The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-06

tn-t 10 order to be good man one had
TO De as cold as an icicIe. he did not
thlDk that If man wished 10 be like God
az there was Godl it was necessary to |
be heartless. Sixth-That Brady for the |
benefit, gain and profit of all the defend |
ants did something or other. he wished !
to place special emphasis on the word !
all, for that inclu led Turner. Seventh
That Brady had not entered fines against
contractors when they did not perform
their service. What evidence was
there Of that2 II that the whole |
amount Of fines imposed by
Brady amounted 10 Sl26 S65, anG |
tina: be RENTED faes to ths amount OF
$4,000 only. Eighsh-ThAt Brady fra =
dulently cut off the service and then put
it on again. That appeare 10 two cases,
one involving $50 snd the other some-
thing more. NInth-Thst the defend
ants frsudulently fled sub-contracts
The evidence showed that that was an
impossible ofense. This WAS the scheme
OF the indictment, and he insisted that
the scheme must be proved precisely as
it had been laid, without the variation |
OF hair. In support of this |
proposition he cited Starkey's Grim |
insl Law, R0scOe's Criminal Evidence |
PISSED on to examine the testimony In
relation to j. w. Dorsey's Co nection |
IN the conspiracy; and first he i'm pressed
upon the jury that suspicion was not
evidence. Ii there we're taken out OF
this case the suspicious, rumOr., p-tju-
does, epithets and srrOg sot declarations,
the amount Of real evidence would be sur
| prisingly small. Prejudice would give
| ho Ia oil ha h. Il
swear the north star out Of the sky
OF TRUTH It is the womb Of il jastice. and
the man who could not rise above his
prejudice was not civilized man, but
barbarian. He DID not wish this case
tried by pr JUDGE. Merriek had sail, In
his address, that he had once argued that
theJury were judges Of the law as we'll as
OF the fact but that a. the same time be-
did not beIiev- it was safe and sound
doctrine. Was be candid then? Wa.
he candid now? II Is doctiire appeared
to be this: When / am afraid of the
court, insist that the jury are Judges Of
the law; when am afraid Of the Try,
turn the law over to the court. He I'm
gersolO believed j. W. dorsey TO bt
absolutely an honest man. Mr.. Merrick
had called John w Dorsey a
|
davits upon the came route-No.
S8,l45 No such charge was made 10
The Indictment, but be would ans wer it.
lngersoll then vent on to show the two
} afidavlts, though fled on the same date
were not made within month Of each
Jtner. The only question was whether
the last affidavit was made for the pur.
pose Of perpetrating q fraud upon che
ha fact of 4 -. 4
, ten men and horses were required to per-
a form thethen service, and that under ihe
|, proposed schedule thirty-seven would bs
9 required. II the pay had been calculated
I on the affidavit it would hav,
amounted to $l3, 433. The eeccnC
affidavit said that the then servic,
; required twenty men and aaimsls, and
: that the proposed service would require
! ffty-fcur. Under the second affidavit
which the prosecution said was q wlfu
ana corrupt perjury he only got IS, 457
Nothing had been shown IN the ca {
nnre Calculated to put j. w. DOrsay il
g:Ander light than this very affidavit
On re was no evidence to show that BIZ
"a ever spoke n with Brady or Turner;
that De had ever entered into any agree
N snt with them of any sort, character o.
!. description ct any place, 81
n any time, on any subject
4 ~ any purpose. There was no evidznc
4 shat hs ~ ever received solitary dol
!, ar from the United States except 1892
!, In 9th - word. the testimony shO wei
!. that John w. Dorsey was al homes
y man; and th4re was no jury. never hat
!. been ore, and never would be, tina
y would End man like that guilty on evi
ience such as had been presented.
!, Now he came to speak OF his ot5e
i client, Stephen W. Dorsey, q lend O
% his; man who was not simply q politi
I clan, but d statesman. McSWeeny, in hi
a opening address, had stated that s. w
n Dorsey had lost money on bis star routes
v Merrick had criticised the defense for no
/? calling Bosler to prove the statement
a &c QDgersOlD wanted to know why tn
N prosecution had not put Bosler on III
r. stand to prove Dorsey had lost money
= Merrick said there was no evidence what
"a ever as to whether s. W. Dorsey 10.
to money on these routes, and the state
Is ment OF the counsel in opening cannot \
,e used, submit, as evidence by the coul
y, sci in closing.
If The Court-~I I'm 1erstand that thu 70
/ marks now made are 10 reply 10 the r,
10 marks made in the opening.
70 Merrisk-The opening of their 0w
i. counsel.
.. Ingersoll-Mr. McSweeney said S. v
"a Dorsey had lost money. and Merric
n asked why they bad not brought Bosl:
~ to prove that.
= Mr.. Merrick-Nol as to money, but
to the distribution Of rputes and the loa
of money to Dorsey and Dorsey's trans
= fer of the routes 10 B Isier as security Il
~ The money.
D The Court--I shall not interfere.
y Ingersoll
y The Ccuit-I think this remark ia
"a reply 10 sn observation Of yonr own, Il
-. - Merrick.
!. Mr.. Ingersoll then went on 70 cor
- ment st sCme length upon the fact tn
"a government had not called Bssler, AZ
~ turned his attention to the overt &C
\; charged against s w Dorsey. he W
-. delighted at having the OPT orlunity
- answer, and answer for ever, all the i
~ famous things said against that man. Z
= Analysed seTIG,izS the charges broug
ne against Dorsey, and claimed that Il
evidence wholly failed TO sustsin Their
and then went on in recapitulation
20 those charges which be asserted CO
"a sisted Of two mistakes and one impossit
~ offense. Tha mistakes were charges
u fling false petitions and Rfldavits. +
.at impossible ofEense was fling fraudcle
-. subcontracts. Dorsey had be
'sd called a -robber aud 3 thief, /