{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-10:second-star-route-trial-closing",
  "slug": "second-star-route-trial-closing",
  "title": "Closing Address — Second Star Route Trial",
  "subtitle": "Washington, D.C., 1883.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's closing jury argument in the second Star Route trial — review of the testimony of Walsh, Rerdell, Vaile, Miner, Peck, and the Dorseys.",
  "year": 1883,
  "volume": 10,
  "category": "Legal",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/second-star-route-trial-closing/",
  "wordCount": 113524,
  "body": "MAY it please the Court and gentlemen of the jury: Perhaps some of you,\nmay be all of you, will remember that I made one of the opening speeches\nof this case, and that in that opening speech I endeavored to give you\nthe scheme or plan of the indictment. I told you, I believe, at that\ntime, that all these defendants were indicted for having conspired\ntogether to defraud the United States. In that indictment they were kind\nenough to tell us how we agreed to accomplish that object; that we went\ninto partnership with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, he being\none of these defendants, and that we then and there agreed to get up\nfalse petitions, to have them signed by persons who were not interested\nin the mail service, to sign fictitious names to these petitions, those\nnames representing no actual, real, living persons; that we also agreed\nto have false and fraudulent letters written to the department urging\nthis service; that in addition to all that we were to make and file\nfalse and fraudulent affidavits, in which we were to swear falsely as to\nthe number of men and horses to be employed, and the number of men\nand horses then necessary; that in addition to that we were to file\nfraudulent subcontracts; that the Second Assistant Postmaster-General\nwas to make false and corrupt orders, and that all these things were to\nbe done to deceive, mislead, and blindfold the Postmaster-General. They\nalso set out that these orders so corruptly made were to be corruptly\ncertified to the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post-Office Department\nin order that we might draw our pay. That is what is known as the\ngeneral scheme or plan of this indictment. You have heard the testimony,\nand remember some of it. Of course you do not remember it all. Probably\nno man ever lived who could do such a thing. You have heard the\ntestimony discussed, I believe, for about twenty days, so that I take it\nfor granted you know something about it, or at least have an idea that\nyou do. The story that we told you in the first place, and that we now\ntell you, is about this:\n\nIn 1877 Mr. Peck, Mr. Miner, and John W. Dorsey made up their minds to\nmake bids and to go into the mail business. I want you to remember that\nthere is not one word in this indictment about any false bid ever having\nbeen made. Remember that. There is nothing in this indictment about\na false bond having been given; not a thing. There is nothing in this\nindictment charging that any of the original contracts were false. I\nwant you to remember that. There is no evidence that any person signing\nany one of those contracts as security was not perfectly solvent. There\nis no evidence, not one syllable, that any proposal was fraudulent,\nor that any bid was fraudulent. How is it possible for a bid to be\nfraudulent? I will tell you. If you make a bid, and make a contract or\nenter into an agreement at the same time with some of the Post-Office\nofficials so that your bid will be accepted when it is not the lowest,\nthere is a fraud, and there is a fraudulent bid. There is one other\nway, and that is to put in a bid to carry the mail at so many thousand\ndollars, and then have below that straw bidders, men not responsible,\nand when the time comes to accept the bid of those gentlemen they refuse\nto carry it out, and then the law is that it shall be given to the next\nhighest, and he refuses, and the next, and he refuses, and the next\nhighest, and he refuses, and so on until it comes to the highest bidder.\nThere are such combinations and have been, I have no doubt, for many\nyears in the Post-Office Department. That is called straw bidding, and\nit is fraudulent bidding. There is no such charge as that in this case.\nEvery bid that was made was made in good faith, and every bid that was\naccepted was followed by a good and sufficient contract entered into by\nthe party making the bid, and so that is the end of that.\n\nNow, in 1877, I say these men entered into an agreement among themselves\nthat they would bid on certain routes, and Mr. Peck, or Mr. Miner,\nor John W. Dorsey—they may have it as they choose—somebody, wrote a\nletter to Stephen W. Dorsey and in that letter told what they were going\nto do and requested him to get some man to obtain information in regard\nto these routes. You know that testimony. Stephen W. Dorsey was then in\nthe United States Senate. He sent for Mr. Boone and he showed him that\nletter. In consequence of that Mr. Boone sent out his circulars to the\npostmasters all over the country, or all over the portion as to which\nthey were to bid, and asked them about the roads, about the price of\noats and corn, about the price of labor, and about the winters; in other\nwords, all the questions necessary for an intelligent man, after having\nreceived intelligent answers, to make up his mind as to the amount for\nwhich he could carry that mail. Mr. Boone, you remember, says that\nhe was to have at that time a certain share. There is a conflict of\ntestimony there. Mr. Dorsey says that he told Boone that when John W.\nDorsey came here they could arrange that, and he had no doubt that they\nwould be willing to give him a share; but that he did not give it to\nhim. The circulars were sent out and the information in some instances,\nand I do not know but all, came back. Then they agreed upon the amounts\nthey were to bid. I believe Mr. Miner came here in December, and John W.\nDorsey, I think, in January, and in February the bids were made. All the\namounts were put in the bidding-book issued by the Government, by Mr.\nMiner and Mr. Boone; all with two exceptions, and those amounts had been\nplaced there by them, but under the advice of Stephen W. Dorsey those\namounts were lowered. I remember one was upon the Tongue River route,\nthe other route I have forgotten. Mr. Miner, Mr. Peck, and John W.\nDorsey were together. Afterwards a partnership was formed between John\nW. Dorsey and A. E. Boone. Stephen W. Dorsey advanced some money. There\nis nothing criminal about that. It is often foolish to advance money,\nbut it is not a crime. It is often foolish to indorse for another,\nand many a man has been convinced of that, but it is not a crime. He\nadvanced until, I believe, he was responsible for some fourteen or\nfifteen thousand dollars, and thereupon he declined to advance any more.\nHe saw Mr. Miner in Saint Louis, and said to Mr. Miner, \"This is the\nlast I am going to advance.\" I think he gave him some notes that he\nhypothecated or discounted at the German-American National Bank. He\nwanted security, and thereupon they gave him Post-Office drafts for the\npurpose of securing his debt. He would advance no more money and went\naway to New Mexico. Mr. Miner had a power of attorney from John W.\nDorsey who was absent, and a power of attorney from John M. Peck who was\nabsent. I believe on the 7th of August, or about that time, Mr. Boone\nwent out. Why? They had not the money at the time to put on the service.\nWhy? A great many more bids had been accepted than they had anticipated,\nand instead of getting twenty or thirty routes they got, I believe, one\nhundred and thirty-four routes. The consequence was they did not have\nthe money to stock the routes. There was another difficulty.\n\nThere was an investigation by Congress, and that delayed them a month\nor two, and the consequence was that when the 1st of July came, the day\nupon which the service should have been put on, it was not only not put\non, but they had not the means to do it. Then what happened? Then it was\nthat Mr. Miner took in Mr. Vaile, and an agreement was made which bears\ndate the 16th day of August, 1878. It was not finally signed by all the\nparties, I believe, until some time in September or October. Under that\ncontract, which you have all heard read, Mr. Vaile was given an interest\nin this business. More than that; subcontracts were given to Mr. Vaile,\nand under the subcontract law which was passed on the 17th day of May,\n1878, I believe, Vaile could file his subcontract in the Post-Office\nDepartment, and that rendered all Post-Office drafts or orders that had\nbeen given absolutely worthless. That was done. The subcontracts were\ngiven to Vaile under the powers of attorney that Miner held from Peck\nand John W. Dorsey, and of course he could act for himself. That was\nthe situation. Stephen W. Dorsey was not here. When he returned he found\nthat everything had been disposed of except his liability, and that he\nwould have to pay the notes. His security was gone, and the subcontracts\nwere filed. At that time he and Mr. Vaile had a quarrel. That is our\nstory. In the meantime John W. Dorsey was on the Tongue River route. I\nbelieve he visited Washington in November and left word that he would\nlike to sell out all his interests in these routes, and I believe fixed\nthe price. Some time in November or December Mr. Vaile made up his mind\nto take the routes, and afterwards changed his mind. Stephen W. Dorsey\nwas then in the Senate. On the 4th of March, 1879, his term expired. I\nbelieve on that very day, or about that day, he wrote a letter to Brady\ncalling his attention to these subcontracts that had been filed for the\nprotection of Vaile and denouncing them. That was the first thing he\ndid. Then a few days afterwards the parties met. In a little while\nafterwards they made a division of this entire business. You know how\nthe division was made. Stephen W. Dorsey fell heir to about thirty of\nthese routes, I think. In addition he had to pay ten thousand dollars to\nhis brother and ten thousand dollars to Peck. Mr. Vaile, I think, took\nforty per cent, and Mr. Miner thirty per cent. Mr. Vaile and Mr. Miner\nwent into partnership and Stephen W. Dorsey took his routes, and that\nended it. Mr. Peck was out and John W. Dorsey was out. That is our\nstory. When they divided those routes, in order to vest the property\nof those routes in the persons to whom they fell, it was necessary\nto execute subcontracts and give PostOffice drafts and things of that\ncharacter. All those necessary papers they then and there agreed to\nmake. Up to this point there is not one act established by the evidence\nnot entirely consistent with perfect innocence; not an act. That is our\nstory. After these routes fell to us we did what we had the right to do\nand what we could to make the routes of value. As business men we had\nthe right to do it, and we did only what we had the right to do.\n\nThe next question that arises, and which of course is at the very\nthreshold of this case, is, did these parties conspire? That is the\ngreat question. In my judgment you should settle that the first thing\nwhen you go to the jury-room. After having heard the case as it will be\npresented by the Government, and after having heard the charge of the\nCourt, the first thing for you to decide is, was there a conspiracy?\nHow is a conspiracy proved? Precisely as everything else is proved. You\nprove that men conspire precisely as you prove them guilty of larceny or\nmurder or any other crime or misdemeanor. It has been suggested to you\nthat as conspiracy is very hard to prove you should not require much\nevidence; that you should take into consideration the hardships of the\nGovernment in proving a crime which in its nature is secret. Nearly all\ncrimes are secret. Very few men steal publicly, with a band of music\nand with a torch in each hand. They generally need their hands for other\npurposes, if they are in that business. All crime loves darkness. We all\nknow that. One of the troubles about proving that a man has committed\na crime is that he tries to keep it as secret as possible. He does not\ncarry a placard on his breast or on his back stating what he is about to\ndo. The consequence is that it is nearly always difficult to prove\nmen guilty as stated in the indictment. But that does not relieve the\nprosecution. That burden is taken by the Government, and they must\nprove men guilty of conspiracy precisely as they prove anything else. Is\ncircumstantial evidence sufficient? Certainly, certainly. Circumstantial\nevidence will prove anything, provided the circumstances are right,\nand provided further that all the circumstances are right. A chain of\ncircumstances is no stronger than the weakest circumstance, as a chain\nof iron is no stronger than the weakest link. Where you establish or\nattempt to establish a fact by circumstances, each circumstance must be\nproved not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but each circumstance must\nbe wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the defendants. Now, let me\ncall your attention to what I claim to be the law upon the subject, and\nI will call the attention of the Court to it at the same time. I will\ntake this as a kind of test:\n\nThe hypothesis of guilt must flow naturally from the facts proved\nand must be consistent with them; not with some of them, not with the\nmajority of them, but with all of them.\n\nIn other words if they establish one hundred circumstances and\nninety-nine point to guilt and one circumstance thoroughly established\nis inconsistent with guilt or perfectly consistent with innocence, that\nis the end of the case.\n\nIt is as if you were building an arch. Every stone that you put into the\narch must fit with every other and must make that segment of the\ncircle. If one stone does not fit, the arch is not complete. So with\ncircumstantial evidence. Every circumstance must fit every other. Every\nsolitary circumstance must be of the exact shape to fit its neighbor,\nand when they are all together the arch must be absolutely complete.\nOtherwise you must find the defendants not guilty. The next sentence is:\n\nThe evidence must be such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis\nexcept that of guilt. In other words, all the facts proved must be\nconsistent with and point to the guilt of the defendants not only, but\nthey must be inconsistent, and every fact proved must be inconsistent,\nwith their innocence.\n\nNow, what does that mean? It means that every fact that is absolutely\nestablished in this case, must point to the guilt of the defendants. It\nmeans that if there is one established fact that is inconsistent with\ntheir guilt, that fact becomes instantly an impenetrable shield that no\nhonest verdict can pierce. That is what it means. That being so—and the\nCourt in my judgment will instruct you that that is the law—let us talk\na little about what has been established.\n\nIn the first place, nearly all that has been established, or I will not\nsay established, but nearly all that has been said, for the purpose of\nshowing that our motives were corrupt, and that we actually conspired,\nrests upon evidence of what we call conversations. Some witness had a\nconversation with somebody, three years ago, four years ago, or five\nyears ago. The unsafest and the most unsatisfactory evidence in this\nworld is evidence of conversation. Words leave no trace. They leave no\nscar in the air, no footsteps. Memory writes upon the secret tablet\nof the brain words that no human eye can see. No man can look into the\nbrain of another and tell whether he is giving a true transcript of\nwhat is there. It is absolutely impossible for you to tell whether it is\nmemory or imagination. No one can do it. Another thing: Probably there\nis not a man in the world whose memory makes an absolutely perfect\nrecord. The moment it is written it begins to fade, and as the days pass\nit grows dim, and as the years go by, no matter how deeply it may have\nbeen engraven, it is covered by the moss of forgetfulness. And yet you\nare asked to take from men their liberty, to take from citizens their\nreputation, to tear down roof-trees, on testimony about conversation\nthat happened years and years ago, as to which the party testifying\nhad not the slightest interest. As a rule, memory is the child of\nattention—memory is the child of interest. Take the avaricious man. He\nsets down a debt in his brain, and he graves it as deep as graving upon\nstone. A man must have interest. His attention must be aroused. Tell\nme that a man can remember a conversation of four or five years ago in\nwhich he had no interest. We have been in this trial I don't know how\nmany years. I have seen you, gentlemen, gradually growing gray. You\nhave, during this trial, heard argument after argument as to what some\nwitness said, as to some line embodied in this library. [Indicating\nrecord.] You have heard the counsel for the prosecution say one thing,\nthe counsel for the defence another, and often his Honor, holding the\nimpartial scales of memory, differs from us both, and then we have\nturned to the record and found that all were mistaken. That has happened\nagain and again, and yet when that witness was testifying every attorney\nfor the defence was watching him, and every attorney for the prosecution\nwas looking at him. How hard it would be for you, Mr. Juror, or for any\none of you to tell what a witness has said in this case. Yet men are\nbrought here who had a casual conversation with one of the defendants\nfive years ago about a matter in which no one of the witnesses\nwas interested to the extent of one cent, and pretend to give that\nconversation entire. For ray part, were I upon the jury, I would pay no\nmore attention to such evidence than I would to the idle wind. Such men\nare not giving a true transcript of their brains. It is the result\nof imagination. They wish to say something. They recollect they had a\nconversation upon a certain subject, and then they fill it out to suit\nthe prosecution.\n\nNow, I am told another thing; that after getting through with\nconversations they then gave us notice that we must produce our books,\nour papers, our letters, our stubs, and our checks; that we must produce\neverything in which we have any interest, and hand them all over to this\nprosecution. They say they only want what pertains to the mail business,\nbut who is to judge of that? They want to look at them to see if they do\npertain to the mail business. They won't take our word. We must produce\nthem all. It may be that with such a net they might bring in something\nthat would be calculated to get somebody in trouble about something, no\nmatter whether this business or not. They might find out something that\nwould annoy somebody. They gave us a notice wide enough and broad enough\nto cover everything we had or were likely to have. What did they want\nwith those things? May be one of their witnesses wanted to see them. May\nbe he wanted to stake out his testimony. May be he did not entirely\nrely upon his memory and wanted to find whether he should swear as to\ncheck-books or a check-book, and whether he should swear as to one stub\nor as to many. May be he wanted to look them all over so that he could\nfortify the story he was going to tell. We did not give them the books.\nWe would not do it. We took the consequences. But what did we offer?\nThat is the only way to find out our motive. I believe that on page 3776\nthere is something upon that subject. I will read what I said:\n\nNow, gentlemen, with regard to the books. As there has been a good\ndeal said on that subject I make this proposition: Mr. Dorsey has\nbooks extending over a period of twenty years, or somewhere in that\nneighborhood. He has had accounts with a great many people on a great\nmany subjects. He does not wish to bring those books into court, or to\nhave those accounts gone over by this prosecution, not for reasons\nin this case, but for reasons entirely outside of the case. If the\ngentlemen on the other side will agree, or if the Court will appoint any\ntwo men or any three men, we will present to those men all our books,\nevery one that we ever had in the world, and allow them to go over every\nsolitary item and report to this court every item pertaining to John W.\nDorsey & Co., Miner, Peck & Co., or Vaile, Miner & Co., with regard\nto every dollar connected, directly or indirectly, with this entire\nbusiness from November or December, 1877, to the present moment, and\nreport to this Court exactly every item just as it is. I make that\nproposition.\n\nThat proposition was refused. What else did I do? I offered to bring\ninto court every check, including the time they said we drew money to\npay Brady. I offered to bring in every check on every bank in which we\nhad one dollar deposited; every one. That was not admitted. And why?\nBecause the Court distinctly said that it rests upon the oath of the\ndefendant at last; he may have had money in banks that we know nothing\nabout. To which I replied at the time that if we stated here in open\ncourt the name of every bank in which we did business, and there is any\nother bank knowing that we did do business with it, we will hear from\nit. So that we offered, gentlemen, in this case, every check on every\nbank but one. I did not know at that time that we had ever had an\naccount with the German-American Savings Bank; I did not find that out\nuntil afterwards. But you will remember that Mr. Merrick held in his\nhand the account of Dorsey with that bank; and Mr. Keyser, who, I\nbelieve, had charge of that bank, was here, and if there had been\nanything upon those books, certainly the Government would have shown it.\n\nMore than that; that bank went into the hands of a receiver, I think,\neight months before any of these checks are said to have been given\nfor money which was afterwards given to Brady. Now, they insist, that\nbecause we failed to bring the books into court, therefore the law\npresumes that the absolute evidence of our guilt is in those books.\nI believe they claim that as the law. If my memory serves me rightly,\nColonel Bliss so claimed in his speech. In other words, that when they\ngive us notice to produce a book, and we do not produce it, there is a\npresumption against us. That is not the law, gentlemen. When they give\nus notice to produce a book or letter and we do not produce it, what\ncan they do? They can prove the contents of the book or letter. In other\nwords, if we fail to produce what is called the best evidence, then the\nGovernment can introduce secondary evidence. They can prove the contents\nby the memory of some witness, by some copy, no matter how; and that is\nthe only possible consequence flowing from a refusal to produce the book\nor letter.\n\nAnd yet, in this case, gentlemen, Mr. Bliss wishes you to give a verdict\nbased upon two things: first, upon what we failed to prove; secondly, on\nwhat the Court would not let them prove. He tells you that they offered\nto prove so and so, but the Court would not let them; he wants you to\ntake that into consideration; and secondly, that there were certain\nthings that we did not prove; and that those two make up a case. That is\ntheir idea. Now, let us see if I am right about the law.\n\nThe first case to which I will call the attention of the Court is a\nvery small one, but the principle is clear. It is the case of Lawson\nand another, assignees of Shiffner, vs. Sherwood, and it is found in 2\nEnglish Common-Law Reports; 1 Starkie, 314.\n\nThe Court. Colonel Ingersoll, you cannot argue that question to the\njury; you cannot cite an authority and discuss it to the jury.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Then I will discuss it with the Court; it is immaterial\nto me which way I turn when I am talking. I insist that the jury must at\nlast decide the law in this case. I will read another case to the Court,\nfound in 9 Maryland, Spring Garden Mutual Insurance Company, vs. Evans.\n\nThe Court decides in this case that the only consequence of their\nrefusal to produce the papers, they not denying that they had them, was\nto allow the opposite party to prove their contents. That is all; that\nit could not be patched out with a presumption.\n\nThe Court. But if afterwards they should attempt to contradict the\nsecondary evidence the Court would not have allowed them to do it.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. It does not say so.\n\nThe Court. That is the law.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Suppose, after the other side had proved the contents,\nthere was an offer of the actual original papers. I can find plenty of\nauthority that they must be received.\n\nThe Court. I have never seen such authority, but I have seen a great\nmany to the contrary.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I have never seen an authority to the contrary that was\nvery well reasoned. But, then, I will not argue about that, for that is\nnot a point in this case.\n\nThe Court. If you have the papers, and have received notice to produce\nthem, you are bound to produce them. If you do not produce them\nsecondary evidence is admissible to prove their contents. But after the\nsecondary evidence has been received, the Court will not allow you then,\nafter having first failed to produce the papers upon notice, to resort\nto the primary evidence which you ought to have produced upon the\nnotice, for the purpose of contradicting the secondary evidence that was\ngiven.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Now, let me give the Court a case in point: In this very\ncase that we are now trying, Mr. Rerdell in his statement to MacVeagh\nsaid there was a check for seven thousand dollars; that the money\nwas drawn upon that check; that he and Dorsey went together to the\nPost-Office Department and that Dorsey went into Brady's room; that that\nmoney was drawn by Dorsey. That was his statement to MacVeagh and James.\n\nThe Court. It was not his statement here.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes, that was his statement here, as I will show\nhereafter. But let me state my point. He was coming upon the stand.\nThe check, instead of being for seven thousand dollars, was for seven\nthousand five hundred dollars; instead of being drawn to the order\nof Dorsey or to bearer, it was drawn to the order of Rerdell himself;\ninstead of being drawn at the bank by Dorsey, it was drawn by Rerdell\nin person and had his indorsement upon the back of it. We were asked to\nproduce that. I preferred not to do it until I heard the testimony of\nMr. Rerdell. Why? Because I wanted to put that little piece of dynamite\nunder his testimony and see where the fragments went, and I did. That is\nmy answer to that.\n\nNow, I find another case in the first volume of Curtis's Circuit Court\nReports, where it is said, on page 402, that—By the common law a notice\nto produce a paper—The Court. [Interposing.] Before we part from what\nyou were saying, I wish to say that I do not think that the other side\ngave you notice to produce the checks; that is my memory.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes. Let me state my memory to the Court: I do not\nremember exactly every one of these four thousand pages of testimony;\nthere are three or four that I may be a little dim about; but I do\nremember that a notice was given to us to produce everything in the\nuniverse, nearly, and that the Court held that the scope was a little\ntoo broad. I have forgotten the page, but I will tell you where it\ncomes in: It was where Mr. Rerdell swore about the stub-book. I find\nthe notice, may it please your Honor, on page 2255, and it was dated the\n13th of February. This is the notice, and it gave the same notice to all\nthe defendants:\n\nYou are hereby notified to produce forthwith in court, in the above\nentitled cause, all letters and communications, including all telegrams,\nof every kind and description, purporting to come from any one of said\ndefendants and addressed to you or delivered to you, and all memoranda\nin which reference is made to any contract or contracts of any one of\nsaid defendants with the United States or with the Postmaster-General\nfor carrying the mail under the letting of 1878 on any route in the\nUnited States, or in any way referring to any contract or contracts\nfor so carrying the mail, in which J. W. Bosler or any one of said\ndefendants had any interest, or in any way referring to any act,\ncontract, or proceeding thereunder, or to any payment, draft, warrant,\ncheck, or bill, or note, or to any possible loss or profit in connection\nwith such contract or contracts, or to the management or execution\nthereof, or referring to any possible gain or profit to be derived\nby any of said defendants from contracts for carrying the mail of\nthe United States, or to any payments under such contract, or to the\ndistribution of the proceeds made or to be made of said payment, or to\nthe management of any enterprise or enterprises in connection with the\ntransportation of the mail, or to gains, profits, or losses accruing or\nlikely to accrue from such enterprises, or to the financial means for\ncarrying on the same; and also to produce any and all books containing\nany entry or entries in regard to any of the subjects, matters, checks,\ndrafts, or payments relating or having reference to the subjects, &c.,\nhereinbefore referred to; and also any letter-book or letter-books\ncontaining letter-press copies of letters referring to the said subject\nor subjects.\n\nI believe just about that time, or a little after, another notice was\ngiven.\n\nMr. Merrick. If the counsel will allow me, my impression is that that\nnotice was deemed by the Court to be too broad.\n\nThe Court. It was.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Then another notice was given that specified all these\nthings.\n\nCurtis says in this case that—By the common law, a notice to produce a\npaper, merely enables the party to give parol evidence of its\ncontents, if it be not produced. Its non-production has no other legal\nconsequence.\n\nI find too, that in the Maryland case they make a reference to Cooper\nvs. Gibson, 3 Camp., 303. I also have another case, to which I will call\nthe attention of the Court, United States vs. Chaffee, 18 Wallace, 516.\nI have not the book here, but I can state what it is. My recollection\nof the case is this: That an action was brought against some distillers;\nthat by law distillers have to keep certain books in which certain\nentries by law have to be made. Notice was served upon the defendants to\nproduce those books. They refused so to do; and the question was whether\nany presumption arose against the defendants on account of that refusal.\n\nThe Court. I agree with you entirely that far in your law, that the\nmere fact of the failure to produce books or papers has no effect at\nall against the party declining to produce them. But it is a different\nquestion altogether, after secondary evidence has been given, in\nconsequence of such refusal, to supply the place of the primary\nevidence. If the books and papers have an existence, and the party who\nhas received the notice has refused to produce them, and the other party\nhas given secondary evidence of the contents of such books and papers,\nthat secondary evidence will have to stand, under those circumstances,\nas the proof in the case.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is not the point. Of course that will stand for what\nit is worth. I was arguing this point: Can the jury hatch and putty and\nplaster the secondary evidence with a presumption born of the failure to\nproduce the books and papers?\n\nThe Court. What I mean is just this: If you should fail to produce the\nprimary evidence, and then the secondary evidence of the contents is not\ncontradicted——\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Interposing.] It may not be contradicted, because it\nhappens to be inherently improbable.\n\nMr. Merrick. The Government claims the law to be as your Honor has\nintimated, and we have formulated it in one of our prayers. But that\nabstract proposition is hardly applicable in the present case, for the\nGovernment claims the application of another and plainer proposition:\nThat wherever a defendant himself takes the stand and has in his\npossession a certain paper which, when called upon on cross-examination\nto produce, he refuses, then a presumption unquestionably arises of such\npotency that it is difficult to resist.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. There is no difference, so far as the law is concerned,\nwhether the defendant, as a defendant, fails to produce the books and\npapers, or whether, in his capacity as a witness, he fails to produce\nthe books and papers. The law, it seems to me, is exactly the same.\n\nNow, in this case of the United States vs. Chaffee et al. (18 Wall.,\n544), Justice Field denounces that you should presume against the\nparty because he fails to produce books and papers known to be in his\npossession. And why? I suppose a party can not be presumed out of his\nliberty; he cannot be presumed into the penitentiary; and you cannot\nmake a prison out of a presumption any more than you can make a gibbet\nout of a suspicion.\n\nAnd again, the court instructed the jury that the law presumed that\nthe defendants kept the accounts usual and necessary for the correct\nunderstanding of their large business and an accurate accounting between\nthe partners, and that the books were in existence and accessible to the\ndefendants unless the contrary were shown.\n\nThat same thing has been claimed here.\n\nThe Court. No.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. We have heard it very often that this was a large\nbusiness.\n\nThe Court. You have not heard anything of that kind from the Court.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I am not saying that. I said \"claimed\"; if I had referred\nto your Honor I should have said \"decided.\" Here is another instruction\nof the court:\n\nIf you believe the books were kept which contained the facts necessary\nto show the real amount of whiskey in the hands of the defendants in\nOctober, 1865, and the amount which they had sold during the next ten\nmonths, or that the defendants, or either of them, could by their own\noath resolve all doubts on this point; if you believe this, then the\ncircumstances of this case seem to come fully within this most necessary\nand beneficent rule.,\n\nHe applied the word \"beneficent\" to a rule that put a man in the\npenitentiary on a presumption.\n\nThe Court. He was conservative.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. He ought to read some work on the use and abuse of words.\nNow, Judge Field says further:\n\nThe purport of all this was to tell the jury that although the\ndefendants must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, yet if the\nGovernment had made out a prima facie case against them, not one\nfree from all doubt, but one which disclosed circumstances requiring\nexplanation, and the defendants did not explain, the perplexing question\nof their guilt need not disturb the minds of the jurors.\n\nThat is this case exactly: that is the exact claim of Colonel Bliss in\nthis case. Gentlemen, you have only to take into consideration, he says,\nwhat we offered to prove and what the Court would not allow us, and what\nthe defendants failed to prove. \"Why didn't they call Bosler?\"\n\nNow, gentlemen, we claim the law to be this: That while notice is given\nus to produce books and papers and we fail to do it, the only legal\nconsequence is that the Government may then prove the contents of such\nbooks and papers, and that their proof of the contents must be passed\nupon by you.\n\nThe next thing to which I call your attention is the crime laid at our\ndoor, that we exercised the right of petition. It is regarded as a very\nsuspicious circumstance that petitions were circulated, signed, and sent\nto the office of the Second Assistant Postmaster-General. Why did these\npeople petition? Let me tell you. If you will look in every contract\nin this case you will find certain provisions relative to carrying the\nmail. Among others you will find this: That no contractor has any right\nto carry any newspaper or any letter faster than the schedule time; that\nhe has no right to carry any commercial news, or to carry any man who\nhas any commercial news about his person, faster than the schedule time.\nNo mail can be carried by anybody except the United States, and if a\ncommunity wants more mail it has no right to establish an express that\nwill carry the mail faster, because the United States has the monopoly.\nNow, if you want more mail, what are you to do? You cannot start one\nyourself; the Government will not allow it. What have you to do? You\nhave to petition the Government to carry the mail faster or to carry\nit more frequently; and the reason you have to ask the Government to\ndo this is because the Government will not permit you to do it;\nconsequently you have only one resort. What is that? Petition. And in\nthis very case I believe his Honor used this language:\n\nEvery man carrying the mail has the right to take care of his business.\nHe has the right to get up petitions. He has the right to call the\nattention of the people to what he supposes to be their needs in that\nregard. He has the right to do it, and the fact that he does it is not\nthe slightest evidence that he has conspired with any human being.\n\nNow, if the man carrying the mail has the right to call the attention of\nthe people to their needs, have not the people the right to do all\nthat themselves? If the man carrying the mail has the right to get up a\npetition, surely the people have the right; and if the people have the\nright, surely the man has that right. That is the only way we can find\nout in this country what the people want—that is, to hear from them.\nThey have the right to tell what they want.\n\nBut these gentlemen say, \"Anybody will sign a petition.\" Well, if that\nis true, there is no great necessity for forging one. Very few people\nwill steal what they can get for the asking. If a bank or a man offers\nyou all the money you want, you would hardly go and forge a check to get\nit. I will come to that in a few moments.\n\nNow, gentlemen, according to this evidence, you have got to determine,\nas I said in the outset, Was there a conspiracy? The second question you\nhave to determine is, When? In every crime in the world you have got to\nprove the four W's—Who, When, What, Where? Who conspired? When? What\nabout? Where? Now I want to ask you a few questions, and I want you to\nkeep this evidence in mind. Was there a conspiracy when Dorsey received\nthe letter from Peck or Miner? Had the egg of this crime then been\nlaid? Had it been hatched at that time? Is there any evidence of it? The\nobject then was to make some bids. It is not necessary to conspire to\nmake bids. You cannot conspire to make fraudulent bids unless you enter\ninto an agreement that the lowest bid is not to be accepted, or agree\nupon some machinery by which the lowest bid is not received, or put in a\nbid with fraudulent and worthless security. Will the Government say that\nthere was a conspiracy at the time Peck or Miner wrote to S. W. Dorsey?\nWhat evidence have you that there was? None. What evidence have you that\nthere was not? The evidence of Miner and the evidence of S. W. Dorsey.\nWhat else? Boone had not been seen at that time. John W. Dorsey was not\nhere. Peck was not here. Peck or Miner had written the letter. Was there\nany conspiracy then? Is there any evidence of it? Is there enough to\nmake a respectable suspicion even in the mind of jealousy? Does it\namount even to a \"Trifle light as air.\"\n\nWas it when Dorsey sent for Boone? Boone says no. He ought to know. S.\nW. Dorsey says no. John W. Dorsey was not here. Miner had not arrived.\nThe only suspicious thing up to that point is that Dorsey lived \"in\nhis house;\" that he received this letter \"in his house,\" and that Boone\nvisited him \"in his house.\" That is all. Now, if there is a particle of\nevidence, I want the attorney for the Government who closes this case\nto point it out, and to be fair. Was it when Miner got here in December,\n1877? Miner says no. Boone says no. Stephen W. Dorsey says no. John\nW. Dorsey was not yet here. All the direct evidence says no. All the\nindirect evidence says nothing. Now, let us keep our old text in view.\nI want to ask you if there is a thing in all the evidence not consistent\nwith innocence? Was it not consistent with innocence that Peck and\nMiner and John W. Dorsey should agree to bid? Was it not consistent with\ninnocence that John W. Dorsey met Peck at Oberlin, and that he met\nMiner in Sandusky? Was not that consistent with innocence? Was it not\nconsistent with innocence for Peck to write S. W. Dorsey a letter? Was\nit not consistent with innocence for Dorsey to open it and read it and\nthen send for Boone and give it to him? Boone in the meantime proceeded\nto get information so that they could bid intelligently. Was\nthat consistent with innocence? Perfectly. More than that, it was\ninconsistent with guilt. What next? May be this conspiracy was gotten\nup about the 16th of January, when John W. Dorsey came here. Dorsey says\nno; Boone says no; Miner says no; and S. W. Dorsey says no. That is the\ndirect evidence. Where is the indirect evidence? There is none. Ah,\nbut they say, don't you remember those Clendenning bonds? Yes. Is there\nanything in the indictment about them? No. Was any contract granted upon\nthose bonds or proposals? No. Was the Government ever defrauded out of a\ncent by them? No. Is there any charge in this case relative to them? No.\nEverybody says no. John W. Dorsey entered into a partnership with A.\nE. Boone after he came here. Is that consistent with innocence? Yes. No\ndoubt many of the jury have been in partnership with people. There is\nnothing wrong about that. He also entered into partnership with Miner\nand Peck. There were two firms, John W. Dorsey & Co., which meant A. E.\nBoone and John W. Dorsey, and Miner, Peck & Co., which meant Miner, Peck\nand John W. Dorsey. Is there anything criminal in that? No. They had a\nright to bid. They had a right to form an association, a partnership.\nThere was nothing more suspicious in that than there would have been in\nevidence of their eating and sleeping. Now, then, was this conspiracy\nentered into on August 7, 1878, when Boone went out? Boone says no, and\nwith charming frankness he says if there had been a conspiracy he would\nhave staid. He said, \"If I had even suspected one, I never would have\ngone out. If I had dreamed that they had a good thing, I should have\nstaid in.