Iron County register., 1882-09-21
THE STAR-ROUTE TRIAL
Judge wylie's Charge to the Jury.

| March 3 1879, Congress appropriated S5M0,0U
for the maintenance of the Star-route service
| That appropriation was for the fiscal year ol
1850. The appropriation was all asked by the
| Department. The records of the Treasury ane
Post-otfce Departments showed that for the
three previous years there was an unexpend
ed balance of nearly 81 900, ,o0J to the credit OF
| the Post-office Department. There was in ev.
| idence statement showing that the Post
| master-G eneral, on December S, 1879, had asked
| for the appropriation of $2,000.010 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
! a deficiency of S2.000,000 This was fact to
| alarm the country. An Investigation followed,
| and an additional appropriation 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 a 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 coEse-
quence. 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
Wylie said that the conspiratorS 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 had been only one overt
act committed, and the jury acquitted the
party committing it, then the defendants must
all be acquitted Brady had been called the
key, the master-key, 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-
fense that all the defendants must be shown to
have been interested in all the contracts
false. If it had been shown that they We're
crimnally interested in only one, that was suf-
ficient, and the conspiracy was established.
Surplusage in the Indictment would not vitiate
it. This indictment charged but one ofense.
one conspiracy. 1t could not comprise two
conspiracies. Part of defendants might be
wholly acquitted and part convicted, but if the
Jury found two cOnspiraceS-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
reduced to writing; it is generally entered
into in e very informal way. The parties
might reside in different parts of the country,
but if by any means, even by dumb show. they
entered into agreement to defraud the Gov
ernrPent, followed by an overt act, that was
conspiracy. The law required verdict of
guilty only when the jury entertained no rea-
sonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants.
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 tc the benefit of that theory.
He would select a small rOute-the route from
Nermllion to Sioux Falls. D. T. The date of
the contract was March Is, 1878, to run four
years; John w. Dorsey, the contractor: the
trips were once week; the distance fifty
miles, to which two miles had been added |
the time was fourteen hours: there were
nine post-offices, but no towns. the route. |
Soon after the service was put it was dis !
covered that the ac, ual distance about |
seventy miles, and that information had been |
distinctly and repeatedly furnished to the Sec
Ond Assistant Postmaster-G eneral. On De |
cember % 1875 the number of trps were |
tically assigned by sub-contract TO Vale. On |
July 10, 1S,9 the number of trips was i'll |
creased to six, and the time reduced to ten |
hours, increasing the compensation to S6.I53 |
Deducting an hour for delays at post-Offices, |
the carrier was required to travel the seventy
miles in nine hours. Petitions and letters had |
been sent in, and it did not absolutely follow |
that this expedition was fraudulent. If the
jury could reconcile it with any theory of in
intneuce, Mr.. Bennett, hei asked for it,
and that must be considered. Soon after
every postmaster on the route united in
Il protest to the department saying the
time was impracticable. and asked to have the
o.d fourteen hour schedule rcStOred, and Ben. |
nett indorse this protest, and it was sent to
Bra1y. Just at this point this member of |
Congress seemed to have lost his influence
for he was Informed it could not be done.
After reading the law relative TO productive
ness Judgt Wylie inquired what the pro-
uucClNH'SS ndu Deen III tnlS instance. ReaQ- |
ing from the record, he said that for one year
it had been S26l He had called attention to
this route because it had been asserted that
memb RS of Congress were responsible for ex-
petition. Yet in this case, when it had been
at the request of a member of Con-
gress, its reduction had been refused to that
same member. !
General Henkle interrupted at this point to
remind the court that French had made the
order in question, but Judge Wylie sad posi-
lively that French had made the order by
Bradys direction
Here, he continued, was an increase made
when it was shown the revenues were actual
" dec easing. If the jury could reconcile
that W tn u proper exercise of discretion. let
hem do it. 1t could not have been done
through ignorance. Manifestly, it was pur-
posely done. The thing to be decided was |
whether it was done through mistaken exer-
else of discretion, or purpOsely and through
wrong motives. The history of other routes
was to be considered.
Concerning the false papers. said he it had
3een argued that if they resulted in good to
he pubic, then no criminal act had teen done
N making orders upon them. This was
40 correct view of the law. He had be-
,ore referred to the case of Lord Ba- |
;on. and wished now to read to the jury his !
etter to another Lord while he was in pris- |
IN. Judge Wylie then read the letter. and