The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-17


gauSed by the contractors affidavit
witness dld not know there hsd hea,
two alhdaVl's upon one of the routes and :,
had no explanation TO oiler in relstinn y
the instance cited by Bliss. where sn ses
, davit most favorable to the contractor hat
been accepted. Bliss then took up the re
port OF the proceedings OF the oongressions
committe, aud asked witness if his state
niehts tnen made We're true. He asserted
! tueS Mere ne SAID II II was necessary Ia
expedite route, and contractor insistaJ
upon the pro rata compensation. II wonl1
be necessary 20 allow II or continue tho ser
vice on the old schedule Bliss inon;raa
what would be done ii the figure was too
high under his rule. ""S ''0
Answer-"We would say, old fellow. vop
wili nave TO come down and make another
proposition; meanwhile we would continne
the old service" '''
some discussion took place in relation IN
thls point, BbSs contending that a con
tractor could be forced TO carry the mail
upon the OASIS OF the actual number of men
tractors affidavit. Witness prespmsd ,n.
congressional Investigation of 1850 had bcsn
brought on by his request for a deficiency
appropriation of 100000. He was aslle3
II he did not say he had spent S3. 500 OO0 oi
the total appropriation of $500 600 far
1879 before tAe lst of January, 1879
Answer--"l do not remember. OF course
official papers would show"
Did not know how many orders for exne-
dition he made while second assistant
There were numbers OF them, over 100. but
hepostmastsr- general made some, proba
oly' IN the Gumber; witness made more
or9ers' ouI tne postmaster general made
orders for larger amounts.
| bliss" Don't VOu EnoU ,,n,, ,,,,l. -.
timesthe number of orders made bv vour
predecessors, kault and Tyner?''
Answer-"Oh b! | presume | did. |
thought myself ten times better an assist
ant postmaster-ge than they were To-
| gether. Laughterl Tvner and Jewell did
little in cxpsditing II was not part of
Jewells policy to increase star.routes on
steamboat service"
You spoke Of congress approving your
acts, where 40 you lind that Ti
Answer regard granting the def
cheney appropriation as approval -
" Was that he only basis?"
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS was enough. :"
Question" Did they give you all You
asked W - ~"
Answer-"No; but they gave enough. +"
Questlon-"rhen you asked for more
| than you neeuedP'
Answer-"Ses for more than enough to
make up the deficiency" ~
Witness did not take any notice of the
sub-contractors, as rule.
did you not say to William l,yley, in
August, lSSg that ii the suh-contract on
the Mineral Park route was given to GER
tam person named, you would cut the ser
vice down TO one trip week ?n
lngersoll-'l object; name the person. ~
The Court-"Yes; hat must be donen
Bliss-"Onc Jennings ~
lngersoll-'I object again"
MerrlcR argued that witness must answer
any anu every question, and cited Massa
unHsetts M case as authority.
me court SAID when the defendant went
upon the stand he was protected in same
uesree us other Witness, and the 50 me
thlhg was true OF cross-examnation but
tne question might be asked. Ii depended
upon the nature OF the answer whether or
NAV IL couiu Do rebutted.
The question was again put, and witness
answered he did not remember having had
any such con gersation. He had felt like
saying such things about Jennings.
because he rendered auch mis-
cradle service Remembered the San An
tonic and Corpus Christi route, and
Contractor James 7. Price. Bliss produced
one of Prices draftsand asked If witness had
ever had the paper in his possession. VII.
son objected Meanwhile witness closely
examined the paper. Merrick eynress Cd
his intention of showing that these two
drafts for = & each, and 5000 N morev
hai been placed on Brady's desk, while be
was acting rs second assistant postmaster
general, by the contractors on tins
route for corrupt purpose. He
proposed to show that another
bill for $500 from Daniel Murphy. St
Louis, payable to Murphy's order Rad been
sent to Brady for similar corrupt purpose
lie expected to show that they had A direct
relation to expedition and putting of ser
vice on certain routes. He argued n was n
competent matter for either direct or cross.
examination. The government expeoted
to show the jury corrupt motiveson Brady's
part, said Merriok, and he cited authori
itles to show it was proper 10
investigate these motives. In a similar |
the same corruption, the same |
exercise OF duties, the same manpulations
as charged in the indictment here, was |
PROOF OF the corrupt motives of the man. |
Could il not justly be inferred he had done |
the same with regard to routes as set ont |
IN the Indictment The court inquired if |
Merrick believed it made no difference if |
the conspiracy was charged in relation to |
certain designated routes. That gen
,I .nen,nh promptly replied that it
,,aue ,hou no uliierence: They would
show sii ne dragged ms white robes of Office in
sno gulter AZ bidding and for pay of other
men III reference to other routes, and that,
.,o, at the same time the operations
Iinargeu iri IN the Indictment were progressing.
=, NY wanted 10 have IL out of his mouth,
So SUI sney might rebut him. The witnesses
were mere prepared for the pupose. The
q IP"'S aEaln interrupted, and asked
Ia
Nere v proved, as he proposed, that he could
,,tpige she defendant TO crlminate himself
Merrlok contended he could, and read
irtner from the authorities In support of
us proposition. Having voluntarily gone
lh the stand, defendant must ruin the
,hahces oil terminating himself, and it was
,m,n.n m tnat the law did not contemplate
orce when. such witnesses were al
IWeu 10 testify, If they showed
u nnat ABOUT the same time he was stepped
n ylllainy, was it not competent evidence. |.
Inrlng the delivery of Merrick's arguments,