\" He swears that at that time there was not any. Miner swears\nto it and S. W. Dorsey swears to it. Everybody swears to it except the\ncounsel for the prosecution. Rerdell swears to it. That is the only\nsuspicious thing about it. Now, at that time, August 7, when Boone went\nout, S. W. Dorsey was not here and John W. Dorsey was not here. Who was?\nMiner. What was the trouble? Brady told him, \"I want you to put on that\nservice. If you don't I will declare you a failing contractor.\" A little\nwhile before that Miner had met Dorsey in Saint Louis, and Dorsey\nhad said, \"This is the last money I will furnish. No matter whether\nI conspired or not, I am through. This magnificent conspiracy,\nsilver-plated and gold-lined, I give up. There are millions in it, but\nI want no more. I am through.\" So Mr. Miner, using his power of attorney\nfrom John W. Dorsey and Peck, took in Mr. Vaile.\n\nI believe that Mr. Rerdell swears that the reason they took in Vaile was\nthat they wanted a man close to Brady. According to the Government they\nhad already conspired with Brady. They could not get much closer than\nthat, could they? Miner was a co-conspirator, and yet they wanted\nsomebody to introduce him to Brady. John W. Dorsey and S. W. Dorsey were\nin the same position. They were conspirators. The bargain was all made,\nsigned, sealed, and delivered, and yet they went around hunting somebody\nthat was close to Brady. Brady said, \"I will declare you all failing\ncontractors. I can't help it, though I have conspired with you. I give\nup all my millions. This service has got to be put on. The only way to\nstop it is for you to seek for a man that is close to me. You are not\nclose enough.\" Now, absurdity may go further than that, but I doubt\nit. You must recollect that that contract was signed as of the 16th of\nAugust. You remember its terms. At that time not a cent had been paid\nto S. W. Dorsey. His Post-Office drafts had been cut out by the\nsubcontracts. Afterwards he had a quarrel with Vaile. We will call it\nDecember, 1878.\n\nWas the conspiracy flagrant then? Let us have some good judgment about\nthis, gentlemen. You are to decide this question the same as you decide\nothers, except that you are to take into consideration the gravity of\nthe consequences flowing from the verdict. You must decide it with your\nfaculties all about you, with your intellectual eyes wide open, without\na bit of prejudice in your minds, and without a bit of fear. You must\ndecide it like men. You must judge men as you know them. Was there a\nconspiracy between these defendants in December, 1878, when S. W. Dorsey\ncame back here and found out the security for his money was gone, and\nwhen he had the quarrel with Mr Vaile? Is there the slightest scintilla\nof testimony to show that Mr. Vaile came into this business through any\nimproper motive? I challenge the prosecution to point to one line of\ntestimony that any reasonable man can believe even tending to show that\nMr. Vaile was actuated by an improper motive. I defy them to show a line\ntending to prove that John R. Miner was actuated by an improper motive\nwhen he asked Vaile to assist him in this business. I defy them to show\nthat Brady was actuated by an improper motive when he told them, \"You\nmust put on that service or I will declare you all failing contractors.\"\nWas there a conspiracy then? I ask you, Mr. Foreman, and I ask each\nof you, Was there a conspiracy at that time? Have the prosecution\nintroduced one particle of testimony to show that there was? In March\nwas there a conspiracy? Will you call dividing, a conspiracy? Will you\ncall going apart, coming together? If you will, then there must have\nbeen a conspiracy in March. A conspiracy to do what? A conspiracy to\nseparate; a conspiracy to have nothing in common from that day forward.\nMr. Vaile entered into a conspiracy then that he would have no more\nbusiness relations with S. W. Dorsey. He swears that at that time\nnothing on earth would have tempted him to go on. That is what they call\nbeing in a conspiring frame of mind. Not another step would he go. In\nMarch they separated, and each one went his way. It was finally fixed\nup, and finally settled in May. John W. Dorsey was out with his ten\nthousand dollars, and Peck was out with his ten thousand dollars. S.\nW. Dorsey, for the first time became the owner of thirty routes, or\nsomething more, and Miner and Vaile of the balance, I think about\nninety-six. According to that contract of August 16, John W. Dorsey only\nhad a third interest in the routes he had with Boone, and not another\ncent. There was a division. If there was a conspiracy of such a\nmagnitude, why should Boone go out of it? Why should John W. Dorsey\nsell out for ten thousand dollars? Why should John W. Dorsey offer Boone\none-third of it? Why was Mr. A. W. Moore offered one-quarter of it?—a\ngentleman who could be employed for one hundred and fifty dollars a\nmonth? I ask you these questions, gentlemen. I ask you to answer them\nall in your own minds. Recollect, on the 16th of August there was\na conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. In that\nconspiracy was the Second Assistant Postmaster-General. They had the\nPost-Office Department by the throat. They had the Postmaster-General\nblindfolded. Yet Miner went to Vaile and said, \"Now, just furnish a\nlittle money to put on these routes and you may have forty percent, of\nthis conspiracy.\" He was giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars.\nIs that the way people talk that conspire together? Would not Miner have\ngone to Brady and said, \"Look here, what is the use of acting like a\nfool? What do you want me to give forty per cent, of this thing to Vaile\nfor? I had better give twenty per cent, more to you. That would allow me\nto keep twenty per cent, more too, and then there will be one less to\nkeep the secret.\" He never thought of that.\n\nI want you to think of these things, gentlemen, all of you, and see how\nthey will strike your mind. What did they want of Boone? S. W. Dorsey\nthey say was the prime mover. He hatched this conspiracy. Miner, his\nown brother, Peck, and everybody else were simply his instruments, his\ntools. What did he want Boone for? He had a magnificent conspiracy from\nwhich millions were to come. He told Boone, \"I will give you a third\nof it.\" What for? He told Moore, \"I will give you one-quarter.\"\nSeven-twelfths gone already. T. J. B. thirty-three and one-third\nper cent. That is about all. Then sixty-five per cent, more to the\nsubcontractors. I want you to think about these things, gentlemen. If\nthey had such a conspiracy what did they want of Mr. Moore?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Resuming.] Gentlemen, was it natural for S. W. Dorsey\nto get the money back that he had advanced, or some security for it?\nWas that natural? When a man seeks to have a debt secured is that a\nsuspicious circumstance? That is all he did. He was out several thousand\ndollars. He wanted to secure that debt and he took another debt of\ntwenty thousand dollars upon him as a burden. If this had been a\nconspiracy he could have furnished this money that he had to pay to\nothers to put the service on the route. I leave it to each one of you\nif that action to secure that debt was not perfectly natural. I will ask\nyou another question. If he was the originator of the conspiracy would\nhe have taken thirty per cent, burdened with a debt of twenty thousand\ndollars? The way to find out whether there is sense in anything or\nnot is to ask yourself questions. Put yourself in that place; you, the\nmaster of the situation; you, the author of the entire scheme. Would\nyou take one-third of what you yourself had produced, and that third\nburdened with twenty thousand dollars worth of debt, and then make your\ndebt out of the proceeds? I want every one of you to ask yourself the\nquestion, because you have got to decide this case with your brains and\nwith your intelligence; not somebody else, but you, yourself. We want\nyour verdict; we want your individual opinion; not somebody else's.\nThere is the safety of the jury trial. We are to have the opinions of\ntwelve men, and those opinions agreeing. Where twelve honest men agree,\nif they are also independent men, the rule is that the verdict is right.\nThe opinion of an honest man is always valuable, if he is only honest,\nand if it is his opinion, it is valuable. It is valuable if he does not\ngo to some mental second-hand store and buy cheap opinions from somebody\nelse, or take cheap opinions. In this case I ask the individual opinion\nof each one of you. I want each one of you to pass upon this evidence;\nI want each one of you to say whether if Dorsey had been the author\nand finisher of this conspiracy he would have taken thirty per cent.,\nburdened with twenty thousand dollars of debt to others and fifteen\nthousand dollars of debt to himself? If you can answer that question\nin the affirmative you can do anything. After that nothing can be\nimpossible to you, except a reasonable verdict. You cannot answer it\nthat way. Why should he have cared so much about fifteen or sixteen\nthousand dollars with a conspiracy worth hundreds of thousands of\ndollars? Why run the risk of making the whole conspiracy public? Why\nrun the risk of his detection and its destruction? You cannot answer it.\nPerhaps the prosecution can answer it. I hope they will try.\n\nMr. Ker, on page 4493, makes a very important admission.\n\nAfter they (meaning the defendants) had these contracts, there was a\ncombination, an agreement between all these people, that they were to\ndo certain things in order to get at the public Treasury and get more\nmoney.\n\nWhat does that mean? That means that this conspiracy was entered into\nafter the defendants obtained the contracts, so that Mr. Ker fixes the\nbirth of this conspiracy after these contracts had been awarded to the\ndefendants. That being so, all the bids, proposals, Clendenning letter,\nHaycock letter, proposals in blank, and bidders' names left out fade\naway.\n\nThe Chico letter I will come to after awhile. I will not be as afraid of\nit as were the counsel for the prosecution. I will not, like the Levite,\npass on by the other side of the Chico letter. I will not treat it as if\nit were a leper, as if it had a contagious disease. When I get to it I\nwill speak about it. All these things, then, under that admission,\ngo for naught, and have nothing to do with the case, and consequently\nnobody need argue with regard to them any more, although incidentally\nI may allude to them again. There is no doubt, recollect, after\nthis admission. There is no clause in the indictment saying that we\nendeavored to defraud this Government by bids, by proposals, by bonds,\nor by contracts. Not a word. That is all out; in my judgment it never\nshould have been in the case at all. What is the next thing we did?\nIt is alleged that the moment Dorsey got these contracts he laid the\nfoundation to defraud the Government by a new form of subcontract. Let\nme answer that fully, and let that put an end to it from this time\non. Until May 17, 1878, the Post-Office Department did not recognize\nsubcontractors. After these contracts came into the possession of\nthese defendants Congress passed a law recognizing subcontractors.\nConsequently the contracts of the subcontractors that were to be\nrecognized by the Government had to be somewhere near the same form as\nthe contracts with the original contractors. The moment the contract\nof the subcontractor was to be recognized by the Government then it was\nnecessary and proper to put a clause in that subcontract for expedition\nand a clause in that subcontract for increase of service. Why? So that\nthe Government should know, if the route was expedited, what percentage\nthe subcontractor was entitled to. Instead of that clause in the\nsubcontract being evidence that Mr. Dorsey was endeavoring to swindle\nthe Government, the evidence is exactly the other way. It was put there\nfor the purpose of protecting the subcontractor, so that if expedition\nwas put upon the route the Government would know what per cent, of the\nexpedition to pay the subcontractor. If that clause had not been in that\nsubcontract the Government could not have told how much money to pay\nthe subcontractor, and as a consequence the subcontract would have been\nworthless as security for the subcontractor. And yet a clause put in for\nthe protection of the subcontractor is referred to in your presence as\nevidence that the man who suggested it was a thief and a robber. What\nmore? They say to these witnesses, \"Did you ever see such a clause as\nthat in a subcontract before?\" No. Why? The Government never recognized\na subcontractor before that time, and consequently there was no\nnecessity for such a clause. Think how they have endeavored to torture\nevery circumstance, no matter how honest, no matter how innocent, no\nmatter how sensible; how they have endeavored to twist it and turn\nit against these defendants. Gentlemen, whenever you start out on the\nground that a man is guilty, everything looks like it. If you hate a\nneighbor and anything happens to your lot you say he did it. If your\nhorse is poisoned he is the man who did it. If your fence is torn\ndown he is the fellow. You will go to work and get all the little\ncircumstances that have nothing to do with the matter braided and woven\ninto one string. Everything will be accounted for as coming from that\nenemy, and as something he has done.\n\nThey say another thing: That we defrauded the Government by filing\nsubcontracts. You cannot do it. When this case is being closed I want\nsomebody to explain to the jury how it is possible for a man to defraud\nthis Government by filing a subcontract. I do not claim to have much\ningenuity. I claim that I have not enough to decide that question or\nto answer it. I can lay down the proposition that it is an absolute,\ninfinite, eternal impossibility to fraudulently file a subcontract\nas against the Government. It cannot he done. Oh, but they say, the\nsubcontractor did not take the oath. There is no law that he should take\nan oath and there never was. There may be at some time, but there is\nnot now. The law that everybody engaged in carrying the mail and every\nsalaried officer of the department shall take an oath was passed before\nthe law of the 17th of May, 1879, allowing a subcontractor to file his\nsubcontract. Before that time the Government had nothing to do with\nthe subcontractor. If he actually carried the mail; if he actually took\npossession of the mail, he had to take the oath of the carrier. But I\ndefy these gentlemen to find in the law any oath for a subcontractor.\nThere never was such an oath. If there is one, find it. The law that\nevery salaried officer and every carrier of the mail shall take the oath\nwas passed years and years and years before the law was passed\nallowing subcontracts to be filed. What of it? Suppose a man who is a\nsubcontractor carries the mail and does not take any oath. That is as\ngood as to take the oath and not carry the mail. What possible evidence\nis it of fraud? Suppose it should turn out that the carrier did not take\nthe oath, but carried the mail honestly. What of it? Is it any evidence\nof fraud? If a man tells the truth without being sworn, is that evidence\nthat he is a dishonest man? If a man carries the mail properly and in\naccordance with law without being sworn to do so, it seems to me that is\nevidence that he is an honest fellow, and you don't need to swear\nhim. So when a subcontractor takes a subcontract and carries the mail\naccording to law it does not make any difference whether he swears to\ndo so or not. Is there any evidence in this case that the subcontractors\nstole any letters on account of not having taken the oath? When they\nanswer, let them point to the law that the subcontractor is to take an\noath. There is no such law and never was.\n\nNow, according to this admission of Mr. Ker, the conspiracy commenced\nafter they got the contract. Very well. I need not talk about anything\nback of that. I do not know whether the admission is binding upon the\nGovernment or not. I believe the Court holds that the Government is\nnot bound by the admission of any agent, and that the Government\nonly authorizes an agent to admit facts. May be he is mistaken. The\nGovernment only authorizes an agent to admit the law. At any rate Mr.\nKer did the very best he knew how, and he says this conspiracy commenced\nwhen they got the contracts, and so we need not go back of that unless\nthe Government is now willing to say that Mr. Ker has made a mistake.\nI lay down the proposition, gentlemen, that you need not go back of the\ndivision of these routes. Then you must go forward. What was done after\nthat? Recollect the exact position of Senator Dorsey and the exact\nposition of these other people.\n\nThe next claim is, although there was no conspiracy until after they\ngot the contracts, that Senator Dorsey was interested in these contracts\nwhile he was a Senator of the United States. If they could establish\nthat fact it would not tend to establish a conspiracy. There is nothing\nin this indictment about it. I admit that if he were a Senator, and at\nthe same time interested in mail contracts, he might be tried and\nhis robes of office stripped from him, and that he could be rendered\ninfamous. But that is not what he is being tried for. They say he was in\nthe Senate, and he was anxious to keep it secret. Mr. Ker says he was so\nanxious to keep it secret that he sent all these communications out West\nin Senate envelopes, so they would think a Senator had something to do\nwith it. Then it turned out that all the envelopes were in blank; just\nplain white envelopes, with nothing on them, and away went that theory.\nIf he were in the Senate and engaged in these routes also, and wished\nto keep it a profound secret, because if known it would blast his\nreputation forever, do you think he would have had all these circulars\nsent out in Senate envelopes and on Senate paper? If he did allow\nthat to be done, it is absolutely conclusive evidence that he was not\ninterested. Suppose I was trying to keep it an absolute, profound,\neternal, everlasting secret that I had anything to do with a certain\nmatter, would I write letters about it? Would I use paper that had my\nname, the number of my office, and the character of my business printed\nupon it? Would I? To ask that question is to answer it. Another thing:\nThey claim that he was in the Senate and infinitely anxious to keep it a\nsecret, and yet he found Mr. Moore, a perfect stranger, and said to him\nin effect: \"Yes, Mr. Moore; I don't know you, but I want you to know\nme. I ama rascal. I am a member of the Senate, but I am engaged in mail\nroutes. I hope you will not tell anybody, because it would destroy me.\nI have great confidence in you, because I don't know you.\" That is the\nonly way he could have had confidence in Moore. He would have to have it\nthe first time he saw him or it never would have come. To this perfect\nstranger he said, \"Here, I am in the Senate, but I am interested in\nthese routes. I am in a conspiracy. I want you to go out and attend to\nthis business. I want you to do all these things, and the reason I tell\nyou is because I am a Senator and I want it kept a profound secret. That\nis the reason I tell you.\" That is what these gentlemen call probable.\nThat is their idea of reasonableness and of what is natural. That may be\ntrue in a world where water always runs up hill. It can never be true in\nthis world. It is not in accordance with your experience. Not a man here\nhas any experience in accordance with that testimony or that doctrine;\nnot one. You never will have unless you become insane. If this trial\nlasts much longer you may have that experience. It is a wonder to me it\nhas not happened already.\n\nThere is another queer circumstance connected with this case. While\nDorsey told it all to Moore he kept it a profound secret from Boone.\nBoone, you know, was in at the first. Boone got up all this information.\nBoone was interested in these bids, and yet he never told Boone. He had\nknown Boone, you see, for several weeks. He told Moore the first day,\nthe first minute. He wished to relieve his stuffed bosom of that secret.\nMoore was the first empty thing he found, and he poured it into him.\nIt is astonishing to me that he succeeded in keeping that secret from\nBoone, but he did. He even kept it from Rerdell.\n\nRerdell never heard of it—a gentleman who picks up every scrap, who\nlistens at the key-hole of an opportunity for the fragment of a sound.\nHe never heard it. John W. Dorsey did not even know anything about it.\nNobody but Moore. Now, I ask you, gentlemen, is there any sense in that\nstory? I ask you. I ask you, also, if the testimony of Stephen W.\nDorsey with regard to that transaction is not absolutely consistent\nwith itself? Did he not in every one of those transactions act like a\nreasonable, sensible, good man? Oh, but they say it is not natural for\na man to help his brother; certainly it is not natural for a man to help\nhis brother-in-law, and nobody but a hardened scoundrel would help a\nfriend, and Dorsey is not that kind of a man. Occasionally in a case an\naccident will happen, and from an unexpected quarter a side-light will\nbe thrown upon the character of a man, sometimes for good, and sometimes\nfor evil. Sometimes a little circumstance will come out that will cover\na man with infamy, something that nobody expected to prove, and that\nleaps out of the dark. Then, again, sometimes by a similar accident a\nman will be covered with glory. In this case there was a little fact\nthat came to the surface about Stephen W. Dorsey that made me proud that\nI was defending him. Oh, he is not the man to help his brother; he is\nnot the man to help his brother-in-law; he is not the man to help a\nfriend; and yet, when Torrey was upon the stand, he was asked if he was\nworking for Dorsey, and he said no, and was asked if Dorsey paid him at\na certain time, or if he owed him, and he said no. He was asked why, and\nhe replied, \"Because only a little while before, when I was not working\nfor him, and my boy was dead, he gave me a thousand dollars to put him\nbeneath the sod.\" That is the kind of a man Stephen W. Dorsey is. I\nlike such people. A man capable of doing that is capable of helping his\nbrother, of helping his brother-in-law, and of helping his friend. A man\ncapable of doing that is capable of any great and splendid action.\nIs there any other man connected with this trial that ever did a more\ngenerous, nay, a more loving and lovely thing? How such a man can excite\nthe hatred of the prosecution is more than I can understand.\n\nNow, we have got to the division, and the question arises, was there\na division? Let us see. On page 5009 Mr. Bliss admits that Vaile,\nimmediately upon Dorsey's coming out of the Senate, came here for the\npurpose of settling up this business; that he made up his mind to\nhave no more to do with Dorsey. Then Mr. Bliss makes this important\nadmission, and I do not want any attorney for the Government to deny it.\n\nHe admits that in May there was a final division, and that that division\nwas to take effect as from the 1st day of April, and that after\nthat each party took the routes allotted to him, and they became the\nuncontrolled property of that person, no other person having the right\nto interfere. There is your admission, just as broad as it can be made.\nMr. Bliss, after having made that admission, which virtually gives up\nthe Government's case, then threw a sheet-anchor to the windward and\nsaid, \"But when they divided they made a bargain with each other that\nthey would make the necessary papers.\" What for? To carry out the\ndivision. That is all. Now, the only corner-stone for this conspiracy,\nthe only pebble left in the entire foundation is the agreement to make\nthe necessary papers after the division. That is all that is left. The\nrest has been dissolved or dug up and carted away by this admission. Let\nus see what that agreement was. Mr. Bliss turned to the evidence of John\nW. Dorsey, on page 4105:\n\nQ. At the time you sold out, was there any understanding about your\nmaking papers?—A. That was a part of the agreement. I was to sign all\nthe necessary papers to carry on the business.\n\nWhen he sold out he agreed to sign all the necessary papers. It is like\nthis: Mr. Bliss says on such a day, for instance, they divided. Suppose,\ninstead of being routes it was all land. They divided the land and then\nthey agreed to make the deeds. That was the conspiracy; not in the land;\nnot in the agreement about the land; not in the bargain, but in the\nexecution of the papers in consequence of the bargain. That was the\nconspiracy. They agreed to make all the necessary papers. That was the\nagreement. Then the Court asked John W. Dorsey a question.\n\nQ. You agreed to sign what?—A. All the necessary papers to carry on the\nbusiness.\n\nThat is what he agreed to do. What else? What were those papers? First,\nthey were to sign all the subcontracts that were necessary, all the\nPost-Office drafts necessary, and they were to sign letters like this:\n\nThe Post-Office Department, in regard to this route, will hereafter send\nall communications to the undersigned.\n\nIn other words, the object was to let the person who fell heir to a\ngiven route in the division control that route. That was all. The man\nwho was the contractor agreed that he would sign all the necessary\npapers. For what purpose? To allow each man who got a route to be the\nowner of it and control it and draw the money. That is all. And yet it\nis considered rascality.\n\nLet me call your attention to another piece of evidence on this subject.\nOn page 5016, Mr. Bliss is talking about all these papers and these\nletters that were written and apparently signed by Peck, but really\nsigned by Miner, saying, \"I want you to send all communications in\nreference to such a route to post-office box No. so and so, John M.\nPeck,\" sometimes with an M. under it and sometimes without. He did that\nin consideration of the agreement at the time he got the routes that had\nbeen originally allotted to Peck. Mr. Bliss brought here a vast number\nof these papers, and then he continued, on page 5017:\n\nAll those, gentlemen, are orders, dated after the division, many of\nthem coming away down into 1881, and all of them relating to routes with\nwhich Peck had no connection, because he severed his connection with all\nthe routes prior to the 1st of April, or as of the 1st of April, 1879.\nJohn W. Dorsey tells you that he signed papers right along—Of course\nhe did. He agreed to—and I have here a series of them. Many of them are\norders not in blank. There are among the papers, orders signed in blank,\nbut these are dated, and they are witnessed not always by the same\nperson as indicating that they got together and signed a lot of orders\nat the time of the division. There is every indication that the dates\nare correct. The witnesses are different at different times.\n\nThe Court. These same orders would have been made if the division had\nbeen perfectly honest.\n\nThat is what I say. That is what we all say, gentlemen.\n\nIf the transaction then had been perfectly honest the papers would have\nbeen precisely as they are. From the papers being precisely as they\nare, do they tend to show that the transaction was dishonest, when it is\nadmitted by everybody and decided by the Court, that if the transaction\nhad been perfectly honest the papers would have been just as they are?\nRecollect my text. Every fact when you are proving a circumstantial case\nhas to point to the guilt of the defendants, and their guilt has to be\nfound from all the facts in the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there\nis one fact inconsistent with their guilt, the case is gone.\n\nThere is another little admission to which I call your attention.\nNothing delights me so much as to have the prosecution in a moment of\nforgetfulness, or we will say on purpose, admit a fact. Mr. Bliss said,\non page 5018:\n\nYou will bear in mind that the division took place some eight months\nprevious to that.\n\nThat was January 1, 1880,\n\nHowever that may be, these papers are all papers which on their faces\nmight be innocent and fair and proper. They are papers which, under\nordinary circumstances, might be executed to enable others than the\ncontractor to draw the pay and to be tiled with the department, though\nit appears, I think, by the evidence in this case that no draft could be\nfiled except shortly prior to the quarter as to which it applied. As to\nthese papers all that we have to say is this: they are papers on\ntheir face apparently innocent, papers calculated to go through in the\nordinary practice as though there was nothing wrong about them. At the\nsame time the evidence shows that they were papers executed by these\nseveral parties at the time of or in pursuance of the agreement of the\ndivision.\n\nI do not want anything better. That settles the papers. They were made\nat the time they agreed to make them. It was the only way in which they\ncould give the party who got the route absolute control of the route.\n\nNow, gentlemen, apart from these papers, I believe they have three\nwitnesses, at least they are called witnesses, in this case. The first\nwitness that I will call your attention to, and who figures about as\nearly as anybody, is A. W. Moore. I want to ask you a few questions\nabout his testimony. I want you to understand exactly what he swears to\nand the circumstances. Let us see.\n\nHe swears first that he had a conversation with Miner, in which he told\nMiner that he would work for him for one hundred and fifty dollars a\nmonth and expenses, with permission to put on some of his own service, I\nthink, in Oregon and California, and that Mr. Miner accepted his terms,\nand employed him as the agent of Miner, Peck & Co. Recollect that,\nMiner, Peck & Co. Second, that Miner told him to report at Dorsey's\nhouse to get instructions. Miner at that time was staying at Dorsey's\nhouse. I do not know whether it was to get instructions from Dorsey or\nfrom the house, or from Miner. I take it, from Miner. No matter. Mr.\nMoore then swears that he reported to Dorsey and Dorsey asked him his\nopinion about the service. Moore had never been there and did not know\none of the routes, but Dorsey was anxious for his opinion. How did he\nknow any more about the service than Dorsey? There is no evidence that\nMoore knew the price. There is no evidence that he knew the amount the\nGovernment was to pay on a single route. He was a stranger. Then he had\nanother conversation with Dorsey in which Dorsey told him that they had\nbid on the long routes with slow time, because that was the way to make\nmoney. Not satisfied with that, Mr. Dorsey showed him the subcontracts\nwith the blanks and with the changes, and then he explained to him the\ndescending scale, and he explained to him the percentage of expedition.\nHe said Dorsey told him forty per cent, of the expedition. Boone swears\nit was sixty-five per cent. There is a little difference; not much.\nMoore swears that he himself was to have twenty-five per cent, of the\nstealings. Let us see how that is. Boone swears that the subcontractor\nwas to have sixty-five per cent. Rerdell swears that Brady was to have\nthirty-three and one-third per cent. That leaves one and two-third per\ncent, for the contractor. Do you see? The subcontractor got sixty-five\ndollars out of one hundred dollars, and then Brady got thirty-three\ndollars and thirty-three and one-third cents. That makes ninety-eight\ndollars and thirty-three and one-third cents, leaving the contractor one\ndollar and sixty-six and two-third cents. That was all he got. Did you\never know of anybody on earth doing business at a smaller per cent, and\npaying for the trouble? Now, Mr. Moore comes in with his statement.\nHe says the subcontractor got forty per cent, and then he himself got\ntwenty-five per cent. That makes sixty-five. Then, according to Rerdell,\nBrady was to have thirty-three and one-third per cent. That makes\nninety-eight and one-third. There is the most wonderful coincidence in\nthis whole trial. Rerdell and Boone and Moore agree exactly that the\ncontractor gave up ninety-eight and one-third per cent, to others and\ntook one and two-thirds himself. Did you ever know as much humanity in\na conspiracy as that? Did you ever know such a streak of benevolence\nto strike anybody? It reminds me of a case of disinterested benevolence\nthat happened in Southern Illinois. A young man there went to a lawyer\nand said to him, \"I want to get a divorce, I was married at a time when\nI was drunk, and when I sobered up I didn't like the marriage. I want a\ndivorce.\" The lawyer asked, \"What do you want of a divorce?\" \"Well,\"\nhe said, \"do you know the widow Thompson?\" \"Yes.\" \"She has been a widow\nthere for about forty years. Do you know her boy? He is the biggest\nthief in this county. He went over the Ohio River the other day and\nstole a set of harness and a mule.\" \"What has that to do with this\ndivorce case?\" \"Well,\" he said, \"I want to get a divorce and I want to\nmarry that widow.\" \"What for?\" \"I want to get control of that boy and\nsee if I can't break him from stealing. I have got some humanity in me.\"\nHere are S. W. Dorsey, his brother, his brother-in-law, Miner and Vaile\nstarting a charity conspiracy, and out of every hundred dollars that\nthey steal they offer ninety-eight dollars and thirty-three cents upon\nthe altar of disinterested friendship. You are asked to believe that.\nYou will not do it.\n\nMr. Moore also swears that he received some money by a check, but he\ndoes not know whether the check was payable to him or payable to Miner,\nand he got a power of attorney signed by Miner from John W. Dorsey and\nJohn M. Peck, and then he started, S. W. Dorsey assuring him in the\nmeantime that he could tell the people out there that the service would\nbe increased and expedited in a few days. Mr. Moore is a peculiar man.\nHe says that that suited him exactly. He was willing to steal what\nlittle he could; he was willing to steal for one hundred and fifty\ndollars a month if he couldn't get any more, or he was willing to steal\nfor a part of the stealing. If he could not get that he would take an\nordinary salary. I should think he was a good man from what he says. You\nheard him. They were wonderfully anxious to prove by Moore that Dorsey\nwas the head and front of this whole business. That was the object, and\nso he swore as to the instructions. He said he was instructed to get up\npetitions so that they could be torn off and the names pasted on other\npetitions. He swore he carried out those instructions. He swore that\nMajor agreed to do it, and I think a man by the name of McBeau was going\nto do it. Yet, gentlemen, there never was such a petition gotten up.\nMajor swore here that he never heard of it; that he never dreamed of it,\nand never agreed to it; that it was a lie; that it was never suggested\nto him. Moore went out West and came back as far as Denver, and at\nDenver met John R. Miner, and then came here and saw Dorsey. What did he\ndo with Dorsey? He swears that he went to Stephen W. Dorsey and settled\nwith him, and that Dorsey settled in a very generous and magnanimous\nway, and did not want to look at his account, and did not want to look\nat the book; had no anxiety or curiosity about the items. He just said,\n\"How much is it?\" It happened to be even dollars—two hundred and fifty\ndollars. When a man goes out West and has hotel bills and all that sort\nof thing, when he comes to render his expense account it is always even\ndollars. Moore said two hundred and fifty dollars. Dorsey gave it to\nhim; never looked at the book at all. Moore swears that he made that\nsettlement with Stephen W. Dorsey on the 11th day of July, 1878. Dorsey\nwas then in the Senate.\n\nLook at page 1417. You see that Moore had been smart; that is what\npeople call smart. You know it is never smart to tell a lie. Very few\nmen have the brains to tell a good lie. It is an awfully awkward thing\nto deal with after you? have told it. You see it will not fit anything\nelse except another lie that you make, and you have to start a factory\nin a short time to make lies enough to support that poor little bantling\nthat you left on the door-step of your honesty. A man that is going to\ntell a lie should be ingenious and he should have an excellent memory.\nThat man swore that he settled with Dorsey to the 11th day of July, 1878;\nswore it for the purpose of convincing you that Dorsey employed him;\nthat Dorsey gave him instructions; that Dorsey was the head and front of\nthe conspiracy. I then handed him a little paper, and asked him, \"Do you\nknow anything about that? Did you ever sign that?\" And here it is:\n\nNot July 11. That is the day he got the money of Dorsey.\n\nJuly 24, 1878.\n\nReceived of Miner, Peck & Co., one hundred and sixty-six dollars,\nbalance of salary and expenses in full to July 11, 1878.\n\nA. W. Moore\n\nTo when? To July 24? No, sir; he settled with Dorsey to July 11, 1878.\nThe gentlemen had forgotten that he gave that. If he had only had a\nlittle more brains he would have avoided the two hundred and fifty\ndollars, that even amount, and he would have said, \"Dorsey did look\nover my books, and we had a little dispute about some items, and we just\njumped at two hundred and fifty dollars.\" But he swears that was the\nactual settlement, and then we bring in his receipt in writing,\ndated the 24th of July, 1878, saying that he received one hundred and\nsixty-six dollars that day, and that it was in full of his salary and\nexpenses, not up to that date, but up to the nth of July, 1878. If his\ntestimony is true, he stole that one hundred and sixty-six dollars. If\nhis testimony is true, he settled with Dorsey in full for two hundred\nand fifty dollars, and then he was mean enough to go and get one hundred\nand sixty-six dollars more for the same time. No, gentlemen, he was all\nright enough about it then; he told the falsehood here.\n\nNow, what does Dorsey swear? Dorsey swears that he received an order\nfrom Miner to give this man two hundred and fifty dollars. Miner swears\nthat if Dorsey paid him anything it was on his, Miner's, request. That\nis a v perfectly natural proceeding for Mr. Miner to request Dorsey to\npay this man two hundred and fifty dollars. The man came to Dorsey's\nhouse. Dorsey gave him two hundred and fifty dollars upon Miner's order.\nHe was trusting John R. Miner for the money, and it was none of his\nbusiness whether Miner owed it or not, and consequently he did not\nlook at his book. Now, every fact is consistent with the truth of Mr.\nDorsey's testimony; the fact is consistent with the truth of Miner's\ntestimony; and the receipt of this man given to Miner on the 24th of\nJuly, 1878, demonstrates that he did not tell the truth, under oath, in\nthis court before you.\n\nThat is the end of Mr. Moore; that is the end of him. You never need\nbother about him again as long as you live.\n\nWhy, they say, \"Why didn't you impeach him?\" He impeached himself. \"Why\ndidn't you call so-and-so?\" Because we had that receipt; that is why.\nNo need of killing a man that is dead. You need not give poison to a\ncorpse. When a thing is buried, let it go. When a man commits suicide,\nyou need not murder him. When he destroys his own testimony, let it\nalone; it will not hurt you.\n\nI am not afraid of the testimony of Mr. Moore. If these gentlemen can\ngalvanize it into the appearance of life, I should be very happy to see\nthem do it. Everything that he swore upon this stand that in any way\ntouched the defendants is shown not to be true.\n\nWhy should Dorsey have told him in 1878 to get up fraudulent petitions?\nEven Rerdell does not swear that in 1879 Dorsey instructed him to get\nup fraudulent petitions, and certainly he would go to the limit of the\ntruth. After he made his story out of a piece of true cloth there would\nbe very few scraps left. He would certainly go clear to the line. And\nyet, even he does not swear that when he went West to make contracts, to\nget up petitions, he was instructed by Mr. Dorsey to get up a fraudulent\npetition—not once. And yet Moore swears that in 1878, when Dorsey was\nin the Senate, he told him to get up these fraudulent petitions. It will\nnot do.\n\nMr. Major swears that what he says about it is not true; Mr. McBean\nswears that what he says about it is not true; and then we have Moore's\nown receipt showing that it is not true.\n\nOn page 4757 Mr. Bliss says—Moore stands before you, therefore, so\nfar as all this testimony is concerned, wholly and absolutely\nuncontradicted.\n\nHis testimony was that he was employed by Dorsey; his testimony was that\nhe was settled with by Dorsey, and the testimony of the receipt that he\nsigned is that he settled with Miner and not with Dorsey; the testimony\nof Miner is that he was settled with by Miner, and not with by Dorsey;\nthe testimony of Dorsey is that he never had any conversation with him\nin the world except at the time he paid him the two hundred and fifty\ndollars. They say Rerdell was present at the conversation. Why did they\nnot prove it by Rerdell after Dorsey had sworn to the contrary? And\nyet Mr. Bliss tells you that he is not contradicted—\"utterly\nuncontradicted.\"\n\nMr. Ker, it seems, has an opinion of this same witness, I believe. He\nsays, on page 4511:\n\nHe says he started out and went to work, as these records show, and made\nthe subcontracts according to his instructions, and got up the petitions\naccording to his instructions.\n\nHe swears he did not get up a petition at all, not one; he swears that\nhe had not time. And yet these gentlemen say that he got up petitions\naccording to his instructions, and he swears he did not. He swears he\ntold Major to, and that Major signified his willingness to do it. Major\nswears that that is a falsehood. He swears the same with reference to\nMcBean, and McBean swears that it is a falsehood. Now Mr. Ker goes on:\n\nHe fixed them up and changed the language a little in some, and in some\nhe did not take the trouble to change, but he fixed them all so that\nthere was a space between the writing and the names, so that they could\nbe cut off and pasted on other papers.\n\nHe expressly denies that he ever fixed a petition in the world.\n\nMr. Ker. What page?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You ask the page! Talk to the jury seven days! I say that\nthis man never fixed up a petition, and he never says that he fixed up\na petition. Where is the page on which he says it? He was willing to\ndo it, but he had not the time. I will show you that language. There is\nwhat they say about this man. Then he says he got a note from Miner, and\nwent to Denver and met Miner. That is right. Then Miner offered him a\nquarter interest in the routes in this vast conspiracy.