Show 1 Star Route Cases t f i j Washington 7In the star route cases today Cook of the counsel for government made an argument against the motion to quash the I criminal information prefacing the argument by saying it might be a supposed he would reply to the II vituperation which the defense had i 1i through hired scribblers and i r through the pressbestowed upon the I attorney general postmaster general lill rand r-and himself but it could not be j tJ sf done This was not a proper place 1 f Ito I-to do it A lawyer in addition to 1 j his other qualities should invariably t 1 3 invari-ably possess those of a gentlemen j and this consideration would restrain j re-strain him from any reply which H l might otherwise be justified in regard to these personal assaults l i In the star cases Cook said the 1 statute of limitation required i the filing of an information How I f that happened it was not for him to r say It would live in the annals of the court that the grand jury did I F take a recess for ten days and that f I it was therefore impoisible to bring I f the star route cases before it within ti these ten days He had had no II 1 notice directly or indirectly of the j I recess of the grand jury He had I been called by telegraph to Long j Branch to consult with the attor I neygeneral postmastergeneral and I i Mr Bliss and when he reached this city on his return he learned that 1 the grand jury had adjourned There f i was but one pathway left open and f with a great effort and with constant f con-stant work far through the hours of r night the information was prepared land F l-and filed There was therefore i 1 necessity for filing the information otherwise the statute of limitation Y 1 i would have been an effectual bar b + to prosecution Cook then proceeded ito i-to argue that conviction in these cases wouldnot make the accused i i I J infamous and therefore the position oj j of the defense on that ground could I i not be maintained In this connection l 1 t connec-tion he quoted from a decision of c the supreme court District of Columbia i j Col-umbia that crime is infamous when j the penalty pronounced against the I f offender is deprivation of his civil rights and his privileges such as 11 sitting upon a iury and in the absence rlr 1 ab-sence of such forfeitures the crime i it was not infamous unless expressly I r pronounced such Brewster on the i I same side will make an argument 1 i 1 tomorrow 1 1 |