National Republican., 1883-04-11
Mr.. Morrick Puts the Witness Miner Through
Course Of Cross Questioning,
In Which He Admits That He Was Once
Indicted and Settled.
de Preferred 10 Settle Rather Than Be Dragged Through
Trial and Would Do 50 in This Case
Indications OF Failing NIemory-Rerden
and the Aflidavits.


by him to one of his agents, proposing to buy
off the postmaster at Alvord, on the Canon
city, Fort McDermott route, who had been
complaining to the department of the bad
service. He explained that the postmaster
had been reimbursed for his expenditures in
CURED in getting the mail through before the
service was put on. The witness said that
with the exception of the Hall petition
(which he had copied perhaps with the first
six names) he had never signed name to or
indorsed petitions filed in the department.
The court refused to allow one of Mr..
Hcnklc's questions because it was rather in
the air." The counsel disclaimed any inten-
tion of having the witness swear beyond his
capacity.
The witness declared that after July, 1873,
he had never spoken word to Brady on busi-
ness matters. Three official papers addressed
to Brady in the spring of 1879 and purport-
ing 10 be signed by Miner, were shown to the
witness. He supposed that Rerdell had writ
ten the signature, certainly he (witness) had
not signed them. The warrants showing pay
ments upon certain routes were put in evil
dence in continuation of the testimony al
ready given regarding the separation Of the
contractors in the spring Of 1870, and as tend
ing to show that no connection existed be-
tween them after that date.
Mr. Merrick then began the crGss-examina-
tion.
The witness said that Rerdell's subcontract
on the White river route had been with
drawn because the actual subcontractor, Per-
kins, had refused to accept Rerdell as a pay
master, and had insisted on filing his own
subcontract Knew John Dorsey and Peck
only slightly when he engaged in business
with them, but did know that they were
relatives of Senator Dorsey, If that was what
the counsel wanted, the witness said, rather
defantly. Had been indicted for removing
spirits from q bonded warehouse, but was
mover within seven miles of the warehouse,
and was not guilty. Paid 81, 300 to get out of
the affair.
"Why did you compromise ?" asked Mr..
Merrick.
The witness Cleaning toward Mr. Merrick
and speaking deliberately. Because pre-
ferred paying that amount to being dragged
through trial, and l would do the same in
this case"
Q. Would you be willing to pay back what you
got from the government TO get out OF this case?
A. / did nof get anything from the government.
Mr.. Merrick. We will see when we get through.
The witness had had nothing to do with
whisky for twelve or fifteen months before
his Indictment except to take an occasional
drink Five persons had been indicted and
none found guilty; the cases having been
nolle pressed.
Just as it will be in this case" interjected
Mr.. Ingersoll which remark called forth
reprimand from the court. ~
Witness had less than 81 900 available capi-
tai when he went into the business and alto
gether put in about $500 or $1,000 during the
spring and summer of 1873.
Mr.. Merrick wished to know why he had
been given 30 per cent. of the route las much
as Peck and John Dorsey together) in return
for that small capital.
He answered: ~ probably made pretty
good trade"
John Dorsey did very little work in prepar-
ing the bids. Nor did Boone do much. He
found that l was full of work and he was
little lazy" said the witness. 1t was proba-
bic that Rerdell had been directed by S. w.
Dorsey to assist witness in preparing the bids.
Boone was mistaken when he said that pro-
posal, signed by Peck, had been spoiled upon
that occasion, and that witness had replaced
il with another bearing similar signature.
If proposal had been spoiled in that way,
the witness would have signed his own name
to the substitute. Peck was not here in jan
uary, 1878, and witness was unable to say
who signed Peck's name to proposal bearing
date Jan. 5, 1873. The witness said that the
division was based upon the value of the
routes as shown. by the profits, and not upon
the number of routes. SO then If partner
drew one route returning profit of $1,000
per annum, and another showing loss of the
same amount, nothing was charged against
The result, however, us arrived at in this
way, agreed closely with a proportionate di-
vision of the number Of routes. Witness be-
lieved that s. w. Dorsey received a little
more than his fair, share. No account was
taken of probable expedition. ut would
have made no difference if we did," said the
witness, "for S. W. Dorsey got more expedi-
tion than we did" He could not recollect that
he had filled in an affidavit signed by Peck in
blank, nor did he rccollect that he filed 1T.
Knew that the route had been expedited, but
did not know, except from the record, that
the expedition had been based upon the afii-
davit in question. Did not remember any
thing about the paper, except that it appeared
to be in his handwriting. The same an
swers were returned In regard TO other
papers filed in tho department. The witness
said that all OF the details of the business, in
cuding this. preparation of the afidavits, were
in his care but he could remember nothing
of tho circumstances attending their prepara-
ton. He offered to reason with the counsel
upon the subject; to suggest probabilities,
but had absolutely no recollection OF the facts
he could not remember particular pieces OF
paper. He admitted having written pro-
bosal, purporting to be signed by Peck, and
dated Chico Springs, N. NJ. He had signed
Pecll's name under his power of attorney, and
had dated il Chico Springs because he
"chose TO do So" "rhat is right" retorted
Mr.. Merrick, you appear to have done pretty
much as you pleased"
Mr.. Merriok having asked for the witness
belief in connection with Il certain paper, Mr..
Ingersoll demanded that he be allowed to ex-
press his belief in regard TO others, But the
court refused the demand, remarking smil-
ingly to Mr.. InVersoll mo man ought to
mcddle with another's belief" Mr. Merrick
was about 10 examine the witness relative to
his testimony given before the congressional
committee, but was met with by an objection
from Mr.. Davidge, who declared that the
statutes expressly forbade such examination.
Some argument followed in the course of
which Messrs. Merrick and Davidge INDUCED
in lively repartee.
The court seemed to attach Importance to
the point aud delivered an opinion ut some
length upon It. The powers of the house OF
representatives, in conducting investigations
were reviewed and commented upon That
was the only body ia this country or in Eng
land that implied the possession of the power
10 place man upon the stand and make him
testiry against himself In former times
thumbscrews and stocks were resorted to for
that purpose, but no court now had that
power But for the purpose Of mod
Grating the effects of these investigations
this act (section $50 Of the REVISED Statutes
was passed. Al the date Of It's passage de
fendant was not allowed TO be witness in
his own behalf. On March 10, 1873, congress
passed another law, by which defendants were
allowed to take the stand. Manifestly thai
was not ia contemplation when the first ac
was passed Still that was not conclusive be
cause q remedial Law might establish sucf
principles as would lot in other cases Bn
the statute did not apply, to the case in ques