The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1882-09-16
THE sTAR.ROUTE TRIAL.


Nghei Aiter explanatory remarks 10 inc jury
began his charge. He said that BY the act of
Merch 3, 1871 Congress appropriated S5,9O00o0
for the maintenance of the Star-route service
That appropriation was for the fiscal year OF
1850. The appropriation was all asked by the
Department. The records of the Treasury and
Post-ofiice Departments showed that for the
three previous years there was an unexpend-
ed balance Of nearly Si.0O0,00l to the credit of
the Post-offiee Dcpartmen Z. There was IN cv-
idcnce Statement showing that the Post
master-G ereral, on December 8, 1873, had asked
for the appropriation of S2,0OO0O1 TO meet the
deficiencies in the appropriation for the
Star-route service This was d statement
calculated TO arrest the--atteution of
Congress- for il showed that in five months
after the beginning Of the fiscul year there was
deficiency of S2.00000O. This was d fact to
alarm the country. An investigation followed,
and an additional appropriation was made,
with provisions limiting the expedition and in
crease of service upon routes. That was as
far as the act of Congress ought TO have gone.
The other circumstances were fit subjects for
Judicial investigation. This Investigation fol-
lowed, and an indictment was found against
these alleged conspirators. This indictment
might be said to have five features. First,
historical; second, describing the conspiracy y
third, the means; fourth, overt acts and, fifth,
the partition of the money. The historical part
was well known. As to the means used to
carry on the conspiracy, the jury need not
trouble themselves about that. Whether or
not they were sufficiently described in the in
dictment was not for them to consider. The
divisionof money depended upon the ques-
ton of the existence of conspiracy, and that
was really the only consideration for the jury
whether there was a conspiracy, followed by
the commission of overt acts, False papers
tua II NO
had been held that the Government was re-
quired to accurately describe the means.
Whether the. parties were mutually interested
in the several contracts was of no ,conse-
quence., Their interest in the cons piracy must
be considered. The parties were according
to the indictment, individual owners of con-
tracts, and mutually Interested only in the
conspiracy. Any overt act under any one of
the contracts was an overt act under all, of
them. . '.
Referring to the defendants prayers, Judge
Wylie said that the conspirators were Jointly
united for the same purpose, and several for
others Each man stood on his own defense.
The jury could not convict one man of con-
spiracy, but they could convict two of the de-
PENDANTS. If there mad been only one overt
act committed, and the jury acquitted the
party committing il, then the defendants must
all be acquitted. Brady had been called the
key, the masterkey, to the whole conspiracy
and if no overt acts were shown to be commit
ted by any other defendant. then they must all
be acquitted. The position taken by the de-
tense that all the defendants must be shown to
have been interested in all the contracts was
false. If it had been shown that they were
criminally interested in only one, that was suf
ticient and the conspiracy was established.
Surplusage in the Indictment would not vitate
IL. This indictment charged but one offense.
oae conspiracy. 1t could not comprise two
consplracies. Part of defendants might be
wholly acquitted and part convicted, but if the
Jury found two conspiracies-th of the
parties guilty of one and the remaining four
guilty of another-then the indictment failed.
so much for the frame of the Indictment
Now as to the proof. A conspiracy is seldom
reduced to writing; it is generally entered
into in q very informal way. The parties
might reside IN different parts of the country,
hut if by any means, even by dumb show, they
entered into an agreement to defraud the Gov
Crnment followed by an overt act, that was
conspiracy, The law required verdict of
guilty oIIiY when the jury entertained no rea-
sonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants.
The doubt, to be reasonable, must be based
upon evidence, not upon mere conjecture. He
would now take up one of the routes and see
If ii could be connected with any rational
theory of innocence. If it could. the defend
ants were entitled to the benefit of that theory
He would select a small route--the route from
Nermilon to Sioux Falls. ID. L. Tho date of
inc cOutrdcJ was mdrcn ID, 1915, 10 run -FOUR
years; John w. Dorsey, the CONTRACTOR: the
trips were once a week; the di stance fifty
miles, TO which two miles had been added;
the time was fourteen hours; there were
nine post-otiices, but no towns, on the route
Soon after the service was put on 1t was dis
covered that the actual distance was about
seventy miles, and that information had been
distinctly and repeatedly furnished to the Sec
ond Assistant Postmastet~Ge On De-
Gember % lsIs, the ,J number of trips were
tically assigned by sub-contract 10 Vale. On
July 10, 1879, the number of trips was in
creased to six, and the time reduced to ten
hours, increasing the compensation to So lSi.
Deducting an hour for delays at post-ofiices,
the carrier was required to travel the seventy
miles in nine hours. Petitions and letters had
been sent in, and 1t did not absolutely follow
that this expedition was fraudulent If the
jury could reconcile ii with any theory of in
nocence they must do It, A Congressman of
influence, Mr.. Bennett. hal asked for ii.
and that must be considered. Soon after
every postmaster on the route united in
a protest to the department saying the
time was impracticable; and asked TO have the
old fourIeen-hour schedule restored, and Ben
nett Endorsed this protest. and it was sent to
Brady. Just at this point this member of
Congress seemed to have lost his influence,
for ne was informed it could not be done
After reading the law relative 10 productive
ness Judge Wylie inquired what the pro-
ductivnesS had been in this instance. Read
ing from the record, he said that for one year
it had been $26l He had called attention to
this route because II had been asserted that
members of Congress were responsible for eX.
petition. Yet in this case, when IL had been
expedited at the request of a member of Con
gress, its reduction had been refused TO that
same member.
General Henkle interrupted at this point to
remind the court that French had made the
order in question, but Judge Wylie said posi-
lively that French had made the order by
Bradys direction. -aI bod ar.
Here, he continued was an increase made
when IL was shown the revenues were actual
ly decreasing. If the jury could reconcile
thai with Il proper exercise of discretion, lei
them do it. 1t could not have been done
through ignorance Manifestly, it was pur
posely done. The thing TO be decided was