The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-14
Charge to Che Star Route Jury

l
of trial, and reminding them tina
they had nothing to do with publ
demand. newspaper articles or syn
pathy. but must decide the case o
the evidence. he at once commence
10 state the legal points involved, all,
aid, i Il part the policy of law mus
Ue found in itself.
No public officer had any right t
set up his own policy against the pol
icy of law. He held great trut an,
it was his duty to obey the law II
allow him to set up his policy agains
the law would lead to great and in
Vulnerable abuses, but mere viola
ton of law by public officer was no
necessarily crime. He might mis-
guided by intention to do publ,
good.
These remarks were intended to APP
ply to Gen. Brady where the law salC
in making increase of service he mus
pay due regard to productiveness anC
other circumstances. 1t hardly see meC
reasonable or fair for jury to say ht
disregarded productiveness. That
was the policy of the cabinet officer
who was witness in this case. But
the court could not sanction that pol
icy. The law prohibited any public
officer from expanding public money
or making contracts for expenditures
| beyond the appropriation.
| In this case there was V dence that
all money appropriated Jy congress
for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1880, had been expended by Decem-
Der, 1879, and an appeal had been
made to congress to supply the def
cheney. All that might have been
done from Il mistaken sense of duty.
Men in such positions have occasion
ally been enthusiastic on that sub
ject, and if there Was no corrupt mo-
tive it was not criminal act.
The Judge next took up the ques-
ton of conspiracy. The conspira Y,
he said, was charged to be a combina-
ton of intelligent beings to defraud
the United States py fraudulent atfi-
davits, petitions and orders. The
statute of limitations covered with
its protection all crimes committed
three years prior to finding of an in
dictment, which was delivered in
court May 20, 1882 The jury could
not find verdict of guilty against
defendants for anything done prior to
May 20, 1882. If convicted it must
be for what they had done after that
date.
Some most important evidence in
the case relating to occurrences pre-
vious to May Goth was then reviewed.
In establishing conspiracy, all facts
tending to take from majority of evil
dence must be considered by due re-
gard must be given to weight of
evidence. The jury must infer from
all the facts whether or not there was
conspiracy. Judge Wyley then
commented on attacks, on in
sufficiency of the Indictment.
He reviewed tie evidence touching
the beginning Of the combination.
Senator Dorsey, said he, seemed to
ca controlling influence over every
body III that business. He corrected
their estimates and charged their
time. Being in the senate he could
not become a contractor, so Miner
was brought here with Peck and
John Dorsey. They secured thirteen
routes, bidding separately. They
were mutually I'M crested in this.
Here was community interest. AL
though not bidder, Dorsey seemed
most active, not only in preparing
the bids, but in carrying out the con-
tracts.
If he had sinister and unlawful
purpose, he was as guilty as if he had
the contract. 1t was a matter of no
consequence why he did these things,
whether for love for his brother, or
brother-in-law, or self-interest.
There was evidence showing what
U.,i1
ing the succeeding period. 1t was for
the jury to say whether they had cor
rupt purposes. 1t they were salts
fed it was fraudulent combi-
nation, then that made out its
character anterior to the period fixed
by statute OF limitation. Immediate
ly on S. W. Dorsey's retirement from
the senate he took active interest in
the business and an entirely new Or
ganiZation was effected. The jury
must decide whether Peck and John
W. Dorsey, who then stepped out,
were men of straw and S. W. Dorsey
the substance. The government
claimed that Peck and John Dorsey
still remained in the combination, be-
cause they continued to make affida-
Wit that they held the contract in their
own names.
S. w. Dorsey and Vale, who held no
contract in their names, were unable
to make affidavits, and evidently the
old;parties remained in for the purpose
of carrying on the business. If it
was lawful business, then it was all
right. If Peck and John Dorsey
knew it to be an unlawful combina-
ton with criminal purposes, yet agreed
to further its objects, then their 60
ing out did not retire them from
the conspiracy. That consipira-
cy did not depend upon the
contracts. A person might remain in
conspiracy although he had parted
with his interest in the contracts.
The indictments so alleged, but that
was d dangerous aVer1nent and was
regarded as a surplusage. If the fact
and evidence Was to the contrary,
then everything depended upon the
character of the combination at that
day, before the twentieth of May,
1879, whether unlawful or not.
1T the combination ceased after the
twentieth of May 1879, there was no
evidence of it, and in the absence of
any proof of it's dissolution the jury
would have the right to presume that
the organization formed in April. 1879.
continued after the statute limitations
ceased to protect. The Jury must
Judge of the character of the associa-
ton after that time by its antecedent
history. But it was not enough to
find the existence of conspiracy.
They must find overt acts committed
by some one of the defendants after
Nav % 1870 Tho dif3icn1tv arOSa of
that point, and most of the alleged
fraudulent actions, (and they bore
that appearance on their face. On
Route No. "a, false position
was charged to have been made and
filed July 10. 1879, but
t e evidence was fi'e |
April 30, 1879, and it seemed it was
barred by statute, but another ques-
ton arose whether the parties in pro-
curing the orders of false petition
filed April 80. 1879, to secure the order
of July 10, 1879, had not committed
an act in pursuance of conspiracy.
There were statutes bearing on that
subject and he should hold to this
proposition, that the party availing
himself of false papers to secure an
order of certain day would not be
prosecuted by the fact that it had
been filed before that day.
Judge Wyley then enumerated 9TH
er papers corresponding in character
to that already commented on. He
believed there was not single in
stance WI ere papers were filed within
the statute of limitation.
Bliss interrupted to say that the af-
fidayit on route November IL. 1879.