Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1883-06-30
The star.Rou.c Cases Given to the Jury.

tLc weary In0IltuS u lliui, duu IcIlilul4S
them that they had nothing to do with the
public demand. newspaper articles or appeals
to sympathy. but to decide the case Upon the
evidence. he at once commenced to state the
legal points involved, and said, in part, the
policy of the law must be found in itself.
No public officer had any right to set up his
own policy against the policy of the law. He
held a great trust. and it was his duty to obey
the law. To allow him to set up his own pol
icy against the law would lead to great and ir-
Vulnerable abuses, but a mere violation of law
by an officer was not necessarily a crime. He
might misunderstood his duty; he might be
guided by an intention to do the public good.
These remarks were intended to apply to Gem
eral Brady, where the law said, in. making in
creasing service, he must pay due regard to
productivencss and other circumstances. 1t
hardly seemed reasonable or fair for Brady
to say he ~disregarded productiveness That
was the policy of the present Cabinet officer
Ia witness in this case), but the Court could
not sanction that policy. The law prohibited
any public officer from cxpcnding the
expenditures beyond the appropria-
tons. In this case, there was evil
dence that all the money appropriated
by Congress for the fiscal year ending June
80, 1850, had been expended by December,
1879. and an appeal had been made to Congress
to supply the deficiency. All that might have
been done from q mistaken sense of duty or
an exaggerated idea of the public good. Men
in such positions occasionally become cnthusi-
astic on that subject, and if there was no cor
rupt motive it was not a rimin act.
The Judge next took up the question of con-
spiracy. The consiracy, he said, was charged
to be a combination of intelligent beings to
dcfraud the United States by fraudulent aft
davits, petitions and orders. The Statute OF
Limitations covered, with its protection, all
crimes committed more than three years prior
to the finding Of the indictment, which was
returned into court May 20, 1882. The jury
could not render a verdict Of guilty against
the defendants for anything done prior to
May 20, 1879. If convicted it must be for what
had been done since that date.
In establishing a conspiracy Judge Willie
said) all the facts in the case tending to a diff
fcrcnt conclusion from the majority of tho
evidence must be considered, but duo regard
must be given to the weight of evidence. The
jury must infer from all the facts whether or
not there was a conspiracy.
Judge Wylie here commented upon the at
tacks made upon the suficiency of the in
dictment. He reviewed the evidence touch
ing the beginning of the combination. "Sen-
ator Dorsey said he, "seemed to exert a
that business. He corrected their esti-
mates and changed their bids. BEING
contractor. So Miner was brought here,
and, with, Peck and John Dorsey, secured
some one hundred and thirty routes. Bidding
separately they were mutually interested in
the bids. Here was community Of interest.
Although not a bidder, Senator Dorsey seemed
to be the most active man, not only in prepar-
ing the bids, hut in carrying out the contracts.
ii he had a sinister and unlawful purpose, he
was as guilty as il he had u contract. 1t was
q matter of no consequence why he did
| these ~tllnpS-Whether from love for his
brother and brother-in-law, or from self-inter-
est: There was evidence Of what Miner,
ceeding period. 1t was for the jury to saw
whether they had a corrupt purpose. If they
were satisfied that it was a fraudulent combi-
terror to the period fixed by the statute of
limitations. Immediately uponS. w. Dorsey's
retirement from che Senate, he took an active
must determine whether Peck and JONI
of straw and S. W. Dorsey the substance. The
Government claimed that Peck and John Dor
sey Still remained in the combination because
they continued to make at1idavits. They held
contracts in their own names. S. W. Dorsey
and Vale, who had no CONTRACTS in their
names, were unable to make afidavits, and
the old parties remained in for the pur-
pose OF carrying on. the business. If
1t was lawful business, then it was all
right. II Peck and John Dorsey knew it to
be an unlawful combination with a criminal
purpose, yet agreed to further its objects,
then their going out did not retire them from
pend upon the contracts on stsep 4 per sou mi might Hst
remain in the conspiracy although he
had parted 4, with his interest in the
was a dangerous averment, and was regarded
as surplusage. Ii fact and evidence were
to the contrary, then everything depended
upon the character of the combination at that
day before the goth Of May, 1879. Whether n-
lawful or not, if the combination ceased after
the goth of May, 1879, there was no evidence Of
IT. and in the absence of any nrOOf nf IFS die.
solution the jury would have the right to pre-
5 5S4g c that the o sf3an 4ht e,a, f9rm nc in April.
of the character of the association after that
time by its antecedent history, but it was not
enough to find the existence of a conspiracy.
They must find an overt act committed by
some one of the defendants after the goth Of
May, ls7s. a difficulty arose at that point.
Most OF the alleged fraudulent petitions (and
they bore that appearance upon their faces
were filed before the date spoken of. On
to have been filed July 10, 1879, but the evi-
dence was that it was filed April 3, 1879, and
it seemed that it was barred by the statute.
But here another question arose: whether the
parties interested in procuring the order in
using the false petition filed April 3. 1879, to
secure the order of July IL, 1879, had not COM
There was a statute bearing on that subject,
and he should hold to the proposition that a
party availing himself of a false paper to Sc
cure an order on a certain day would not be
fore that day"
Judge Wylie then enumerated other papers
corresponding in their character to that al
ready commented upon. He believed there
was not a single instance where papers were
filed within the statute of limitations.
Mr.. Bliss interrupted to say the the affidavit
on the route No. Al, l3l was clearly within the
period. but Mr.. Ingersoll declared that the
description OF the papers was fatally defect
i've.
The Judge then turned to the Indictment.
saying he was not disposed to attach any
! Ne1QnI fO me QEnpr1nnfS that f1,n,p ,,,.,-
1rauduient sqb-contracts, for they amounted
70 nothlng. He could not see how they re-
suited IN loss to the Government. An indict-
ment should set out any overt act as hay
ing been done in pursuance of a
was defective in that respect. But that fault
was cured by section 1,025 Of the statute. For
more than a year the indictment had been
under constant fire. exposed to demurrers and
70 every species of attack which the ingenu-
lty or able counsel could devise. but that
1ault had never been mentioned. The
Indictment was defective throughout in
that way. 1t, charged Brady's orders
with being fraudulent, without having alleged
that they were made in pursuance OF a con.
sp1racy. But the same statute cured that dc.
rect, and he would hold the indictment suf-
hclent as against defendants, including Brady.
Judge Wylie concluded his charge, and at
3:45the jury retired.
Gored to Death by a Bull.