Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-09

roSIcu anu u0Iu 10 Odll Dy Juugo Ouell IOr
false swearing. Bedford said: "My connec-
ton with the matter was just
this: Hoyt was held to
bail and wanted bondsman. Being a
member of congress I could not go ON the
bond of anybody. 1 knew that Hoyt
owned valuable mineral lands in the south
ern portion of my state. Had not been
a member of congress would have gone
upon his bond. Instead 1 wrote a note in
which I said I knew Hoyt and knew him to
be responsible, and that while could not
myself go on his bond 1 would have no
hesitation in indemnifying any per-
son who would become his surety.
l did for Hoyt that which l would do for
any friend. did it as an act of friend
ship for friend, whom l knew to be re-
sponsible. So far as the $4,000 check
story is concerned" continued Mr.. Bel
ford, sit is the foulest fabrication ever
concocted by confessed liar. 1 think
that the court treated me unfairly yester-
day IN not letting me disclaim the lie in
the place where it was uttered"
REERDEL's EXPLANATION OF THAT CHECK.
The Star says: Reerdel has made a
statement to the government counsel, and
also statements to the Star reporter, con-
corning the Bedford check matter, which
explains the relations of Dorsey and Reer-
del. These statements are to the follow
ing effect:
In the latter part of August or in the
beginning of September, 1879, Rserdel
was sent for by banker. He went to the
bank and there was shown a check dated,
he thinks, some day in July, 1879. The
check was for $4,000, payable to 81. B. b."
or James B. Bedford, or, rs he thinks,
Bearer" and signed by S. w. Dorsey.
The check had a number of Endorsements,
showing it had passed through some
banks. The writing and signature were so
irregular and bad that the bank
had doubt about its being genuine,
and therefore desired Reerdel to give his
opinion about it, Reerdel examined the
check and said lit had undoubtedly been
written and signed by S. w. Dorsey, but he
must have been drunk when he wrote it,"
The check was paid. S. w. Dorsey re-
turned to Washington ABOUT the first of
October, 1877. Reerdel informed him of
the doubt of the check and of what he,
Reerdel, had said to the bank people.
Dorsey's reply was, 'No, sir, 1 was not
drunk. l wrote that check in the cars on
my way to Denver, and that is why it is so
badly written A few days after these
words he gave the check book to Reerdel
to make up his mail accounts. The stub
of the $4,000 check was there marked
-. B. B. $4,000, mall" and Reerdel charg-
ed that to the mail account as directed by
Dorsey. Reerdel says the check book will
show that he is telling the truth and
there is no other way to verify the state
ment because no bank records the name
of the payee of check.
He also says that the men at the bank
must remember about it, and entries of
checks of August or September, 1879, will
show one sum of $4,000 charged to Dorsey.
The government could not offer this testi-
mony because you cannot corroborate the
witness on collateral matter, besides the
court ruled out Reerders testimony rela-
tive to Bedford. Whether the check was
given to Bedford was matter Reerdel had
no interest in. Afterwards, from
conversations between Dorsey and
others, overheard by Reerdel, he came
to understand that Dorsey, Bedford and a
crowd of friends were on the train going
West. 1t was proposed to play a game
with cards. Dorsey was one of the play
ers, and Bedford was the stake holder and
cashier for the crowd. Dorsey lost nearly
all the money ne had and in settlement
with Bedford, one of the winners, Bedford
transferred the check in settlement. Dor
sey was shrewd and charged his loss 20
mail, and thus generously permitted Bos-
Ter, Brady, Vale 81 Co., to share his loss.
The above statement of Reerdel has thrown
some light unpon the transaction, and in
terested parties are having lively time
amongst themselves.
DORSEY AS BRUIsER.
The Star says: ''To-day it leaked out
that on Tuesday morning an attack was
made by Stephen w. Dorsey on Judge
Lilly, father of ex-Deputy Auditor Lilly,
at the residence of the former. Lilly called
at Dorsey's residence, accompanied by a
friend, and they were admitted at once by
Dorsey, who invited them to his parlor
They commenced a conversation, during
which Dorsey accused Lilly of obtaining
Reerdel as a government witness. Dorsey
became excited, and dealt Lilly blow in
the face. The latter, throwing himself
back to avoid the blow, his chair was upset
and he fell to the floor, when, it is alleged,
Dorsey kicked him in the lower part of the
abdomen. Lilly is now confined to his
room by his injuries. Ex-senator Dorsey's
friends, in conversation tonight, admit the
assault on Judge Lilly, but assert it took
place under circumstances of great provo
cation, and after Mr.. Dorsey had been
grossly insulted.