National Republican., 1882-12-09
THE sTAR-RoUTE CASES.
Arguments Upon the Question OF Chnl-
lenges by the DefeMse.

lenges by the Defense.
The argument on the number of challenges
the defense were entitled to in the star-routc
trial was continued yesterday before Judge
Wylic in the criminal court. The counsel on
both sides and the defendants, with the eX
ception of Stephen w. Dorsey, were in attend
anCe The Jury were dismissed until O'Clock.
Mr.. Wilson, for the defense said they had
nothing to say; the court had once decided
the question OF challenges.
Mr.. Mcrrck stated he had motion TO
make and would do so at the proper time.
Mr.. Davidgc said his side had no further
motion to make. In regard to the argument
on the challenges he thought it entirely within
the discretion of the court to fix the time and
length. The argument was for the enllghten-
mcnt of the court
Judge Wylic considered there could be no
better time than the present, but would re-
serve his decision until the time came Tor
challenging the jurors.
Mr.. Davidge replied that this was most
important question, whether each defendant
should have four challengers, or whether there
should only he four for the whole of them.
The defendants were on trial for their liberty,
and after the argument the decision should
not he withheld.
The court said they were not entitled to
decision until the proper time came to de-
liver it,
Mr.. Wilson followed Mr.. Davidge adopting
the same line of argument He COntended
they proceeded as if the law was settled on the
luing already made If they were to go on
in the dark it would work great injustice to
their clients Therefore, he thought the dc
csion should be rendered at the close OF the
argument. The court said counsel should
not presume anything. 1t was sufficient Tor
them TO know when the court desired rear
gumcnt: the court was undecided, and on
this subject the mind of the court was as
blank sheet of paper.
MIR. Ingcrsoll asked if the point was now ar
pued that the court would announce his de-
cison before the first juror was called, so that
each side might know how they stood.
,Judge Wylie said this was a new trial, and
any point of law that might arise was open
TO argument although ruling had been made
at the last trial The court had given notice
that it would hear reargument on the qucs-
tion, so that they would be placed in the same
position now as they were AZ the former trial
Mr. Davidge noted an exception, as he, con
sidered the defendants were entitled to know
the number of challenges they were entitled
to.
The court then directed the argument to
proceed.
Mr.. Mcrricll said he would be brief in offer
ing what suggestions he had to make. He
thought the whole question fell in very mar
row compass, and was embraced by the statu-
tory law He cited section Sl9 Revised stat
utcs, which provides that in case there are
several defendants the parties on each
side shall be deemed a single party for
the purpose of challenge. lie held this
section was not inappicable to the District
of Columbia and cited the case OF Page and
Burnstein in support. 1t was not Tor the
government to show that the section was in
onplicable, but for the other side. The pro-
vision in the general statutes did not collide
with the local statutes. Since the last trial
he had made inquiry as to the practice of the
courts on this subject and found that Judge
Macarthur and Judge Hagner had both held
that section Sl9 was good.
Mr.. Davidge replied for the defense. He
said the law cited had only been passed in
1872 and seldom called upon. Judges Hagner
and Macarthur had ruled in support of it,
while Judges James and Wylie had ruled
AGAINST it, so the weight of opinion was about
equal. The case cted-that of Page and
Burnstein-if properly applied, put an end to
the pretensons of the government that the
CONT was wrong in its decision at the last
t,ial. Mr.. Davidge then critically discussed
ti.o various statutes, their meaning, and the
order i'll which they were passed.
At,this point the jurors were excused until
Monday morning, and Mr.. Davidge continued,
showing the application of the statutes to this
District, and claiming that as this particular
section was only passed in 1872, it did not
come under the organic act OF 1871, providing
that all laws not locally inapplicable were
loud in this District. That section meant
the laws existing in 1871.
Mr.. r. B. Carpenter followed. He referred
to the policy of congress in limiting the gov
crnmcnt as to challenges, and said that in
tb.s case, where the department of justice,
with its learned attorneys, and spies, and de-
tcctivcs without number, and even the presi-
dental office was thrown into the scale to
good account furnished the best illustration
10 congress to justify them in passing this
law He held that the government were not
entitled to any peremptory challenges, but
simply challenges for cause.
Mr. Henkle followed on the same side with
Il brief speech.
MIR. NIerrick then commenced the closing
argument for the government. He maintained
the applicability of the statute which he had
cited He would not notice the inSinuations
made against the powers of the United States
1t would he time enough for that when the
case came to trial. 1t would be injudicious
and unwise that the United States should
have one rule in one judicial system and
different one in another. In reply to Mr.
Davidge's objection, he held that the act OF
1871 referred not to the constitution as it then
existed but to the constitution as it now cX-
lists. He thought the court had held at the
last trial that the statutes were not inconsist-
cnt, as the government had been allowed three
pnrcmptory challenges. Thieves should he nC
safer in the District of Columbia than in New
York.
At 3:O5 Mr.. Merrck finished, when the
court adjourned until Monday, Judge Wylic
rescrving his decision.
Among the spectators present yesterday
were Mr.. Dickson, a prominent patent lawyer
of New York, and eX-City Solicitor David Nj
Sellers, of Philadelphia