Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-11-08
THE STAR ROUTE TRIALS.
COLONEL COOKS PLAIN ARGU-
MENT.
A Logical Plea for the Punishment
of ROgues--The Proceeding by In
formation Consistent with Equity
and Law--The Question In the
Hands of the Court.

WASHINGTON, November 7.-Argument
in the star route cases was RESUMED
this morning in the Criminal Court. w.
a. Cook, special counsel for the govern
ment, occupied the time of court from II g..
m. until about $3.50 p. m. to-day with long
argument, replying to Messrs. Ingersoll and
Chandler, who last week argued in favor Of
quashing the information.
Mr.. Cook, after reviewing the preliminary
steps in preparing the cases for prosecution,
said: "It is very true that If the motion to
strike the information from the files were
granted, and If the order of court were
rescinded, all subsequent acts must be in
volved, and the accompanying orders issued
the court would not quash an indictment
except In the clearest cases. In this instantee
it was manifest that the motion to quash
would not be entertained"
He referred to Col. IngersOll's recent at
tack on Col. Bliss, and said, perhaps, his
brother IDgersoll had derived his ignorance
from the play house on which his dogmatic
inroads were based. He characterized the
conduct of the cases by the defendants as
inappropriate, and read from various au-
thorities to sustain his argument. There
was not, he claimed, the slightest doubt
that the proceedings by information were as
ancient as the history of common law and
for the welfare of the government. In reply
to IngersOll's comparison of the proceeding
to the star chamber, Col. Cook maintained
that the proceeding was cheap and conve-
nient one, and no more likely to be abused
than the accusations of a grand jury. No
information, he said, could be touched by a
grand jury or court except through the
hands of government officers obliged to
faithfully serve the people. The law pro-
vIded specifically by whom this Information
should be filed, the heads of the Department
OF Justice and the Post Office Department.
and it came into this court through these
officers.
In regard to the proceeding by informa-
tion in a United States Court, where the
crime did make the person Infamous, he
cited several authorities to support his po-
sition that such a course was permissible,
and said the power of proceeding by infor-
nation is expressed plainly, and not merely
| shadOwed by Congress. Yet the defense,
with these later laws staring them in the
face, still hold that no crime committed
within the District OF Columbia may be
tried in a criminal court except by first pass
ing through the hands of a grand jury.
Col. Cook explained his absence from the
city during the sitting Of the grand jury
and returning to the argument read more
authorities with reference to the power of
| Congress to create crimes and reduce them
to common law as felOnies, and said it was
the purpose of Congress to show that con-
| spiracy was a misdemeanOr and nothing
else. Mr.. Wilson, he said, in making the
! point that this was a case Of the revenue
class, and not within the power of a court
on simple information, had challenged the
| government to prove otherwise. He cited
cases bearing on this point, by which be
| eDdeaYored to break down Mr.. Wilson's
| point. He next went into the question as to
how the information should be filed. The
practice OF filing information was not
uniform, and unless the indictment
was formed with the concurrence
of the court it was valueless.
II the power to file an information rested
in the representative of the government it
did not require the sanction of court to
justify it. He claimed that the representa-
tive of the government should be allowed
to file the information and that the subse-
| quent action should be taken by the court
alone. If it appeared to the court that the
information was improperly filed, then,
admitting 1t could be rescinded, he
| read the affidavit of the Post
master General and said that his knowl-
edge of obligations is derived direct from
the papers and records Of the Office, aud is
not the loose, indirect assertion of one used
to indulging in wild suspicion. The same
could be said of Woodward's affidavit, and,
| he asked, "what more could be desired
They could certainly be accepted as proba-
BILE cause for action" Mr.. Cook continued
for some time in this line of argument, oc-
cupying the whole of the days sitting of
the court.