National Republican., 1883-03-17

times the number of orders made by your prede-
cessors, Routt aud Tyuer7
A. oh, presume that did; thought myself
ten times better as an assistant postmaster general
than they were together lLaughterl Tyner and
Jewell did little in expedition 1t was not part
the Jewcllian policy TO increase the star routes
q. You spoke Of congress approving your acts.
Where do YOU find that2
A. / regard the granting Of the deficiency ap-
preparation as an approval.
q. Was that the only basis?
A. lsharply) That was enough.
q. Did they give you all that you askcdP
A. No, but they gave me enough
q. Then YOU asked for more than you needed /?
a Yes for more than enough TO make up the
deficiency"
Witness did not take any official notice of
subcontractors as a rule.
q. Did you not say to William Lilley, in August,
1881. thnt II the subooutract oil tile Mineral Park
route was given to certain person named that
week?
MIR. Ingcrsol object. Name the person.
The court. Yes, that must be done.
Mr. Bliss One Jennings.
Mr. Ingcrsoll. object ngaln.
Mr. Merrick argued that the witness must
answer any aud every question, and cited n
Massachusetts, case as authority
The court said that when defendant went
upon tho stand he was protected in the same
degree as other witnesses, and the same thing
was true OF iCroSs-CXamnation. But the qugs-
tion might be asked. 1t depended altogether
upon tha nature OF the answer whether or not
IL could be rebutted. The question was again
put, and witness answered that he did not re-
mombcr having had any such conversation.
He had ielt like saying such things about Jcn-
nings because he rendered such miserable SER
vice Remembered the san Antonia-Corpus
Christi route and the Contractor James T..
Price
Mr.. Bliss produced one Of the Price drafts
aud asked if the witness had ever had the
paper in his possession.
Mr.. Wilson objected meanwhile the wit.
ness closely examined the papcr).
Mr.. Mcrrick expressed his intention of
showing that these two drafts for 81, $50 cach
and - 500 in money, had been placed upon
Brady's desk, while he was acting as second
assistant postmaster general, by the contractor
on this ronte for n corrupt purpose. He pro-
posed to show that another bill for $500, from
Daniel Murphy, of st. Louis, payable to
Murphys order, had been sent TO Brady for a
similar corrupt purpose.
They expected to show that they had di-
rect relation to the expedition and putting on
service on certain routes.
lie argued that it was competent matter for
either direct or cross-eXaminatiOn. The gov
ernment expected TO show to the jury corrupt
motives on Bradys part, said Mr.. Merrick, aud
he cited authorities to show that 1t was proper
to investigate these motives. Hero was a
same exercise of duties, the same manipula-
tions in the indictment. Here was proof of
the corrupt motives Of this man; could it not
be justly inferred that he had done the same
with regard to the routes set out in the in-
dictment?
The court inquired if Mr.. Merrick believed
that it made no difference if the conspiracy
was charged in relation to certain designated
routes.
The gentleman promptly replied that it
made no difference. They would show that
gutter at the bidding, and for the pay, of
other men in reference to other routes, and
that, too, at the same time the operations
charged in the indictment were progressing.
They wanted to have it out his own mouth,
SO that they might rebut him. The witnesses
were here prepared for the purpose.
| The court again interrupted and asked If
| Mr. Mcrrick held that il the facts were proved
as proposed, that he could oblige the defend
ant to criininate himself.
Mr.. Merrick contended that he could, and
read further from the authorities in support
of his proposition. Having voluntarily gone
on the stand, the defendant must run the
risk of eliminating himself; and the reason
was plain. The law did not contemplate a
farce when such witness was allowed to
| testify. If they showed that in and about
the same time the witness was stepped in
villainy, was it not competent evidence?
During the delivery of Mr.. Mcrrick's ar
gument which occupied about half an hour,
and was characterized by its bitterness and
scathing comments upon Brady, the latter
sat with unmoved composure in the witness
box looking him calmly in the face.
Without hearing argument On the part OF
the defense, the court adjourned until Mon
| day next.