Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-10
THE STAR ROUTE CASES.
DECISION OF JUDGE ,WYLIE.
HE sUSTAINs THE INDICTMENTS.

>
To-day, in the Criminal Court, Judge wylie,
made decision in the cases OF Brady, Dorsey and
others, known as the star.foute cases, In which a
motion to quash the indictments was argued about
ten days ago. It win be remembered that the
case OF A. C. SoteldO, on the Indictment FOL
the murder OF A. II. soteldo, Is involved in
this decision, one Of the same points being
raised, viz: Whether The Indictment was
found ON the direction OF the court
or with the knowledge Of the court
been bound over, under the law OF Maryland OF
1722 Some time before the court opened some OF
N II
accused; Messrs. Corkhill and Merrick represent
ing the government; Messrs. Ehellabarger, Inger-
peneT se and %sns snee g
sci, nd Robert Christy, representing Soteldo The
court room rapidly filed up as soon as the case
was opened.
Judge WyIie's Decision,
AS soon as the jury was called, Judge Wylte
said he proposed to decide the motions made In
the case Of the United States ag ainst Jno w. Dor
sey and others. Separate motions to quash had
been made by two defendants-Brady and g. w.
Dorsey-on substantially the same groudd Judge
Wylie then recited the facts set forth concerning
the irregular finding OF the indictment as alleged
by the defence
THE Law ov TIA
II the statute of Maryland OF liza Is the law OF
this District, the objections raised by the defence
are fatal. He then read the Maryland statute OF
1722 and said this act was probably she result OF
belief or suspicion by the legislature that the
power to originate indlctments was power too
great to be safely confided tonAy prosecuting ocer
At common law, however, and generally tnroagh-
out the states of the Union Shis power Is conceded
snce has shown he S that has e rek snd
had often been attended with most salutary
TTn'a ns aWs Of 70 the y ana
continue In force in the p0kteenS OF the District
eedcd by those states respectively pntn they
should be altered by CongrsS
THE MARYLAND ACT NOT IN NsRCB IN YNH DrsTRICr.
The Maryland act OF 1722. It tAe time Of cession,
was one OF the laws Of th.ss stats, but It did not
follow that it was in forccsn the District The
Sd section OF the act OF Feh2, 1901. prossded TOR
tie constitution OF q new csrt, different from the
Maryland court, and the tlso could no more exist
together than two bodies c. matter could exist In
the same space. The new :reu:t court siius con
Sttuted had jurisdiction aE powers not belonging
to the Maryland court Tss act or 1901 set forth
That such court should havs su3sGi Lion OF crimes
a., and the powers over siis, since defined by
statute, have been vested Ia yiis Court as in other
United States cOurtS-crmS. iiith the attorney
general OF Maryland cOniI Fsaye 20 scognfzauee
By the 9th section OF tn s.ct OF 1901 it was de-
clared that there should be y pointed an attorney
OF the United States wnes tuiie.s were defined.
Quoting from the statute O. Eles. defining the du-
ties or such u. s. att0rneyssae said II mani
TEST that the district attora o. this district Wis
In no sense the successor essaie attorney general
OF Maryland. The act OF fsJ was nus reue .lefi
1t was simply not adopted Is the new System. 1t
appeared to him that the - CT 1Ts2 d. sAj,tsesrea
from our laws along with Pie judicial sysIem to
which 1t belonged. - = ggs4s.
AS TO THE MDICTs. mt rTsKLF
The next subject for cons afion WAS Che IN
dictment itself. 1t was an .noFste and carefully
prepared instrument. TbT 1nence charged was
that OF conspiracy to defrs' 81 the United States
1t Was as charged cOIfS +. .ay executed or car
r1ed out to successful rsst.I, Judge Wylie here
quoted from section $40 Rss, setting forth the
penalty for conspiracy. ThlssAct be said. changed
the common law In two rGSssctS: 1st that q con-
Splracy in Itself without af yvert art was not an
ind1ctable offence; 81, In tss degree OF punish
meat, which under the cornfacn law was left to
the discretion or the judge
THE CONSPIRACY SUFFICIENTLY get FORTH.
1t was clear that the conss tracy was sufficiently
set out and the purpose to dseraud was sufficiently
charged. The only questfaD was as to whether
the acts charged were SUIT 1ent to make out a
case Of crime. 1t was crssae to steal goods and
chattel, but an 1ndctmenr you'd be bad II 1t did
not set forth the articles STORM. so, too it was a
or Cheat another, but ts inaistent ~ must a. set
forth the means, proposed ia order that the court
may see that the means re illegal. Itmust be
made 10 appear that the acts charged win, II ap-
proved, support a cOnvictiba OF the defendants
The question was whether hle independent acts
formed an indictable offence
Judge Wylie then entered.snto an analysis OF the
Indictment. If the alleged beert acts were indict-
able Offences, the indictmen, was good. The first
charge Was that extension g. routes and increase
OF service on route sc, ,113 wsre obtained by false
oaths, petitions, &C., with the connivance OF
Brady; and, further. that subsequently Stephen
w. Dorsey became the Sub-e6ntractor after which
another order to increase the service was made
and allowances were made both to the contractor
and sub-contractOr
He quoted from section 54g9 r. g.. setting forth
that any officer OF the United States who acted as
agent IN prosecution OF any claim against the
United st stes. assisted in snch prosecution, or
such pro iecution, &c, "Sbould be liable to PEN
atty Oh not more than 1000 or Imprisonment for
one year, or both" He quoted also the law max
Ing IL a penal OHence Tor a man to receive bribeS,
&C., also statute providing penalty for any per-
son who falsely makes, alter, forge, counte rfeit
propos Subc reeor or the any gpo
OF defrau ling the United stltes, or wilfuy cause
such falsticaton to be published as true or shall
ranilnit the same to any officer OF the United
states for the purpose OF defrauding the United
States There were SO alleged overt acts set out
In the Indictment, the major number OF them
charging the employment OF fictitious signatures,
&C., in pursuance OF a common purpoSe-to de-
fraud the government In the first charge. allow
made to both the contractor and sub-contractor
ana upon the face OF the paper 1t seemed that
Ingersoll, Chandler and others smiled at this
point
MR.. INGERSoLL EXPLAINS.
Mr. Ingersoll interrupting the CO urt, without
rising from his chair, said: "Will the court allow
me to state just how it was?"
'"You will have opportunity to do that here
after, u said Judge Wylie
81 On ly want the court to know. said Mr.. Inger-
soil
II do not care to make point Of that" said the
judge.
"The facts are" continued Mr. Ingersoll, ssthe
Sub-contractor gets his allowance out Of the allow
ance made to the contractors
"That," said Judge WyAe, adont appear on the
face OF the paper"
"W ell,' retorted Mr.. Ingersor, ssthat is because
the indictment is not well drawn" [Laughter.]
THE ANALYSIS CONTINUED.
Judge Wylie then conttnued;his analysis OF the
indictment He quoted authorities, holding that
1t was enough therefore for the pleader set forth
the offence IN such apt words as to describe it
against the statutes. He held that the averments
made in the Indictment regarding the false af1-
davits oaths, petitions &C., were substantially in
the words OF Sec. 5,479. R 81 and that was suf-
nclent He quoted from the act OF 1872, setting
forth that no defect in an Indictment which did
not tend to the preJudice4 Of the accused should
1nvalidate
BRADY AAENABLE 10 C0URTs OF JUSTICE
In relation to the claim In the case OF Brady,
that he was not amenable to courts of justice but
liable to impeachment, he said that notion was
errOneOuH The Constitution DFOvidod tudQment