\n\nLet us find what Moore thinks of himself. We find that on page 1398. He\nis a good man, worthy of this case, according to the eternal fitness of\nthings. I come to this quicker than I thought I would. It is page 1396:\n\nQ. Did you get up any?—A. No, sir; I didn't have the time.\n\nThere it is. Now, of course, Mr. Ker forgot. I call your attention to\nthis to show how little weight such evidence is entitled to in reference\nto a conversation five years ago, when Mr. Ker could not remember this\nwith the book before him.\n\nMr. Ker. I asked you for the page on which Mr. McBean's testimony\nappears.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Mr. Moore is the witness. Mr. Moore swears that he never\ngot up such a petition. Mr. Ker says he did. He and Mr. Ker will have to\nsettle their own difficulty.\n\nOn last Friday, in reply, I think, to a question of Mr. Ker, I stated\nthat I thought McBean swore that Mr. Moore did not make any arrangement\nwith him to get up false petitions. In that I was mistaken. Mr. Moore\nswore that he made an arrangement with McBean to get up petitions. He\ndid not quite swear that McBean agreed to get up false and fraudulent\npetitions. He just came to the edge of it and did not quite swear to it.\nAfterwards McBean was recalled by the Government and the Government did\nnot ask McBean whether he had ever agreed to get up any petitions or\nwhether he had ever made any such arrangement with Moore. They did not\nask him and we did not ask him. I do not know why they did not ask him.\nThey probably know.\n\nI also stated that Moore swore that he got his instructions about these\npetitions from Dorsey. The evidence is that he got his instructions\nnot from Dorsey but from Miner; that Miner so instructed him, and that\nthereupon he made the bargain to get up such petitions with a man by the\nname of Major on the Redding and Alturas route. I make this correction\nbecause I do not want you or any one else to think that I wish any\nmisstatement made in our favor. We do not need it and consequently there\nis no need of making it. You will remember that after Moore swore that\nhe made a bargain with Major to get up false petitions, Major swore that\nit was untrue. You will also remember that Judge Carpenter called\nfor the petitions that were gotten up upon the routes that Moore had\nsomething to do with, and I think he showed you on one route eleven or\ntwelve petitions. Mr. Major swears that every petition was honest, that\nthe statements in each petition were true, and that the signatures were\ngenuine. All those petitions were shown to you. So that the result of\nthe Moore testimony is this: Moore swears that Miner told him to get\nup such petitions. He then swears that he made that bargain with Major.\nMajor says it is not true. Moore almost swears that he made the same\nbargain with McBean. McBean says nothing on the subject. Then we bring\nhere the petitions upon those very routes, and especially upon the\nRedding and Alturas route, and we find no such petitions as are\ndescribed by Moore. That is enough in regard to Mr. Moore upon that one\npoint.\n\nThere is one little piece of testimony to which I failed to call your\nattention on Friday, and to which I will call your attention now. Moore\nwas the friend of Boone. Boone recommended him to Miner. It was through\nBoone that Moore was employed. Now, I ask you if it is not wonderful\nthat Moore never told Boone that there was a conspiracy on foot? Is it\nnot wonderful that Moore did not tell Boone, his friend, the man to whom\nhe was indebted for the employment, \"There is a conspiracy in this case.\nSenator Dorsey as good as told me so. I know all about it.\"\n\nThe fact is he never said one word, and the reason we know it, is that\nBoone swears that when he went out on the 7th or 8th of August he never\neven suspected it. I cannot, it seems to me, make this point too plain.\nBoone had been known by Dorsey for a long time. They were very good\nfriends. Dorsey had enough confidence in him to select him as the man\nto get the necessary information after he had been requested so to do\nin the letter. Boone was the man who attended to this business more than\nanybody else. Boone was interested with John W. Dorsey. Boone had every\nreason to find out exactly what was happening. He was at Dorsey's house,\nwhere Miner was. He talked with Miner day after day. He helped get\nup the bids. He did a great deal of mechanical work. He had the\nsubcontracts printed. Yet during all that time Dorsey never let fall a\nchance expression that gave Boone even the dimmest dawn of a hint that\nthere was a conspiracy. Nobody told Boone. Moore, his friend, never\nspoke of it.\n\nNow, there is one other point with regard to Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore\nswears, on page 1371, that Miner offered him a fourth interest in these\nroutes. That was the conversation in which he said Mr. Miner told him\nthey were good affidavit men. According to Moore's testimony he then\nknew there was a conspiracy, and he understood that he was part and\nparcel of it. Let me ask you right here, is it probable that Moore\nwould have been offered a quarter interest at that time if a conspiracy\nexisted, and if they had their plans laid to make hundreds of thousands\nof dollars, and if the profits had depended upon the affidavits alone?\nI ask you, as sensible, reasonable men, if he would have been offered a\nquarter interest under those circumstances? Now conies in what I believe\nto be the falsehood. Mr. Moore says that the interest was offered to\nhim by Miner, but Miner said it would have to be ratified by Stephen\nW. Dorsey. That is brought in for the purpose of having some evidence\nagainst Dorsey. You must recollect, gentlemen, that this evidence was\nall purchased. This evidence was all bargained for in the open shamble.\nYou must recollect that there are upon the records of this court some\nseven or ten indictments against A. E. Boone. You must remember that\nMoore was Boone's friend. You must remember that Moore was a part of the\nconsideration that Boone was giving to the Government for immunity.\n\nMr. Merrick. Is there any proof of that?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I think there is. Mr. Moore swears as to the number of\nindictments against Boone. He was his friend. The jury have a right to\ninfer what motive prompts a witness. Moore wished to swear enough, so\nthat Mr. Boone would not be troubled. In my judgment, Mr. Boone,\nbeing under indictment, gave evidence in this case in order that\nthe Government would take its clutch from his throat. He swore under\npressure. That is the system, gentlemen, that is dangerous in any\ncountry. Whenever a Government advertises for witnesses; whenever a\nGovernment says to a guilty man, or to a man who is indicted, \"All we\nask of you is to help us convict somebody else;\" whenever they advertise\nfor a villain, they get him. That is the result of what they call the\ninformer system—an infamous system. A court of justice, where justice\nis done between man and man, is the holiest place on earth. The informer\nsystem turns it into a den, into a cavern, into a dungeon, where crawl\nthe slimy monsters of perjury and treachery. That is the informer\nsystem. It makes a court a den of wild beasts. What else does it do?\nUnder its brood and hatch come spies; spies to watch witnesses, spies to\nwatch counsel, spies to follow jurymen, so that a juror cannot leave his\nhouse without the shadow of the spy falling upon his door-step. That is\nnot the proper attitude of a Government. The business of a Government\nis to protect its citizens, not to spread nets. The business of a\nGovernment is to throw its shield of power in front of the rights of\nevery citizen. I hold in utter, infinite, and absolute contempt any\nGovernment that calls for informers and spies. Every trial should be in\nthe free air. All the work should be done openly. These sinister motions\nin the dark, the crawling of these abnormal and slimy things, I abhor.\n\nNow, to come back to Moore. Upon my word I think he was trying to help\nhis friend. After Mr. Miner had offered him a quarter interest, then\nhe came back to Washington. He arrived here, according to his evidence,\nabout the 11th day of July, I think. He went immediately to see Stephen\nW. Dorsey. Recollect that. That was the time Dorsey settled with him\nwithout looking at his books. After he settled with him and gave him\ntwo hundred and fifty dollars he asked him to telegraph to see if the\nservice had been put on The Dalles and Baker City route. He waited here\nuntil he received an answer, and after that he talked with Dorsey not\nonly about that matter, but in that conversation Dorsey said, according\nto Moore, that it took a good deal of money to keep up their influence\nin the department. When I asked him when that conversation was, he\nsaid two or three days after the first conversation. According to the\nevidence in this case Stephen W. Dorsey left this city on the 12th of\nJuly. This man Moore arrived on the nth, and he says two or three days\nafter his arrival Dorsey said it took money to keep up their influence\nhere. When he swears that Dorsey told him that, Dorsey was in the city\nof Oberlin, Ohio. Recollect these things. Whoever tells stories of this\ncharacter should have a most excellent memory.\n\nNow, there is another thing. When did Miner get back? He got back by the\n24th of July, because on the 24th of July he settled with Moore, and I\nbelieve then Moore went West again. Now, remember there was a contract\nmade, as Moore swears. He has not got it. Nobody sees it. He says there\nwas a contract made by which he had a fourth interest in something.\nHe got back here I believe some time in November, and on the 20th of\nNovember he and Miner settled. I will now look on page 1430 for that\nsettlement. I want you to see how everything was situated at that time.\n\nI find on page 1430 that Mr. Miner settled for everybody with Mr. A. W.\nMoore. Remember the situation. Moore knew there was a conspiracy. All\nthe service was on. You see, this was November 20, 1880. Vaile was\nin. They had a man who was close to Brady. Everything was running in\nmagnificent style. Mr. Moore understood that there was a conspiracy.\nWhat more did he understand? That he had the claw of his avarice in the\nflesh of a United States Senator and in the flesh of a Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were to be made.\nHe came back here and settled up and sold out his interest for how much?\nSix hundred and eighty-two dollars. Do you believe that? Credulity would\nnot believe it. Nobody believes it, that is if the rest of the story is\ntrue. Why did he settle with him for so little? He said Mr. Miner told\nhim he hadn't a dollar. He did not reply to him, \"When this conspiracy\nis completed you will have plenty. I can wait.\" No. Miner said he hadn't\nanything and so Moore settled for six hundred and eighty-two dollars.\nThen I asked him, \"You had a contract with Dorsey, did you?\" \"Yes;\nverbally.\" \"Did you ever say anything to Dorsey about it?\" \"No.\" \"Did\nyou ever claim anything from Dorsey?\" \"No.\" \"Did you ever write to\nhim?\" \"No.\" \"Did you ever say anything to anybody that you had any\nclaim against Dorsey?\" \"No.\" You saw Mr. Moore, gentlemen, here upon the\nstand. Do you think he is the kind of man who would let such a chance\nslip? It is for you to judge. In my judgment that is the eternal end of\nMoore's testimony. We can call him buried. We can put the sod over his\ngrave. We can raise a stone to the memory of A. W. Moore. Let him rest\nin peace, or to use the initials only, let him R. I. P. That is the end\nof him. If the Government wishes to dig up the corpse hereafter let them\ndig.\n\nMr. Ker. I would like—\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Interposing.] I don't want to hear from you.\n\nThe Court. You do not know what he is going to say.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. He may be intending to make a motion that the jury be\ninstructed to find a verdict of not guilty.\n\nMr. Ker. As Mr. Merrick will have to answer, he simply wants to know the\npage.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. If Mr. Merrick wants to know the page he shall have the\npage, or anybody that wishes to answer. If counsel had simply asked me\nfor the page, without getting up in such a solemn manner, I would have\ntold him.\n\nOn page 1406, Mr. Moore says that he went to Dorsey and got the money,\nand that then Dorsey requested him to telegraph to The Dalles, and that\nhe did not see Dorsey after he got the answer to his dispatch, I think,\nfor two or three days. He reached Washington, he says, about the 11th.\nOn page 1372, he speaks of telegraphing to The Dalles by instructions\nfrom Dorsey.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I am going to call your attention for a little while\nto another witness, Mr. Rerdell. And in the commencement, I need not\nrefresh your minds with regard to the part he has played. I need not, in\nthe first instance, tell you about his affidavit of June, 1881, nor his\naffidavit of July 13, 1882, nor his pencil memorandum, nor his Chico\nletter, nor his offer to pack the jury on behalf of the Government, nor\nthe signals he had agreed upon, nor the reports he made from day to day,\nnor the affidavit of September that he made for the Government, nor of\nNovember nor of February. All these things you remember and remember\nperfectly. I will speak of them as I reach them, but I want you to keep\nin your minds who he is.\n\nI need not call any names. Epithets would glance from his reputation\nlike bird-shot from the turret of a monitor. The worst thing I can say\nabout him is to call him Mr. Rerdell. All epithets become meaningless in\ncomparison. The worst thing I can say after that would have the taint of\nflattery in it. You will remember when Enobarbus was speaking to\nAgrippa about Caesar, he says, \"Would you praise Caesar, say Caesar. Go\nno further.\" And I can say, \"If you wish to abuse this witness, say Mr.\nRerdell. Go no further.\" That is as far as I shall go.\n\nYou will remember that Mr. Rerdell was in the employ of Stephen W.\nDorsey, and had been for several years. He does not pretend that he was\never badly used; he does not say before you that Mr. Dorsey ever did to\nhim an unkind act, ever said an unkind word. In all the record of the\nyears that he was with him he finds no page blotted with an unjust\nact, not one. He has no complaint to make. Under those circumstances\nhe voluntarily goes to see a man by the name of Clayton, I think an\nex-Senator from Arkansas, known to him at that time to be an enemy of\nStephen W. Dorsey, an enemy of his employer, an enemy of his friend—his\nfriend, whose bread this witness had eaten for years, whose roof had\nprotected him, who had trusted and treated him like a human being. Yet\nhe goes to this man Clayton, and he says, in substance, \"I want to\nsell out my friend to the Government.\" He was not actuated exactly by\npatriotism, although he says he was. The promptings of virtue may have\nstarted him, but after he got started he said to himself, \"I do not see\nthat it hurts virtue to be rewarded.\" So he said, \"I want some pay for\nthis; I want a steamboat route reinstated; I want the Jennings claim\nallowed. Of course I am disinterested in what I am doing, but I might\nas well have something, if it is going.\" \"What else do you want?\" The\ndisinterested patriot suggested that he would like to have a clerkship\nfor his father-in-law. \"Anything else?\" If you will read his letter of\nJuly 5, 1882, which I will read to you before I get through, you will\nsee that he says, \"If I had remained with the Government I have every\nreason to believe I would have had a good position by this time.\" So he\nmust have demanded a clerkship for himself—good, honest man. At that\ntime he did not know, but swore it afterwards and swore it here upon the\nstand, that Dorsey had never done anything wrong; and yet he was willing\nto sell him to the Government, believing that he had never done anything\nwrong. So he went and saw the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General\ndid not appear to take any great interest in the matter. He turned him\nover to the Attorney-General. He showed the Postmaster-General what he\nhad, and read him, I believe, or showed him some memoranda. Then he went\nand saw the Attorney-General. The Postmaster-General did not seem to\ngive him encouragement. Then when he went to see MacVeagh he took with\nhim a letter-book—I do not know but more than one—but we will say a\nletter-book. Now, what was in that letter-book? And, gentlemen, the\nonly way to find whether a man tells the truth is to take all the\ncircumstances into consideration. What did he want to do? What was his\nobject? And what were the means at his command? For instance, it is said\nthat a man left his house with the intention of murdering another, and\nthat he had on his table a loaded revolver, and also had on his table a\nsmall walking-stick, and he took with him the walking-stick. You would\nsay he did not intend to commit the murder; that if he had so intended\nhe would have taken the deadly weapon. In other words, you must believe\nthat men, acting for the accomplishment of a certain object, use the\nnatural means within their power.\n\nNow, what did he have in that letter-book? He swears now that in that\nletter-book there was a copy of a letter from Stephen W. Dorsey to James\nW. Bosler; that the original letter was written by Stephen W. Dorsey.\nThat press-copy, of course, would show that the original letter was in\nthe handwriting of S. W. Dorsey. What does he swear was in that letter?\nHe swears that Dorsey made a proposition to Bosler to go into the\nbusiness; told him the profits, and told him that he had to give\nthirty-three and one-third per cent, to T. J. B.; that he had already\npaid him, I think, twenty thousand dollars, and had more to pay him.\nAccording to the testimony of Mr. Rerdell, that was in the letter-book\nthat he took to Mr. MacVeagh. Now, recollect that. Why did he not show\nit? He had forgotten it. He showed him what he had. Recollect now, that\nhe had a tabular statement. I think the letter showed so much money to\nT. J. B., and the tabular statement thirty-three and one-third per cent,\nto T. J. B. He had that tabular statement, and that was in Dorsey's\nhandwriting. He says he had it. Well, after that, the Attorney-General\nmust have told him, \"That is not enough; I want some more.\" \"Well,\" he\nsays, \"I can let you have some more.\" \"What more can you let us have?\"\nWell, then he told him about the red books; I do not know that he said\nthey were red, but he told him about the books and that those books were\nin New York, and he would go over there and get them; that he was\ngoing to steal them; he says he went over to get them, and afterwards\nadmitted, I believe that lie was stealing them.\n\nNow, we must remember the position Rerdell was in. He had been to\nClayton, to the Postmaster-General in company with Mr. Woodward, and to\nthe Attorney-General in company with Mr. Woodward, and yet there was\nnot enough. Well, it was all he had. What more could he do? He suddenly\nfound himself caught in his own trap. He had furnished enough to trouble\nhim, but not enough to convict Dorsey, and not enough to be promised\nimmunity. Now, what had he to do? He did exactly as he did with Mr.\nWoodward in September, when he made that affidavit, and when Woodward\nsaid it was not enough; he said, \"Very well, I will make another,\" the\nsame as he did when he made the affidavit of seventy pages in November\nand found it was a little weak. He made another, and he would have made\nthem right along. He had a factory running night and day. Now, he tells\nyou that while he was talking with MacVeagh, just towards the last of\nthe conversation, the idea flashed into his brain that he might save\nDorsey too. Don't you remember that testimony? And as quick as he\nthought of that, he agreed to go to New York and steal the books. The\nvery last thing that MacVeagh said to him, according to MacVeagh's\ntestimony, and I believe according to his own, was to be sure and get\nthe books; that they were all important. So he went, as he claims. Now,\ndid it occur to him that he would save Dorsey in that way? Did he think\nof saving Dorsey by going and getting these books? That was the last\nthing, and he was going to get the books to be used as evidence against\nDorsey.\n\nIn a few days he says he started for New York, and the question arises,\nwhy did Rerdell go to New York at all? Why did he want to see that the\nbooks were in New York? Why did he pretend that he had any more evidence\nunless he had it? You see you have got to get at the philosophy of\nthis man; you have got to find what actuated him; and although in many\nrespects he is abnormal, unnatural, monstrous, and morally deformed,\nstill it may be that we can find the philosophy upon which he acted. Why\ndid he say he was going to New York? Because the Attorney-General\ntold him—he must have told him—that the evidence he then had was not\nsufficient. Rerdell could not break down right there and say, \"That is\nall I have got.\" That would give up the fight; that would tell him\nthat he had endeavored to sell out his friend and nobody would buy the\nevidence; that would tell him that he had tried this and had failed;\nthat he had simply succeeded in showing his own treachery without\ninvolving his friend. He could not stop there. You must recollect the\nevidence he had, and the evidence he wanted.\n\nLet us see what he had. Mr. Bliss says, \"Why did he say the books were\nin New York? Why did he not say they were in Washington?\" That would\nnot have given him time, gentlemen. He would have been told, \"Go and get\nthem.\" Then he could not have produced them. Consequently he put them in\nthe possession of somebody else, so that if he failed to get them, then\nhe could say that the other man destroyed them or had hid them; he could\nhave said, \"I have done my best; they did exist, but they have been\ndestroyed, or they have been hidden, or they have been put out of the\nway.\" He wanted time, and knowing that no such books existed, he could\nnot say, \"I have them in Washington,\" because then he could give no\nexcuse for their non-production. He must state it in such a way that he\ncould reasonably fail; that is to say, that he could give a reason for\nhis failure. He could not say, \"I have them in my house,\" because\nhe would have been told to go and get them. So he put them in the\npossession of another man, so that, failing to get them, as fail he\nmust, he could give a reasonable excuse for the failure.\n\nWhy did he go to New York? I will tell you what my philosophy is: He\nfound that the Government did not wish to purchase the evidence that he\nhad. He found that, in the judgment of the expert of the Department of\nJustice, it was not sufficient. The next thing was to retrace his steps.\nHe did not want to jump off of one boat into the sea and find no other\nboat to rescue him. He said: \"I have been too hasty; I will go to New\nYork.\" Why? To find out whether Dorsey had heard of this or not. That\nis what he went there for. The inferior man always imagines that the\nsuperior knows what he is doing, and knows what he has done. He found\nthat he was about to fail with the Government, and then the important\nquestion to him was: Has Dorsey found this out? Can I go back to\nDorsey? Or must I go on and be cast away by him and be refused by the\nGovernment?\n\nNow let me call another thing to your minds. I will come to it again,\nbut it forces itself upon me at this place, and it seems to me it ought\nto be absolutely conclusive.\n\nHe swears that on the day after he went to MacVeagh with that\nletter-book, in looking it over he found the press-copy of the original\nletter that Dorsey wrote to Bosler on the 13th of July, 1879. says that\nthe next day he found that copy in that copy-book. Why did he not steal\nthe book? Conscientious scruples, gentlemen! You see he was going to New\nYork to steal another. Why not steal one that he already had possession\nof? And how much better that book would have been than the other that he\nwas going to get. This was a copy of a letter in Dorsey's handwriting,\nin which he admitted that he had paid twenty thousand dollars to T. J.\nB., and was going to pay him some more, while that book in New York was\nnot in Dorsey's handwriting—admitting, for the sake of the argument,\nthat there was a book—but was in the handwriting of Donnelly\nor Rerdell. See? And right there he had the evidence, absolutely\nconclusive, in the handwriting of S. W. Dorsey himself, and he did not\neven keep it, he did not even steal it, but he gave it back and went\nto New York to steal a book that Dorsey did not write. He threw away\nprimary evidence to get secondary evidence. He threw away that which\nwould have convicted Dorsey beyond a doubt, which would have made him\na welcome recruit to the Government. He threw that away and went to New\nYork to get another, a line of which Dorsey never wrote; and then he\nwould have to establish, after he got that book, that \"William Smith\"\nstood for Thomas J. Brady; he would have to prove after they got\nthat book that \"John Smith\" or \"Samuel Jones\" stood for Turner. Now,\ngentlemen, do you believe that that man, with his ideas of honor, with\nthe kind of a conscience he has in his bosom, with the copy of a letter\nin Dorsey's handwriting in his possession admitting that Dorsey gave\ntwenty thousand dollars to T. J. B., would give that up and then go to\nthe city of New York to steal a book not in Dorsey's handwriting, and\nthat did not prove that Dorsey had ever paid a cent to Thomas J. Brady,\nin which there was one charge to \"William Smith,\" and that would have to\nbe eked out by the testimony of Rerdell himself, when he had right\nthere in his own grasp and clutch the press-copy of the original letter\nwritten by Dorsey himself? Do you believe it? There is not a man on\nthat jury believes it; there is not a lawyer prosecuting this case who\nbelieves it.\n\nWhat else did he have? He had a letter that he himself, as he claims,\nwrote to Bosler on the 22d of May, 1880, after he, Rerdell, had been\nsummoned to appear before a committee of Congress. He had, he says,\nthose three sheets.\n\nWhat else did he have the morning after he was talking with MacVeagh? He\nhad the tabular statement in the handwriting of Stephen W. Dorsey, and\nover the Brady column, \"T. J. B., thirty-three and one-third per cent.\"\n\nWhat more did that man have? He had the balance-sheets made out, as he\nswears, by Donnelly, of those books. Were the balance-sheets just as\ngood as the books?\n\nNow, just think what he had, according to his own testimony: A copy of\nthe original letter, written by Dorsey to Bosler, in which he admitted\nhis guilt; a copy of the tabular statement, written by Dorsey, in which\nhe put down thirty-three and one-third per cent, to T. J. B. What more?\nCopy of the letter that he had written to Bosler on the 22d of May,\n1880. He had all that, and he must have had this memorandum, though I\nwill show you that he had not, and I think I will show you when he made\nit. And yet he was going to New York to get some more evidence. He\nwas going to steal another book in New York that would simply create a\nsuspicion, while he gave up a book that was absolute certainty. That is\nthe theory. But they say, \"Oh, he did not do that quite.\" What did\nhe do? He went and had that copied. He swears that he had copied\nthat letter of May 13, 1879, that Dorsey wrote to Bosler, in which he\nadmitted that he gave twenty thousand dollars to Brady. Now, a copy\nwould not show in whose handwriting the press-copy was, would it? That\nis a very important point. Who copied it? I think he said Miss Nettie\nL. White copied it. We never hear of Miss Nettie L. White again, though.\nThese gentlemen admit that you are not to believe Mr. Rerdell on any\npoint that is not corroborated, and when he swears that Miss Nettie L.\nWhite copied the letter you are not bound to believe there was such a\nletter unless they bring Miss White or account for her absence. They\ndid not bring her. That is an extremely important point in their case,\ninfinitely more important than whether the red books ever existed. Did\nDorsey write a letter to Bosler in which he admitted his guilt? This man\nsays that he had complete and perfect evidence of it in his own hand;\nthat he gave that up; that he had that copied by Miss White. And they\ndid not bring Miss White. Certainly he had no scruples about tearing it\nout. He says he tore out his letter to Bosler of the 22d of May, 1880.\nHe had no scruples about that. He did not refuse to keep the book\nbecause it touched his honor, because in a day or two he was going to\nsteal another not half as good as that one, not one-tenth part as good.\nJust think. He gave up evidence that was absolute and complete, and went\nto steal evidence that was secondary and of the poorest character. You\ndo not believe it. He would have kept that book if he had kept any. If\nhe was going to steal any evidence, and had the best, he would have kept\nit. The trouble was that there was no such letter in that book. There\nwas his letter of May 22, 1880; no doubt about that; and that man tore\nit out, and then he made up one in his own mind, and had it of that\ndate; that is all.\n\nSo he went to New York, and he swears that he went right up to the\nAlbemarle Hotel; that it was early in the morning; that Dorsey was not\nthen up; and that he had a conversation with Dorsey, in which Dorsey\ncharged him with having had something to do with the Government, with\nhaving gone over to the Government. Dorsey had heard that there was\nsomething going on about that time, and I suppose he asked Mr. Rerdell\nabout it. Rerdell denied it; said there was no truth in it; that nothing\nof the kind, character, or sort had ever happened.\n\nNow let us just see whether I can demonstrate to you that Rerdell, in\nthe conversation he had with Dorsey at the Albemarle Hotel, denied that\nhe had gone over to the Government, or that he had done anything that\nwas not perfectly honest, straightforward, and upright. I refer to it\nnow, although I may come to it again.\n\nAnd, gentlemen, I am sorry for you; I pity every one of you, that you\nhave to hear all that has to be said in this case. But you must put\nyourselves, for the moment, in our places. You must remember that these\ndefendants have borne this agony, have been roofed and surrounded\nwith disorder for two years. You must remember that the agents of the\nGovernment have pursued them, they have watched over them and spied them\nnight and day. You must remember that they have been slandered for\nyears in the public press, although the tone of the public press is now\nchanging, and changing in such a marked degree that one of the\nattorneys here for the prosecution claimed that we had bought up the\ncorrespondents. When you take into consideration what my clients have\nsuffered, the position they are now in, fighting this great and powerful\nGovernment, I know you will excuse us for inflicting upon you every\nthought and every argument that we think may be for our defence.\n\nI am doing for my clients what I would do for you, or any of you, if you\nwere defendants, and I am doing for them what I would want them to do\nfor me were I a defendant and they my counsel.\n\nNow I am going to demonstrate this. When Mr. Rerdell got to Jersey City\nhe telegraphed back, according to the evidence of Mr. Dorsey:\n\nUp to this moment I have been faithful to every trust.\n\nI believe Rerdell swears that he did not send that. He had a\nmemorandum-book which he took out of his pocket. I think a leaf was torn\nfrom it, and he ran his pencil through this line on the page on which\nhe had taken a copy of this dispatch, \"Up to this moment I have been\nfaithful to every trust,\" and says he did not send it. Why did he put\nhis pencil through that? Because that line would not agree with the\ntestimony he had given upon the stand. \"Up to this moment I have been\nfaithful to every trust\" was in that dispatch. I want to ask you if you\nbelieve that Rerdell could have sent that dispatch to a man to whom he\nhad admitted that very morning that he had gone over to the Government?\nDo you believe it? How perfectly natural it would have been for him to\nsend a dispatch from Jersey City that harmonized and accorded with his\ndenial of that morning.\n\nJust look at that [handing the paper to the foreman of the jury.]\nJust read it. I want the jury to look at it. He rubbed it out of his\nmemorandum-book. When? At the time? No, sir; when he found that he\nwanted something to harmonize with his evidence here. Even he had not\nthe brazen effrontery to swear that he had told Dorsey that very morning\nthat he (Rerdell) had gone over to the Government, and then that very\nafternoon to telegraph him—Up to this moment I have been faithful to\nevery trust.\n\nWhy, in comparison with that cheek brass is a liquid. What is the next\nsentence?\n\nThe affidavit story is a lie.\n\nWhy did he leave that in? Because technically that was true. He had not\nthen made an affidavit, and there is nothing so pleases a man who has\nmade up his mind to tell a lie as to have mixed with the mortar of that\nlie one hair of truth. It is delightful to smell the perfume of a fact\nin the hell-broth of his perjury. Just look at that. These two things\nshow that he had not admitted to Dorsey that he had told the Government\nanything against Dorsey. He wanted Dorsey to understand that he,\nRerdell, had not communicated with the Government. Now, if you admit his\nevidence to be true, at the time he sent that dispatch he had the stolen\nbook under his arm, and you, gentlemen of the jury, are asked to believe\na man who would do that thing. I would not. I would not convict the\nmeanest, lowest wretch that ever crawled between heaven and earth upon\nsuch testimony. Never. Neither can you do it. A verdict must rest upon\na fact. The fact must rest upon the testimony of a witness. That witness\nmust be, or seem to be, an honest man. And unless a verdict is based\nupon the bed-rock of honesty, it is infinitely rotten, and the jury that\nwill give a verdict not based upon honesty is corrupt.\n\nMr Crane (foreman of the jury.) I notice that this dispatch seems to\nhave been written with different pencils at different times.\n\nMr Ingersoll—Up to this moment I have been faithful to every trust—Is\nwritten very dimly.\n\nThe affidavit story is a lie, but confidence between us is gone—Is in\nstill a different hand.\n\nI resign my position and will turn everything over to any one you\ndesignate—Is still another hand. Three hands, three pencils, in the one\nmemorandum. These papers have been manufactured, and when the Government\nsaid, \"This is not enough,\" another paragraph has been added.\n\nHow hard it is to perpetrate a piece of rascality and do it well. There\nare an infinite number of things in this universe, and everything that\nis in it is related to everything else; and when you get a falsehood in\nit that does not belong to the family, it has not the family likeness;\nand when anybody sees it who is acquainted with the family, he says,\n\"That is an adopted young one.\"\n\nMr. Rerdell now says, I believe, that he did not send that line, \"Up to\nthis moment,\" &c. Dorsey swears that he did. Rerdell then produces this\nbook and this paper which I have shown to you.\n\nNow, let us follow Mr. Rerdell from the Albemarle Hotel.\n\nI will show that he crosses himself on almost every fact that he\nendeavors to swear to. He swears that he went to Dorsey's; that from\nDorsey's he went immediately to Tor-rey's office; that he then went and\ngot lunch and then went to Jersey City. He also swears that he got his\nbreakfast before he went to Dorsey's. In the next examination he swears\nthat he got his breakfast after he went to Dorsey's, and after he got\nthe book he went to Jersey City, first walking up and down Broadway for\nabout an hour. He had forgotten about the lunch. There is nothing in\nit but a mass of contradiction. He swears that he went down to Torrey's\noffice. Why did he not make it earlier, as soon as he got off the boat?\nBecause he did not have any key to the office. It would not do to swear\nthat he broke into the office and that nobody ever heard of it, and so\nhe had to put the time after the office would naturally be open. Well,\nnow we have got him as far as the office. He swears that he went in\nthere and saw Mr. Torrey. After chatting a little with Torrey, and\ntelling him the object of his visit, Torrey took him into the next room\nand took these books from a shelf or desk, or something of that kind,\nand handed them both to him, and he looked them over at his leisure,\nwhile Mr. Torrey went back to his business. He finally took the journal\nand left the ledger. Why did he leave the ledger? I will tell you after\na while. Every lie, as well as every truth, has its philosophy. He took\nthe journal and came along out with it under his arm, not wrapped up,\nnot concealed. Then he had another chat with Torrey about the weather\nor something, and then he went on. Why did he swear that he had a\nconversation with Torrey in that office? I will tell you. When he was\ngiving that testimony, Torrey was in mid-ocean, between New York and\nLiverpool. I guess Mr. Rerdell had heard that the man was away. He\nthought he would be absolutely and perfectly safe, and so he said he\nhad a conversation with Torrey. The moment he repeated that conversation\nwith Torrey, I said, \"Where is Torrey?\" We telegraphed to New York and\nwe found that Torrey had left for the old country. We sent a cablegram\nto Queenstown and we intercepted him. I think he staid a day in the old\ncountry, and took the next ship and came back, arriving here in time\nto swear that Rerdell never visited that office, that he never had that\nconversation with him, and that he never got that book from that office;\nmore than that, that that book never was in that office. Who are you\ngoing to believe, Torrey or Rerdell?\n\nAnother man was there on that very day, Mr. Mullins. He never had any\nrecollection of seeing Rerdell until he saw him here. All the books were\nkept in the safe except the books that Torrey had in his desk. No\nsuch books were in the safe and no such books were in Torrey's desk.\nGentlemen, no such books existed, and I will demonstrate it to you\nbefore I get through. No doubt the man had some little expense-books of\nhis own. He has widened them, he has lengthened them, he has thickened\nthem, he has colored them. He has refreshed other people. When the\nGovernment tells a man, \"You have got an office, haven't you?\" \"Yes.\"\n\"Well, we want you to remember this.\" Then he is refreshed on the\nsubject. The words the Government speaks are rain and dew and sunlight\nupon the dry grass of his memory and it springs up green. He says he has\nbeen refreshed. Before I get through I will show you that these things\nwere proved only by gentlemen who had been refreshed.\n\nNow, why did Rerdell say he took the journal and left the ledger? I will\ntell you. There is more in the shirt theory than you would think. He had\na shirt in a paper, folded up just once over the bosom. Unexpectedly\nlie met Mr. James on the train. He was very much surprised to meet him,\nbecause James swears he was very much surprised to meet Rerdell. James\nknew that he had gone over to New York to get those books, and he asked\nhim, \"Did you get the books?\" Rerdell had that beggarly little package.\nHe could not call that \"books,\" because it was not large enough, and so\nhe had to say he had a book. That was the reason he said journal and not\nledger. He had too small a package for \"books,\" and consequently he\ntold James he had the \"book,\" and he is sticking to it; only one book.\nAnother reason: He said to James, and it was very smart of him, \"I don't\nwant to show you what I have got in this package, because there is a\nfellow looking,\" and so the shirt, in unconscious innocence, reposed\nunseen. Who was the fellow who was looking? Chase Andrews. You recollect\nhim. He came into the depot at Jersey City at the time Rerdell was\nwriting this virtuous dispatch, this certificate of his honor and of\nhis faithfulness. He shook hands with Rerdell. Rerdell said he had a\ncarpet-sack, but it was not big enough to get one of these books in. He\nwanted the jury to think it was a pretty big book. He hated to lose a\nchance of adding to the size of the book, and so he swore that it was\ntoo big to put in the carpet-sack. If he had only had sense enough to\nput it in the carpet-sack, and let it alone, we never could have proven\nanything about it by Chase Andrews. Andrews would not have sworn that he\nlooked through the carpet-sack. But Rerdell in his anxiety to have\nthat book a big book said he could not get it into the carpet-sack, and\nconsequently must have held it in his hand. Chase Andrews saw him in the\ndepot at Jersey City, and rode in the next seat in the Pullman car\nfrom Jersey City to Washington, and Rerdell had no book. Who will you\nbelieve, Chase Andrews or Mr. Rerdell?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Resuming.] May it please the Court and gentlemen of the\njury.\n\nIt is also claimed by the prosecution that on the evening of the day on\nwhich Rerdell was in New York and sent the telegram from Jersey City.\nDorsey wrote a letter to Rerdell in which he begged him for the sake\nof his family, for the sake of his children, and everything to go no\nfurther. I believe it is claimed that after Mr. Rerdell got back here\nto Washington he showed that letter to his brother. It struck me as\nextremely wonderful that he did not show his brother the book; that was\nsuch an important thing, it being the thing that he went after, being\nsomething that was to decide his fate with the Government. There was\nnothing about that. Let me say right here: Suppose his story is true\nthat he told Dorsey that he had been to the Government. Would Dorsey\nwrite to that man a letter begging him for God's sake not to go further?\nWould he not rather have sent some man to see him? He knew at that time\nthat he was utterly dishonest, having received that very afternoon,\naccording to Rerdell's testimony, a telegram from Rerdell, in which\nRerdell admitted that he had told a falsehood. Would he then have put\nhimself upon paper? Would he have put himself in the power of that same\nman? I ask you, because you know there is about as much human nature in\none person as in another, on the average, and the only way you can\ntell what another man will do is by thinking \"What would I do under the\ncircumstances?