Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-03-15


VIM. II. Turner to the stand. He is the
only defendant who was acquitted as 1e-
suit of the first trial. He said he entered
the postofice department as first class
clerk in Julys1865. He was subsequently
route bureau agent, assigned in 1877, to
the Pacific states division. He had nothing
to do with the preparation of advertise
ment of No. AT.
Wilson asked if the witness ever had
conference with any of the defendants
relative to that advertisement, but the
court ruled out the question on an objec-
ton by the prosecution.
He knew that Miner and
Reerdel in the spring of 1873. He had
known Vale for ten years. Never had
special intimate acquaintance with Ste
phen Dorsey. Speaking of the degree of
intimacy existing between defendants, the
witness said that after the division of
routes in 1879, Reerdel and Vale would
meet IN the department without speaking.
Reerdel had nothing to do with Miners
routes after that date, and Miner had no
control over the routes managed by Reer-
del.
A paper connected with Rawlings White
river route was presented to witness.
He said an alteration, an
erasure of "eighty hours'' and
the insertion of ''forty- five hours" had been
made by himself to save trouble in max
ing up new routes. The petitions were
never altered while in the department.
Wilson inquired of the witness if he had
ever received money, mining stocks or
other consideration from any of the de-
PENDANTS to influence his action in connec-
ton with the routes.
The prosecution objected because wit
ness was not now party to the indict
ment.
Wilson referred to the evidence concern
ing Samuel Jones.
The court asked how Jones' had been
connected with the witness.
Ingersoll called attention to the testi-
mony of Reerdel and MacVeagh, wherein
they said ''Sam1 Jones" was an alias for
Turner.
Merrick said the question was no more
pertinent than the evidence of Bilford on
similar points. If witness was allowed to
touch upon the subject the government
would feel called upon to rebut his testi-
mony.
Davidge said he proposed 10 prove by
witness that Reerdel had undoubtedly
lied.
The court did not see how the offer would
fulfil the proposition. If Reerdel had said
he saw money paid, the evidence offered
might be used to contradict him.
Witness appealed to the court to allow
him to answer the question, but Judge
! Wylie bade him be silent until the ques-
tion had been passed upon.
! Ingersoll, in explanation of the offer,
asserted the pencil memorandum was not
genuine, but was in whole or part made by
Reerdel. 1t was part of the defense 10
show that Brady as ''Smith" never received
/ a cent, and that Turner as ''Jones" never
received cent. Suppose it should turn
out that not solitary cent had been paid
to Brady or to Turner, he thought it would
establish the fact that the pencil
memorandum was not genuine, if that
meaning put upon it was absolute
perjury, it would establish the fact that
Reerdell had maliciously and falsely put a
wrong meaning in the entries. The, ques
ton was whether he did not write the
memorandum himself for the purpose OF
purchasing his own liberty from the gov
ernment. The defense wanted to go far
ther and prove by others whom Reerdel
said had received money, that it was false.
Bliss characterized the offer as a side
ISSUE not calculated to show whether Reer.
del told the truth.
The court reviewed MacVeagh's testi-
mony upon the point in question. 1t had
been given against Reerdel then defen
dent. Would the evidence of witness that
he received no money, prove the falsity o1
MacVeagh's testimony.
Ingersoll said it would prove the falsitJ
of Reerders statement, but the court die
not concede this. 1t would not prove thai
Reerdel had carried out Dorsey's direc
tions in making the entries. True, the wit
ness might have never received cent, yet
Dorsey might have directed Reerdel tC
make the entry. If witness statements
we're true then Dorsey might have had an
other object.
Wilson said the prosecution had offered
evidence to show improper use of money
by Dorsey and it was but fair that they
should have an opportunity to disperse it
The defense should not be com
PEELED to meet the whole cas-
at once. They should be allowed to dis
prove one point after another. Where
Jonn II. Mitchell had been charged
with receiving money, they could shov
it was untrue. Where Turner stood
charged, he might disprove it, and so on
one step at time.
Ingerson inquired if the court would
allow Dorsey to swear that he never mad,
that memorandum and never paid money
to Turner.
The court answered, Certainly
! Ingersoll said of course he coult
strengthen Dorsey with some privat
account books.
The Court maan stub books.
! Ingersoll-They had nothing to do Will
the $500 entry against Jones. When
/ comes to that 1 will prove there were n
8 such stub books, and, if allowed, vii
r prove no check ever existed such as
described by Reerdel.
The court said it could not admit sec
ondary evidence upon the pledge to sho,
hereafter that there was no primary evi
> dence.
Ingersoll inquired how they could pre-
. ceed otherwise when the books did not e1
ist.
|, The Court-That had never regularl
n been shown.
Y Ingersoll expressed his abiding conf