New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-07-21
THE STAB ROUTE CASES.


THE QUESTION OF CONSPIRACY.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL on THE ADMIsslBILIIT OF
wAIsH's TESTIMONY AGAINST BRADY--A DEClS-
ION EXPECTED TO-DAY.
WASHINGTON. July 20.-In the Criminal Ccnrl
this morning Colonel Robert Ingerso resumed
ment for the defendants in the Star Route cases. upon
the admssiblty Of Walsh's evidence He sad INC ou
mad clearly Land down rules of law governing .no
troduction OF evidence He perfectly IN accoiu VIZ
the decision Of the Court, and to argue the quesi
ther would only he making an ATTACK upo' Ill,
already dead. One question had already pce -
disposed OF in this Court disposed oil pey Oh" 49,. -
grlment 1t that the confession u 49, CON.
couh not be used In evidence against iono" ~, =,
+or urtp the conspiracy itself had been fuiiy iaue
r+ Tho lanOnage of the law referred 20 tne con
| fesson of a oo-consplrator, ana ~ Vi -
sitv il assumed that there was " 0onsPi ,
| The Govornment counsel had decIareu u'"' 'no' "
snhmitied all of their evidence tending 10 esIao' VI"
,aov and IL was now within the discretionary
novor OF the Court whether pripa i'ce case %
hr made ont not possible case, but prlina Iacle
o.. Where the Court only believed thai evidence hsu
heen produced which Of enough weight 10 give 10
iurv but still sufficient 10 make out prma '"cle
case "a IN he maina aimed that the declarations OF e
low could not be used against his associates
II the evidence was admissible at ALL IL was OILY rs "
accompaniment Of act and nobody would say 'na'
General Brady did any at the time the alleged COLI
fession had been made All men were presumed 10 nave
done right until the contrary appeared even when coi
yicted by the press Even allowing that deenu"h'N '
hoeu mutually interested Ill the contracts 1t was no eV-
dence of the existence of o conspiracy III must DO
shown that the combination was corrupt, ana
failing in that there nothing to sustain
The indictment In conclusion, Mr. lngeiSoI
said that he would affirm three propoStohs :
First that confession of ellOwconsprator cGuld not
be accepted against an associate seconu unai te
esson could used against himself uhni the COZ
spracy had been otherwise proVeu anu ~ ,ta Oh
i,cIs of .he conspiracy could not be received. o
MI Ingersol followed by NJ WILSON o., e s ,ba5
side tie said that this case was OF snch cn' d la
Tia ronfesson OF Que person could not be received VIII
ont manifest injury 70 another ana 'n1 Se thep hand
therefore incompetent evidence ii, oD lne o'l Iv
il did not have that tendency. IL colu nov DC @
because did not meet the requirements inPosou uP
SuG an,ra enke then took mp the argument and 'le
he vas speaking Attorney General Bre" ser &c
room ard after SHAKING hands with MT Mel'ivk
took a seat at the prosecutiohiaOe N Ihe coaiso VI
nus argument General uenke quoted NAT ne sau as
the declsou of the Cont upon the shciency Of tie EVIL
dcnce 70 make out the conspiracy. ,...,o.. .
