Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-04-03
THE STAR REUTERS.
Counsel forthe Government Argue
on the Motion to Quash.
Attorney General Brewster IN the
Court Room.

WASHINGTON, April l.
The proceedings in the star route cases
upon the motion TO quash the indictments,
was renewed in the criminal court, Saturday
morning. Judge Wylie upon the bench.
Mr.. Kerr began the opening for the pros
ecutiop, and discussed at length the subject
of conspiracy, both under the common law
and of statute law, claiming that the author
tiles had established the fact that upon trial
for conspiracy if the overt act is sufficiently
set forth in the pleading, there may be con-
viction for the constituents misdemeanors
even when the punishment prescribed there
for is far greater than that prescribed for
which a party may have been indicted; and
further. that it did not follow that when the
overt acts were set up that the prosecution
must establish the fact that a crime or mis-
demeanor was actually committed, in order
to prove the conspiracy. The overt act need
be simply something to show concert of ac-
ton in the logical movement to carry OUT the
conspiracy The act in itself might or might
not constitute crime. He then discussed
indictments, denying their insufficiency or
vagueness, as claimed by the defence. If the
prosecution had charged in the indictments
more than they could establish by the evil
dence, then at the proper time in the pro-
ceedings they must accept the responsibility
therefor ,lbut at this stage of the pleading he
urged it was not competent to urged lack of
particularly.
Kerr concluded his argument at twenty
minutes past eleven, and was Immediately
followed for the prosecution by Merrick, who
began his argument with review of the
point BY the defence that the finding of the
indictment was irregular, because of the fail
ure to comply with the requirements of the
Maryland statute of 1922 which they claimed
- IL.
umbia.
The counsel reviewed the facts connected
with the finding of the indictments, and in
sisted that no irregularity could be proven
even under the statute pleaded by the de-
fence; that the foreman of the grand jury had
consulted with the judge upon these very
cases, and that two weeks before the finding
of the indictments had requested the District
Attorney to draw the Indictment to suit the
presentment, and that the grand jury of their
own knowledge, and from the evidence be-
fore them were practically satisfied that the
indictment should be found.
The counsel claimed that the statute in
question was designed to prevent frivolous
indictments, not to invalidate just ones.
Passing to the question, SIS the Maryland
statute still in force in the District of Co
lumbia p the counsel claimed that no man
on the bench, had ever heard the statute of
1922 pleaded in this district. The counsel
had had many years practice in the courts
of Maryland, and had spent some time in
the preparation of digest of the laws of
Maryland bearing upon its criminal practice,
and he had never heard of this statue of 1922
There was not a solitary word upon this act
in any of the Maryland reports, and no dis
trict attorney of the state of Maryland, or of
the District of Columbia, ever practiced
under it. The practice in the United States
courts was defined by the statute, and all laws
of MARYLAND repugnant thereto, were ipso
facto repealed
As to the indictment itself, Merrick insist
ed that it was not only good under the United
States statute, but if eighty-foar out of eighty
six pages were thrown away, these remaining
two would still constitute q valid indictment
under the common law, and the parties might
be convicted under it, The counsel for the
defence had asserted their desire for a speedy
trial. and yet the effort to avoid thorough
investigation before jury of the charges
set forth in the indictment, must seem to the
country like lack of confidence in their
ability to establish their innocence.
As counsel for the prosecution he (Mer-
rick appeared in this case for the purpose
of prosecuting to the extent of the law the
course of the trial, it should be found that
any who are charged are not guilty. he as
counsel should ask for their acQuittal, but if
guilty that they should be punished to the
extent of the law That in any event the argu-
ment of investigation should be so thorough
that the civil service of the United States
should be purified from the greatest scandal
of the age.
Merrick alluded to what he called "a claim
OF defence" that the Judiciary must no. in
vestigate the acts of the executive. That in
the case of MIR. Brady he could not be tried
for his official acts for the exercise of his
discretion whether good or bad in the dis
charge of his official duties
This, said Merrick, is not what we are try.
ing him for, but we are trying him for crime.
We are trying him for conspiracy. The
overt act, so far as he was concerned may
have been done under the cloak of his official
position.
In conclusion, Merrick said: 'sGentlemen,
let us go before the jury as soon as possible,
and, if these men are innocent, let them be
acquitted and let the country be relieved OF
this great scandal
While Merrick was speaking, Attorney
| General Brewster entered and took seat
with the counsel for the prosecution.
Merrick's argument occupied one hour
and half.
Meanwhile the audience had increased till
there was hardly any standing room. The
Bar was fully represented and several OF
the lawyer members of Congress were pres
| ent.
At ten minutes of one, Bliss, on behalf o,
| the prosecution, began the closing argumen,
| upon the motion to quash the Indictment
commencing with an exhaustive technical de-
fence. If the indictment as a good and valid
one under the provisions of section 40 of the
revised statutes, by which the crime of con.
spiracy is defined and its punishment pre-.
| scribed.
Bliss took up the question already dis.
cussed by Merrick. which the defence had
raised and commended that Brady's position
accorded him no exemption for his acts II
the doctrine advanced by the defence be ac
cepted by the courts and the country, and i,
would only be necessary for public officer
to resign to escape absolutely from all liabil
| ity for all criminal acts done while in Office
for which he could not be impeached after he
| had resigned and could not be tried by the
| court because the acts were done while an
executive officer, and ,as the defence claims
in the exercise Of the discretion which was
his by the law.
Turning to the counsel for the defence
Bliss remarked: This sort of a plea does moi
1 stb 80