The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-10-03
The Star Route Frauds.

The story of the Star route frauds has suf-
fered revival by reason of the report of the
Springer committee, which has just been
made to the public, not to Congress as the
Instructions to the committee directed. Mr..
Spri0ger's report contains no facts which
can be considered new, aud it throws little
additional light on the articles by which the
guilty defendants managed to escape con-
viction by the jury. That Dorsey and Brady
were guilty Of defrauding the government of
large sums of money no considerable
portion.of the public doubts. That the
juries which Tried them were recreaut to
THEN duty in not bringing them in guilty no
portion of the public doubts. That both
juries we're tempered with was generally
Suspected at the time of the trials and very
likely with good reason. That the trials
involved the government in great expense
for which 1t got no adequate return is true.
That some of the counsel and the de-
tectives employed by the government sod
themselves to the defendant is prob ably true
also.
But these facts, neither singly nor collec-
lively, impeach the good faith of the Repub-
lican administrations, which began and car
ried on these prosecutions. The admins
tration had no means of prosecuting these
thieves but through the courts Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia. The method of selecting
jurors in these courts was established by
Congress, and no executive officer of the
government had power to change it. If it
resulted 10 bringing weak and corrupt men
into the jury box that was not the fault of
the administration, but of Congress. Nei-
cher was there any way in which the jury
could be entirely Withdrawn from the infu-
ence of the powerful friends of the defend
ant, except by secluding them, for which
there was no WARRANTED law. To surround
them with detectives would have given sub
gtantial reason for charge that the govern
ment was seeking by duIess to compel them
to bring in verdict of guilty whether
the evidence would justify il or not. In
took all the precautions possible to Sc
cure q sincere prosecution. The most
prominent Democratic lawyer in Wash
ing,oE was selected to take charge of the
case, and any representations on his part
that any of his associates were guilty of
treachery would no doubt have resulted in
their summary discharge. The expense, it
il true, was large, but the trial was protract-
ed and involved vast amount of labor.
The heads OF the administrations, in public
and In private, always insisted that it was
their wish that tue culprits be prosecuted as
vigorously as possible, and that no leniency
should be shown and no indulgence granted
them which wonll not be allowed the ord.n-
ary criminal. President Garfield insisted
that every man against whom there was rea-
son to believe case could be made out
should be prosecuted to the fall extent of
the law, aud President Arthur refused to let
up on the indicted parties in the slightest
degree. There is abundant evidence both
In their words and acts, and not par
ticle of testimony to contradict it, that both
Presidents were thoroughly in earnest in
these prosecutions. That the trials came to
naught cannot fairly be ascribed to any sin
of commission or of omission on the part of
iitr of them.