Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-06-12
THE ARRANGEMENTS rERPEcrEp AT THE HOUSE OF

TIE ARRANGEMENTS rERPEcrEp AT THE HOUSE OF
8. W. DORSEY
The arrangements were made and perfected at
the house OF S. w. Dorsey, and under his super.
vision and direction. He was active IN the corres-
pondence and 10 procuring bon1s He seemed to
exert controlling influence over everybody. He
was, OF course, incompetent TO become contractor.
The bids were put In in March. 1878, after all the
arrangements had been made under the inspection
OF s. w. Dorsey. Peck. John W. Dorsey and Miner
were mutually interested I'm the bids. There they
had unity or purpose and interest on the part OF
the three men to whom the contracts were
awarded. s W. Dorsey seemed, however, TO be
the most active man I'm putting in the bids and
no matter whether he had an interest in the con.
he was
JUST AS GUILTY WITHOUT A CONTRACT
as with It II 1t was unlawful and he assisted. IL
mattered not whether he was interested or
whether he assisted from love OF his brother. The
court referred tn Vaile's coming into the concern
In the fall OF 1878 to prevent failure OF service
that this was an unlawful combination in its con-
ception and they had gone back to that early
period to show the character OF the combination
when Ii was formed. II that was fraudulent
! combination then they had established the char
acter OF the combination anterior to May, 1879.
Then they so down to March, 1879,
WHEN s. ". DORSEY LEFT THE SENATE
s. w. Dorsey comes forward then at once, and
Jno w. Dorsey and Peck step out The jury was
to judge what that Indicated; whether IL was car
rylng out In form what was substance before;
whether John W. Dorsey and Peck were men OF
that time. Some o; the contracts were, however
In the names OF Peck and Jno. W. Dorsey. and ex-
pedltlon could not be obtained except upon their
afftdavits. In that way, the government claims
these two men
STILL REMAINED IN THE COMBINATION
They continued to make a1idavits. The court
reviewed briefly the terms OF the division by which
S. w. Dorsey and Vale, neither OF whom were
parties. Those going out should continue to make
necessary papers, and those coming In were to
divide among themselves the necessary paper.
PECK AND JOHN W. DORSEY.
II these parties who went out-Peck and John
W. Dorsey-knew that 1t was a combination Of
which they were part, and their purpose was to
have fraudulent petitions gotten up. and frau1u-
lent orders made, and they agreed to help out the
they could be released from the charge S and SO as
to those who came in, II they had corrupt and un-
| routes were divided. A party might remain in a
conspiracy attsr ne had parted with his interests
contracts had nothing to do necessarily with the
| conspiracy, and the government was not obliged
| to prove It, According to the evidence the aver
ment was untrue.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ROUTES
| wasnot consummated till the 1st OF April, 1879.
Stl they were outside OF the statute and the evil
dence was received for the purpose OF showing the
character OF the combination. In order to sustain
the Indictment they must get the conspiracy this
the combination fell to pieces between April lst
and May 90 1873, they had no evidence OF it. II 1t
was an unlawful combination they had no evil
dence OF its being broken UP between April lst
| and May 90 and Inc presumption was that it con-
tinued after the latter date. II it was
Of course, have to trouble S thenseives hem ' about S
the dates; but II 1t was otherwise they had right
to Judge OF the character OF the combination since
May 10th by its antecedents. 1t was not enough,
however. that there should be Q conspiracy. Some
one or more OF the members OF the combination
must have done some act since May 20th, 1879, In
furtherance OF the conspiracy.
SOME DIFFICULTY
came up there. Most OF the petitions denounced
as fraudulent-an1 some OF which looked very
much OF that kind upon their faoe-were gotten
up before May Goth, 1879. For example. On route
charged to be led July 18Th, 1870 In fact TIT IL was
nIed Ied hn Apr % A. 1879 That petition therefore, was
tions Still, another question arises there-and 1t
is the case with many OF the petitions They
would consider this false petition as filed April Sd,
have been used. The question is whether one
OF these parties interested in procuring an order
for expedition, and using o petition already filed
the petition on the 10th OF July, 1879. He would
leave 1t to the jury as to whether any OF the pet
tfons on file before May 60 1879 were used in pro-
curing expedition or increase after that day. II,
although they had been filed before that date
Dorsey, or any other defendant, in point OF fact
knowingly made use OF any fraudulent paper TO
procure an order, ne should hold that the use of
such paper was an act
IN FURTHERANCR OF A CONSPIRACY
and an overt act that 1t was proper for the jury
to consider Dates In an Indictment were OF little
consequence. The man who filed the affidayit
might be protected by lapse OF time, but one of
the others. afterwards making use OF the paper,
committed an overt act. He regarded the in
II frann onfnrp t1af
July 10th, 1879. AS to all that, The jury would
have to judge. On the same route the oath was
charged to have been fled July 10th, 1879, when,
court referred to others cases where there was an
apparent variance In dates between the indict-
ment and the evidence. He believed there was
not single instance In which any OF these papers
were filed M within the statute OF limitations
sd Wn sd the s On
cases the date OF the filing was stated coincident
| with the date OF the order.
TIE OVERT ACT.
Judge Wylie, resuming, said in effect that It was
the use OF the paper that constituted the overt
| act. and these papers appeared to have been used
within the legal period. He referred to question
made yesterday respectIng.the correctness OF the
form in which Brady's orders were set forth. It
did not say that the orders were made in further
ance or In pursuance Of conspiracy. The author
tiles all required that the overt should be set out
He apprehended. however. that that defect-and
he was not surprised at it, considering the labors
Imposed upon the draughtsman-waS cured by
section 1925, R s.. which provided that defect In
the form OF an Indictment should not tend to the
| prejudice OF a defendant He did not think the
| omission OF the form in this case would tend to
| the prejudice OF the defendant. This Indictment
for more than year had been under constant
fire. but this defect had not been named In any OF
the demurrers so far as the court remembered. A
defect In an Indictment was the subject OF de-
murrer, or might be raised In motion In arrest OF
| Judgment He did not know, however, that the
question OF the
VALIDITY OF THE INDICTMENT
could be raised in instructing the Jury The Jury
were not judges Of the validity OF the indictment
This point, therefore, could not be raised at this
time. The same defect pervades the whole In
dlctment, as wherever a new route was taken up
the order was set out In the same way He should
hold, therefore, that the Indictment was valid and
that the overt acts were properly charged against
Brady.
[coNTNuED IN THE SECOND ED1T1oNl
Foreman Cranes Dream.
A VISION OF FUTURE SCENES IN THE JURY ROOM
JOHN CALVIN AND THE OLD COAMoN-LAw DIET.
Mr. Crane the foreman OF the star route jury. has
been dreaming. This morning he gave to STAR
reporter the following: Last night / dreamed
saw twelve men locked up In q room together.
They were venerable looking men. their heads