The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-27

Ingersoll with extreme bitterness "a man
who beats his wife could go upon the stand
and testify" He did not believe His Honor
would allow such a procedure. The last
time he had seen it tried was before Judge
Drummond at Chicago, and the Judge said
the examination concerned matters of this
world. The witness was to testify about
what he knew here. Mr.. Merrick replied
that the religion of nineteen centuries needed
no defense from him. He was acting
to Mr.. IngersolPs charge that the govern
ment did not wish Dorsey to testify, and de-
clared it untrue. What he did desire was
that the court and jury might know what
weight to attach TO his testimony when he
invoked the Supreme Being Witnesses
were thus under obligations of personal
honor and integrity, but in addition they
had the obligation that they had invoked the
justice of heaven and the wrath of men if
they falsifed, and the court and jury should
have the witness's opinion of the weight of
that obligation. He wanted to know if in
involved, and that there was an obligation to
tell the truth. He read from Greenleaf in
support of his position.
Mr. Ingersoll said if there was another
world, and he had acted badly in this, he
would expect to fare badly there, and so he
would expect to fare we'll i'll acted well here
He regarded truth as the most sacred ofall
obligations. If he was on the stand and all
he held most dear was at stake. still would
he be compelled to express his belief, and
say he did not believe in a personal Deity,
| and there were many excellent, generous
people of that belief. In the dark ages,
people were so given to lying that nobody
was expected to tell the truth unless they
were scared. The gentleman (Mr. Merrick)
had quoted law; now laws were not always
right. Many people believed many laws to
be wrong, as there are many laws that are
not right They had such laws under the
old Inquisition, with its thumbscrews and
racks, and fires, and other hideous monstrosi-
ties; they had laws against witches and
wizards in the days when they dug up
babies corpses and made ointment out of
them, and in some States there were still
laws that barred a man from telling the
truth because he did not believe as some 9th
er man or in some holy book, and this, too,
after Darwin had lived and died There used
to be law to make a man catch poor ne
gro woman, with her child in her arms, and
give her back to the bloodhounds and the
lash. He hoped the court would not enter
tain the proposition.
VIEWS OF THE COURT.
The court said that with men not in official
positions it was private matter as to what
they thought of the law; if they undertook
to violate it, they were responsible. But
judge was not at liberty to say. that he liked
this law and disliked that, or that he would
administer this one and ignore that. The
laws were. not made by the court, and it
could only apply them. As to the theo-
logical question discussed at such
length, the court would not go into
that; it was unnecessary. The act of March
16, 1878, made a defendant witness and that
settled that point. So then the only ques-
r.
defendant. When new law. without
limitation, said 1.-The defendant shall be a
witness" no other competency was required
The other view the court would not pass
upon. 1t would not go into a theological
view, nor beyond the law of 1873.
Mr.. Merrck inquired the necessity for
swearing witness under this view.
The court replied: $50 that he may be
punished for perjury if he does not tell the
truth"
Mr.. Merrick acknowledged the answer was
sufficient. He went on to disavow any in
tention OF preventing the witness from tes-
tfylng; the. government was desirous he
should testify.
The Court-Administer the oath.
Mr.. Ingersoll-He may swear or affirm.
The wltness-Oh, had just as soon swear.
The oath was then administered and Mr..
Ingersoll began the examination.
The witness was visibly agitated, and in
some instances scarcely waited for the con-
clusion of question before answering. He
testified as follows; Became acquainted
with Miner in 1866 or 1867 in Sandusky, O.;
had known Peck for fifteen years at the time
of his death. It'was business relation at
first, Peek being secretary and witness treas
urer of a railroad company. Peck subse-
nI1 p6 n Of flnaE
and died in August, 1881. The witness first
saw Vaile in the spring of 1873, but did not
make his acquaintance at that time. John
w. Dorsey was his brother. Knew Boone
in 1874 while he was postofice clerk. First
met Brady at the Cincinnati convention in
1876, and John H. Watts in New Mexico in
1876 or 1877.
Question-Did you ever enter into an
agreement with Brady John Dorsey Vale,
Miner or any other of them to defraud the
government by bidding for mail contracts?
The witness (passionately)-I never entered
into any such agreement with anybody at
any place, or at any time.
Questionable you ever conspire with them
to defraud the government?
Answer never entered into conspiracy
with them of any kind.
Question-Did you ever pay money to
General Brady to influence his official actions?
The witness (excitedly)-I never had
transaction with General Brady to the extent
of one cent in my life 1 never paid him a
cent or promised to pay him a cent for any
possible purpose
Question-Did you ever pay Mr. Tyner
money or stock to influence his official ac-
tions while he was First Assistant Postmas-
ter-generalP
Answer-No
Objection was made, and the question and
answer were struck out.
The witness made the same answer in re-
gard to Turner, which was also stricken out.
Mr.. 1ngersoll cautioned thejwItness not to
answer before the other side had an oppor-
tunity to object.
Questions touching payment of money or
stock to McGrew and Lilley were excluded.
Questionable you ever giveany directions
to Rerdell. either verbally or in writ tino to