\"\n\nI am going to demonstrate to you now with just one point that there were\nno such books. When Rerdell came to make the affidavit of June 20, 1881,\nDorsey knew that Rerdell had talked with MacVeagh, James, and Clayton.\nHe also knew that Rerdell, according to his statement, had promised to\ngo to New York and get the red book. Rerdell swears in the affidavit of\nJune, 1881, that he promised MacVeagh to go to New York and get those\nbooks. Dorsey knew at that time whether such books existed or not. If he\nknew they did exist then he knew that Rerdell went after them. Why did\nnot Dorsey ask Rerdell at the time he made that affidavit, \"Did you\nget a book in New York?\" Admitting, for the sake of the argument, that\nRerdell's story is true that the books were there and that Dorsey knew\nit, would not Dorsey have asked him, when he was making the affidavit of\nJune 20, 1881, \"Did you get a book in New York? What did you do with it,\nif you did?\" Rerdell swears that Dorsey did not mention that subject;\nthat it was not talked of between them. Why? Because both knew that no\nsuch books existed. That is the reason he did not ask him if he got it.\nHe knew that he did not get it. Why? Because the book was not there to\nbe obtained. Can you explain that on any other hypothesis? Dorsey knew\nat this time, according to the testimony of Rerdell, that Rerdell\nwas dishonest; knew that Rerdell had tried to sell him out to the\nGovernment; knew that Rerdell had promised MacVeagh he would go to New\nYork and get those books; knew that Rerdell had been to New York; knew\nthat Rerdell had gotten back, and yet did not ask him, \"Did you get a\nbook?\" Would he not naturally have said, \"I want that book that you got\nin New York. I want it now.\" It also appears in evidence that on the\nvery day that Rerdell was in New York and says he was in Torrey's\noffice, Torrey in the afternoon went to the Albemarle Hotel to do some\nwriting for Mr. Dorsey. Is it conceivable that Torrey would not in that\nconversation have told Dorsey, \"Your clerk, Rerdell, came to the office\nto-day and I gave him the mail book or one of those books\"? Not a word.\nThat affidavit was made in June, 1881, and was the affidavit in which\nRerdell disclosed what he had done with the Government, and that he\nhad agreed to get that very book, and yet Dorsey did not take interest\nenough in the matter to ask him if he got a book.\n\nMr. Merrick. Is there any evidence of the conversation between Torrey\nand Dorsey?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. No. The evidence is that Torrey went there that evening.\nYou claim that that was the topic of conversation, and that Dorsey sent\ndispatches to Rerdell that night and wrote a letter to Rerdell. So, I\nsay, under the circumstances, and with the excitement then prevailing,\nit is inconceivable that Torrey should not have said, \"Your man Rerdell\nhas been at my office to-day, and got one of the books.\"\n\nI say it is inconceivable that he did not tell him, and therefore Dorsey\nmust have known it had it been a fact, and had it been a fact when\nRerdell made the affidavit of 1881, Dorsey would have said, \"I want that\nbook. I want the book you stole from my office.\" He did not even mention\nit. It was not the subject of conversation. Yet, in that same affidavit,\nhe said that he agreed to go and get it, and in that same affidavit he\nsaid that no such book ever existed. He swore to that affidavit from\nfriendship. You see, gentlemen, about how much friendship that man is\ncapable of. He swore for friendship that no such book existed; he now\nswears that it did. What is that for? You want to consider these things.\nNobody asked about that book. The matter drifted along. The summer wore\naway. Autumn touched the woods with gold. Nobody ever mentioned the\nbook. Winter came. That book was in a little carpet-sack hanging in a\nwoodshed. A magnificent place to secrete property. The snows descended;\nthe winds howled around that woodshed. The carpet-sack hung there with\nthe book in it. Nobody touched it. I think the next year, may be that\nsummer, he wrote or telegraphed to Mrs. Cushman to get the book. It\nsuddenly occurred to him that a woodshed was not a safe place for it.\nShe got a book. She looked into it enough to find out it was about the\nmail business. She put it away; finally that book was brought from its\nhiding-place on the 13th of July, 1882, when Rerdell says he handed it\nover to Dorsey, and there is not one syllable of evidence going to show\nthat it was ever spoken of from the time he visited New York until he\nbrought it to Dorsey, as he claimed, at Willard's Hotel. What made him\ngive it to him? Dorsey was mad. Dorsey threatened that he would have\nRerdell arrested for perjury, because Rerdell had sworn that he, Dorsey,\nwas innocent. That is enough to excite the wrath of an ordinary man.\nDorsey was then on trial. The first trial was then going on. We were\nright in the midst of it. The year before that Rerdell had solemnly\ntaken his oath that Dorsey was an innocent man, and here Dorsey was in a\ncourt insisting that he was innocent. Yet he threatened to have Rerdell\nthen and there punished for perjury because he had sworn that he was\ninnocent. That frightened Rerdell. I think it was calculated to frighten\nany man.\n\nWhy did Dorsey allow Rerdell to keep that book? There is only one\npossible explanation: The book never existed. That is all. Torrey would\nhave told about it if it had been taken from his office, because I\nbelieve the evidence shows that that affidavit was shortly afterwards\npublished. Nobody seemed to have taken any interest in that book. All\ninterest faded away. Now, Mr. Rerdell made that affidavit on the 20th\nof June, 1881. I believe, on page 2468, Rerdell swears that when he\nmade the affidavit of June 20, 1881, he had the copies of the original\njournal and ledger at Dorsey's office. Afterwards he swears he had not.\nHe swears that he then gave them to Dorsey. Afterwards he says they were\nsent to New York the year before. I will come to that after awhile. Now,\nlet us see what the position of affairs was on June 20, 1881. At this\ntime Rerdell had furnished the Government all the information he had,\nexcept the book. Then they had said to him substantially, \"The evidence\nis insufficient. We want more.\" Rerdell agreed to furnish them the\nbooks, and went to New York to get the books.\n\nNow, he had Dorsey absolutely in his power, according to his account.\nWhat did he do? He had, according to his testimony, the copy of the\nletter Dorsey had written to Bosler on the 13th of May, 1879, the copy\nhaving been made by Miss Nettie L. White. He had the tabular statement\nin Dorsey's own handwriting, showing thirty-three and one-third per\ncent, to T. J. B. He had the letter that he himself wrote to Bosler on\nthe 22d of May, 1880. He had the red book. According to his statement,\non that day he had Dorsey in his power. All he had to do was to take the\nnext step and secure absolute safety for himself and crush his employer.\nWhat did he do? He then said, \"I went to the Government and played the\ndetective.\" He retreated. He voluntarily put himself in a position a\nthousand times as perilous as he had been in before. He put himself in a\nplace where he had to swear that what he told the Government was a lie,\nand that he was simply endeavoring to find out the Government's case and\nwas acting as a detective. You must recollect that Rerdell is a man\nwho does nothing for money. He will make an affidavit for unadulterated\nfriendship. He will make it also from fright. He will make it also, he\nsays, in the interest of truth. At that time he made an affidavit, as he\nsays, for friendship, and it is for the jury to determine how much a man\nlike Rerdell—because you know what he is just as well as I do—would\ndo for friendship. You have seen him here day after day. You saw him\nsitting right at the door when Mr. Ker and Mr. Bliss were demonstrating\nto you that he was a guilty wretch, and you saw his face beaming with\npleasure. He was absolutely delighted. Yet when Mr. Wilson stood here\nand endeavored to show that the man was not as bad as he said he was,\nendeavored to show that his plea of guilty was absolutely false, he\nslunk away, covered with the shame of innocence. He did not want to hear\nthat. He wanted it understood that he was guilty, and that it was the\nproudest moment of his life. Now, it is for you to determine how much\nsuch a man would do for friendship. It is for you to determine how you\ncan take advantage of his finer nature. He had Dorsey in his power,\naccording to his story, but instead of carrying out his original\ndesign he turned against the Government. Why did he do that? Because of\npatriotism? No. Why? He did it for his own benefit, gentlemen. He never\nacted from any other motive. Why did he not stay with the Government?\nBecause they would not give him his price for his evidence. Why would\nthey not give him his price for his evidence? Because his evidence was\nnot worth it. If he had had the copy of the letter from Dorsey to Bosler\nthey would have given him his price. They would have followed him\nall over the United States to have given him his price. There was the\nabsolute evidence against Dorsey. There was the evidence against the man\nwhom Mr. MacVeagh wished to drag down. Why did they not buy it? Because\nthe man did not have it. Why did he desert the Government? Because the\nGovernment would not give him his price. Again I ask why would not the\nGovernment give him his price? Because he had not the goods; he had not\nthe evidence. Then what did he do? He sneaked back and asked protection\nof the man he had endeavored to betray. That is what he did. He again\nasked Dorsey to stand by him. Dorsey did not need this man. This man\nneeded him, and he instantly deserted the Government and went back to\nDorsey. For the sake of saving Dorsey? No. For the purpose of saving\nhimself.\n\nHe had not the evidence. Yet, according to this testimony of his, he did\nwhat I told you. What else did he have? He had the route-book. What was\nthe route-book, gentlemen? From the evidence it appears that this man\nkept a route-book, and that in it he had the name of each route, the\nnumber of the route, where it started from, and where it went to,\nthe name of the contractor, the amount per year, the name of the\nsubcontractor, the amount per year, and then a column showing whether\nit had been increased, and, if so, how much, and whether it had been\nexpedited, and, if so, how much. He had that book. He says he was\nsubpoenaed to appear before the Congressional committee. What book would\nthat committee want? They would want the book that showed the original\ncontracts, the subcontracts, the description of the routes, how much the\nGovernment paid to the contractor, and how much the contractor paid to\nthe subcontractor. That was the book they wanted, and that was the book\nto hide if any hiding was to be done. That was the book to have copied.\nThat was the book in which figures should have been changed, if in any.\nAnd yet he never said one word about that route-book. He had it in his\npossession. Why should he not expect the committee of Congress to call\nfor that book? He did not tell you. He did not have that book copied,\nand yet that was the book that had in it every particle of information\nthat the Congressional committee wanted. Not a word on that subject.\n\nIt appears, too, in the evidence, that Mr. Rerdell had in his possession\ncertain notes that passed between him and Mr. Steele about the red\nbooks. Why were not those notes produced in evidence? Mr. Steele\nwas here on the subpoena of the Government. Why were not those notes\nproduced in evidence? Not a word about that. Is it possible that those\nnotes were about the route-book? Why were they not produced? Rerdell\nwent before that Congressional committee. He did not take any\nroute-book. What did he take? He said that he had these books made up to\ntake. Did they contain the accounts of the subcontractors? No. Donnelly\nswears there were not more than twelve accounts in the book. What was\nthe use of taking that book, or those books, before the committee?\nAnother thing: He says that he went immediately and got those books\ncopied. Would he try to palm off the copies as originals? Would not the\ncommittee ask him the very first thing, \"In whose handwriting are these\nbooks?\" He could not say, \"They are in mine,\" because then he would be\ncaught. He would have to say, \"They are in Mr. Donnelly's handwriting.\"\nThe next question would be, \"Where is Mr. Donnelly?\" And the answer\nwould be, \"Here in town.\" The committee would send for him and would\nask, \"Mr. Donnelly, did you write in those books?\" \"Yes.\" \"Did you make\nthe entries at the time they purport to have been made?\" \"No, sir; I\ncopied them from another set of books that Mr. Rerdell gave to me.\"\nHe would either say that or swear to a lie. Then they would say, \"Mr.\nRerdell, we want the original books,\" and then he would be caught. You\ncannot imagine a more shallow device. More than that, the books would\nnot have any information that the committee wanted, nothing about these\ncontracts, and nothing about the amount paid the subcontractors. If the\ncommittee wanted anything they wanted to show that the Government\nwas paying a large price and the contractors were paying to the\nsubcontractors a small price. Rerdell says that when he was subpoenaed\nto bring his books he never thought of the route-book. He thought of\nthe red books, and yet the route-book was the only book that had any\ninformation that the committee wanted. How was he to palm that off? Is\nit possible to think of a reason having in it less probability, less\nweight, less human nature than the reason he gives for having those\nbooks copied? There is another question. If Rerdell expected to palm\noff the copies as the originals, why did he keep the originals? For\ninstance. I have a book here that I don't want Congress to see, and so I\nhave it copied.\n\nI am going to swear that that copy is the original; otherwise the device\nis good for nothing. Why keep the original and run the perpetual danger\nof discovery? Why not burn the original? Why keep the evidence of my own\nguilt, liable to be found at any moment by accident, by a servant, by\na stranger? That is not human nature, gentlemen. Then there is another\nquestion: If he were going to have a book copied and then swear that the\ncopy was the original, he would have copied it himself. If a man intends\nto swear to a lie the first thing he does is not to take somebody into\nthe secret. Why should he have put himself in the power of Donnelly? He\nwas the man to be the witness before the committee, and if his device\nworked he intended to swear before the committee that the copies were\nthe originals; and yet, by going to Donnelly to have the work done, he\nmanufactured a witness that would always stand ready to prove that he,\nRerdell, had sworn to a falsehood. What men work in that way? When a man\nmakes up his mind to swear to a lie does he take pains to go to one of\nhis neighbors and say, \"I am going to swear to a lie to-morrow and I\nwant to give you the evidence of it. I am going to swear that a copy\nis an original. I want you to make the copy so that I can swear to it.\"\nWould not the neighbor then say, \"I will be a witness against you in\nthat case. You had better copy it yourself.\" Just see what he did. He\ntook pains to have a witness so that if he swore falsely he could be\ncontradicted and convicted. Why did he not copy the books himself? After\nhe got the originals copied why did he not burn up the originals so that\nnobody could ever find them in his possession?\n\nLet us take another step. Finally, he got before the committee. When he\ngot before the committee what did he swear? He swore that he kept some\nexpense-books showing how he stood with the contractors. I think that\nwas the truth. I think that is what he did keep. He did not tell the\ncommittee about the route-book. Not a word. That was the only book that\nhe concealed in his testimony. He said he kept some expense-books and\nthose were all that he kept. He did not tell about the route-book. That\nis the only book that he failed to mention. Consequently, it seems to\nme, that was the only book he did not want to show. Why? Because he\nthought at that time they were going to make a great outcry about\nwhat was paid to the subcontractor and to the contractor and he had no\nadvices from anybody, except from whom? Except from Mr. Bosler. What did\nBosler tell him? Bosler told him, \"I see no reason why you should not\nexhibit your books and papers.\" Now, according to Rerdell's testimony,\non the 13th of May the year before, Dorsey had written a letter to\nBosler informing him that he had given twenty thousand dollars to T. J.\nB. Bosler knew, if the testimony of Rerdell is true, that that letter\nhad been written, and Bosler had that information. He knew if the letter\nhad been copied, too, because every letter that one receives gives\nevidence whether it has been copied or not. And yet, knowing of that\nletter, he wrote to Rerdell or telegraphed him that he saw no reason\nwhy he should not show all his books and papers. Nobody believes that.\nNobody ever will believe it! The earth may revolve in its orbit for\nmillions of years, and generations may come and go, countless as the\nleaves of all the forests, and there never will be found a man of\naverage intelligence to believe that story. Just think of it. Bosler,\naccording to the testimony of Rerdell, had gone into partnership with\nDorsey knowing there was a conspiracy, knowing Dorsey was paying\nto Brady thirty-three and one-third per cent, of the profits, and\nthereupon the clerk who attended to the business writes or telegraphs to\nhim, and says he has been subpoenaed to appear before the Congressional\ncommittee with the books and papers, and Mr. Bosler knowing of\nthe existence of the conspiracy, and knowing that Brady is getting\nthirty-three and one-third per cent, writes or telegraphs back that he\nsees no reason why all the books and papers should not be presented to\nthe committee. Gentlemen, that is impossible; it never happened and it\nnever will.\n\nAh, but they say these books did exist. Why? Because Mr. Donnelly copied\nthem. Let us see whether he did or not. There is nothing like examining\nthese questions. Mr. Rerdell says that in his interview with Brady,\nBrady suggested to him that he had better have them copied. This, I\nbelieve, was on the 21st of May, 1880. Now he swears that in accordance\nwith that view or suggestion that he received from Brady he had the\nbooks copied by Donnelly. When did he have it done? He had it done after\nthe 21st day of May, 1880. On page 2638 Donnelly swears that he copied\nthese books in the latter part of April or the forepart of May. On page\n2636, where he was asked if he had anything to do with copying a book of\naccounts for Rerdell, he says that he had; and on being asked what kind\nof books they were, says they were a small set of books. Donnelly swears\nthat they related to the mail business, and seemed to be the books of\na firm. At that time nobody was interested in the matter except S. W.\nDorsey. How did they appear to be the books of a firm? Donnelly swears,\non page 2640, \"there were not more than a dozen accounts in the book.\"\nLet us see if these were the mail books. He says there was an account\nagainst S. W. Dorsey; that is one. An account against John W. Dorsey;\nthat is two. Against Donnelly himself; that is three. M. C. Rerdell;\nthat is four. Interest account; five. A mail account; six. An expense\naccount; seven. A profit and loss account, eight; and an account with\nWilliam Smith, nine. That is all he gives. But he says they were not\nto exceed a dozen. On page 2644 Gibbs says there was an account against\nColonel Steele and Mrs. Steele. I take it they would be in one account.\nThat makes ten. Then there was an account against Jennings, making\neleven; and an account against Perkins, making twelve. Let us see if we\ncan go a little further. Mr. Rerdell swears to a cash account; that is\nthirteen. Also an account against J. H. Mitchell; that is fourteen; and\none against Belford, making fifteen. You can deduct your Jones and your\nSmith and have one more account in the book then than Donnelly swears\nwas in it. He swears they were not to exceed a dozen. That was the book\nwith all this mail business. We will follow it up a little. Rerdell says\nhe opened the books according to the memorandum, and swears consequently\nthat there was a cash account and an account with J. H. Mitchell. J. B.\nBelford, I believe, he afterwards mentioned. Now, according to Gibb's\ntestimony there was an account with Perkins. Understand I say that the\nonly book he had, if he had any, was a private book in which he kept\nhis own expense accounts and his own matters, and it was not a book with\nwhich Stephen W. Dorsey had any connection. I say that the William\nSmith and Samuel Jones account he has added for the purpose of having\nsomething to sell to the Government. That is my claim. I say they were\nhis private books. There was an account with Perkins. You have heard all\nthe testimony, gentlemen. You know all the contracts in this case. You\nknow all the subcontracts. There is not a single solitary account in\nthis book with any subcontractor mentioned in any of these subcontracts\nexcept Perkins and possibly Jennings. Who was Perkins? Perkins was a\nsubcontractor on the route from Rawlins to White River. That is the\nroute that Rerdell had an interest in himself.\n\nRerdell made the subcontract with Perkins himself, and consequently he\nhad an account with Perkins in his own private book, and had not any\naccount with the rest of the subcontractors. We also find, according to\nGibbs, that there was an account against Jennings. Who was Jennings?\n\nThat brings us to the Jennings's claim. That is the claim that he told\nMr. Woodward about, when he wanted to sell out in the first place, and\nthat is the claim that he told Mac-Veagh and the Postmaster-General\nabout. Strangely enough and wonderfully enough we find that claim in\nthis very book. That shows whether this was a private book or whether it\nwas a book kept for the accounts of Dorsey.\n\nNow, by looking at the Post-Office reports I find that nine hundred and\nninety-four dollars was paid to Rerdell for Jennings on the 14th day of\nApril, 1880, and the question I ask is did he keep two sets of books\nat that time? He produced in court a book of his own, kept at that\ntime with the Jennings account in it. The book that was copied had the\nPerkins account, and why? Because it was a special account in which\nRerdell was interested. They have failed to prove that there was in\nthat other book any account in which Dorsey was necessarily interested,\nexcept the account kept with Rerdell showing Rerdell's transactions with\nDorsey.\n\nWe now come to the testimony of Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs says his wife\ncopied a journal between Christmas, 1879, and the 1st of March, 1880.\nRerdell says that she copied the journal and ledger both. The witness,\nGibbs, gives the color of the book. He says it was not red; it was\neither brown or black. Mr. Gibbs remembers nothing about the Smith\naccount, whether it was large or whether it was small. He finally swears\nthat he does not really recollect anything about it, except that Rerdell\nbrought the book there and said he wanted to get a copy made to send\nto Dorsey in New York, and that he returned the book and the copy to\nRerdell. He swears that he remembers as names in this book Smith, Jones,\nand S. W. Dorsey, and M. C. Rerdell. Those were all he could think of.\nHe does not remember the name of John H. Mitchell. On page 2646, he says\nhe believes that Rerdell came to him and asked him during the trial\nif he recollected the name of William Smith, and he swears that when\nRerdell asked him if he recollected the name of William Smith, he\ndistinctly told him that he did not. Then he asked him if he recollected\nthe name of Jones, and he swears that he told Rerdell when he asked him\nthat question that he did not. I read from page 2646:\n\nI tried not to remember anything of this.\n\nHow can a man try not to remember? What mental muscle is it that he\ncontracts when he tries not to remember? That is a metaphysical question\nthat interested me greatly when the man was testifying, for he said he\ntried not to remember. Why did he try not to remember?\n\nI didn't want to be called into court if I could possibly help it, and\nfor quite a long time did not mention the fact that I knew anything\nof the books. But when I was called into court, I thought of all the\ncircumstances connected with the time that I copied the books; and a\nfew days ago, or a week or so ago, in going home one night, and thinking\nthis thing over in my mind, and thinking of everything I could think of,\nmy mind reverted to a conversation I had had at the time, laughing and\nlooking over the books.\n\nIt was not only one book, then.\n\nAnd I wrote a great many letters, and read a great many names—They must\nhave been in the letter-books—and was laughing about the peculiarity of\nthe names, and even made the remark, \"There is even Smith and Jones in\nit.\"\n\nWhat a wonderful circumstance! In copying the books and making an index\nof the three letter-books he found Smith and Jones. The difficulty would\nhave been not to find Smith or Jones.\n\nThat is the evidence of that man. When Rerdell first went to him, he\ntold Rerdell distinctly, \"I remember no name of Smith; I remember no\nname of Jones.\" And then he waited until Rerdell went on the stand and\nswore that he copied those books, and that the names of Smith and Jones\nwere in them, and then his memory was refreshed, and he came here and\nswore that the names of Smith and Jones were there. All of a sudden it\ncame to him, like a flash, and he subsequently had the conversation with\nhis wife. Gentlemen, you may believe it; I do not; not a word of it.\nHe is mistaken. He has mistaken imagination for memory; he has mistaken\nwhat Mr. Rerdell told him now for something he thinks happened long ago.\nHe took the letter-books, too. May be there is where he found some of\nhis strange names.\n\nRerdell says, in swearing to the letter which he says was written by\nDorsey to Bosler on the 13th of May, 1879, that he (S. W. Dorsey) took\nthat book, all his own books that were not used for the mail business,\nand boxed them up. When? In 1879. Mr. Kellogg swears that after they\nwere boxed up they were sent to New York. When? In 1879. And yet Rerdell\nswears that between Christmas and New Year's, 1879, those books were at\nthe house of Mr. Gibbs to be indexed. It will not do. And Rerdell swears\nthat he had the letter-book containing the letter of May 13, here in\n1881, when he went to MacVeagh, and yet, according to his own testimony,\nthat book was sent to New York in 1879. And he swears that the three\nletter-books—and I will call your attention to them after a while—that\nhe had here, commenced on the 15th of May, and ended, I think, in April\nor May, 1882. He swears that the letter written by Dorsey to Bosler\nwas written on the 13th of May, 1879, and then he swears that the first\nletter in the three letter-books was dated the 15th of May, two days\nafterward. So he had not the book here. I knew he did not have it,\nbecause if he had had such a book with such a letter, he never would\nhave gone to New York to steal a book; he would have stolen that one.\n\nTorrey took charge of the books January 27, 1880, and he kept them until\nthe 1st of May, 1880, in the Boreel Building, and then at that time\nmoved to 145 Broadway, and kept them there until the last of April,\n1882.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I will come to those red books again in a moment. Here\nis a little piece of evidence about the books. You know it was the\nhardest thing in the world to find out how many books this man had, how\nmany times they were copied, who copied them, and what he did with the\ncopies; and he got us all mixed up—counsel for the prosecution, the\nCourt, counsel for the defence—none of us could understand it. \"How\nmany books did you have? What did you do with them?\" \"Well, I took\nthem to New York. No, I did not; I had some of them here.\" Finally\nI manufactured out of my imagination a carpet-sack for him. I said,\n\"Didn't you take these books over to New York in a carpet-sack?\" He said\n\"Yes,\" he did. He jumped at that carpet-sack like a trout at a fly. Let\nme call your attention to some other evidence, on page 2637, near the\nbottom. Donnelly is testifying:\n\nQ. Was it an exact copy of the book?—A. It was not.\n\nQ. In what did it differ from the book you were keeping?—There were\nsome items left out.\n\nQ. What accounts did you leave out?—A. I left the William Smith account\nout.\n\nQ. What did you do with that amount in order to balance the books?\n\nNow, I want you to pay particular attention to this answer.\n\nA. My recollection is that I carried it to profit and loss.\n\nQ. On the books or on the balance sheet?—A. On both.\n\nNow, remember, these were the books made out to fool the committee. I\nsuppose there are some book-keepers on this jury. I suppose Mr. Greene\nknows something about book-keeping, and Mr. Evans, and Mr. Crane, and\nMr. Gill. I do not know but you all do. And you know that when you carry\nan amount to profit and loss you do not throw the name away; you keep\nthe name. If you have charged against Robert G. Ingersoll five thousand\ndollars, which you never expect to get, and you want to charge it to\nprofit and loss, you make the charge and you put my name against that.\nYou put profit and loss against Robert G. Ingersoll's debt. Everybody\nthat ever kept a book knows that. If you carry an amount to profit and\nloss you rewrite the name of the person who owes the debt. So that when\nhe says, \"My recollection is that I carried it to profit and loss,\"\nthere would be a name twice in the book instead of once. If it was\nsimply in the book once it would be, \"William Smith, debtor, eighteen\nthousand dollars.\" But if you carry that to profit and loss you must\ncredit profit and loss by this William Smith amount, and consequently\nget the name in the book twice instead of once. And that is what they\ncall covering it up. They were so afraid that somebody would see an\naccount against William Smith in one part of the book that they opened\nanother account in the profit and loss business and put it in again.\nThat would be twice. Now, let us go on a little:\n\nQ. Were there any other accounts transferred in the same way?—A. I\nrather think there were, but I am not certain.\n\nQ. Did you make the books balance on your copy?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. How long were you working on that copy?—A. I was working on it two\nevenings and all of one night.\n\nNow, recollect, in the copy that he made, he carried the account of\nWilliam Smith—and may be Jones, he does not remember—to profit and\nloss.\n\nNow, let us take the next step. Let us go to page 2269. This is as good\nas a play. Donnelly swears that when he made the first copy he carried\nthe William Smith account and some other to profit and loss. Rerdell\nswears that acting upon the hint of General Brady he got a man to\ndo—what? To make another copy and leave out the items that had\nheretofore been charged to profit and loss. Donnelly swears that he\nbalanced the books, and he is the only man that ever did balance the\nbooks, according to the testimony. After Rerdell had been subpoenaed to\nappear before the Congressional committee, he got another man, whom he\nswears he put to work on the books, designating the entries to be left\nout by drawing a pencil mark through them; that he told him to make up\na new set of books, leaving out those entries, but to leave the books so\nthat they would balance, taking the entries that were stricken out, and\nalso the same amount that had been carried to profit and loss, and leave\nthem entirely out. Rerdell swears that prior to that time these accounts\nhad been carried to profit and loss, and that he struck out the credits\nto Dorsey.\n\nThen the evidence as it stands is this: Rerdell swears that Mrs. Gibbs\ncopied the journal and ledger. Gibbs does not swear it, but Rerdell\ndoes. That made four books. Then he got Donnelly to make another set of\nbooks with the William Smith and Dorsey accounts carried to profit and\nloss.\n\nThat is six books. After he had been subpoenaed by the committee he got\nanother man to make a new set of books and leave out the William Smith\nand Dorsey accounts and the profit and loss account, and that makes\neight books. And there we are, so far as that is concerned.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I have come to one other view of this case. I hope\nthat you will not forget—because I do not want to speak of it all the\ntime—that this man Rerdell swears that he had the original letter-press\ncopy of that letter which he says Dorsey wrote to Bosler. Do not forget\nthat. He says he had that before he went to New York to steal the red\nbooks; do not forget that. And that he gave that testimony away; do not\nforget that. That he says he had it copied by Miss White, and they do\nnot introduce Miss White to show that she copied it; do not forget that.\nDo not forget, too, that he had when he was there the tabular statement\nin the handwriting of S. W. Dorsey.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Resuming.] Gentlemen, on page 2286 Mr. Rerdell gives\nthe contents of a letter which he says Dorsey wrote to him the night he,\nRerdell, left New York, and when he says he had the book with him. He\nswears, you remember, that afterwards Dorsey tore the letter up. Let me\nread you the letter as he says it was written:\n\nThe letter started out by stating that he did not believe the report\nthat had been brought to him in reference to myself, and that he also\nbelieved the affidavit story to be a lie. He plead in the letter for the\nsake of his wife and children and himself, and his social and business\nrelations, and the friendship that had long existed between us not to do\nanything for his injury; for God's sake to reconsider everything that I\nhad done and take no steps further until he could see me. It was in that\nstrain, simply begging me not to do anything further until he could see\nme.\n\nNow, let us analyze that letter, keeping in our minds what Rerdell has\nsworn. Rerdell has sworn that when he went to the Albermarle Hotel he\ntold Dorsey what he had done; that he had had the conversations with\nMacVeagh and James. Let me call your attention to the dispatch from\nJersey City. First, Dorsey wrote to Rerdell that he did not believe the\nreport that had been brought to him; that had been brought to him. He\ncould not have used that word \"brought\" if Rerdell had been the bringer.\nIf Rerdell had made the report to him in person he could not have\nwritten to Rerdell, \"I do not believe the report that has been brought\nto me.\" The use of the word \"brought\" shows that somebody else told him;\nnot the person to whom he wrote. \"The report.\" What report? There is\nonly one answer. The report that Rerdell had been in consultation with\nthe Government. He writes to Rerdell, \"I don't believe that report\nthat has been brought to me,\" and yet when he wrote it, if Rerdell's\ntestimony is true, he knew that Rerdell had given him that very report\nand he knew that Rerdell would know that he, Rerdell, had told Dorsey\nthat very thing. Second, that he, Dorsey'', believed the affidavit story\nto be a lie. There is again in this horizon of falsehood one little\ncloud of truth. Rerdell had not made an affidavit. He had told James,\nMacVeagh, Woodward, and Clayton what you know, but he had not made\nany affidavit, and when he was charged, if he was, with having made an\naffidavit, it delighted him to have one little speck of truth, just one\nthing that he could honestly deny. That was the one thing. He had not\nyet made an affidavit. Third, Dorsey plead with him in the letter for\nthe sake of his wife, his children, himself, his social and business\nrelations, and the friendship that had long existed between them, not to\ndo what? Not to do anything further. According to Rerdell, he told him\nin the letter he did not believe he had done anything. Rerdell swears\nthat he wrote to him in the letter that he did not believe the report;\nthat is, that he had yet done anything, and then wound up the letter by\nbegging him, for God's sake, not to do anything further. How came he\nto use the word \"further\"? \"Don't take any further steps. I know that\nyou have not taken any step at all, but do not, I pray you, take any\nfurther steps.\" That letter will not hang together. Dorsey swears he\nnever wrote it. Finally, the letter comes down to this: \"I don't believe\nthe report. I do not believe you have done anything. But, for God's\nsake, do not do anything more.\" It is like the old Scotch verdict when a\nman was tried for larceny. The jury found him not guilty, but stated at\nthe end of the verdict, \"We hope the defendant will never do so again.\"\nThe first part of this letter shows that Dorsey did not believe that he\nhad done anything. The last part of it shows that he did believe he had\ndone something and that he must not go further. No one can tell why\nhe introduced the word \"further\" into this letter upon any other\nhypothesis. Now, I read to you, from page 2287, what Rerdell says\nhappened at the Albermarle Hotel:\n\nHe charged me with holding interviews with Mr. James, the\nPostmaster-General, and the Attorney-General, and asked me what I meant\nby it. I told him my action was in his behalf; that I had been keeping\nup with the newspapers, and knowing the facts in regard to this mail\nbusiness, what I had done was done in his behalf.\n\nThat is, he did not deny that he had these conversations, did not deny\nthe report, did not deny that he had met the Attorney-General and the\nPostmaster-General, but said:\n\nMy action was in your behalf.\n\nAnd then, according to Rerdell, after that Dorsey wrote him a letter, in\nwhich he said, \"I do not believe the report,\" although Rerdell had made\nthe report to him himself. May be that is the reason he did not believe\nit.\n\nNow, let me read to you the conversation on his return from New York and\nsee how it agrees with the letter. It is on page 2288:\n\nMr. Dorsey immediately brought up the conversation that we had had over\nin New York, and what I had done by going to Mr. Mac-Veagh, and asked me\nif I intended to ruin him. I said no, I did not; it was not my intention\nto ruin him; it was my intention to help him out of what I thought to be\na bad difficulty.\n\nQ. What did he say?—A. He then asked me if I had done anything further\nsince I had left him.\n\nYet in the letter that he wrote him from the Albermarle Hotel he said\nthat he did not believe the report and did not believe that he had done\nanything against him. The first thing he asked him when he got here was,\n\"Have you done anything further against me?\"\n\nI said no, I had not; I had not been near Mr. MacVeagh. He then says,\n\"Well, how shall we get out of this?\" I says. \"Mr. Dorsey, I will do\nanything that I can except to commit perjury.\"\n\nA very natural remark for Mr. Rerdell to make. He would do anything\nbut that. That testimony shows that Dorsey never wrote the letter which\nRerdell says he did write from New York. That testimony shows that they\ndid not have the conversation in New York that Rerdell says they had.\nThat testimony shows that they did have exactly the conversation which\nMr. Dorsey swears they had.\n\nNow, I come, gentlemen, to the affidavit of June 20,1881. I would like\nthe letter of July 5, 1882, which is on page 3733.\n\nYou understand this affidavit was made in consequence of the\nconversation, as he says, that he had with Dorsey after Dorsey came\nback from New York, in which he said he would do anything except commit\nperjury, and when Dorsey told him, \"Damn it, what does that amount to\nwhen a friend is involved? I would not hesitate a moment.\" Consequently\nhe swears that he made up his mind for the sake of friendship to swear\nto a lie for Mr. Dorsey. That is what he says now. On the 5th of July,\n1882, while we were in the midst of the other trial, and when Mr.\nRerdell, as he says, contemplated going over to the Government, and when\nhe would not put evidence in our hands against himself, he wrote this\nletter:\n\nJuly 5, 1882.\n\nSenator: What I am going to say here may surprise you, while, judging\nfrom certain circumstances that to me are easily to be seen, you may not\nbe taken by surprise.\n\nTo commence with this, it will be necessary to go back about a year\nto the time when, looking forward to the inevitable result of the\nstar-route matters—I started to put myself in accord with the\nGovernment. At that time I had no thought of being included in any\nprosecution or indictment, supposing that as an agent I could not be\nheld criminally responsible. Had I for one moment thought it possible\nnothing could have changed my mind, even anxious as I was to benefit\nyou. The consequence was, I listened to Bosler and did what I will\never regret. First, because of the unenviable notoriety given me in\nconsequence of doing what he persuaded me to do.\n\nWho persuaded him? Mr. Bosler. He writes that on the 5th of July, 1882,\nwhen, as he said, he had made up his mind to go over to the Government,\nand when he would not willingly put a club in our hands with which to\ndash out his brains.\n\nSecond, because, let this case go as it may, I am still left under a\ncloud—That is a pitiable statement. That man under a cloud!—both with\nyour friends and acquaintances, and the public generally.\n\nHere comes, gentlemen, the blossom and flower of this paragraph:\n\nAnd that, too, almost penniless.\n\nThen the letter goes on:\n\nThese are stern facts, and cannot be ignored, while had I continued\nacting with the Government my reputation would have been clear, and no\ndoubt been appointed to a good position.\n\nThe Government must have promised the gentleman an office when he went,\nin June, 1881, to Woodward and to Clayton and to the Attorney-General\nand to the Postmaster-General. According to this letter, among\nother things he was to have an office, the steamboat route was to be\nreinstated, the Jennings' claim was to be allowed, his father-in law was\nto get a clerkship, and according to this letter he also was to have a\nposition. That is civil service reform! What does he say?\n\nAt least I have every reason to believe such would have been the result.\n\nHe would have had an office, he has every reason to believe. Why? They\nmust have promised it to him.