order to consti-
tute an offenSe against the United States
under section !, 40 of the revised stat.
utes on fraud
CONSPIRACY TO DE PERFORMED.
must be such one as has been defined
by the statute and made law. In other
words the conspiracy must be to do that
which, if done by one would be a crime
defined by the statute. Suppose, for the
sake of argument, that the accused had
unlawfully expedited the star routes and
increased the service thereon, was that
an ofense against the United States
No; no statute had said so. Suppose
the accused did everything just as they
were charged TO have done. Had any
statute stated that was a fraud? There
fore, this case did not come within the
provisions of section Q, 40. He then
proceeded to criticiser and ridiculc the
various counts in the information, deny
ing that the prosecution had shown any
Ofense which had been defined as such
by the statute. The last reason which
he presented in support Of motion to
quash was constitutional one. Under
the constitution no person could be held
to answer
FOR ANY CAPITAL
or other lawless crime, except upon the
presentment or indictment of the grand
jury. He argued that the crime here
charged was infamous and that, there
fore, 1t could not be prosecuted by in
formation. He quoted a number of au-
thorities In support of his proposition,
and called attention to the fact that sec
ton 1919 of the revised statutes gave
the police court exclusive jurisdiction
over all crimes and misdemeanors not
infamous. In concluding his argument,
Wilson said: know that your honor APP
preciates the importance of the question
presented by this proceeding. 1t is not
the accused alone who are interested.
The rights and interests of the people of
this nation are involved in this question.
If you decide that this district attorney
can, without evidence, present citizen
for a grave crime (for that is what you
must do if you sustain this proceedingl,
you decide that the party must be pre-
scented for an offense which has not been
defined by any statute (as you must do
if you sustain this proceeding) you will
PUT THIS NATION BACK
to where England was 200 years ago.
Wilson spoke for over four hours.
He was followed by Bliss of the gov
eminent counsel. He said: Itappeared
from the argument just made, the de-
Tense had other objections 70 the informa-
ton, and that there were other PROPOSE
tiOns to be made against it. He In
stanced the remark of Wilson to the
effect that section s, 40 had been re-
| pealed, and that point would be made
upon that by one of the other counsel
| for the defense He thought it fair be
| fore the prosecution should be called
! upon to answer, that ali propositions of
defense should be stated. Cook also
| contended Ingersoll should present the
case of Brown, his client, before the
prosecution be obliged to go on.
| Ingersoll. / suppose that after we
shall have heard from one of the learned
/ gentlemen on the other side, it may be
/ in order for me 10 say few words in
regard to Mr.. Brown, but am free now
to contract that, if either of you gentle
men successfully answered the argument
that has been made, will say nothing
about Brown.
LAUGHTER.
| Bliss said he wished to be perfectly
fair about the mater. It might happen
that some of the points which he was to
answer would be presented by IngersOll,
which would necessitate his (Bliss)
again addressing the court. He thought,
therefore. that it would be better for
Ingersoll TO precede him.
Ingersoll-I may say for the eniight-
ment of Bliss,
LIST, shali insist upon the facts set
forth in this information, in regard to
Brown, even if all admitted be true, do
not constitute any offense.
I'd. I shsll insist that the facts set
forth in each and every count are con-
Trajectory, absurd and impossible.
naughter.l It is impossible that any
such acts should have been done in any
such q way. Now that is my general
statement, and there is nothing IN this
information charging Brown with an
indictable cffense; whether an informa-
ton needs factor is another q Iestion.
| shall insist it Is impossible that Brown
ever conspired with Brady TO influence
Brady, or that
brady EVER CONSERVED
with Brown 10 influence him. Laugh
teri I shall insist that Brown never
conspired with Brady 70 give the con-
tract to McDOnough, and that therefore
McDonough never conspired with
: Brady and Brown to have the contract
J declared null and void. I shall insist
McDonough never conspired to cheat
himself, and that he never went 10 the
y extent Of hiring Brown TO help him
: within the horizon of the probable
that any man ever paid $500 or $40,
|, coo TO conspiFe with another man, a
: well as himself, to defraud himself
Now I think have given 8 genera
| view of the course intend to pursue
so far as Brown is concerned. / shall
also insist that the affidavit of James Il
e the effect that certain contracts are OF
e file in his ONCE, does not tend TO show
9 Brown went to New York with an II
I legal object shall also insist tina
d when James states in his affidavit tina
q he has had conversations with certain
q persons, that these persons shall b
g brought into court shall insist, whei
a he speaks of contracts, these contract