Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-22

bO-udJs LILO COuIb I6luS6Q 10 dQmlb
evidence the muster roll offered yesterday,
Witness said Dorsey's instructions regard
ing the filling in of blanks on paper were
specific. Merrick stated he should perhaps
recall witness to further examine him con-
corning papers not yet in his possession.
Otherwise he had concluded the examina-
ton. The cross-examination of Reerdel
was then begun by Ingersoll. Witness
denied that he had received money
or consideration of any kind for MAX
ing his affidavit. Ingersou asked
him what he intended to swear to about
the false books he prepared for the con-
gressional committee. Objection by pros
ecution. Ingersoll argued if witness was
ready to swear to falsehood then, he was
equally ready to do it row. The objection
was sustained by the court.
Witness identified paper presented him
by Ingersoll as being in his handwriting,
except the words ''and Others" He had
signed and sworn to it. Ingersoll then
read the paper. 1t was an aft
davit by Reerdel dated July 10,
1882, in which he swore that
S. W. Dorsey, J. w. BOsler and Brady had
never by verbal or written direction or in
ference committed any wrong; there was
never On improper act or suggestion by
Dorsey or Bosler; that the statement that
he (ReerdeI) had books and papers showing
that they had been engaged in a scheme to
defraud the people was false, and no such
books or papers ever existed; that the
80 hot no--ox, oTA PneIar
per cent. of their RENTED fines or any
percentage to Brady was a pure fabrica
ton, that neither Dorsey nor Bosler ever
secured increased service by corrupt
neans; in short, that all stories
told of unlawful operations on
the part of Dorsey and Bosler
were malicious fabrications gotten up for
newspaper purposes, and this statement
was made voluntarily to vindicate them.
Witness said he desired to explain the cir
cumstances under which the affidavit was
made. A few days before its date he had
notified Dorsey that he intended to go
ever to the government and make full
statement. Dorsey then called him into
Wizards hotel and threatened to prosecute
him for perjury if he did this. Dorsey also
produced two letters he, (ReerdeD had been
foolish enough to write a woman in this
city, and said he would break his family
relations if he did not make this affidavit.
Witness was very much frightened, as he
supposed these letters had been destroyed.
Yielding to these threats witness consented
to make the affidavit Dorsey wrote and
witness copied it and carried it to Dorsey
and Bosler. Witness acknowledged that
the affidavit was false in every essential
particular. The question of entries to
Smith and Sam Jones came up again, and
witness said there was another entry from
his check book of $4,000 to the credit of
Jas. B. Bedford, member of congress. This
was to be charged to mail account, and
was in the summer of 1879. This check
was drawn on Middleton q Co., bankers Of
this city.
Witness did not recollect to whose order
it was drawn.
Mr.. IngerSoll asked what was written on
the sheet.
Mr.. Merrick objected tc the question I'M
less the defense produced the book.
An argument followed at some length.
The court said he ought to assume that
the defense possessed the books. It was
claimed they contained proofs of the guilt
of defendants, and had been kept by Dor
sey's direction, SO that they could not be
furnished in evidence. Of course there
could be no claim upon him for their pro-
duction, but when the defense cross exam
ined witnesses upon the contents of that
stub book, with the object of testing his
memory, they were bound by his answers
and could not use both to contradict him.
The book was forever out of the case.
Mr.. Ingersoll asked to know the extent
to which he has been affected by the an
swers already given. He had never known
of that Bedford check, and did not know
what the check had been given for.
The court said the answer should be
eliminated from the record. 1t was not
responsive to the question.
Mr.. Merrick was perfectly willing, but
maintained that the answer was responsive.
Mr.. Ingersoll gave notice that he wished
to go into the subject. Later on he in
tended to relieve Bedford from any injuri-
Gus inference which had been drawn. The
court regarded!this as entirely outside the
case, and directed all reference to it strick-
en- out.
Mr.. Ingersoll, then resumed the cross
examination. He read from the affidavit,
sthe statement that s. W. Dorsey and J.
W. Bosler paid Brady $500, or any other
per cent. was pure fabrication"
Witness said it was not pure fabrica-
ton, for he inferred such was the case.
Mr.. Ingersoll-Then the statement that
it was pure fabrication is falsehood.
eyes. That affidavit generally was
Mr.. Ingersoll continued to read passages
from the affidavit, witness steadfastly
denying their truthfulness. He said he
never saw any money paid to Brady. We
only had Dorsey's statement
upon that point and the charges
against him on the books. He did not de-
mand those letters from Dorsey when he
made the affidavit. Eight or nine months
before that occasion Dorsey told him he
had destroyed the letters, consequently ne
was astonished and overwhelmed when they
were produced by Ingersoll.
Q.-''You say that was on July II last?"
Ayes, sir"
Q-"Did you tell Charles Thompson on
the second day you lay in Jail, after the
verdict, that Dorsey had shown you letters
the year before, and you were perfectly as
tonished; that you thought they had been
A.-No, sir; told him Dorsey came to
the Jail and threatened me with those let
ters."
Adjourned until Friday.
pEIFoRD DENIES INGERsoLL'S CHARGES