National Republican., 1881-11-07
strauon, and that the settlement of facts by that
nTNn1Nn IN rnr cnrRrs


and hcrtribunalseverywbere Now, Of course hi
docs not embrace acts involving corruption, and 4
| matter ,vbetber he obuses lie 7diecTeiion or moi
| you do not inquire whether the discretion wa,
| properly exercised or not In order TO determine
| whether the person has taken the bribe or not
The questions you inquire into are the facts which
| constitute bribery, and the person may bo pun
ished for taking bTibes when exercising powers In
| office. But Your Honor will observe that this in
| formation does not deal with bribery as such. II
does not deal with any acts OF an officer which IN
this information are individualized and defined rs
acts but IL denls with the results alone OF the &C.
tnn OF that officer. IL says that the acts which the
officer did in consummating this alleged fraud were
under certain circumstances legal; thotthcy could
the ''''''' "' '''''' u ''''"' ""'' 'e0" U'"O i
MIND OF THE DoER HAD BEEN PURE
and the law, instead Of bestowing upon those act
any penalty, would have bestowed upon the same
acts done under the same circumstances, with
n different condition of mind, cOmmcndation
Now, Is not the crime here, which Your Honor is
IN search Of purely limited TO the condition Of mind
OF the person who Is alleged to have done this acti
HOW can you prove the condition of the mind OF
the pnrtiCs2 How does the law contemplate the
estim0te of an evil condition. Here the rule is, as
understand II, that the intent Is exclusively pre-.
sumcd 10 be the consequence of the act done. ii
nh act Is done which brings pernicious conse-
qucnccs, that act having been done by an intelll-
cent person. tho consequences are presumed to
have been intended.
But WHAT CHARACTER OF AN ACT
must TINT legal inference flow from2 May IL flow
from an equitable act2 There can be no
case made under the law where the criminal
intent is not n legal inference of an illegal
act a man is not permitted to deny II, lie
is concusiyely held to have intended the conse.
quenCC OF his act, but the act from which these
consequence flow must itself be nm illegal act
Now, there is not set ont in this information any act
which they say Is Illegal but he result of all these
acts Is Illegal because Ofthc intent solely not be-
cause the acts themselves could not have been per-
formed legally not because this very character OF
acts which they complain ofhcre were not author.
i2cd by law. They say they were all authorized by
law but they say because the state of mind Of Mr..
Brady was not such as they think It ought to have
been, that therefore that state of mind is reflected
back upon these acts inicols them with crminality
which they would not have had
WERE 1T NOT FOR THE INTENT.
Now say to make this Indictment they should
not have alleged that he abused his discretion, but
they should have set out such and such tacts.
First, should say that he did some act not author
iicl by law; thrn having laid tho foundation to
build q criminalinlont upon, they could have done
H. But having here edeclaIedinthisini that
every hilgie ,1Ct ne did was authorized by law, Ii
done in good tith, they can't try him for his al
legged bad faith alone. Another thing If Your
Honor please; As l said, where the facts are sub.
mlttcd TO the Judgment OF an officer the existence
OF the facts Is subject which he must pass upon,
and ailer he has passed upon them, the court
Will conclusively presume that the acts were pres.
ent which authorized him 10 act. As, for instance
in all this bond litigation which has prevailed
throughout the country u has come TO be we'll
settled principle of law that where county courts
We're permitted to cast up the vote and determine
whether certain number of votes hnd been cast
in favor of certain municipal bonds-the books
are iull OF cases where the county
COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT QUESTION
where, 1t is alleged, they corrupty determined the
question where private rights were involved; and
yet II was firmly held to be final settlement of the
question. The courts say you cannot inquire
into that question; that the county court
having been created by law with power To
determine that fact-there being no APP
to any other tribunal-that the settlement OF that
state OF facts by that court Is final and conclusive
in all other courts. That is q position that is
not assailed by anybody at this time. Your Honor
will remember the case where district judge was
appointed II commissioner to settle certain French
claims or Spanish claims-I forget which--and a
controversy arose touching the capacity in which
he acted-whether he acted in judicial or in an
other capacity. He made finding about the
SIaims Ihe lawprovided that he should hear the
evidence and on that should settle the rights of the
parties involved Now, if lie were acting in his
judicial capacity, an appeal could be taken.
AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN,
and the Supreme Court held that II was not an act
in his judicial capacity; but he was designated as
commissioner TO hear the testimony aud to pass
upon these claims, and his final determination was
binding on all the courts. Now here is a separate
tive power. The law which creates that depart
ment beStows upon it the right TO determine ques-
tions OF expedting and other erqucsti0ns concerning
how frequently 1t shall be carried over what
territory defined by Congress to be mail routes
that 1t shall say what payments shall be made to
the persons carrying them. Now, these facts arc
by law confided to the determination of this par
tcular Office the head of this department There
IS no provision but one for any revision of his
judgments. There is statute with which Your
Honor is familiar, that provides on the assembling
OF Congress at the beginning of each term the POST
maser-G General shall report to Congress each con-
tract which he has made each contract which he has
increased or expedited, but further than that the
law does not contemplate that any other author
ity than Its own shall ever nttude itself into the
determination of the question of expediency.
Now, say the law which has bestowed upon him
the power
TO SETTLE THE QUESTION OF EXPEDIEScY
| and public policy has given no appeal to this
| court to review II. 1t leaves such settlement by
him absolutely conclusive You cannot nscribc
| corruption to him any more than you can ascribe
| corruption to the final decision of court Where
| the law fixes the standard by which the thing is
determined, that Is the legal standard OF right in
| that instance The court has bestowed upon Il
| The settlement of certain controversies and in
some cases the decision is final in that court and
the court may be suspected and charged with
fraud and corruption Of all kinds but the law has
established the Judgment of the court as the su.
| prcme criterion of excellence in that particular
and that determination stands unimpeachable by
| law. Now, that Is upon one phase of the question
| but there is another phase oft. If Mr. Brady can
be brought here and held to explain to this court
| any and everything that he has done and upOp
| failure to make satisfactory explanation to the
court and jury Of what was DONE be sent to prison
| why then of course the Postmaster General could
| be so brought here also, because they claim thai
he did this wrong Oy virtue Of finding himself in
possession ofthe power of the Postmaster. General
It's executive authority reposed in the Postmaster.
General that Is here alleged TO have been abused
| II was abused In the
HANDS AND CUSTODY OF MIR. BRADY
Now, then, 1t is executive power pure and simple
asst flows through the office of the Postmaster. Gen
eal. Colonel Bliss asks GLOW far does this eXteut
| down? Does it go to the clcrksT' It goes to tn,
limit of the power and duty to exercise discretion
| ut least. Whether II goes beyond that 1t is no
necessary to discuss but the executive power is n
itself II unit. They say the Postmaster. General fO
purposes of convenience divided the business tina
came into his office under three Observation-Disclosures
| ii to tho First Second, and Third Assistant Post
master Generals. You might Us well say ofthe Pres
idCnt, who Is the head OF the executive authority
that for the purposes Of convenience the law hi
permitted him To distribute II into the several Cab
! in"r offices. Bat, wherever distributed, whcrcvc
found, 1t remains executive power just as pure anC
simple as It is IN the office OF the head itself Who
ever exercises 1t assumes the same character a
pure eXccutiv5 authority, whether II be cxcrtcd b,
the President or distributed in detail To these Othc
officers, who e uart of the executive branch o
| OF the power of the Postmaster General il mus
follow that the gentlemen claim here that II
MIR. KEY HAD RATIFIED THESE ACTS
lie could have been brought here and tried by thi
court, There IL no difference in principle whether
MIR, Key or Mr.. James stand here as defendant o
whether Mr. brady stands here, They woult
ca power. Now, II MIR. Key could be brough
| here now, he could have been brought here When
these acts were said TO have transpired. The stat
out of Office only. If the statute gives the cOur
supervision II had supervision when he did the act
complained Of and Immediately aflerward. Ant
so we must rea III lhcConclusiOn, If this proceeding
can be maintained, that upon such testimony as i!
here produce the head Of u distinct department
| of executive authority can be subjected to the
| judicial observation of this court touching thC
prOpriety OF his acts and made to answer for an al
| legged abuse of his discretion in the midst of The
exercise of his power, We say that cannot be, nnt
| Mr., Wharton says with the same measure of eX
pliClncss with which he discusses the statute nuC
| with the same apparent satisfaction in his owl
mind about the correctness OF the decision, that
| cannot be done. Mr.. Bishop says that II cannot b
done.
THERE IS Not sISGLE AUTHORITY
| brought by the Other lido lint sIiYs Il cnn bI