Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-06-20
Letter from Washington.

WASHINGTON, June 10. 1888.
To say that the citizens of Washington
were surprised at the verdict of acquittal in
the Star-route trial would be putting it mildly
indeed. There was great deal of joy among
the friends of the defendants, and great
deal of disgust and disappointment among a
large class of our people. While no one
thinks for q moment that the jury was tam.
pered with, still there are some facts that are
not perfectly clear. 1t does not seem possible
that any intelligent person could look over
one of these fraudulent routes and not see the
fraud, and then to perpetrate the fraud there
must have been a clear understanding with
the official in charge of the contract office.
The foreman of the jury was an infidel. one
of the jurors could not read or write, another
was an inebriate and had an attack of delirium
tremens in the court room the day before the
verdict was rendered another said the noise
in the court room made his head ache and
explained that by ''noisen he meant the ques-
tons of the lawyers and the answers Of the
witnesses; another says that he voted for con-
viction until he decided that he ought no
longer to oppose his companions, because
"some of them were educated and smart
gentlemen" The published interviews with
the jurors indicate that they were very much
in sympathy with the defendants, and
Foreman Crane said that they did not think
the evidence strong enough to warrant
them in breaking up five families, which was
strong point in Ingersoll's plea. They
utterly rejected the testimony of Rerdell,
who, a. one Of the ring, plead guilty, and
that Of Moore and Walsh as utterly unworth,
of belief, and criticised the government for
offering such testimony. The chief reason
= = Il
average mind unless we assume that the jury
were greatly but perhaps unconsciously in
fiueuced BY an evening paper in the
city, that Is owned by Brady. and that
has done everything in its power by fair
means or foul to weaken the effect of the
government testimony. II will be difficult
to make the public believe that jury of no
higher order of intelligence than the one in
question could, after listening to evidence for
six or eight months and the lengthy pleas OF
of counsel on both sides carefully weigh all
the evidence and arrive at q verdict of &C.
quittal justly, ~ the evidence was largely of
tact and record on the government side and
of contradiction on the part of the defense.
It il far more likely that the jury got in a
muddle and ~ they did not see their way
clear to intellieently weigh the evidence they
gave the defendants the benefit of the doubt
and acquitted them. Ii the jurors keep
on talking for publication, the facts will
al come out ere long The defendants and
their attorneys are extravagant in their praises
Of the ssbrave. honest men" that composed
the Jury but the fact Is well know that they
held very different opinion Of them before
the verdict. Az one Of the leading lawyers
for the defense said recently that had they
brought in . verdict Of guilty, they would at
once have moved to have the verdict set aside
on the ground of the incompetence of some
Of the jurors, notably the drunken one.
ALIAS.