The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-07-20
THE STAR ROUTES.
Arguments on the Admission of Walsh's
Testimony.


WASHINGTON, July 19,-In accordance with
the arrangement yesterday, today was set
forthe arguments in the Criminal Court upon
the admissibility of evidence in Star Route
cases of the witness John A. Walsh. 1t is un-
derstood that the decision of this question will
also affect the admissibility of the Rerdell con-
fession, and upon this last piece of evidence II
is generally believed depends the success OF
the prosecutions efforts to make out case
against the Star Route defendants,
Mr. Bliss opened the proceedings with a re-
quest that the government be allowed the
opening and closing argument
Mr.. MeSweepey took the ground that as the
defendants had objected to the reception OF
the evidence, according to the rules OF law
they should have the opportunity to make the
last argument.
Mr.. fngersoll said that it really did not mat
ter if the government had both the opening
and closing arguments. He was only afraid
that in this last argument they would indulge
in disagreeable personal reflections upon the
defendants, to which he would like to reply.
The court said that as the argument might,
perhaps, involve the question of the compe-
tency of the evidence presented by the govern
ment to make out the conspiracy he thought
that they should have the opening and closing
argument.
By direction of the court, the prosecuti ton,
through Mr.. Ker then began their opening
argument. He said the question involved in
the offer of this evidence, was broad one as
to whether mans confession could be accept
ed as evidence against himself. This proffer
was made with the understanding that 1t
would apply only to Brady. The government
now intended to submit to the court the ques-
tion as to whether the government had yet
produced evidence sufficient to show the exist
ence of conspiracy among the defendants.
MIR. Ker said a conspiracy was technical
crime, and it's definition depended altogether
with the court. 1t lay with him to say to the
jury that such crime was murder and such a
crime conspiracy. Now, when the court con-
sdered the evidence lad before it, OF fraud
the most Epalpable, it was for 1t to say what
these frauds were to be designated, to say
whether or not it constituted conspiracy. He
would take up the evidence in chronological
order. The testimony of the witness Boone
was still fresh in the minds of the court 1t
had been shown that he was dragged into the
combination by Stephen w. Dorsey; that
Miner had prepared the figures, and that Peck
was practically nonentity.
The Court interrupted Mr.. Ker at this point,
and calling his attention to the presence of the
jury said that he must sassume that the prose-
cution had made out prima facie case OF con-
spiracy. He must assume that, and then see
whether the evidence was competent, for the
court did not feel warranted in invading the
rights of the jury unnecessarily.
Mr.. Ker expressed his willingness to have
the jury discharged for an hour 1t was not
his intention to take any unfair advantage in
budb f6SpcCb.
The Court then told the jury that they
might retire if so disposed, but if they listened
to one argument it was only fair that they
should listen to all of them, None of the jury
left their seats, however.
After some further remarks by Judge Wylie,
Mr.. Ker continued his argument, citing author
tiles to prove that confession is good, legal
evidence against the party amaking it. In re-
sponse to a demand from counsel for defense,
the government was directed by the court to
produce all authorities they intended to use in
their arguments, and Mr. Merriek named them
in order.
He claimed the conversation between
Messrs Brady and Walsh was upon foreign
matter and consequently irrelevant evidence;
that Walsh did not pretend to say he had a
route expedited for which Brady had been
paid but that they were confronted with only a
narrative statement and the evidence showed
nothing wrong with Walshs route. Again
Brady was said to have made statement of
what he did generally in the discharge of his
official duties not as referring particularly to
this case but only what he did generally. Was
this good evidence? Chandler closed by as
sailing some of the authorities quoted by the
prosecution. He was followed by McSweeney
who argued that the conspiracy was joint
offence and one conspirator could not i'm
plicate another by his confession. Totten fol-
lowed. He argued the evidence was inadmis-
sible because it did not concern acts done in
furtherance of common design. The con-
versation did not go to show the acts described
were then going on but only showed they had
transpired. 1t referred to certain official
practices monstrous as they might seem. With
some further remarks Totten concluded, and
the court adjourned.