The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-04-01
THE STAR ROUTES.
Arguments on the Motions to Quash the
T,dio+paopta


Indictments.
WASHINGTON, March 31-The star route
cases came up this morning in the criminal
court room before Judge Wylie. The occasion
was the argument on the motions to quash the
several indictments. The following counsel
were present: On the part of the Government
Messrs Corkhill, Bliss, Merrick and Kear; and
on the part of the defendants, Messrs. Wilson,
Shelabarger, Totten, Ingersoll, Chandler, Car
penter, Brown, Casey and others. There were
large attendance of spectators. Judge wy
lie inquired how many arguments counsel 1or
defense desired to submit. Mr.. Shellabarger
replied that counsel for General Brady desired
two arguments. Colonel Iugersoll, speaking
for Ex-senator Dorsey, stated that his under
standing of the arrangement made last week
was that arguments should be made this morn
ing simply on the motion to quash and that
arguments upon demurrer should be made al
acknowledgement time.
Judge Wylie stated that he would not assign
another day for hearing arguments upon de-
murrer. Arguments must be made to-day up
on the motion to quash and upon the demurrer
also.
Mr.. Totten suggested that wide difference
existed bet seen the case of Mr.. Dorsey, who
had been indicted as a private citizen, and
that General Brady, who was indicted for acts
done, or malfeasance while in office, and many
questions would arise for argument in the one
case that would not be pertinent in the other.
Judge Wylie decided that as both parties. or
rather the five parties were included in the
same indictment but one argument or set OF
arguments could be made. Counsel for the
different parties might agree as TO how they
would divide the time. After quite a long dis
cussion, in the course of which it was brought
out that no demurrers had yet been filed.
Judge Wylie decided that arguments might be
made to day and confined TO the motion to
quash, allowing counsel for the defence to avail
themselves of any points which might be prop
RI ho raic III which
be taken advantage of upon the motion to
uuash 1t was finally arranged between the
court and the numerous counsel upon either
side that five hours should be allotted to coun-
sci upon each side, to be divided in the open
ing and closing as they might arrange among
themselves.
Atll.45 Colonel Ingersoll began the opening
argument for the defendants. The motion to
quash the indictment, he said. was Tor the rea-
son that the Indictment was not in accordance
with the law, holding that the statute OF Mary
land of 1922 is still in force in the District oil
Columbia, of these indictments.
Judge Wylie-I don't think counsel for the
government will want to make point
there.
Mr.. Merrick replied-We shall have some
thing to say on that point. There is another
portion of the same statute which counsel had
not read 1t is separated from the portion he
has read by comma.
Colonel Ingersoll with look of amused sur
priSe) AN, an, is InaJ SO! LOU b see WHdt you
have be hind the comm?
Mr. Merrck then reod the portion OF the
statute to which he had alluded, which SET
forth the liability OF the District Attorney fol
all damages and costs arising from the prosecu
ton where the provisions of the statute had
not been complied with in the finding Of an in
dictment, and added, "We shall have some
thing to say in this connection"
Colonel Ingersoll-Well you are welcome tC
all you can make out OF that comm. He then
proceeded for some time, when he was inter
rupted by Judge Wylie, who remarked: The
court has no doubt on the subject at all OF the
statute os 1922, if it is in force in the District
of Columbia. If it be, the motion to quasi
must be sustained.
Mr.. Blss-Assuming the facts stated to be
| true.
Judge Wylie-Yes, assuming that the in
| dictment was sent before the Grand Jury with
| out an order of the court or without arrest.
| Colonel Ingersoll-Of course as to that,
know only from the record, or perhaps, rathe
| from what does not appear in abe record. THAI
| the Grand Jury did not find the indictment
| from their own knowledge may be safely as
| sumed from the fact that twenty or more wit
| nesses. Not one of the names is those OF mem
| bers of the Grand Jury.
Colonel Corkhill-We do not admit that pro
| position at all.
Colonel Ingersoll--Well. we will assume thai
| it is true at all events.
Judge Wylie-The whole thing hinges OF
| the question whether the law of Maryland oil
| 1922 is still in force in this District.
| Colonel Ingersoi proceeding with his argu-
ment, claimed that no act CT Congress applica
! BILE to the District had ever been passed thai
| superseded this statute or repealed it. HI
| quoted from decision as late as 1S4s, showing
| that the stute was held to be in force at tina
| date. Abiding to this Indictment, counse
| said there must be presentment before the
| finding of an indictment. In thir case there
| was no presentment.
| Mr. Merrick-But counsel is in error. There
| was presentment. I find it with the paper
| here.
| Mr. Totten-But the presentment wa;
| brought into court wrapped up with the indct
| ment Endorsed with the same date.
| Col. Ingersoll-And a presentment of tina
| kind is no presentment. The law requires tina
| the presentment shall be brought into cour
| and the judge shall order it to be shown TO the
| Grand Jury, otherwise no indictment can b.
| legally found. Why, such a presentmeDt ii
| like getting marriage license after the cere
mony has been performed.
Mr.. Merrck-Under your Maryland law
THAT would make the issue legitimate.
Col. Ingersoll-But in this crse you had M
| issue.
| Mr.. Merrick-We have the Indictment.
Col. Ingersoll-And we shall show your in
| dictment to be bastard. Col. Ingsrsoll ther
| passed to general review of the indictment
| and claimed that no offe, ce was set forth il
Jn6 lnSCruIn6Hb WIFI suIucloub OiStiuCtiou "
| constitute such offences.
Mr.. Ingersoll claimed Mr.. Dorsey never
made a cent out of any contract, aud no con
| tract in which he was interested was ever ex
pedited while he was SO interested. On tn,
contrary, he was a loser by more than $40, 600
and this in the face of the charge that he ha
taken vast sums from the treasury fraudulent
ly.
He was followed by Mr.. Chandler, who be
gan by assuming that the government had at
tempted to frame their indictment so as to Sc
forth crime, either under common law or stat
ute law, and insisted no crime or offence hat
been set up under this Indictment. 1t was on
solely of adjectives. 1T seemed absurd tina
the court could hold or jury be influenced int
believing an offence had been committed whei
the highest law-making power in the country
Congress, had passed upon each and every on
of these contracts and appropriated money t
pay them. At the conclusion of Mr.. Chand
ler's argument, the court adjourned until to
morrow.