National Republican., 1883-03-21

tractor in 1879; his route was the Prescott
Santa Fe route. He came to see witness be-
fore he became q subcontfactor in relation to
his trouble with the contractor Mcdonald.
Walsh saw witness number of times after
that-in 1873 and 1S79--eventually becoming
the contractor on McDonald's failure, by wit
ness's order. Witness identified the order
declaring Mcdonald failing contractor and
giving the contract TO his sureties, George r..
Kirk and William II. Gleason. He said that
when they failed to begin service the contract
was awarded to Walsh.
Mr.. Bliss Then you made private contract,
although he had not been public bidder
A. l did. / awarded him the contract under
that clause Of the law that enables the department
70 accept private bids when they were lower than
the next lowest bid.
The defense protested against this extended
inquiry into q route outside Of the Indictment
but the court held that IL might be allowed as
testing the memory and integrity Of the wit
| ness.
Mr.. Bliss inquired why the route had been
expedited under Walsh's contract.
The witness recollection was that the SER
vice had been expedited originally under
Mcdonald; cut down when the latter failed,
and restored under Walsh. As showing his
reasons for making the order, the witness
read from the lpapers the recommendations OF
prominent persons looking to an increase OF
the service.
Mr.. Bliss. You suspended the service in May,
1881, didn't your
A. was not in the department at that date.
Q. Did you not suspend service in March, 1881
A. My impression is that declared Walsh TO be
falling contractor, but did not suspend service.
Frequently had conversations with Walsh
sometimes at Gen. Sheridan's house (Walsh's
lounging place), but never by appointment.
Sheridan was there usually; not always.
Witness frequently went in and made himself
at home, although Sheridan was absent.
Never had any money transaction with Walsh,
who was always expressing his willingness to
loan money but had asked Walsh to loan him
some stocks. Witness acknowledged that the
letter produced by Mr.. Bliss (the "Chatta "
letter. was in his handwriting.
Mr.. Ingersoll objecced to the reception of
the letter because of its irrelevancy, and
argued the point. The court decided to ad-
nit the paper, because 1t tended to show the
business relations between Brady and Walsh.
The letter was then read. 1t la a request for
q loan of some Chattanooga stocks, and has
been often published.
The witness said that Walsh did not lend
him the stock. He explained the terms used
in the letter. "Ginger" did not mean money,
but just exactly what he asked for-Chatta-
nooga stock. Witness told Walsh to buy
Chattanooga because it was going up but un-
fortunately il did not. That was in the office
of Hatch & Foote, New York. So Walsh
bought stocks, but when witness wished to
borrow he said that he had sold it. The
newspapers " referred to was The REPUBLI-
CAN; used the plural form because he expected
to make it as good as two newspapers. Was
at that time negotiating for the ownership Of
the Capital. Came into the Critic later on.
The other business referred to was the
Canadian lumber business of Waugh, Brown
& Co. Mr.. Bliss wanted to know how Walsh
and the witness were to be benefited by the
proposed loan. He said that he expected to
run up the price of Chattanooga stock. Walsh
would have gotten handsome profit on his
his stock, and witness had more than a cart
load himself. The witness swore positively
that no money had been deposited to his
credit at Hatch & Foote'S by Walsh.
One of the Price drafts was again produced,
and the witness was asked if he had sent OF
delivered that draft to Walsh.
Mr.. Ingersoll objected, and characterized il
as an attempt to get in sideways what they
could not get in by the front door.
The court said that it was only question
as to whether it tended to sustain Walsh's
| testimony.
Mr.. Ingersoll maintained that it was not a
material point. He said that the paper did
not bear Walsh's Endorsement to show that il
had passed through his hands, and that 1t was
proposed to fill up that gap with a little piece
| ofperjury.
Although the same paper was concerned, the
court said that it regarded the question as en-
tirely different from tliat disposed of in the
morning-it was nova question of whether il
tended to sustain or contradict Walsh.
Mr.. Ingersoll argued the point with great
earnestness and was followed by Mr.. Merrick
for the prosecution. He asserted that il was
not necessary for the intermediate holders tC
indorse postal draft. If Brady had done that
| he would have shown himself infinitely more
stupid than he had shown himself to be upon
cross-examination. The.two men walsh and
Brady stood diametrically opposite one an
other in their statements, and this tended tc
throw some light upon the situation.
Several other counsel participated in the
| argument.
The decision was reserved until to-day, and
the court adjourned.