National Republican., 1875-06-17
NAIL CONTRACT FRAUDS.
Further Hearing in the Case Of Kinds

Further Hearing In the case OF dlnos'
The Criminal court resumed yesterday morn
ing the trial Of Jerome J. Kinds, indicted for
Offering money to corrupt one Channel, q clerk in
the Post Once Department, in his oficial duties,
the case being one where copies Of Texas bids
were obtained after the time fer proposals had
closed, and contracts stamped by . counterfeit
stamp fraudulently placed on the files Of the De-
partmeut.
The earlier portion Of the moraing was devoted
to the continuance of the ecrossJSxaminatione OF Mr.
Kettle, begun yesterday.
Witness made statement before the Post
time been shadoWed, Tho original seal or stamp
was in possession Of the chief clerk Of the contract
Sfhce The bids were keps in sac; S eSnf NOV NO.
ness pat in straw bids - keep square with other
bids The Government would not have lost If the
bids were seoepted. There was ne intention to
Frsak L. OhAnneA, recalled; witness knows
Kettle and hinds TeceSed ISnSy irO% ON, 9Osn; tSsrs
on the last Sunday In February received money
from Kettle several times-prOsably $500 in all.
Had q conversation with Kinds At his (Hsl house
in reference to the bids did net speak Of his rela
tions with Kettle at that time, but went there
wsA Hss1S rs1asd TSs sids Hers S1 aIed Sp al
Hinds' house, snd witness took them to the Depart
ment that niEbt witness identified certain en-
tries made on bids on the last Sunday 10 Feore
cry also entries relating thereto in the record
BOOKS made by him (WitRess) the same night
witness read entries, among others several In the
witness went with Pare, another clerk, to see
Kettle, and Afterwards Kettle told him not 70 &C.
The Court. l must stop this; it is going Owe;
the subject twice.
Mr. HiRe. except
The Court. The whole cross-examtnAtton 10 only
by the courtesy Of the court.
Mr.. Hine. submit, Of course, but not because
l Judge J SHf @acIFt6Gr. thur: You submit to superior
force. That is all.
Mr. Cook. That is just it, your Honor.
TnA, I'll nm hRHOM1A
John i. French, sworn Witness testified that
there I'VE years Witness exhibited the adver.
tisement "a psmphlet) for bids for contracts for
carrying the mail In Texas. ..,
Mr.. Pelham. Where is your authority for max
ing that pamphlet an advertisement?
Witness l do not know that We have any au-
tbOrity-spy statute authority.
| To the Court. We publish the advertisement in
five newspapers beside.
The Court. Then you must send for a news
paper.
AFTER TIME BIDs-
The witness resumed: Bids often came in after
time, but they are not considered as bids, but
they are recorded. Mr.. French stated at length
the mode of doing business in the Department
Mr.. Pelham. You will never get at the legal
duty of Mr.. Channel by showing what clerks are
Mr. Spence That is a question for the court.
As the Indictment was for an attempt to cor
rupt Channel in the discharge Of his duty, 1t is
important for the Government to show what the
official outy of Channel was, with view Of show
ing that the alleged bribery related to those du
ties Mr.. French testified at length as to the
| modes of proceeding in the office. When the
time for the examination of bids arrives nearly
all the clerks Of the Post Once Department are
connection with contracts. The Texas awards
this year were made not by witness, who was
then acting Second Assistant Postmaster Gen
eTal, but by Mr.. Slater, acting chief clerk.
Judge Fisher said he would have to ask the
Witness as an expert this question:
Whether it was in the violation of lawful duty
n n clark In bids TINA and
carry them to another part OF the city, show them
TO outsiders, and then to receive after time bids,
as bids put in, within the proper time.
MI Pelham objected; post-ofice clerk could
not be called as an expert in law.
The court said he would oVerrule the question.
A half of the San Antonio Express was here pre-
sented with an advertisement therein
Mr.. Pelham objected; that was 3 mere piece
of waste paper. There was no heading or date,
nothing to show that it was q newspaper o.
The court held the paper admissible In evidence
The case was then adjourned until this morning