National Republican., 1883-04-19
THE TESTIMONY ALL TAKEN,
And the Arguments in the Star Route Trial
Will Begin To-Day.
The Court Will Decide This Morning the
Order Of the Speeches.
A Suggestion That tho Attorney General May Help 70
Close the Case for the Prosecution.
Tho indictments Against Kellogg and
Brady-Their Defense.

Mr.. Bliss called John A. Walsh and asked III he
had ever had any money transactions with
Brady.
Mr.. Wilson objected and tho court called
for statement '-.
In response Mr.. Bliss called attention to
Brady's denials upon this point, and offered
to contradict him. Mr.. Bliss briefly related
the alleged facts sot out in the published afii-
davit of Price; that in the summer of 1880,
after the passage Of the star route deficiency
appropriation bill, Price had been approached
by A. H. Brown and requested TO subscribe
5000 to the fund raised by the star route
contractors to defray tho expenses attendant
upon the passage of that bill that Price had
alsrgo quantity of unemployed stock, and had
subscribed tho money upon promise that he
should be given certain service in return, and
that the money and drafts so subscribed by
Price had been placed upon Brady's desk. He
would prove that Brady had passed to Walsh
the drafts given to him by Price, who would
be here to-day.
He also offered to prove that Brady had re-
quested the witness TO deposit certain sum
of money to his credit, and that Walsh accord
ingly placed $4,000 with Hatch and Foote Of
New York, to Bradys credit.
Mr. Wilson argued the subject was purely
collateral in character and evidence in that
connection was not proper in rebuttal. He
called attention to the pending civil suit of
Walsh against Brady, and asserted that that
issue could not be tried in this court, because
it no wise affected the present case.
Mr.. Merrick contended that as Brady had
denied the whole conversation sworn to by
Walsh, tho prosecution had q right to cor
roborate its witness by proof Of what had been
described as collateral position of it. The
court did dot perceive how the proof would
establish the truth of Walsh's statement of
that conversation
Mr.. Merrick contended that tho proof
would be sufficient to meet the issue. He
quoted Walsh's testimony, wherein he says
that Brady referred him to the Price and Pc
torson drafts in proof of his asser tion that it
was the custom of the second assistant post
master general to exact from contractors q
portion of the allowance for increase and ex-
pedition. In denying the whole conversation
Brady had denied that statement, and surely
it was but proper that they be allowed to
contradict him.
The court said that the object Of rebutting
evidence was to meet the case of the defense.
The offer would tend to contradict Brady
upon a collateral matter; a matter outside
of the case. If Brady had testified untruly he
could not be contradicted So as to the Price
and Peterson drafts, they were not connected
with the matters set out in the Indictment
they were collateral, and the prosecution had
no right to rebut in that connection. Evil
dence in chief upon that point had been re-
jected. and as tho court saw no reason to re-
consider that decision 1t was still more i'm
proper upon rebuttal. The offer was there
fore overruled.
Mr.. .Merrick. Well, your honor, that
closes the governments rebuttal.
Counsel for the defense announced that
they were all through.
Now, we come to the important part of
the case-the talk, )" said the court, smjlingly.
A question arose as to the procedure to be
adopted in presenting the prayers. Mr..
Merrick advocated an adherence to the plan
followed in the former trial.
Mr., Henkle thought that the court should
limit the argument by defining the law upon
disputed points.
Mr.. Davidge believed that the arguments
would consume the remainder of the year,
unless some such plan should be adopted.
In order to allow time for the preparation
of arguments on legal points, Mr.. Bliss sug-
gested u recess until Friday.
The court dwelt upon the subject at some
length, carefully reviewing the methods of
practice in different courts, and concluding
that it would be better to hear arguments
upon the facts in the case before disposing of
the legal points, the course pursued in the
last trial. The arguments to the jury would
be first heard, and then the counsel might
pleasure. The Jury might render a general
verdict, but could not pass upon points of
law.
Mr.. Davidge said that there were certain
organic points that should be settled before
tho arguments were begun. For instance,
there was some doubt as to the statute upon
which the indictment was based, whether
upon section 5440 Revised Statutes or upon
the act of May II, 1879.
The court remarked that where there were
so many statutes 1t would be safe to shoot
into the flock in the hope of bringing one
down.
Mr.. Davidge attached great weight to the
point regarding the statute applicable to the
case.
Mr.. Carpenter demanded from the govern
ment q statement of their position in the
matter, but his demand was not complied
with.
The court finally agreed to hear argument
upon the point after recess,
When the court reassembled some discus
sion was had in regard to the order to be fol-
lowed in the delivery of arguments to the
jury. Judge Wylie appeared to attach some
weight to an English authority, allowing the
government counsel to open the argument in
one or two addresses and to close with the
same number of speeches.
MIR. lngersol vigorously protested against
the adoption of any such monstrous, absurd
government to make several closing argu-
ments after the defense had closed, and he
did not believe that criminal history would
disclose any such case. If the court decided
to make such an order, he should absolutely
refuse to make any argument, and leave the
case to the jury.
Without making any definite arrange
ment, the court said that it would see that a
fair division Of time was had. If the counsel
could not agree among themselves, the
court would allow the government to open
and to close, but would not now say that il
would be allowed moro than one argument in
closing. The court did not know that the
government desired more than one closing
argument, but had heard intimations that the
attorney general might wish to speak.
81 don't know that l would call that two
arguments" said Mr.. lngersoll, sneeringly,
but object to the precedent, If the attOr-
ney general wants to say word in this case
let him have the courage to make his argu-
ment where he can be answered not that
think he would do any particular harm, how
ever. If he wants to make the closing argu-
ment l should be delighted, but to two closing
arguments, l object"
The court remarked that il there were two
closing arguments 1t would not allow them to
cover the same ground.
Mr.. lngersoll 1t is hard TO tell what
matter the attorney general would cover"
The court. Probably it would be nothing
in the case"
Mr.. Ingersoll in sisted that he would refuse
to make an address if the government were
allowed two closing arguments.
The court said that the defense were en-
titled to know what course the court would
pursue, 1t would be better TO sleep over the
matter and arrange IL in the morning,