The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-15
The Defense Attempt to lmpeach Rerdell
by the Evidence of Turner, but
the Testimony Is Ruled Out.
Ex-Assistant Postmaster-Genera I. j.
Brady on the Stand.
He Denounces the Statements of Walsh and
Rerdell Falsehoeds Manufac-
tured Out of Whole Cloth.
TURNER'S TESTIMONY.
The Defense Attempt to Impeach Rerdell
by Turner's Evidence.

trial this morning, Mr.. Wilson called Will
liam II, Turner to the stand. He is the only
defendant who was acquitted as a result of
the first trial. He said he entered the Post
office Department as a frst-class clerk in
July, 1865; he was subsequently route bureau
clerk, and afterward corresponding clerk, be-
ing assigned, in 1877, to the Pacific States di-
vision. He had nothing to do with the
preparation of the advertisement of Noyem-
Der, 1877.
Mr., Wilson asked if the witness ever had
conference with any OF the defendants rela-
tive to that advertisement, but the court
ruled out the question upon objection by the
prosecution.
The witness knew Miner and Rerdell IN
the spring of 1873; he had known
Vale for ten years; never had a specially in
innate acquain tance with Stephen Dorsey.
Speaking of the degree of intimacy existing
between the defendants, the witness said that
after the division of routes in 1877, Rerdell
and Vale would meet in the department
without speaking. Rerdell had nothing to
do with the Miner routes after that date and
Miner had no control over the routes man
aged by Rerdell.
n paper connected WIN Gne hlWllnS- w mite
river route was presented the witness, who
said alteration ian erasure of eighty
hours" and an insertion of "forty-fiVe hours
had been made by himself to save trouble in
making up new case. The petitions were
never altered while in the department..
Mr.. Wilson inquired of the witness if he
had received money, mining stocks or other
consideration from any of the defendants, to
influence his action in connection with the
routes.
The prosecution objected, because the wit
ness was not party to the indictment.
Mr.. Wilson referred to the evidence con-
cerning Samuel Jones'"
The Court asked how Jones' had been
connected with the witness.
Mr. Ingersoil called attention to the testi-
mony of Rerdell and MacVeagh, wherein
they said Samuel Jones' was an alias for
Turner.
Mr. Merrick said the question was no more
pertinent than the evidence of Mr.. Belford
on a similar point. If the witness was al
lowed to touch upon the subject, the govern
ment would feel called upon to rebut his tes-
timony.
Mr. Davidge said they proposed to prove by
the witness that Reriell had undoubtedly
lied.
The court did not see how the Offer would
fulfill the proposition If Rerdell had said
he saw money paid, the evidence offered
might be used tc contradict him.
The witness appealed to the court to allow
him to answer the question, but Judge Wylie
bade him remain silent until the question
had been passed upon.
INGERsoLL EXPLAINS HIS OFFER.
Mr. Ingersoll, in explanation of his offer,
asserted that the pencil memorandum was
not genuine, but was in whole or in part
made by Rerdell. 1t was the part of the de-
fense to show that Brady, as smith," never
received cent; that Turner, as
Jones' never received cent.
Suppose it should turn out that not soli-
tary cent had been paid to Brady or to
Turner, he thought it would establish the
fact that the pencil memorandum was not
genuine, or that the meaning put upon it
was absolute perjury. 1t would establish the
fact that Rerdell had maliciously and falsely
put wrong meaning on the entries. The
question was, whether he did not write the
memorandum himself for the purpose of
purchasing his own liberty from the govern
ment. The defense wanted to go further and
prove by others, whom Rerdell said had re-
ceived money, that it was false.
Mr. Bliss characterized the offer as a side
ssne, not calculated to show whether Rerdell
told the truth.
The court reviewed McVeagh's testimony
upon the point in question. 1t had been
given against Rerdell, who was then a de-
fendant. Would the evidence of the wit
ness that he received no money, prove the
falsity of MacVeagh's testimony?
Mr. Ingersoli said it would prove the fall
sity of Rerdel's statement, but the court did
not concede this. 1t would not prove that
Rerd ell had carried out Dorsey's direction in
making entries True, the witness never
might have received cent, yet Dorsey might
have directed Rerdell to make the entry. If
the witness statements were true, then Dor
miphA have had another object
Mr.. Wilson said the prosecution had offered
evidence to show improper use OF money by
Dorsey, and it was but fair that they
should have the opportunity to disprove it.
The defense should not be compelled to meet
the whole case at once. They should be al
lowed to disprove one point after another.
Where John A. Mitchell had been charged
with receiving money, they could show it
was untrue where Turner stood charged, he
might disprove, and so on one step at time.
Mr.. Ingersoll inquired if the court would
allow Dorsey to swear that he never made
that memorandum, and never paid money
to Turner
The court answered, Certainly.
Mr.. Ingersoll said that, OF course, he
could strengthen Dorseys testimony by
Turner, who would swear he never got the
money 1t made no difference which end
of the inquiry they began at.
Mr.. Davidge remarked that Dorsey was
under no compulsion to go upon the stand.
The court said it might lead to evasion of
the rule of law requiring the best of evil
dence.
BOOKS OF DIFFERENT KINDS
Mr., Ingersoll-You mean the books.
The Court-Yes.
Mr.. Ingersoll--I have said again and again
that the books spoken OF by Rerdell my