The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-03-17

ue the old service.
Some discussion took place in relation to
this point, Mr.. Bliss contending that the
contractor could be forced to carry the mail
upon the basis of the actual number of men
and animals used, regardless of the con-
tractors affidavit. The witness presumed
the congressional investigation of 1880 had
been brought on by his request for a defci-
ency appropriation OF So, 900, 900. He was
asked if he did not say he had spent 50, 800. 900
Oh a total appropriation of S., $780, 900 for 1879,
before the LIST of January, 1879. His answer
was, that he did not remember; of course,
the official papers would show. He did not
know how many orders for expedition
he made while second assistant; there
were a number of them, over
a hundred, but the Postmaster-general
made some; the witness made more orders,
but the acknowledgement made orders for
larger amounts.
Mr.. Bliss-Don't you know you made ten
times the number of orders made by your
predecessors, Routt and Tyner?
Answer-Oh, 1 presume 1 did; 1 thought
myself ten times better an Assistant Post
master-general than they were together.
[Laughter.] Tyner and Jewell did little in
expedition; it was not part of the Jewell
policy to increase the star routes or steam
boat service.
HOW CONGRESS APPROVED HIS ACTION.
Question-You spoke of Congress approx
ing your acts; where do you find that2
Answer-I regard the granting the de-
lciency appropriation as approval.
Question-Was that the only basis?
Answer (sharply)-That was enough.
Questionable they give you all that you
asked?
Answer-No; but they gave me enough.
Q~uestion-Then you asked for more than
you needed?
A~nswer-Yes, for more than enough to
make up the deficiency,
The witness did not take any official no.
tice of sub contractors as a rule.
Questionable you not say to Vim. Lilley,
in August, 1880, that if the sub-contract on
the Mineral Park route was given to certain
persons named, you would cut the service
down to one trip a week?
Mr.. Ingersoll-I object; name the person.
The Court-Yes, that must be done.
Mr.. Bliss-One Jenkins.
Mr.. Ingersoll-I object again.
Mr.. Merrick argued that a witness must
answerany and every question, and cited a
Massachusetts, case as authority.
The court said that when the defendant
went upon the stand he was protected in the
same degree as other witnesses, and the same
thing was true of the croSS-examination; but
the question might be asked. 1t depended
altogether upon the nature of the answer
whether or not it could be rebutted.
The question was again put, and the wit
ness answered that he did not remember
having any such conversation. He had felt
like saying some things about Jenkins, be-
cause he rendered such miserable service.
He remembered the San An~topio-Corpus
Christi route, and Contractor Jas. P. Rice.
Mr.. Bliss produced one of Prices drafts,
and asked if the witness ever had the paper
in his possession.
Mr., Wilson objected. Meanwhile the wit
ness closely examined the paper.
Mr.. Merrick expressed his intention of
showing that these two drafts for 81, $50 each,
and 50, 800 in money, had been placed upon
Brady's desk while he was acting as Second
Assistant Postmaster-general, by the con-
tractor on this route, for a corrupt purpose.
He proposed to show that another bill for
$500, from Daniel Murphy, of st. Louis, pay
able to M%urphy's order, had been sent TO
Brady for similar corrupt purposes. They
expected to show that these had direct rela-
ton to expedition and putting on service on
certain routes. He argued that it was
competent matter for either direct or
cToss-examination. The government ex-
pected to show to the jury corrupt motives
on Brady's part, and Mr.. Merrick cited au-
thorities to show it was proper to investi-
gate these motives. Here was a similar
transaction-the same corruption, the same
exercise of duties, the same manipulationsin
the indictment-here was proof of the cor
rupt motives of this man; could it not be
justly inferred that he had done the same
with regard to the routes set out in the in
dictment?
The court inquired if Mr.. Merrick believed
it made no difference if conspiracy was
charged in relation to certain designated
it made no difference; they would
show that he dragged his white
robes of office in tine gutter at
the bidding and for the pay of other men in
reference to other routes, and that, too, at
the same time the operations charged in the
indictment were progressing: They wanted
to have it out of his mouth, so that they
might rebut him The witnesses were pre-
pared for the purpose.
The Court again interrupted, and asked
if Mr.. Merrick held that if the facts were
proved as proposed, could he oblige the
defendant to criminate himself?
Mr.. Merrick commended he could, and read
further from authorities in support of his
proposition. Having voluntarily gone on
the stand, the defendant must run the risk OF
eliminating himself, and it was plain that the
law did not contemplate a farce when such
witnesses were allowed to testify. If they
showed that or and about the same time the
witness was stepped IN ~villainy, was it not
competent evidence.
During the delivery of Mr.. Merrick's argu-
ment, which occupied about half an hour,
and was characterized by it's bitterness and
scathing comments Upon Brady, the latter
sat with the greatest composure in the wit
ness poA, looking MN calmly IN the race.
Without hearing argument on the part of
the defense, the court adjourned until Mon
day.
General Brady as a Witness.
Special to Chicago Times.
Brady is perfectly cool and deliberate in
his replies, and there is frequently that same
saucy impudence of manner that fretted
Hawley, of Connecticut, and Blackburn, of
Kentucky, when they tried, as members of
an investigating committee, to get at the
hnftnp, of thu ctar- ~ t1f,,- d.