Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-03-07
Testimony for the Defense.


Testimony for the Defense.
RErREsESrA1 FEIFoRD TIE FIRST WITNESS.
When the star route trial was resumed this
morning there was good attendance in court and
| considerable interest mlnifested, as the plan OF
procedure adopted by the defense, who were to
open their case today, had not been revealed.
TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE BELFoRD
The first witness called by Mr.. Ingersoll was
James B. Belford, member Of Congress from Col
orado. He said that he had resided In Central
City, Colorado, since June, 1870 He said he had
admitted into the Union, with the exception Of one
not get his seat
"You had to stand up that session." said Mr..
IngersOll.
The witness testified to thorough acquaintance
VIII, Mltn tne state and us growth He identified his
signature on petition Tor increase OF mail facil-
tiles Mr. 1ngersoll asked the witness II, In 1870,
the people OF Colorado were anxious for increased
show that Mr.. Belford had received many letters
on the subject and frequently visited the Post
Ohice department.
MR.. MERR1cK, oBJEcrINe TO THE QUESTION:
said that how the expressions OF people covering
so large territory as Colorado could be intro
duced to throw light on the issue which affected
only mail route in one small locality he was un-
able to see II Mr.. Belford was allowed to give
and show that Mr.. Belford had frequently asked
MIN 10 join In these requests, and he had declined.
He had had talk, he said, with Mr.. Hill the other
day.
Mr.. Ingersoll argued that this testimony was
competent, as 1t showed another motive for the
acts or the Second Assistant Postmaster General
than criminal one.
JUDGE wYL1E SAID
the petition endorsed by Mr.. Belford was in evil
dence, and he thought whatever Mr.. Belford said
ABOUT that petition or any other petition in evil
dence was competent. Beyond that whatever re-
lated 10 general policy he did not consider admls-
LETTER WANTED.
Mr. Wilson wanted the prosecution to produce
letter from the state officers of Colorado trans
m1tted to the Post Orice department by the wit
son insisted that they should have the letter pro.
ducsd, and said that he had had issued a sub
p9na duces tecum for the Second Assistant Post
had not come. He said Mr.. Woodward knew ali
about the papers. and he wanted Mr. Woodward
gss eS pahper %hpe was sitting by Mr. Me
TEX protested that he had not handled the papers
leave this court room. want him."
,n ihe Question" said Mr. Wilson, .sfs one involv
1ng the authority OF the court We want those
..2Hs "You s., shall have them, said Mr.; Merrick;
1--WE ask these s papers" r repeated 1 Mr.. Wilson.
"Well, you must have the witness here who was
ordered to bring them" said Judge Wylie.
. Mr Merr1ck said that the prosecution would aid
them IN getting the papers.
BELFoRD'S CONVERSATIONS WITH BRADY
Ihe witness then testified to having, in CONVEX
sations with Brady, represented to him the growth
or the state and the need Of mail facilities While
he was tes:ifying he described the scenes in
San Juan county when he first went there to hold
court, and then described the scene there some
'sHe Is telling" said Mr.. Merrtck, "what he told
d1n Brady several years ago. and it happened the
larger than all New England-"
,,,,, well" We said Judge Wylle, suppose it was as
Mr.. Wilson argued that he should be allowed to
prove these Matters as to the growth OF the state
NJ, Inc court having permitted such testimony, MIR.
Seilord gave glowing description OF Leadvie,
ohVerton, and other cities and towns OF Colorado.
AN OBJECTION SUSTAINED
'Did you," asked Mr.. Ingersoll, lever receive
any money or any check for any money from s. W.
Dorsey, or any one Of these defendants, In con.
sideration OF what you did in this natter"
..Mhd Wait a,a,a moment; object" said Mr. Merr!ek
9o5,ced 6y counsel that sysryt1ng that Was scci,
the record by order of the court
"Strcken out OF what?" asked Mr.. Carpenter.
Of s sad Mse N.Y.
we are not trying this case in the press" said
Mr.. Merr1ck.
Mr.. Ingerson argued that the testimony was ad-
missible to contradict RerdelL
MT Merrlck said that the testimony concerning
Mr Belford was brought out upon the cross-ex-
dhe case OF the government II the defense had
desired TO show that the statement was untrue
sought 70 ss Se
rick would have to go into proof to sustain 1t. He
asked In justice to this gentleman tMr. Belford) to
have this matter stricken from the record
Judge Wylie said a notice had been given by
the government to the defense to produce this
check book. They had refused to produce the
book. They had not denied its possession, and
the court had right to assume that the books ex
listed and were in the hands Of the defense. II
the delenSe wanted to contradict the wit
ness after that 1T must be In regard to some
essential matter. Mr. Belford was not on trial
order OF Mr. Belford, stl it did not follow that IT.
was an Illegal or improper transaction; though
the check might have been draw4in the name Of
the bearer ana Mr. Beford mixSt n never "h navy Ss
known that the check was drawn. The rule was
they held the written evidence in their possessinn
and refused to produce it. He therefore Sustained
Mr.. Merrick's objection.
Mr. INGERsoLL FRAMES NEW QUESTION.
Mr. Ingersoll again framed q question as tn |
whether the witness received any money, check
or promise OF money from S. W. Dorsey or any of |
these defendants in compensation for his influence
with the Second Assistant Postmaster General 70 |
get expeditions or increases. He argued at some
ton.
Mr.. Wilson argued that it was n,t claimed that |
these books belonged to his ellen BRADY, or that
mis- client had refused to produce them. He now |
asked this evidence In behalf OF his client.
Mr.. Bliss argued that the testimony could have |
no bearing upon Mr.. Brady. The witness RerdeIl |
had not said that Mr.. Belford received the check
and the best proof to contradict him was the book
JUDGE wYIIE ON THE PROOFS OF CONSPIRACY.
Mr.. Daytdge having urged that the evidence be
admitted In justice to the witness on the stand.
Judge Wylie said that so far as this witness was
concerned the same result could be obtained by
his going before justice OF the peace and making
an amdavit. He said that at this stage
OF the case the evidence good against
one defendant was good against all,
as the evidence OF conspiracy was sufficiently
strong, In his view, to justify their being regarded
as joint defendants. The defense had declined to
OrOduce these hooks or mi ont od fhoo ovsof