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

|
that In order to be good man one had
to be as cold as an icicle. he did not
think that If man wished to be ike God
ut there was GOdl it was necessary TO
be hesrtless. Sixth-ThAt Brady for the
benefit, gain and profit of all the defend
ants did something or other. He wished
to place special emphasis on the word
alt, for that inelu led Turner. Seventh
That Brady had not entered fines against
contractors when they did not perform
their service. What evidence WAS
there Of that? = that the whole
amount Of fines imposed no
Brady amounted 10 S126 865, anS
tina: be RENTED fiaes to the amount on
81, 900 only. Eighth-ThAt Brady fra =,
| dulently cut off the service and then mt
it on again. That appeare 10 two cases.
one involving $50, and the other some-
thing more. Nlnth-That the defend
ants frsudulenily fled sub-contracts
The evidence showed that that was an
impossible offense. This was the scheme
ct the indictment, and he insisted that
the scheme must be proved precisely as
it had been laid, without the variation
OF hair. In support of this
proposition he cited SLarksy's Grim
insl Law, Roscoe's Criminal Evidence
and other authorities. Ingersoll then
passed on to examine the testimony in
relation to j. w. Dorsey's CO nection
10 the conspiracy; and first he impressed
upon the jury that suspicion was not
evidence. Ii there were taken out OF
| this case the suspicious, rumur., p-tiu-
does, epithets and arrogs ant declarations,
the amount of real evidence would beEur-
prisingly small. Prejudice would give
the lie 10 ali the other senses. It would
swear the north star out Of the sky
of truth; it is the womb of irjustice, and
the man who could not rise above his
prejudice was not civilized man, but
barbarian. He DID not wish this case
tried by pr judice. Merrick had SSH, in
his address, that he had once argued that
thejury were judges Of the law as we'll as
OF the fact but that at the same time he
did not believ- it was 8 safe and sound
doctrine. Was be candid then2 Wa.
be candid now? II s doctrire appeared
to be this: When sm afraid of tie
court, insist that the jury are judges Of
the law; when AN afraid OF the Try,
turn the law over to the court. He (In-
gersolD believed j. W. Eursey to be
absolutely an honest man. Mr.. Merrick
had called John w Dorsey a
perjurer, because he made two Aft
davits upon the same route-No.
80, las No such charge was made 10
the Indictment, but be would ans wer it..
lngersOll then y ent on to show the two
afidavits, though fled on the same date
were not made within a month Of each
Jtner. The only question Was whether
the last affidavit was made for the pur.
pose OF perpetrsting q fraud upon the
government. The first affidavit stated that
ten men and horses were required to per-
form the then service, and that under the
proposed schedule thirty-seVen would be
required. II the pay had been calculated
on The affidavit it would have
affidavit said that the then service
required twenty men and aaimsls, and
that the proposed service would require
fitty-fCur. Under the second affidavit,
which the prosecution said was q wilful
ana corrupt perjury he only got $8,457
| Nothing mad been shown IN the ca e
n"re calculated to put j. w. Dorssy in
g:Ander light than this very affidavit
IN re WAS no evidence to show that he
Va ever spok with Brady or Turner;
That he had ever entered into any agree
n mt with them of any sort, character or
description tt any place, at
any time, on any subject
~ any purpose. There was no evidence
chat b a. ever received solitary dol
ar from the United States except 1892
In 9th ~ word. the testimony showed
that John w. Dorsey wss an honest
man, and th4ra was no jury. never had
been ore, and never would be, that
would End man like that guilty on evil
dence such as had been presented.
Now he came to speak Of biz other
client, Stephen W. Dorsey, 8 Z lend of
MS; man who was not simply q poIiti-
clan, but statesman. Mes eeny, in his
opening address, had stated that S. W.
Dorsey had lost money on his star routes.
Merrick had criticised the defense for not
calling Bosler to prove the statement.
Ee QDgersolD wanted to know why the
prosecution had not put Bosler on the
stand to prove Dorsey had lost money.
Merrick said there was no evidence what
ever as to whether S. W. Dorsey lost
money on these routes, and the state
nent OF the counsel in opening cannot 10
used, submit as evidence by the coua-
sci in closing
The Court understand that ths o.
marks now made are 10 reply 10 the re-
marks made IN the opening.
Merriek-The opening of their own
counsel.
Ingersoll-Mr. McSweeney said S. w.
Dorsey had lost money, and Merrick
Asked why they had not brought Boslsr
to prove that.
Mr.. Merrick-NoI IS to money, but as
to the distribution of routes and the loan
of money 70 Dorsey and DOrsey's trans
fer of the ROUTES 10 B isler as security for
The money.
The Court--I shall not interfere.
gersoll-Good.
The Ccu,t-I think this remark ia in
reply to sn o5servstion Of your own, Mr..
Merrick.
Dir. Ingersoll then went on to COM
ment at sCme length upon the fact that
government bad not called Bssler, ard
turned his attention to the overt acts
charged against s W Dorsey. he was
delighted at having the OPT orIunity to
ans er, and answer for ever, all the In
famous things said against that man. BE
Analysed seriG>ias the charges brought
against Dorsey, and claimed that the
evidence wholly failed to sussain them;
and then went on in recapitulation cl
those charges which he asserted con-
, sisted Of two mistakes and one impossible
oGense. Ths mistakes were charges oil
|. fling false petitions and af1davits. The
: impossible oEense Was fling fraudulent