National Republican., 1881-11-07
THE STAR ROUTES.
who Gays that 1T seems that the principle should
49, imam orrlcrn nr rnE aoyEnNNLENr.' 2
tConlinued from Fnst pdae.l

and upon Bishop, who says II probably cNtends
scquenty reslates the case by saying when he
acts honestly" IL probably does Then the note
ney refer 10 IN Blsh9p, wnerG nout mO1oo oe tbc
Government cannot override the discretion vested
In another DEPARTMENT Of the Goyernment-we
We do not claim that these men can say TO
Mr. Brady; You made q decision ina.
on certain route from once TO six times week.
and the expedition increased from three and
half miles per hour TO four or five miles and that
therefore ON the contract which originally called
forHbout $4,000 We will pay $4,000, when the en-.
tire receipts of the route amounted TO the Govern
ment to mere bagatollc, that you were mistaken
inc met that we cannot come here and
ASK AN INFORMATION on THAT ACCOUNT.
We claim n right to come here and ask mn in
formation On the ground that Thomas j. Brady
being entrusted with discretion rs an officer OF
the Government, did not exercise thnt discretion
honestly and in good faith; that he did not exer;;
of the Government and that he knew he was not
exercising Z for the purposes of the people and
iof tho good OF the Government; TINT he was ln-
crcaSing tho service and the expedition, and re.
ducing the service and reducing the expedition
according as the interests Of some people were to
be promoted by squeezing this man out and put
ting this man In by squeezing funds out of this
contractor or anothcr and before this trial is over
we hope TO be able TO show TO the court and TO
the people Of the country where some Of this
money went, and perhaps about that time they
VIII seek TO avail themselves of the principle that
members Of Congress nre exempt from any pro.
ceeding We do not propose in this information
TO so into
THE QUESTION OF EVIDENCE
We simply stand here seeking to argue questions
OF law, and arguing them to Your Honor, ind not
20 n tn9 amdienfe We arc seeking !! WIN pro,
justice to the accused. But IL there is to be pro.
pounded this doctrine that every head OF
Department, is to be protected on the
ground Of the exercise OF some discretionary
SS i + % onSr h%' viii # Sede aeH% Un
before you will cnunciate such view,
upon such motion. or upon any case which
doctrine so far the decisions 'of tho courts
concerned, had always been confined TO judges,
and II has not save exceptionally, been extended
to judges of lower courts like justices Of the peace
anu never extended to executive officers and the
heads Of Departments.
AND THE REASONS WHY
Il should be entertained apply in no sense to Mr..
Brady. Mr.. Brady was Second Assistant Post.
mnster.G General. II Is urged that you should not
take the heads OF executive departments away to
incanors, but leave them to be impenched. But
does thnt apply TO Mr. Brady even If We accept
or G"t 10 mr. P9c How i apply down 10 Mr. in ,ssss
cases are We to go? ! confess, Your Honor, the
doctrine seems to me absurd. ! do not know
Whether Il Is the more absurd or the more auda-
eious, but itseems tome to be entirely iair to this
defense and even tthc risk of being accused as
an adjective and adverb Singer" venture
TO APPLY THESE WORDS TO IT.
Now, another objection taken against us by these
men was that We did not file 1t until almost three
years had expired. had supposed they would in
some way attempt avail themselves Of the stat
ute of limitation but II seems am wrong in that
respect and therefore IL is not necessary for to
CAL Your llonors attention to what is upon my
another objection. They claim that the informn-
tion does not charge any oifcnso against any law
the Revised Statutes declares that If two or more
persons conspire, either to commit any otlense
against the United States or TO deiraud the United
states in any manner, or for any purpose, and one
or more OF said parties do any act to
EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY,
oil the parties of the conspiracy commit a crime.
Now 1t is insisted by the other side that II must be
such II criminal conspiracy TO defraud the United
States; such an act us under the statutes is de-
clarcd tobea crime II committed by one individual.
