The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1883-03-27
star Routes.

1
positively DOrsey's handwriting, be-
cause he had seen it so often and SO
closely initiated by Reredell that it
was a matter of much difficulty to
between the original
an imitation.
In answer to Merrick, witness
said he had conversed with Dorsey
on this subject since leaving the |
stand. and had not fully understood
the remark of the court, that he
tdid not know DOrsey's hand
writing" or would have made an
xplanation at the time.
Hen. Horace F. Page, of Califor-
MIA, was called. He identified let
tiers concerning the route from Red
ding to AltEras, and related the
efforts he had made to have that
service increased.
James Gamble, a New York con-
tractor, testified that ne had oecu-
pied a portion of the office used by
Dorsey in 1881, at l45 Broad way.
He described the rooms and their
occupants, and said he saw no red
desk in that office. Never saw Bos-
ter there.
After the examination of some
unim pOrtant Witnesses, IngerSoN
called Stephen w. Dorsey to the
stand. The clerk was about to adj
minister the usual oath when Mer-
rick arose and asked permission
from court, to question witness re-
garding his belief in its binding
force. The request was granted
and Merrick inquired if witness re-
garded the oath as binding. IngersOl
said he did not believe his honor
would allow such proceeding. TIE
last time he had seen it tried was
before Judge Drummond, at Chi
cago, and the judge said the exam
ination concerned matters Of this
world. The witness was to testify
about what he knew here.
Merrick replied that the re-
| ligion of the nineteenth
century needed no defense from
him. He was acting under rules of
law. He referred to Ingersolls
charge that the government did
not wish Dorsey to testify, and
declared it untrue; what he did de-
sire was that the court and Jury
might know what weight to attach
to his testimony when he in
Yoked the Supreme Being, wit
nesSes were under obligations of
personal honor and integrity, but
in addition they had an obligation
that they had invoked the Justice
of Heaven and the wrath of men
if they falsified and the court and
jury should have the witnesses
opinion, weight and obligation. He
wanted to know if, in taking oath,
| he felt his conscience involved, and
that was obligation to tell the
truth.
Ingersoll said, if it was another
world, and he had acted badly
in this, he wOnld expect tC
fare badly there; and so he
would expect to fare vel
if he acted well here. He regarded
truth as most sacred of all obliga
; tions. If he was on the stand anC
all he held most dear was at stake
still would he be compelled to eX.
press his belief and say that he did
not believe in personal Deity and
there were many excellent, gener
GUS people Of that belief. In the
dark ages people were so given tC
lying that nobody was expected tC
tell the truth unless scared. Gen,
tleman, Merrick has quoted
law; now laws were not always
right, many people believed many
laws to be wrong, as there were
many laws that we're not right
They had such laws under the old
inquisition with its thumbscrews
and racks, and fires and other hide
Gus monstrocities. They had laws
against witches and wizards in days
when they dug up babies corpses
and made ointment out of them
and in some states there were still
laws that barred men from telling
the truth because he did not believe
as some other man or some holy
book, and this too after Darwin haC
lived and died. There used to be {
law to make a man catef
poor negro woman with a chile
in arms and give her back to blood
hounds and the lash. He hoped tht
court would not entertain the pro
position.
The Court said with a man, moi
! in official position, it was private
matter as to what they thought Of
the law; if they,undertook to violate
it, they were responsible; but judge
was not at liberty to say that ht
liked this law and disliked that
they were not made by the court
and it could only apply them; a,
to the theological question
discussed at such length
the court would not go into
that; it was unnecessary. The act Of
March 10th, 1878, made defendant
a witness, and that settled thai
; point; so that the only question OF
competency was whether Dorsey
was a defendant when the new Law
was introduced, and without limita
ton said defendant shall be wit
ness. No other competency was
required; the other view the court
would not pass upon; it would moi
| go into the theological view nor be-
| You'd the law Of 1878. Merrick in
quired as to the necessity of swear
ing the witness under this view
The court replied: $50 that he may
be punished for perjury if he does
| - \