\n\nThis now brings us to the present time. I have an opportunity to redeem\nmyself, and think it best to do so, as by so doing I can be entirely\nrelieved of the indictment.\n\nThe Government then must have promised him in 1882 that the indictment\nshould be dismissed as against him. Is it possible that he would tell a\nlie, gentlemen? Is it possible the prosecution will say that he lied on\nthe 13th of July, 1882, but in 1883, having met with a change of heart,\nhe told the truth? No.\n\nIn taking this step let me say this: It is the result of much thought\nand also of preparation.\n\nI think so. The preparation of several papers.\n\nI have realized the fact that all you and Bosler desired was to use me,\nand when no longer needed I could go to the devil.\n\nWell, I think that is where he has gone.\n\nTherefore I have concluded to be used no longer, and propose to look out\nfor myself.\n\nTo-day I am putting things in order, so as to commence right tomorrow.\nI regret this on your family's account, but I too have a family, and owe\nit to them to put myself right.\n\nYou see, gentlemen, he wanted to leave an unspotted reputation to his\nchildren.\n\nI deem it as being due to you that I should give you notice of my\nintention. Very truly,\n\nM. C. Rerdell\n\nNow, gentlemen, he comes on the stand and swears that he made this\naffidavit, not being overpersuaded by Bosler, but because Dorsey with\ntears and groans besought him to make it. Yet on the 5th of July, 1882,\nhe says he made it because he was overpersuaded by Bosler, and he says,\ntoo, \"Had I remained with the Government my reputation would have\nbeen clear, and I have every reason to believe I would have had a good\nposition.\" He says, \"I have another opportunity to be entirely relieved\nfrom the indictment.\" These gentlemen say he never was promised\nimmunity. That simply shows you cannot believe Mr. Rerdell when he is\nnot under oath, and what he has sworn to here shows you cannot believe\nhim when he is under oath.\n\nNow I come to the affidavit. I will not spend a great deal of time upon\nit. Mr. Rerdell, with extreme ease, without the slightest hesitation,\nwent through that entire affidavit, picking out with all the facility\nimaginable, every paragraph written by Dorsey and every paragraph\nwritten by himself. I was astonished at his exhibition of memory. I\nfinally asked to look at the copy of the paper he had, and when I got\nthat in my hand I found that every word that he swore was written by\nDorsey had been underscored with a blue pencil. That accounted for the\nfacility with which he testified. I found afterwards that that paper had\nbeen given him by Mr. Woodward and that he had gone through and marked\nsuch portions as Mr. Dorsey wrote, according to his testimony, or had\nmarked those that he wrote, leaving the others unmarked, so that at a\nglance he could tell which way to swear. Before I get through with the\npapers in this case there is another thing to which I want to call\nyour attention. All the papers as to which witnesses were called on the\nsubject of handwriting are marked. I will show you that every one has a\nlittle secret mark upon it, so that the man who swore might know which\nway to swear simply by looking at the signature and at no other part.\nThere has been a great deal of preparation in this case.\n\nNow, Rerdell swears as to the parts of the affidavit that Dorsey wrote\nand the parts that he wrote. His object in swearing was to entirely\nrelieve Messrs. James and MacVeagh from having made any bargain with\nhim to steal Mr. Dorsey's books, and to entirely relieve them from any\nsuspicion, as well as to relieve every other official of the Government\nfrom any suspicion of having promised him any pay in any shape or manner\nfor the making of this affidavit. He swears in the first place, that\nDorsey wrote this:\n\nMy story captured them completely, and I took occasion to refer to the\nsteamboat route and the Jennings' claim. Mr. James remarked that he knew\nall about the Jennings' matter, that Jennings had been badly treated,\nand he ought to get the money, and should; that he would investigate\nthe steamboat route and see if anything could be done; that that was\nthe worst part, and his special agents had reported it; nevertheless he\nwould see if something could not be done.\n\nOn page 2506, in his cross-examination, Mr. Rerdell swears that the\nwords—Mr. James remarked—were not written by Dorsey, but were written\nby himself. On the same page he swears that the words—That Jennings had\nbeen badly treated—were not written by Mr. Dorsey, but were written by\nhimself.\n\nOn his examination-in-chief he swore that these words were written by\nDorsey.\n\nOn his examination-in-chief he swore that Dorsey wrote this:\n\nAnd to further deceive them and learn their plans, carried the\nletter-book containing—And then he wrote—the much-talked of Oregon\ncorrespondence.\n\nAfterward, when cross-examined, he swears, I think upon the same page,\n2506, that he himself wrote the words:\n\nCarried the letter-book containing.\n\nThat Dorsey did not write them. He also swears in his\nexamination-in-chief that Dorsey wrote these words:\n\nMaking only one mistake, or rather slip, by which Mr. MacVeagh could, as\na good lawyer, have detected me, and that was by stating that I had kept\na set of books.\n\nOn his examination-in-chief he swears that Mr. Dorsey wrote those words.\nOn cross-examination he admits that Dorsey did not write them and that\nhe wrote them.\n\nOn his examination-in-chief he swears that he wrote this himself:\n\nHe said, \"Well, Mr. Rerdell, I am in a position where I cannot make\npromises, but if you will place yourself in full accord with the\nGovernment, you shall not lose by it, and I would advise you not to\nreceive any salary from Dorsey this month. It will be all right.\"\n\nOn cross-examination he takes it back, and swears, on page 2503, that\nDorsey wrote the words:\n\nIt will be all right.\n\nHe was afraid those words might be given too wide a significance and\nmight in some way touch the Attorney-General, and consequently he swore\nthat he swore wrong when he swore that he wrote them, and that as a\nmatter of fact Dorsey wrote them. Then, on his examination-in-chief with\nthe marked paper before him, and having plenty of time to manufacture\nhis testimony, he swore that he wrote the words:\n\nHe asked me—In his own handwriting, and that Dorsey wrote these\nwords—when I was going to New York to get those books. I replied,\n\"On Sunday night.\" He said, \"Don't put it off too long, as they are\nall-important.\"\n\nOn his examination-in-chief he swore that Dorsey wrote those words, and\non cross-examination he admitted that he wrote every one of those words\nhimself. When he was cross-examined he had not the paper before him.\nHis memory was not refreshed by the blue pencil mark. So on his\nexamination-in-chief he swore that he wrote these words:\n\nAs I was about leaving he—Meaning the Attorney-General—said, \"Mr.\nRerdell, you have put yourself in full accord with us, and I have\nthis to say, you shall be well taken care of and your matters shall be\nattended to.\"\n\nOn cross-examination, on page 2500, he swears that Dorsey wrote the\nwords:\n\nYour matters shall be attended to.\n\nBut he still admitted that he, Rerdell, wrote the words and put them in\nthe mouth of the Attorney-General:\n\nYou shall be well taken care of.\n\nHe says in his letter of July 5, 1882:\n\nIf I had remained with the Government I have every reason to believe I\nwould have a good position.\n\nWhat next? Mr. Rerdell, in his examination-in-chief, swears that he\nhimself wrote these words:\n\nThe next evening I called on Mr. Woodward to see if he had anything more\nto say, and he told me a place had been found for my father-in-law, and\nto give the application to Senator Clayton; to make the application\nfor the Interior Department, as it was best not to put him into the\nPost-Office Department for fear of criticism; that the appointment\nshould be made at once. It was all arranged. The next day I saw Clayton,\nwho said the same thing.\n\nOn cross-examination, at page 2505, he swears that Dorsey wrote a part\nof this; that Dorsey wrote the following words:\n\nAs it was best not to put him into the Post-Office Department for fear\nof criticism.\n\nWhen he testified on direct examination he had this marked paper before\nhim; in the absence of the paper, on the cross-examination, he takes his\nsolemn oath that he did not write it, but that Senator Dorsey did. What\nconfidence can you put in that kind of testimony? I would like to have\nyou, gentlemen, some time, or I would like to have anybody who has the\nslightest interest in the thing, read this affidavit and see whether\nit is the work of two or the work of one. You let two men write, one\nwriting one paragraph and the other another paragraph, and then you read\nit; there is no man in the world accustomed to read books that cannot\ninstantly detect the difference in style, the different mode of\nexpression, the different use of language. Nobody can see any difference\nin the writing; nobody can see the slightest difference in the mode of\nexpression; the sharpest verbal mechanic that ever lived cannot see a\njoint between these paragraphs. They emanated from the same brain; they\nwere written by the same hand; and if any man, who has ever read one\nbook clear through, will read that, he will see that one person wrote\nit all. But Mr. Bliss tells you that here is a passage that shows the\nhandiwork of S. W. Dorsey, because Dorsey was a politician:\n\nHe also said that you, Mr. President, had told Mr. Dorsey you could not\ninterfere in this investigation and prosecution; that if you did,\nthe public would say that the President and a Secretary, who shall\nbe nameless, but whose name I could guess, had taken the money of the\nstar-route ring while they were in Congress, or the Postmaster-General\nand Attorney-General had taken it since, and therefore he (Dorsey) must\nlook to the courts for vindication.\n\nThat is the passage upon which Mr. Bliss relies, among others, to show\nthat this was formed in the brain of S. W. Dorsey; and yet Rerdell\nswears that that passage he wrote himself. It will not do, gentlemen.\n\nNow, in order that you may know just about how much force to give to\nthat, let me read you a little from page 2379; and I read this for the\npurpose of letting you know the ideas that this man Rerdell entertains\nof right and wrong.\n\nI want you to get at the moral nature of this man; I want you to\nthoroughly understand him. When you examine these affidavits, when you\nthink of his testimony, I want you to know exactly the kind of nature\nhe has, and I want you to remember that he came here upon this stand\nand swore in this case that he did not consider that it was wrong to\ninterline petitions; that he did not think it was wrong to fill up\naffidavits; and that is the reason he made the affidavit of July 13,\n1882. Although he then knew that these things had been done, still he\ndid not regard them as wrong. You see it is worth something to get at a\nman, to get at his philosophy of right and wrong; it is worth something\nto know how he thinks; why he acts; and when you have found that out\nabout a man, then you know whether to believe him or not.\n\nI believe the jury did look at this paper and saw all the parts that had\nbeen marked by blue pencil, and those parts, I believe, he said Dorsey\nwrote. That is the paper he had before him at the time he testified in\nchief. But when he came to be cross-examined, not having the paper then\nbefore his eyes, he swore in very many important things exactly\nthe other way. We were all astonished at the facility with which he\nremembered, he pretending to know what parts he wrote and what parts\nMr. Dorsey wrote. I want you to understand this man, and before I get\nthrough with him, you will. I want you to know him.\n\nNow we come to an exceedingly important thing in this case, in the eyes\nof the prosecution. It is the principal pillar supporting the testimony\nof Mr. Rerdell. Without that pillar absolutely nothing is left,\neverything falls into perjured ruin.\n\nThe first question that arises with regard to the pencil memorandum (31\nX) is who wrote it, and in order to ascertain who wrote it we must\ntake into consideration all the facts and circumstances that have been\nestablished in this case. It is already in evidence, as you remember it,\nthat Rerdell kept a route-book. You will also remember that Mr. Dorsey\nhad books of his own; that he had a bookkeeper of his own, Mr. Kellogg;\nthat Mr. Kellogg swears that he kept those books and that nobody else\never made a scratch of the pen in them; that he kept them up till the\nfall of 1879; they were then sent to New York; that Mr. Torrey took\npossession of those books on the 27th of January, 1880, and kept them\ncontinuously to the last of April, 1882, and that nobody else ever put a\nmark in them. That is the evidence. The evidence also is that there was\nin those books a complete mail account. The evidence is also that in\nthose books kept by Mr. Kellogg were the charges and credits growing out\nof the purchase of John W. Dorsey's interest and Peck's interest in the\nmail routes.\n\nMr. Merrick. Pardon me; point me to that evidence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will refer to it hereafter. I do not wonder, gentlemen,\nthat they dislike this pencil memorandum.\n\nMr. Merrick. No, sir; I only want to keep you within correct limits.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I understand that. I do not blame anybody for disliking\nthat pencil memorandum.\n\nMr. Merrick. You can convict Rerdell as much as you like.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. When you come to show that he is guilty his countenance\nwill light up with the transfiguration of joy. There will be no more\ndelighted auditor than Mr. Rerdell when his crimes are painted blackest.\nIt shows you the moral nature of the man.\n\nNow, as I say, the evidence is that there was a route-book kept; that\nthat route book contained all the information that Mr. Dorsey or any one\nelse would want about the routes themselves; consequently, that there\nwas no propriety in keeping any other set of books. Mr. Rerdell could\nkeep books for himself, but not for S. W. Dorsey. Dorsey had a set\nof books, and had another book-keeper. Why should he have another set\nopened by Rerdell? Rerdell kept a route-book that gave him all the\ninformation that he could possibly desire.\n\nMr. Wilson. Rerdell did not handle the money.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Of course not; there was no money at that time to handle;\nthey had not got as far as the handle.\n\nNow, there is another little point: Why should Dorsey voluntarily put\nhimself in the power of Rerdell by saying, \"I have paid money to Brady\"?\nWhat was the necessity of it? What was the sense of it? Rerdell was his\nclerk. Why should he take pains to put himself, the employer, absolutely\nin the power of his clerk? Why should he take pains to make himself the\nslave of the man he was hiring by the month? Why did he wish not only to\nmake Mr. Rerdell acquainted with his crime, but to put in the hands of\nRerdell evidence written by himself? See, gentlemen, you have got to\nlook at everything from a natural standpoint. Of what use was it to Mr.\nDorsey to keep that account? Dorsey at that time had no partner. Dorsey\nat that time did not have to respond to anybody. Of what use was it to\nhim to put down in a book, \"I paid Brady eighteen thousand dollars\"? Was\nhe afraid Brady would forget it? Was he afraid he would forget it?\nDid he want his clerk to help him keep the secret, knowing that if the\nsecret got wings it would render him infamous? Let us have some sense.\nThe Government introduced it. They also introduced a witness to prove\nthat it was in Dorsey's writing. Rerdell swore that it was. Their next\nwitness, Boone, thought part of it might be and part might not be; it\ndid not look right to him; he rather intimated that Mr. Rerdell wrote\npart of it. And right there the Government dropped. No expert was\nbrought. There were plenty of experts right over here at the Bureau of\nEngraving and Printing, plenty of experts in Philadelphia and New York,\nplenty of judges of handwriting. Right up here in Congress were twenty\nor thirty Senators who sat for six years in the Senate with Stephen W.\nDorsey, served on the same committees with him and had seen him write\nevery day; clerks of those committees who had copied page after page of\nhis writing. Not one of them was called. The Government, with its almost\ninfinite power, with everything at its command, brought no expert.\nThat was the most important piece of paper in their case. And yet they\nallowed their own witness to discredit it; their own witness swore, in\nfact, that Rerdell had manufactured the incriminating part of it. And\nyet they sent for no expert to swear to this writing. Don't you believe\nthat they talked with somebody? Has not each one of you in his mind a\nreason why they did not bring the ones that they talked with? They left\nit right there without another word. Now, why? Simply because they could\nget no man to swear, except Rerdell, that this is in the handwriting of\nS. W. Dorsey. That is the reason.\n\nYou know that Rerdell \"kept this as a voucher.\" What for? Was any money\npaid out on it? No. Was it a receipt for any money? No. But he \"kept it\nas a voucher.\" You see he was in a difficulty. How did he come to keep\nit all this time? It would hardly do for him to say that he did not try\nto keep it, that it had just been in the waste-basket of forgetfulness,\nand had suddenly come to life by a conspiracy of chance and awkwardness.\nIt would not do for him to say that he made it. So that he had to say\nthat he kept it, and then he had to give a reason for keeping it.\nWhat was the reason? He said he \"kept it for a voucher.\" I suppose you\n[addressing Mr. Greene., a juror] have kept books. Is that what you\nwould call a voucher? Yet that is the reason the poor man had to give.\nI pitied the man when he got to the point. I am of such a nature that I\ncannot entirely, absolutely, and perfectly hate anybody, and when I\nsee the worst man in trouble I do not enjoy it much; at least I am soon\nsatisfied, and would like to see him out of it. Here he was swearing\nthat he had this for a voucher.\n\nNow, there are some little things about this to which I will call your\nattention. Here is the name of J. H. Mitchell. An account was opened\nwith Mitchell, but he does not tell him to charge Mitchell with\nanything; there is nothing opposite Mitchell's name. How would he open\nan account with Mitchell without anything to be charged against him or\nto be credited? He put in the index of the book, \"J. H. Mitchell, page\n21.\" You turn over to page 21, and you find Mitchell debtor to nothing,\ncreditor the same—silence. Not a cent opposite the name on either side.\nMitchell was not an employee. Mitchell was not a fellow that they were\nto have an account with by the day. Then John Smith is rubbed out and\nSamuel Jones written under it. Rerdell says he wrote Samuel Jones. I\nsay he did not. I want you to look at it after awhile and see whether he\nwrote it or not.\n\nNow, gentlemen, it so happened that when this pencil memorandum was\nintroduced it struck me that the M. C. R. looked a great deal like\nRerdell's handwriting, and you will remember that I suggested it\ninstantly, and said to the jury, \"Look at the M. C. R.\" Now, gentlemen\nof the jury, I want you to look at that M. C. R.; I want you to see how\nthe first line of the M. is brought around to the middle of the letter,\nand then I want you to see exactly how the C. and the R. are made. Take\nit, Mr. Foreman, and look at it carefully. And, in connection with\nthat pencil memorandum (31 X), I will ask the jury also to look at this\nsettlement with John W. Dorsey, made in 1879 (87 X), and compare the\ninitials M. C. R. where they occur on both papers. M. C. R. occurs\ntwice, I believe, on this (87 X.) Now look at the formation of the M. C.\nR. on both papers, Mr. Lowery, and do a good job of looking, too.\n\nNow, gentlemen, this is one of the most valuable pieces of paper I have\never had in this case, and it is as good luck as ever happened. I want\nyou to look at the J. W. D. on that paper, and then compare it with the\nJ. W. D. on this paper; you cannot spend your time better.\n\nI did not suppose I would ever find one paper that would have everything\non it. But, as if there had been a conspiracy as to this paper, there is\nan S. W. D. on this paper which is substantially the same as the S. W.\nD. on the other. The M. C. R., the S. W. D., and the J. W. D. on both\nthese papers are all substantially the same, and I think when the jury\nhave looked at it they will say they were written by the same hand.\n\nNow, gentlemen, there was the testimony of Mr. Boone that he thinks\nthe upper portion of this pencil memorandum (31 X) was written by S. W.\nDorsey; that it looks like his handwriting down to and including \"profit\nand loss,\" I believe; I may be mistaken; it may be down to \"cash;\" and\nthen after \"profit and loss\" come the names of J. H. Mitchell and J. W.\nD., exactly the same J. W. D. that appears on 87 X.\n\nNow, what paper is that 87 X? That is an account of John W. Dorsey\nagainst S. W. Dorsey in 1879. He had been out West to take care of some\nof the routes, and when he came back he settled, and Mr. Rerdell wrote\nup the account. That is 87 X, and I proved that it was made in 1879. I\nbelieve the prosecution thought at first that it was 1878.\n\nThat paper shows that it was manufactured by the one who wrote this\npaper, and by nobody else.\n\nNow, as I said before, there is no account against J. H. Mitchell.\nOpposite William Smith there are the figures eighteen thousand. And\nRerdell says that he wrote Samuel Jones himself at the suggestion of\nMr. Dorsey. Again I ask you, gentlemen, why would Mr. Dorsey give such\na paper to Rerdell? Why would he give him this false name? Why would\nhe put himself in his power? It is very natural that he should give the\namounts ten thousand five hundred dollars, ten thousand dollars for John\nW. Dorsey and ten thousand dollars for Peck, because the evidence shows\nthat those transactions actually occurred. The evidence shows, not only\nin one place but in many, that the ten thousand dollars was paid to John\nW. Dorsey, the ten thousand dollars was paid to Peck, and that the ten\nthousand five hundred dollars was advanced at that time by S. W. Dorsey.\nConsequently that is natural; it is proper. But my opinion is that he\nnever wrote one word, one line of the pencil memorandum. It was all\nmade, every mark upon it, by Mr. Rerdell. He is the man that made it.\nDid he have it when he went to MacVeagh? No. Did he have it when he went\nto the Postmaster-General? No. Did he have it when he went to Woodward?\nNo. Did he have it when he made his affidavit in July, 1882? No; or he\nwould not have made it. Did he have it when he went to Mr. Woodward in\nSeptember? No; or else Mr. Woodward would have taken the stand and sworn\nto it. Did he have it when he made his affidavit in November? I say no.\nWho made it? Rerdell manufactured it for this purpose: That he might\nhave something to dispose of to this Government; that he might have\nsomething to swap for immunity. He \"kept it as a voucher.\"\n\nWhy did not these gentlemen bring Senator Mitchell to show that he\nhad some account with Senator Dorsey in May, 1879? Why did not the\nGovernment bring Mr. Mitchell? They knew that their witness had to be\ncorroborated. They knew that the law distinctly says that such a witness\ncannot be believed unless he is corroborated. They also know that the\nlaw is that unless such a witness is wholly corroborated he cannot be\nbelieved; that you are not allowed to pick the raisins of truth out of\nthe pudding of his perjury. You must believe him all or not at all. He\nmust be received entire by the jury, or with the foot of indignation he\nmust be kicked from the threshold of belief. They know it. Why did they\nnot bring Senator Mitchell to show that he had some account with S. W.\nDorsey in 1879? But we heard not a word from them.\n\nWhat more? Rerdell says that was either in April, before he went\nWest, or in May, after his return; and at that time, according to his\ntestimony—that is, according to this memorandum—eighteen thousand\ndollars had been paid to Mr. Brady for expedition. And then following,\nin the month of June, before the quarter ended, eighteen thousand\ndollars more. That makes thirty-six thousand dollars paid to Brady. What\nelse? Ten thousand dollars to John W. Dorsey; forty-six thousand dollars\nthat makes. Ten thousand dollars paid to Peck; fifty-six thousand\ndollars that makes. He had also advanced himself ten thousand five\nhundred dollars; that makes sixty-six thousand five hundred dollars\nadvanced, and not a dollar yet received from the Government. And that\nby a man who gave away seventy per cent, of a magnificent conspiracy\nbecause he had not the money to go on. All you have to do is to think\nabout this. Just think of the situation of the parties at the time. I\ntell you I am going to stick to this subject until you understand it.\n\nMr. Gibbs swears that the name of Mitchell was not in the books when he\nsaw them, and yet those books were opened from this memorandum. Gibbs\nis the man who has such a control over his mind that he can \"try not to\nremember.\" When I was a boy I used to hear a story of a man going around\nsaying that nobody could control his mind for a minute; that nobody\ncould think of one thing for a minute without thinking of something\nelse. But there was one fellow who said, \"I can; I can think of a thing\na minute and not think of anything else.\" He was told, \"If you do it, I\nwill give you my horse, and he is the best riding-horse in the country;\nif you can say the first verse of 'Mary had a little lamb,' and not\nthink of anything else, I will give you my horse, and he is the best\nriding-horse in the country.\" The fellow says, \"How will you tell?\" \"Oh,\nI will take your word for it.\" So the fellow shut up his eyes and said:\n    Mary had a little lamb,\n    Its fleece was white as snow,\n    And everywhere that—\n\n\"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?\"\n\nMr. Gibbs is the man who had such control of his mind, and he tells you\nthat the name of J. H. Mitchell was not in the book.\n\nMr. Donnelly says he does not remember any such name as J. H. Mitchell,\nand yet he holds an office. He has the poorest memory for any one under\nthe present Administration, I ever saw. He does not remember the name of\nJ. H. Mitchell. Who does remember it? Mr. Rerdell. But Mr. Rerdell does\nnot say what he had charged to J. H. Mitchell; he does not say what was\nin the book as against J. H. Mitchell; he fights clear of that charge.\nAnd why? He was afraid that John H. Mitchell might testify. According,\nI think, to Mr. Rerdell, there was a charge against Belford on\nthose books. I do not know why Belford's name did not appear on the\nmemorandum, but I will come to Belford afterwards.\n\nMr. Bliss. Mr. Ingersoll, Mr. Donnelly does not mention in any way and\nis not asked on the subject of Mr. Mitchell.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I think he is. I will find it after awhile if I can, and\nif I cannot I will admit that you are right. I do not know where it is.\nI do not wish to be interrupted.\n\nMr. Bliss. I claim the right.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Well, go on; the poor man only had seven days in which to\nmake his speech.\n\nMr. Bliss. I have before me Mr. Donnelly's evidence, and he does not\nmention the name of Mitchell in any manner, and is not asked about it,\nso far as I can see. I think when the statement is persisted in there\nshould be some reference given to the page.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. It is on page 2637.\n\nMr. Davidge. And at page 2639, about two inches from the top.\n\nMr. Ingersoll.—It is sufficient for my purpose, which is this: That he\ngave the names of all the accounts he could remember, and in that list\nof names he did not give the name of J. H. Mitchell. So I think I can\nfairly say to you that that man did not remember any account against J.\nH. Mitchell. Mr. Gibbs was asked directly whether there was any account\nagainst J. H. Mitchell, and he did not remember any such. Now, the only\nperson that swears to it at all is Mr. Rerdell. Then you come across\nthis contradiction: Why should the name of J. H. Mitchell be there with\nnothing opposite to it? I do not know. The prosecution, of course, will\nbe able to find writing of S. W. Dorsey that will resemble some of the\nwriting on this pencil memorandum. There is no doubt about that. If\nit was written by Rerdell in imitation of Dorsey's writing, it is not\nsurprising that writing really written by Dorsey can be found that looks\nlike it. Why? Because it was written in imitation of his writing, and\ntherefore you can find writing of Dorsey's that looks like it; otherwise\nit would not be an imitation. The next question arises, Can you find\nwriting of Rerdell's that looks like it? Yes; 87 X. The M. C. R., the\nS. W. D., and the J. W. D. are all exactly like it. Now, is it not\ninfinitely surprising that Dorsey should imitate Rerdell without\ntrying and without an object? Is it not perfectly wonderful that this\nmemorandum should be in imitation of Rerdell's writing, when it was\nwritten by Dorsey? But if it was forged by Rerdell, it is not wonderful\nthat it looks like Dorsey's writing. If Dorsey wrote it without thinking\nof Rerdell, I say the accident is infinitely wonderful that he imitated\nRerdell. Which is the more probable—that Dorsey imitated Rerdell\nwithout design and without trying, or that Rerdell imitated Dorsey\nwith a design, and when trying to do so? That is the way to put this\nargument, and I hope the gentlemen will answer it. The ingenuity that\nwould be displayed in the answer would a thousand times pay me for the\nloss of the point. I want them to account for this, how Dorsey's natural\nhandwriting comes to look like Rerdell's, and how it is that this looks\nprecisely like Rerdell's in many instances. Why is it, gentlemen? I will\ntell you. Mr. Rerdell had written the initials J. W. D., S. W. D., and\nM. C. R. so often that when he came to put them upon this memorandum he\nforgot to disguise his hand. That is the reason. You find on 87 X the J.\nW. D. precisely as it is on the pencil memorandum. You find the M. C.\nR. precisely as it is on the pencil memorandum. You see if you have done\nthe same thing many times with your hand, the hand gets a mind of its\nown. It is in that way that you learn to play upon the piano. The hand\nbecomes educated and follows the keys through all the mazes of melody\nwithout asking one question of the mind. You can write a name so often,\nyou can make initials so often, that when you come to write them, no\nmatter what your object is, the hand, educated with a mind of its own,\npursues the old accustomed motions and paths. That is the reason that\nJ. W. D. and S. W. D. and M. C. R. are exactly in the handwriting of\nRerdell in this pencil memorandum. According to that, Dorsey had paid\nout in all, I think, about $65,000, or something like that There is no\ntruth in it, gentlemen.\n\nNow, in order to prepare your mind for the next point I am going to\nmake, and in order that you may know something about this man Rerdell, I\nwill give you some further information about him. I do not think you are\nsufficiently acquainted with his character, and any little points that\nI have I want to give to you. I want to paint his portrait in every\nlineament, every mark. I want to give you every hair in his head.\nRemember that this witness is to be corroborated. He is to be propped\nand indorsed. Everybody admits that he is the pewter of perjury and\nhas to be plated with the silver of respectability gotten from somebody\nelse. They all admit that. He is an empty bag. Somebody has to fill him\nup before he can stand upright. They admit that. I want to call your\nattention to a few things as to which he lacked corroboration.\n\nOn page 2215, Rerdell swears that Miner told him that the amounts in the\nbids were filled in by S. W. Dorsey. On page 4177 Miner denies this, and\nsays that he filled in the bids with only two exceptions.\n\nOn page 2216 Rerdell swears that the mail matter for J. W. Dorsey, Peck,\nand Miner was handed him by S. W. Dorsey, and that Dorsey said that\nhe was going to take the business out of Boone's hands. On page 3766,\nDorsey swears that he had no such conversation with Rerdell.\n\nOn page 2217, Rerdell swears that S. W. Dorsey applied to him to go\nWest. On page 3768 Dorsey swears that he did not employ him to go West.\n\nOn page 2218, Rerdell swears that he received instructions from S.\nW. Dorsey as to what to do on the Bismarck route. On page 3769, S. W.\nDorsey swears that that is utterly untrue.\n\nOn page 2219, Rerdell says that he was instructed to establish a\npaper post-office sixty miles north of the route. What was that for?\nAccording to his testimony there was a mistake in the advertisement, and\nthe route was too long, and this was a device to shorten it by adding\nsixty miles to it to make a post-office thirty miles off the route, or\nsixty altogether, so as to get pay for the increase of distance. If it\nwas to be a fraud, why put the post-office off the route? Why not have\nit on the route? Where would the fraud be if they traveled the sixty\nmiles except in having a postoffice where none was needed? They\ncertainly would make nothing from the Government by traveling the sixty\nmiles. If they traveled the sixty miles they would be paid for that\nsixty miles, but if they wanted pay for the sixty miles without\ntraveling that sixty miles, they would not have put the post-office so\nfar off the route. They would have put it on the route, or very near to\nit, and pretended that it was off the route.\n\nGentlemen, it is infinitely absurd to suppose that Stephen W. Dorsey\nwould have instructed that man to go out in that country and get up a\nfalse post-office. How long would a fraud like that last and live? How\nlong could the money be drawn for that service in that country? They say\nno human being lived there. Who was to be postmaster? Who was to\nmake the reports? How long, in your judgment, would it be before\nthe department would find out that there was no such post-office, no\npostmaster, and no mail? No one could think of a more shallow device\nthan that Stephen W. Dorsey, a man who is blest with as much brain as\nany man it is my pleasure to know, would never dream of such an idiotic\ndevice. And yet, that is the testimony of Mr. Rerdell.\n\nIt may be that Mr. Rerdell when he got out there thought he could start\na town and make money in some other way. But it will not do to say that\nStephen W. Dorsey told him to get up a false and fraudulent post-office\nwhen Mr. Dorsey must have known that the mail could not have been\ncarried to it but a few days before it would have become known that\nthere was no such office. They would have to appoint a postmaster and\nhe would have to live there in his loneliness a hermit of the plain, and\nwould have to make a report like that from Agate that gave such delight\nto Mr. Bliss to read. There was not a letter sent to that place; not\none, nor would there be. Mr. Dorsey knew if there was a postmaster\nappointed he would have to report, and in three months from that time he\nwould have to report, first, that there was no post-office; second, that\nthere had never been any mail; and third, that he did not expect any.\nYou see it is utterly absurd to lay such a charge at the door of Stephen\nW. Dorsey.\n\nOn page 3769 Dorsey swears that the statement is a falsehood—that he\nnever did any such thing. He also denies it on page 3924.\n\nOn page 2220 Rerdell swears that he gave Pennell a petition for a\npost-office. On page 2156 Joseph Pennell swears that he never saw the\npetition; and on page 2171 that he never signed it, and that none was\nsent.\n\nOn page 2221 Rerdell swears that he was instructed by S. W. Dorsey\nto build stations fifteen or sixteen miles apart, and use every third\nstation. On page 3769 S. W. Dorsey swears that no such instructions were\ngiven. On page 4092 J. W. Dorsey swears that they started to build the\nstations about thirty miles apart, and that after he saw General Miles\nand was told by that officer that there would be, and must be a daily\nmail, then he concluded to build stations between the stations that he\nhad built going over.\n\nThat is a sensible, straight story. When he went out they built the\nstations some thirty-odd miles apart, and when he talked with General\nMiles, General Miles told him that there must be a daily service, and\nthen he determined to build intermediate stations as he went back.\nWhat was that testimony sworn to by Rerdell for? To make you believe,\ngentlemen, that Stephen W. Dorsey when he sent Rerdell out knew that\nthere was to be expedition, and knew it because he was in conspiracy\nwith the Second Assistant Postmaster-General. The testimony of John W.\nDorsey lets the light in upon that story. The sun rises, and the mist\ngoes. What is his story? \"I went there and built the stations about\nthirty miles apart, and when I talked with General Miles he assured\nme that there must be expedition and a daily mail, and then I built\nstations at the intermediate points as we went back.\" That is the story.\nIt is consistent with itself.\n\nIs it not wonderful that the Government did not also prove by Pennell\nthat Rerdell gave him instructions to build the ranches, and told him\nthat he had been so instructed by S. W. Dorsey?\n\nOn page 2233 Rerdell swears that Miner told him that Vaile was close to\nBrady. On page 4177, Miner swears that it is not true; that he never\nhad any such conversation. Why did they want a man close to Brady? As I\nexplained to you before, gentlemen, they had already, according to their\ntestimony, as they claim, proved that Miner had conspired with Brady,\nand yet he was going around trying to find a man close to Brady. Being\na co-conspirator was not close enough. So Mr. Rerdell is corroborated\nthere again by Mr. Miner who swears that what Rerdell swears is a lie.\n\nOn page 2224 Rerdell swears that in November, 1878, Miner asked him to\nwrite certain words in a line on petition 40104. On page 4178, Miner\nswears that he never asked him to interline any petition.\n\nOn page 2225 Rerdell swears he had a conversation with Vaile and\nMiner on the 20th of December, 1878, at the National Hotel, about his\nemployment, and that he had a great many conversations there. On page\n4020, Vaile swears that there never was any such conversation. On\npage 4021, Vaile also swears that he has no recollection of such a\nconversation then or at anytime. On page 4178, Miner swears that the\ntalk was between Rerdell and himself, and that Vaile was not there.\n\nOn page 2225 Rerdell swears that Vaile told him that the mail service\nthey had ought to reach six hundred thousand or seven hundred thousand\ndollars. On page 4021, Vaile swears that he does not think he ever said\nany such thing—does not think it was possible that he ever said any\nsuch thing. On page 4179 Miner swears that Vaile never made any such\nstatement in his presence.\n\nOn page 2226 Rerdell swears that at the instance of Vaile and Miner he\nwent West, January 4, 1879, to put service on the Rawlins route. On 4022\nVaile swears that Rerdell did not go West at his instance; that Miner\ngave him, Rerdell, a subcontract for the entire pay, for the whole term,\nand that Rerdell undertook it on his own behalf. On 4179 Miner swears\nthat he made the arrangements with Rerdell himself.\n\nOn page 2227 Rerdell says that Vaile and Miner both told him that the\nservice would be increased right away, and to make subcontracts with\nthat in view. On page 4180 Miner swears that he gave him no such\ndirections, and that Rerdell did all he did on his own responsibility,\nand that Vaile did not give him any such authority. It is for you to\nsay., gentlemen, which of these men you will believe.\n\nOn page 2228 Rerdell swears that in March, 1879, had a conversation with\nVaile about an affidavit, and received instructions from Vaile or Miner.\nOn page 4024 Vaile swears that he recollects no such conversation and\ndoes not think he ever had it.\n\nOn page 2228 Rerdell swears that Vaile said in the presence of Miner\nthat he could get Brady to accept an affidavit from a subcontractor. On\npage 4024 Vaile swears that he is very sure that he did not say so, and\nthat he never asked Brady any such question. On page 4182 Miner swears\nthat he never made any such statement in Vaile's presence.\n\nOn page 2228 Rerdell swears that a day or two after Vaile says he had\nseen Brady, and that Brady had agreed to accept an affidavit from a\nsubcontractor. On page 4024 Vaile denies this.\n\nOn the same page, 2228, Rerdell swears that he was instructed by Vaile\nand Miner to write to Perkins and get him to send his affidavit. On\npage 4024 Vaile swears, \"Never!\"—that he did not know Perkins was a\nsubcontractor. On page 4182 Miner swears that he has no recollection of\nit, and that he never instructed Rerdell to send any form of affidavit\nto Mr. Perkins.\n\nOn page 2230 Rerdell swears that Miner wrote a form of affidavit. On\npage 4182 Miner swears that he has no recollection of it, and that he\nnever instructed Rerdell to send any form to Perkins. As a matter of\nfact the Perkins affidavit is in the handwriting of Rerdell. Yet he\ntells you that Miner wrote the form. It will not do.\n\nOn page 2231 Rerdell swears that he filled in blanks under the direction\nof S. W. Dorsey—that is, of the Perkins affidavit—and filed it under\nthe direction of S. W. Dorsey. On page 3793 Dorsey swears that he\nnever knew there was such an affidavit, and that he never gave such\ninstructions; and more than that, that he never at any time or place\ngave Rerdell authority to change any affidavit or any petition that was\nto be filed.\n\nOn page 2233 Rerdell swears he was instructed to make the subcontract\nwithout any reference to expedition; and that he, Dorsey, would\nguarantee the payments if they were not filed. On page 3771 S. IV.\nDorsey swears that he gave him no such instructions.\n\nOn page 2234 Rerdell swears that affidavits of Peck and Dorsey were\nacknowledged in blank. On page 4189 Miner swears that so far as he\nremembers they were filled in before they were signed.