National Republican., 1883-03-31

pun III, DuJ nau mado Suggestions. AT Miner s
request he had paid Moore $3.50, and sent
Rerdcll 60 get the pigeon holes from Boone's
house. Witness did not recolect directing
the insertion of clause providing for expedi-
tion in the subcontracts. Boone had only
general instructions, according to wtness's
recollection. Witness had no recollection of
having seen n subcontraCt up to February
1873, or of changing a form prepared by Boone.
Did not remember giving him any instruc-
tions except in December, 1877, although he
was not positive that he had not instructed
him after that date Witness could not un-
dertake to repeat the substance Of any con-
versation with Boone after that of Decem-
Der, 1873.
searching examination was based upon
the subcontract clause providing for expe-
dition, but the witness steadily denied all
recollection on that point, To one of tho
questions the witness returned an augumen-
tativo answer. Had you not better leave ar
gument to your counsel, and you testify with
a better recollection than you seem to have p
said Mr. Merrick, and again when an inn
proper question was ruled out by the court
he said, "lt is not easy to confiue the ques-
tions properly, when the memory of the wit
ness is more satisfactory to himself than any
one else"
Mr.. Merrick spoke of tho IBID book" Tho
witness correcting him said that it was gov
ernment advertising book.
"You called it bid book among you," said
Mr. Merrick.
az was not among them," replied the wit
ness
Q. Didn't Boone dine and breakfast at your
house?
A. Sometimes, and he does so yet, occasionally.
The witness said that he saw the bid book
only once when the bids were in preparation.
Believed that Miner and not Boone filed in the
figures, and witness went over the book with
WitnngS mazda Clamppg hp
amounts proposed TO be bid, but did not
change the bids themselves. Remembered
that he changed two sets of figures in this
wagon the Bismarck-Tongue river and the
Dalles and Baker city routes. Witness sug-
gested a change in the figures on the latter
route, but did not recollect its character
probably Boone's recollection was better than
his (the witness) in that matter when he said
the figures had been reduced $1,000. The
witness explained his reasons for suggesting
the reduction on the two routes named, say
ing that he felt confident that the rapid growth
and development of the country would make
them paying routes through increased freights
and passenger business.
Mr. Morrick inquired If he had made these
reductions to benefit other men,
The witness reiterated his answer that he
only made the suggestions, and did not
make the reductions.
But it turned out, said the witness, that
he was not infallible. for he had been in
formed by Miner and Vale that the Dallcs-
Baker City route was bad investment, and
they had to pay the subcontractor more than
they received from the government for the
service.
The witness said that he smoked n cigar
sometimes in Miners room, but denied posi-
lively that he had participated in the work
of preparing the bids.
Witness had no expectation of getting the
Ilnlln lna RI lynr tgh hon In
suggested the reduction of the bid. Did not
believe that he knew anything about expedi-
tion at that time.
The witness had no knowledge of the
spoiled bid spoken of by Boone, and said that
the gentleman would have to ask Miner
about that
Mr. MerriGk. VIII have chance3
The court. You are laying out a good deal of
Mr. Davidge. They called for tho defendants,
your honor.
The witness said that if bid had been
spoiled and a new one returned with Pecks
signature within a few minutes, then some
one else must have signed it; witness did not.
Did not know whether or not Boone had told
him to keep John Dorsey and Miner away be-
cause they were stupid and interfered with
the business; did not think that the remark
would apply to the persons named. Explain
ing his reasons for taking an active part in
the business after July, 1879, the witness re-
peated, what he had said upon direct eXamina-
tion about protecting the bondsmen, and
added that he had indorsed notes for the part
ners to the amount of $4,000, which had been
used to secure certified checks for deposit in
the Postotlice department. If they had failed
to put on the service these notes would have
come back upon him. The notes were given
to the Vermont National bank of st. Albans
and the Second National bank of Santa Fe.
The witness then told how Peck and Miner
had failed in their attempts to get bondsmen,
and how he had finally induced George Ev-
ans to 60 upon their bonds Pecks failure
had been caused by i'll health and inability to
attend to the business, otherwise he might
have secured any amount of bonds. Could
not now recollect his reason for not mention
ing Peck's name to Postmaster Haycock (his
intimate friend) when he sent him the blank
bonds.
An apparently personal letter from John
Dorsey to the witness was acknowledged by
the latter to be genuine, "but don't see how
il got into this case" said he"
Mr.. Ingersoll. "Mr. .Rerdell kept It as
voucher" laughter
tribution of papers between you, and some of
them should have been IN the custody Of the
other"
In the letter John Dorsey says he is "glad
that Vaile has bought out"
he wrote his brother that "Vailc had cut him
out" and that John Dorsey had understood
it..
He could not have said "bought out" be-
cause it was not SO when witness returned to
Washington in December he found that Vale
had filed subcontracts.
q. Vale was trying 10 swindle the whole party
was he not?
A. / don't know that he was was ANNOYED at
the time, but aflerward | saw that he could not
have done otherwise than file the subconracts to
cut of drafts.
Witness had not seen that letter since he
sent it to John Dorsey. He was pressed to
produce the letter, or state its contents, but
waving his hand he exclaimed, 90 have no
recollection of such little rubbish as that"
Mr., Merrick, We have to look in rubbish to find
certain things.
Mr.. Dayidge. And you don't find them here
The witness supposed that the letter pro. |
iuced by Mr. Merrick from John Dorsey |
had been stolen in 1873, but declined to say |
who stole 1t.
"You mean Rerdcll don't your" inquired
Mr. Merrick.
A contemptuous laugh was the witness's
only answer,
Mr.. Merrick reiterated the question, and
the witness said that Rerdell seemed to have
been well pleased with the letter. He re-
used TO return any more definite answer.
ectly innocent, and attached no Importance to
he question.
Mr. Merrick You don't seem to attach import
Incc to any ofmy questions,
The wtneSs, don't know; should think that !
lObDlV would