Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-03-09
EASTERN NEWS.
.saoc1ArEp rnEss DIsrATcnEe
star Route Trial.

Star GouSc Trial.
u,eursoroN. March I'm the star
W. triai today. while Belford was on
To- To- ,yitness stand, Iugerson said they
I'D show that witness called fire.
s.s,,tlv a. the department aud urged
ga demanded increased mail facili-
ties. ILL.,
- "a show that witness used his in
snsucs With the department, bat would
~. 90 into any question Of the gsnsr Il
LICK OF the department.
The examination Was than resumed.
.v;,ness said he called many times, pos
.;hIv a hundred times, ct tue Postotics
ssnsrt, aeut to urge upsn the second
p,ssmaster General multiplication of
Iii service. From the magnitude Of
- business he could not remember n
rel. in connection with any particular
,n,e. Witness WAS asked TO stats wha.
- said to Brady regarding routes III
Co,,rado. Prosecution objected, as that
ssa touching upon this pJlicy of the de-
,sr.ment. The court said it was not
he policy, but needs of the country,
snw proposed To be shown. Witness
ssis be impressed upon Brady the rapid
oroyth and needs Of the State. He in
s.,ncsd the Siiverton rolte through
en- Imam county and Leadvilie. In
,b;s town several years ago he found i.
;o,,ossible TO walk down the streets.
Tina mail comprIsei l,20 loLters.
There were forty or fifty thousand
nsonle there nov. He WAS at Fort
Collins when SIX people comprised the
town.
cousistsnt-he saying he told Brady. |
vhsn 1t only happened the other day"
Objection sustained, br.. the court de- |
cdsd to allow witness 10 prove the |
grogth of the country.
Witness went on aud instanced many |
a,urishing WINS and cities III Colorado |
that sprung ap within tho past few |
vars. Merrick OBI sc;ed because OF the |
time referred TO, but tie court held it |
nropsr evidence, for il might % to show |
that Brady forssaw natures develop |
ment of tho country. Witness con-
tinued. He came here 20 lock after the |
int. es.s OF his constituents. - carry |
ont their requests, aud If they asked |
him to do the Same thing again he would |
do it.
Ingersoll said: did yoa ever rec.ive
mouey. or check for money, from ). w.
connection with mail busioessl' Mer-
rick-"I object" The court promptly
sustained the objection.
Ingersoll desised to be heard on the
subject. Merrick reminded the court
that tho entire matter inadvertently tes-
tiled 10 BY the witness Eeredeil had
been stricken ont of record.
Carpenter-"Oat of record, but not
ont of press"
Iupersoll called attention of the
conrt To what Reredell had said about
stubs of checks marked Email" There
were four Of them. He sent one of
them TO Smith, one to Jones, one 10 Jas.
u. Bedford and one to somebody else.
Il does not matter who mot one of them
we're marked Thomas j. Brady" 1t
would be q material point. Reredell
said he saw this check that was equally
material. IF Rcreds!l swors he heard
the conversation between Dorsey aud
Brady, Mt which Bedford was present,
would they not bs allowed to show that
Belford WAS not present? That story
was false. lie said that Pelford got n
check. Ii they could show that 1t was
false would it not tend to prove his
statement about other checks false !
1t is certainly material. He wanted to
show that 10 such check was received 10y
llslford. and ReredeIl had sworn falsely
when he said it was another view of the
matter. In the present state of public
mind any witness, however low, could
touch, and s.nirch, and stain the reputa-
ton of agy man, no matter how high.
10 matter il he were the greatest figure
in the land. Would the court allow
this witness this same privilege to tell
the truth as had bssn allowed other
Witnesses to tell falsehoods upon the
same question (the checks). if Rec
dell toncaed the reputation of Belford,
was IL possible he would shrink from
touching tho reputation of the men on
trial? That was for the jury. it Was
true, but the court should remember
il grew out of the same transaction.
Merrick denied tho pertinency of this
evidence and challenged tho defence
to prejudice the paper.
Caroenter Paper that never ex-
isted."
Merrick-"But books existed. Why
do you not bring books p
He warned them il they tried to dis
prove Reredell's statement, he woald
rebut their proof.
Carpenter and DavidSe-"Do it."
Merrick appealed To the court to stop
inquiring, otherwise they wonld have
to go into Infinite side issues.
"They had better let the matter res" "
he added in a threatening tone. The
court said that notice had been served
upon defense to produce stub books
aud they refused. which they had a per-
feet right to d ,, and the Government is
compelled to make out their case by
secondary evidence. They would not
BE- obliged to do it il the books did not
exist and il they had represented that
TO the conrt, but now the coart had q
right to assume that their evidence did
exist and was in the hands of the de-
tense. II wanted to contradict Rere-
dell, it must be done in some essential
manner. The opiuion of tho court in
what he had said to Bedford, had no re-
lation to any defendants. Ii did not
necessarily cast an imputation on Bel
ford's character, because stubs showed
cheeks had been drawn to the order of
Bslford. 1t did not show u relation to
any matter charged in this indictment,
Dsviige But it was charged IL
mail"
The court replied--'It might have
been drawn to the order of Bedford Oh
bearer. and somebody else might have
drawn the money. Belford might
never have seen the check. That is a
very common thing. They could not
contradict evidence of witnesses with
ont producing the book" Objection
sustained.
Insersoll then asked witness il he
ever received any property for using his
influence ut the Postofiice department
TO secure an increase of mail service
upon these routes. as basis for question.
He referred to Reredell's statements in
relation to ALI entry OF 10000 in BEL
fords name. He said prosecution
oo2ht not deprive Bedford of an oppor-
tunity to deny this statement. de
could have imagined Reredeli would re-
Ter to James B. Belford more than e
sns Chief Justice. He thought he had
Alright to ask these questions to show
Witness acted in good faith in askinl
extensinn Of the mail service.
Davidge also thought witness should
nave an opportunity TO yindicate him
Tho court said that witness could d.
mat BY making an affidavit before ,
sostce OF thu Peace. As TO Wilson'I
POINT that Brady was not responsible,
G D,rsey's failure TO produce tn,