Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-09-08

lie re Id from Lord Bacols letter after his convic
ton, TO Lord Buckingham @ad Lord Campbers
commentary. He thought we could not suStafr
| any public officer because his decisions happened
TO be right In regard to the proof OF the CON
| t,nnG tic principal that tire conspiracy must be
.:roved independent cf the overt att that the con
Spracy could net lie established poSteriori
Now that was not SO, and 1t had never been So
The proof OF the conspiracy may be made out from
| the consequences that followed from the con.
! spiracy. One OF tie Earliest authorities on ina,
point was In 1St StTangees, p. IA, Rex agt Coke.
| IN THIS COURT,
within year past several persons were brough.
to trial charged with larceny, consisting in the
| getting money and a watch. The Judge described
| rather minutcy the method OF the larceny, which
was that popularity known as the "three card
monte sw;ndle,'' the victim being taken to see the
tomb of jefferson" at the Carroll place, and there
met the accustomed Kentucky drover. In that
case there g, was conspiracy plainly and yet the
in hs o' Of acts TneEa Teh 1os
no question but that all the de-
PENDANTS in that case were in concert 1t was
The facts may be such that the overt acts estab-
| lish the conspiracy. Three men are detected In
taer escape afer breaking into house
| establish conspiracy between them. He had
said as much perhaps as he ought in this case and
more tnan he intended. There was
| ONE OTHER QUESTION.
The doctrine was contained in several of the
prayers thatif the jury believed that expedition
Was ordered upon false papers, and at the sa me
! time there were other genuine papers, the order
must be attributed to the influence OF the genuine
papers, and the act of the parties was not vtiated
by the coexistence of fraudulent with genuine pa
pers. Such Instances occurred In this case. No
Is the bad saved by the good in such case. That
doctrine was not to be tolerated. There was
nothing SO OdiOuS in court OF justice.
FRAUD.
1t was not only vicious itself, but it contaminated
everything 1t was associated with, like drop OF
poison In a tumbler or water A party who COM
mlts fraud very often found it convenient to use
truth as we'll as falsehood. Truth and falsehood
were always quarre1ng. FaiSehoods were o. so
impish nature that they quarreel amongst them
selves. That was the security OF honest people.
Fraud Was not exactly identical with falSehOod.
Fraud for its own purposes Will make use OF either
truth falsehood inliscrim.nately Truth was
very often impressed in the service OF fraud. He
had seen
FRAUD OF ODIOUs CHARACTER WITH A LINE OF
TRUTH
marShaed in front and all the mpish tribe In the
rear. The more of truth fraud can work into its
service the better chance for success it will have
but it IS no less frau after all. So that the fact
that truth is sometimes found under the banners
OF fraud, was not to be allowed to justify fraud.
hood for the same purpose his fraud was deeper
and more Odtous because he has had the impu-
dence TO garniSh his front with the fair face of
truth.
JUDGE AND JURY.
Before concluding he would say another word,
and he hesitate1 to say that word. He filled one
place and the jury another They both had their
functions, and it might seem presumption on his
part to even seem to advise them. but it was
often done, and he would presume upon
form. II they believed the charge made out
against these defendants beyond q reason
able doubt, then they should acqult
them without regard to clamor-the opinions OF
the world. Their manhood required that OF them.
He should not believe that any man on the Jury
was so base coward as to refuse to follow his
own Judgment and conscience On the other hand
II they believe these defendants guilty. their duty
to themselves and country requires correspond
your own honor ami conscience, and pay no re-
Spect to any other considerations If they violated
their consciences ana oaths they would lead life
baser than slaves. the information which had
reached the courts ears was true, then there
were men engaged in the business OF what was
called in New York
s'FIxING" THE JURY.
He belived there were men who made profess
sion Of 1t. II there had aLy OF them been ap-
preached in that way, they would naturally feel
revulsion which would impel them to the other
side of the case. They should not let that. how
ever, influence their Judgment They should be
SO brave and true to themselves not even to let
that insult stir them from their duty.
Judge Wylie finished at 1890.
After the Charge
Mr. 1ngersol asked If it would be right to instruct
the jury to ask each other freely about these al
legged approaches
The court said he could not allow that inquiry
to be made in the jury-room.
Judge Wylie called attention to the fact that
some OF the jurors had taken copious notes; called
attention to the practice, and said the Jury would
not be allowed to take these notes into the jury
rOOm
Foreman Dickson said he had intended to ask the
court II they could take these notebooks.
Mr.. Henkle, calling attention to the announce
ment made by the court yesterday, said he hoped
the matter would not be dropped without further
investigation.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE CHARGE.
Mr.. Henkle noted exceptions to the part of the
charge relating to the deficiency appropriation,
the declaration that the jury should take no &C.
count OF the means and of the distribution of
means, &C., and that the mutuality of interest in
the contracts need not be proved.
JUDGE wYL1E, INTERRUPT1NG SAID
he had forgotten one important prayer. or course
the jury could not convict any of the defendants
except for what they have done since May 20, 1s79
What took place prior to that was not in this in
dictment A great deal OF evidence Of matters
prior TO that date was given for the purpose OF
showing the relations of the party. II the con-
ssplracy sI was formed before, and continued down
It was just as effectual as new conspiracy.
Unless these parties were guilty, some or all CT
convicted With regard to the changes of inter-
est, these several proprietOrS were at liberty to
cHauSe VIII one announcer II they chose. Tne con-
spiracy was a matter altogether Independent OF
the proprietorShip in the contracts.
MR. HENKLE'S EXCEPTIONS.
Mr.. Henkle then continued to enumerate his ex-
ceptions, objecting, among other things, to the
courts explanation of former decisions OF the
court as to overt acts: to the review OF the testi
lnony on the Vermllion and Sioux Falls route, and
the courts deductions therefrom; to the discus
sion OF the question of product1veness; to the dis
cusson OF the effects OF false and true petitions,
and TO the declaration that the conspiracy may be
proved by the overt acts. Mr.. Henkle said that
there were number Of prayers he had offered
which the court had not touched and he supposed
1t would be considered that such prayers had been
rejected.
The court said he would be glad to have his at
tenlion called to any points he had overlooked.
ne mad endeavored his own way to cover the
whole case.
Mr.. Henkle read other prayers, which he consid-
ereu naO not been answered. One OF them re-
1erred to petitions OF members of Congress, and
Judge Wylie remarked that he did not believe in
a public officer being guided by such recommends
tlOns He knew no line OF conduct for public
oncer but the law. When military officer came
into court and said every camp OF 20 tents was en-
tnlnk That was the law. When the General
OF the army said that it was good time for ex-
pedltlng mail service over rough service, it was
not lawfor public officer He thought the policy