Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-08
Reply Of Mr.. DavidRe.

Mr. Davidge replied to Mr. Merrick. He said in
reference to the practise OF the court, that very
few occasions had arisen where the attention OF
| the court had been directed to this question.
He believed the practise OF the court. respecting
| 50 recent statute constituted very lame argu-
ment He understood the court had before him
tne case or Page and BurnStein when the argu-
ment was made at the last trial. Nothing I'm sub
stance had been adduced In argument I'm addition
| He accepted Page and Burpsteln, and held that
that case, properly applied, put end TO the pre-
tensions OF the eovernment that the court was
wrong In It's decision at the last trial. He thought
when he presented the order or legislation the
court eourt would have no doubt on the subject. He
laws passed on the subject
In the discussion OF the law and the intention or
CONGRESS In legislating for the District. MIR: Dav
ldge said that he believed the wise men OF Con-
gress, In view OF the infu nee which the govern
ment exerted In the District, passed the law for
the reason that they were unwilling TO give the
government deSpotlc authority in the selection OF
a jury.
peared to him hardly probable that the arguments
would be finished to-day, excused the jurors until
Monday morning
MR.. DAyIDGE,
referring to the organic act of 1871 providing that
the Constitution Of the United States and all laws
or the United States which are not locally inap-
pllcable, remarked that it was a super1uous piece
or legislation so far the Constitution was con-
cerned, for the District had never been considered
outside OF the operation OF the Constitution.
I'VE have not always enjoyed its benefits" said
| Judge Wylie.
"Not always; not always" said Mt Davldge.
MI Dav1dge argued that the section referred to
meant the laws OF the United States existing in
lsl Ihe government desired to import into the
Dlstrict under that section, law passed In 1872
Other Arguments.
Mr. Davidge finished his argument about quarter
TO two O'Clock, and was followed by Mr.. Carpenter
for the defense, Mr.. Carpenter referring. as Mr..
Dayidge, TO the policy OF Congress In limiting the
power of the government In the District as to
challenges, remarked that in this case, where the
Department OF Justice, with its learned attorneys
and spies and detectives without number,
and the Presidential office thrown Into the scale
TO good account, furnished the best Illustration to
justify Congress In enacting this law. He argued
that the general statute locally inapplicable
Mr. carpenter combatted the view held by the
court at the last trial. that under the general
statutes the government had the right to any per-
eInptory challenges, holding that the Lawmakers
deemed the right OF challenge for sufficient
In cases OF an inferior character in the District
Mr.. Henkle followed Mr.. Carpenter.
STAR ROUTE NOTES
There were two guests in the little space rallied
on for the government counsel to-day. One was
MI Dickson, prominent patent lawyer OF New
York; the other was David NJ Sellers, prominent
lawyer or Philadelphia, formerly city solicitor,
VINO defended Thomas McDevitt. who was con-
Vcted on Star-route straw-bOnd case in Philadel-
ph1a