\n\nAgain, it may be proper for me to say here: Why did not the Government\ncall J. S. Taylor, the notary of New Mexico, to prove that the\naffidavits were in blank when they were sworn to by John M. Peck? Why\ndid they not? The law presumes that every officer has done his duty,\nand when we find at the foot of an affidavit the certificate of a notary\npublic the law presumes that the paper above it was in the precise\ncondition at the time the certificate was placed there in which it\nis then. That is the presumption of law, and there is only one way to\novercome that presumption. You must prove to the contrary. One of the\neasiest ways on earth to do that is to bring the officer. They did\nnot bring J. S. Taylor here from New Mexico, the man before whom Peck\nacknowledged the affidavit in this case. It would have been easy to have\nhim come, and to have asked him whether Peck did not swear to all these\naffidavits in blank. They did not call him. They had him here once and\nthat was enough. They did not call him this time. They did not call\nRufus Wainwright, of Middlebury, Vermont. He is the officer before\nwhom John W. Dorsey swore to these affidavits. The gentlemen of the\nprosecution say the affidavits were in blank, and yet they dare not put\nupon the stand the notary before whom they were sworn to. It was not\nbecause they did not think of it. It was not because they had not\nthe money. The Government had money by the million and agents by the\nthousand. You recollect how they tried to prove the destruction of those\ndispatches in the Western Union office. You recollect how they brought\nhere the superintendent, how they brought here agent after agent, how\nthey brought here the man that went around and collected the dispatches,\nand the man that drove the wagon, and the man that owned the wagon, and\nthe boys that received the dispatches on the street, and the man in the\ncellar that received them after they got there, and the man that bought\nthem, and the book-keeper that made out the check to pay for them.\nThey brought the man that receipted for them at the railroad, and they\nfollowed them from the railroad to Holyoke, Massachusetts, and brought\nthe superintendent of the factory and the books of the railroad to show\nthey had arrived. They followed those dispatches from paper to pulp\nand yet it never occurred to them to send to Middlebury and get Rufus\nWainwright. They never thought to have J. S. Taylor subpoenaed from New\nMexico. They had all the conveniences of modern civilization at their\ncommand and yet they never thought of getting Wainwright or Taylor.\n\nOn page 3771 S. W. Dorsey swears that he never instructed Rerdell to get\nany affidavits in blank. On pages 4126, and 4107, J. W. Dorsey swears\nthat he made none in blank; that he has no recollection of any such\nthing. On page 2240, Rerdell swears that he had a conversation with\nS. W. Dorsey about getting blank affidavits. On page 3771 S. W. Dorsey\ndenies it. On page 2241 Rerdell swears that S. W. Dorsey instructed him\nto make up the affidavit on route 41119 and gave him the per cent, of\nthe increase of pay. What does he say there? From one hundred and fifty\nto two hundred per cent.\n\nMr. Merrick. That was afterwards corrected.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I thank you for the suggestion. That happened on Friday.\nWe adjourned until the next Monday morning. He came in the next Monday\nmorning, and he said that he had made a mistake, and that it ought to\nbe from one hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty per cent. I\nimmediately went and got the affidavits on the Toquerville route,\nbecause I said the percentage must be over two hundred per cent, in that\naffidavit or he would not have changed. I found in the affidavit that\nit was two hundred and fifty-five per cent., and I found that was why he\nchanged. I followed that out, and I found that was the same route upon\nwhich Mr. Rerdell stole nearly five thousand dollars, according to the\ntestimony of S. W. Dorsey, and Rerdell did not deny it. So much for\nToquerville and Adairville. We will come to it again perhaps.\n\nLet me give the pages where all these matters are found. On page 3772\nDorsey denies the conversation about the affidavits, and also on page\n3773. Rerdell's, change of his evidence will be found on page 2277.\n\nOn page 2243 Rerdell swears that while he was in jail S. W. Dorsey had a\nkey to what he called his, Rerdell's, office. On page 3735 S. W. Dorsey\nswears that he never had a key to Rerdell's office, and that he never\nwas in the office but twice, both times with Rerdell, and that he never\ntook a paper out of the office except what Rerdell gave him. It\nwill also be remembered that when Rerdell was asked in his\nexamination-in-chief whether anybody had a key to his office he replied\nthat S. W. Dorsey had a key to his office. He did not at that time state\nthat his wife had a key. Why? Because he wanted it understood that S. W.\nDorsey was the only person that had a key, and that S. W. Dorsey, while\nRerdell was in jail, went to that office and opened it and robbed it.\nOn cross-examination I made him swear that his wife had a key, and we\nafterwards found that his wife went there. He knew she had a key.\nStill, in his cross-examination, when asked who had a key, he said S. W.\nDorsey. What was that for, gentlemen?\n\nSo that you would Infer that S. W. Dorsey was the only person who had a\nkey, and that he went there and robbed that office, as I said before.\nOn pages 2634 and 2635 Mrs. Cushman swears that she went to Rerdell's\noffice with Mrs. Rerdell. When? About six o'clock in the morning. And\nthat they found the office open? No. They found the office locked, but\nfound papers in a confused condition, and took away some papers. They\nwere there about fifteen minutes. Recollect this was the third morning\nthat Rerdell was in jail. Rerdell went to jail Monday evening. That made\nthe visit of Mrs. Cushman and Mrs. Rerdell on Thursday morning, and they\nwent there at six o'clock. Keep that in mind. Rerdell got out of jail on\nFriday. George A. Calvert, the janitor, visited every room frequently.\nHis testimony is on page 2672. He swears he found the door of Rerdell's\nroom unlocked. When? The day before Rerdell got out of jail. What time\nof day? In the morning. What morning was that? Thursday morning. When\ndid Rerdell get out of jail? Friday morning. When did Mrs. Rerdell and\nMrs. Cushman visit the room? Thursday morning. What time in the morning?\nSix o'clock. When did Calvert find the room open? That same morning.\nThe women swear that when they went there the room was locked. Now the\nquestion arises, who opened it? The women. That is all there is to that.\n\nMrs. Rerdell, on page 2635, swears she got the key on the second day\nafter Rerdell's incarceration, in the evening. That would be Wednesday\nevening. She used it the next morning, Thursday.\n\nOn page 2247 Rerdell swears that on the 20th of December, 1878, Vaile\npromised him a good salary. On page 4021 Vaile swears that he has no\nrecollection of any such promise. That is what they call corroboration.\nOn page 2348 Rerdell swears that in May, 1879, S. W. Dorsey said, \"You\nknow that John is a man of very little judgment. He does not know how to\ntalk to these contractors.\" On page 3773 S. W. Dorsey swears that there\nnever was any such conversation.\n\nOn page 2249 Rerdell swears, \"As secretary and manager, I kept the books\nfor a short time.\" On page 3636 W. F. Kellogg swears that he, Kellogg\nhad entire charge of Dorsey's books from the summer of 1872 to the fall\nof 1879, and that nobody else ever made a scratch of a pen in those\nbooks. On page 2270 Rerdell swears that Dorsey and Bosler were having\na settlement in New York and sent for the books, and that he took the\noriginal books over and left them there, and that he went over to New\nYork in June, 1881, and saw both books there and brought the journal\nover and left the ledger. On page 3955 Dorsey swears that the first\nsettlement he had with Bosler was in December, 1879, or January, 1880.\nRerdell swears that the time he got the copy made of his journal by the\nGibbses, was between Christmas, 1879, and 1880. Dorsey swears there was\nnot another settlement until November, 1882. The first settlement\nbeing in 1879, and Rerdell swearing that he took the books over for a\nsettlement, shows that he did not have them here in Washington to be\ncopied at the time he says and at the time other people swear that they\ncopied them.\n\nOn page 3788 S. W. Dorsey swears that he never sent for any transcript,\nand that he, Dorsey, referred to the route-book, and that Rerdell never\nsent any such book or books as he claimed. On page 2271 Rerdell swears\nthat he gave copies of the journal to Dorsey in June, 1881. That was\nthe time that he made the affidavit. His language by any natural\ninterpretation means that lie handed those copies over to Dorsey at\nthe time he made the affidavit on the 20th of June, 1881. On page 3988\nDorsey swears that he did not, and on page 3785 he again swears that he\nnever had them. On page 3784 he again swears that Rerdell never brought\nany book to him except the route-book. On page 2271 Rerdell swears that\nDorsey, on the 13th of May, 1879, him to make up a statement of the\nroutes showing the profits, and that he thinks he gave it to Bosler. On\npage 3875 Dorsey swears that he never made up any such statement by his\ndirection, and that he never gave Rerdell such an order. Why should he?\nAccording to Rerdell's own statement, in which there is not a particle\nof truth, Dorsey, on the 13th of May, 1879, that very day, had written a\nletter to Bosler, in which he told him about the profits, about how much\nit had cost him, and about how much it would cost him, and about how\nmuch the profits would be, and how much he paid to Brady. After writing\nsuch a letter to Bosler, containing all the facts, why would he want\nRerdell to make up a statement that was already in the letter itself?\nNobody can answer. There is not genius enough in this world to make the\nanswer.\n\nOn page 2272 Rerdell swears that he saw 7 B, which is a petition, in\n1879, and that there were three words in his own handwriting that were\nnot there when he first saw it, the three words being \"and faster time.\"\nHe also swears that he was instructed to put them in by S. W. Dorsey. I\nnow say that Mr. Rerdell never wrote those three words. On page 783 it\nappears that 7 B was filed April 18, 1879. On page 3786 S. W. Dorsey\nswears that Rerdell's statement is false. I will now turn to the\ntestimony of George Sears about the petition, 7 B, which Mr. Rerdell\nswears was altered by interlineation or the addition of three words,\n\"and faster time.\" The page is 829.\n\nHere comes a witness of the Government, apparently a good and honest\nman, and he swears that the words \"and faster time\" were in that\npetition when he signed it. I will take his word for it. I will take his\nguess as against the other man's oath.\n\nOn page 2273 Rerdell swears that he altered 11 B and 12 B by\ninstructions of S. W. Dorsey. Now, gentlemen, Stephen W. Dorsey got such\na momentum of crime on him and got running at such a rate that he could\nnot stop, and whenever a petition came in he had it altered without\nreading it. It did not make a bit of difference what the petition asked\nfor. He just said to his clerk, \"Look and see if there is not any line\nyou can add something to. I want something put in it, and I want it put\nin now.\" Mr. Rerdell says he did these things without any thought. He\njust made the changes as he was told, without considering whether it was\nright or wrong. He told you here on the stand that at one time he was\nrequested to get a petition, and he had a lot of names on hand, and so\nhe just wrote a petition and stuck the names to it. He could not even\nremember the route it was on. It was a matter of so little importance\nthat he did not charge his memory with it. He was told to get a petition\nin the regular way, and instead of doing that he said he took some names\nthat he had and just wrote a petition and stuck the names on, because\nthat was easier; and it was a matter of so little importance he really\ndid not remember. He was like the gentleman in Texas who was tried for\nmurder, but did not remember the name of the man he killed; he did not\ncharge his mind with it.\n\nNow for 11 B:\n\nHon. D. M. Key, Postmaster-General:\n\nWe, the undersigned, citizens of the State of Colorado, residing near\nand getting our mail at Muddy Creek post-office, on route 38135, from\nPueblo to Greenhorn, respectfully represent—I never noticed before that\nthe \"p\" is interlined in the word \"represent.\" I have no doubt that was\ndone by order of Dorsey—that it is necessary that the service on said\nroute should be increased from two trips per week to six trips per week,\nand a faster schedule. This section of the country is being rapidly\nsettled by people of intelelgence, and we ask the increased service for\nthe benefit of us who have already made our homes here, and also as an\ninducement to others to settle. We also request that the schedule time\nbe reduced so as to run from Pueblo to Greenhorn in eight hours, so that\ncitizens along the route may get their mail at a seasonable hour.\n\nI have read the petition as it was in the first place. The Government\ntells you that after that petition came here, and after it had been\nsubmitted to Stephen W. Dorsey, he told his clerk to add in the first\npart of the words \"on quicker time;\" and yet if he had read the last\nparagraph he would have seen quicker time was there called for. Rerdell\nsays Dorsey told him to insert the words \"on quicker time,\" and when I\nread this last paragraph to him he was stuck. Then what did he say? When\nhe got into that little corner and was looking for a mouse-hole, he said\nhe didn't read it and didn't know it was there. Do you believe that a\nman like Stephen W. Dorsey would deliberately have a petition changed,\nwould deliberately forge a petition, without knowing what was in it and\nwithout knowing whether the necessity existed for changing it or not?\nThat falsehood has not even a fig-leaf to cover its absurdity.\n\nHere is 12 B. It would not have taken long to have read that. Rerdell\nsaid Dorsey had him put in the words \"and a faster schedule.\" I will\nread the last paragraph to that:\n\nWe also respectfully request and urge that the running time be reduced\nso as to run from Pueblo to Greenhorn in eight hours, so that citizens\nalong the line may get their mails in a seasonable hour.\n\nHe says Stephen W. Dorsey, a man of sense, got that petition, read it\nall over, and then told this fellow to put in \"and a faster schedule\"\nwhen right in the next paragraph it asked for eight hours. A man who\nwill swear that way had rather tell a lie on ninety days' credit than\ntell the truth for cash. Just look at it. That is what they call a\ncorroboration. The more you look at this testimony the more absurdities\nyou find. Every truth has an infinite number of signs. Every truth\nhas to fit an infinite number of things. Infinite wisdom could not\nmanufacture a falsehood that would stand the test of investigation.\n\nOn page 2272 Rerdell says, speaking of the three petitions, 7 B, 11 B,\nand 12 B, \"We,\" meaning S. W. Dorsey and himself, \"had examined these\npetitions together, and he,\" meaning S. W. Dorsey, \"told me to put in\nthe clause for expedition.\" Now, 7 B was filed April 18. That is the day\nhe left for the West, and 12 B were filed on the 8th of May. If they\nhad them all at one time together, and if he and Dorsey had talked about\nthem, why were they not filed at the same time? Why was one filed April\n18th and the other two on the 8th of May? That testimony of Rerdell's\nwill not do.\n\nOn page 2279 Rerdell says that he found among Dorsey's papers the\ntabular statement, about the middle of April, 1879. the first column\nwas the number of the route; in the second the termini; in the third the\npay; in the fourth the anticipated pay by percentages, and in the fifth\nthe percentage to T. J. B., thirty-three and one-third, with the figures\ncarried out at the end of the column. He tells you that he had that\ntabular statement when he first went to MacVeagh. That tabular statement\nwas in the handwriting of S. W. Dorsey. Yet the Attorney-General was not\nsatisfied. He wanted that backed up by a book not in the handwriting of\nS. W. Dorsey. That will not do. Rerdell also tells you that at the time\nhe went to the Attorney-General he not only had that tabular statement,\nbut he had a letter-press copy of the original letter that Dorsey wrote\nto Bosler on the 13th day of May, 1879. He had that letter, the original\nof which was in Dorsey's handwriting, in which he admitted he had paid\nBrady twenty thousand dollars. He had the tabular statement in Dorsey's\nown handwriting in which he was to pay thirty-three and one-third\nper cent, to Brady. Yet the Attorney-General did not think there was\nsufficient evidence, and said, \"You had better go to New York and steal\na book that Dorsey never wrote a word in.\" Oh, no; that will not do.\n\nOn page 2280 Rerdell swears that he lost that memorandum. I guess\nhe did. On page 3785 S. W. Dorsey swears that he never made any such\nmemorandum. On page 2280 Rerdell swears that he employed Gibbs and wife\nto make a true and correct copy of the books in March, 1880; that he was\ndirected by S. W. Dorsey to send him a true transcript of the books in\norder to settle with Bosler, and that Gibbs and wife copied the journal\nand ledger, and that he sent the copy to New York. On page 3788 Dorsey\nswears that he never heard of the employment of Gibbs and wife, and\nthat he never received any such books or transcripts. On page 2644\nGibbs swears that his wife copied only the journal, not the ledger. Yet\nRerdell swears that he copied the journal and the ledger. On page 2644\nGibbs again swears that Rerdell brought him one book. What color was\nit, red, brown, or black? Rerdell says he took him two red books. Gibbs\nswears he got one brown book or one black book. That is what they call\ncorroboration. On page 2320 Rerdell swears with regard to the paper 2\nA, that the words, \"schedule thirteen hours\" were written by Miner. If\nthose words, \"schedule thirteen hours,\" were not written by Rerdell,\nthen—they were written by somebody else. [2 A handed to Mr. Ingersoll.]\nI guess this is the petition that was fixed up. It looks as if it\nhad been to a hospital. Rerdell says Miner wrote the words \"schedule\nthirteen hours.\" Just look at that word \"thirteen,\" gentlemen.\n\nYou have no idea how it affects your imagination and brain to be\nindicted seven times. On page 2209 Boone swears with regard to this same\npaper and the same words, that there is nothing in the handwriting to\nindicate that it was written by Miner; that it is a back-hand; a changed\nhandwriting. On page 4186 Miner swears that it is absolutely not true;\nthat the words \"schedule thirteen hours\" are absolutely and positively\nnot in his handwriting, and further that he never filed the petition.\nGentlemen, evidence of handwriting is very unsatisfactory necessarily.\nMen do not always write the same. The same man does not always write the\nsame hand. There is the difference of pen, the difference of ink, the\ndifference of paper, the difference of position, and the difference,\ntoo, of the man's feelings. At one time he feels in splendid health and\nat another time he may be tired and worn out. The paper may not be in\nthe same position. The slope of the desk may be different. Countless\nreasons change the handwriting of a person, and when a man swears that\ncertain handwriting is or is not another's handwriting he must swear on\nthe general appearance; he must swear on the impression that it first\nmakes upon him.\n\nI know Mr. Smith and I know Mr. Jones, but it may be that I could not\ndescribe the differences in the faces of the two men so that a stranger\ncould afterwards tell them. Yet I know them. It is the effect of all the\nfeatures upon me. I cannot say it is because of the ear of one, or his\nnose, or his mouth. I know the combination. I remember the grouping of\nthe features and the form, and that is all I remember. If I am shown a\npaper and asked, \"Is that Mr. Smith's handwriting?\" I say it is, or I\nsay no. Why? Because it looks like it or it does not look like it. I\ncannot recognize it because an \"e\" is made in a certain way or because a\n\"d\" is turned in a certain way, because the next day he may turn it the\nother way. You have got to go upon the general impression. On page 2336\nRerdell swears that the oath on route 38140, marked 5 E, was filled in\nby S. W. Dorsey; that the word \"twelve\" was written by him, Rerdell,\nafter it was filed, and was written because Turner told him that the\nschedule must be twelve hours; that Turner handed him the oath and he\nthereupon changed the \"fifteen\" to \"twelve.\" On page 3355 Turner swears\nthat he has no knowledge of any alteration in any affidavit. On page\n3793 S. W. Dorsey swears that he did not know there was any such\naffidavit; and he also frequently swears that he never asked Rerdell\nto change any affidavit that had been filed, and that he never gave any\nsuch orders. These gentlemen find one affidavit about which we did not\nask Mr. Dorsey particularly and they say, \"You have not contradicted\nthat.\" When a man swears that he never gave an order about any\naffidavit, that covers every affidavit.\n\nOn page 2337 Rerdell swears that the oath marked 20 F, on route 38145,\nwas filled in by him after it was signed, under the direction of S. W.\nDorsey. On page 3793 Dorsey denies giving any such directions.\n\nOn page 2338 Rerdell swears that blanks in the oath 22 F, the second\noath, were filled in by S. W. Dorsey, but will not say whether before or\nafter execution. On page 3771 Dorsey says he does not remember doing\nany such thing; but certainly there is no evidence that Dorsey did this\nafter the affidavit had been made.\n\nOn page 2339 Rerdell swears that the words \"ninety-six\" in the petition\n14 H, were written by Miner. Boone, on page 2709, declines to say that\nMiner wrote them. On page 4273 Miner swears that the words are not in\nhis handwriting, that he never wrote them. On page 2298 Rerdell swears\nthat he signed a check \"S. W. Dorsey by M. C. Rerdell,\" and that he had\nthat check at home. It may be that is one of the checks for June drawn\nupon Middleton's bank that we could not find.\n\nOn page 2340 Rerdell says that the oath marked 8 I, on route 44140, was\nfilled in by him in Washington after it was signed and sworn to, under\nthe direction of S. W. Dorsey. On page 3792 S. W. Dorsey denies that he\ngave any such directions.\n\nOn page 2342 Rerdell swears that S. W. Dorsey signed the name of J. M.\nPeck to the warrant 55 G. I have forgotten the day that the draft was\ngiven, but I think it was the 2d day of August. It was paid on August\n25, 1880. All I have to say is that there was an abundance of time for\nthat draft to go to New Mexico and to be signed by John M. Peck; there\nwas thousands of time. It makes not the slightest difference who signed\nthe name of John M. Peck to that warrant. The question is, was that\nmoney coming to John M. Peck? No. John M. Peck had sold out his\ninterest. He was not entitled to one dollar, and it made no difference\nwho signed his name to the check. Does it show that there was a\nconspiracy if Dorsey signed his name after Peck had sold out his\ninterest in the routes? Any draft coming to him came to him simply as\nthe trustee and the draft was for the benefit of the person who bought\nhim out. Suppose Mr. Dorsey had signed his name. Would that prove that\nthere was any conspiracy? It would simply be in accordance with his\nright as the matter then stood. He was entitled to that draft and Peck\nwas not entitled to that draft. Why? Because he had bought him out and\npaid him ten thousand dollars for his interest. That was all. Yet they\nwould claim if that draft happened to be indorsed by Mr. Dorsey that it\nwould be evidence of a conspiracy entered into in the fall of 1879.\n\nOn pages 2348 and 2361 Rerdell says that figures were inserted in all\naffidavits given him by S. W. Dorsey, except on route 41119, and that\nDorsey told him, Rerdell, to put them in the blanks. On page 3793 S. W.\nDorsey denies that.\n\nOn page 2223 Rerdell says that in August, 1878, he had a talk with\nMiner, who said that they could do nothing while Boone was in the\ncombination; that Brady was hostile to Boone, and that Boone's place was\nto be taken by Vaile; and that Miner asked his opinion about Vaile,\nand asked what Rerdell thought about Dorsey's approving it, adding that\nVaile was very close to Brady. On page 4177 Miner swears that he has\nno recollection of the conversation, and does not believe any such\nconversation ever occurred.\n\nAh, but they say that when a paper was handed to Mr. Miner, an\naffidavit, for instance, he could not give you the history of it; he\ncould not tell you where he was when he wrote it; he could not tell you\nwhere he was when he filled it. I would not have believed his testimony\nif he could. He had to take care of some ninety-six routes. Upon those\nroutes there were numberless papers, notices from the department,\nnotices of fines and deductions, of remissions, and everything of that\nkind. On each route there were probably a hundred papers, and may be\nmore—petitions, affidavits, and papers of all descriptions. If a man\nshould stand up here five years afterwards and pretend that he knew the\nhistory of each paper, I would know he had not the slightest regard for\ntruth.\n\nMr. Miner said when he was shown a paper, \"I don't remember ever having\nseen that paper before; I don't remember when it was written.\" That was\nthe truth. If he had wished to stain his heart with perjury he could\nhave said, \"Yes, I remember it. I know absolutely the time I wrote it.\nI know I sent it to New Mexico. I know it was filled up before it was\nsworn to\"; but he was honest enough and he was brave enough to face the\ntruth and say, \"I don't remember,\" and I respected him for it when he\ndid it. Whenever you hear the truth, as a rule the first thought is,\n\"May be it won't do.\" But if it is the truth, the longer you think about\nit the better it seems, while if it is a lie, the longer you think about\nit the worse it gets. It would have been, apparently, to Mr. Miner's\ninterest to say, \"I remember it perfectly,\" but the man had honor enough\nto tell the truth. And when you come to investigate his evidence it\nsounds much better than though he had pretended to remember time and\nplace.\n\nI call your attention to page 2446; that is about the affidavit.\n\nOn page 2384 Rerdell speaks of the charges made to Samuel Jones and\nJames B. Belford for two thousand dollars. Then Mr. Bliss in his speech,\nwhich I will come to after a while, says that Mr. Rerdell spoke about\na charge to J. B. B. He never did, never. He said James B. Belford. I\nstarted the J. B. B. business. I was the first one who ever said it, and\nMr. Rerdell never swore J. B. B. Then they sent out to Denver to get a\nfellow who had the same initials. I will come to this man after a while.\n\nOn pages 2429 and 2430 Rerdell swears that he had two balance-sheets\nof the books, made by Donnelly; that he showed them to MacVeagh and\nWoodward. How does it happen that Woodward was not sworn about it?\nNothing would have been of more importance, if they wished to prove\nthe existence of the two red books, than to prove by Woodward that Mr.\nRerdell, in June, 1881, showed him copies of those balance-sheets or the\nbalance-sheets themselves. They did not bring Mr. Woodward on the stand.\nWhy? Mr. Woodward, in my judgment, had he come upon the stand, would\nhave sworn to the truth. Rerdell says, \"I do not know where they are.\"\nThen he paused. Then I saw the working of his mind just as plainly as\nthough his skull had been opened. He got himself together and swore\nthat he gave them to Dorsey in July, 1882. He had to get them out of his\nhands some way.\n\nOn page 3736 S. W. Dorsey swears that he, Rerdell, did not give him any\nbalance sheets.\n\nOn page 2434 Rerdell swears as to the papers he gave to Dorsey—the\noriginal journal, and copy of the Oregon correspondence made by Miss\nNettie L. White. Miss White was not called. He gave these, he says, to\nDorsey, July 13, 1882. On page 2793 Dorsey swears that he did not give\nthem to him, nor did he give a paper of any kind.\n\nOn page 2461 Rerdell is asked if he did not admit to Judge\n\nCarpenter, in January, 1882, that he had a memorandum written by\nhimself, which he showed to James and MacVeagh, and that he made it so\nmuch like Dorsey's handwriting that he did not think anybody could tell\nit. What was his answer? \"I may have done so.\" Honest man!\n\nOn page 2462, in answer to the question, \"Did you not tell Carpenter\nthat you brought no book from New York?\" the honest man answered:\n\nVery likely I said I brought no book over from New York.\n\nOn the same page, in answer to the question, \"Did you not tell French\nthat you were trying to entrap James?\" he admits that it is likely he\nwas.\n\nOn page 2463 he admits that he may have told French that he had learned\nto imitate the handwriting of Dorsey so well that Dorsey himself could\nnot tell the imitation; and that he wrote that memorandum in pencil\nbecause he could the more easily deceive. Honest man!\n\nMr. Bliss holds S. W. Dorsey up to scorn because he endeavored to turn\ntwo men out of the Cabinet on the testimony of Rerdell; and yet he is\ntrying to put four men in the penitentiary on the same oath. Do you\nnot think that it is better to get a man out of the Cabinet than to put\nanother into the penitentiary? And do you not think it is better that a\nman be put out of office than that he be put into the penitentiary, his\nfamily destroyed, and his home left to ruin, upon the oath of a man who\nswears that the oath was a lie? Dorsey was an awfully wicked man to try\nto get Mr. MacVeagh out of office on Rerdell's testimony. But now\nthey turn around and want to put Mr. Vaile and Mr. Miner into the\npenitentiary on the same testimony. The other testimony was the best,\nbecause we did not promise him immunity. I will come to it after a\nwhile.\n\nOn page 2465 Rerdell swears that he did not have any pencil memorandum\nthat he showed to MacVeagh, claiming that it was in the handwriting of\nDorsey, and was asked, \"Did you not tell Bosler that you had?\" What does\nhe say? \"Possibly I did.\" \"Did you not tell Bosler that you wrote it?\"\n\"Possibly I did.\"\n\nS. W. Dorsey swears on page 3810 that Rerdell told Bosler that it was in\nthe waste-basket, and Bosler took the pieces out and put them together.\nRerdell says he had written it, and in pencil, so that it would look\nmore like Dorsey's handwriting. Why did you not ask Bosler about it,\ngentlemen, when you had him on the stand to prove your letter? Even Mr.\nBliss, in his speech, asked, \"Why didn't they call Bosler?\" Why didn't\nyou have the fairness to tell all the circumstances? I will tell them\nall when I get to that part of it. Why did you not tell them that you\nhad looked all through Mr. Bosler's books?\n\nOn page 2466 Rerdell swears that he did not get that memorandum out of\nthe waste-basket, but got a note from Mac-Veagh, and that Dorsey was\npresent.\n\nOn page 3810 Dorsey swears that it was a pencil memorandum imitating his\n(Dorsey's) hand closely.\n\nOn page 2466 Rerdell admits that he very likely told Bosler in June,\n1881, that he had no book on the train and brought none from New York.\nIn answer to my question, he says, \"Possibly I did,\" or \"Probably I\ndid,\" tell Bosler. I cannot bring other witnesses to contradict him when\nhe admits that he did. That is enough for me.\n\nOn page 2467 he admits that he very likely told Judge Wilson about the\naffidavit; that if he told him anything, he told him that no such book\nexisted, and that there was no necessity for any book except an expense\nbook.\n\nOn page 2469 Rerdell swears that he had a copy of the day-book and\nledger in June, 1881, in Dorsey's office; that Dorsey took them that\nday, and that they had been there ever since they were made, to be\ncarried to Congress. Then he began to gather his ideas, and he says:\n\nHold on. I am mistaken. These books were all sent over to New York\nbefore that, in the summer of 1880, when I carried the originals over\nfor the last settlement I was present at, between Dorsey and Bosler.\n\nThere was no settlement in 1880, the time he speaks of. Mr. Merrick then\nsays:\n\nQ. There were two sets of those copies?\n\nThat would be four copies and two originals.\n\nA. No, sir.\n\nOn page 3955, S. W. Dorsey swears that he had the first settlement\nwith Bosler in December, 1879, or January, 1880, and had no subsequent\nadjustment until November or December, 1882; no settlement between those\ndates. Yet Rerdell says that he took those books over in the summer of\n1880 for a settlement, when there was no settlement, and at the same\ntime carried the originals. A moment before he had sworn that the\noriginals were there in the office in June, 1881.\n\nOn page 2470 Rerdell swears that he did not give the books to Dorsey in\n1881.\n\nOn page 2447 he swears that he did not have the balance-sheet in New\nYork; that he had it in the office in June, 1881.\n\nOn page 2479, Rerdell, in speaking of the pencil memorandum, was\ncornered, caught. He said, \"I have kept it as a voucher.\" Then finally\nhe admits that it was not his property, but was the property of Dorsey;\nand the last admission he made upon that subject was, \"I stole it.\"\nHe says that while he was in jail somebody got into the office and\ndestroyed his papers. And yet, on page 2480, he tells that the first\ntime it ever occurred to him to use that pencil memorandum was after the\nfirst trial was over. Can you believe that? He was trying to steal it on\nthe 13th of July, 1882; was trying to go over to the Government on\nthe 5th day of July, 1882, and did not think that he had that pencil\nmemorandum! Writing a letter on that day to Dorsey; giving him notice\nthat he was going to desert him; saying in that very letter that he had\nbeen persuaded by Bosler to make the first affidavit; saying that he was\nmaking preparations to go to the Government, was going to set himself\nright, and yet did not remember the pencil memorandum! Why? Because he\nmanufactured it afterwards. He says that within a day or two after he\nwas out of jail he found this paper a second time. He found it before,\nand laid it carefully away as a voucher. Then he lost sight of it. Then\nhe was trying to sell it to the Government, and he forgot it; trying to\nblackmail Bosler and Dorsey, and forgot it. When he got out of jail he\nfound it. That will not do. How does he say it got to his house? His\nwife carried it from the office while he was in jail. And yet he would\nhave us believe that Dorsey broke into that office and stole all the\npapers. And yet he says that was in the office, and Dorsey did not take\nit. It will not do. He manufactured that paper after that time.\n\nOn page 2481 Rerdell swears that he did not know that he had that paper\nat that time, at the time he says his wife got the papers. I say he did\nnot; I say he made it afterwards.\n\nOn page 2490 Rerdell swears that he had those red books in the office\nat 1121 I street; that he never made any effort to conceal them. And\nyet Kellogg never saw one of those books; never saw Rerdell working upon\nthem, and never saw them in the office.\n\nOn page 2491 Rerdell swears that he thinks Kellogg did some work on\nthose red books; that Kellogg helped him (Rerdell) make the first\nentries. On page 3636 Kellogg swears not only that he did not help him\nto make those entries, but positively swears that he never even saw any\nsuch books.\n\nOn page 3635 Kellogg swears positively that Rerdell did not keep\nany books, but a private expense-book and a route-book; and that he\n(Kellogg) never saw any other books; that he never saw a ledger or\njournal in red leather, kept by Rerdell. He swears that he himself kept\nthe three books (the journal, ledger, and cash-book,) and that Rerdell\nnever made an entry in them.\n\nOn page 2512 Rerdell swears that he never imitated Dorsey's handwriting,\nor tried to, in Kellogg's presence. On page 3636 Kellogg swears that he\nsaw him do it.\n\nOn the same page (2512) Rerdell swears that he never signed Dorsey's\nname to show Kellogg that he could imitate it. On page 3636 Kellogg\nswears that he did do it.\n\nI have just given you a few, gentlemen, of the corroborations of\nthis man Rerdell. Recollect that you cannot believe him unless he is\ncorroborated. If you believe him at all you have got to believe all,\nunless you believe he is mistaken. Where a man comes on the stand as an\ninformer—and I do not call him an informer—even in that capacity he\nhas to be taken altogether or not at all.\n\nNow, with all these contradictions upon his head, I will now come to the\naffidavit of July 13, 1882. You will remember that I read you the letter\nof July 5, in which he says that Bosler got him to make the affidavit\nof 1881. At page 2374 Rerdell gives an account of this affidavit. Dorsey\ngot him in Willard's Hotel, locked the door, and had him. Now, he said\nto him, \"Mr. Rerdell, I will tell you what I am going to do with you:\nI am going to have you prosecuted for perjury.\" Let us imagine that\nconversation. Rerdell replies, \"What are you going to have me prosecuted\nfor?\" \"For making the affidavit of June, 1881.\" \"Why,\" says Rerdell, \"in\nthat affidavit I swore you were innocent.\" Says Dorsey, \"Don't you know\nyou swore to a lie? Do you think I would stand a lie of that kind,\nsir? Do you think I will allow any man willfully, maliciously, and with\nmalice aforethought, to swear that I am an innocent man? I will have you\narrested to-night, sir.\" \"Well,\" says Rerdell, \"my good God, ain't there\nany way I can get out of this?\" \"Yes; make another affidavit just like\nit. Now, sir, you have perjured yourself and I will arrest you for\nperjury unless you do it again.\" \"Well,\" says Rerdell, \"when I get that\ndone you will have two cases against me.\" \"I can't help it,\" Dorsey\nsays. \"Is that the way you treat a friend? I swore to that lie from pure\nfriendship. Don't you remember you took me by both hands and begged me,\nfor God's sake, and for your wife's sake and your children's sake, to\nmake that affidavit? And now are you going to be such a perfect devil as\nto have me arrested for perjury for making that same affidavit?\" Dorsey\nsays, \"Yes, sir; that is the kind of man I am.\" \"Well, but,\" says\nRerdell, \"don't you know the trial is going on now? They are trying to\nprove, now, that you are guilty, and in that affidavit of mine I swore\nyou are innocent, and how are you going to prove a man guilty when\nyou swear that he is innocent?\" Dorsey says, \"That is my business, not\nyours. I am going to have you arrested.\" \"But,\" says Rerdell, \"you had\nbetter hold on, I tell you.\" \"Why?\" \"I have got the red book that I got\nin New York.\" Dorsey says, \"I don't care.\" Rerdell says, \"I have got\nthe pencil memorandum that you made for me to open the books upon, and\ncharge William Smith with eighteen thousand dollars. And you wrote John\nSmith first, and I changed it to Sam Jones, don't you recollect, as\notherwise there would be two Smiths? And there is the account against J.\nH. Mitchell, and J. W. D., and cash, and profit and loss.\" Dorsey\nsays, \"I don't care about that. I am not going to allow a man to commit\nperjury. I am going to have you arrested.\" Rerdell says, \"You had better\nnot have me arrested.\" Dorsey says, \"Why? What else have you got?\" \"I\nhave got a copy of the letter that you wrote to Bosler on the 13th of\nMay, 1879, which you say that you paid twenty thousand dollars to Thomas\nJ. Brady. That copy was made by Miss Nettie L. White.\" \"Do you believe\nI care anything about that? You have perjured yourself, and it is no\ndifference to me whether it was in my favor or not. Justice must be\ndone, and I am going to have you arrested.\" Rerdell says, \"You had\nbetter not. I have got a tabular statement in your handwriting, Dorsey,\nwhere you had a column for the amount due and the amount received, and\nanother column for thirty-three and one-third per cent, given to Brady,\nand then at the top, in your handwriting, 'T. J. B., thirty-three and\none-third.'\" Dorsey says, \"I don't care what you have got.\" Rerdell\nsays, \"That ain't all I have got, Dorsey. I tore out of your copy-book a\ncopy of the letter I wrote to Bosler on the 21st or 22d of May, 1880, in\nwhich I told him that I had gone to Brady, and that Brady said you were\na damn fool for keeping a set of books, and suggested to me to have some\ncopies made, and I had the copies made, and I can prove the copies by\nGibbs if he does not try not to remember that he made them. Now, go on\nwith your rat-killing; go on with your perjury suit.\" Dorsey had him\nalready locked up there, don't you see? But Dorsey was bent on having\nthat man arrested for perjury because he had sworn that he (Dorsey) was\ninnocent. Dorsey was implacable.\n\nWhat else did he do? He put his hand in his pocket and said, \"Do you see\nthose letters to that woman?\" Then, sir, when he saw the handwriting he\nwas like that other gentlemen that saw the handwriting on the wall, and\nhe began to get weak in the knees, and says, \"Dorsey, I hope you are not\ngoing to have me arrested for perjury. I am willing to do it again right\nnow, on the same subject.\"\n\nNow, it turns out that at that time Dorsey did not have those letters.\nDorsey swears that he never got those letters until after Rerdell was\nput upon the stand. And after he swore that, the Government had the\nwoman to whom the letters were written subpoenaed. Why did they not\nplace her on the stand? That is for you to answer, gentlemen. That is\nthe affidavit of July 13. Recollect, there was a trial going on at that\ntime in which Dorsey was insisting that he was innocent, and although\nRerdell had sworn that he was, he was going to have him arrested right\noff.\n\nWhat else did he have against Dorsey at that time? Now, says Rerdell,\n\"Dorsey, don't you have me arrested for perjury. I have got a memorandum\nof that mining stock that was to be given to McGrew and Tyner and Turner\nand Lilley for corrupt purposes.\"\n\nWhat else did he have? After he had agreed to make the affidavit, Dorsey\nwrote out what he wanted him to swear to, in pencil, and gave it to\nhim. And when he got his liberty, when he walked out of that room a free\ncitizen, he had all the papers I have spoken of not only, but he had in\nhis possession a draft, in Dorsey's handwriting, of the affidavit Dorsey\nwanted him to make. He made the first affidavit from friendship; the\nsecond from fright. You know he never took a dollar for an affidavit.