The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1883-03-08
Washington News Notes.
THE sTAR-noUTE TRIAL.

WASHINGTON, March G.-The witness
to-day, and the Jones entries, which ReeI-
dell swore had been made by Dorsey, we're
submitted TO witness. He hesitated, looked
carefully at the papers, and finally said; II
would not like to say positively who wftte
that; my best judgment is that it was
written by S. w. Dorsey, or Reerdell;
would not like to say which one" The
Chico Springs letter from Dorsey to Reer-
dell, dated April IS, was next shown
the witness. He declared positively he
thought Dorsey did not write that letter
thought Dorsey was at Washington at that
| time, for he was in communication with
him that day. The court interposed and
asked if witness knew who wrote the letter.
He answered, Il would not like to say"
Witness was then turned over to the
defense for cross examination. Ingersoll
offered to prove it was in the usual course of
business for defendants to sign the names
OF each other. The court refused the offer,
saying il would be proper when the defense
was DONE Taking up the "Smith" and
Jones memorandum, lngersoll called the
witness attention TO the entry, IN. Q. r."
and asked his opinion. Witness asked il
he might be allowed TO consider other cir
cumstances in making his answer. The
court responded in the negative. Witness
thought the limitation was unfair, but
finally said the memorandum down 10
profits and loss" favored Dorsey's hand
writing; the remainder, which included
"Smith" and Jones' entries favored the
handwriting of Reerdell; witness again
reverted to the circumstances that sur
roundedshe signature OF the papers. The
court abruptly had him to drop the cir
| ,1n,. Nlaft, v,1ntn hi
filling in and interllning was done the
parties purposely disguised their hand
writing so that speaking from the writing
alone, 1t would, in many cases, be impossl-
BILE to say who did the writing. While await
| ing witnesses from the postofiice department
to show the revenue. of the routes, some
| argument took place on the ACCESSIBILITY of
the evidence to show the practice OF Brady's
successors in regard to expeditions. BLISS
said he who had preceded Brady made but
dozen such orders for uncomfortable
amounts, while Brady, beginning with
twenty orders for large amounts in his nrst
year. ran the number up TO seventy or
therefore thought it proper to intro
duce evidence in proof OF the charge
of improper expedition. lngersoll argued
that during Routes term the country was
suffering from panic, and that the gov
ernment had been compelled to retrench
equally with individuals. The court said
the matter had been disposed of during
! the first trial. 1t was too large and vague
an inquiry to 60 into at this stage OF the
proceedings. After recess Kerr proceeded
| TO examine several post-ofice
| and auditors clerks to prove revenues and
productiyeness of the different routes. In
| answer to an objection OF Wilson, the court
| said it did not understand the evidence was
presented to show tnat Brady knew how
| oil la a
the law required that expedition
be made with due regard to productiyeness,
and if an officer made expedition with such
regard, then it was proper matter OF in
quiry. The court refused to allow Wilson
| to ask one of the clerks If he knew how
many star.routes paid expenses, holding
that it was not subject to touch in cross
examination.
The defense having objected that evidence
of prouuctiyeness did not come down TO 8
I rsnans. date, the court replied that if they
thought Gould show that Brady was
so far-sightcd as TO see that e11peSlied
routes would be productive within
few years, he ought to
have credit for that course.
Ingersoll declared that as q matter of fact
there was not star-route west OF the Mis-
sissppi river that was not operated at a
loss, He referred to the cary days of the
overland route, where the government
carried, at a cost OF So a letter, for which
they receive cents now. He inquired
where they drew the line. The court. held
the evidence was competent when it en-
braced O statement of revenues for two
quarters before and after expedition orders.
fhe defense could show that there
had been no offense of the
power, and that orders had been
wisely made they should not be excluded
because government had not gone that tar.
By mutual agreement counsel waived argu-
ment, and Merrick said: THAT is the gov
ernment's case, your honor" AS it wanted
only an hour of the usual hour OF adjourn
ment, upon motion of Ingersoll court adj
journed. The license are expected TO begin