Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-07-21
THE STAR ROUTE TRIAL
IMPORTANT RULING OF JUDGE WYLlE.
WALSH'S TESTIMONY ADMITTED.
HE TELLS HIS STORY IN COURT
RELATES HIS INTERVIEW WITH BRADY.

| HE TELLS HIS STORY IN COURT.
RELATES HIS INTERVIEW WITH BRADY.
| When the Criminal Court assembled this MORN
| ing Judge Wylie at once proceeded to deliver his
decision respecting the objections to the testimony
| OF John A. Walsh, offered by the prosecution in
| the star route trial. The question which had been
SO ably argued, he said, was OF great interest
Itself and great Importance to this case. 1t was
question by no means free OF difficulty but 1t was
question which the court has not decided in this
case, and on which it had not expressed any opin-
ion by which the court felt at all bound. Early in
| the case his impression was that the Individual
| admission OF any one OF the defendants was not
to be received in evidence unless it was declara-
tion which he had made whilst engaged in the
prosecution OF the objects OF the conspiracy, and
that the others would not be bound except accord
| Ing to the rules which apply to the doctrine OF
agency. No man can be bound by the declara-
| tlonS or acts OF another unless that person
| Is in some way sauthOrized to do the acts
| or make the declarations. In regard to
conspiracy the authorities laid down the rule that
the offence could be made out by separate proof OF
distinct acts OF the several defendants at different
| umeS The law allowed all the circumstances,
whether declarations or acts to be proved proyid-
| Ing they were not wholly irrelevant. After all
these circumstances were shown they may be
whether, in their collective FORM they make out
the charge 1t is not unlawful; 1t is not Irregular
| CJ,I
acts OF party; and these separate acts are al
lowed to be proved because they may be brought
together SO that the court and jury may consider
them. In regard to the declarations or admissions
OF the several parties, they of course not
dence against the Others unless they were made
TO further the objects OF the conspiracy. This doc
! trlne was laid down In Greenleaf. The court
read from section 23 OF Greenleaf as to this prin-
| ciple. The evidence now before the court was not
70 prove any fact against the other conSpiratorS.
1t was for the purpose OF proving the confession OF
one OF the conspirators as to his own act. 1t
| PENDANTS may be proved separately so the admis-
| sions of the several defendants may be admitted
| ia eVldence. referring again to Greenleaf, Judge
Wyle said in joint civil suit the several declara-
| t1ons OF the defendants may be given in evidence
| against the several parties making it, and the
doctrine was that the same rule would apply in a
| criminal case, and the several admissions of the
defendants were admissible. All the text books he
| had examined, whilst very emphatic in excluding
| the declarations of the several defendants not
made In furtheranc2 Of the conspiracy, were care
ful TO reserve from the applications OF that rule
| defendants, which they declare may be received
against him alone. That was not an exception to
RUE was held not to apply: The only direct de-
cslon upon the question which he had
met with was that referred to by Messrs Ler and
Merrick, In the 18th OF Blatchfort-the case of the
! United States agt. Grant He could not see that
there was any ground OF distinction between that
! 1t seemed to rule the present In the McKenna
case, reported in the Irish Court Reports page 46
| there was distinction. McKenna was the only
|
| convicted hip There was no good reason to
doubt the adInissibility of his own confession,
reasons he had stated he thought the evidence
| offered was admissible. 1t was said that, admit
| ting the facts set out in this offer, they had
| no tendency to prove the charge Of con-
| spiracy, for the reason that the declaration
made by Brady amounted to nothing more than
that he had been in the habit OF accepting brbes.
If that offer stood alone possibly it would amount
to nothing more; but Brady was defendant ip
| this case. 1t had been proved that he had rela-
| m IA lavS
allowances for expedition had been made. In view
OF these facts, 1t is by no means a strained con-
StructlOn that II the facts set out in that offer
| were proved that these favors were obtained BY
the allowances set out in that offer, it would tend
81 @ TO snoW the corrupt nature Of the rea
admission to be very distinct mans very ST.
lence may be construed to be an admission
whether the statements made in this offer are to
be applied so as to constitute part OF the evi-
| dence OF conspiracy will depend very much on the
credit the jury gives to the testimony. On the
| lace OF the testimony 1t appears to tend very
strongly to prove the conspiracy. The court
would admit the evidence.
AN EXCEPTION NOTED.
Mr. Totten noted an exception
Walsh's Testimony.
HIS INTERVIEW WITH BRADY.
Mr.. Bliss then called Mr. Walsh to the stand
| ana the examination which was interrupted last
Tuesday was resumed. Mr.. Bliss asked what oc-
Cured at the interview between himself and Mr..
Brady on December 2S, 1880, at the house OF Gen.
Geo. Sheridan.
Mr.. Walsh said he had the interview for the
purpose or having settlement with Mr.. Brady
for matters pending between them. 1t would be
difficult to recite the exact language used The
Hinds efrort to provoke an investigation Wit. Wit
ness told Brady that he had suffered financial
loss and
SUGGESTED TO BRADY THAT HE SETTLE
Brady asked him for the data, and witness laid
the notes on the table. Witness said there was no
agreement to interest, and he would leave 1t to
him Brady to determine 1T. Brady looked at the
memoranda witness furnished, and said he thought
witness was IN error; that he did not think wit
ness thought he BRADY owed him anything; that
| he BRADY had benefited him largely, having
given him remunerative contract, and there GER
was concerned Witness asked him to explain
Brady said no explanation was necessary; that he
(WttnesS) must know what
THE USUAL ARRANGEMENTS
were Witness asked him again to explain and
Brady said he did not make these orders for
amusement; that II witness affected ignorance it
was sheer af1ectation on witness part. Witness
asked Brady to indicate In figures what the ar
rangementS were Brady said 20 per cent per
annum on the amount of the expedition. Brady
said that In the case OF the witness the amount
not conceive that witness Should pay from the
original amount OF the contract when held by
| nough was paid for by MacDonough to s. p Brown.
s74 600 and $135, ,OO6 He reminded witness that he
what was known as
THE CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION FUND,
to be used In obtaining the passage of the star
| route deficiency appropriation. Witness called
Bradys attention to conversation he {witness)
had had with him after he had been approached
by Chase Andrews Brady went on to say that
witness pro rata to that sum contributed 6y the
contractors was s. 000 Witness sa1he did not feel
that he was bound TO pay such q sum; that he had
appeared before the congressional Investigating
committee, ana had been very thoroughly exam
nnf fool hiatt ft,ar
against MIN Tor money. Witness asked Brady
WHO Discussed THIS FUND,
ana Brady said that was no matter OF his (the
witness); Brady said that witness had received
remissions amounting to s55,OOO, and he was in
the habit of receiving one-haf of such remissions
SO. as matter Of fact, witness was indebted to
him. Meanwhile, Brady had placed the notes in
his pocket; witness asked him why he did that,
and he said that he BRADY considered the matter
settled. Witness then told Brady that he would
take the matter into the courts; that Brady had
no right to demand such a sum from him. Brady
told him that he
(wITNEsS) DID NOT UNDERSTAND BUSINESS.
WftneSS said that a " ravmpnt nococcorv