The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-06
LATEST TELEGRAMS.



Washington, 6.-Col. InRersolI began
his star route argument Tor Dorsey this
morning saying he opposed the official
corruption IS much as any man, and that
one untrue 70 bic Official oath ought 70 be
punished, and there was go excuse for
dishonesty In public man. Jury had
been told that the people were democrat
lzed, and thai to stem the tide OF dishon-
esty Innocent men must be made an ex-
ample OF. be held the country was not
demorRlized. 1t didn't demoralize ma IN
change our slaves to castles OF freemen.
he asked no mercy only An honest YER.
dict according TO the evidence. Who
ever found Otherwise to be in accord
with governmeI was bribed; whoever
for reputation or fear or at public de-
msnd or from malice or prejudice, found
otherwise WAS bribed. He then argued
that covert acts charged must be proved
exactly ss alleged. In support Of this
position he quoted from numerous su-
thoritiss. he proceeded to q minute
analysis of the chsrges in the indict-
meDt, taxing up and examining all the
routes 10 detail, showing the Varisnces
which existed between the charges In the
indictment and the evidence, especially
in relation 70 dates Making resume of
his argument he said ia the indictment
there were twelve charges as to false
oaths, and seven charges as to fraudu-
lently signing sub-contracts, the evidence
showing, IL the evidence were true, that
it was impossible frHudulently to fill sub.
contracts, and that the petitions were
absolutely genuine and honest with two
except ons. The prosecution had tried
10 prove that 10 one of the petitions the
words, schedule thirteen hours"
had been inserted; but ne de-
MED that the evidence sustained
that position. The other petition which
the prosecution claimed TO be fraudulent
, was the Utah petition, and this had re-
, msiDed nnacted upon by the second
assistant postmaster general. Mr.. Inger-
soil, addressing the. court, said he sup
posed be could with propriety draw an
inference es TO the policy of the post.
Office department, from the papers pre-
seht d in this case
The court replied that De hid refused
10 hear remarks on that subject when
r offered by the defense, for the simple
= reason ID ~t he wss of the opinion that
NJ second assistant postm aster general
could establish any policy for govern
menI, or for any branch Of the govern
ment. The policy of the government wai
to be found in the law, and The court Wal
unwilling to let q second assistant post
C MASTER general set up his policy in de.
= tense of his case. he had DO right t.
e have policy.
I Mr.. lugers II recitsd that he had nevsi
Z sought to set up the policy of ths sec ono
assistant postmaster general, or haS
never dreamed of such thing. All b
had insisted was that the general policJ
OF the head Of the department might b
e followed by subOrdinste officers, withOb
d laying thaus Ives liable TO the charge a
&C having BEEN epurehss d. Mr. IkxsrsOl
h then took up the charges OF pRymsns o
false claims, taking up fret the Ke4rne
Kent route o. t0is route the pr0secu
ton claimed the payment Of <57 sad 81
had been made on tslse cisjms presente'
" by PEEK and Vaile. There wac no evi
: denee 10 show that the eXpediti W wa
fraudulent; but conc ding that it wa
the total amount Of false pay was 81, 66l
The records further showed tba
Peck did not present this Claim
l. The same was true at the othe
l. route. Incidentally IngersolI men
= toned Turner'S name, and severely crit
h icised the action Of the prosecution !.
n regard to that defendant he had beel
- indicted, taken from his home pu-sus
~ as though a wild b4sst. Governmen
could not prove single thing agains
him, and there was only one course lei
to dismiss him with al insult Th
N prosecution alleged that J. w DOrse
- received by fraud $l24 52I. The evi
- dence showed there were seven Dorse
routes, which paid SIS, 1894; and 10 trutt
y Dorsey only got 1892 Not another COP
per. That, he should insist, was fata
variance Every link 10 the chain OF Ii
Indictment was q mistake or q falsshooc
1t was made by adding a mistake to
falsehood, and what the indictmer
weaved the evidence ravelled VIII
were false dates put iD the indictment
: The prosecution had to deceive the gran
- Jury. 1t would not do 10 te
conspired on the 23d OF May, and ia gu
III on the Sd Of April. Then they had
deceive the court. because, K true DAT
had been set forth in the Indictment, tt
court would have instantly eaid: "Yc
D can't prove conspiracy on the 231
May" by showing overt acts in Apr
Did the prosecution expect to win ii
case 90 this indictment? No; but the
could keep it in court long enough to q
low them 70 hurt and mAlign the chara
ter Of the defendants; long g oush
vent their venom ard splesu on goo
and honest men and jaetifV, ia part, Il
commenCemento OF this iufam JUS psos
cutiou.
During the recess the nun Der 0 spe
tators increased, rather than diminishe
and when 1ngersoll resumed the atm,
sphere Of the court room was exceeding
close. He began by saying th.
in the forenoon, be had triC
TO strip the green leaves
The Indictment; be now proposed to 8
tack the main limbs and the trun
What was the draft Of Indictment Eli
That as contractor, the defendants b
written or procured to be written fraud
lent COMMUNICATIONS, letters and app
- cstlors9 Was there the slixht|
n evidence that fraudulent letter was ey
4 writlen4 Not the slightest. Second
That they attached forged names 70 I
petitions7 Mas there any evidence
u that except IN 0ne case2 And evidence
this case was that an order was msde
fore the petition Was received. Third
" That they procured the signatures
persons not living on the routes on VIII
the service was expedited. There was
evidence OF that fact. FouFth-Ts
eS they made false estbs and declaration
Tifh-That Turner f.Isalv andorI