The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-05
LATEST TELEGRAMS
STAR ROUTES.
An Exciting scene In the Court

aSAllgVOn, 4.-IhIS mOrninl
henkle, OF the counsel for the de
tense IN the star route trial. resumed
his address to the jury. He called
attention TO the fact that the post
master-general had been called by
the defense to prove that the policy
OF the department had been to ex.
pedlte service.
The Cortland it was ruled out
by the court.
Henkle-And it was ruled out by
the court.
The Cortland the court will ar
rest your course Of remarks on that
subject. ed
Henkle-I was going to say the
pOstmaster-general said
The Court interrupting)-You
have no right to say what he said.
Henkle-I was going simply to
say that we proposed to ask him
what his policy was, and whether
those orders did not conform to his
policy, and that the court would not
allow the question to be put. Was
there any harm in that proposition ?
The Court-What right have YOU
to talk on that subject?
Henkle-Have not a right to saw
what we, by order of the court.
could not do? Have | not a right
to Say that your honor ruled that
the question of policy was not in the
case?
The Court do not know
whether | said that or not. | did
say that we were not engaged in any
question of policy, but that we were
trying fragrant conspiracy.
Mr.. Henkle then went on to show
that the indictment charged that
the postmaster general had been de-
ceived, aud asserted the burden of
proof Was on the prosecution. We
brought on Postmaster General Key,
cUnClnued MIR. Henkle, and these
gentlemen could, if they wanted
To, have asked him if he approved
Of those orders or not.
must declare, broke out the court,
Indignantly, this is a subterfuge un-
worthy of your character. The cOnrt
will not allow it to go further.
attempted TO arrest your remarks
before, and you proceeded in order
under yOnr pledge; and think this
thing altogether beneath your
standing at the bar. / must exer-
else the power of the court il / can
not rely upon your loyalty as a
member Of the bar.
Henkle-I submit, with all be-
coming propriety, TO the rebuke OF
the court, but | want to reason
about it in justification of myself
l did not know | was transgressing
[ thought L was proceeding exactly
within the limit of the remarks OF
counsel on the other side. Let me
ask your honor, if you have cooled a
little, whether it is not competent
for counsel to remark upon what his
adversary could have proved if he
wanted?
Court-The postmaster general
was your witness.
Henkle-But can not say what
they could have proved if they hal
wanted to?
COurt-Tha5 is only a Subterfuge,
use plain word because / cannot
use any other.
Henkle-I don't object to tie
plaihness of the language, l rather
like it.
Court-I declare to you, as the
judgement Of this court, pronounc.
ed over and over again, it is a mat
ter of the most perfect indifference
what the opinion of the postmaster
general was. If the postmaster
general had been stepped In the most
fraudulent conspiracy and not EN-.
braced In this Indictment, 1t would
have made no difference.
Hinkle-Certainly nOtl
Mr.. Tatten-The charge in the in
dictment is that the postmaster
general was deceived. If he were
deceived, the prosecution might
have proved it. and Henkle had 4
right 70 follow the precedent Of
Merrick and comment upon their
not having proved it.
COurt-DO you say he was not de.
ceived.
Internationally we do. Coun.
sci have right to comment on the
fact that they had the postmaster
general In court, and if he had
been deceived by Brady they might
have asked him about it; but they
did not do so.
Wilson reminded the cours that
Merrick had commented upon The
failure OF the defense to call BasleI
and inquired the difference between
the two cases.
Henkle-Well. l submit to a re-
buke for doing what was done by
the other side.
COurt-The difference is that this
indictment charges those persons
with being engaged in a conspiracy
the object of which was to obtain
money from the United States By
imposing upon the postmaster gen
eral. he was brought for the de.
Tense and placed on the witness
stand, and an effort was made tC
prove by him that it was the policy
or the department to expedite and
increase the service. That evidence
was excluded by the court. a few
moments ago you were referring to
the TACT that you brought tae post
master general here for the purpose
OF proving the policy of the depart
ment. l interrupted that because
| there was no pVidanoo in for the