Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-08-31
THE STAR ROUTE TRIAL.


Genkle, counsel for the defendants Vale and Tur-
ner In the star route case, began his address. He
first devoted himself to an argument to the court
on law points. He said that the government con-
| ceded that that branch Of the conspiracy attrb.
uted to Turner had not been sustained by proof
He proposed to argue that Turner's participation
in the conspiracy was necessary to the scheme of
the Indictment, and without him the Indictment
would fail part OF the scheme was an impost-
tion upon the Postmaster General by false en-
dorsements upon papers. To Turner was attrib-
| uted this branch Of the scheme The scheme was
incomplete without this part, because without this
imposition the Postmaster General himself was
have been represented that Brady himself imposed
upon the Postmaster General or abused the conf
dence reposed in him. A scheme might have been
constructed without Turner, but they were not
dealing with "what might have BEEN" but what
was actually set out in the Indictment
REMINDER FROM THE JUDGE.
Judge Wylie remarked that there had been no
nOlle pros entered in Turner's case, and the Jury
had not rendered verdict.
Mr.. Henkle claimed that Mr.. Merrlck had vir-
tually discharged Turner from the case, which
was equivalent to 7aOile pros.
TURNER STILL ON TRIAL.
Judge Wylie said Turner was still on trial. Tur-
ner had right to verdict. No verdict had been
rendered, and for all the court knew, judicially,
the jury might find him guilty. The court sug-
geSted that the proper place for Mr. Henkles point
was in a motion for arrest OF Judgment surprising
the Jury acquitted Turner and found the others
guilty.
Mr.. Henkle said his object now was to persuade
the court to instruct the jury that II they found
mat turner was not guilty, they should also find
Judge Wylie said that returned to the general
question, and was IN eject asking that II the jury
all
Mr.. Henkle cited number OF authorities for the
purpose Of showing, he said, that the government
hu rot oof fn,,%x
larlty, the means by which the object OF the con-
sp1racy was to be accomplished. The unlawful
means dsea were to be set out with the same full
means itself were charged as the crime He claimed
that the indictment failed In this respect Mr..
Henkle having argued that the means by which
the conspiracy was to be effected should be set out
with partcular1ty.
JUDGE wYLIE SAID
the part OF the Indictment to which Mr. Henkle
referred described the general character of the
conspiracy, and the object Of the conspiracy was
to commit fraud upon the United States by the
use OF certain means there described. In describ-
Ing the conspiracy the means to be used are In the
future The conspiracy, when it was entered into,
might be general conspiracy for the of crimi-
nal means of particular class. The conspiracy
must precede In date the use of the means It
was impossible for the conspiratOrs to describe
exactly what false petitions, what false aidayits
what fraudulent means were to be used for those
means were not yet In existence. So the pleader
when he describes the nature Of the conspiracy,
necessarily must have confined himself to the
1acts as they occurred at the time of the
conspiracy; and as none Of these papers
were In existence at that time it would be absurd
10 say that the conspiracy was formed with the
view that on certain specified day certain paper
was TO be used nor would it be possible at the time
on a certain day make certain Endorsements
The law was reasonable in all things, and no
p.eaaer pan can an commit faun II he adheres to the
scrlbeS conspiracy, necessarily must describe it
according to the fact at the time. The accuracy
q hvyn nf,I anl-Jo
required when the Indictment set out a. past act
done In pursuance OF the conspiracy and not where
the conspiracy was described In regard the point
raised respecting Turner, ii was time that tie
government counsel had announced the intention
to ask for verdict of acquttal as to him, and the
court presumed that the jury would not find him
guilty in the face OF such request as that The
government has acknowledged that It has not
made out case OF conspiracy against Turner.
It was claimed In Mr. Henkle's argument that with
turner out OF the case the conspiracy collapSes,
because Turner was essential to the conspiracy.
IL appeared to the court that that was not true.
WHAT Mr.. HENKLE WOULD LIKE.
Mr.. Henkle said that IL the court intended to
announce his opinion, he would like to finish his
argument first
Judge Wylie said he thought Mr.. Henkle was
through on those points, but would hear him fur
ther. He said that the others might have con-
spired to have Turner do the things charged. and
yet Turner might not have done them. He might
drop out of the case, and the others still be just as
liable to the charge OF conspiracy.
the prosecution said 'eItt Turner" the law said
'ereunt O1ll1teS."
ARGUING AGAINST THE RULING OF THE COURT
Mr.. Henkle argued at some length against the
ruling Of the court respecting the corpus deficit of
this of1ense. Mr.. Henkle held that crime should
evidence. Mr.. Henkle then began his address to
the jury. He said that when he first came into
the case, two or three weeks after the jury was
empaneled, he knew none OF the defendants. He
cluded from what he read that there was actually
monstrous conspiracy. and that these defend
crib OF the United States as the road agents In the
west to despol the mail coaches. In his intimate
he T'ad M ae during the past two
Henkle sketched briefly
THE CAREER OF VALE,
and declared him to be man Of the highest char
acter and integrity. The evidence did not justify
the denunciation heaped upon him by Mr.. MerrIck.
Vale, he declared, was the peer of Mr.. Merrlck.
AS to Miner, he said that If there were any Inca
ments in his face that would mark him as q dis
honest man, as Mr.. Ker claimed, he (Mr. Henkle)
had not learned to read the human countenance
ar1ght Mr. Henkle declared with great emphasis
that ne knew Miner was not thief or periurer.
Mr.. Ker objected to Mr.. Miners testifying to the
character OF these defendants, since no evidence
OF their character had been submitted.
Mr.. HENKLE RESTRICTED.
Judge Wyl1e said the rule was that no counsel
should throw the weight OF hisown personal char
acter and word into the jury box, and restricted
Mr. Henkle to such conclusions as he could draw
from the facts in evidence.
Mr.. Henkle having urged that the counsel for
the government had denounced these defendants,
Judge Wylie said that they professed to find war
rant for these epthetS in the evidence.
MI. Henkle said 1t was unusual and eXtraOrdin-
ary that the prosecution had abused the defend
ants as they had done They had taken advan-
tage OF his position, which protected them from
retaliation iI brave man ought never to do such
thing II the prosecution had faith in their case
they would never have used the language that
tney mad used. Their large hearts would have
gone out to the defendants In sympathy. They
had INDUCED In the display of anger because their
victims were escaping them; because they had
nlled the land with proclamattons as to what they
were going to do, and in the prospect OF certain
defeat they rage, roar and denOunce the defend
ants as though they really believed them guilty OF
the things With which they charged them.
AT 1880 q recess was taken.
AFTER RECESS
Mr.. Henkle dwelt upon the necessity OF overcoming
the presumption Of innocence with clear and indis-
putable proof
District Government Affairs.
commissioner Morgan was absent from his Office