National Republican., 1883-05-19
THE GREAT CONSPIRACY.
Mr.. IngesOll Begins His Argument in the Shl
Route Trial.
What is Required to Establish the Ex
istenee Of Conspiracy,
Hs Refused 10 Produce the $1,000 Check Because Hc
Wanted 10 Use II as Dynamite for Rerdell.
A Little Tilt with the Court About the
Evidence Ruled Out.

bcr Of ladies. Mr.. lngersol began with
review of the indictment, explaining the
meaning of the terms fraudulent petitions
and bids" and straw BIDS and denying
that the papers in this case wcro of that
character
He spoke Of Boone's testimony regarding
the preparation of the proposals for service,
and pointed out that his testimony conAictcd
with s. W. Dorsey's, where Boone said that
he was given an interest in the business.
Dorsey had advanced somo money (Sl4000 or
$l5O00) TO the contractors To advance
money was sometimes foolish, but not crimi-
nal Boone went out because the contractors
got moro routes than they expected. They
were awarded 1874 contracts when they ex-
pectcd only 81 and had not tho means to put
on SO much service. Then the congressional
investigation occurred, so that the service
was not put on by the contracted time.
Miner took in Vaile because he had the
necessary money. Under the subcontract
law Vaile filed his subcontracts, and when
S. w. Dorsey returned quarrel ensued. Pre-
viously John Dorsey had expressed his desire
10 soil out.
Then followed the division, and up to that
point there was nothing against the parties
inconsistent with perfect innocence. The
great question was, whether or not there was
conspiracy, and that must be proved as any
other crime. 1t had been represented that a
conspiracy was hard to prove, and that the
jury should not require much proof from the
government. No man went about with n
placard on his back announcing his intention
TO commit crime they did not have a band
of music and torch in each hand; their
hands had other uses. All crime loved dark.
ness, and this crime of conspiracy must be
proved as the government would prove any
other crime. II the arch of evidence was not
perfect; If every stone did not perfectly fit
if il was not inconsistent with every theory
but guilt, then it fell to pieces. That being
so, then all that had been said or adduced
against the defendants rested upon converse
tions between persons three or four or five
years ago. 1t was the most unsafe and un-
satisfactory evidence. Memory wrote upon
tho secret tablets of the brain words that
no human eye could Sec No man could look
upon tho brain of another and SEQ If he gave
true transcript of what was there
Yet upon that kind of evidence the
jury was asked to destroy regulations
tear down roof trees And the witnesses
had not the slightest interest in these
conversations As a rule memory was
tho child of interest and attention. Men
must have an intcrest-their attention must
have been aroused. Tell him that q man
could remember q conversation had three
years ago in which he had no interest. He
would remember that he had n conversation
on certain subject, and would fill out to
SUIT the prosecution. When the prosecution
had finished with their conversations they
called for the books Of the defense. True,
they said that they wished only the corre-
spondence concerning the mail business, but
who was to Judge of that. Perhaps some OF
tho witnesses wished to see the books to re.
fresh their memory so as to be able to swear
10 check book or to check books. Well, the
defense had offered to bring in every letter and
every check. What more could they have done
But they wished the jury to presume that be.
cause the defense has failed 10 produce the
books, they must contain evidence damaging to
them, That was not the law, although the
prosecution would have it SO, Mr. Bliss had
asked the jury to bring in verdict based
upon what tho defense had failed TO prove,
and second, upon what the court had refused
to let them prove. They could not patch out
such evidence with presumption. At this
point n discussion took place between Mr..
1ngersoll and the court upon a question of
law Judge Wylie firmly expressed his opin-
ion that the jury was absolutely bound by
the decision of the court, where the question
of admissibility of evidence was concerned.
Mr. Ingersoll said that he could not agree
with this view, and must insist that the jury
was the final judge.
The court refused to permit tho subject 10
bo argued TO the jury
Mr.. Ingersoll said that it was principle OF
law, but he would address himself to the
court Suppose Rerdell had sworn that a
check had been drawn to Dorsey's order for
$1,000 Suppose that check was for $500
and drawn by Rerdell himself and by him
Endorsed on the book. Well he (NIr. Inger-
soll) had refused to produce that check upon
the notice from the prosecution until he had
heard RerdelPs testimony upon that point.
Why? Because he wanted to put that little
piece of dynamite under his testimony and
see the pieces fly; and he did. The court
Gnil hat ba roftCal to olyg
aud papers need not create a presumption
against the defense but when their place
had been supplied by secondary evidence that
must stand for what it was worth. OF course
the failure to produce the papers would not
force the jury to believe the secondary evi.
dcnce. The jury must judge OF its potency.
Mr.. 1ngersoll cited a decision by Justice
Field to the effect that there must be no pre-.
sumption against the defense in such cases
He declared that they could not make n
prison out Of presumption any more than
they could make goblet out ofa suspicion. II
was laid ut the door of the defense us crime,
that they had exercised the right OF petition.
Tho country was completely ut the mercy of
the Postotfice department; no one but the
contractor could carry the mail SO the only
resort was petitions. In this very case tho
court had acknowledged the right Of the con-
tractors TO get up petitions, The prosecution
had said that any one would sign petition.
forging signatures. In this case they must
prove the four W's"-who-when--wha
where.
Would the government assert that there
was any conspiracy when Peck and Miner
wrote to S. w, Dorsey. All the witnesses
said no; all the direct evidence said no
all the indirect evidence said nothing
The Indictment charged that the conspiracy
began ON the sixteenth of January, 1875,
when John Dorsey came here. All the wit.
nesses-B Boone, Miner Dorsey-said no that
was all Of the direct evidence. Was there
anything suspicious about that partnership
nothing. Boone had said with charming
frankness that if he had suspected or even
dreamed Of there being conspiracy he never
would have gone out of IT..
Rerdell was the only one who swore TO II,
and that was the only suspicious thing about
ii. ii'tl'
Rordell had sworn that Vailo was taken in
because "he was close to Brady" They had
already conspired with him, yet they wanted
somebody close TO him. Brady had said, 81
am going to declare you all failing con-
tractors; going 10 give up my millions, al
though ! conspred with you" Perhaps
there was something more absurd, but he
(Mr. IngersolD had mover heard of IT. lie
challenged the prosecution TO produce thol
slightest evidence that any of the defendants
were actuated by improper motivesj that
there was a conspiracy ut that time. Well,
was there conspiracy in March, 1892 Was
IL conspiring when they divided and parted ;
when Vaile swore that he would go never
step with Dorsey?
IL there was great conspiracy, why did
John Dorsey offer to sell out for Sl00002 Why
did he offer Boone one-third Of his contract 7?
Wbv ypaa Mnnre Nyha rotIId hayA "baan am