Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-17

contractors affidavit.
Witness presumed that the congressional
investigation of 1880 had been brought on
by his request.
For the deficiency of 100000, he was
asked if he did not say he had spent
$3,S00,000 of the total appropriation of
$5,900,O00 for 1879, before the 1st of
January. 1879.
Answer - Well, he didn't re-
emember. Of course the official
papers would show. Did not know how
many orders for expedition he made while
second assistant. There were number of
them, over hundred, but the postmaster
general made some. Probably, in num-
Der, the witness made more orders, but the
postmaster general made orders for larger
amounts.
Bliss-Don't you know you made ten
times the number of orders made by your
predecessors, Route and Tyner.
Answer-Oh, presume did. thought
myself ten times better postmaster gem
eral than they we're together. Laughter
Tyner and Jewell did little in expedition.
1t was not part of Jewellian policy to in
crease star routes or steamboat service.
Question-You spoke of congress ap-
proving your acts. Where do 20 find that?
Answer-In regard to granting defcien-
cy appropriations as appears.
Question-Was that the only basis?
Answer, sharply-That was enough.
Question-Did they give you all that you
asked?
Answer-No, but they gave me enough.
Question-Then you worked for more
than you needed?
Answer-Yes, for more than enough to
make up the deficiency. Witness did not
take any official notice of the sub-con-
tractors as rule.
Question-Did you not say to William
Lilley in August, 1880, that if the su5-con-
tract on the Mineral park route was given
to a certain person named 'you would cut
the service down to one trip week."
Ingersoll-I object to the name of the
person.
The Court-Yes, that must be done.
Bliss-One Jennings.
Ingersoll-I object again.
Merrick argued that the witness must
answer any and every question, and cited
Massachusetts case as authority.
The court said that when the defendant
went on the stand he was protected in the
same degree as the other witnesses, and
the same thing was in the time of cross
examination, but question might be ask
ed if it depended altogether on the nature
of the answer whether or not it could be
rebutted.
The question was again put, and the
witness answered that he did not remem-
Der having had such a conversation. He
felt like saying such things about Jennings,
because he rendered such miserable ser
vice. He remembered the San Antonio,
Corpus Christi route, and Contractor Jas.
2. Price.
Bliss produced one of the Price drafts,
and asked If the witness had ever had the
paper in his possession.
Wilson objected. Meanwhile witness
closely examined the paper.
Merrick expressed his intention of show
ing that these two drafts for 81, $50 each,
and $4,000 in money had been placed upon
Brady's desk while he was acting as second
assistant postmaster general by the con-
tractor on the route, for a corrupt pur-
pose. He proposed to show that another
bill for $500 from Dan Murphy, of st.
Louis, payable to Murphy's order, had
| been sent to Brady for similar corrupt
purposes. They expected to show they
had direct relation to the expedition and
J the putting on service on certain routes
| He argued it was a competent matter for
either direct or cross-examination. The
government expected to show to the jury
the corrupt motives on Brady's part, said
Merrick, and he cited authorities to show
it was proper to investigate these motives.
| Here was a similar transaction, the same
corruption and the same exercise of duties
| The same manipulation in the matter here
was proof of corruptImotives. This man
could it not be justifable to In
fer had done the same with regard to the
routes set out in the indictments
The court inquired if Merrick believed
ii made no difference if the conspiracy was
charged in relation to certain designated
routes.
That gentleman promptly replied il
made no difference. They would show thai
he dragged his white robes of Office in the
gutter at the bidding and for the pay OF
other men in reference to other routes, and
that too at the same time the operation;
charged in the indictment were progress
ing. They wanted to have it out of his OWL
mouth, so they might rebut him. The wit
nesses were here prepared for purpose
The court again interrupted and asked
if Merrick thought, that if the facts were
proved as proposed, that he could obligC
the defendant to criminate himself.
Merrick contended that he could, and
| read further from authorities in support OF
his proposition. Having voluntarily gone
on the stand, defendant must run the risk
of elimination of himself, and the reason
was plain the laws did not contemplate {
farce, when such a witness was allowed
to testify. If they showed that on anC
about the same time the witness wai
STEPPED in villainy, was it not competen
evidence.
During the delivery of Merrick's argu
ment, which occupied about half an hour
and was characterized by its bitterness ant
loathing comments on Brady, the latte
sat with the greatest composure in tn
witness box, looking him calmly in tn
face. Without hearing the argument o.
the part of the def ense the court adjourn
ed until Monday.
Business Troubles.
ROCHESTER, March 16.-Lswis Short, Jr.
assignee of G. F. Upton, the defaulting
| Ill TO lox- 1n1