National Republican., 1883-03-20
THE GENERALS GRIT.
He Offers 10 Answer All Questions in Spite
Of His Lawyers.
Bat His Lawyers Object and Argue IL Out
at Great Length.


of the star route trial, and the criminal court
room was filled with spectators When the
court adjourned on Friday last the prosecu-
ton had just closed their preliminary argu-
ment upon the pertinency of the question as
to whether or not the witness (Gen. Brady
had any knowledge of the Price drafts. This
is regarded as an important point by both
sides, for If the question is admitted IL will
probably lead to the admission Of testimony
by Price in support of the governments
charge.
The court, in answer to question from Mr..
Merrck, said that IL would allow the govern
ment an opportunity to reply to the argu-
monts of the defense.
Turning toward the court Gen. Brady said,
positively, "Your honor, would prefer to
answer that question and all other similar
questions. My lawyers and myself do not
seem to have taken the same ground"
Mr. Merrick was of opinion that the wit
ness might answer without reference to his
lawyers.
The court, however, said that it would
hear his lawyers instead of him.
Mr.. lngersoll OF course your honor. This Is no
question Of privilege, but of relevancy and my
client is interested.
Mr. Wilson said that II the matter were
gone onto now, he should feel it incumbent
upon him to try it now and try 1t to the bot
tom. But it was not proper to bring another
case into this, when it could not be tried,
and verdict had before jury. He did not
propose spending the remainder of his days
in the court room trying other matters that
might be brought into this case. One case at
time was the proper method.
The court. II has not been brought into this
case
Mr.. Wilson. No; and am trying to keep 1t out
Mr !, ,,g mt. .
a statement of the offer.
The court interrupted and inquired If Mr..
Merrick's offer was to show only that this
draft had been placed upon the witness's desk.
Mr. Merrick No, your honor. Placed upon
his desk and given him Tor corrupt purpose.
Mr.. Davidge resumed his argument. He
asserted that the object of the offer was to
defame and injure the defendant, with the
intention of affecting the jury by that defa-
nation in the case at issue. It had never
been allowed to be shown that defendant
had committed another offense than that for
which he wass on trial, for the purpose of
influencing that case, unless il was shown
that there was O connection between them.
Again, If they wanted to prove the general
reputation of the witness they should be de-
barred from proving particular acts. They
could not bolster up criminal charge by
showing a general tendency to commit of
tense of the character charged.
The court said that the whole thing de-
pended upon the relevancy of the matter. If
another subject was concerned of course the
question could not be asked.
Mr.. Davidge quoted at length from the case
of the people VS.. Crapo (76 New York; and
other authorities. Suppose, said he, that it
were all proved, what would it amount to
1t would show that Brady was guilty of re-
ceiving bribe. But how did that concern
this charge-a conspiracy. What had that i'm
tention or motive to do with the other in
tention or motive? The prosecution said that
g., they wanted to prove the motive. The law
defined the motive in conspiracy, and nobody
but tho prosecution in this case believed that
man could conspire to rob the government
with good motive. If men conspired their
motives were bad, and no proof was needed
upon that point. The supreme court case in
stanced by Mr.. Merrick was read by Mr..
Davidge, who asserted that the gentleman
had tried to foist upon the court the excep-
tion for the rule.
At this point it being apparent that the
argument would continue for some time, the
jury was excused until after recess.
The court frequently interrupted Mr.. Dav-
idge to express his understanding upon Ger.
tain points. The court said that IL under
stood the principle of law to be that the gov
ernment could not 60 beyond the issue ten
dered by the witness himself.
good character, the government could not go
beyond that But If he set up proof of good
acts to prove good reputation, then the gov
ernmont could prove particular bad acts to
show bad character. They could meet him on
any ground he took.
Mr.. Davidge said that If they ever went
into the investigation of those drafts they
would show how utterly without foundation
were the charges in that connection. When
the statutes allowed defendant to go upon
the stand they confined his statements to the
circumstances of the facts at issue.
The court. He must respond to all relevant
matters"
MIR Davidge. "And he does not become tar
iIeumeY'' ''''''''''1 - "''
The court. NO; as to collateral matters, 1 will
protect the witness"
line of argument. Even Mr.. Merrick, said
he, had not asserted that it was a tender to
prove the conspiracy; that had been left two
or three years behind; this transaction was
placed in 1880. 1t had no connection, no
family relation with the overt acts set out in
the indictment.
Mr.. lngersoll furnished the prosecution
with the titles and a description of the cases
to which he intended to refer in his argu-
ment. His comments upon them caused
much amusement among the spectators.
, recess was then taken.
When the court reassembled Mr. Henkle, of
0pvnsel for defense, also read from a number
of authorities in support of their argument.
The jury was excused from attendance for tho
day, and Mr.. Merrick proceeded to close the
debate upon this point for the government.
Reading from the record language used by
the witness on direct examination, he insisted
that it justified an inquiry into transac-
tions connected with any or all of the
star routes, without regard to those mentioned
in the indictment. Brady had stigmatized
all of Walsh's testimony as false as
"a lie made out of whole CLOTH" On
his cross-examination the government pro.
posed to interrogate him relative to the facts
sworn to by Walsh. The court remarked that
this had not formed part of the original
offer. Mr.. Merrick replied that he was aware
of the fact, but he intended to go into that
subject, and brought it up now so as to save
further argument. The court had seemed to
regard relevancy as the principal question in
this matter If thing done by defendant
was similar in time of occurrence and charac-
ter to the onenses charged in the indictment
it was as entirely admissible as proof of them
would be. 1t was not an offer to prove the
body of the crime, but to prove the motive
and sciente.
The court inquired why the evidence to
support the offer had not been offered in chief
Mr.. Merrick answered that he had not regarded
1T rs at all necessary to the governments
case. OF course, said the court, IL was not to
be understood as precluding the introduction
of evidence now, that it had been overlooked.
But why attempt to draw the line in evidence.
Mr.. Merrick said that another reason that
influenced them was desire to hear the de-