\nHe was not that kind of a man. You might get around him by talking\nfriendship or you might scare him, but you could not bribe him;\nhe wasn't that kind of a man. Armed with all these papers he was\nfrightened; so he made the affidavit of July 13—\n\nNow, let us see. He admits that—I will not say every word, but the\nprincipal things in the affidavit of June, 1881, are false. He swore to\nthem knowing them to be false. But he tried to get out by saying he did\nnot write them all. Writing is not the crime. The crime is swearing that\nthey are true when they are not true. It does not make any difference\nwho wrote it. For instance, you swear to an affidavit, and you\nafterwards say, \"I did not write it.\" \"Did you know the contents?\"\n\"Yes.\" \"Did you swear to it?\" \"Yes.\" What difference does it make who\nwrote it? And yet he endeavors to get behind that breastwork and say, \"I\ndid not write all that affidavit; I only wrote part of it. What I wrote\nwas true, but what I swore to was not.\" That will not do.\n\nSo the affidavit of July, 1882, he now swears was a lie. But he gives a\nreason for writing that, that you know is utterly, perfectly, completely\nfalse. You know that Dorsey never threatened to have him arrested for\nperjury because he had sworn in favor of Dorsey. You know it, and all\nthe eloquence and all the genius of the world could not convince you\nthat at that time Rerdell was afraid that Dorsey would have him arrested\nfor perjury. No, sir.\n\nNow, let us take the next step. Mr. Rerdell testified, on page 2275,\nthat this letter (32 X) was received by him in due course of mail in\n1878. Upon being asked whether he did not know that S. W. Dorsey was\nhere in Washington at that time, he replied that he knew he was not. I\nwill read it to you, gentlemen:\n\nChico Springs, P. O.\n\nMountain Spring Ranch, Colfax County, New Mexico,\n\n\"April 3, 1878.\n\n\"M. C. Rerdell, 1121 I Street:\n\n\"Dear Rerdell: I wish you would get fullest information in regard to all\nthe new post-office lettings and keep posted as to the schemes going\non in the department. There are certain routes we want advertised and\nothers we do not. I shall be in Washington as soon as the 12th unless\nsomething unexpectedly happens,\n\n\"Faithfully,\n\n\"DORSEY.\"\n\nQ. What Dorsey was that?—A. That is S. W. Dorsey's handwriting.\n\nQ. And signature?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nThere is where he first speaks of it. At the time that letter was\nintroduced, or in a little time, gentlemen, they also introduced the\nenvelope. I do not know that I should have suspected the letter if they\nhad not introduced the envelope. Whenever there is an effort to make a\nthing too certain I always suspect it. When that Morey letter was gotten\nup, what made me suspect it was that they had the envelope, and I said\nto myself, \"Why did they want the envelope if it was clearly in the\nhandwriting of Garfield? What difference did it make whether it was sent\nto Morey or to somebody else? What difference did it make when it came\nfrom Washington?\" The only question was, \"Did Garfield write it?\" And\nupon that subject the envelope threw no light. When a man feels weak and\nthinks that other people will know what he does not want them to know,\nthen it is that he wants to barricade and strengthen before the attack.\nSo they got up this envelope, and when I looked at that it did not\nlook to me as if that stamp had been through the mail. I noticed the\nhandwriting of \"Chico Springs, N. M.,\" and then I noticed the 3 or the\nB on the postage stamp, and then I knew that the man who wrote \"Chico\nSprings\" never made the letter or figure on that stamp. It is utterly\nimpossible for the man who wrote that \"Chico Springs\" to make that mark\non the stamp. This stamp looked awfully clean, and I said, \"Well, I\nwouldn't wonder if that was an envelope used here in the city which has\nbeen got through the mail in some way.\" They had it stamped on the back\nand I said, \"Perhaps that was written in 1879.\" No. You see, if it was\nnot written in 1879 it did not do any harm, because in 1879 Dorsey was\nnot a member of the Senate. Having gone out on the 4th of March, 1879,\nthat letter was dated in April, 1879, why then there was no harm in his\nwriting to Mr. Rerdell and telling him to look after the mail business.\nBut if it was written on the 3d of April, 1878, it went far to show that\nDorsey was personally interested at that time in mail routes. You will\nnotice the printed date, April 3, 1878. They introduced that letter.\nI noticed that that envelope was a funny looking thing, and that the\nwriting on it did not correspond with the mark on the stamp. I noticed\nalso that upon the back they had the stamp. I do not know how they got\nit. When the Post-Office Department has possession of a paper they can\nput almost anything on it.\n\nWhen I said to Mr. Rerdell on cross-examination, not knowing anything\nabout the letter, \"Was that not written in 1879?\" he said, '\"No, sir.\"\nSaid I, \"Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that Dorsey was not here\non the 3d of April, 1879?\" He said, \"As a matter of fact I know that\nhe was here on the 3d of April, 1879.\" \"Don't you know, as a matter of\nfact, that he was here on the 3d of April, 1878?\" He says, \"I know as a\nmatter of fact that he was not here on the 3d of April, 1878; he was at\nChico Springs.\" He knew as a matter of fact that he was here in 1879,\nand he swore that so as to preclude the possibility of his having\nwritten the letter in 1879. And he swore to the positive fact that he\nwas not here on the 3d of April, 1878, so as to show that he wrote him\nthat letter from Chico Springs. They wanted some letter from Dorsey in\n1878, to show that he was personally interested in these routes while\nin the Senate. They submitted that letter to Mr. Boone, who was their\nwitness. He looks at it and he tells you that Dorsey did not write that\nletter. A clear forgery. Whom else do they bring now? They leave it\nright there, and by that admit that Rerdell forged that letter. Mr.\nBoone, their witness, swears it. Nobody swears to the contrary except\nRerdell. Boone threw the letter from him contemptuously, and said, \"That\nis not Dorsey's handwriting,\" and they dare not bring another\nwitness. The country is filled with experts, gentlemen, who know about\nhandwriting; the United States had plenty of men and plenty of money,\nand they never brought a solitary man.\n\nNow, gentlemen, do you want to know how this fellow got caught? I will\ntell you. There is the letter, and they dare not put a man on the stand\nto swear that it is in Dorsey's handwriting. Look it all over. But I\nwant to tell you how Rerdell got caught about Dorsey being present on\nthe 3d of April, 1878, and I might as well tell you how I found it out.\nI do not want to pretend to be any more ingenious than I am. I found\nit out because I made the same mistake myself. I stumbled on that same\nroot. I hit my toe of heedlessness on the same obstruction. I went up\nto look at the Senate journal. I opened a book to see whether Dorsey was\nhere on the 3d of April, 1878. You see at the bottom there of the title\npage, Mr. Foreman—Washington: Government Printing Office. 1877.\n\nYou know I was not looking for the book of 1877, so I shut that book up.\nI then took the next book and opened it, and it said at just the same\nplace:\n\nWashington: Government Printing Office. 1878.\n\nI thought it was the book. So I looked over here, and I found that there\nwas no session of the Senate in April, and I said to myself, \"Is that\npossible that there was no session in April, 1878? Why, there must have\nbeen.\" But the book said \"no.\" I looked back here, and it still said\n1878. Then I happened to look back to this book that said 1877, and\nit said that the session commenced December 3d, 1877, and consequently\nApril 3d, would be found in the book marked 1877 on the title page. So I\nturned right over here and looked up at the top and saw the date, April\n3d, 1878. He was looking for the 1878 book, and that included April,\n1879, and when he got to April, 1879, there was no session of the\nSenate. So he came right in here and swore that Dorsey was not here in\n1878, but that he was here in April, 1879. I looked in that book and\nfound that Mr. Dorsey, on the 3d of April, 1878, was appointed by the\nVice-President on a committee of conferees, on the part of the Senate,\ntogether with Senators Windoin and Beck, and I saw exactly how Mr.\nRerdell made his mistake. He opened the book, and at the bottom-of the\ntitle page it said 1877. That was not what he was looking for. He was\nlooking for 1878. And the book that said 1878 showed that in April the\nSenate was not in session. The book that said 1877 showed that in April\nthe Senate was in session on April 3d, 1878. That man thought he was\nbacked by the records of the Senate, and thereupon he manufactured\nthat letter. And that is the letter sworn by Boone not to be in the\nhandwriting of S. W. Dorsey. Now, gentlemen, there is nothing in this\nworld that a man would be prevented from doing, for its baseness, who\nwould do that.\n\nThere is more evidence than this. I asked Mr. Rerdell, \"When you got\nthat letter did you understand it?\" He said, \"No.\" \"Did you do anything\non account of it?\" \"No.\" \"Did you know what it meant?\" \"No.\" And yet\nhe has the temerity to swear that he received that on the 3d of April,\n1878.\n\nHow did he come to spell the name Reddell? I will tell you. On page 2275\nhe had a letter to go by. That is the very page on which the Government\nputs in that letter. This letter is a letter of introduction. When\nRerdell manufactured that letter he had this letter of introduction to\ngo by:\n\nHon. J. L. Routt, Denver:\n\nMy Dear Governor: I wish to introduce my friend, Mr. M. C. Reddell.\n\nIt was written Reddell in that letter, and when this man wanted to\nmanufacture one he had one in his possession that Dorsey wrote about\nthat time (April 14, 1879), and he noticed that in that he spelled the\nname Reddell. So when he wanted to get up a fraud he spelled the name\nReddell. That is the way. There is no pretence that Dorsey wrote that\nletter, and they dare not bring an expert or another man on earth\nacquainted with the handwriting of Dorsey and submit it to him and\nexpect him to say that that is the handwriting of S. W. Dorsey. So much\nfor that.\n\nNow, it is claimed that while Torrey was writing up Dorsey's books,\nhaving in his possession the check stubs, he was uncertain as to whether\na charge was twenty-five dollars or twenty-five cents, and he thereupon\nsent to Rerdell to ascertain the true state of the account, so that\nhe might open his books. Thereupon Rerdell made the calculation in the\nevidence marked (94 X,) and Donnelly wrote under it that it was right.\nDonnelly made that little certificate at the bottom. Here is\nthe important paper [submitting 94 X to the jury], another piece\nmanufactured out of whole cloth, not whole paper. Now, I ask a few\nquestions about this. In the first place, they knew that unless this was\ncorroborated it was good for nothing, and we find on it:\n\nLewis Johnson & Co., note due 28th October, three thousand dollars.\n\nWas that note at Lewis Johnson & Co.'s? Why did they not bring some of\nthe officers of that bank, if there was such a note for three thousand\ndollars there? But no one was brought. And yet they knew that everything\ncoming from Rerdell must be corroborated.\n\nIf Rerdell had come to Donnelly to find what the account was, how did\nit happen to be in Rerdell's handwriting before it got to Donnelly?\nDonnelly wrote this certificate at the bottom. Rerdell had written\nall the facts before. If he went to Donnelly to get the facts, how did\nRerdell happen to write this before it got to Donnelly? It is like me\nwanting to get some information from a man, and writing the information\nbefore going to him.\n\nNow, if Donnelly wrote that after Rerdell had written, where did Rerdell\nget the information? If Donnelly had the books, Donnelly should have\ngiven the information. If Rerdell had the books, why did he want to\ngo to Donnelly for information? And if Donnelly had the books, how did\nRerdell write the information before he went to Donnelly? Then if he\nwanted that information for Torrey, why did he not send it to him? How\ndoes it happen that Rerdell wrote out the information for Donnelly, then\ngot Donnelly to certify it, because Torrey had asked it? And then how\ndoes it happen that Rerdell kept it? It seems to me that that ought\nto have been sent to Torrey. Torrey wrote to Rerdell for information;\nRerdell wrote it all down, and then got Mr. Donnelly to say it was so.\nIf Donnelly had the books, Donnelly should have given the information.\nIf Rerdell had the books, he did not have to go to Donnelly for\ninformation. That is another manufactured paper. As I say, how does it\nhappen to be in the possession of Rerdell? They claim that it was for\nTorrey's benefit. I believe when Torrey was on the stand they asked him\nif there was not some dispute about thirty-five cents. Now they bring\nthat here to show that there was a dispute about twenty-five cents. Was\nthere any reason for supposing that it was twenty-five cents? No,\nexcept that it was in the dollar column, that is all. Of what use was\nDonnelly's statement after Rerdell had made the calculation? Nobody on\nearth can tell why that was given. Why did they not bring some of the\nbooks or clerks from Lewis Johnson & Co.'s Bank to show that there was a\nnote there in October for three thousand dollars.\n\nThere is another little matter, a conversation between Rerdell and\nBrady. Rerdell said he had a conversation with Brady in which he told\nhim about the Congressional committee; that he was summoned to bring his\nbooks. Brady was astonished that Dorsey would be \"Damn fool enough to\nkeep books,\" and suggested to have them copied. If this is true, Brady\nat that time made a confident of Rerdell. If it is true, Brady at that\ntime admitted to Rerdell that he (Brady) was a conspirator; that he had\nconspired with Dorsey. And yet Brady says that he never had but three or\nfour conversations, I believe, with this man, and Rerdell himself\nadmits that he never had but four or five, and when he is pinned down\non cross-examination he accounts for enough of these interviews, without\nany interviews on the subject of the books, to exceed all that he ever\nhad. Do you believe that he ever had any such conversation? Do you\nbelieve that Brady would make a confident of him? Do you believe that\nBrady would substantially admit in his presence that he had been bribed\nby Dorsey? I do not.\n\nNow, in order that you may know what this man is, I want you to have an\nidea of his character. So we will come to the next point. Mr. Rerdell\nadmits that he sat with the defendants during the early part of this\ntrial; that he was willing to make a bargain with the Government; that\nhe proposed to the Government that he would sit with his co-defendants,\nand would challenge from the jury the friends of the defendants. Did\nany man wearing the human form ever propose a more corrupt and infamous\nbargain? That proposition ought to have been written on the tanned hide\nof a Tewksbury pauper. He went to the Government and deliberately said,\n\"Gentlemen, I am willing to make a bargain with you. I am willing to\nsit with my co-defendants, pretending to be their friend, and while\nso pretending I will challenge their friends from the jury. I will so\narrange it that their enemies may be upon the panel.\" \"And why do you\nsay that, Mr. Rerdell?\" \"In order to show my good faith towards the\nGovernment.\" He made the first affidavit for friendship, the second for\nfear, and he made this proposition to show his good faith. There never\nwas a meaner proposition made by a human being, under the circumstances,\nthan that. He proposed to do it. Mr. Blackmar says that the proposition\nwas rejected; but that does not affect Mr. Rerdell. He was willing to\ncarry it out.\n\nWhat more does he swear? He swears that he tried to carry it out. In\nother words, that although it had been rejected, that made no difference\nto him. Mr. Blackmar says they would not do it. Rerdell swears that he\ntried to: went right along and did his level best; and if the Court had\nallowed him four challenges he would have challenged four friends of the\ndefendants from the jury.\n\nWhat more does he admit? That when the Court decided that all of us\ntogether only had four, he endeavored to challenge one. Why? Because he\nbelieved he was a friend of the defendants; because he believed he would\nbe against the prosecution; and he wanted to get the friends of the\ndefendants away. Why? To the end that the defendants might be tried by\nan enemy. That is what he was trying to accomplish.\n\nLet us take another step. That proposition reveals the entire man; that\ntakes his hide off; that takes his flesh all off; that leaves his heart\nbare, naked; you can see what he is made of, and it shows the workings\nof his spirit, the motions of his mind; and you see in there a den of\nvipers; you see entangled, knotted adders. And yet that man is put upon\nthe stand stamped by the seal of the Department of Justice, and that\ndepartment says to twelve men, \"Here is a gentleman that you can\nbelieve; that gentleman proposes to sell out his co-defendants to us,\nbut we would not buy; he is an honorable kind of gentleman, but we would\nnot buy.\"\n\nMr. Merrick. It should be interpolated there—if you will pardon me a\nmoment—that the Government refused to accept Rerdell until he himself\nhad pleaded guilty.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I understand that. I say now, Mr. Merrick, that I\nwould not for anything in the world, on a subject of that kind, go the\nmillionth part of an inch beyond the testimony. Although you and I have\nnot been very cordial friends during this trial, and neither have I and\nMr. Bliss, yet if I know myself I would not for anything in this world\nput a stain upon your reputation, or upon the reputation of either of\nyou, by misstating a word of this testimony. I would not do it. I am\nincapable of it. I admit that the evidence is that the proposition was\nrejected, but I also insist that the Government knew the proposition had\nbeen made, otherwise it could not have been rejected. And so I say that\nafter this man had made that proposition, infamous enough to put a blush\nupon the cheek of total depravity, the Government put that witness upon\nthe stand, sealed with the seal of the Department of Justice.\n\nNow, we will go another step. He sat with us from day to day, gentlemen,\nas you know, went in and out with us, as one of the co-defendants. In\nthe meantime—and there is a laughable side even to this infamy—he\nborrowed money from Vaile. He went to him as a co-defendant, as a\nfriend, and said, \"I want a hundred and forty dollars; I want to buy\nbread and meat to give me strength to swear you into the penitentiary.\"\nAnd Vaile gave him the money. Would you believe a man like that? You\ncannot think of a man low enough, you cannot think of a defendant vile\nenough to be convicted on such testimony.\n\nNow, we will go another step. He wanted to make that bargain with Mr.\nBlackmar. Mr. Blackmar swears that he told Mr. Merrick of it, and that\nMr. Merrick rejected it; would have nothing to do with it.\n\nAt that time Mr. Woodward had two affidavits of Rerdell in his\npossession—an affidavit of Rerdell, made in September, supplemented by\nanother affidavit, I believe, of November, that he made in the city\nof Hartford, covering seventy pages. When Mr. Woodward saw Mr. Rerdell\nsitting with the defendants, pretending to go with them, he (Woodward)\nhad those two affidavits of Rerdell in his pocket. Did the prosecution\nknow that Rerdell had made the two affidavits? I do not say they did,\ngentlemen. I only go right to the line of the evidence; there I stop.\n\nAnother thing: Mr. Blackmar swears that they had a signal to look at the\nclock, and that night Rerdell would meet him at six or seven o'clock, I\nhave forgotten the hour; but Mr. Blackmar could not sit in his room all\nthe time waiting for him, and so he gave him a certain signal, so that\nhe would know he was to wait that night. Then what happened? Then Mr.\nRerdell came to Mr. Blackmar and gave to him written reports. Of what? I\ndo not know. He sat with the defendants; he gave to Mr. Blackmar written\nreports. What were they? I do not know. What did Mr. Blackmar do with\nthem? He handed them to Colonel Bliss. What did he do with them? I do\nnot know. Did he read them? I do not know. Did he know that they were in\nthe handwriting of Mr. Rerdell? I do not know. That is for you.\n\nStill another point:\n\nMr. Bliss, after this jury had been impaneled, stood before them while\nRerdell was sitting with us as a defendant, and said:\n\nThe ranks of the defendants are closed up, and he—Rerdell—stands\nbefore you now as one of the defendants, whose testimony—Meaning the\nconfessions made to MacVeagh and to Postmaster-General James—will be\naccepted by the Court and by you, &c.\n\nThe question arises, Did Mr. Bliss know at that time that Mr. Woodward\nhad in his pockets two affidavits made by Rerdell, one made in September\nand the other in November? Did he know at that time that Rerdell had\ngiven his papers over to Mr. Woodward? Did he know at that time that he\nhad offered to challenge the friends of the defendants from the panel?\nAnd so knowing, did he give us to understand that Rerdell had passed\nfrom the influence of the Government and was now acting as one of the\nco-defendants? Is it possible that Mr. Bliss would furnish Rerdell with\na mask behind which he could gather information from the defendants and\nsell it to the Government for immunity? Is it possible? Those were the\ncircumstances. I do not say that he knew. I do not know.\n\nGentlemen, I do not believe that it is the duty of a Government to\nprosecute its citizens. I do not believe that it is the duty of a\nGovernment to spread a net for one of the people whom it should protect.\nI do not believe in the spy and informer system. I believe that every\nGovernment should exist for the purpose of doing justice as between\nman and man. The mission of a Government is to protect and preserve its\ncitizens from violence and fraud. The real object of a Government is to\nenforce honest contracts, to protect the weak from the strong; not to\ncombine against the one, not to offer rewards for treachery, not to show\ncold avarice in order that some citizen may have his liberty sworn\naway. The objects of a good Government are the sublimest of which the\nimagination can conceive. The means employed should be as pure as the\nends are noble and sacred. The Government should represent the opinions,\ndesires, and ideals of its greatest, its best, and its noblest citizens.\nEvery act of the Government should be a flower springing from the\nvery heart of honor. A Government should be incapable of deceit. The\nDepartment of Justice should blow from the scales even the dust of\nprejudice. Representing a supreme power, it should have the serenity and\nfrankness of omnipotence. Subterfuge is a confession of weakness. Behind\nevery pretence lurks cowardice. Our Government should be the incarnation\nof candor, of courage, and of conscience. That is my idea of a great and\nnoble Government.\n\nThe next point to which I call your attention is the withdrawal of the\nplea of not guilty by Mr. Rerdell. You probably remember the occurrence.\nI will read to you what he said upon that occasion. I find it on page\n2202:\n\nAfter mature reflection and a full consideration of the whole subject,\nI have determined to abandon any further defence of myself in this case,\nand put myself at the mercy of the Court and the Government; and if\ndesired to do so by the counsel for the Government, to testify to all\nmy knowledge of any facts with reference to any of the defendants either\nagainst or for them, myself included. Therefore, I now in person ask\nleave to withdraw my plea of not guilty, heretofore interposed, and\nenter my plea of guilty, and in so doing put myself upon the mercy of\nthe Court I feel this to be a duty I owe to myself, my family, and\nto truth. I have arrived at this fixed determination upon my own\nreflections and responsibilities, and without any previous consultation\nwith my counsel, who, I believe, would not have advised me to this\ncourse, and whom I now relieve from all and any responsibility for the\ncourse I have adopted.\n\nNow, gentlemen, is it not wonderful that if Mr. Rerdell was about to\ntell the truth as a witness in this case, he could not even withdraw\nhis plea of not guilty without misstating the facts? Is it not wonderful\nthat he felt called upon at that time to tell several falsehoods? He\nsays that he took this step upon his own responsibility. He says that he\ndid it without the advice of his counsel. He tells you that he believes\nif he had asked his counsel, his counsel would have been opposed to\nit. He says he is willing to be a witness for the Government if the\nGovernment desires it, leaving you to infer that at that time no\narrangement had been made for him to be a witness; that it was all in\nthe regions of uncertainty; that he had withdrawn into the recesses of\nhis own mind, and consulting with himself and nobody else had made\nup his mind to throw himself upon the mercy of the Government and the\nCourt, and took that step without even allowing his counsel to know what\nhe was about to do.\n\nBut he speaks further on the subject. I read from page 2523. I was then\nexamining him:\n\nQ. How did you come to do it?—A. I finally made up my mind to what I\nwould do. I talked it over the evening before with my counsel.\n\nHe so states under oath; and yet when he stood up before this Court and\nwithdrew his plea of not guilty, he said he acted without the knowledge\nof his counsel—I read this to show you that the statement he made to\nthe Court at the time he withdrew his plea was absolutely false. What\nnext? I will go on a little further. The same man Rerdell, after he had\nmade up his mind to go over to the Government; after he had made up his\nmind to swear away, if it was within his power, the liberty of S. W.\nDorsey, admits, on page 2525, that he endeavored to get five thousand\ndollars from Mr. Dorsey.\n\nOn page 2589 Mr. Rerdell swears positively that he did not know that he\nwas to be used as a witness for the Government until he was called in\ncourt to take the stand. Let us look at the evidence of Mr. Bliss on\npage 2590. I will read you what he said:\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, we propose to show, in substance, that this\nwitness, for reasons with which we have nothing to do, connected with\nhis own views of his own safety, from an early period was desirous of\nbeing accepted by the Government as a witness; that the counsel in the\ncase refused to communicate with him or to have anything to do with\nhim until, in the presence of his own counsel, he was brought to Mr.\nMerrick's office, and there the whole thing was explained; and that\nthen for the first time the Government accepted his willingness to be\na witness; and they did it under circumstances which held out to him\nno inducement and which involved no training or anything of the kind by\nanybody representing the prosecution.\n\nNow, let us go to the next step. I want to be perfectly fair. On page\n2591 Mr. Merrick asked Mr. Rerdell this question:\n\nQ. When did you first learn that you would be put upon the stand after\npleading guilty?—A. It was the day before my plea was made in court.\n\nYet when he rose to withdraw the plea he expressed his willingness to\ngo upon the stand for the Government, leaving you to infer that no\narrangement had been made, and he afterwards finally swore that he did\nnot know that he was to be called until he was called.\n\nThese things, gentlemen, you must remember.\n\nOn page 2515 Rerdell swears that on the Sunday after he got out of jail\nhe proposed to Mr. Lilley to have Lilley act for him, and authorized\nLilley to say to the Government that if the Government would accept him\nhe would go on the stand and rebut Vaile. He told him that he had in\nhis possession a letter or two of Mr. Vaile's. Rerdell tells you that he\nmade this proposition on the 16th or 17th of September, 1882, which was\nafter he made the affidavit of June, 1881. On the same page he said it\nwas just after Vaile went off the stand. That is my recollection. In\nthe last trial Vaile testified on the 4th of August, 1882. So about\nthat time Rerdell, according to his testimony, went to Lilley and made\na proposition to sell out then. When he made the affidavit of July 13,\n1882, the trial was then in progress. The very next month, August, while\nthe trial was still going on, that same man, having made the affidavit\nof July 13, 1882, went to his attorney, Mr. Lilley, and authorized him\nto say to the Government that Mr. Rerdell would take the stand to swear\nagainst Mr. Vaile. Remember another thing, gentlemen. The only thing he\noffered to do then to insure his own safety was to swear against Vaile.\nHe did not offer to swear against Dorsey. He did not authorize Mr.\nLilley to tell the Government about the pencil memorandum and the\ntabular statement and his letter to Bosler and Doisey's letter to Bosler\nand the Chico letter. Not a word. He simply went and wanted to sell\nsome letters he had that had been written by Vaile. Why did he make that\noffer? Because that was all he had.\n\nOn page 2517 he says that nothing was said about pardon, but he says\nthat Lilley told him that he thought he could get him off. What does\nthat mean? That means pardon. On page 2518 he swears that he saw\nWoodward in November in Hartford, and Woodward and he wrote out the\nstatement, covering, I believe, about seventy pages of legal cap. Then\nMr. Rerdell, on page 2519, swears that he never made an affidavit after\nthat. Then he admits, on the same page, that the day before he came\ninto court he met Mr. Woodward and made another affidavit. That was\nsupplementary to the first. In the meantime he found some new papers. So\nwe find, according to his testimony, these affidavits:\n\nOn page 2521 we find that he made an affidavit in June, 1881. Remember,\ngentlemen, that he swore to that affidavit three or four times.\n\nHe made another affidavit in July, 1882, and another in September and\nNovember of the same year, and another in February, 1883. And yet he\nswears that he was not to have immunity.\n\nNow, gentlemen, one point more about his plea of guilty. After having\nwithdrawn his plea of not guilty, after rising in court and solemnly\nsaying that he was guilty, and that he was guilty as charged in the\nindictment, which says that Rerdell conspired with Brady and Vaile and\nMiner and John W. Dorsey and S. W. Dorsey and Turner, that they all\nconspired, and that all the false affidavits and false petitions and\nfalse everything else mentioned in the indictment were made for the\ncommon benefit of all, then on page 2570 he solemnly swears that he\nnever entered into any conspiracy or agreement with the defendants\nmentioned in the indictment or any of them for the purpose of defrauding\nthe Government. When I asked him, With whom did you conspire, when did\nyou conspire, and what was the conspiracy? he could not tell; and yet he\nhad stood up in court and admitted that he was guilty, and then on oath\ndenied it. Did he not swear himself that after the division was made in\nthe routes Stephen W. Dorsey had not the interest of a cent in any route\nthat went to Vaile or Miner? Did he not also swear that Vaile and Miner\nhad not the interest of one cent in any route that went to Stephen W.\nDorsey? Did he not swear that they were not mutually interested, and yet\ndid he not stand up in court, and by a plea of guilty say that they were\nnot only mutually interested, but he was one of the interested parties\nhimself? It seems impossible for that man to tell the truth on any\nsubject whatever. On page 2571 he swears he never made any agreement\nwith Vaile to defraud the United States. He stood up in court and\nadmitted, that he had. He swore that he never made any agreement with\nJohn W. Dorsey. He admitted that he had. He swore that he never made any\nagreement with S. W. Dorsey, and yet stood up in court and admitted that\nhe had.\n\nNow let us see whether he expected immunity. He swears that he was\ntaken to Mr. Merrick's office by Mr. Woodward and his counsel. What Mr.\nMerrick told him we find on page 2590:\n\nQ. And did I not say that, under the circumstances, the Government would\nhave nothing to do with you unless you pleaded guilty?—A. You did.\n\nQ. And that if you pleaded guilty you had nothing to trust to but the\nmercy of the Government and the Court?—A. That is what you did, sir,\nexactly.\n\nNow, on page 2523:\n\nQ. Was it not arranged that Mr. Woodward was to come to your house\nand then take you to one of the attorneys for the prosecution, for the\npurpose of arranging the terms and conditions upon which you were to\ntake the stand?—A. It was not.\n\nIn another place he swears that it was, and that the arrangement was\ncarried out.\n\nThe next point I wish to make, if the Court please, is that whenever\nwhat is called an accomplice or an informer turns what is called State's\nevidence, and whenever he is permitted by the court to be sworn as a\nwitness in a case, there is then upon the part of the Government an\nimplied promise that if he tells the truth he shall not be punished.\nI read from the Whiskey cases, 9 Otto, page 595. Mr. Justice Clifford\ndelivers the opinion of the court.\n\nCourts of justice everywhere agree that the established usage is that an\naccomplice duly admitted as a witness in a criminal prosecution against\nhis associates in guilt, if he testifies fully and fairly, will not\nbe prosecuted for the same offence, and some of the decided cases and\nstandard text-writers give very satisfactory explanations of the origin\nand scope of the usage in its ordinary application in actual practice.\n\nThe Court. What point are you now making to the Court?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I am making this point: It appears from the evidence that\nMr. Wilshire, the attorney of Mr. Rerdell told him at the time he was\nmaking up his mind whether he would go to the Government or not, about\nthe whiskey cases.\n\nI make the point that when an accomplice turns State's evidence the\nState cannot prosecute him after that if he testifies fully and fairly;\nthat the usage is immemorial, and that there is not an exception in\nthe records of all the cases in the books; consequently that when Mr.\nMerrick told him, \"You must look simply to the Government and to the\nCourt and you will have just exactly what the law gives you and no\nmore,\" his remarks meant that the law gave him perfect immunity,\nprovided he went upon the stand and swore truthfully.\n\nThe Court. You have demonstrated, as far as you have been able to, that\nhe has not sworn truthfully.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. He has not; he has not; and if the Government will act\nfairly with him he will get no immunity.\n\nWhen he went to the Government he understood the law to be that if he\nswore fully and fairly, or if he swore in such a way that they could not\nprove that he did not swear fully and fairly, he was to have immunity.\nHe understood that the more he swore against the defendants the better\nwas his chance for immunity. He knew that the Government would never\ncomplain of any lie he swore against the defendants.\n\nNow, the next question is what is the law of accomplices, of informers?\nThere was a remark made by Mr. Bliss in his speech, that they had plenty\nof evidence in this case without the testimony of Mr. Walsh or Mr. Moore\nor Mr. Rerdell; plenty of evidence without the testimony of Mr. Rerdell.\nIf that had been so then the Government had no right to put Mr. Rerdell\non the stand. There is but one excuse for using the testimony of a man\nwho pleads guilty, and that is that without his testimony a conviction\ncannot, in all probability, be obtained. And upon that point I refer to\n10 Pickering, 478, and to 9 Cowen, 711; and not only upon that point,\nbut upon the point I made at first, that whenever you put such a man\nupon the stand that of itself amounts to a promise of absolute immunity:\n\nThe object of admitting the evidence of accomplices is in order to\neffect the discovery and punishment of crimes which cannot be proved\nagainst the offenders without the aid of an accomplice's testimony. In\norder to prevent this entire failure of justice recourse is had to the\nevidence of accomplices.—I Phillips on Evidence, 107.\n\nIf, therefore, there be sufficient evidence to convict without his\ntestimony, the court will refuse to admit him as a witness.—Roscoe's\nCriminal Evidence, 127.\n\nNeither do I believe that Mr. Rerdell had a right to go upon the stand\nuntil his case was finally disposed of. Precisely the same language is\nused by Wharton on Criminal Evidence, 439:\n\nAn accomplice is used by the Government because his evidence is\nnecessary to a conviction.\n\nThat is the opinion of Mr. Justice MacLean, in 4 MacLean's Circuit Court\nReports, 103.\n\nMr. Merrick. If not improper I may remark that all those cases refer to\na condition of things prior to the trial in which the party appears as\nthe witness.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. The usual question is—and the court determines that\nquestion—whether a man shall be a witness or not.\n\nThe Court. How can the court determine that without passing upon the\nevidence in the case? That is not the duty of the court; it belongs to\nthe jury.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. The prosecuting attorney has to pass upon that himself\nwhen he makes up his mind to put him upon the stand; and he only has the\nright to do that when he believes that no conviction can be had without\nthat testimony.\n\nThe Court. Then it belongs to the prosecuting attorney.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I go further than that, and say that the prosecuting\nattorney cannot do that without consultation with the court, and without\nsaying to the court that he believes no conviction can be had without\nthat testimony.\n\nMr. Merrick. May I be allowed to suggest a point which probably you\nwould like to comment upon—that all these cases refer to accomplices\nprior to the trial. My own opinion in reference to the case was that I\nwould not put Rerdell upon the stand until he had pleaded guilty.\n\nThe Court. I do not see the ground for the distinction between the\ncases. Undoubtedly, when an accomplice goes over to the Government\nand offers his testimony, he does it always in the hope of pardon or\nimmunity from prosecution.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is all I want at present. I want it understood, if\nthe Court please, that I shall argue to the jury that at the time he\nmade up his mind to go to the Government, he understood that that meant\nimmunity.\n\nThe Court. Oh, well, of course it did.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. The next point is that the Court has to take all his\nstory or none; and I read from the second volume of Starkie on Evidence,\nside-page 24:\n\nIn judging of the credit due to the testimony of an accomplice, it seems\nto be a necessary principle that his testimony must be wholly received\nas that of a credible witness or wholly rejected. His evidence on points\nwhere he is confirmed by unimpeachable evidence is useless. The question\nis whether he is to be believed upon points where he received no\nconfirmation. And of this the jury are to form their opinion from\nthe nature of the testimony, his manner of delivering it, and the\nconfirmation which it receives derived from other evidence which is\nunsuspected. If his character be established as a witness of truth, he\nis credible in matters where he is not corroborated. If, on the other\nhand, nothwithstanding the corroboration upon particular points, doubts\nand suspicions still remain as to his credit, his whole testimony\nbecomes useless.\n\nThat is the point I want to make. If they are only to take his evidence\nwhere it is corroborated, they might as well have had the corroboration\nin the first place without him.\n\nNow, gentlemen, the evidence, in my judgment, shows, and shows beyond\na doubt—and I believe it is now admitted—that at the time Mr. Rerdell\nmade up his mind to go to the Government he expected that he was to have\nabsolute immunity. You must judge of his evidence in the light of that\nfact, in the light of that knowledge, in the light of what had been told\nhim by his counsel. Now, it is for you to say. You know something of\nthis man. You have seen him from day to day. You saw his manner upon the\nstand. Why, they tell you that at one time he was overcome with emotion,\nand that that is evidence that he was telling the truth. It may be that\nthere is left in that man some little spark of goodness still. When he\nwas swearing, or endeavoring to swear, away the liberty of the man who\nhad been his friend, may be at that time the memory of the past did\nfor a moment rush upon him. He may have remembered the thousand acts of\nkindness; he may have remembered the years of liberality; he may have\nremembered the days that he had spent beneath that hospitable roof; he\nmay have remembered the wife and children; he may have remembered all\nthese things, and for just that moment he may have realized what a\nwretch he was. In no other way can you account for his having emotion.\n\nBut I am about through with that gentleman. I shall not take up your\ntime in the remainder of my speech by commenting upon Mr. Rerdell. Let\nus finish his testimony now; let us put him out of sight; let us put him\nin his coffin, close the lid, nail it down:\n\nFirst nail—affidavit of June 20, 1881; drive it in.\n\nSecond nail—the letter of July 5, 1882, when he says that affidavit of\n1881 was made by the persuasion of Bosler; drive it in.\n\nThird nail—affidavit of July 13, 1882, where he swears that they were\nall perfectly innocent.\n\nFourth nail—the pencil memorandum; drive that in.\n\nFifth nail—the tabular statement that gave thirty-three and one-third\nper cent, to Brady; drive it in.\n\nSixth nail—his pretended letter to Bosler telling about the advice of\nBrady; drive that in.\n\nSeventh nail—the letter he pretends that Dorsey, on the 13th of May,\n1879, wrote to Bosler, the copies being made by Miss White; drive that\nin.\n\nWind his corpse up in the balance-sheets from the red books made by\nDonnelly.\n\nThen you want a plate for his coffin. Let us paste right on there the\nChico letter, April 3, 1878.\n\nNow, we want grave-stones. Let us take the red books, put one at his\nhead and one at his feet.\n\nAnd let his epitaph, written upon the red book placed at his head,\nbe—Up to this moment I have been faithful to every trust.\n\nMy prayer to Gabriel is, \"When you pass over that grave don't blow.