764 



STAR-ROUTE TRIAL. 



Saturday night. "We have decided as to four 

 of the defendants, and do not agree as to the 

 others." The judge was unwilling to discharge 

 the jury at that time, and they again retired, to 

 be recalled in the afternoon. There was then 

 no change in the result of their deliberations, 

 and Judge Wylie said : "I have come to the 

 conclusion to accept your verdict." " I am in- 

 structed," said Foreman Dickson, " by thejury, 

 upon this indictment to make the following re- 

 turn : As to John M. Peck and W. H. Turner, 

 not guilty ; as to J. R. Miner and M. 0. Rer- 

 dell, guilty ; as to J. W. Dorsey, as to S. W. 

 Dorsey, as to H. M. Vaile, and as to T. J. Brady, 

 the jury are unable to agree." By order of the 

 Court the name of Peck, who was dead, was 

 omitted, and the verdict was recorded. The 

 verdict seemed to give satisfaction to no one. 

 Notices of motions for arrest of judgment and 

 new trials were given immediately in behalf of 

 Miner and Rerdell. The judge, in discharging 

 the jury, followed the customary compliments 

 with the remark that the verdict was not such 

 as he would have been glad to receive, but he 

 added : " It is your verdict, your work ; you 

 are responsible for it, and the Court is not." 

 The foreman asked if he could present a sworn 

 statement regarding attempts to bribe jury- 

 men, but was not permitted to do so at that 

 time. It transpired that on the final ballot in 

 the jury-room the vote stood eleven for con- 

 viction and one for acquittal in the case of 

 Vaile, ten for conviction and two for acquittal 

 in the case of Brady and J. W. Dorsey, and 

 nine for conviction and three for acquittal in 

 the case of S. W. Dorsey. Jurymau Holmead 

 voted for acquittal in the case of Vaile ; Brown 

 and Holmead in that of J. "W. Dorsey ; Brown 

 and Dickson in that of Brady; and Brown, 

 Dickson, and Holmead in that of S. W. Dorsey. 

 The Attorney-General gave directions at once 

 for preparation for a retrial of those regarding 

 whose guilt the jury had disagreed, and the 

 motions for a new trial of those who were con- 

 victed were promptly granted. 



The investigation of the charge that at- 

 tempts were made to corrupt or improperly 

 influence the jury was placed by the Depart- 

 ment of Justice in the hands of Mr. H. H. 

 Wells, as special counsel. Mr. Dickson pro- 

 tested against this course, as the department 

 was itself implicated, but it was explained as 

 necessary on account of the press of business 

 in the District Attorney's office. The charges 

 related to alleged attempts upon Mr. Dickson, 

 the foreman of the jury, and upon Juryman 

 Brown in the interest of the Government, and 

 upon Juryman Doniphan in the interest of the 

 defense. Mr. Dickson had put his charge in 

 the form of a sworn statement before the close 

 of the trial. It was this which he endeavored 

 to bring to the attention of the Court, and 

 which he w r as afterward accused of using in 

 the jury-room for the purpose of improperly 

 influencing the verdict. He declared that on 

 the 22d of August, at a popular resort known 



as Driver's, he had been approached by Henry 

 A. Bowen, who represented himself to be a 

 special agent of the Department of Justice, 

 and who intimated to him that $25,000 would 

 be at his command if he favored a conviction 

 of the defendants in the pending trial. He de- 

 clared that Bowen exhibited papers in proof of 

 his appointment as special agent, professed to 

 have authority from the department for his 

 offer, and appeared to be acting with the con- 

 currence of Mr. Brewster Cameron, one of the 

 subordinates of the Attorney-General. The 

 charge with reference to Juryman Brown was 

 that one Frank H. Fall, employed as a special 

 agent by the Department of Justice, had tried 

 to secure his signature to an agreement that 

 he would vote for conviction, for $2,500. Ac- 

 cording to the affidavits relating to this mat- 

 ter, Fall had employed Thomas R. Foote, who 

 carried on the negotiation with Brown through 

 Arthur Payne. Juryman Holmead also testi- 

 fied that Fall had talked to him about the posi- 

 tion of thejury, and the suspicion with which 

 some of its members were regarded by the 

 prosecuting counsel. In the case of Doniphan, 

 it was said that one Frederick 0. Shaw, who 

 had been originally on the jury panel, but had 

 been challenged by the prosecution, had ap- 

 proached him with an offer of money in behalf 

 of S. W. Dorsey, if he would vote for acquittal. 

 This was testified to by Doniphan himself. Mr. 

 Wells made a report to the Attorney-General 

 of the result of his investigations, near the end 

 of October. With reference to the case of 

 Dickson, after stating the points of the testi- 

 mony which he had been able to collect in regard 

 to the conversations with Bowen at Driver's, he 

 gave the following as his conclusions : 



Henry A. Bowen had no authority from the De- 

 partment of Justice, or any officer or subordinate 

 thereof, to make any offer to or treat with Mr. Dick- 

 son on any subject relating to the Star Eoute trial. 

 That Mr. Bowen did not bribe, offer to bribe, or at- 

 tempt, in the language of the statute, " to corruptly 

 influence " the action of Mr. Dickson as a juror. That 

 conversations did take place between Dickson and 

 Bowen during the progress of the trial that were 

 highly improper and unbecoming, but that the fore- 

 man did not believe that Bowen was acting or speak- 



ing with the knowledge or approval of the Attorney- 

 General, or any person in charge of or connected with 

 the prosecution of the Star Eoute case: that he did 

 not believe that any real attempts at bribery were 



made or intended, but that he did believe that Bow- 

 en's purpose was to find out " whether the jury could 

 be bought" ; and that Dickson, though so believing, 

 prepared his sworn statement on the night of the con- 

 versation, and made an unwarrantable use of it before 

 the Court and with the jury in the jury-room, when 

 they were considering their verdict, with the apparent 

 purpose of securing the acquittal or preventing the con- 

 viction of some or all of the defendants. That Dick- 

 son sought an interview with Cameron, apparently for 

 the purpose of obtaining from him some proposal, sug- 

 gestion, or intimation, to be used before the jury tor 

 the purpose of bringing the conduct of the Attorney- 

 Generaiand his subordinates into dishonor and con- 

 tempt, and thereby to influence the jury to acquit the 

 accused. 



His conclusion with reference to Brown's 

 case was put thus : 





