Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-06-09

The Testimony TO-day-Ex.Attorney
General MacVeagh as a Witness.

| THE STAR ROUTE TRIAL.
| The Testimony Observation-Disclosures
General MacVeagh AS a Witness.
| When the Criminal Court assembled this morn
| Ing, the first witness called 20 the stand In the
star route trial was Wayne Macveagh, ex-Attor-
| ney General OF the United States He was ex-
amined by Mr.. Merrlck. He testified that he en-
tered the Office OF Attorney General on the 7th OF
| March, 1881, and left it on the 18th OF November
1881. The witness identified Mr.. NJ c. RerdeI, one
OF the defendants. He had an interview with Rer-
dell In June OF last year.
Mr.. WILSON OBJECTED
| TO recital OF the interview, as the time stated
was long after any matters set forth In the ndct-
| ment occurred He held it was not competent tes-
| tfmony against his clients
Mr. NJ Merrick said he proposed to prove an inter
| view between the Attorney General and Rerdell;
| that Rerdell admitted to the witness that he was
In combination with Dorsey Brady and other
deIendants TO obtain contracts. and by various
fraudulent devices to have the pay for service en-
larged by the unlawful exercise OF authority by
testimony, and If II was incompetent I'm its appll-
| cation TO any one OF the defendants, the court
could SO admonish the jury: He thought there
was was a misapprehenson on the part OF the other
| Side as to the
| DURATION OF A CONSPIRACY
| A conspiracy was continuous thing. Every day
OF IT'S existence was repetition of its criminaity
| he thought the court would find that the CONVEX
| sauon occurred during the continuance OF the
! conspiracy. 1t was, he thought, the result OF a
paroAySln or penitence or one OF the conSpiraJors
who desired to get out of the conspiracy
| MI. rotten argued that a conspiracy such as
charged % ,s here was not continuous thing. He ar
| gued that this alleged confession was made long
AFTER the defendants were out OF Office He argued
against the admission OF the testimony. saying it
could not be admitted to affect any one except
| hlmSelf, and coul not then be admitted unless tt
was possible for man to be convicted OF a con-
| spiracy with himself.
| MR.. INGRRsoILs REMARKS
| The question b.yH
so who illustrated his chief objection by remark
| ing That II a man came into court and confessed
that he stole horse he could not be convicted un
| iess @ 1rst there was some evidence thatfsome one
nad loSt morse. He maintained, by citing au-
thorltieS, that before such declarations as Rerdes
could be admitted there must be some evidence TO
conspiracy existed. He depicted the Jeopardy I'm
Whlch man was placed by Inducements held out
| perjury.
VIEWS OF THE COURT.
MT Merrick was about to respond to MessrS
Totten and Ingersoll, when the court remarked
that such declaration that OF Rerdell purport-
ed 10 be, even IL made during the existence Of the
conspiracy, In order TO bind fellow-conspirator
must have been an act declaration made In pur-
suance OF the conspiracy.
Mr.. Merrick claimed that a conspiracy could he
proved only by lnferenceS from circumstances
what the learned counsel referred TO-" he said
ducements to rascalS, don't know. II any in
ducements have been held out TO the rascais he
io pItStHtS am not aware or the factn
AN IMPORTANT POINT.
After a long discussion of the subject Mr. Rliss
arose and was about asking pardon for taking any
time, when Judge Wylie observed, In order to
make apology unnecessary, 'This is very impor-
tant point"
Yes sir; it is the whole Of this case" said Mr..
sit may be the whole on that side, but it is not
on our side, your honor" said Mr. Merrick.
Mr. Bliss maintained that the statements OF Rer-
Uell We're evidence against himself
Wneh MI lngerSoll had replied at some length,
Mr. Bliss responded briefly, saying he did not see
now the court could uSurp the functions of the
Jury and decide when conspiracy had been es-
tabliShed
Judge Wylie Excludes the Testimony
as 10 RerdelPs Confession.
Judge Wylie said a conspiracy was a crime to
constitute which more than one person must be
interested. The rule OF law was that no mans
confession, not sustained by oath, could fasten
guilt upon any one except himself Another rule
was that IL the fact OF conspiracy once estab-
lished, then the conspirators are agents OF each
other, and whatever one says In pursuance of the
conspiracy is binding upon the Others. The agency
could only be established by proof of the con-
splracy The conspiracy Itself could not be estab-
lished by the allegations OF one OF the alleged
consplrators. In this matter the conspiracy was
the corpus dettctt. In the crime OF murder, what
is called the corpus deficit Is the death. II one
man should come into court and say he had COM
United homicide IL would not be even binding
upon himself. 1t must be proved that the man Is
dead or that 1t is strongly probable that
ne Is dead. In this case he did not think
the proposed evidence Was admissible at
this time. In the case OF this character.
where there different steps in establishing the
charge, the duty OF deciding whether it had been
established pr1ma facie not falls upOn the court
If there be evidence TO satisfy the court that the
existence OF the conspiracy is fair subject for the
jury TO determine, then the court will open the
door: After conspiracy is over, the confession of
one Is not binding upon the others, nor during the
that the confession is made in pursuance of the
conspiracy; AT present. at least, he Was not pre-
pared to admit this evidence
The court in support OF his position read from
I'd Archibald Criminal Practice and Pleading,
marginal page 6l9 After reading other authorf-
ties, he said parties could be bound by their own
confessions only. AS there had not been evidence
yet to show the existence OF conspiracy this evil
dence could not be admitted, except to affect him
self, and In this case, under a charge OF con-
spiracy, he could not affect himself without affect
ing others.
Mr.. Merrick said this decision necessarily post
poned the evidence which they proposed to offer
this morning.
Mr.Macveagh was then asked to identify manu.
script document, but Mr. MacVeagh said he could
not recall having seen It before.
MT. MacVeagh was then excused from the stand,
MI. Merrick stating that they had undertaken to
present this evidence little out OF order TO ac-
commodate two gentlemen who were present and
desired TO be excused.
Mr.. Falconer the statiStician OF the Post Office
department, was then recalled to the stand and
testified to the statistics OF the mail service for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1879, and June 80,
After Mr.. Falconer left the stand, lat 1915 pm,
recess for half an hour was taken.
TESTIMONY OF Mr.. BREWER
When the court reassefnbled Geo. ]. Brewer, OF
the contract Office of the Post Office department,
was called for the purpose OF proving that a num-
Der of contracts were made
The witness not speaking very loud the court re-
marked: "There must be something the matter
with the post office building. 1 have not heard
''They became suspicious, your honor" said Mr.. |
Totten, under the proceedings OF last year, in
room 59.n
number OF contracts were submitted by Mr. |
Ker and admitted by the defence as being matters
of record In the Post ONCE department Mr. Brewer
then described the routine OF business in cases OF
applications for increase or expedition OF service.
Before croSS-examnation the witness said that |
it was common practice OF the department, pre- |
yaiiing at the present time, 70 increase service
after contract was awarded and before the |
service was commenced. He had never known OF |
an order for expedition before contract went |
into effect
CLERK LAwRENSoN.
James Lawrenson, a clerk In the contract office /
and notary public. was examined and identified 4