The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1882-04-07
THE STAR-ROUTE CASES.
The Opening Arguments and
the Plans OF Battle.
ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED IN THE CASES.

PhA15 whS AlC" thI AhAiSAnAGhbs SOhoh~a 49,
gersoll represents Dorsey; ex-Ccngressman
Shellaberger and JEFF Chandler are for Brady.
The principal grounds on which is asked the
quashing of the indictment are: First, that
no crime, is stated; second, courts can not
supervise purely executive act, or inquire
into acts done by an executive department
of the Government; third, the law requires
| the Postmaster General to report all reasons
which controlled him in increasing the ser
vice to Congress, which he did, the action
being approved by Congress, which appro-
priated the money required to sustain it /;
fourth, the Postmaster General, and not his
First Or Second Assistant, performed the acts
complained Of If the indictments are over
ruled for either reason given, there is an end
to the cases. ..
Colonel Ingersoll concluded his argument
after speaking an hour and three-quarters.
He was followed by Chandler, who began
by assuming that the Government had at
tempted to frame its indictment so as to set
forth crime either under the common law or
under the statute law.
Colonel Bliss, interrupting. you in
form us for whom you appear and to what
motion you are speaking?
Colonel Ingersoll.-Hear him and then
credit it to whichever you please. Laugh
teri
| With quiet response Chandler said he
spoke to Bradys motion. Chandler re-
sumed his argument, and insisted that no
crime or oflense had been set up under the
common law that the common law had not
taken cognizance of our postal service, or in
any way defined the crime set up, and denied
the right of prosecution by the court sitting
with common law jurisdiction to pass upon
crime or offense which had never been de-
| fined at law. Chandler said the supposed
injury to the United States resides in the
fact that this alleged expedition of the routes
was unnecessary, and the prosecution can
not establish fraud in the expedition unless
1t can be predicated upon showing that it
was not needed for the public good, and the
defense assert that it does not lie in this
court to determine or pass upon this ques-
ton. By the law the discretion was placed
with the Postmaster General, and when he
had decided that expedition was necessary,
this court could not 60 behind that decision.
The subject-matter was not in the jurisdic-
ton of this court; the acts were those of ex-
ecutive function. Congress had the execu-
tive right to legislate touching the postal
laws. If Congress should decide upon GER
tain post route, what right had any court to
pronounce upon that act and declare the
route unnecessary?
Chandler urged that vituperation and null.
DUPLICATION Of words were not sufficient to
constitute an oflense which is not defined by
law, and characterized the indictment as one
solely of adjectives. 1t seemed absurd that
the court could hold or jury believe that the
offense had been committed when the high
est iawmaking power in the country, Con-
gress, had passed upon each and every one Of
these contracts, and had appropriated money
to pay them.
At the conclusion of Chambers argument,
court adjourned until tomorrow.
WASHINGTON, April LIN the star-route
cases this morning, Kerr began the opening
for the prosecution and discussed at length
the subject of conspiracy, claiming that il
did not follow, when overt acts were set up,
that the prosecution must establish the fact
that either crime or misdemeanor was actu-
ally committed in order TO prove conspiracy.
The overt act need be simply something to
show concert of action to carry out conspir-
acy. The acting itself might or might not
constitute crime. Kerr then discussed the
indictments, denying their insuficiency for
vagueness as claimed by the defense.
Kerr was followed for the prosecution by
Merrick, who began his argument with re-
view of the point raised by the defense that
the finding of the Indictment was irregular
because Of the failure to comply with the re;
quirements of the Maryland statutes of 1772
Counsel reviewed the facts connected with
the finding of the indictments and insisted
statute pleaded by the defense. Passing to
the question, Is the Maryland statute still
in force in the District of Columbia ," coun.
sci claimed that no man before the bar, not
even the honorable judge upon the bench
had ever heard the statute of 1872 pleaded
in this District. Counsel had for many
years practiced in Maryland and had spent
some time Iii the preparation of the digest Of
the laws of Maryland bearing upon the Grim.
Inai practice, and he had never heard of thi:
statute of 1772. There was net solitary
word upon this in any of the Maryland re-
ports, and no District Attorney of the State
of Maryland or of the District of Columbis
ever practiced under it. The practice in III.
United States courts was defined by statute
and all the laws of Maryland repugnan
thereto were ipso facto repealed.
Merrick alluded to what he called the
claim Of defense that the judiciary must no
investigate the acts of the executive; tina
in the case of Brady he could not be tried
for his official acts, for the exercise of hi!
discretion, whether good or bad, in the dis
charge Of his official duties. This, sail
Merrick, is not what we are trying him for
but we are trying him for crime. We ar
trying him for conspiracy. The overt act, a
| far as he was concerned, may have beef
done under the cloak of his official position
In conclusion, Merrick said: Gentlemen, lie
! us 90 before the jury as soon as possible, an
If these men are innocent, let them be &C
quilted, and let the country be relieved 0
I this great scandal.
Bliss said: If the doctrines advanced b
} the defense should be accepted by the court
} and country, 1t would only be necessary 70
q public officer TO resign to escape absolutel
$ from liability for criminal acts done while |
! Office, for he could not be impsached after
. resigned, and he could not be tried by th
8 courts because the acts were done while b
: was an executive officer. and, as the defens
claim, in the exercise Of discretion whic
was his BY law. "And just here wish (
remark said Colonel Bliss, with some a,