Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-13
GIVEN TO TIE JURY.
= he Star-ROute Cases in the Hands Of
the Twelve hen Upon Whose
Verdict SO
Mach Now Depends Judge Wylie's
Charge-A Careful Review Of the
Law and Evidence.

zLd in part. the policy Of the Law must b
lonnd in itself. No public officer had an
rignt 70 81 Up his own policy against tn
nl,.irS ~; Oh J Las LAW 2. held great iruai:
was MS duly TO obey the Law; to allow hin
l to sei up ais policy ~eaiast-iha. la sr.sue1s!.
ieid to great and innumerahle abuses; bu
he mere violation Of the law by a puhli
| oihcer was not OF necessity a crime. HI
IN gat misuuderstand his duty; be might b,
guided by an intention to do the public good
lhese remarks were intended TO apply to Gen
Brady ,where the law aid 10 M akiog increase,
IN services he must pay due regard to pro-
Effectiveness and other circumstances. i
| hardly seemed reasonable or fair for Brady
to say he disregsrded producliveness. That
was the policy Of the present Cabinet officer
witness In this case, but the Court could
not sanction that policy. The law prohit-
lted any public officer from expanding puhs
&c money or making contracts for expendi-
lures beyond appropriations. In this case
/ there WAS evidence that all money appro.
| pfIated by Congress for the fiscal year end
| lag June 80, 1889, had been expended by
December, 1879, and an appeal had been
made to Congress 10 supply the deficiency.
| All that nig5t have been done from a mis-
taken sense Of duty or exaggerated idea OF
public good. Men in such positions occa-
sionslly become enthusiastic on that subject,
am II there was no corrupt motive, II was
not criminal act.
The Judge next took up the question OF
conspiracy. Tie conspiracy, he said, was
c. srged 10 be a combination of iuteffi-
gent beings TO defrsud the United
States By fraudulent afidavits, petit
hnns- and orders rf1z-utzruJe OF linz
iiations covered with its protection all
crimes committed more than three years
prior TO the Euding of the Indictment, which
was delivered 10 court May 30, 1882. The
Jury could not fnd a verdict OF guilty against
ihedelendants for any thing done prior to May
~, 1879. II convicted it mus. be for what
they have done since that date. 10 estab-
fishing conspiracy, all the facts in the CAGE
tending to different conclusions from a ma
loiIty q evidence must be considered, but due
regard must be given to the weight of EVIL
dence. The jury was to infer from all the
1scs whether or not there was a conspiracy.
Judge Wylie then commented upon The a.
tacks made upon the suficisucr OF the in
dlctmen'. He reviewed the evideUCe touch
ing the begiuningo OF the combination. "Sens-
tor Dorsey" said be, Seemed to exert a con-
trolling influence over every body in that
busiasss He corrected their estimates snd
changed their bids. Bsing in tie
Senate, he could not become a con-
and vita Peck and John Dorsey,
secured $50 routes. Bid ling separately, they
were mutually interested III the bids. Here
was Community of interset. Although not a
bidder, Senator Dorsey seemed 10 be she
most active man, not only in preparing bids,
on, IN carrying ont contracts III he had -
siuia'er aua RsIazfui purpose, &c 49, -
gnilty az if he had contract. Il was a
matter OF 30 consequence why he did these
things, whether from love for his brother and
brother-iG-iaw or other interest. There was
evidence what Miner, V ale aud John Dorsey
did during the succeeding period. 1t was
fer the jury to asy whether they had cor
rupt purpose. II they were satisfied il was a
fraudulent combination, then that m ade out
its ca sracter anterior 10 the period fixed by
the statute Of limitations. Immediately upon
S. w. Dorsey's retire ment from the Senate be
took an sclive intereAt in the business, and sn
entirely new organic iiion was effected. Tee
jury must determine whether Peck and james
w. Dorsey, who thea stepped out, were men
OF straw, and s w. Dorsey the substance.
