Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-10-13
District Attorney Vandegrift Did
Not Want It to Come Up
Until After the Election.
ITO AVOID PARTISAN INFLUENCE
Defendants Counsel Objected,
but We're Overruled - No
Date Selected, but 1t Is
Probable Th at the
Trial VIII Begin
About the Mid
die of De-
cember.

/ ~ ~
| cember.
4 Upon the application of United
States District Attorney Lewis g.
Vandegrift before Judge Bradford Mon
/ day, the trial of the case of the
government VS.. United States Senator
Richard r. Kenney was postponed
from October 25th until some date not
4 yet decided. Mr.. Vandegrift made his
application on the ground that political
feeling about election time might have
some effect on the trial. Counsel for
Senator Kenney vigorously opposed the
application and asked for speedy
trial. They were particularly desirous
that the trial be completed before the
sitting of the Senate on December 1st.
The matter came up before Judge
| Bradford about IL. 35 O'Clock this morn
| ing, Senator Kenney appearing in court
accompanied by his counsel, Levi G.
Bird and John Biggs, and his private
secretary, Adjutant- General Garrett j.
Hart.
Mr.. Vandegrift, addressing the court,
said: Your honor will recall that the
case of the United States VS.. Richard
II. Kenney was continued from the
June term of the Circuit Court to the
October term, which would bring this
case, il in the regular course on the
18th of October. When the matter was
discussed in September, the 25th of
October was fixed as the time to retry
his case. Since that time have given
a good deal of thought to this matter
and have come to the conclusion that
that day-any day close to the election
lis not proper time in which to try
this case, and | ask that the case be
not tried October 25th, but on some
| day beyond the election, which your
honor may fix
i Mr.. Vandegrift went on to say that
i he wanted the trial to come off without
any outside influences and desired the
next trial to result in a verdict and not
a disagreement.
| In opposing the application, Mr..
Bird said: II must say that this is the
first time in the History of my life at
the bar that l have ever known prose-
cutting officer come into court and ask
that n case be continued because an
election is approaching. Why,all along
lit has been said that there were, no
politics in this case, and none could be
brought into it. When any effort was
made to show some animus, he objected
and your honor ruled it out. The
whole argument of the district attor-
ney through these cases has been there
could be no politics in them.
"Who will be affected by the cleo
tion? Will it help the defendant?
"This defendant is entitled to a
4 speedy trial under the Constitution.
The day is fixed and he asks for trial.
We are ready for trial tomorrow; but
we cannot have it then, because the
| jury will not be here until the 1sth.'
| Mr.. Bird declared that the district
/ attorney could not determine what tho
! jury would do, whether acquit or disa-
4 gr9e; no man could determine that. He
\ asked how the trial could affect the
4 government, for there were 10 days be-
tween the time fixed for trial and the
election. Senator Kenney is not inter
1 ested in the election and no man on the
ticket is interested in him. The attor-
ney maintained that the trial would
be no more affected on that date than
1 held that political passions were not
/ likely to be less bitter after ain olee-
tion than before. He remarked that
IsJudge Bradford might know that from
his own experience.
4 Mr.. Bird declared that Mr.. Vande-
grift's statement was a strange one to
make in court of Justice, and added
that there are two things that he had
been taught should never be brought
into a, ,court-religion and politics. He
did not believe that any men wculd be
affected by political considerations,
and if they were they would pe just as
much after election as before.
4 He asked that the Cotter case be al
lowed to wait and that the Kenney
trial be fixed for October 18th.
Il ask it," continued Mr.. Bird, "for
my client; ask it shat no plea of a
4 political nature should stand in the way
of a mans defence or the governments IS
prosecution.
Mr.. Biggs followed the senior coun-
sci in behalf of Mr.. Kenney, and
strongly opposed the motion made by
MIR. Vandegrift. He too expressed him
self as surprised at hearing such an
application. He held that it should
not be granted because this is not a
political case and besides the district
| attorney in these trials had always
claimed and reiterated that there were
no politics in them and had strenuously
and successfully objected to the intro
duction of any.
The jury which tried this case be-
fore did not divide politically and the
district attorney had no right to as
sumo that the next jury would divide
/ politically. The prominent position
Mr.. Kenney holds is not sufficient
reason for asking for a postponement on
the ground of political feelings.
Mr.. Biggs also laid emphasis on the
point that Mr.. Kenney was entitled to
a speedy trial and declared that there
/ was no good reason why the trial
should not come off on the date an
nounced.
Mr.. Vandegrift assented to the de
claration that he had maintained that
there was nothing political in the
| trials and said it was for that very
reason that he desired to avoid the
danger and he believed his application
would appeal to thoughtful mer
| throughout the State. He did not
mean to say that jurors would allow
| political feelings to affect their ver-
dict but to relieve them of the danger
of this feature.
He desired that whatever the verdict
the people would feel that no outside
4 influence had affected it.
In considering the application Judge
! Bradford said that he could not see