The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-05
LATEST I'ELEGRAMS,
STAB ROUTES.
An ExOItIDg scene in tne Court

Il
Henkle, Of the counsel for the de-
Tense in the star route trial, resumed
his address to the jury. He called
attention TO the fact that the post
master-general had been called by
the defense to prove that the policy
of the department had been to ex-
pedite service.
The Cortland it was ruled out
by the court.
Henkle-And it was ruled out by
the court.
The CORTLAND the court will ar
rest your course of remarks on that
subject. YES
Henkle-I was going to say the
postmaster-general said
The Court Gnterrupting)-You
have no right to say what he said.
Henkle-I was going simply to
say that we proposed to ask him
what his policy was, and whether
those orders did not conform to his
policy, and that the court would not
allow the question to be put. Was
there any harm in that proposition !?
The Court-What right have you
to talk on that subject?
Henkle-Have l not a right to say
what we, by order of the conrI,
could not do? Have l not a right
to Say that your honor ruled that
the question of policy was not in the
case?
The Court do not know
whether | said that or not. | did
say that we were not engaged in any
question of policy, but thai we were
trying fragrant conspiracy.
Mr.. Henkle then went on to show
that the indictment charged that
the postmaster general had been de-
ceived, aud asserted the burden OF
proof Was on the prosecution. We
brought on Postmaster General Key,
cUnVlnued Mr.. Henkle, and these
gentlemen could, if they wante1
to, have asked him if he approved
of those orders or not.
Unjust declare, broke out the court,
Indignantly, this is subterfuge I'M
worthy of your character. The cOnrt
will not allow it to go further.
attempted to arrest your remarks
before, and you proceeded in order
under yOnr pledge; and L think this
thing altogether beneath your
standing at the bar. | must exer-
else the power of the court il l can
not rely upon your loyalty as
member Of the bar.
Henkle-I submit, with all be,
coming propriety, TO the rebuke OIL
the court, but l want to reason
about it in justification Of myself
l did not know [ was tTansgressing
[ thought L was proceeding exactly
within the limit of the remarks 0t
counsel on the other side. Let NE
ask your honor, if you have cooled 8
little, whether it is not cOmpetenJ
for counsel to remark upon what his
adversary could have proved if he
wanted?
Court-The postmaster genera
was your witness.
Henkle-But can [ not say wh&t
1 they could have proved if they haI
wanted to?
Court-Tha5 is only a Subterfuge
use plain word because l canno
use any other.
Henkle-I don't object to tLt
plaihness of the language, l rathel
like it.
Court declare to you, as the
judgement of this court, prOnounc
ed over and over again, iC is mat
ter OF the most perfect indifference
what the opinion of the postmaster
general was. If the postmasJel
general had been stepped in the mos
fraudulent conspiracy and not EN-
braced in this Indictment, 1t would
have made no difference.
Hinkle-Certainly nOtl
Mr.. Tatten-The charge in the in
dictment is that the pOstmaSteI
general was deceived. If he wer'
| deceived, the prosecution nigh
have proved it, and Henkle had I
right TO follow the precedent o
Merrick and comment upon thei
not having proved it.
Court-DO you say he was not de
ceived.
Enthusiastically we do. Coun
sell have right to comment on tn
fact that they had the pOstmaste
general Ia court, and if he ha(
been deceived by Brady they nigh
have asked him about it; but theI
did not do SO.
Wilson Reminded the cOurS thai
Merrick had commented upon III
failure OF the defense to call Basic
and inquired the difference between
the two cases.
Henkle-Well, I submit to q re
buke for doing what was done b.
the other side.
Court-The difference is that thi
indictment charges those person
with being engaged in a conspiracy
the object Of which was to obtain
money from the United States b.
imposing upon the postmaster ger
eral. He was brought for the de
: Tense and placed on the witnes
stand, and an effort was made I
prove by him that it was the polio
e Of the department to expedite an
increase the service. That evidenc
was excluded by the court. \ fe'
: moments ago you were referring I
the fact that you brought the posi-
master general here for the purpos
of proving the policy Of the depari
4 ment. interrupted that becauS
there WAS no ovi6opon in for On