In the first place, II that Is so, why did not the
section of the Revised Statutes stop after saying
ndad i TWO OF more persons GonSpire to commit any
be crime declared by the statutes as q crime
against the United States! Why was not
that Interpretation entirely satisfied by that first
eRuse2 But, instead of that, II goes on, to de-
fraud the United States in an. manner. or for any
purpose not TO defraud the United States by
committing statutory crime, but Z" in any manner,
OR FOR ANY PuRrosF,"
to defraud the United States. And yet It Is claimed
here that we must put in the words of Limitation
"by committing II statutory crime"-that is" to de-
fraud the United States In any manner or for any
purpose by committing statutory crime" Now,
Il is urged that the United States has no common
law Jurisdiction in crimes. OF course we are not
here to undertake to reopen a long, controversy
upon that subject, and we accept the decision but
does II follow, Your Honor, that because the
United States has no common law Jurisdiction in
crimes that therefore the United States cannot saw
that conspiracy 10 defraud II Is crime and then
leave II TO the common law e. define what is de-
common law 10 find out what any crime Is against
the United States. What is treason Your Honor and
where are you going to find what Is murder what
Is mansaughter, what are any ofthese acts2 You
must
GET THE oosINoN-LAw CASES.
Where the statutes have not defined them YOU must
get your definition from the common law Now
upon that subject call Your Honor's attention
not upon my 6rief.to the remarks Of Judge Story
In the United States against Coolidge, In the LIST
Of Gallison, page 4SS, in which Chief.Justice
Story says:
For instance Congress has provided for the punish.
ment of murder manslaughter, and perjury under
certain circumstance hut IT has nowhere defined
that the explanation Of them must be sought and ex.
clusively governed by the common law and upon any
STATE %d be- m n Us eHercS 20 the S s mere Sf nTS
trny pleasure Of the Judges to an uncomfortable and
Now, we say here upon this statute that when
the law of the United States says that conspiracy
to dclHud the United States is crime II means n
conspiracy to do such nm act as at common law is
held to be fraud upon the Government and that
u means that and nothing else / call Your Honor's
attention to the case In Cranch mentioned which
was no case OF statutory fraud, but apparently
CASE OF coMMoY.LAw FRAUD.
Your Honor will find in this connection n refer
ence IN one or two cases which relate, not directly
perhaps, to the question here, but have n bearing
upon 1t. In the case OF Rex against Dembridge
3 Douglass, 3I, and Rex against Jones' IN 81 state
] cannot say. In the ease of Rex against Rem.
bridge, an officer of the Government In thc Pav
muster Generals Office was held liable 10 indict.
ment because he neglected to enter upon the books
OF the Office credits, so that he thus enabled tlc
cashier IN the office to retain in his hands, longer
interest upon 1t. The case of Rex against Jones
was the case of the CommisSary General a
head of Department, indicted because he had
some wrongful Interest
IN CONTRACTS IN HIS DEPARTMENT.
Therefore we say that the objection raised YES.
terdny that the conspiracy section of the statute
does not apply in the case where the United States
Is delrnuded by reason OF an act which would be
under the laws of the United States n statute crime
i wholly ndeienSble, and that, whether we read
the statute by itself or read II In the light OF other
decisions " means this: 1t creates the crime
of dciauding the United States, aud any
mode in which the United States is dcirnudei,
any mode known TO the common law IN which the
Uuted states Is, or may be- dGirauded aud lie
parties who enter into the conspiracy to do and do
conspiracy statute. But then we are told also in
that objection, which we only got at in n supple.
meh'ary manner after we had Insisted on all the
POINTS BEING DROUGHT OUT,
that this section has been repealed and that hay-
Ing been repealed after these acts alleged hero
were committed, or most Of thcm--I do not know
but all Of thCm-thnt therefore these defendants
are 70 escape punishmenl even II guilty. Now, rs.
sumingwithOut necessarily agreeing to T. that such
an amendment To the statute was made IN amend
mont TO the clause defining the crime, we say that if
there is fcpcu even OF the whole section SO MS 10
be rc.enHclment OF a new one, that then Il is
saved by the thirteenth section of the Revised
Statutes, which cOnluns this provision: "The re.
peal VI any statute shall not have the effect to re.
lease or CNtngush nny penalty, forfeiture or lin.
billy incurred under such statute
UNLESS THE REVEALING ACT
shall expressly provide, and such statutes shalI
be treated as still remaining in force for the pur-
pose Of sustaining any proper action or proscct.
ton for the enforcement of such penalty for.
feiture, or liability" Now this section Inns como