The government claimed Pick and John
Dorsey still remained in the com.
binstiop, because th4y continued &c
make sffid5yits they held contracts in then
own names. S. w. DJrssy aud Vale, VINO
held no contracts in their names, were uu-
parties remained in for the purpos-
Of carrying on busints', if 1t WI
. lawful business then it was all right; II
Peck ard John Dorsey knew it to be an IN
lawful combination with = criminal purpose
and agreed ao-further It's object, then their
going out did not relieve them from cor
spiracy. That conspiracy did not depend
upon the contracts. A person might remain
10 conspiracy, although he had parted with
his interest 10 the contracts. Tue indict
ments 20 alleged, but that was dangerous
averment, and was regarded as a surplusage
III the evidence was contrary, then every
thing depended upon the character OF tine
combination al that day, before The 10th o.
May, 1879, whether unlawful or not. Ii the
combination ceased after the Doth oil May
| 1879, there was no evidence Of it, and in lht
Absence of any proofs of its dissolution, h
jury would have the right 10 presume IN,
| organization was normal 10 April, 1879, and
continued after the statute of limItatiori
eessed 10 protect. The jury mus
Judge of the character of The
association after that time by Its
sntecedent history. But it wss no
enough TO find the existence of conspiracy
they must find an overt act committed by
| some one of The defendants after the 20 h c
May, 1879; difficulty arose at tiat point
and most of the alleged fraudulent petitions
and they bore thss appearance upon theil
| fscYs, were fled before the date spoken Of
Ga routs Ma. "a, l49 false petition wa
charged g have been i!sds4yslE.Ft :. 1s e
~. 'as ~ W
<sssttsT a1s5zfTsa bs The . slslnse' r az
.ies fais-ssted in procuring the order II
us,pg Tue is>s-;5neillion fled April 2. 1872 7
committed Ru act ia pursuance of the con
spiracy. There wss a statute b.ariog OF
that subject, aud he should hold 10 tb
proposition that party availiug himse.f Q
false paper to secure "a orser on a cerlsi
day would not be protected by the fac! tbs
il had been filed before that day.
Judge Wylie then enumerated oths
papers corresponding in character TO this
already commented upon. He believe
til, re was not single instance wher
the papers were fled within the statute {
limitations.
Bliss interrupted TO say that the sfi1zv
on route No Al ,ll9 We eli arly within To
period, but Iugvisoll d, clared that the d
scription Of the paper was fatally defective
Judge Wylie then turned 20 the indie
mtnt. He said he was not disposed 10 attac
auy weight to the avermeats that there wei
fraudulent sub-con;rsct for thsy smountF
o nothing. He could not see how they r
suited in lcss to the governnen An indie
msut should set GU. any overt act az hsvlI
been done in pursuance Of conspiracy, al
perhaps this indic'm was defective ia tn
ros poet, but that fault was cured By ssctIo
1925 of the statutes. For more than a ye
tine indictment ID been under constant hr
EXPOSED TO demUrcrrs, and to every species
a,tsck which the ingenuity OF able couns
could devise, bot that fault had never be-
mentioned. The Indictment was defecti
, throughout IN that way. ItchsIged Brady
orders with being fraudulent, whhsut alle
ing that the5 were made in pur uance OF co
spiracy, bat the same statute cured that d
lee, and be would hold the Indictment 81
fcisnt sgainst The defendsn's, includir
Brady.
Judge Wylle then turned 10 the priu.'
prayers ami commented upon those rot s
4 ready disposed of IN his preceding remars
: Touching ire amount OF credeBce TO be g w
r erdelps testimony, Judge Wylie said
was not TO be discredited becau 70 it was IN
| Of accomplce; it was corroborsted by 9th
I Witnesses and sustained by the mater
e theory and aspect of the case. In considt
s ing ne testimony given by the defendsI
, the iHry must make allowance Ter the tempt
5 ton 10 which they were exposed. He cou
: not grant the governments prayer that {
e iury ba directed TO regard as a circumst az
e tending 10 prove guilt the refusal of the
q i Tense 10 produce books and other written e.
z dence upon notice. That was not the la
IL did not allow an unfayorable inference