National Republican., 1883-02-22

position. He was followed by Mr.. Davidge
for the defense. He contended that no de-
fendant was bound TO help tho government.
They stood within a sacred circle of the law,
and bade them do their worst. They thought
they had the means TO accomplish their ends
let them try.
The court replied that IL was n principle Of
law TO allow secondary evidence whore the
defense refused to produce the papers called
for Another principle was that no man was
required in criminal case to criminate him
self. But his acts were always subj cot to ex-
animation and proof. Ifaman furnishes evil
dcnce to others, they may be called upon to
prove his acts. No man was ever convicted
who did not furnish the evidence against him
self The court would assume that the de-
fense possessed the books. IL was claimed
that they contained proof of the guilt of the
defendants; they had been kept by Dorseys
direction, so he furnished the evidence. of
course there could be no claim upon him for
their production. But when the defense cross
examined witness upon the contents of that
stub book with the object Of testing his mem-
ory, they were bound by his answers, and
could not use the book to contradict him.
The book was forever out of the case.
Mr.. lngersoll asked TO know the extent to
which he had been affected by the answers
already given. lie had never known of that
that Belford check; did not know what the
Check had been given for.
The court said the answer should be
eliminated from the record IL was not re-
sponsve TO the question.
Mr.. Merrick was perfectly willing, but
maintained that the answer was responsive.
Mr.. lngersOll gave notice that he would go
into the subject later on he intended TO ro
lievo.Air. Bellord from any injurious inference
that might be drawn.
The court regarded the subject as entirely
outside of the case, and directed that all ref
orence to IL be stricken out.
Mr.. 1ngersoll then resumed tho cross
examination. He read from the affidavit
" The statement that S. w. Dorsey and j. w.
Boslcr paid Brady 80 or any other per cent,
was pure fabrication"
The witness said IL was not pure fabrica-
tion, for he inferred that such was the case.
Mr.. Ingersoll "Thcn the statement that
IL was pure fabrication is falsehood p
A. Yes; that affidavit generally was a
falsehood."
Mr.. lngersoll continued to read passages
from the affidavit, the witness steadfastly
denying their truthfulness. He said he never
saw any money paid to Brady; only had Dor
sey's statements upon that point and the
charges against him in the books. Did not
demand those letters from Dorsey when he
made the affidavit. Eight or nine months
before that occasion Dorsey told him that he
had destroyed the letters, consequently he
was astOnished aud overwhelmed when they
were produced.
Mr.. Ingersoll. You say that was on July
IL, last2"
A. Yes, SIR"
Q. Did you tell Charles Thompson, on the
second day you lay in Jail, after the verdict,
that Dorsey had shown you the letters year
before, and that you were perfectly astonished;
you thought that they had been destroyed"
A. No, sir. told him that Dorsey had
come down to the Jail and threatened me with
those letters"
At this point the hearing was adjourned
until Friday.