The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-08
The Second Scene OF the Star.Route
Farce Opens With Congress.
man Bedford, of Colorado,
In Witness Box.
Tie Burns TO Dlsavow Any knowledge
Of That Snail" Check, and
Volunteers Some Statistics
On the Wonderful Growth Of Colorado,
Under the Influences OF Ex-
peditiOn, but Don't
Materially Assist the Defense, and
is Fined 500 for Contempt
Of Court.
Another Wheaten Wreath in the Cres.
cent City's Chaplet.
An Innocent Michigan Prisoner Is Par
doned After Serving
Twenty-Five Years for the Sins Of
Another.
Secretary Folger on the Next Call
for Bonds.
Some Other Interesting kilograms.
Washington News Notes.

Washington News Notes.
DENIAL.
WASHINGTON, March 7.-Secretary Folger
denies the published statement that he had
said it would be long while before any
more bonds were called He says he has
expressly refraincd from talking on the
subject of bonds, and has certainly not nti-
mated that no calls would be made for
some time.
THE sTAR-RoUTK TRIAL.
The star.route trial was resumed this
morning. lngersoll began the case for the
defense by calling Hon, James b. Beltord,
OF Colorado, to the witness stand. He said
he had represented his state in congress
ever since it had been admitted to the
Union; had travelled over nearly the whole
of the state, and was acquainted with
its growth and development. The witness
identified his signature to petitions on one
of the Colorado routes. lngersoll was about
to show that Belford had frequently called
at the post-oflice department ana sought to
have the mail facilities of his state increased, :,
in other words that the influence came
from Colorado, when Merrick objected, be.
shucC AhC flOROoSh NNNotiph hpBllbu w tut
whole state instead of single route. If
they went into this evidence the prosecution
would call upon Hill to prove that he
had been solicited by Beliord
to cooperate with him in securing iu-
creased mail service, and that he had de-
clined. lngersoll insisted that it was proper
to show upon what representation and in
tluence the increase had been made. The
criminal law provides that if any lawful
justification could be shown for allegeu
criminal action it must be assumed to be
the motive that led TO the action they
would show that witness called frequently
at the department and urged and de-
manded an increase OF mail facilities.
The court said 1t would allow the defense
to show that witness had used his influence
with the department, but it would not go
into any question of the general policy of
the department. The examination was
then resumed. Witness said he had called
many times, possibly hundred times, at
the post-otiice department to urge upon
the second assistant postmastergenerel a
multiplication OF mail service; from the
magnitude of his business he could not re.
member visit in connection with any par
ticular route.
The witness was anxious to state what he
.aid TO Brady relating 5O'tiir noaus Ui Soi.
orado. The prosecution objected. This was
touching on the policy of the department.
The court said it was not the policy but the
needs of the country now proposed to be
shown. Witness then said he had I'M
pressed on Brady the rapid growth and
needs of the state. He instanced the Siver-
ton route through San Juan country and
Leadvllle. In this town several years ago
he had found it impossible to walk down
the street. The mail comprised one hun
dred and twenty letters. There were 40 COO
or $4,000 people in there now. There
was Fort Collins. lie was there when six
houses comprised the town. When he was
there the other day he could hardly find
his way through the town. IL object"
said Merrick; "is that competent, your
honor? He is saying that when he told
Brady that when it only happened the
other day." The objection was sustained
bat the court decided to allow witness to
prove the growth of the country. The wit
ness went on to instance many flourishing
towns and cities in Colorado
that had sprung up within the
past four years, Merrick objected
because OF the time referred to, but the
court held 1t was proper evidence, for it
might 90 to show that Brady furesaw the
future developments OF country. Witness,
continuing, said he came here to look after
the interests of his constituents, to carry
out their requests, and if they asked him
to do the same thing again he would.
lngersoll-" Did you receive money or a
check for money from s. w. Dorsey, or any
OF the defendants in connection with mail
businessY"
Merrick--'" object"
The Court tprom ptly)-"The objection /.
lngersoll desired tob heard on the sub.
ject.
Nerrick reminded the court that the on
tire matter inadvertently referred TO by
Witness Reerdell, had been stricken ont OF
record.
Carpenter-"O of record, but not out Of
press"
Ingersoll called the attention of tho court
to what Reerdell said about tho stubbs OF
checks marked "mail." There were four Of
them. He had sent one of them "a
smith," one to Jones'" one to Jane.
Is. Beliord, and one to somebody else, IL did
not matter whom. Now, II none OF them
were marked Thomas J, Brady, it would
be material evidence. Reerdell said he saw
this check. That was equally material. Ii
Reerdeil had sworn that he had heard a
conversation between Dorseycand Brady, al
which Belford was present, would they moi
be allowed to show that Belford was moi
PRESENT. That the story was false I III
had said Beltord got a check. II they
could show that that was false, would II moi
tend to prove thN' 'S'. rpmrrl about
checks, ,wG' i"''' So wrld mpn.
rial. Nu 49, an
check os' ,nJ
that E.einvl "aI sA,ia 1" s,, wu.u n,
said it. There was another view of thi.
matter. In the present state of the public
mind, any witness, however low, could
touch and smirch and stain the rep
utation OF any man, no matter how higl
he stood-no matter If he were the greatest
figure IN the land. Would the court allow
this witness the same privilege to tell th,
truth as had been allowed other witness Il
tell a falsehoodp IL was on the same oues.
ton. checks. If Reerdell had touched
the reputation of Mr.. 5elford, was II posi-.
BILE he wonld shrink from touching tn,
reputation OF the men on trial. That wa,
tor the jury, II was true, but the cour
should remember that 1t grew out of tn,
same transaction.
Merrick denied the pertinence of th,
offered evidence and challenged the dcfens,
TO produce the paper.
Carpenter--"A paper that never existed.
Merrick--"But the books existed. VIII,
do you not hiring the books7'' He warne,
tbem that II they tried TO dispose OF Reer
dell'e statement hc would rebut their prooI
Carpenter and Davidge--"Do III do n i
' lul