758 



STAR-ROUTE TRIAL. 



proceeds of the postal draft referred to by him between 

 myself and Mr. Brady, or in making other statements 

 affecting me, I shall hold myself ready to go before 

 them for examination. W. P. KELLOGG. 



About the same time an agreement was made 

 between representatives of the Government 

 and what was known as the Salisbury and 

 Parker combination to submit to arbitration 

 the questions involved in charges against those 

 contractors. The Board of Arbitration was to 

 consist of the second assistant postmaster-gen- 

 eral, Mr. Elmer, one of the counsel for the 

 prosecution in the Star Route cases, or a per- 

 son named by him, and Robert G. Ingersoll, of 

 counsel for the defense, or a person named by 

 him. 



The next question of importance to come up 

 in the trial of Brady and others was that of 

 admitting the testimony of Mr. John A. Walsh, 

 who was called as a witness on the 18th of 

 July. Counsel for the Government stated that 

 it was intended to prove by him " that at about 

 the same time when the routes mentioned in 

 this indictment were increased and expedited, 

 Brady had ordered increase and expedition on 

 other routes, including the one held by Mr. 

 Walsh ; that Brady said to Walsh that when 

 contractors got such expedition they paid him 

 20 per cent for the order ; that he said to ex- 

 act such a percentage was his invariable prac- 

 tice in such cases ; that he said this was well 

 known among contractors ; that, having ordered 

 expedition on Walsh's route, Brady claimed 

 that Walsh owed him 20 per cent ; that he said 

 to Walsh that Walsh must have understood 

 this, and that if he did not understand it he 

 must be a fool ; that he said he (Brady) did 

 not expedite routes for fun ; that Walsh must 

 pay as others paid ; that Brady made a calcu- 

 lation, and said that there was due him from 

 Walsh more than $30,000, and that he took up 

 from the table the promissory notes he had 

 given Walsh for his loans and put them in his 

 pocket, saying that these had been a mere 

 form, and that Brady had also told Walsh that 

 the petitions were only a matter of form, to 

 serve as an excuse for the orders made by him." 



The admission of this evidence was strenu- 

 ously resisted, but Judge Wylie decided to ad- 

 mit it. In rendering his decision on the 20th 

 of July, he began with the statement that the 

 question of the admission of this evidence was 

 one of great difficulty and of importance to 

 the case. He acknowledged that at the open- 

 ing of the case he had believed that the decla- 

 ration of one of the defendants could not be re- 

 ceived until it had been shown that the decla- 

 ration had been made in the furtherance of the 

 conspiracy. But in this offense the authorities 

 all lay down the rule that it might be proved 

 by evidence of distinct, separate acts done by 

 the different conspirators, and the law allows 

 all of their acts, even declarations, to be proved 

 if they are connected with the case. If they 

 go toward making up the entire proof in their 

 collective form, their admission is not irregu- 



lar, and the law allows of their being proved. 

 Now, as regards the declarations or admissions 

 of the several parties, of course they are not 

 evidence against the other parties unless they 

 have been done in the furtherance of the ob- 

 jects of the conspiracy. But the evidence 

 now offered for the Government was not for 

 the purpose of showing criminal intent on the 

 part of the other defendants. If the admis- 

 sions of one party could be received against 

 himself, the admissions of all could likewise 

 be received. Greenleaf's rule, Judge Wylie 

 said, was that the evidence against individuals 

 could be received even though it was a joint 

 suit. While all of the text-books were very 

 emphatic in excluding the declaration of one 

 defendant so far as it applied to others, they 

 were all careful to make the reservation that 

 it could be received against himself alone. So 

 he was of opinion that the evidence offered 

 was admissible. But as to the offer, it went 

 to show only that Brady was in the habit of 

 extorting and receiving money from parties. 

 Now it seemed by no means a strained con- 

 struction, that if the facts set out in the offer 

 were testified to and believed, it would show 

 that there was a corrupt administration of the 

 affairs of the department. It would, however, 

 depend greatly upon the amount of credit the 

 jury would be willing to attach to this evi- 

 dence, but upon its face the Court regarded it 

 as pertinent to the case, and would admit it. 



After Walsh's testimony was completed, an 

 offer was again made to prove the confession 

 of Rerdell through certain witnesses, including 

 ex- Attorney-General McVeagh and ex-Post- 

 master-General James. On the question of the 

 competency of this evidence, Judge Wylie 

 made a ruling on the 24th of July, concluding 

 as follows : 



It is very true that no extra-judicial admission is 

 sufficient to establish what is called the corpus delicti, 

 and that rule applies as well to a case of conspiracy as 

 to any other criminal prosecution. A man can not be 

 convicted of murder on his admission. It must be 

 proved that there was a dead body, that a man was 

 killed, and then his admission will be taken as very 

 strong evidence against him. In regard to conspir- 

 acy, the corpus delicti is the combination of the par- 

 ties, not the criminal combination of the parties any 

 more in the case of conspiracy than in the case of 

 murder, because finding a man dead does not prove 

 that anybody has committed a crime. In conspiracy, 

 combination takes the place of death in the case of 

 murder. The combination is the corpus delicti. The 

 confessions of the parties may show the criminal char- 

 acter of the combination, just as, in the case of death, 

 the confession of the man charged will convert the 

 death into a murder. It i^ not murder because the 

 man is dead. So in conspiracy : the combination is 

 not conspiracy until the fraud upon the part of the 

 combiners, the members of the combination, is estab- 

 lished. And I think, having shown the combination 

 between the parties with a view to obtaining money 

 from the Government under these contracts, that is 

 the corpus delicti in this case. The criminal purpose 

 is another thing. That may be established by the 

 acts of the several parties, or by their several decla- 

 rations. It is unquestionably the law, whatever dicta 

 you may bring from books, that in a trial for conspir- 

 acy the charge may be made out by proving the acts 



