National Republican., 1883-03-08

VI Nlt iNNOAhs
Mr.. Carpenter Out of the record, but not out Of
the press.
Mr.. 1ngorsoll called the attention of the
court to what Rcrdel had said about the
stubs of checks marked "mail.'
There were four of them, he had said; one
of them to Smith, one to Jones, one to James
Il. Belford, and one to anybody else, il did
not matter whom. Now if one of them was
marked "Thomas j. Brady" il would be n
material point.
Rerdcll had said that he saw this check
that was equally material.
If Rcrdcl had sworn that he heard con-
vCrsatiOn between Dorsey and Brady, at
which Mr. Bcford was present, would they
not be allowed to show that Bcllord was not
prcsCnt-that the story was false?
He had said that Bedford got the check. If
they could show that that was false, would it
not tend to prove that his statements about
the other checks were false. 1t was certainly
material. lie wanted to show that no such
check had been received by Bclford, and that
Rcrdcl had sworn falsely when he had said IT,.
There was another view of this matter In
the present state of the public any witness,
however low, could touch and smirch and
stain the reputation Of any man, no matter
how high he stood, no matter If he was tho
greatest figure in the land.
Would the court allow this witness the same
privilege to tell the truth rs had been allowed
the other witness to tell u falsehood? 1t
was upon the same questionable checks.
If Rcrdell had touched the reputation of Mr.
Belford. was it possible that he would shrink
from touching the reputation of the men on
trial?
That was for the jury, it was true, but the
court should remember that it grew out of the
same transaction
Mr.. Mcrriclt denied the pertincncc of the
offered evidence, and challenged the defense
to produce the paper
Mr.. Carpenter. paper that never existed
Mr.. Merrick. But the books existed Why do
you not bring in the books?
lie warned them that if they tried to dis
prove Rerdell's statement he would rebut
their proof.
McssrS Carpenter and Davidge. Do il, do it,.
Mr.. McrriCK appealed to the court to stop
the inquiry, otherwise they would have to
90 into an inhnitudc of side issues.
They had better let the matter rest, he
added in threatening tone.
The court said that notice had been served
upon the defense to produce the stub books.
They had refused, which they had perfect
right to do and the government was com
PEELED to make out their case by secondary
evidence. They were not obliged to do it if
the book did not exist and ii they had repre-
seitcd that to the court.
But now the court had u right to assume
that the evidence did exist, and was in the
hands of the defense If they wanted to con-
tradict Rerdell il must be in some essential
matter; in the opinion of the court what he
had said in regard to Mr.. Bcltord had no re-
lation TO any of the defendants. 1t did not
necessarily cast an imputation upon Mr. Bel
ford's character. Because the stub showed that
the check had been drawn to the order of Bel
ford it did not show a relation to any matter
charged in this indictment.
Mr.. Davidge. But il was charged to email"
The court replied that it might have been
drawn to the order of Bclfoid or bearer and
somebody else might have drawn the money.
Belford might never have seen the check. 1t
was very common thing. They could not
contradict the evidence of the witness with
out producing the book. The objection was
therefore sustained.
Mr.. lngersoll then asked the witness if he
had ever received any property for the use of
his influence at the Postoilicc department to
secure an increase of service upon these
routes. As n basis for his question he re-
fcrcd to Rerdell's statement in relation to
the entry Of $4,000 in Belford's name. lie
said the prosecution ought not to deprive Mr..
Beliord of the opportunity to deny this state
ment. He cOulds not have imagined that
Rcrdell would refer TO James b. Belford any
more than to the chief justice. He thought
he had n right to ask these questions to show
that the witness had acted in good faith in
seeking the extension of mail service
Mr. Davidge also thought that the witness
should have an opportunity to vindicatc him.
self.
Tho court said that the witness could dc
that by making an affidavit before II justice
of the peace. As to Mr.. Wilson's point, that
Brady was not responsible for DOrsey's failure
TO produce books, the court had some time ago
decided that the defendants were joint and
not separate defendants, and that the action
of one was the action of all after the aCcumu.
latiOn of evidence of u conspiracy had justified
the court in submitting it to jury. Rer.
dcll's statements could not be cOntradicted 10y
secondary evidence when the court knew
that the defense had the primary evidence
| The evidence showed that they used fictitious
names to conceal fraudulent entries, and the
fact that Belford's full name had been used
was an argument to show that no fraud eX
listed in that connection.
Mr.. Carpenter. But is was charged tC
mail"
| The court replied that the entry might have
been made in connection with some of thu
/ legitimate mail business At any rate the
court would not allow the proposed inquiry
/ Mr.. Dayidgc inquired if the letter before re
ferred to was now in court.
! Mr.. Bliss. Yes.
| Mr.. Davdgc (imperatively) Get It.
Mr.. Bliss (morkingly). "GGt 1t" yourself
| Mr.. lugersol 0nugning). Let us have peace.
| The court. Mr.. Davidgc, this truce of God shoulC
not be broken. Laughter.
Mr.. Ingcrsoll, continuing, put number o
! questions to the witness intended to SHOW
the good faith in which the representation
! had been made to the department but thu
court uniformly refused to allow them, sayinl
| that it would presume legally and from thu
facts that there was no imputation agains
/ Belford.
! The witness said that everything u MAJ
could state to get service he had stated no
only to Brady, but to other officers of the de
partment.
/ A recess was then taken.
After the recess the subject of the missing
/ letter again came up.
/ Mr. BcllOrd insisted that the lcttcr or
copy be put in evidence. lie did not inten,
! to be suppressed, They We're going to eXamin
him about il and he wanted to read it.
Tho prosecution were unable to find tn
original letter, and n copy was introduced in
stead, which the witness was permitted t
read. 1t was n letter petitiouing for increas
of one of the Colorado routes, signed by tn
chief fjustice of the stated and many prOmincn
| state officials. The CrOss-cNaminatiOn wa
confined to question concerning the hand
writing of "a letter that the witness said ha
been written by his clerk, Delavan w. Gee
but had been signed by himself.
Mr.. Bellord was then directed to stand aside
lie appeared TO be somewhat agitatcd, tool
| mn his hat, walked over to the COunSel's tabl
and turning to the court said, with muc
feeling, "NOur honor wish to ask the in
dugcnce Of the court and the courtesy of th
bar TO make personal statement in regard 4
a charge affecting my honor"
Mr.. MerriGk was Immediately on his fee