The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-29

| Mr.. lngersoll, addressing the court and
counsel, said Dorsey had books extending
over twenty years concerning many people.
He did not want to bring them into court for
reasons entirely outside of this case. If the
prosecution would agree upon a man, or if
the court would appoint two men to go over
all the books they might bring into court
any account with John Dorsey, or Peck, or
| Miner, connected with the business from
| 1877 to the present time.
Mr.. Bliss replied that at the threshold they
would be met with the question, What are
Dorsey's booksF' He preferred to stand by
| the rules of law.
The court said that it could not make such
an order if the offer had been accepted.
Mr.. Ingersoll added that Dorsey had about
10000 pages of letter books-legal, political
and personal. He would make the same offer
in regard to them.
The Court to Mr.. Bliss--Do you accept?
| Mr.. Biiss-No sir.
Mr.. Merrck-If they will bring in the
book containing the entries of "William
| Smith, we will read them to the Jury.
MIR. Ingersoll-If l had the power | might
evoke from the chaos of perjury the two red
BOOKS but as l have not such power, L shall
not
The court remarked that the argument was
not in bounds.
Mr.. Ingersoll declared that he was enjoying
himself
The court replied that he had no right to
ENJOY himself at the expense of others.
Mr.. 1ngersoll produced another batch of
checks and offered them in evidence.
The court rejected the offer.
Mr.. Ingersoll excepted, although he did
not believe that they would get to a bill of
exceptions in this case.
The court, referring to Mr., Ingersols of
fer said that after all it depended entirely
| upon the credibility of the witnesses testi-
mony. He might have drawn money from
| other banks than those included in the offer
but only general statement would be ad-
| missibe.
The witness said he kept no account of
money received from the government; the
| sums were placed to his credit and would be
shown by his bank books. Never had a con-
| yersation with Rerdell about the SMITH
| and Jones' memorandum; it was not given
to him (Rerdell) but to Kellogg-that is the
| upper part
| ANOTHER OFFER.
Mr.. Ingersoll then made the same offer in
regard to stubs that had been made before
in relation to the letter books, but Mr. Mer-
rick positively refused to agree to the prop
ostion. He said the defense had been mott
| fed to produce the stubs, and did not do it;
| let them accept the consequence. The offer
| was perfect farce.
Counsel exchanged some rather sharp re-
marks, but the court cut the discussion
short characterizing it as an absolute waste
| of time.
Among the many entries in his book, said
| the witness, possibly there was an entry un-
der the head Sam Jones" but even if there
was, it was not connected in any way with
| the mail business There was no "Wm
Smith," he had that looked up When Rer-
dell came over to New York he brought only
| the route book
The Chamberlain conference with Brady
/ W r.
ing chairman of the Indiana State commit
| tee Mail matters were not mentioned.
RerdelPs statement that witness had pre-
pared tabulated statement setting out the
proportion to be allowed 1T ]. B." was alb
solutely false. He never authorized Gibbs
to make any copy of the books; did get
transcript, but if the two books had been
twice copied for him, he was just half
| dozen books out. In reference to the inter-
view with Rerdel at the AL
bemarle Hotel, New York, witness
said he had previously heard
that Rerdel was consulting with the govern
ment. Rerdell came to his room early in
| the morning. he commenced to talk about
| the Saulsburys and others, and about the allie
cations against him (Rerdell). Witness re-
assured him, telling him that he had conf
| dence in him, and rebuked him for leaving
his business in Washington. Rerdell replied
| that he had only come for information. He
went out for breakfast, but did not return,
and witness next heard from him through a
telegram from Jersey City; that was all of
| the conversation. There was no exhibition
of rage on the part of witness Witness
wrote to Rerjell at Washington, but Rer-
dell's statement of the contents of that letter
was an unqualified lie
Witness was not much on the beg The
story of the interview at the wtness's house,
when he returned, was also false in every
! paticular.
Mr. Ingersoll read Rerdell's testimony on
this point with much-affected pathos.
The witness said that no such conversation
occurred at any such time or place. If he
saw Rerdell at ALL when he returned, 1T was
n the office, land" said the witness with a
smile, "as to any conversation of that kind.
it is too absurd for me to answer"
The witness denied emphatically
having written a word of the
affidavit of June, 1881; did not
demand any balance sheets of the books
| from Rerdell on July 13, 1882, at W:llard's
Hotel; did not know that he had any such
balance sheets, nor did he give him any red
book or copies of the Wilcox correspond
ence, or books and correspondence of any
kind. He was not certain whether or not
Rerdell returned the pencil draft of the af-
fdavit made at that time. The only occa-
sion upon which the witness had ever given
Rerdell any directions regarding affidavits
connected with the routes was when Rerdell
telegraphed him, at Trinidad, COL, that the
department wanted shorter schedule on
two routes, and he wanted authority to
| change the affidavit, which authority the
witness gave.
The court, at this point adjourned.
More Indictments Promised.