The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-13

remarks we're intended to apply to General
BRADY, where the law said in mak king An in
crease OF service he must pay due regard 10
proauctiveness, and other circumstances II
hsrdly seemed reasonable or fair, for Brady
said he disregsrded productiyeness; thai
Was tne policy OF the present cabinet OH.
is witness IN the case, but the court
could not sanction that policy, The law
ptohioited any public officer from expend.
ing puolc money or making contracts
,or expenditures beyond the appropriation.
In TINS case there was evidence that ali
money appropriated by congress for the
hscal year ending June 3Oth 1880, had been
expended by December 1879, and an an.
pea had been made 10 congress to supply
tue deficiency; sll that might be done from
mistaken sense OF duty or an exaggerated
Idea OF public good. Men in such a posi.
tion occasionally became enthusiastic on
that subject, and If no corrupt motive was
proved It was not criminal act.
rue Judge next took up the question of
cpnsplracy; The conspiracy, he sad, was
charged 10 be a combination of intelligent
eeihgs TO detraud the United States by
fraudulent aitldavets, petitions and orders.
Ine statue OF limitations covered with its
prolection all crimes committed more than
three years prior to finding the indictment,
,SSn wnlch was delivered in court May, 10Th,
ios1: The Jury could not find a verdict of
unty against the defendant for anything
done prior to May, 10th, 1852. IfconyicteS
~ must be for what they had done after
that date. 0'
lNorE.-Some of the most important evi.
dence in the case relate to occurrences pre.
vious to May 20. 1879.
In conspiracy all facts in the case tending
10 different conclusion from the majority
VI the evidence must be considered, but
uue regard must be given to the weight of
lhe evidence. The jury must infer from
all the facts whether or not there was a
conspiracy.
Judge Wylie then commented ON the Mt.
9oAs on the suihciency of the indictment.
iie reviewed the evidence, touching the
eomolhallon, Senator Dorsey, said he,
seemed TO cast controlling influence over
every body in the business. He corrected
.neir estimates and changed their
olus' Being in the senate, he could
not be contractor, so Miner
was brought here with John Dorsey and
they secured bids mutually. There was
community interest. Although not hid.
uer, Senator Dorsey seems TO be the most
aclye, not only in preparing bids, but in
carrying out contracts. If he had sinis.
yer ana unlawful purpose he was as guilty
-. ~ 'au eoh'iacts. III was matter OF
no consequence why he did these things.
Tor love Tor his brother, or brother-in-law
or ior SELF interest. There was evidence of
what Miner, Vale and John Dorsey did
during the succeeding period. Il was for
tne Jury to say whether they had corrupt
purposes LII they were satisfied IL was |
fraudulent combination, then that made ont
It's character anterior to the period fixed NV |
the statute OF Limitations. immediately |
on .; W. porsey's retirement from the sen. |
ate, he took an active interest in the bust. |
ness ana an entirely new organization was
effected. The Jury must decide whether
Peck and John W. Dorsey. who then % stem
ped out, were characters Of the combinai;nn |
at day before May Goth, whether unIaw.
lui or not: II the combination was formed
after May 10th, 1879, there was no evidence
OF IL, and in the absence of any proofs of its
dissolution, the jury would have the right
70 presume the organization was formed I'm
Aprll, lS79, and continued after the statute
OF limitation ceased to protect them. The
Jury must Judge of the character of the as.
sociation after that time by It's antecedcnt
history, but 1t was not enough to find the
existence OF conspiracy. They must find
overt acts committed by some one of the
defendants after May Goth, 1879. The diff
entity arose at that point, and most of the
alleged fraudulent petitions land they bore
that appearance on their faces). A false
petition was charged to be made, filed Jan.
nary 10th, 1879, out the evidence was IL wa,
iiled April Both, 1876, 0,and was barred by the
statute. But here another question arose.
whether parties in procuring an order, In
using false petitions filed April 30th, 1879,
10 100 secure an order of July 18th,
Io9, mad not committed an
@ act IN pursuance of conspiracy,
Ihprn Wpra N haa u, Al. ., |
and he should hold to the proposition that
the party availing of false papers to secure
the order OF certain day would not be pro.
secuted by the fact that il had been filed be-
fore that day. N" w
The Judge then enumerated other naners
in character to that already
commented on. He believed there was not
single instance where the papers were
tled within the statute of Limitation.
Bliss interrupted to say that the affidavit
en- route NO; 4lll9 was clearly within the
period, put lngersoll declared the descrip.
Ilon OF the paper was fatally defective.
The judge turned to the Indictment and
said he was not disposed to attach anv
weight TO averments that there were fraudu-
lent contracts, for they amount to nothing.
lie could not see how they resulted in n
loss 10 the government. An Indictment
should set out any overt act as having been
done In pursuance of conspiracy and per-
haps this indictment was defective in that
respect, but that fault was cured by section
l9Oo OF the statutes and for more than
year the Indictment had been uader con.
slant hire, exposed to every species of
attack which the ingenuity OF able counsel
could devise, but that the fault had never
been mentioned. The indictment was de.
iectiye throughout in that way 1t charged
Brady's orders with being fraudulent and
alleging they were made in per.
suance of conspiracy, but the same statute
cured that defect and he would hold the
indictment sufficient as against the defen-
iants, including Brady.
AZ 9.dh N m vha IT,, -.l;-.I