Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-07-20

rHE STAR ROUTE TRIAL.
Proceedings I'm the Criminal Court To-
day.
MR.. 1NGERs0LL's ARGUMENT FOR DEFENCR
When the Criminal Court met this morning Mr..
Ingersoll began his argument for the defence on
the question OF the admissbility OF the testimony
OF John A. Walsh, offered by the prosecution in
| the star route trial He said that It was estab-
lished by the rulings OF the court that after the
existence OF conspiracy has been established
then the acts or declarations OF any one OF the
consprators Is admissible against ALL but It is not
an act unless 1t is one done In furtherance of the
object for which the conspiracy was formed. The
declaration OF coconSpirator cannot be received
until by other evidence the conspiracy has been
established. The act to be proved must be an act
done for the purpose Of carrying out the conspi-
racy. He argued that evidence tending to show
that a conspiracy existed did not actually show
that 1t existed; also, that q confession made by
to identity the person making such confeson. He
quoted Greenleaf, Blackstone. and Hale to show
that confessions are considered weak testimony.
fession should Identity thsseTitnai Il hsa been
admitted by the counsel for the goyernment, be
spiracy had been submitssG e Was fGr the court s
70 say whether prima facte case haa been made.
Re arEued fhat II the alleged deeiarat!on Of NJ
accompanied some acts II no conspiracy had
peen established no confession could be admitted
pany an act then It was only a confession. and
could not be admitted, unless the conspiracy had
by other evidence been established, and then only
70 idehttfy the person making the confession. In
celebrating his argument Mr.. Ingersol SAID that
public omcer was presumed to act honestly until
also had the advantage OF such a presumption
Even after they have been indicted" he said,
Meven after they have been convicted by the press
Tn hsf fnnn r,nfi thoir
guilt has been established" Admitting, for the
sake of the argument, that testimony had been
spiracy, he argued that Brady's declaration n was was
not made In furtherance OF the objects OF the con-
spraSy or any act relating to the
MR. NGRRsoLL SUNS UP.
In closing, he summed up his points by declar-
Ing nrst that the declaration OF co-conspirator
cannot be given In evidence against his co-defend-
ants until the conspiracy has been established;
I'd. that mans confession is not admissible as
otherwise established. and Sd, that declaration
S not accompanying an act done TOR the purpose Of
reason cannot be admitted.
Mr.. WILSON'S ARGUMENT
Mr. Ingersoll concluded at II O'clock and was
followed by Mr.. Wilson, counsel for Mr.. Brady.
Mr. Wilson, saying that the government con-
ceded that this was not competent testimony
question to be discussed was whether it was ad-
miSsto!e as against him, it would not do to
show that Brady In other matters not involved in
this inquiry was corrupt, but that he was cor
rupted by his co-defendants under the fndlct-
nent 1t was idle to say that the testimony could
that he was corrupted by his co-defendants it was
worthless testimony.
The case was OF such a character, Mr.. Wilson
argued, that the confession could not be received
without manifest injury TO another, and the con-
feSsiOn was therefore incompetent evidence. If,
on the other hand, it did not have that tendency,
III mr. h0 ri honop
the requirements imposei upon such evidence
Mr. Wilson argued that this declaration was not
part OF the res gesta OF the case,
JUDGE wYL1E's DISCLAIMER
When Mr. Wilson closed Mr. Henkle followed
Mr.. Henkle having stated that he understood that
the court said that for the purpose OF discussion
prima facie case was made out Judge Waylie said:
No no; l did not say that I expressly dis
claimed @ that said did not wish to take that
purposes of Gle Is tqEE tsald that for the
evidence in the case sufficient to take that ques-
tion to the jury. made that declaration for the
purpose, II possible, OF saving time and labor in
Mr. Henkle concluded few minutes before
twelve, and Mr.. Merrick began the closing argu-
ment for the government
MR. MRRRIcK's ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Merrlck quoted the decision Of the court in
reference to the offer Of the testimony OF Mr.
MacVeagh as to Rerdelrs admissions at the Begin
ming OF the trial. when the court said that it could
not be admitted until conspiracy had been es-
tabllShed. Now, he said, the obstruction then ex-
isttng had been removed. Now, II the general evil
dence was such that the jury might find some OF
the defendants guilty, then the declaration OF
Brady was admissible as tending to prove his guilt
After discussing the various aspects OF the case,
he "a asserted that t. party may be convicted on his
a party as against himself is competent evidence
in court OF justice.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BREWSTER,
who had been sitting by Mr. Merrick for some time,
here interrupted Mr. Merrlck and addressing the
court apologzed for being compelled to leave, and
for his absence during the trial. 81 don't wish my
absence he said, ''to be construed into indi1er-
ence regarding the case It Is only by compulsion
OF other engagements that have been prevented
Wylie.
better than most people expected"
Mr.. Brewster then took his leave and Mr. Mer-
rick continued, though he was soon Interrupted by
the usual recess OF the court
AFTER RECESS
Mr.. Merrick continued his argument citing the
decisions on which the prosecution depended
He said he thought that there was a misconcep-
ton on the part OF the defence OF what constitu-
one act is done in Oregon corelative act is done
by another In Missouri, and another act In WASH
ington. and the three acts produced result. The
conspiracy may be perfect though the parties may
never have exchanged a word.
Mr. Merrick claimed that not one authority had
Uccn pEOUuCCU akdluSC VuG IuQOameQCal ana eIo-
mentary principle OF the law that q persons adj
self.
Mr. Merrick said IL there was any authority in
the English or American books bearing upon this
subject that he would not produce, 1t was because
through weeks OF diligent search he had been un-
able to find them. They were few, because the
principle was fundamental one
JUDGE wYLIE, -fv.
interrupting Mr. Merrick, said the same rules OF
evidence that applied at the beginning OF the
the case applied now. The only question now, he
said, was one secured altogether from a de-
cision made in the ,-early part Of the
Casa question not depending at all upon the
existence OF conspiracy-and that question was
whether a mans confession will bring him into q
conspiracy with others =.
Mr. Merrick having referred to the decision of
Rerdells confession before evidence of conspiracy
had been offered as intiMatiag that the court