Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-04-01
s.fAR kOUrE CASES.
Axunepts on the Notion 10 Quash the
Indictment.

WASHINGTON. March 81.
| The Star Route cases came up this morn
ing in the criminal courtroom, before Judge
| Willie. The occasion was the argument Of
i the motions to auash the several indictments.
A large attendance of spectators was present.
Judge Wylie inquired how Inany arguments
the counsel for the defence desired to submit
Shellabarger replied that the counsel for Gen.
Brady desired two arguments.
Gel. Ingersoll, speaking for ex-senator
Dorsey. stated his understanding of the ar
rangement made last week-that the argu-
ments should be made this morning simply
on the motion to quash, and that the argu-
ments upon the demurrer should be made at
| some subsequent time.
Judge Wylie stated that he would not as
sign another day for hearing arguments upon
demurrer. The arguments must be made TO-
day upon motion to quash and upon the de-
murrer also. The latter suggested that a
wide difference existed between the case OF
Dorsey, indicted as private citizen, and that
of Gen. Brady, who was indicted for acts of
malfeasance while in Gffice, and many ques-
tions would arise in the argument in the one
case that would not be pertenent in the other.
Judge Wylie decided that as both parties,
or rather the five parties were included in the
arguments could be made. Counsel for the
different parties might agree as to how they
would divide the time.
After a long discussion, in the course of
which it was brought about that no demurrers
had yet been filed, Judge Wylie decided that
the arguments might be made today and
confined to the motion to Quash. Matters
were finally arranged between the court and
the numerous counsel on either side that five
hours should be allotted to the counsel upon
each side, to be divided in the opening and
closing as they might arrange among them
selves.
At ll.35 Col Ingersoll began the opening
argument for the defendants.
The motion to Quash the Indictment, he
said, was for the reason that the indictment
was not found in accordance with the law.
He held that the statute of Maryland of 1922
| is still in force in the District of Columbia
Judge Wylie-I don't think the counsel for
| the government will want to make point
there.
Merrick replied-We shall have something
to say on that point. There is another portion
of the same statute which the counsel had not
read, separated from the portion he has read,
by comma.
Ingersoll with look of amused surprise)
I-Ah ha; is that so? Let me see what you
have behind the comma.
Merrick then read the portion of the stat
utes to which he had alluded, which set forth
the liability of the district attorney for all
damages and costs arising from the prOsecu-
ton where the provisions of the statutes had
not been complied with in the finding of an
Indictment, and added: We shall have some
thing to say in this connection.
Ingersoll-Well, you are welcome to all
you can make ont of that comma. He then
proceeded for some time, when was inter-
rupted by Judge Wylie, who remarked
1.-The court has no doubt on the subject at
all, Of the statute of 1929, if it is in force in
the District of Columbia. If it be in force
the motion to quash must be sustained. Mr..
Bliss, assuming the facts stated to be true"
Judge Wylie-Yes. assuming that the in
dictment was sent before the grand jury
without an order of the court or without
arrest
lngersoll-Of course as to that l know
only from the record, or perhaps rather from
what does not appear in the record.
That the grand jury did not find the indict-
ment from their own knowledge may be safe.
ly assumed from the fact that of the twenty
or more witnesses not one of the names are
those of members of the grand jury.
Col. COrkhill-We do not admit that prop
osition, at all.
InHeTSOll-We ell, we Will assume tnat II Is
true at all events.
Judge Wylie-The whole thing hangs on
the question whether the law OF Maryland, of
l122, is still in force in this district.
IngersOll, proceeding with his argument,
claimed that no act of Congress applicable to
the district had ever been passed that super
ceded this statute or repealed it. He quoted
from decision as late 1912, showing that
the statute was held to be in force at that
date.
Abiding to this indictment, the counsel
said there must be presentment before find
ing ofsan indictments. In this case there was
no presentment.
+ Merrick-But the counsel is in error. There
here.
Trotten-But the presentment was brought
into court wrapped up with the indictment,
endorsed with the same date.
1ngersoll-A presentment of that kind is
no presentment The law requires that a
presentment shall be brought into court,
and the judge shall order it to be shown to
the grand jury, otherwise no indictment can
be legally found. Why, such presentment
, is like getting marriage licence after the
. ceremony is performed.
Merrick-Unless your Maryland law that
would make the issue legitimate.
Ingersoll-But it this case you had no
issue,
Merrick-We have the indictment.
Ingersoll-And we shall show your ndict-
ment to be bastard.
Ingersoll than passed to a general review
of the indictment, and claimed that no offence
was set forth in the instrument with sufficient
distinctness to constitute such an offence.
Ingersoll claimed that Dorsey had never
made cent out of any contract, and no con-
tract in which he was interested was ever ex-
pedited while he was so interested; on the
contrary he was the loser bv more than 800
600. and this in face of the charge that he
has taken the vast sums from the treasury,
fraudulently.
He was followed bv Chandler, who began
by assuming that the government had at
tempted to frame their indictment so as to
set forth crime either under common law or
statute law; common law, that common law
which had not taken cognizance of our Dos.
tai service, or in any wav defined crime set
up and denied the right of prosecution to ask
court, sitting with common law jurisdiction,
to pass upon crime or offence which
has never been defined at common law