New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-04-01
STAR ROUTE INDICTMENTS.
ARGUING MOTIONS TO QUAsH THEM.


| CoNTACTs-BRADYs CASE.
| WASHINGTON, March 31.-1he argument of
the motions to qnash the indictments in the Star Route
! cases wa begun to-day before Judge Wyo The COY
eminent was Represented 10y Mcssrs. Corhil Bliss Mer
rick aud Kerr and the defendants by Mcssrs ngerso
| Totten, Wilson, Sheabargcr, Chandler aud others
Colonel Ingcrsol opened the argument in behalf OF
Stephen ". Dorsey The basis OF his motion was lack
OF Jurisdiction the part of the Grand Jury which found
the indictment and certain technical defects and irrcg
lartios in the matter He argued that the mode OF pro-
cede by grand Jury governed by the Maryland act
| OF 1922 Under that law man could be indicted rll-
less he bound over. unless the indictment was
found the knowledge of The grand jurors themselves.
| unless IL presented by order OF the Court ie
claimed neither Of these conditions existed in tho
| finding of the indictment III this
The Court stated that If the Maryland statute Of 1922
in force IN the District OF Columbia the motion to
quash would have to be sustained assuming the facts
stated To be true.
Mr. InCcrsOll said that by the statute of 1901 all the
laws then the book OF Maryland became the
law of the District Of Columbia This law of 1922 must
the sautebook rs there Is record of its
repeal lie pointed out Various irregularities and
defects in the indictment against Brady Turner and
Dorsey The indictment charges that certain names on
the petitions for increase OF mail service were hctions
hut IL did not what nan, rs those How could
the defence be prepared 10 answer without
being informed what names were fictitious
So. too, with regard 10 certain petitions and letters
charged and frauul ent, without naming the
particular letters petitions There several of
fences charged In the Indictment II charged con-
pracy In regard TO twenty-One different rontes for
every OF which there separate contract and
separate chain OF circumstances and without any com
mnnity Of between them. There must have been
three cOneiracics embraced III this one lndct
mct-thc conspiracy OF Peek his eight routes. OF
Dorsey on his eight routes and of Minor on his five
routos--wh Brady and Turner. The indictment should
have shown wherein the andayits To the number OF
horses and required for route. were not true |
1t show whether the number Of men and horses
forth in the andays too large or too small or
whether II was the Government the contractor that
was defraudcd thereby.
Asto the two Dorscys he said: "stephen W Dorsey |
has been tried by the newspapers and by the attorneys
Tor the Government Hero is indictment setting |
forth what lac did, and the only thing brought absolute
y against him. that can be tortured into fact against
him. that he had sul-Contract two routes. And
yet he has been charged with taking from the Treasury
vast sums of money As TO John W. Dorsey, he Is
charged IN this Indictment with doing feh,fu things
there that ~ the end he rested
in any Of these routes. As matter offact, route
was c&pcdtod ia which DO had dollars interest. The
fact also hat stephen ". Dorsey made diroctly
Indirectly a dollar ont Of this Government any
post Office Instead Of making dollar he to-day
loser Of more than 10000 having on the security
OF others, and yet ne is charged in this Indictment with
all sorts Of riscality and villsny."
In conclusion hc produced compilation made by
District Attorney Corkh Of the laws In force in the Dis
rict Of Columbia. and among those laws Mary
land statute of l722 and De expressed has confidence in
Mr.. Corklhls knowledge OF the law when hc made that
Mr.. Ingersou was followed by Mr. Chandler, who ap-
pearcd for Mr. Brady He defined the distinctions 10 DE
observed to whether the Indictment charged cOnspr
az AT common law uDder statute law and argued |
that there was nothing sci ont in The indictment w1chcon
sttutcd an offence al common law under statute law.
Therefore il presented crime Of ALL Under the com
non law, The Court. when it heard the evidence in
Of cOnprac. dCtnef what the crime vas, hut mn
der me American s 'em ~ la" nat power s ot IN
dozen times by the supreme Court ana ih'rc Is nothing
IN the indictment which constituted crWCiTtB CuhlI
punish for acts that had not been deela c which such
statute. The Judge could delne 'ne 'iaef they were
The Constitution Il the United states had taken away
rom he couts hat power and placed II in CnrreSy
uess thercfore,ii could shown that the facts sci Out
N tnr indictment constituted crime at law. Z
before the Adoption Of the Constitutions this Indictment u
'on'd not stand 1T common law y
lie i5en asieq thai IT. eo9ld not stand under statute
Aw either Could the Court determine whether the expo
uied service on these post routes or was not
i7IctIon Ni'h WIS 80 uccCed under TIE executive ],
discretion the decision could not bc revised 10y court I,
Mas destroyci Tho subject na.er r Of h'I KY
Indictment was NOT within nc judicial power Of the d
y IL, nalqr. II i,h to The executive and legislative
sytV and OF bI n 3GTlnm,ni PECULIARLY and e1- .
p"grcaS made an appropriation for this Route =
crycc II was ia possession Of a knowledge Of ali -
NE reasons which controlled the Postmaster General in
making these contracts and could it be said that when "
me nehes, Ia" making power OF the nation being in -
eran matters and appr0, rated money 10 carry them
M, inc Government Was dcf.tudoI by paving ont ! -
llcA II W3s apprOp riltedI ~
Judge Wylo pressed the hope that The time had not
"ne Mneh an tAc,nlNe officer could not be held r
"'"ic Ioi ms cIIilal deed, although did not Ca.
an To say that auJ ding criminal had been shown In p,
Ar Chandler do not claim that, if an executive .,
Hccr Lar committed g. crime that s defined M, ln,r
is NOT responsible sonIev here. ' a'
Ia is nat Ill
criminal court ntt
Nh Chlnd.cr-I have not tried TO argue that ",
Judge Nylt--I understood sou az arguing tot fba -,
10 81 conspiracy Vas not Of character enter pr
MI ChAndlerWhat claim IS that If the act which -
c'rena 10 THIS crime Is not defined any law 10 be CA
crime, bat involves simply the exercise of discretion
thc ansdo discretion Oh The part Of an executive DE
nicer. that n a crime.
Judge Wyiic-A mere misuse Of discretion ia not a OIL
me There must Ice criminal purp0as But the mis- Z,
9 % discretion 10 "a fact H. the case. %
M Chandler II The subject matter he beyond the dis
'iioh OF lhe COnrt VIC hold thai the Court cannot Gu
van, iHy inquiry IS 10 whether the action e1ecu-
.c pIi'tl buh been corrupt
IuSc wy oihc Court can Investigate a ca 20 of com
Ii"'I"H OF conspiracy On the part Of executive
Mr. Chandler-We say and the other side adnits) that
actlOu II executive officer canno Inc hrou,stt n.o
We" ~ this court. unless II he characierjlnd - cor
pl lh,l say on the otneT side that If IL be aIleGcd
II lnc discreet on OF IN officer has been ,orrupy exer
co. 10 can hc reviewed, but that begging Inc whole
cson because the Court has first t. review IL In order
zee whether II was corrupt not and If il do not -
~. undertake 10 ad udge ii corrupt ~
udSc Nyle-Ihc Court Is going 20 exercise its "a
lsdclOn IN that way. w. aves
lr ChandlcrIhs Indictment does not charre that 5un
lradl has done any specific criminal act nf n docs 49,
c &c any act Defined IN The statutes at common Ien'
To he criminal "a | -
lie Court adj Ourned until Tomorrow Cl
--------------- s.
THE COvDTC | Wed