The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-04-19
PRESS KILOGRAMS
A TRIAL LoNa pRAwN Oh

tOhAAO 1llO OOu1by Jul ctlltl COullCli lOOh-
ing well and in remarkably good
health. All of the defendants were
present, a Irather unusual occurrence.
VIM. a. Cook opened proceedings
with statement which he said might
affect the case under consideration.
He said that he had been informed
that notice had been served on
j. b. Price requiring his presence in
court to-day, under pain of an attach
ment. He presented the surgeons
certificate that Price was suffering
from generous affection of the eve,
and was unable to attend.
Merrick replied that Price bad
promised to attend with his friends
at the governments pleasure, but in
view of the facts as described by
Cook, an attachment would not be
asked for, unless it became absolutely
necessary in order to comply with the
forms of law.
EX-PoStmaster General James was
then called to the stand 10y the prose
cution, and requested to state whose
signature was attached to the trle-
grams shown to him by Rerdell on
the train from New York to Wash
ington in June, 1881.
IngerSoll Immediately objected, be-
cause 1t. was an attempt to prove the
contents of the telegram without
proper foundation.
Merrick argued that the offer was
a proper one, and that the foundation
had been laid.
lngerson maintained that all evil
dence of the fact that Dorsey had sent
the dispatches was purely collateral;
they had not been spoken of by Dor
sey in his direct examination, and the
only reference made to them was
made during cross-examination. 1t
was, therefore, collateral matter, and
such could not be inquired into.
Wilson elaborated this and other
points at length.
Bliss renewed the evidence relating
to this subject. He pointed to the
fact that the destruction of all tele-
grams had been shown, and said that
1T was now impossible to prove that
except by the person who sent them
Upon the question of the collateral
nature of Dorsey's evidence, Bliss
based an argument of some length,
maintaining that witness being de-
PENDANT, and therefore shielded from
a summons by the government, occu-
pied a position different from ordi-
nary, and that it was not for him
Dorsey to say that it was too late
for the prosecution to introduce proofs
of contents of the kilograms.
Ingersoll had no objection to Il
statement of contents of the telegram
by prosecution as part of their offer.
OF course the jury would pay no at
tention to it unless it was proved.
Merrick accordingly stated the con-
tents of the dispatches as follows:
The first telegram-One of them. (they
were delivered together was to this
effect: sect off the train at once and
return to New York, and | think all
is forgiven YOU" The second was:
Return at once to New York for
Gods sake. Do nothing to iniure me
and my friends. Don't persevere in
your course"
Ingersoll and Dayidge -smilinglyA
"1s that all; is that all you propose to
proVe?"
Merrick in a long argument sup
ported his effort to prove the sigma
ture of these dispatches.
the point.
The court then in rather long and
elaborate opinion ruled against the
prosecution, basing his decision upon
rules of evidence.
Examination was then resumed, but
lngersoll objected to the next ques-
ton asked and as the objection was
sustained by the court, witness was
excused. The prosecution then put
upon the stand for the purpose of
contradicting J. w. Dorsey, three
hotel clerks, who showed by hotel
registers that Rerdell was in Nebras-
ka and Colorado in April, 1879. Dor
sey had sworn he was in Washington.
Judge Julius B. Bissell, of Lead
vile, was next called and examined,
with regard to the so-called Bedford
check,
In an argument as to the ad-
Bliss said the books showed
the check was drawn to 81. B. B."
He would not say who 81. B. B." rep
resented, but would admit that he
did not now believe it meant Belford.
Witness said in June, 1879, he saw j.
w. Dorsey draw check or draft in
Leadville to the order of 81. B. b."
he did not remember it's exact
but thought it was for about
$1,000. 1t was to be divided among
four different gentlemen. Judge
Bowen afterwards Senator Bowen)
was one of the party. In
reply to Ingersol witness
said his (witness) initials were placed
on tho ohooly and nDrOax, oil
that Chas. w. Tankersly was one of
the party to collect it; did not know
on what bank the check was drawn;
it had been given to Tankersly be-
cause the latter was DorSey's attor-
ney, and the check had to be collected
out of town.
"Yes, it was draft on New York
for $780," interrupted $. w. Dorsey.
Witness had never been interested
in the mail BUSINESS, and the check
was not given him in any such con-
nection.
"Was it a business transaction ?"
inquired Merrick.
Witness smiled blandly and the
court remarked:
you cannot ask that, Mr.. Merrick."
M. G. Rerdell was recalled and con-
tradicted Jno. w. Dorsey where he
said that he (Rerdell) was in Wash
ington in April, 1879.
Bliss then said that with the ex-
ception of proof of the contents of
the Clendennin letter the prosecution
had concluded,
The court then adjourned.
THE CHARGES AGAINST ARCHITECT
4
The charges preferred by ex-Repre-
sentative Murch were made public
to-day. The papers are drawn up in
legal form and are quite volumlnous.
The charges are classed under FIVE
different heads, substantially as fol-
lows:
l. The general charge of corruption,
fraud and extravaganza against the
ring in the architects Office, composed
of Assistant Secretary French, Archi-
tect Hill, Assistant Architect Jacobs,
A. G. Thompson, VIM. ii. Powers, Il.
F. Little, Cannon Church, Jordan
Barslett, Robins Il Co., and others.
2. Charge that Hill corruptly admin
istered the patronage of his Office
against the interests of the United
States.
3. Charge that contractors known
to be guilty of fraud are especially
favored by the supervising architect,
having been largely oyerpaid by
many thousands Of dollars and other
wise corruptly benefited.
(tl-- a. IL