STAR-ROUTE TRIAL. 



759 



of one of the conspirators at this point and at this 

 time ; by another of the conspirators at another place 

 and at another time ; by a third at another place and 

 at another time, all having connection with the same 

 subject. I think that no Court would venture to de- 

 cide otherwise. The law is too well settled in regard 

 to that. If, then, a man's act at one time, alone, dis- 

 tinct from others, another man's act at another time 

 and distinct from all others, and a third one's acts at 

 another time and distinct from all others, may be 

 given in evidence for the purpose of weaving together 

 the joint offense of conspiracy, then why should not 

 the several declarations of these parties ? I recognize 

 fully the well-established point that no act of a con- 

 spirator can be given in evidence to charge his co-con- 

 spirators, unless that act was an act done in further- 

 ance of the common object. That rule springs out of 

 the law of agency. Unless a man is authorized to 

 bind his fellow, his acts can bind nobody but himself. 

 But if there be a joint partnership in civil matters or 

 a criminal combination in offenses, there is a common 

 partnership between them for the purpose of the com- 

 bination, and they are each partners of the other in 

 regard to that, so that the acts and declarations in 

 furtherance of the common object will bind not only 

 themselves, but bind their fellows. But when a com- 

 bination, that is, the corpus delicti, has been shown, 

 then I think the criminal character of that combina- 

 tion may be established by the several acts of the par- 

 ties hi the combination, each one, to be sure, bound 

 only by his own declarations^ or acts. It is somewhat 

 inconsistent, and it is very difficult sometimes to con- 

 fine a piece of evidence to its legitimate purpose. 

 After the purpose of the conspiracy has closed and 

 the conspiracy is scattered, the members have no 

 agency from each other, so that their acts bind nobody 

 but themselves severally. But I do not know any 

 authority, none has ever been brought to my atten- 

 tion, to the effect that after the corpus delicti has been 

 shown, a man is not able to bind himself by his own 

 confession. If one man in the combination can bind 

 himself, each of the others can ; and if they all con- 

 fess, the combination is then proved to be a conspir- 

 acy, a criminal offense in contemplation of law. Now, 

 as I said before, there are combinations that are law- 

 ful and there are combinations that are criminal. In 

 the present case, it can not be denied that the evi- 

 dence already before the Court is sufficient to show 

 that these several contractors had intimate mutual re- 

 lations and interests between themselves in these sev- 

 eral contracts. It can not be denied that there is evi- 

 dence, and a good deal of it, tending to show, and 

 tending strongly to show, that there was a great abuse 

 of discretion an'd power on the part of the second as- 

 sistant postmaster-general in regard to these orders 

 for expedition. Here is a combination in business ; 

 in intimate relations in business ; money paid to enor- 

 mous amounts without really any adequate returns to 

 the Government ; money paid by the second assist- 

 ant postmaster-general " to these parties ; contracts 

 entered into for service at one day in the week and 

 then suddenly, in a very brief period, without appar- 

 ently a motive in the world^ increased to seven times 

 as much, and that seven times service doubled by 

 three or four times expedition of the whole, so that a 

 small contract for $2,300, or something like that, 

 would run up to $50,000, or $60,000, or $70,000. 

 Well, now. these are things that are not to be whis- 

 tled out of sight. They are not to be pooh-poohed 

 away by a breath of one's mouth. Here are facts, in 

 my opinion, going to establish what is called the cor- 

 pus delicti. All that is needed to make, in my judg- 

 ment, the charge criminal conspiracy, is the corrupt 

 motive : and, as in the case of murder the case of 

 homicide, rather the case of death, the death itself 

 may be perfectly innocent, produced by nobody from 

 any criminal cause in the world, but it may become 

 criminal, and in the highest degree criminal, by a con- 

 fession. The confession becomes united with the 

 death, which was before innocent in the eye of the 

 law, and converts it into & murder ; and so here, all 



this combination between these parties may have been 

 an innocent combination with a lawful purpose. Men 

 have a right to make money. They, in general, have 

 a right to make the best contracts they can get in 

 making contracts of that character, especially with 

 the Government of the United States. It is a com- 

 mon trade. So, although all this combination, all 

 this arrangement, may be innocent enough, yet it 

 may be suddenly converted by the acknowledgments 

 of the parties into a crime, because of the criminal 

 purpose with which it is accompanied and the fraud- 

 ulent means with which it was carried into effect. 



The evidence for the prosecution was closed 

 on the 28th of July. Among the witnesses 

 who had been summoned was ex -Senator 

 Spencer, of Alabama. Mr. Spencer was at 

 one time in Washington during the trial, but 

 when called did not appear. It proved that 

 he had gone to the West, and, although he 

 was hi the employment of the Government 

 as a commissioner of Pacific railroads, his 

 attendance was not secured, and his where- 

 abouts were said to be unknown. The evi- 

 dence for the defense was begun on the 31st 

 of July. The first witnesses were senators 

 and others, who had joined in petitions, or 

 made recommendations of an increase or ex- 

 pedition of service. An effort was also made 

 to show the policy of the Post-Office Depart- 

 ment in maintaining a liberal mail service, to 

 assist in the development of newly-settled dis- 

 tricts, but the evidence for this purpose, in- 

 cluding that of ex-Postmaster-General D. M. 

 Key, was excluded. In ruling out this testi- 

 mony Judge Wylie said : " This Court is not 

 going to sit, and is not now sitting, to decide 

 a nice question of policy. We are engaged 

 in trying a crime against the Government 

 and laws of the United States. The Court 

 knows no policy for the Government except 

 such as is set out in the law, and no offender 

 against the Jaw can screen himself by produc- 

 ing postmaster - generals or senators or rep- 

 resentatives who urged a certain policy upon 

 him. He had the right under the law to ex- 

 pedite. He had the right under the law to 

 increase the service. The policy of the Gov- 

 ernment is to be found in the laws, and to be 

 measured by its law ; not otherwise. The Su- 

 preme Court of the United States has decided 

 that in the interpretation of the laws you can 

 not look to the debates in Congress. They say 

 that the policy of the Government is expressed 

 in its laws, and the laws are not to be inter- 

 preted even by the debates that took place on 

 their passage. It was said that this policy was 

 the policy adopted by the second assistant 

 postmaster-general under certain advice, and 

 that it was a right policy. Well, suppose it 

 was right : suppose he had the power to adopt 

 this policy, and the policy was correct in prin- 

 ciple : what does that tend to do in this case ? 

 What influence has that upon this case ? Why, 

 Lord Bacon defended himself against the 

 charge of bribery by saying that his decisions 

 were right. He took bribes for deciding cor- 

 rectly, but he was properly convicted of brib- 

 ery, and stripped of his gown and reduced to 



