The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-04-12
Star Route Trial

WASHINGTON, April Ill Press Miners
cross-examination was resumed this morn
ing but his memory was no better than
yesterday, and he failed utterly to remem
Der matter which Merrick brought to his
attention. In answer to an inquiry
as to why he had written
TO q sub-contractor that increased speed
would involve considerable expense here
(Washington) witness said he meant his own
living expenses, and the subcontractor
wanted all of the allowance for expedition,
he wished TO impress him with the difficulty
Of getting expedition. SO as to make good
bargain witness was not under oath when
he wrote that letter. MerricK asked il he
was in the habit of lying when not under
oath. In answer, witness said he was max
ing trade and did as other men would
have done. The court remarked THAT
is Law Of trade"
Merrick asked II witness had not told
Captain Jackson Reerdoll's fa,her-n-lawJ
afler Reerdell had finished his testimony,
that 1t was correct as far as witness was
concerned. Witness replied in the mega
tive he had had conversation with Jack.
son, In which the latter had besought him
to plead guilty, and witness told him he
WOuiu set MN III lOpuet llTSl.
M.rrick asked II he had made that state
ment TO anyone connected with the gov
eminent.
Witness sneerlngly replied that assistant
counsel had approached him and cndeay-
ored to get information.
Immediately lively breeze prevailed.
Mcrrick-"Who do you mean by assist
ant COUNSEL"
Answer-"Reerdell.n
Merrick liercely)-"He is not assistant
counsel. He is one Of your fellow conspir-
ators and will be so treated"
The court cautioned witness not to make
the expression. II was piece of imperti.
nence. Reerdcll had q right to be present.
Witness apologi2ed to court. After fur.
Their unimportant testimony the cro.s.ex.
animation was concluded and Contract
Clerk Elliot was next called to answer the
subpoena for certain oAicial papers.
lngersoll asked permission TO show that
this reform administration had not cut oil
service upon routes said TO he worthless.
The court said the Jcwelian pol
10y had been spoken of by Brady.
JeWeil had been an enconomicsl
business man in small state, and beliey.
ing that his business should pay expenses
carried that idea into his administration
The court did know how Secretary Teller
managed the interior department, but sc
far as the post-oillce department was con
cerned, assuredly he was not in favor of III,
Jewellian policy, or any policy that die
not treat the service with liberality. OtheI
men OF distinction held the same views
and 1t was not surprising they should be
lievc that oil the western country required
all the money the government could spare
and that 1t would be well invested
but this was question o
intention. An error of policy was not n,
error OF crime, and this court had no pow
TO determine questions OF policy. Ii wa.
here to try crime. The jury was here to tr,
crime, and crime consisted of intention. |
these orders had not been made In confor
nifty with Just and liberal policy OF thu
government, but made in pursuance of
conspiracy to obtain money by mean
OF false papers, nilidaSts and fraud
then II was q crime, no matter how iustilia
BILE as an ACT Of policy. SO then an offer /
show tho same policy governed other nd
illustrations would not advance the case
step,
| kdiourncl