Judge WyeI did not say that discain e1 W - ~
thaf onini6n 30 strongly. said dld not WISH 10 4he
thai Question from the jury merely saa Una. WINE
discussing this point gentle men might ASSUME ' 1e
evidence was sufficient, and that was done ior the PuI
P":e Ul a2ki replied that he understood that. He
should nave surprised 10 hear such an opoh non
the Court from any lawyer on tne lace u INC e'
IA Conf Tnal is IA question of fact which does not
Iontpuing General HeDke argued that the evidence
was moi good as proof vi the overt acts Dnt the court I'D
terupleq him and said he believed that IL was hoI
o,srd far Thai puruose IL only offered as tending
to establish the conspiracy. General dekIe sad ihal
10 such declaration HAD been mace anu upon reference
IA tnr record il appeared tnat the evidence had been
offered without limitation Dy the ~ h,s rn
court then directed counsel TO proceed III hls hlgn
at mon that point. At Its conclusion the dele zee an
nOunced that they had c-oseu IheAi "b""'"' DP0N '
POM ~ CLOCK Mr. Serrick began the closing argument
for the prosecution. He SAID lac wished IL Distinctly ui
derstOOd that the evidence Oh th' "IVnS, nis, 49,,
0r,re only as against Brady, anu II was proper or te
Court TO direct tne Jury NOT 70 aio% ~ ~ oncsrncd
There was another confession maue 10 tDe lao
General OF tue Uni1ed States ttIie heiueu c0nltSolon
winch stood upon nearly tine same ground Nhen PIO
Ter Was made that evidence Il an carry stage Oh Ine
case ii mad ruled out ON the gro9na o nc eo
snrav had not then been made OUT; but on yesterday
the Court had neld that there We huloent @ 10,
necessary to make out prma Iice cdse y, VI innS
cate Just soon AZ tine adluoeu efIueno' ,nt 1'
ncent ia conyet two persons OF conspiracy, thaJ mo
neni insIned the Introduction Oh Tue adisslobs OF
one OF 6on OF them lie would l"y 40" on p'po "a
anon against when not one snadO" OF autHOy ndu
been proouced. 1t that person coua De convicted
upon ~" Ne D was interrupted by the AttOneyGen
eral who about 10 leave the court ana ng 10
Judge wyhe, apoog el1r'ag i Tae trial
don wisn my ahsence 10 be construed INTO nulneI
% r uV ts case" SAID MIR. brewster, IL Is ony
Sr ou,nnsion of oJner engagements that nave bcen
preYeniei from taILS al acu'e p@i' III '"o '''0 q"
We have gotten along very WELL" sad the Court
am sure YOU have done better tIan most PeOpie
exuecf" replied the Attorney-Generai' as he iei inc
NJ N.rricl, then continued his argument
Accepting .ithout argument inc
Cenrt mai the cons piracy sufficiently established
la am show that the Occiatatlou5 Vi
The men might acce pted as against &
| A,,or, al of Inc hOnteS produced ny bue othcI
side not wOaid Sustain The ASSUMPTION sS ,n man
declaration could no Dc ustd aBdIlst Nun 49, -, ~
tahhshmen of me crime. The only limitation Was III lIS
auullcstion which confined 10 the parry h'"AinE
the confession. After the party mao confessed
nIInsef II there was evidence against Ino otheI
10 the jury, inc Coui nitn.
acauittal, for one man coulu MOI
in mis- ca the Court had held that there was suhcioh
Other parties 10 go W Ii' Jul
| Indgr ~, le said understood tiat inc GslecnCe
| WIS offered only against bTauS. II tI ,
was evidence now. it was evidence az nc oss,I
| plnp. SO that II conspiracy cOuiu oe Vs,'p
iisned nv ~ mans confession, may be estaDish u
M any sfnpc of The case 1ne question was "netnei d
| man could admit himself into d conspiracy , Ia
Mr. Merrck proceeded WIN MS a sulnoi., ~ ~
rod Walsn's statement and sad that Whenever cVi'
dence WAS prOducsd that Miner mao ln"ue ",se aii
dayjt or that Rerdcll had forged petition M,
rnud How does TINS snow IpIdu y ho'I''s
TO Brady II would snow nov he hau COZ '-o ~
lire aud had iattcued Oh INC li"hO
There only ninety three rOutts UPON "V" ~ IL
zion mad been Order,d, AID only lese Li pcoi. te "
- one them expedited Docausc ne uiu hoI
,ay fOr it, The defendants pad Tor IL ana got als
in.uea Brady money Brady thought Al was pay, anu
| When discovered mat wan u
6, MOI so maid he was crushed out. Mr. MericA said
Ilat he dId think that walsh Eiueiicu w
excluded far Brady was coheeIheu uhu1n n! w
OF evidence, but he would suD!lAt IL " Tue JuuH' "
| the Court , A. uo,i, o. tho authorities
ouot,d by Mr. Nerrck, and Mr. Cnalldlel aIeuou IL
| length npon them AT the close VI MI Challuiei Ie
marks which closed the argument upon tniS phoe'O
| for Sides the Court auDOuFhtu "hIi '"n0AiV"'
when It's decision viii probably DE renuSicd.
--