Daily globe., 1883-04-11
THE STAR REUTERS.
The Continuation OF Miners Testimony
Lively Controversy as Usual.

The Continuation OF Miners Testimony
Lively Controversy as Usual.
WASHINGTON, April 1O.-Miner con-
tinued his testimony in the star. route
case to-day. He declared that after Jan
uary he had never spoken word to
Brady on business matters.
Three official papers addressed to Brady
in the spring of 1879 and purporting. to
be sigred.by Miner, were shown witness.
He supposed Reerdel had written the
signature. Certainly he (witness) had not
signed them.
Merrick then began the cross-examina-
tion.
Witness knew John ". Dorsey and Peck
only slightly when he engaged in the busi-
ness with them, but did know that they
were relatives of Senator Dorsey, II that
was what the counsel wanted. Witness
said rather defantly that ne had been IL
dicted for removing spirits from bonded
warehouses, but was never within seven
miles of a warehouse and was not guilty.
He paid $1,S00 to get out of the affair.
"Why did you compromises"
Witness, leaning toward Merrick and
speaking deliberately-Bec preferred
paying that amount to being dragged
through trial and [ would do the same in
this case.
Witness had had nothing to do with
whisky for fifteen months before his indict-
| ment. except to take an occasional drink.
1t was probable that Reerdel had been di-
rected by S. W. Dorsey to assist witness in
preparing bids. Boone was mistaken when
he said the proposal signed by Peck had
| been spoiled upon that occasion and wit
ness had replaced it with another bearing
a similar signature.
The witness said the division was based
| upon the value Of routes as shown by the
profits, and not upon the number of routes.
He believed that S. ". Dorsey received but
little more than his fair share. No &C.
count was taken of the probable expedi-
tion. ''It would have made no difference
if we did, said witness, ''for S. W. Dorsey
| got more expedition than we did" He
could not recollect that he had filed in an
| affidavit signed Peck in q blank, nor did he
recollect that he fled it. He knew that the
route had been expedited, but did not
| know, except from the record, that the ex-
pedition had been based upon the affidavit
in question. He did not remember any
thing about the paper, except that it ap-
peared in his handwriting. The same
answers were returned in regard to other
papers filed in the department. All de-
|
tion of afidavits were in his case, but he
| could remember nothing of the circum-
| stances attending their preparation.
| Merrick was about to examine witness
relative to his testimony given before the
congressional committee, but was met
with an objection from Davidge, who de-
clared the statutes expressly forebade such
| examination.
The court, however. allowed the inquiry,
and the general exception was noted by
the defense.
The witness said he had signed the afii-
davits in blank, that had afterward been
filled in by Reerdel. He would have been
foolish if he had done any such thing, al
though an assistant counsel had requested
him to do so.
Merrick-He, Reerdel, was one of you
then?
W1tness-He was not one of me long.
Merrick-You are making afidavits at
his request, then?
Answer-I made one truthful affidavit at
his request.
Witness said another affidavit had been
filed in by Reerdel.
Are you familiar with his handwriting?
inquired Merrick.
Witness-I do not know that 1 am fa-
miliar with it, sarcastically, she had sever
al hands"
The papers were produced. but witness
recoliected nothing about them, and could
only identify the handwriting.
The court adjourned without concluding
the cross s-examination, Merrick expressing
the hope that nights rest might improve
the witness recollection.