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

1
one untrue to bis Official oath ought To he
punished, and there was Eo excuse for
dishonesty Ii public man. Jury had
been told that the people were democrat
Ized, and that to stem the tide OF dishon-
esty innocent men must be made An ex-
ample OF. he held the country was not
demorRliHed. 1t didn't demoralize ia To
change our slaves to castles OF freeman.
! de asked no mercy only an honest var.
dict according TO the evidence. Who
ever found Otherwise to be In accord
with governmeIt was bribed; whoever
for reputation or fear or at public de-
mand 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 fro N numerous su-
Ihorities. he proceeded to Q minute
analysis Of the ehsrges in the indict-
meDI. taking up and examining all the
routes in detail, showing the Yarisnces
which existed between the charges in the
| indictment and the evidence, especially
| in relation 10 dates. Making resume of
his argument. he said in the indictment
there were twelve charges as to false
oaths, and seven charges as to frsudu-
lently signing sub-contrscts, the evidence
showing, 1.-THE evidence were true, that
it was impossible frsudulently to fill sub.
contracts, and that the petitions were
absolutely genuine and honest with two
except ons. The prosecution had tried
to prove that IN one of the petitions the
words, schedule thirteen hours"
had been inserted; but he de-
| MED that the evidence sustained
| that position. The other petition which
the prosecution claimed 10 be fraudulent
was the Utah petition, and this had re-
msined uuseted upon by the second
assistant postmaster general. Mr.. Inger-
! soil, addressing the. court, said he sup
posed he could with propriety draw an
inference Fs to the policy of the post,
Office department, from the papers pre-
sehL in this case
The court replied that be h ID refused
10 hear remarks on that subject when
utfered by the defense, for the simple
reason th~t he wss of the opinion that
NJ second assistant postm sster general
could ests blish any policy for govern
ment, or for any branch Of the govern
ment. The policy of the government was
to be found in the law, and The court was
unwilling TO let 8 second assistant post
master general set up his policy in de-
tense of his case. He had 90 right to
have a policy.
Mr.. lugers II recit5d that he had 0evar
sought to set up the policy of tbs sec ond
assistant postmaster general, or had
| never dreamed of such q thing, All be
had insisted was that the general policy
| OF the head Of the department might be
followed by subordinate officers, without
| laying thems Ives liable TO the charge #
having bean Durehss d.. Mr. IhgsrsOll
then took up the charges Of pRymsns O
false claims, taking up first the KeSrney
Kent route o. this Route the prosecu-
tion claimed the payment of $57 snd S75
had bean made on tsDse Cisims presented
by PEEK and Vale. There wac no evil
deuce TO show that the eXpediti N was
fraudulent; tut conc ding that it wa
the total amount OF false pay was 81, 66J
The records further showed to
Peck did not present this claim
The same was true at thu Othe.
route. Incidentally Ingersoll men-
toned Turner'S name, and severely crit
ieised the action of the prosecution IL,
regard to that defendant he had been
indicted, taken from his home pursued
as though q wild b4ast. government
could not prove single thing against
him, and there was only one course leit
to dismiss him with Rn insult Thr
prosecution alleged that j. w. Dorsey
received by fraud S12452l The evil
dencs showed there were seven Dorsey
routes, which paid $58, 1874; and in truth,
Dorsey only got 1892. Not another COP
per. That, he should insist, was fatal
variance. Every link 10 the chain OF the
Indictment was mistake or a lalsehood
1t was made by adding a mistake to q
falsehood, and what the indictment
Weaved the evidence rAVelled. Why
we're false dates put 10 the indictment?
The prosecution had to deceive the grand
Jury. 1t would not do to tell
the grand jury the defendants
conspired on the 23d OF May, and in pur-
suance of thatconspirscy fed afidsvits
deceive the court, because, IL true dates
had been set forth in the Indictment, the
court would have instantly said: "You
can't Drove conspiracy on the 231 OF
May" by showing overt acts in April.
Did the prosecution expect to win the
case on this indictment? No; but they
could keep it in court long enough to al
low them to hurt and maligu the charac-
ter Of the defendants; long oush 10
vent their venom ard sDlesu on good
and honest men and juttifV, in part, the
comm euCement of this infsm us pose
cutiou.
During the recess the mum Der spec.
tators increased, rather than diminished,
and when 1ngersol resumed the stmo-
sphere Of the court room was exceedingly
close. He began by saying that.
in the forenoon, ne mad tried
to strip the green leaves of
The Indictment; be now proposed to at
tack the main limbs and the trunk.
What was the draft Of indictment? First
That as contractor, the defendants had
written or procured to be written fraudu-
lent Communications, letters and appli-
catlors2 Was there the slightest
evidence that q fraudulent letter was ever
WriGten2 Not the slightest. Second
That they attached forged names 10 thG
petitions7 Mss there any evidence o.
that except in one case2 And evidence il
this case was that An order was msde be-
fore the petition Was received. Third
That they procured the signatures o.
persons not living on the routes on which
the service was expedited. There was ne
evidence OF that fact. FouFth-Tha'
] they made false estbs and declarations
Fifth-That Turner falsely endorsed
Packets containing petitions. This In
dictment against Turner had b'en Ar
raignej into 8 certificate OF goot