Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-08-14

7Wr. Carpenters Argument in Defense
OF the Dorsey Brothers.

When the Criminal Court met this morning the
order OF business was the opening OF argument
for defense by Mr.. r. B. Carpenter counsel for the
Dorsey brothers. There was change in the pro-
gram OF the defendants. for, instead Of remaining
outside the room as they did when Mr.. Ker was
speaking, they were among the earliest to put in
an appearance Ex-senator Dorsey was ac-
companied by his wife and two sons Mrs. Dorsey
TOOK seat within the bar behind the defense
table, and was the only lady in the court room.
DOESN'T NEED WATCHING.
few minutes after ten o'clock Mr.. Carpenter
announced his readiness to begin, but none OF the
counsel for the government being present, Judge
Wyie remarked ''There'S nobody here to watch
YOU
81 am one of the kind that don't need watch
Ing" said Mr.. Carpenter.
Judge Wylie said he had received q telegram
from Mr.. Mcrrlck stating that owing to a delay in
the trains he would not arrive here until half
past ten.
Mr.. ker having arrived few minutes later Mr..
Carpenter began his address, congratulatlng the
jury that they were upon
THE FINAL STAGE OF THE CASE.
Mr.. Carpenter said he spoke for devoted and
heart-stricken wife; for innocent children; for
q widow whose husband was taken from her by
disease contracted in the service Of his country
Tor orphan children; for sensitive and honora bic
men. He was there not to ask the jury for mercy
he was instructed by his clients to ask for justice
Referring to Mr. ker's statement that this was re-
markable case. he said that one OF the most re-
sci had spent three days in argument, and not
alluded to or given one scintila or argument even
to show that there was conspiracy. lie said he
nau never before heard counsel appeal to the out
side pressure upon the jury. Alter commenting
some time upon the duties OF judge and a jury
to decide without reference to public clamor, he
referred to the example Of a judge OF this court
who had
GRANTED GUITEAU HIS RIGHTS
In the face Of public cry for vengeance. He said
that this case was remarkable, inasInuch as the
proper representative Of the government had alb
dcated his place in favor of other counsel. He
had known
NO OTHER DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO ABDICATE HIS
POSITION
In favor OF any one The Attorney General in this
case, contrary to practice since the government
was formed, has himself been before the court,
and would argue this case before the jury. There
was no example, so far as the speaker knew, and
there ought to be no examples for it, he Gles-
toned the prCpriety OF the law officer Of the gov
ernInent abdcatng his authority and turnn,
1t ever to special counsel, who have not and can
not be under the same legal restraints the dis
trlct attorney He referred to what he called an
excessive exercise of power by the Department OF
Justice TO crush these defendants. The Attorney
General had appeared in court here ana said that
he was the mouth OF the government to urge the
prosecution OF this case. Mr.. Carpenter said that
the President was the head OF this government.
Was 1t possible that
TIE PRESIDENT OF TIE UNITED STATES
can stoop from his proud and lofty position to at
tempt to crush a poor defendant araigned at the
bar OF justice in a criminal court? II they could
conceive that as possible, could they conceive that
the President could select one OF these defendants
one with whom he (the PreSident) has associated
In political life, and for whom he had borne testi-
mony In a most public and marked manner as an
honest, capable and good man, and leave his high
place 10 put the weight OF his authority In the
scales against him? 1t was not SO. He (the
s&peakeFl & had no authority to speak for the Presl-
was human. and in the name OF a common human
ity he Indignantly denied it. The Attorney Cen
eral could have meant no more than that he was
the mouth or the Department OF Justice. He could
not have meant that the President was in a con-
spiracy, contrary to law and humanity, to crush
the defendants In this case.
THE MEETING AT DELMoNICo's.
On the 1lth OF February. 1881, Mr. Carpenter
said there was one o; the most remarkable convo-
cations ever assembled in this country at Del
monico's
Mr.. Merrick objected to Mr.. Carpenter reciting
What had occurred at this meeting, which was not
in evidence
Mr.. Carpenter said this meeting was part OF
the political history OF his country.
"The Vice President Mr.. Carpenter said, 'now
President, made speech there that was very per-
tnent to this issue.'
THAT meeting, Judge wylie said, twas no part of
the history OF this country. There was matter
ingS and dinners"
rick against the newspapers, Mr. Carpenter said
paraded at the head OF its columns something re-
garding the
"sTAR ROUTE THIEVES"
and some New York papers did the same every
day. The gentleman had not complained of that.
When two newspapers of this city undertook to
write articles for the defense he thought 1t neces-
sary to cal! the attention OF the court to the mat
ter. He (Mr Carpenter) wanted it understood that
he took no stock in the articles published in the
two papers mentioned; he considered them then
and considered them now, as tll-judged and disre-
n a IN ral h0vr
with its tauntS and denunciatiOnS, slander and
calumny, was a thousand times more guilty than
the editors OF the papers he had mentioned. The
trial seems to have been conducted, from the first
on the principle OF intimidation, vituperation and
abuse.
Mr.. Carpenter having remarked that In an
interview In an evening paper, some time ago, Mr.
Merrick had said that no conspiracy had been
proved, Mr. Merrick objected, saying that he had
he would deny the interview.
Judge Wyle said these publications were not in
evidence.
Mr.. Carpenter urged that there was no proof of
combination or concert OF action.
Mr.. Carpenter said he had never known In any
case SO many gross miSstatements OF testimony as
had been made by Mr.. Ker. He denied the state
meDt that the subcontractor Steininger had been
robbed. and affirmed that he had been paid all the
remittance in his favor.
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
Mr.. Ker here called attention to the testimony
Mr.. Carpenter insisted that there was in the tes-
tlmOny record Of warrant showing that Stein
niger was paid In full.
Mr.. Carpenter denied also the statement that
the subcOntractOr On the Eugene City and Bridge
Creek route had been defrau led. Referring to the
charge In the indictment that Brady refused to
make deductions from the pay OF these cOntrac-
tors, and to impose fines upon them, the speaker
said that the testimony in reference to the routes
under consideration bristed with fines ard deduc-
tons. II the Jury believed the theory and scheme
OF this Indictment, the whole department must
have been hOneycombed indeed. for the cOnspir-
acy must have embraced the inspection division
and the auditors department. Having referred to
what he said were heavy deductions on some Of
the routes Mr.. Carpenter asked IL 1t were credible
that malefactor with money in his pocket for ex-
pedt!ng the route would dare them to impose
their heavy penalties. Mr.. Carpenter continued
to make what he called corrections OF Mr. Ker'S
m1SStatementS OF te StimOny.
At half-paSt 12 O'Clock the usual recess was
taken.
AFTER RECESS
Mr.. Ker read from Mr.. Boone'S testimony to sus-
tain his version OF that testimony, which Mr. Car
penter charged him with msrepresenting.
Mr.. Carpenter proceeding, challenged the prose-
cutiOn to point out particle OF evidence to show,
as charged in the Indictment that the defendants
had procured false and fraudulent letters and peti
tiOns, and filed them in the department. In refer
ence to the first petition put in on the route from
Trinidad to Madison, Mr.. Carpenter asserted that
there was no testimony to show that the words
schedule 13 hours" were interlined by any one
OF these defendants
At oclOcE tho corvt adtonrnod tiu tn nonrrow