St. Landry democrat., 1882-09-23
THE STAR.ROUTE TRIAL,
Judge Wylie's Charge to the Jury.

WASHINGTON. September 8.
In the Criminal Court this morning Judge
Wylie, after explanatory remarks to the jury,
began bis charge He said that by the act of
March 3, 1879, Congress appropriated $780, 900
for the maintenance of the Star-route service.
That appropriation was for the fiscal year of
1880. The appropriation was all asked by the
Department. The records of the Treasury and
Post-ottice Departments showed that for the
three previous years there was an unexpend-
cd balance of nearly S4,OOO,GO0 to the credit of
the Post-otfice Department There was in ev-
idence statement showing that the Post
maSter-Gencral, on DecemberS. 1879. had asked
Tor the appropriation of $2,0O,0)0 to meet the
deficiencies in the appropriation for the
Star-route service. This was statement
calculated to arrest the attention of
Congress, for it showed that in five months
after the beginning of the fiscal year there was
Il deficiency of S2.OO0,000 This was a fact to
alarm the country. An investigation followed,
and an additional appropriation was made,
with provisions limiting the expedition and in
crease of service upon routes. That was as
far as the act of Congress ought to have gone.
The other circumstances were fit subjects for
judicial investigation. This investigation fol-
lowed, and an indictment was found against
these alleged conspirators. This indictment
might be said to have five features First,
historical; second describing the conspiracy;
third. the means fourth, overt acts; and, fifth.
the partition of the money. The historical part
was well known. AS to the means used to
carry on the conspiracy. the jury need not
trouble themselves about that. Whether or
not they were sufficiently described in the in
'dictment was not for them to consider. The
division of money depended upon the ques-
ton of the existence of conspiracy. and that
was really the only consideration for the jury
whether there was Il conspiracy, followed by
the commission of overt acts False papers
and petitions were the means used. 1t never
had been held that the Government was re-
quired to accurately describe the means.
Whether the parties were mutually interested
in the several contracts was of no conse-
'qucnce. Their interest in the conspiracy must
be considered The parties were, according
TO the indictment, individual owners of con-
tracts, and mutually interested only in the
conspiracy. Any overt act under any one of
the contracts was an overt act under all of
them.
Referring to the defendants prayers, Judge
Wyle said that the cDnspirators were Jointly
united for the same purpose, and several for
others. Each man stood on his own defense.
The jury could not convict one man of con-
spiracy, but they could convict two of the de-
PENDANTS. If there mad been only one overt
act committed, and the jury acquitted the
party committing il, then the defendants must
all be acquitted. Brady had been called the
key the masterkey, to the whole conspiracy,
and if no overt acts were shown to be commit
ted by any other defendant. then they must all
be acquitted. The position taken by the de-
tense that all the defendants must be shown to
have been interested in all the contracts was
false. If it had been shown that they were
'criminally interested in only one that was suf-
ticient and the conspiracy was established.
Surplusage In the indictment would not vitiate
it. This indictment charged but one ofense.
oae conspiracy. 1t could not comprise two
,conspiracies. Part of defendants might be
wholly acquitted and part convicted. but if the
Jury found two conspracies-three of the
parties guilty of one and the remaining four
guilty of another-then the indictment failed.
so much for the frame of the indictment.
Now as to the proof A conspiracy is seldom
into in very informal way. The parties
might reside III different parts Of tine country,
uf IT by any means, even by dumb show, they
entered into an agreement to defraud the Gov
trnment. followed by all overt act, that was
conspiracy. The law required verdict Of
guilty only when the jury entertained no rea-
The doubt to be reasonable, must be based
upon evidence, not upon mere conjecture. He
would now take up one of the routes and see
if it could be connected with any rational
theory of innocence. If it could, the defend
ants were entitled to the benefit of that theory.
Vie would select small routc-the route from
" ermillion to Sioux Falls. D. Z. The date of
the contract was March Is, 1873 to run four
years; John W. Dorsey, the contractor: the
trips were oDce week; the di lance fifty
miles. to which two miles had been added:
the, time was fourteen hours: there were
nine post-otfices but no towns, on the route.
Soon after the sery icewas put on it was dis
seventy miles, and thaG indignation had been
distinctly and repeatedly FURNISHED to the Sec
ond Assistant Postmaster-t;eneral.@ On De
cember 23S1S7s, the number of trips were
doubled On May 3, 1879, the route was prac-
tcally assigned by sub-contract to Vale. On |
July TO- 1879, the number of trips was in
creased to six. and lifetime reduced to ten
Deducting anshourTfor delays at pest-effices,
the carrier was required to travel the seventy |
miles in nine hours. Petitions and letters had |
that this expedition was fraudulent II the |
jury could reconcile it with any theory of in
nocence they must do it. A Congressman Of |
dntiueuce, Mr.. Bennett, hal asked for it,
every postmaster ON the route united i'll |
a 4protests to the depaf nent Styling ths
time was 1mpracticable. and asked to have the |
old fourreen-hour schedule restored. and Ben.
nett Endorsed this protest. and it was sent to
Brady. just at this point this member of /
Congress seemed to have lost his Influence,
aoL no was ~. ioi ineu IL Coulu NOT De uOne.
After reading the law relative 10 productive
ness Judge Wylie inquired. what, the. pro- |
tluctivness had beenlin fhis instance. Read I
ing from the record, he saidtha for5one year,
1T had been S26lF He had called attention to
this route because it had been asserted that
members Of Congress were responsible for ex-
petition. Y etfin this case, when it had been
expedited at the request Of q member of Com
gress its reduction had been refused to that
came member. Al ,ttf. s-0.
General Henkle interrupted at this point to
remind the court that French had made the
order in question, but Judge Wylie sd d posi-
lively that French had made the order by
Brady's sdirection. hiA I
Here, ahe centinued, was an Eincrease made T
when was shown the regenAes werelact,fai- /
iy decreasing. If the jury could reconcile
that with a proper exercise of discretion, let
them do it. 1t could not have been done
posely done. The thing to be decided was |
whether it was done Though mistaken exer-
else of discretion or purpOsely and through