The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-09-14
WAR IN EGYPT


lnnI court THIS morning nnulheI lhIEo hUu
once assembled 10 hear tho proceedings i
the stnr.route cases Tho large sttondanc
of prominent members Of the bar attest
the interest taken In this last stage Of th
trial. All the deIendanta were present
with the exception Of Stephen W. Dorsey
Judge Wylic began his charge to the iur!
with an explanation of the difficulties at
tending the summing up OF case OF sucl
magnitude rs this. lie said he woult
not undertake to deliver a profes
sional lecture on law, but it would
be his eudeavor to travel over the case from
one point to another so far as it was neces
sary to do, taking care not to trespass upon
province of the jury. The law makes the
Jury the ultimate final power, even upon
the law itself. At the same time the tradi
ton and practices of law authorized the
court to talk to the jury with regard to
facts. The opinion of the court was not,
however, to be taken as obligatory upon
the jury as to the question oil
facts; NOT should he insist
l1pou their accepting his construction
OF the law. He wished them to be gui, ed
by their consciences; he wished it under
stood that he was wholly uncommitted as
to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.
Some Of the reporters for the newspapers
had evidently misunderstood his utter
ances in regard thereto, for the jury must
be well aware that he had carefully alb
stained from expressing any opinion upon
that subject. Walsh's testimony had been
offered and the court had said
that in his Judgment there was
enough evidence Of conspiracy to be
submitted TO the jury, and it was
upon that ground, that his testimony had
been admitted. That. was as far as the
history of the events out of which grew this
prosecution and then addressed himself to
the law. Referring to the prayers, Judge
Wylie said that the conspirators were JOINT.
ly united for some purposes, and several
for others; each man stood on his own de-
fence; the jury could not convict one man
of conspiracy, but they could convict two
of, the defendants. If there had been
only one overt act committed, and
the jury acquitted the party committing it,
then the defendants must all be acquitted.
For instance, if the jury acquitted Brady,
who had been called the key, the master
key, to the whole conspiracy, and no overt
acts were shown to have been committed
by any other defendant, then they must all
be acquitted. The position taken by the
defence, that all of the defendants, must be
shown to have been interested in all
of the contracts, was false. Ii IL
had been shown that they were criminally
interested in one, that was sufficient, and
conspiracy was established. Surplusage, IN
an Indictment would not vitiate it. This
indictment charged but one otfence-one
conspiracy 1t could not comprise two con-
spiracies; q part of the defendants might be
wholly acquitted and a part convicted, but
if the jury found two conspiracies, three OF
the party guilty of one, and the remaining
four guilty Of another' thelr IN.
the form of indictment. Now, as to the
proof. Conspiracy is seldom reduced to
writing; it is generally entered into in a
very formal way. The parties might re-
side in different parts of the country but
if, by any means, even by dumb show, they
entered Into an agreement to defraud the
government, followed by an overt act, mat
was conspiracy. The law required YER
dict of guilty only when the jury enter
tanned no reasonable doubt f,the guilt of
the defendants. A doubt, to be reason
able, must be based upon evidence, not
upon conjecture; the axiom was that 1T is
better for ninety.nine guilty men to escape
than for one innocent man to suffer-" 1t
would be very happy condition OF affairs
if the one innocent man could be protected
and the ninety-nine guilty men could
be punished. An old Latin
proyerb said ut was the
fault of the Judge if the wicked escape"
and that was true. He would now. take up
one of the routes and see II IL could
be connected with any rational
theory of innocence. If it could, the de-
PENDANTS were entitled to the benefit Of that
theory. He would select a small route
the route from Vermillion to Sioux Falls
Dakota. The date of the contract was
March Is, 1878, to run four years, John W..
Dorsey, contractor. The trips were once
week, the distance fifty miles, to which two
miles had been added, the time was four
teen hours, there were nine post-offices, but
no towns ON the route. Soon after service
was put on, it was discovered that
the, actual distance was about seventy
miles, and that the information had been
distinctly and repeatedly furnished to the
second assistant postmaster-general. On
December %, 1873 the number of trips was
doubled, and on May 81, 1879 the route
practically assigned by a sub-contract to
Vaille. On July 10th, 1879 the number OF
trips was increased to six, and the time
reduced to ten hours, increasing compen-
sation 113, 350-9,6l3350, Deductiong an
the carrier was required to travel
seventy miles in nine hours
Petitions and letters had been sent in and
il did not subsequently follow that this ex-
petition was fraudulent. If the jury could
reconcile IL with any theory vi innocence,
they must do it. A congressman of infiu;,
ence, Mr.. Bennett, had asked for it, and
that must be considered. Soon after, every
postmaster on the route united in protest
10 the department, saying that the time
was impracticable, and asking to have
the old fourteen-hour schedule restored,
and Mr.. Bennett endorsed this protest and
sent 1t TO Brady. Just at this point the
~ kaNr Loaf Ne
influence, for he was informed that 1t could
not be done. After reading the law relative
TO productions, Judge Wylie enquired what
The productions had been in this instance
Reading from the record he said that In one
year it had been q, 16l. He bad called at
tention to the route because II had been
asserted that the members Of congress
were responsible for the expedition,
vet in this case, when it had been expe-
dited at the request of a member OF con-
gress. its reduction had been refused 10 that
same member. Henkle interrupted at this
point TO remind the court that French had
made the order in question: but Judge
Wylie said positively that French bad
mide the order by Brady's direction. Here,
he continued. was an increase made when
II was shown that the revenues were actu-
ally decreasing. IL the jury could recon-
Gle this with proper exercise OF
discretion, let them do il. IL could not
have been done through Ignorance; mani
testify il was pnrposely done. The
thing to be decided was whether Il had
been done through a mistaken exercise OF
discretion. or purpOsely through wrong
motives. Concerning the false papers, said
he. It had been argued that il they resulted
in good TO the public, then no criminal set
had been done in making orders on them
This was the correct view Of the law. The
-oroof Of conspiracy might
k made out from the proof OF the conse-
Quences following the conspiracy, sald
Judge Wylie, taking up another branch Of
the subject, and he read from an English
.rfhoritv in SUPPORT Of this proposItiOn re-