Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-04-19
THE STAR ROUTE.


and the court called for a statement. In
response Bliss called attention to Brady's
denials upon this point, and offered to
contradict him. Bliss briefly related the
alleged facts set out in the published aft
davit of Price, that in the summer of 1880,
after the passage of the star route def
cheney appropriation bill, Price had been
approached by A. 81. Brown and
requested to subscribe $4,000 to a fund
raised by the star route contractors to de-
fray the expenses attendant upon the pas
sage of that bill. That Price had large
quantity of employed stock, and had sub
scribed money upon the promise that he
should be given certain service in return,
and that the money and drafts so subscrib-
ed by Price had been placed upon Brady's
desk. He would prove that Brady had
passed to Walsh the drafts given to him
by Price, who would be here to-day. He
also offered tr prove that Brady had re-
quested witness to deposit a certain sum of
money to his credit, and that Walsh ao-
cordingly placed $4,000 with Hatch &
Foote of New York to Brady's credit.
Wilson argued that the subject was pure
y
that connection was not proper IN rebuttal.
He called attention to the pending civil
suit of Walsh against Brady, and asserted
that the issue could not be tried in this
court because it in no wise affected this
case.
Merrick commended that as Brady had
denied the whole conversation sworn to by
Walsh, the prosecution had right to cor
roborate Its witness by proof of what had
been described as the collateral portion
of it.
The court did not perceive how proof
would establish the truth of Walsh's state
ment of that conversation.
Merrick commended that the truth would
be sufficient to get the issue. He quoted
Walsh's testimony wherein he says that
Brady referred him to the Price and Peter3
son drafts in proof of his assertion that it
was the custom of the second assistant
postmaster general to exact from con-
tractors portion of the allowance for in
crease and expedition. In denying the
whole conversation, Brady had denied that
statement, and surely it was but proper
that they be allowed to contradict it.
The court said the object of rebutting
evidence was to meet the case of the defense.
The offer would tend to contradict Brady
upon collateral matter outside of the case.
If Brady had testified untruly he could not
be contradicted. AS to the Price and
Peterson drafts, they were not connected
with matters set out in the Indictment.
They were collateral, and the prosecution
had no right to rebut IN that connection.
The evidence in chief upon that point had
been rejected, end as the court saw no
reason to reconsider that decision, it was
still more improper upon rebuttal. The
offer was, therefore, overruled.
Merrick-Well, your honor, that closes
the governments rebuttal.
Counsel for defense announced that they
we're all through.
Snow we come to an important part Of
the case, talk" said the court smilingly.
The question arose as to procedure in
presenting prayers.
Merrick advocated an adherence to a
plan followed in the former trial.
Henkle thought the court should limit
the argument by defining the law on dis
puted points.
Davidge believed that the arguments
would consume the remainder of the year
unless some such plan be adopted.
In order to allow time for the prepara-
ton of arguments on legal points, Bliss
suggested recess until Friday.
The court dwelt OH the subject at some
length, carefully reviewing the methods of
practice in different courts and concluding
that it would be better to hear arguments
upon the facts in the case before disposing
of the legal points of the course pursued in
the last trial. The arguments to the jury
would be first heard, and then counsel
might submit disputed points of law for
discussion at pleasure. The jury might
render a general verdict, but could not
pass upon points of law.
Davidge said that there are certain or
ganic points that should be settled before
the arguments were begun. For instance,
there was some doubt as to the statute
upon which the Indictment was based,
whether upon section 5,440, revised statutes,
or upon the act of May II, 1879.
The court remarked that where there
were so many statutes it would be safe to
shoot into the flock in the hope of
bringing one down.
Davidge attached great weight to the
point regarding the statute applicable to
the case.
Carpenter demanded from the govern
ment statement of their position in the
matter, but his demand was not complied
with. The court finally agreed to hear arg
ument upon the point after the recess.
When the court reassembled discus
sion followed on the order of argument to
the jury.
Without making any definite arrange
ment the court said it would see that a
fair division of time was had. If the
counsel would not agree among them
selves the court would allow the govern
ment to open and to close, but would not
now say that it would be allowed more
than one argument in closing. The court
did not know that the government desired
more than one closing argument, but had
heard limitations that the attorney gen.
eral might wish to speak.
Il don't know that would call that two
arguments" said IngersolI sneeringly,
shut object to the precedent. If the
attorney general wants to say word in
this case, let him have courage to make his
argument where he can be answered. Not
that think he would do any particular
harm, however. If he wants to make the