The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1882-12-11
The Right 40 u Fair rrini.n the stnr-
Route Case.

Editorial In New York sun.
We think the dofendant1 In tle Star.Routo
case were rlghtfully Indicted II the puO.
llshcd fnctp are true, they ought to be con.
vlcted. whether Innocent or guilty, however,
they are entitled 10 n fair trial, and this they
do rot seem sure tn get.
TO say that they do not really want tho
very fairness and impartlallty they demand,
ia no justification for the action Of tho Gov.
eminent In conducting the cause 80 az to
terrify Jurors into voting for conviction,
whether they think they ought TO or not.
Let us consider the circumstances OF the
case. Public opinion ie worry nearly unaut.
nous M to tho moral guilt OF Thomas j. Brady
and stephen W. Dorsey. Condemnation In tho
court OF opinion, however, Ia very different
rom condemnation In n court OF law. People
may regard n man az very moan for refusing
TO pny promissory note moro than six yoars
overdue, but the community has agreed that
II II n wiso and oNpedlont thing to declare by
statute that the payment OF such
note cannot he enforced unless u new
promise has intcryened. So. also, Congress
has enacted that certain ouenses must b0
prosecuted within n specified number OF years,
If prosecuted at ALL The olronses OF which tho
Star Route defendants appeared most clearly
guilty were found TO be shut out from prosecu-
lion by virtue OF the Statute OF Limitations. Tho
question thereupon arose whether all NJ.
tempts TO punish them under the criminal
law should be abandoned, or whether some
method could not DO devised TO avoid tho enect
OF the lapse OF time.
The idea OF indlctlug all the parties for con-
spirncy appeared TO oror the best chance Of
success. Although the original combination
dated back TO period 30 remote that no prose-
cuiion could now be maintained for single
ana separate orfense committed then, the Gov.
eminent sought TO show that the conspiracy
. which began at that time had continued down
to time 80 recent that the statute OF Llmita.
lions did not stand In tho way. This was the
theory upon which the first trial proceeded.
We now mention these matters only TO show
that tho guilt of the Star-R0ute defendants Is
not so perfectly clear In n legal sense rs 70 BIO
absolutely beyond question by reasonable,
fair-mindod, and honest mon. II 1t was, tho
proof would be simpler, clearly aud more
readily comprehensive by the public. Months
OF time and thousands OF pages OF testimony
would not have been needed to mako out n
case satisfactory to tho counsel for tho Govern
ment, and upon which they were willing TO go
10 n jury; and by this timo people generally
would have gained some definite idea as TO
precisely what acts were rolled upon to Bus-
lain conviction; Whereas In fact, there Is
not one man In ton thousand, oven OF those
who have regularly and carefully read all the
reports OF the first trial In the newspapers,
who can explain the reasons why tho Jury
ought to have found tho defendants guilty.
Bear in mind thatwe arc not now discussing
the moral guilt of these mon. We arc merely
considering whether the evidence OF their
legal guilt Is so plain, overwhelming and con.
elusive that no honest Jury could acqult them.
This is tho attitude that the prosecution has
now assumed and is seeking to impress upon
the new Jury. We deem 1t grossly improper,
inasmuch rs its effect Is to deprive tho de:
Pendants Of that "trial by impartial Jury"
which the Constitution Of tho Unltc1 States
says accused persons shall enjoy.
If this right may be denied TO these par.
tlcular men, simply because the Government
is convinced of their guilt, why may 1t not
hereafter DO denied to others who may happen
to be perfectly innocent
The facts In the Star.Route cage which SAVIOR
OF terrorism arc the dismissais Of a number
of prominent officers Mt Washington for acts OF
sympathy with the defendants, immediately
prior TO the time fixed for the beginning Of
the second trial; the delay to prosecute tho
Jurors charged with misconduct on the first
trial until the second trial was Just about to
begin; and the trial OF the case a second time
before n Judge who presided over the first trial
and whose utterances show that no has formed
n strong opinion adverse to the innocence OF
the men now again to be tried before him.
First, as 10 the dismissal OF Marshal Henry
and the other officers II they had been turned
out Just as soon ms their alleged misconduct
was discovered In each instance, there would
not be much TO critlcise. But action against
them appears to have been purposely and
needlessly postponed until tho very eve OF the
new trial, rs though to tell the jurymen about
to be impanneled that 1t would be dangerous
to pronounce tho guilt OF the defendants
doubtful, even II they entertained reason
able doubt on the subject after hearing all the
evidence.
The proceeding against Mr.. Dickson, the
foreman of tho former jury, is timed 80 as to
attract the attention OF tho new Jurors and II.
lustrate what experiences may befall any Of
them who may be inclined to vote not guilty.
And, finally, Judge Wylle ought not to try
the case n second time. II required no argu-
ment TO show that any other Judge of the
court would be likely TO decide tho various
questions which VIII arise with less pref udg-
ment than he can possibly manifest. As a
mere matter of good taste, as we'll rs TO main
tain that impartiality which tho law demands,
cial brethren. The indecent example OF a
New York judge is no excuse for n course
which may be popular for the moment, but Is
radically wrong In tendency and principle.
We should like TO see the Star-Route con-
spirators convicted, but not unless they can
be convicted fairly and according to law.