STAB-ROUTE TRIAL. 



757 



to proof." The indictment had charged, he 

 continued, that the object of the conspiracy 

 had been to get through General Brady, by 

 many means, money not earned. The peti- 

 tions might all be genuine, but they were only 

 a part of the means, and the Government could 

 support the charge by other evidence in accord- 

 ance with the provisions of the indictment. 

 This decision let in the testimony of mail-car- 

 riers and others on the routes. In ruling out 

 the records of the Inspection Division in re- 

 gard to fines on the 27th of June, Judge Wylie 

 remarked that he had seen in this case a great 

 many petitions from men of the highest stand- 

 ing in the country, asking for increase or ex- 

 pedition on these routes. On the face of these 

 papers he could not see anything calling for the 

 condemnation of Brady because he had com- 

 plied with the petitions. Brady was not ex- 

 pected to go over the routes, but must act on 

 the petitions. "You have not," he said, 

 " brought home to him any facts showing that, 

 in ordering expedition, he acted from improper 

 motives, for he is backed by these petitions, and 

 the recommendations of men of high standing 

 acquainted with the country and its develop- 

 ment. If I can see anything in the evidence 

 to bring home to him a reasonably strong sus- 

 picion of improper motives, I will not hesitate 

 to go into this further ; but no evidence of this 

 kind has been offered, and the contracts seem 

 to be sustained by the petitions, which justify 

 him. Am I to allow the time of the Court to 

 be taken up with an investigation of fines and 

 remissions? I shall exclude this evidence at 

 present." Afterward he declared that the 

 Government had impeached Brady in the in- 

 dictment and by speeches, but not by evidence 

 thus far. In reply to Mr. Merrick's suggestion 

 about protests from postmasters and others, 

 the judge said: "If a postmaster complains or 

 protests to the department after an order has 

 baen made, is the second assistant to trust him 

 against all the petitions and recommendations 

 on which he acted, and break up the arrange- 

 ment on that account? " 



An episode which attracted some attention 

 occurred early in July. The Grand Jury had 

 been previously dismissed until October, but 

 on the 7th of July an order was signed direct- 

 ing it to reconvene on the following Monday. 

 This action was taken in consequence of the fol- 

 lowing request from District Attorney Cork- 

 hill : " In view of exigencies which have arisen, 

 I have to request that an order be issued di- 

 recting the grand jurors to convene at as early 

 a day next week as possible. This request is 

 made because of information received from 

 Messrs. Bliss, Merrick, and Ker, representing 

 the Government as special counsel, that mat- 

 ters have recently come to their knowledge 

 which require the organization of the Grand 

 Jury at an early day, in order to prevent cer- 

 tain prosecutions, which it is their duty to in- 

 stitute, from being barred out by the Statute 

 of Limitations. I am led to believe that the 



matter referred to will not occupy the attention 

 of the Grand Jury more than a couple of days." 



The purpose of calling together the Grand 

 Jury was to lay before it evidence regarding 

 the San Antonio & Corpus Christi route in 

 Texas, upon which J. B. Price was the con- 

 tractor. This evidence was to be given chiefly 

 by John A. Walsh, formerly a banker in Wash- 

 ington, and was expected to implicate Senator 

 Kellogg, of Louisiana, in the alleged frauds. 

 The Grand Jury received the instruction of 

 the Court on tha 12th of July, and proceeded 

 to listen to the proffered testimony. Shortly 

 after retiring they reappeared, and inquired if 

 the jury had discretionary powers as to allow- 

 ing the prosecuting officer of the Government 

 to be present. The judge replied that the jury 

 could not exclude him ; he had a right to be 

 present, if he desired, while witnesses were un- 

 der examination, but not when the members 

 of the jury consulted among themselves. The 

 foreman asked if the prosecuting officer had a 

 right to be present during the entire time of 

 the examination, and received an affirmative 

 answer. On the following day the Grand Jury 

 reported that they found no ground for any 

 new indictment, and were dismissed. Mr. 

 Walsh thereupon caused to be published the 

 substance of his testimony, and claimed that 

 the Grand Jury had been improperly influenced 

 to ignore the charges laid before them. On 

 the 17th of July, Senator Kellogg published 

 the following explanation : 



With reference to the interviews published in two 

 New York journals this morning, in which John A. 

 Walsh attempts to connect me with the Star Koute 

 cases, I have only this to say : The Grand Jury of the 

 District of Columbia, composed of twenty-three of the 

 best citizens of Washington (the majority of whom 

 are opposed to me politically), last week carefully and 

 thoroughly examined the checks, etc., in Walsh's 

 possession, and heard all he had to say which tended 

 in any way to connect me with the Star Eoute cases. 

 I understand that every member of that jury exoner- 

 ated me from any complicity with these cases. The 

 statements of Walsh are composed of truth and false- 

 hood, which are so skillfully woven together^ as to 

 create an impression unfavorable to me. It is true 

 that 1 had the misfortune to have some business rela- 

 tions with Walsh in his capacity of banker. I am 

 sure that if the testimony of Walsh before the Grand 

 Jury were given to the public as it was given to the 

 Grand Jury, the public could not resist reaching the 

 same conclusion that the Grand Jury reached. The 

 purpose of Walsh, evidently, in making a public 

 statement, is to place himself in a better light before 

 the public than that in which the Grand Jurjr left him 

 when they came into court and said by their action 

 that his testimony was not worthy of belief. The 

 action of the Grand Jury relieves me of the necessity 

 of replying to Walsh's statements in detail. If I 

 deemed it necessary, I could readily and satisfactorily 

 explain how Walsh came into possession of the checks 

 referred to by him. I am confident, however, that 

 the public are satisfied that the Grand Jury found 

 that the possession of these checks by Walsh did not 

 result from any illegitimate or dishonorable business 

 transaction on my part. The whole matter having 

 been settled by the legally constituted authorities, I 

 do not propose now to discuss it in the newspapers. 

 If, however, when the Grand Jury again meet, they 

 desire to institute an inquiry as to whether Walsh has 

 been guilty of perjury in stating that he divided the 



