National Republican., 1882-12-12
THE STAR-ROUTE TRIAL.
The Case to Proceed Without the Presence Of
Mr.. Dorsey.
Judge WyIie Reverses His Former De-
cision as TO Challenging Jurors
He Decides That the Defense is Entitled to But Four
Challenges
The Selection OF Jury Commenced
What franklin Barrett Says.

In the criminal court yesterday morning
Mr. Richard T. Merrick, on behalf of the gov
ernment in the star-route cases, stated that
there was some difference of opinion as to the
= necessity of the personal attendance of a de-
fendant in the case of misdemeanor. For
himself he was satisfied that personal presence
was not necessary. Nevertheless, he submitted
hmotion that Stephen w. Dorsey be compelled
to appear personally in court for the trial of
this case. The motion was backed by an affi-
davt, sworn to by Mr.. Bliss, reciting the COM
positions on the 1st of December and the de-
livery to the agents of the Associated Press
by Dorsey of the card or statement addressed
30 the public; also stating that on the 9th of
December a correspondent of the New York
World had an interview with Dorsey, who
then composed and gave TO the correspondent
smother statement, published in the World
OH the 9TH (long extracts from both
of which documents were read by Mr..
Mcrricl1), and declaring his belief that Dor
scy, although undoubtedly troubled with
ln affection of the eyes, is able to attend the
trial rs frequently and constantly as he had
attended the former trial. Mr.. Merrick also
read an affidavit of William w. Ker stating
on information and belief, that Dorsey had
other interviews with the correspondent OF
the World, on the Sth and 9th of December
and then composed, or caused to be composed
and written another declaration or statement
published on the 11th land read in fulD. With
out argument or comment he submitted the
motion, merely repeating that he did not him
self deem Dorsey's personal appearance neces-
sary.
MR.. INGERsoLL OPPOSED THE MOTION.
He had no doubt that Dorsey's personal at
tendance was necessary to q fair trial. de-
fendant was entitled to be confronted with his
witnesses; and if he were in such state OF
bodily health as not to be able to be present
he could not be confronted with his wit.
nesses." The affidavits filed by Dorsey and
his physicians were to the effect that it was
absolutely impossible for him to be present in
court without the risk of perpetual blindness
His physicians also testified that if the trial
ihould go on in his absence the mental agita.
lion caused by it might be as deleterious as q
forced attendance. The motion Che said) had
been made in order to let down quietly the
decision of the court the other day Chat the
trial should go on in the absence of Dorsey
n decision which had "'horrifed" the people
at finding that such was the law.
HE ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING
in the World publication of Sunday indicating
that it had been made up from personal
interview. He asked, first that the court
summon Dorsey's physicians, or any Other
physicians in whom the court had confidence
aud examine them as to the real condition Of
Dorsey's health. He did not believe that the
public would justify, or even that the pres;
would justify, the trial of the case in Dorsey's
absence. Certainly no dispassionate person
would justify it. No case was ever important
enough to be forced to trial under such cir
cumstances. If he were q judge he would
say, The country can wait. The people can
pause. l will give this man an op'
portunity to recover his vision.
will give this man a few weeks
rest" He believed that that was the law
Ifthe court proceeded to trial in the absence O
verdict would not be worth the paper on which
it was written. 1t would never stand.
Mr. Merrick said he would be prepared tt
meet that question when it arose.
Judge Wylie reviewed the circumstances
and sustained the posistion already assumed
by him. The defense, he said, might be JUS
as well maintained in the absence ofthe defend
ant as in his presence, except as to the poin
of his offering to testify. The court woult
be prepared to meet that point with prope
rule, but that point had not yet been reached
The affection of DorSey's eyes did not proven
his being physically and mentally competen
TO testify The great author of "Paradis
Lost" had written that important work with
out CLEAN of eyesight, and the prcsen
acknowledgement of England was blind man
Mr. Ingersoll. Still the court would not re
gard blindness as desirable?
Judge Wylie. The court cannot postpon
the trial on such ground. In my opinion
the defendants presence is not necessary OIL
the trial. 1t is not necessary in law, ant
(from the lights before me in this case) it i
not necessary for his own defense, he having
such Il counsel as he has and having sucl
ability to instruct his counsel.
Mr.. Ingersoll then moved for severance
OH the part of Stephen w. Dorsey, and for
continuance of the case as to him. Ihe mo
tiOn was overruled.
Judge Wylie then directed the jury to b
called, and twelve jurors having answered t.
their names) he proceeded to render his de
cision the question of peremptory chal
lenges, promising it by the statement that h
would not lose time in explaining the conflic
between his former decision on this point
and that which he now proposed to make
The statute relating to that subject (No. SO
of the statutes of the District of Columbia
provided that defendant shall be entitled +
four peremptory challenges, but had no pro
vision as to a case where there was more thai
one defendant. But a section of revise,
statutes $50 did contain such provision, +
the effect that in all the other cases Cess thai
felony civil and criminal, each party shall b
entitled to three peremptory challenges; ant
that where there are several defendants o
Gsveral plaintiffs, each side shall be deemed
single party for the purpose of challenges
This latter section was the law in this dis
The two statutes should be read together (the,
not being in conflict) aud therefore he rule,
that the defendants in this case were entitle'
to four mot three) peremptory challenges 70
all OF them. An exception was taken by tn
defense to this ruling.
Franklin Barrett was called as a juror, ii
said he had formed an opinion in the cas-
from reading the newspapers, but could no
say that he had any bias. After argument a
to the eligibility of the juror Judge Wyli
put the question in this shape; Have yo
formed such an opinion as disables you fror
rendering an impartial verdict according +
the evidence?" The answer was: ON
opinion is not based on reading the Who'll
evidence, but if L am placed in the box l an
placed there under an impression unfavorabl
to one side"
Judge Wylie decided that the juror wa
competent.
Counsel for the defense claimed the right
interrogate the juror, but the court overrule
the claim unless there was direct challeng
for cause.
An argument ensued as to whether th
Judge had the right to prevent such interroga
Non, and pending its decision the court at
n III. adjourned.
Vhe District COmnlissiOnersIip.