Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-04-03
FROM WASHINGTON.
rae STAR ROUTE.
More ross.Examlnation - Differences
and Decisions.

Dorsey took the stand. Merrick referred
to Bnone's testimony. where he says that
Dosey in,tE uct-d him 10 destroy numb,r Of
bids. While the witness did not r-collect
giving such directions. he said that a number
of the bids had been held lack for lick Of
necessary certified checks. Merrick demand
ed return to his request for the production
of the letter press copy books. The opinion
was expressed bv the court that def N lsnt
could not be compelled tn proiuce evidence
against himself, from which Bliss dis-ents d.
The court repl.ed that when j. fendant took
the stand. uf course he would be Regarded
any other witness, and might be cr0s>-ex-
amined to the same extent. The examina
tiUn was resumed.
The witness had had the letter books ex-
amined. Had not found any letter to john
Dorsey under the date of December .. but
the book was mutilated al that Il ice and also
in other places. Some Questions were put
in regard to the Boiler litter of Nay l3,
1879. Objection was made by Ing.rsoll,
who avsiled himself of the opportunity to
explain his theory. that Rerdell ha gone
through the copy books. taken from them
every letter that could be of any p.ssiole use
TO The defendants. and given the m 10 the gov
ernment in part consideration at its protec-
tion. The witness stated that the examiua-
tiDn OI tue DOCKS feNeaieu Tue TACT tfldl SIX
hundred pages had been torn out.
B. W. K-yser. receiver of the German
American National Bank, brought into court
books OF tn. concern TO prove tina, check had
been drawn by the witness, in favor of T. G.
Reynolds. Dorsey said he paid Moore $3.50
upon Miners order. Miner Was then in
Denver. Hal not directed nor advised Miner
to employ Moore, nor did the witness know
Moore before his employment in 1873.
II the witness had made any contract with
Moore, he would certainly have remembered
it. All the conversations described by Moore
were generally denied BY the witness.
Rerdells letters of introduction to Gov.
Routh and Capt Paddock of Colorado VT re
read by Merrick. Ingersoll wished to give
his Judgment upon The handwriting. assert
ing that NJ. {. Rerdeil had been written in a
d fferent hand. The l,tters represent Rer-
dell as a man of irreprJachable character
Mrrrick asked if these statements were true.
''ln the light OF present events" queried
the witness.
''In the light of the events of April, ls79,"
returned Merrck.
Oh | suppose SO, answered the witness.
Merrick referred to the statements in one
of the letters to the effect that R>rI Ii and
Peck were interested in the Colorado Routes.
The court did not believe that II person
should be held to a strict accountability for
statements in letter Of Introduction
Merrick believed the letters should be
taken into account when connected with
other evidence.
The witness said he employed Rerdel to
look after his routes. After that the witness
did everything he could lawfully and proper
~ do to have such service increased rs ii
deserved, and ii he had neglected anything
to that end he did not know it. Up to June
-, 1879, the witness had very lutte to do
with the business. The whole thing was in
Rerdeli's lands.
'At that time" said the witness earnestly,
II had no more to do with it than you hal,
Mr.. Merrlck, nor did care three straws tor
them" The contractors.
Another affidavit was shown the witness !;
he did not know whether or not he filled it
up. There is anoth,r party who writes a
hand like mine,' said he.
Orders for the increase and expedition of
the witness routes were then taken up. In
the maj sjority of cases he reeollected the or
ders, but declared that he had never drawn a
cent from the government on account of
these routes; during two quarters had dis
counted drafts through the banks which Sc
cured the money.
Merrick inquired if the witness did not re-
collect that within a few months of his as
-uming charge Of the business, the receipts
from routes had been increased by SlOl,-
246.35 per annum.
The counsel objected to the question. The
court said the fact could neither be proved
nor di>proved by the witness reco lection.
M.rrick thought that it was hardly probable
that man could have no recollection OF such
large increase in his income. The itness
h., hi tI,o SOD
generally, but not specific sums 1t was a
mistake to suppose that the profits were
| large.
While upon the subject of the route from
Toquorville to Adairville. the witness said
that Rerdell had an interest in it and was
paid $1,000 per annum.
Q Iestion-TO attend to your business!
Answer-He ought TO have done SO.
Odd he not?
A-No, sir. lie stole nearly $4,000 be.
lieve on that-route.
Q-When?
A-About year and half ago.
Q-Who from?
A.--Bosler and myself.
Q-EIow?
A-There were sub-contracts given him
for his entire pay. Bosler held draft for
| the entire pay, and was to pay sub-contract-
ors. Rerdell went to Bosler.
The prosecution objected to the recital of
facts not within the witness personal knowl.
| edge. The court said the matter was neither
pertinent or collateral, although called up by
the prosecution.
Bliss undertook to say the statement was
untrue.
Ingersoll offered to prove it was true.
The witness said he ought to know some
thing about it when he had paid the money
hin.self; but the court refused to permit fur
ther answer.
The witness said that Bosler first went
into business to advance money. Had set
tied with Bosler just before the beginning of
this trial. and the account book had been
given to the witness. Could not saw when
it was given. Merrick pushed the inquiry
into this subject, but the witness had no re-
collection except that it had been received
more than a week ago. He volunteered to
look it up. Merrick said he was satisfied
with his statements upon the subject.
Adjourned.