756 



STAR-ROUTE TRIAL. 



ties to prosecution for libel in consequence of articles 

 published, the effect of which is to obstruct the admin- 

 istration of justice, and I do think it will be the duty 

 of the District Attorney to call the attention of the 

 Grand Jury to some of these newspapers, and see if 

 we can't have justice administered fairly, according 

 to law, without having jurors disparaged and misrep- 

 resented on mere conjecture or fancy ; and I trust that 

 the jurors in this case will see the propriety of guard- 

 ing their own conduct while the cause is pending, so 

 as not to subject themselves to good grounds of suspi- 

 cion, or even to the appearance of improper conduct. 

 I will only lose faith in the jury when driven to by 

 something more than newspaper articles. Gentlemen 

 of the jury, your position is one of much delicacy. 

 Don't allow any person to approach you or to suggest 

 their own views, or make any intimation whatever, 

 whether they are connected with the trial of this 

 cause or appear to be unconnected with it. You don't 

 know what motives may influence suggestions from 

 persons outside. Keep your own counsel, follow your 

 own judgment and conscience. Keep yourselves un- 

 contaminated by the world outside. 



An attempt was made, on the 9th, to introduce 

 the evidence regarding the statement or " con- 

 fession " of Rerdell, which had in substance been 

 given in the police court by ex- Attorney-Gen- 

 eral McVeagh, ex-Postmaster-General James, 

 and Inspector Woodward. This was objected 

 to, and after a controversy between counsel it 

 was barred out as incompetent until the exist- 

 ence of a conspiracy should be shown by other 

 evidence. The Court said that conspiracy was 

 a crime which required more than one partici- 

 pant. The rule of evidence was, that no one 

 person's confession could be used to convict 

 another. The other rule was, that, before bind- 

 ing one conspirator by the statements of an- 

 other, there must be an agency shown. In this 

 matter the conspiracy was the offense. In mur- 

 der it is the death, and if a man should confess 

 to having murdered another, it would not bind 

 him. It must be first shown that the man was 

 dead, or that there was a reasonable probabil- 

 ity of his death. He was of opinion that the 

 evidence was not admissible at this stage. As 

 to the assertion of the prosecution, that the 

 jury must determine when the evidence was 

 sufficient to prove the existence of the conspir- 

 acy, it was, he believed, wrong in principle, 

 and in his opinion the matter is entirely within 

 the judgment of the Court. When he was sat- 

 isfied from the evidence of the existence of a 

 conspiracy, he would allow this testimony to 

 be introduced. After reading several authori- 

 ties, Judge Wylie concluded by saying that a 

 person could only convict himself by a confes- 

 sion, and could not even do that until the 

 crime was first made out. 



As the trial proceeded, it was evident, from 

 the efforts of the counsel for the defense to ex- 

 clude testimony, that it was their purpose to 

 confine and restrict the admission of evidence 

 as closely as possible. Very many of their ob- 

 jections were overruled, and exceptions were 

 noted. The evidence related to the methods 

 of the Contract Bureau, to the facts concerning 

 the routes, the methods of service, its require- 

 ments, etc., in great detail. In overruling the 

 objections of the defense to the evidence of 



some of the drivers and sub-contractors, which 

 was intended to show the fraudulent character 

 of the petitions and affidavits of contractors, 

 the Court said : 



Now, the Government in this case has undertaken 

 a mighty task. It has combined some seven or eight 

 defendants in one conspiracy, and it has charged that 

 the subjects of the conspiracy were nineteen different 

 contracts and sub-contracts, and it has undertaken to 

 make out its case against all these defendants under 

 this combination of contracts and sub-contracts, and 

 under charges specially setting forth the overt acts 

 done by the conspirators and through the medium of 

 the Post-Offlce Department and the Treasury Depart- 

 ment, and it is a scheme of the most comprehensive 

 character, and one which it is called to establish. 

 That is all. But the Court, in looking at the offer of 

 evidence in any particular case, must regard the evi- 

 dence in relation to the comprehensiveness of this in- 

 dictment and of the scheme of the prosecution. It 

 is necessary that there should be a conspiracy. If the 

 conspiracy be established, as charged in this indict- 

 ment, then it comprehends all these nineteen or twenty 

 different contracts and the service under those con- 

 tracts. From the relation of the conspiracy those con- 

 tracts become blended. They are put into the con- 

 cern as constituting one capital. The law in regard 

 to the overt act, in pursuance of the conspiracy, re- 

 quires one overt act. And one overt act by any one 

 of the conspirators is enough for the purpose of the 

 prosecution. The conspiracy must be made out. A 

 conspiracy is different from a combination in this, 

 that the conspiracy must have a corrupt character. A 

 combination or a partnership is lawful. If all these 

 parties had entered into a combination, each one to 

 put in his contract or his sub-contract as his contri- 

 bution to the common capital, with a view of dividing 

 the profits, that would have been perfectly lawful. 

 There would be nothing wrong in that, either morally 

 or in the eye of the law. That would not, of course, 

 be the subject of a criminal prosecution. It was neces- 

 sary, therefore, not only that there should be a com- 

 bination, but that there should be an evil combination 

 that is, a conspiracy with an evil purpose. It is not 

 required that the indictment, in charging the evil pur- 

 pose, shall set out the specific act to be proved. It is 

 necessary that the indictment snail contain some aver- 

 ment to change the lawful combination into an un- 

 lawful conspiracy, and that is done when the indict- 

 ment charges the combination first, and then charges 

 that it was done for the purpose of committing a fraud 

 upon the Government by means of false petitions, 

 false papers, false affidavits, and so on. ... In my 

 view the conspiracy has not yet been made out. We 

 are going along in that direction, but with what suc- 

 cess for the Government, or with what failure for the 

 Government, the future alone will be able to disclose. 

 For the present, regarding the evidence as respects 

 this route as tending to show that there was a fraud 

 on the part of one of these defendants alleged to be a 

 member of the conspiracy, that there was a fraud con- 

 templated by him in his conduct of that route, for 

 which he was the contractor, and in contemplation of 

 the future progress of this cause, in which the Gov- 

 ernment will be required to show that this fraud was 

 put in as a part of the common capital stock of this 

 concern, I shall allow the evidence to go in. 



Objection to testimony regarding the details 

 of service on different routes was subsequently 

 strongly urged. It was contended that the in- 

 quiry could not go beyond the papers and al- 

 leged fraudulent petitions on which the second 

 assistant postmaster- general had granted his 

 orders. The judge, in overruling the objection, 

 said : " A conspiracy may be made out by many 

 minute circumstances. If they are numerous 

 enough and significant enough they may amount 



