National Republican., 1883-03-21
BADGERING BRADY.
The Court Rules that the Disputed Question
Cannot Be Answered,
And Mr.. Bliss Proceeds to PROFOUND
Some Others.
The Statesmen Who Took an Interest in Contractors
Walsh and His Contracts.
The Prico Drafts Again Produced and
Another Argument Opened.

MT. I0Ee1SOll COnIlUuCu HIS dTbuutub III buS
star route trial yesterday morning in opposi-
tion to the admission of evidence concerning
the Price drafts. He contended that unless
the offered evidence tended to affect some other
defendant than Brady, IL was incompetent. 1t
threw no light upon the motive of Dorsey, of
Miner, of Vale, and in this case it threw no
light upon Bradys motives.
They could not go back and get up a Crimi-
nal momentum, so that the jury would say,
"Well, he did all the other things; we guess
he did that" For the sake of the argument
he had assumed that the charge was true, but
IL was not. The very fact that the govern
ment was seeking to wander into other cases,
showed that it despaired of making anything
of this case.
The court began its decision with an ex-
PLANTATION of the reason that had influenced it
on yesterday in refusing to allow the witness
TO answer the question. The question at issue
was tho relevancy of the offered evidence.
The indictment allowed the reception Of two
kinds of evidence-one concerning overt acts,
the other as proof of the conspiracy. Clearly
this evidence, If received, must be classed un-
der the latter head.
The court then read from Wharton on agen-
cies. In regard to this offer, it was AN offer
TO prove the act of Brady alone, in another
matter, wholly distinct from the matter in
yolved in the indictment. The court did not
sec that IL was at all connected with the mat
ter of the indictment. There was no author
ity shown as having been delegated by Brady
TO the other parties. So it could only be Of
tered against Brady. Evidence had been re-
coivcd against separate defendants during the
progress of the trial, but only under promises
TO connect them with the general scheme of
prosecution, and where the matter referred to
was a part of the growth of the conspiracy.
But there was no such connection in this case.
1t had been offered as tending to show Bra
dy's motives, and when that point was first
made the court had been inclined to find a
resemblance between the offer and the case of
Rex VS.. Hunt. But the features of that case
were absent in the present case. So then, If
received, it would only tend to prove a crime
on Brady's part without associates, and that
was not proper, for none of the defendants
could be tried for an individual crime under
this indictment. Therefore, the offer was ex-
cluded.
Gen. Brady then resumed the witness stand,
and Mr.. Bliss continued the cross examina-
tion. The witness explained what he meant
in speaking of an allowance of $50 for the
western service. He had made many tenn
porary contracts upon routes pending read
vertisement Some of them were rs long as
the Tongue River route. That route was not
readvertised because to do so would be only
to incur the risk of another inadequate bid
ding The witness was asked why the dis
tinCtion had been made in letting the Tongue
River route and the Rock CreekFor Custer
route.
Mr.. Wilson gave notice that if the prosecu-
tion went outside of the indictment and took
up other routes, he would feel called upon to
go into the subject at length.
The court replied that the rules of law
could not be relaxed merely to save time +;
that had long ago ceased 10 be 9 subject for
consideration, "
Other routes were instanced, the conditions
of which resembled those of the Tongue river
fn hut pyhi oh huH tiQa1
Generally the witness failed to remember the
particular routes, and answered rather impa-
tiently that the official record would show
what action had been taken in connection
with them. ~
The inquiry turned upon the congressional
investigation, and the witness reiterated
many of the answers given during its grogress,
Mr.. Bliss asked if the witness knew what
member of congress interested himself in the
Mineral-park-Pi route.
A. do.
q. VINO?
4. must decline to say.
Mr.. Bliss again put the question.
The witness said that he had no objection
to naming the persons who initiated the
movement, but he had an objection to naming
the persons who had concerned themselves in
the subsequent orders.
The Nevada senators and representatives
and the Utah delegate had interested them
selves in the route; among Others Senator
Jones.
Mr.. Bliss remarked that the papers did not
show the Endorsement of any of the persons
named.
The witness was asked to explain his rea-
sons for cutting down the service upon the
SIineral Park (Pioche) route and restoring it
within short time. He said that the service
had been reduced because it was not properly
executed Afterward it was represented to
him thata great injustice had been done to the
contractors.
Mr.. Bliss inquired who had represented that
the reduction was an injustice to the contract
ors
Hesitatingly the witness answered: "The
contractors themselves, believe That phase
of the question was also presented with great
stress by Senator Plumb, of Kansas, who said
that he was a friend of the contractors, and
knew that injustice had been done to them"
The witness was convinced that the fault
was with the subcontractOr who delayed the
trips at Colorado river and that if the service
was restored the contractors would make il a
good service.
Mr.. Bliss called his attention TO the fact
that the reason given in the Endorsement
upon the jacket for restoring the service did
not mention the contractors, but referred
only TO the Importance of the route as n con-
meeting link in the railway system. "Was
that reason true?" he asked the witness, who
responded in the affirmative. That was one
Mr.. Bliss abruptly. "Whnt had Senator Plumb
Il Kansas senator-to do with this Arizona route?'
The witness (drylyl. "He could probably an.
swer that question more correctly than / could"
Various questions of technical nature were
put to the witness regarding the different
routes; such as his reasons for expediting a
route to a certain number of hours Many of
his reasons he failed to recall, but looking at
the papers he would give such explanations of
the circumstances as in his mind justified the
orders. Where service had been discontinued
and months extra pay allowed to the con-
tractor although mail had never been car.
ried to the station, the witness denied any
knowledge of such fact. He said that even If
the circumstances were as stated by the coun-
sci, the contractor would have been justified
i'm refusing to carry the mail on account of
the misstatement of distance. Speaking of
an affidavit upon the TOquervlle-Adairville
route the witness said that he had not exam
amined into it far enough to see that it re.
qured every man mentioned to travel for
forty hours in every twenty-fOur. He was
asked why he had not increased the com
pensation OF the contractors on the Nermillion-
Sioux Falls route, as in the case of the Tongue
River route. He answered that he was not
aware that the distance in the first case was
wrongly advertised.
Mr. Bliss produced distance circular show
ing the error, but the witness declared that
he had never seen 1t before.
Did you ever see any papers in the department
that you did not want7' queried Blr. Bliss
sharply.