The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-04-04
STAR ROUrEs,
Mr.. Merrick Continues the Cross-Examina-
ton OF DOrsey-The Defense Refuses to
Produce the Letter Book.

Mr.. Merrick Continues the Cross-Examina-
ton OF Dorsey-rhe Defense Refuses to
Produce the Letter Book.
WASHINGTON, April First Star Route
trial lasted fifteen weeks The eighteenth
week of the second trial begun this morn
ing and the end still appears a long way of.
Merrick resumed the cross-examination of
Dorsey about the instructions he had given
to Boone relative to bidding for contracts
tation with or instructions to Boone upon
the matter of inquiry.
Merrick demanded a return to his notice
for the production of the letter.press copy
books containing letters of the date de-
scribed.
Bliss thought that the answer should be
made under oath.
Ingersoll, in long argument contended
that the evidence sought was secondary
in its character, and that its loss
could not be remedied by the substitution
of other secondary evidence, there being no
degrees in such evidence.
1ngersoll called attention to the fact that
the a ,ce called for copies OF letters written
upon Two dates, regardless of the subject
matter. Tne prosecution wished to go fish
new evidence in the books.
The Court said that the defendant was not
bound to produce any evidence to criminate
himself. If he ignored the notice to pro-
duce the papers, then secondary evidence
would be admissible. Nor could he besre-
quired to produce secondary evidence
against himself; so at last the prosecution
would be driven to use their own secondary
evidence, but no such evidence was admis-
sible until notice had been served calling
for the production of the original paper. In
the present case the notice related strictly to
secondary yevidence-letter-pres copies-and
even il more specific, the other side could
not be called upon to produce it.
Bliss dissented from the opinion ex-
pressed by the Court that the defendant
could not be compelled TO produce evidence
a. ainst himself, and held that when the de-
fendant took the stand he might be called
upon TO produce any evidence in his posses
SION, oral or written.
The Court replied that when the defend
ant took the stand of course he would be re-
garded as any other witness, and might be
70 the same extent.
The examination was resumed. The wit
ness id he had had his letter-books exam
ined. He had not found the letter TO John
Dorsey under the date of December 9, but
the book was mutilated at that place and
in othsr places. The same questions were
put in regard to the Bosler letter OF May Is,
1879
Objection was made by Ingersoll, who
svailed himself of the opportunity to ex-
plain his theory; tAat RerdeN had gone
through the copy-books, taken from them
every letter that could be of any possible
use to the defendants and given them TO the
in part consideration of its
protection. The other letters ne had 5orged
and manufactured. Vow his client proposed
standing upon his legal right and accepting
the consequences that might befall him
from euy inferences caused by this,cOnduct,
rather than bring the books into Court and
let inferences be drawn that might touch
other people, political, theological, or other
wise. Counsel could rest assnredl that they
would not produce all, any of them, not
one of them no matter if il contained only
poetry aoout spzissB
The witness stated that on examina
ton the books revealed the fact that GOO
pages had been torn out The witness
stouily denied any recollection of having
Moore. Had sent a check to Mrs.
Moore at Boo1e's request, and had seen the
check since 1t was charged to. Miner, Peck
& Co. If the witness had made q contract
with Moore ne would certainly have remsm-
bersd 1t. ALI conversations described by
Moore were gen orally deziad by the witness
AEerriek inquired if the witness had ex-
arnined the index TO ascertain If the letter
books had ever contained the letters de-
ssribed.
Mr.. Ipgersoll objected, but the question
was allowed, and the witness answered that
he had not asked the question of Colonel
Love. who had examined the books.
Inge1soll positively refused to prodnee
the index and the witness ADDED that he
was not sure il existed. Personally, the
witness did not know that Moore had been
sent West u second time, but had been told
so by Miner since this trial be gan. Had adj
yised Miner to employ James l.. Hodges, ol
I.eadyille, Col, and had probably written tc
Hodges. Did not remember whether or no
he had given passes to Hodges. while th'
witness was In the Senate. He had ASKED
for passes over the Pacific Road for Uan,
persons, but could not remember thei
names. The chances were that he ha'
asked Tor passes for persons sent West ol
this mail business. Hodges bad been EN-
pl3yed by Miner on the witness recommer
/ siation. Did not know whether or nc
j he had given any OF these Pesse