National Republican., 1882-12-30
sTAR-ROUTE TRIAL.
The Question OF Admitting n Petition AS
EvIdence--Tho Kenincy-Kcnt Route.

The question OF Admitting n PcttiOn as
EvIdcnce--Tho Kenrncy-Ixcnt Route.
In the star-routo case yesterday morning
argument was resumed upon the question of
the admissability of the petition oiioredb by the
prosecution asking for increase of service on
tho kcarncy- Kent route, and alleged to have
been forged. The defense urged that, mas
much as the Indictment set out the petition
as an overt act, any variance between the pc
tition set out and the petition offered was
fatal, and between these two petitions there
were four such variances. The prosecution
could not be allowed to establish Il conspiracy
| by an overt act when the overt act had not
been properly laid. The petition could not
be admitted first because it was misdirected,
and, second, because it did not tend to prove
| conspiracy.
Mr.. Ker, on the part of tho government,
contended that the petition should be adj
nitted as tending to prove the conspiracy,
and then went on to argue that there was no
| variance between il and the petition set forth
in the indictment. 1t was true that the petit
| tion submitted contained four more signatures
! than that set forth: but authorities did not
bear II out that that constituted II variance.
In his argument Mr. Mcrfick referred to a
metaphor made use of by Mr.. lngcrsoll to the
| effect that the prosecution ut the last trial
found few dry leaves, and attempted there
from to reason out the existence of tree.
In reply to that remark" continued Mr..
Merrick, :" have to say that we intend to
| pick up the leaves; we intend to show the
twigs; we intend to show not the stump,
but the body of the tree, and to establish
that in its shade all honor. truth, and
honesty died. and that therefore it becomes the
duty of Justice to lay its axe at the root of
that tree" Mr., Mcrrick then went ON to
argue that even if the petition was not COM
nptpnt evidence overt act If
petent under that part of the Indictment
which contained the general allegations that
the conspiracy was to delraud the United
States by fa'se and fraudulent petitions.
The argument of the question was not con
cludcd until 120, when Judge Wyle rem
dcrcd his decision, admitting the petition as
tending to prove the conspiracy, but not as
an overt act.
Exception was taken by the defense.
After tina recess, Charles IL. French was re-
called. He stated that he received q letter
from j. w. Dorsey & Co. or j. X. Miner & Co.,
inclosing q petition for increase of service.
The petition was in the same handwriting as
the letter.
Mr. Wilson demanded that the letter should
be produced. "
Mr. Bliss stated that he would prove that it
had been lost, and for this purpose submitted
to witness a number of letters but he failed
TO identify any of them as the letter referred
to.
Witness then went ON to state that he took
the petition to his lawyer, but that an ink
bottle was upset over ii, and that the lawyeL
rewrote it. Witness then circulated it for
signature. The petition when witness signed
it was not the same as it now appeared. At
that time the words "13-hour schedule were
not contained in the petition
Witness then proceeded to make a state
ment of the amount of mail matter carried by
him between Kearney & Kent, and the
amount of compensation received for the ser
vice. He also identified large number of
letters received by him from j. II. Miner, as
agent for contractors, transmitting his quar-
terly drafts.
The defense objected at every step of the
testimony and secured numerous exceptions.
The court then adjourned until Tuesday.