\"\nLet him sleep. There are, there never were, there never will be twelve\nhonest men who will deprive any citizen of his liberty upon the evidence\nof a man like Mr. Rerdell. It never happened; it never will.\n\nAnd now, gentlemen, it becomes my duty to answer a few points made by\nthe gentlemen who have addressed you on behalf of the Government. The\nfirst gentleman who addressed you was Mr. Ker, and he had something to\nsay—considerable to say—about what are known as the Clendenning bonds.\n\nThey claim, gentlemen, first, that an immense fraud was in view when\nthese proposals—I think they are proposals—with accompanying bonds and\noaths of sureties were sent to Mr. Clendenning. I wish to give you, in\nthe first place, my explanation of this paper. See if I understand it.\nIf you sent this paper to that officer or to that gentleman as a form to\nguide him in making up the bonds, you would only fill up that portion of\nthe bond in giving him a sample which you wanted him to fill up, and you\nwould fill it up in order to show him exactly how he was to fill it up;\nand you would leave out that part which was already filled up in the\nbond. That is exactly what was done in this case. There was not one of\nthose bonds that had an oath of the surety or the names of the sureties,\nbecause they were unknown. The names were unknown, and the amounts that\nthe postmaster would certify to, and so all that was left in blank in\nthe bond sent. But this being only a sample, it was sent to him so that\nhe might know how to fill up the bonds that were sent. Consequently that\nportion which was absolutely blank in the bond sent would be filled up\nas a guide to him, and that portion which was filled up in the bonds\nsent would be left blank in the guide, because he had nothing to do with\nthat part. Now, that is all there is to it.\n\nWhat was left out, as they claim? Why they claim that the name of the\nbidder was left out and the amount of the bid. It makes no difference.\nThat is not the slightest evidence of fraud, is it?\n\nWhat was the next thing? They were never used, never. No bond included\nin that bundle was ever accepted by the Government. No bonds were ever\nmade, no contract ever based upon them, not a solitary cent taken from\nthe Government by those papers. Why, then, this secrecy? Because when a\nman is in this business he does not want anybody else to know that he is\nbidding, in the first place; and, in the second place, he does not want\nanybody to know the amount of the bid. If the amount of the bid is put\nin, then the persons going security will know it, and they may tell. The\npostmaster who approves the security will know it, and he may tell. The\nobject of the secrecy is not to defraud the Government, but to prevent\nother people finding the amount of the bid and then underbidding. That\nis the object, and it is the only object. And yet this little, poor,\ndried-up bond, soaked in the water of suspicion, swells almost to\nbursting in the minds of the counsel for the prosecution. There is\nnothing of it. It was never worthy of mention, in the first place. You\nwill never think of it when you retire. It will never enter your minds;\nbut if it does, remember that the object of the secrecy was simply as\na precaution against other bidders, and had nothing whatever to do with\nthe Government.\n\nThere is one other point. I believe Mr. Dorsey did say, in his\nexamination-in-chief, that he did not talk to anybody about it, and it\nafterwards occurred that he did go and ask Mr. Edmunds whether what\nhe had asked Clendenning to do was illegal or improper. To that\ncontradiction you are welcome.\n\nMr. Ker gives the date of Boone's circular to postmasters asking for\ninformation, and says it was dated December 1, 1879. Thereupon Mr.\nMerrick corrects him, and says it was in 1878. The Court does the\nsame. As a matter of fact, these circulars were dated December, 1877.\nGentlemen, I just simply speak of this to show how easy it is for\npeople to be mistaken. Those circulars were gotten up for the purpose\nof getting information before bidding. All the bids were put in in\nFebruary, 1878. The circulars were sent out, I believe, in November\nand December, 1877. And yet upon that one point Mr. Ker is mistaken two\nyears.\n\nOn page 4512 Mr. Ker states that Miner, in April, 1878, said to Moore\nthat it all depended upon affidavits of the contractors, and that \"they\nwere all good affidavit men.\" The object of this, if it had an object,\nwas to show that this conspiracy was entered into with Moore, and that\nS. W. Dorsey was a part of it in April, 1878. The evidence of Moore is\nthat the conversation took place, not in April, but in July, 1878, at\nthe city of Denver. And yet Mr. Ker tells you that it was in April.\n1878. It is not, perhaps, a very material point, but it simply serves\nto show you the manner in which this evidence is repeated to you by the\ncounsel for the prosecution.\n\nAt page 4537 Mr. Ker says that before J. W. Dorsey went West he made an\narrangement with his brother to sell out his interest for ten thousand\ndollars; that he did this before he started West; that he did it before\nthere was any service put on; and that these contracts were taken at\nsuch low figures; yet John W. Dorsey had raised his interest up to ten\nthousand dollars. Mr. Ker tells you that the evidence shows that before\nany service was put on and before John W. Dorsey went West he tried to\nsell out his interest for ten thousand dollars. Now, what was the object\nin making this statement, unless it was pure forgetfulness? Why it was\nto connect Vaile with this business some time in April, 1878.\n\nOn pages 4100 and 4102 J. W. Dorsey swears that he was here in\nWashington in November, 1878; before that time he had gone to the Tongue\nRiver route; he had come back from Bismarck; and it was then, not in\nApril; it was then, not before he went West; it was then, not before any\nservice was put on, that he talked with Vaile about selling out to\nhim for ten thousand dollars; and it was in November that he left the\ninstructions for his brother to sell to Vaile. It was not in April; it\nwas not before he went West; it was not before any service was put on.\n\nAt page 4540 Mr. Ker states that—Dorsey held thirty-three routes, and\nthere was not one of them, I suppose, that was not expedited to the\nfullest extent.\n\nWhat evidence is there of that? Is there any evidence that any route of\nDorsey's was expedited not mentioned in this indictment?\n\nDid not Mr. Ker know whether the routes had been expedited or not? Did\nnot I offer in this court to prove what was done with every solitary\nroute we had? I say to the gentleman that the other routes were not\nexpedited. I say to the gentleman that only two other routes were,\nand we were not interested in them. And I say also that they know the\nrecord, and they knew the record when this statement was made; but they\nmay have forgotten it. But is it fair, gentlemen, for a prosecuting\nofficer to state to you that he supposed all the routes of Dorsey were\nexpedited? One of those in the indictment was not expedited; and not a\nroute outside of the indictment belonging to Dorsey, in which he had an\ninterest, was expedited. So much for that statement.\n\nAt page 4546 you are told by Mr. Ker that—Nobody ever heard of\nexpedition on a route before.\n\nWe proved what form of contracts had been in the PostOffice Department\nfor twenty years, and proved that in every one of them there was a\nclause for expedition. So much for that evidence, gentlemen.\n\nAt page 4546 Mr. Ker tells us that J. W. Dorsey testified—That the\nroutes were taken so low as to cut out other people, but that they knew\nthey were to be expedited, and they knew they were to be increased.\n\nJ. W. Dorsey testified upon that subject, and his testimony will be\nfound at page 4085:\n\nQ. Did you have an arrangement by which you should bid an extremely\nsmall amount on the routes, with the further understanding that the\nservice was to be increased and expedited?—A. No, sir; I never thought\nof such a thing.\n\nAnd in his entire testimony in chief and cross, I believe there is not\nanother question on that subject.\n\nOn page 4549, referring to the letter of John M. Peck, which was in fact\nwritten by Miner, Mr. Ker says:\n\nCedarville ought to have had as many mails as the other points between,\naccording to the order, but they were going to supply it only once a\nweek. .\n\nAs a matter of fact, gentlemen, this letter was written on the 22d\nof October, 1878, and at the time the letter was written the mail,\naccording to the contract, was carried only once a week on that route,\nand consequently Cedarville would have had exactly the same mail as any\nother point; that is to say, once a week.\n\nPage 556 of the record shows that three trips a week were put upon this\nroute to Loup City with a schedule of thirteen hours, but not until the\n10th of July, 1879, nine months after this letter was written.\n\nOn page 4609 Mr. Ker, in commenting upon an affidavit on the Toquerville\nand Adairville route, reads from the evidence of John W. Dorsey, citing\npage 3945, and ends at this question and answer:\n\nQ. It was done so entirely, was it not?—A. It ought to have been so.\n\nNow, let me read you the balance:\n\nQ. Was it not so done?—A. No, sir.\n\nQ It was not?—A. No, sir.\n\nQ For whose benefit was it done?.—A. He—Meaning Rerdell—stole five\nthousand dollars on that route, or very nearly that—four thousand nine\nhundred dollars on that very route.\n\nQ. When did he steal that five thousand dollars?—A. About a year ago or\na year and a half; I do not remember the time.\n\nQ. From whom?—A. From Mr. Bosler and myself.\n\nQ. At what time?—A. I should think in February, 1882.\n\nThe question now arises, did Mr. Rerdell take this money as charged?\nRead now from the record, at pages 734 and 735, and you will find in the\nlast line of the tabular statement introduced in this case that on this\nvery route four thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven dollars and\neighty-three cents was paid to M. C. Rerdell as subcontractor on that\nroute. We also find that it was paid on the 4th of February, 1882. This\nis the money that Dorsey swears Rerdell stole, and that gentleman never\ntook the stand to deny it.\n\nAt page 4616, Mr. Ker, after going over all the evidence with regard to\nthe affidavits as to the impossibility of the number of men and horses\ndoing the service rendered necessary by the affidavit, comes to the\nfollowing conclusion: That under the oath the proportion was, as nine to\ntwenty-three; that under the oath of Johnson the real proportion should\nhave been, and was, eight to twenty-two.\n\nIn other words, the real proportion, according to Mr. Ker's own\nstatement, would have taken more money from the Treasury than the wrong\nproportion made under the fraudulent affidavit, and that was nine to\ntwenty-three. Nine into twenty-three goes twice and five-ninths; that\nis, two hundred and fifty-five per cent, and a fraction. That is the\nfraudulent proportion. Mr. Ker says that the real proportion was not\nas nine into twenty-three, but as eight to twenty two. Eight into\ntwenty-two goes twice and six-eighths; that is to say, two and\nthree-quarters; that is to say, two hundred and seventy-five per cent.\nThe fraudulent proportion, according to his claim, only gave us two\nhundred and fifty-five per cent. The real proportion, which Mr. Ker\nadmits was right, according to the evidence of Johnson, would have given\nus two hundred and seventy-five per cent. In other words, we got twenty\nper cent, less under the fraud than we would under the evidence of\nJohnson that Mr. Ker admits to be correct. Finding that it is twenty per\ncent, less under the fraudulent affidavit than under Johnson's estimate,\nhe shouts fraud.\n\nOn page 4617 Mr. Ker tells us that Sanderson \"had no more to do with the\nroute than you or I had.\" On page 731 I find that Mr. Sanderson drew all\nthe money on the route from Saguache to Lake City, I believe, with one\nexception—the third quarter of one year—1878, it may be. He drew every\ndollar upon that route, anyhow, up to February 17, 1882, except for one\nquarter. And yet Mr. Ker stood up before you and said that Sanderson\n\"had no more to do with the route than you or I had.\"\n\nLet us see if we have any more evidence. I find on page 3271 a\nsubcontract executed on route 38150, from Saguache to Lake City, by\nMiner, Peck & Company to Sanderson for the whole time until June 30,\n1882. I find that subcontract is signed by John R. Miner and J. L.\nSanderson. This contract was to be from the 1st of July, 1878, and was\nmade the 15th of May, 1878, and here it is in evidence. The evidence is\nthat the contract was made between Miner, Peck & Company and Sanderson;\nthe evidence also is that Sanderson drew the pay. And yet Mr. Ker stands\nup before you and says that Sanderson \"had no more to do with the route\nthan you or I had.\"\n\nThe subcontract, gentlemen, states that Sanderson is to have the entire\npay, and it was before the contract term began. So much for that.\n\nMr. Ker. When was it filed?\n\nMr. Wilson. That does not make any difference.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. \"When was it filed?\" There was a trial in my town of a\nsuit against the city, I believe, for allowing a culvert to get filled\nup and flood a man's cellar. They brought in evidence to prove, don't\nyou see, that the culvert was not filled up, and one witness swore that\nthe day before the rain he saw a dog go through there. One of the jurors\ngot up and said that he would like to ask a question; he said, \"What was\nthe color of that dog?\"\n\nOn page 4631 Mr. Ker states that during the investigation by\nCongress—Contractors got out printed letters and sent them to every\nsubcontractor upon every star route in the country, asking them to write\nto their members of Congress urging their members of Congress to vote\nfor this appropriation.\n\nOn page 1346 is Rerdell's letter upon this very route, in which not one\nword is said about the contractor doing anything one way or the other.\nThere is no evidence that any other letter was written on that route.\nI call your attention to it to show how the prosecution strained every\npossible point, and how they endeavored to patch and piece and putty\nand veneer this evidence. Mr. Miner wrote a letter (page 669). I do not\nremember any other evidence upon this subject. And certainly it would be\nimpossible to write a milder letter than Mr. Miner wrote. He did not\nask the people to get up petitions against reduction, or ask for more\nservice. Here is what he says, and I will read you Mr. Miner's letter:\n\nIt will be well for the people of your section to send to the member\nof Congress from your district such petitions as will express their\nopinions on the subject of this reduction.\n\nTruly, yours,\n\nJNO. R. MINER, Ag't.\n\nCould you write a milder letter than that, to save your life, and refer\nto the subject? Could you write a fairer letter than that, to save your\nlife?\n\nHe does not say, \"Get up petitions against it.\" He does not say, \"Send\nthose petitions to your member of Congress and tell him to do what he\ncan to prevent it.\" Not one word of that kind.\n\nYet that is considered as evidence of fraud; that is considered as\nevidence of conspiracy.\n\nThe next point made is that Mr. Ker states, at page 4632, that\nBrady endeavored to bribe the members of Congress into making this\nappropriation by doubling every star route in the Southern and Middle\nStates, and did so during the Congressional investigation. What are\nthe facts? The deficiency bill passed April 7, 1880.. That appropriated\nmoney only for the purpose of carrying the mails up to June 30, 1880.\nThe regular appropriation bill was passed at the same session, and\nappropriated money to carry the mails from the 1st of July, 1880. Now\nlet us see if Brady doubled the trips in these Southern and Middle\nStates during that investigation. On page 3393 Brady says:\n\nPractically on July 1, 1880, we doubled up the entire service for all\nthe Southern and Middle States.\n\nThis was after the deficiency bill had passed; it was after the money\nappropriated by that bill had been expended; and it was paid for out of\nthe regular appropriation for the Post-Office Department.\n\nYet that was a bribe. It just shows that Congress by the regular\nappropriation indorsed the policy of Mr. Key to have a daily mail to\nevery place where there was a county-seat.\n\nAt page 4652, on the route from Mineral Park to Pioche, there were\ntwo petitions, marked 17 K and 18 K. It is somewhat singular that the\nGovernment brought no persons whose names are on these petitions to show\nthat they had not authorized their names to be signed thereto, but they\nbrought persons to show that the signatures were not genuine.\n\nOn page 1621 the witness Wright swears that the names are the same on\nboth petitions. He is then asked if he knows the signatures of any\nother people, and he says \"Yes.\" He then says that the signature of John\nDeland is not genuine. He swears that he knows nearly every one of the\npeople. He is then asked whether these signatures are in the handwriting\nof the people, and he replies that he thinks not. Then he is asked as to\nthe signature of Cornell, and he says; That is not in his handwriting.\n\nHere is his cross-examination, gentlemen:   *\n\nI asked him, \"Do you know these people;\" made him swear that he knew Mr.\nStreet; that he knew the signatures of many; that he knew these people.\nI proved where they were living; that they are living in the country\nnow, good, respectable, honest people. And yet the Government did not\nbring one man whose name had been written here to prove that he had not\nauthorized it. Why? Because they could not. They knew by the testimony\nhere that the petitions were absolutely and perfectly honest. And it is\nin that way that they seek to deprive men of their liberty. They did\nnot call a man whose name appeared on those petitions to say that his\nsignature was not genuine or not authorized. I proved that many of them\nare still living and first-rate men.\n\nNow, gentlemen, you remember besides that, that Mr. H. S. Stevens, the\ndelegate from that Territory, recommended the same thing asked for by\nthose petitions (pages 1635, 1636), where it was admitted by counsel for\nthe Government that the letters of Stevens were genuine. It is upon that\nsame route that General Fremont also wrote a letter (page 1636). And I\nwill show you that the names are exactly or substantially the same on 18\nK as those found at pages 1638 and 1639.\n\nMr. Ker and Mr. Bliss both endeavored to show that there were no\npetitions on this route, and that it was simply done on a letter. If you\nwill look at page 1603 you will find the evidence of Mr. Krider, who was\npostmaster at Mineral Park, in which he says there were petitions.\n\nIn order to show that there was a conspiracy between these parties, or\nbetween Dorsey and Vaile, or Dorsey, Rerdell, and Vaile, Mr. Ker called\nthe attention of the jury to two letters, one written by Rerdell to the\nSixth Auditor, and one written by Vaile. Here is a letter dated the 21st\nof August, 1880. It is introduced, of course, to show that there was a\nconspiracy at that time between Mr. Vaile and Mr. Dorsey. It was written\nby Mr. Rerdell to the Sixth Auditor:\n\nTo the Sixth Auditor:\n\nSir: H. M. Vaile was subcontractor on route 40104 during the first\nquarter of 1879. In the first settlement for that quarter Vaile was paid\nfor certain expedited service—it was subsequently discovered that the\nexpedition thus paid for was never performed—the department therefore,\nand very properly, too, charged back to the route the amount thus paid\nfor expedition never performed, viz, some two thousand eight hundred\ndollars.\n\nMeanwhile Vaile, who alone was in fault, had ceased to have any\nconnection with the route—the charging back, therefore, fell on the\nwrong man, the man who was in no way responsible for the non-performance\nof the expedition, except so far as he stood between the department and\nthe subcontractor.\n\nIt is true that this payment was made by the regular contractor to\nthe subcontractor, but it is equally true that it was, in a measure,\na compulsory payment. By the rules of the Post-Office Department it\nis made obligatory on the regular contractor to pay the subcontractor\nbefore the department will settle with him—it is not, therefore,\na payment as between two individuals. The receipt is on the form\nprescribed by the Post-Office Department, and is witnessed by (the\nthen) Postmaster Edmunds, as the rules prescribe. It is on file in the\nPost-Office Department, and I maintain that our covenants were fulfilled\nwhen we put the receipt on file. If Vaile had performed the service as\nhe agreed he would do, and for doing which he received this money,\nwe should have been reimbursed by a certificate of service from the\ncontract office. Now, will you permit Vaile to take advantage of his own\nwrong, and thus enable him to defraud another man out of his money?\n\nI refrain from discussing the question as to what would be the duty\nof the department if Vaile, who had received the money wrongfully, had\nceased to have any connection with the department, because it is\nnot pertinent to this issue; if it were, I could cite you to many\nauthorities and precedents to the effect that even then it would be your\nduty to refund the money to me. But this is not necessary, because Vaile\nis still doing business with the department.\n\nHe is subcontractor on route 44156 for the full contract pay, which is\ntwenty-two thousand dollars per annum, hence the department will have\nno difficulty in reimbursing itself for what was, in simple truth, an\noverpayment.\n\nI think you will agree with me when I ask that this money be refunded to\nthe subcontractor on route 40104 and charged to route 44156, because it\nis simply correcting an error. You have the same authority to charge\nit to one as you have to charge it to the other, and you have already\ncharged it to me.\n\nThe law-merchant would experience no difficulty in adjusting a matter\nof this sort. The merchant who would refuse to correct an error of this\ncharacter would be justly called a lame duck, and would be scouted from\n\"'Change\" Vaile was erroneously paid for the performance of a service\nwhich he never did perform. Therefore I ask that he be compelled to\nrender unto Caesar the things that he ceasers.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nM. C. Rerdell\n\nActing for himself and for the regular contractor on route 40104.\n\nThat is to show also, gentlemen, that there was a conspiracy between\nVaile and Rerdell. Now, Mr. Vaile wrote a letter also to the same man. I\nwill read it:\n\nWashington, D. C., July 9, 1880.\n\nHon. J. McGrew:\n\nSir: In reply to yours of July 8th, relating to the Jennings case,\nI would state that I did not receive the money in manner and form as\nstated by one M. C. Rerdell, nor was the draft of J. W. Dorsey, on\nsaid route 40104, for the quarter named, to get an advance of money for\nmyself or for my own use.\n\nAt the time I receipted for my pay as subcontractor on said route I did\nnot, in fact, receive any money, but did so receipt that J. W. Dorsey\nmight negotiate his draft on said route, and for no other purpose.\n\nAlthough I was subcontractor of record on said route at the time named,\nI was not a subcontractor in my own behalf, but as trustee for J. W.\nDorsey, S. W. Dorsey, Isaac Jennings, and others, to collect said money\nand pay it over as said parties should direct. I further state that all\nmoney that ever came into my hands from said route I did pay over to the\nparties named as trustee, as by them directed.\n\nActing as trustee of said Jennings, and believing that he had performed\nthe mail service on said route as by him agreed, and in accordance with\nthe laws and regulations of the Post-Office Department, I did pay said\nJennings, on the 1st day of April, 1879, the sum of $1,257.73, a sum of\nmoney he was entitled to provided he had carried the mail three days per\nweek on the schedule required, which I fully believed at that time he\nhad done, and for a long time after.\n\nI further state that I am informed that said Jennings is not\nresponsible; that it would be utterly impossible for me to receive back\nthe $2,800, or any part thereof; that in fact this sum of money sought\nto be collected of me, if collected for said Jennings's benefit, or\ngo into his hands in addition to the sum he now has unlawfully, doubly\nremunerating him for his neglect of duty.\n\nI further state that all the money collected on said route not paid to\nsaid Jennings was paid to liquidate the debts of J. W. Dorsey, S.\nW. Dorsey, and others previously contracted, and not one dollar ever\nremained in my hands.\n\nI further state I believe both J. W. Dorsey and S. W. Dorsey are\nirresponsible, and it would be impossible for me to collect any part of\nsaid money from them. As above stated, said money came into my hand only\nas their agent or trustee, and at once paid out as they directed; that\nmy subcontract was put on file simply to enable J W. Dorsey to negotiate\nhis draft on said route, when in fact said Jennings was the real\nsubcontractor. Said Jennings agreed to perform the service on said route\nstrictly in accordance with the laws and regulations of the department,\nfor the annual sum of $12,600.00, the duplicate of which contract was\ndelivered over to S. W. Dorsey by myself, and which I believe is now in\nthe hands of M. C. Rerdell, and which, or a copy thereof, I demand shall\nbe filed with you in this case, that you may see what said Jennings\nagreed to do.\n\nThis is certainly a strange claim. Jennings agreed to perform mail\nservice on said route. I believed he had done it, and paid him\naccordingly. It turns out long after he did not properly perform the\nservice, but was attempting a swindle, and a deduction is ordered for\nnot performing the service properly. Then this man, the guilty party,\nhaving got money from me, as trustee, wrongfully, as well as from the\nGovernment, and asks that the Auditor compel me to pay him the sum\nof $2,800.00, when, as I am informed, he is seeking to get this same\ndeduction remitted.\n\nSurely if he succeeded in all this he will make a good thing out of his\nrascality and I a good victim without remedy. I state again I did\nnot hypothecate said draft for myself, did not receive one cent as\nsubcontractor, but became the payee of said draft that said J. W.\nDorsey might negotiate it, and I to dispose of the proceeds as he should\ndirect, all of which I did. Therefore I request you not to compel me to\npay the sum of money asked, but if I am liable at all let the parties\nseek their redress at law, where all the facts can be obtained and\njustice rendered me. And it is also well known that I am a man of means,\nand any judgment rendered against me could and would be collected,\ndollar for dollar.\n\nI am, very respectfully,\n\nH. M. Vaile\n\nThat was introduced to show that at the time Vaile was in a conspiracy\nwith S. W. Dorsey. Why did they introduce it? Simply for one line in it\nin which he says he was acting as the trustee of S. W. Dorsey. He was.\nHow? Dorsey had advanced money. The routes were liable, and the persons\nwho held the routes had agreed to refund it. The subcontracts were made\nto Vaile, and Vaile agreed out of the proceeds of the route to pay the\ndebt to S. W, Dorsey. To that extent he was the trustee of S. W. Dorsey.\nDorsey swears it. Vaile admits it, and we all claim it to be true. And\nyet they introduced that letter simply because that line was there. Now,\ngentlemen, I have read both of those letters, and I want you to remember\nthem if you can, and tell me whether at that time Vaile and Dorsey\nwere in a conspiracy together to defraud this Government. And yet the\nGovernment introduced this letter just to prove that one thing, and no\nmore.\n\nOn the Julian and Colton route there is this peculiarity: The Government\nfailed to prove the number of men and horses necessary on the original\nschedule for three-times-a-week service, and consequently we are left\nwithout any standard by which to judge; without any standard by which to\nmeasure.\n\nOn page 4685 Mr. Ker calls attention to the fact that the proposal\nmarked 6 P, originally contained an offer to carry the mail at\nthirty-six hours for seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-two\ndollars additional, but he states that the thirty-six was rubbed out and\ntwenty-six was put in its place.\n\nThat is, they offered to carry it in thirty-six hours for seven thousand\nand odd dollars, and then afterwards fraudulently, of course, rubbed out\nthe thirty-six and inserted twenty-six. But they did not change the\nsum for which they offered to carry it. They offered to carry it\nin thirty-six hours for seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-two\ndollars, and afterwards they rubbed out the thirty-six and put in\ntwenty-six, and then offered to carry it in twenty-six hours for seven\nthousand seven hundred and twenty-two dollars. The question arises, how\ndid that hurt the Government? The question arises, was that a fraud? If\nit had been originally twenty-six hours and they had rubbed out those\nfigures and put in thirty-six hours, then you might say the intention\nwas to defraud the Government. But the proposition had to be accepted\nafter that was done, and consequently in no event could the Government\nbe defrauded by the change of the proposal before the Government\naccepted the proposal. I might say to a man, \"I will let you have\na house and lot for ten thousand dollars.\" He does not accept the\nproposal. Have I not the right on the next day to charge him twelve\nthousand dollars for it? Is that a fraud? If I tell him, \"You may have\nit for ten thousand dollars,\" and he accepts, then, as an honorable\nman, I cannot change the proposal. But if I tell him he may have it for\ntwelve thousand dollars and then afterwards tell him he may have it\nfor ten thousand dollars, Mr. Ker calls that a fraud of two thousand\ndollars. If one of the jury should give me a contract to deliver one\nhundred horses for ten thousand dollars, and I should scratch out the\none hundred and put in seventy-five, certainly you would not consider\nyourself defrauded. Or if I agreed to carry the mail in thirty hours for\nthe Government for seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-two dollars,\nand then afterwards changed and said I would carry it in ten hours less\ntime for the same price, can that be tortured into a fraud—unless I\nmight be indicted for defrauding myself?\n\nOn page 4569 Mr. Ker says that Mr. Farrish, who was the subcontractor\nsays:\n\nI always carried the mail in from six to ten hours before expedition.\nI carried the mail from Greenhorn to Pueblo. I did not stop at Saint\nCharles.\n\nOn page 835 Mr. Farrish says he carried the mail for three months in\n1881. That is the only time Farrish carried the mail. This route was\nexpedited on the 26th day of June, 1879, and yet Mr. Ker says that\nFarrish carried the mail before it was expedited and carried it in from\nsix to ten hours. Mr. Farrish did not carry the mail until about two\nyears after it had been expedited.\n\nOn page 4768 Mr. Ker, speaking of the two affidavits on the route from\nPueblo to Rosita, laughs at the idea that the proportion was the same in\nboth.\n\nNow, what is the proportion in both? One affidavit says that on the then\nschedule it would take eight men and horses; that is, the horses and men\nadded together make eight, and that on the proposed schedule it would\ntake twenty-four. Then they would be entitled to just three times the\nmoney they were receiving on the original schedule, because three times\neight are twenty-four. Let me explain here what I mean by proportion.\nIf I am carrying the mail with, say, four horses and two men, making\na total of six, and if then that service is increased so that it\ntakes twelve men and horses, I get twice the original pay; if it\ntakes eighteen men and horses, I get three times the original pay.\nYou understand that there is always a relation between the pay and the\nnumber of men and horses used. If I am using one man and one horse and\nam getting a thousand dollars for the service, and if it is expedited\nso that I have to use two men and two horses, I would get two thousand\ndollars. In the first affidavit they had eight men and horses. If\nthey put up the service to what they were going to, it would take\ntwenty-four. Three times eight are twenty-four. Then they would get\nthree times the original amount of money. In the second affidavit he\nswears that it takes fifteen men and animals on the present schedule,\nand on the proposed schedule it would take forty-five men and animals.\nThree times fifteen are forty-five. Three times eight are twenty-four.\nYou see that on both affidavits you get the same amount of money to a\ncent, because the proportion is absolutely and exactly the same. Yet Mr.\nKer laughs at the idea of the proportion being the same. It took eight\nmen and horses in the first affidavit on the present schedule, and\ntwenty-four on the proposed schedule. There the contractor would be\nentitled to three times the original sum. In the next affidavit it took\nfifteen men and horses on the original schedule and forty-five men and\nhorses on the proposed schedule. Again, he would be entitled to three\ntimes the original sum.\n\nOn page 4579 Mr. Ker says the oath was put in for three trips. By\nlooking at page 867 we find that it was for seven trips and not three.\nThere is nothing like accuracy.\n\nOn page 4580 Ker says that Brady had on the jacket before him the\nevidence that Hansom was a subcontractor at three thousand one hundred\ndollars a year, and the contract gave the contractor a clear profit of\nfive thousand and forty-eight dollars. The fact is, that Brady's\norder was made on July 8, 1879. That order is on page 866. Hansom's\nsubcontract was filed October 22, 1879, about three month's after\nBrady's order was made. And yet Mr. Ker tells you that on that jacket\nwhen Brady made the order he had notice of Hansom's subcontract. Unless\nhe had the gift of seeing into the future he knew nothing about it. He\nwould have had to see into the future three months in order to have had\nit before him at that time.\n\nOn page 4703 Mr. Ker says that the letter of J. W. Dorsey, written April\n26, 1879, referred to the Perkin's affidavit as not putting the number\nof men and animals high enough. Let us see. Another case of arithmetic.\nThe letter refers to Dorsey's statement transmitted with the letter. It\ncould not be the way stated by Mr. Ker for the following reasons: The\naffidavit of Perkins said three men and six animals one trip a week on\nthe then time. That makes nine. On one trip a week with the reduction to\neighty-four hours, eight men and twenty-four animals would be required.\nThat makes thirty-two. The proportion then gives three and five-ninths\nor three hundred and fifty-five per cent, increase of pay. That is the\naffidavit, he says, that Dorsey wrote out and said was not high enough,\nand then fixed up one that was. The affidavit that John W. Dorsey sent\nin the letter says that it will require for three trips a week on the\nthen time four men and twelve animals, making sixteen; on the proposed\nschedule for the same number of trips eleven men and thirty-two animals,\nmaking forty-three. As sixteen is to forty-three—that is, two hundred\nand sixty-nine per cent, increase of pay. Now, that letter, he says,\nclaims that the Perkins affidavit did not put it high enough. I say that\nhe did not refer to the Perkins affidavit. He could not say that did not\nput it high enough, because that put it at three hundred and fifty-five\nper cent., and the affidavit he inclosed in the letter, put it at two\nhundred and sixty-nine per cent.—nearly one hundred per cent. less.\nAccording to Mr. Ker he was complaining that that affidavit was too low,\nand so he inclosed one, one hundred per cent, lower. That will not\ndo. Besides all that the affidavit of John W. Dorsey is for forty-five\nhours, while the first affidavit, I believe, is for eighty-four hours.\nJohn W. Dorsey offers to carry it in forty-five hours for two hundred\nand sixty-nine per cent., and the other affidavit on the basis of\neighty-five hours calls for three hundred and fifty-five per cent. Do\nyou not see, gentlemen, it is utterly impossible to believe that?\n\nOn page 4738 Mr. Ker again falls into mathematics. He says that Mr.\nBrady allowed on the Bismarck route for three hundred men and three\nhundred horses.\n\nI tell you this prosecution ought to go into the stock business. One\nhundred and fifty men and one hundred and fifty horses were called for\nby the affidavit. Now, Mr. Ker says when Brady doubled the trips he\ndoubled the horses, and when he doubled the trips he doubled the men.\nThat would make three hundred men and three hundred horses. If he\nhad doubled the trips again he would have had six hundred men and six\nhundred horses, enough cavalry to have protected that entire frontier.\nYet after all the Bismarck and Tongue River business, Mr. Vaile comes in\nand swears, on page 4062, that the loss on that route to Vaile and Miner\nwas at least fifty thousand dollars; and Mr. Miner swears that the loss\non the route was between forty and fifty thousand dollars. Vaile says\nif he had known at that time of the clause in the contract by which he\ncould have gotten out of it he would have abandoned the route, but that\nhe had not read a contract for ten or twelve years. Now, as a matter\nof fact, gentlemen, and it seems to me the prosecution ought to be\nperfectly fair, Brady allowed only forty per cent, of the affidavit made\nin regard to the one hundred and fifty men and the one hundred and fifty\nhorses, and yet according to Mr. Ker he allowed for three hundred men\nand three hundred horses; instead of allowing for forty per cent, of one\nhundred and fifty men and one hundred and fifty horses, he allowed for\none hundred per cent. more. That would have run the pay up, I should\nthink, to about a million dollars. Mr. Ker also says that Mr. Vaile\nswears that he induced Brady to give an extension to August 15th, and\nthereupon Mr. Ker makes the remarkable statement that Vaile did not do\nit; that Boone did it; I am very thankful for the admission. From that\nit appears that Boone was more potent with Brady than Vaile was.\n\nIf he was, why did they have to get somebody close to Brady? Afterwards\nwe are told by Mr. Ker that Mr. Boone was kicked out to make a place for\nVaile, so as to get a man close to Brady.\n\nMr. Ker. Will you tell me what page it was I spoke about Boone?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. It was Mr. Bliss. It is Mr. Bliss's turn to explain\nnow. The notes that I have were handed to me by another, and I supposed\nreferred to Mr. Ker. Mr. Bliss said:\n\nThis, I think, can leave no doubt in the minds of any one that the\nextension was obtained by Mr. Boone.\n\nMr. Bliss says that on page 4899, and so I will relieve Mr. Ker of that\ncharge.\n\nMr. Ker. I am glad to be relieved of something.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I do not want to do any injustice to Mr. Ker; between Mr.\nBliss and Mr. Ker I am perfectly impartial.\n\nMr. Ker attacks the affidavit made by Vaile on the Vermillion and Sioux\nFalls route. Let us get at the facts. The route was let as fifty miles\nlong. That is the distance that was given in the advertisement by the\nGovernment. They wanted expedition on that route. The Government asked\nfor it. Mr. Vaile asked if he could make the affidavit, and he made it,\nsupposing the route was fifty miles long. He never had been over it. It\nturned out that it was about seventy-three miles long, and consequently\nthe affidavit provided for too fast time. The affidavit called for ten\nhours. That made over seven miles an hour; or, including the stoppages,\nI presume about ten miles an hour. The difficulty arose out of the\nmistake in the distance. Vaile so swears, on page 4030. He also swears\nthat he went to the department and there saw Mr. Brewer, who was in\ncharge of that bureau, or at least of that business, and it was Brewer\nwho suggested to him to make the affidavit. Mr. Vaile did not ask for\nany expedition on that route. Mr. Brewer spoke to him about it. Mr.\nVaile swears that Brewer spoke to him first. Mr. Vaile swears that he\nmade the affidavit at the instigation of Mr. Brewer. Mr. Bliss says\nBrewer is an honest man, and calls him honest Brewer. Why did he not\ncall honest Brewer to the stand and let him deny that he asked Mr. Vaile\nto make that affidavit?\n\nThe Court. Yes.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Resuming]. If the Court please, and gentlemen of the\njury, on page 4645 there is the letter from Miner to Carey.\n\nJohn Carey, Esq.,\n\nFort McDermitt, Nev.\n\nDear Sir: One S. H. Abbott, who was postmaster at Alvord, I find, by\naccident, is writing to the department that you do not pay your bills,\nand that there is no need of anything more than a weekly mail.\n\nI wish you would see this man at once and satisfy him; pay him whatever\nis reasonable and report to R. C. Williamson, at The Dalles.\n\nI suppose that is what he is after. He knows nothing of the through\nmail, and probably a weekly is all he needs; but more likely he wants\nsome money. He complained once before to the department that he had to\nmake a special trip to Camp McDermitt to make his returns, and I sent\nhim thirty dollars, and it was all right. Now, I suppose, he wants a\nlittle more money. Yours, &c.,\n\nJohn R. Miner\n\nThat letter was introduced to show that there was a conspiracy between\nMiner and Brady; and yet when that man complained that the service was\nnot put on at the time it should have been, and that he was postmaster,\nwas forced to carry his returns to the nearest post-office, and\nconsequently spent about thirty dollars, Miner sent him the money.\nWhy? Because he and Brady were not confederates; because they were not\nconspirators. For that reason he sent the man thirty dollars. The letter\nsays, \"The man that was postmaster.\" When this letter was written Mr.\nAbbott was not postmaster; he had ceased to be postmaster. Yet they\nhave endeavored to impress upon you the idea that when this letter\nwas written to Abbott he was then postmaster. He had written a letter,\nstating that a weekly mail was all that was wanted, and that Mr. Carey\ndid not pay his bills. Mr. Miner wrote to Carey on that account, \"The\nman is trying to make trouble. He tried to make trouble once before, and\nwe sent him thirty dollars. He is not postmaster now. He has no official\nposition. Go and see him. Give him what is reasonable, and tell him to\nmind his own business.\" Why? If he had been in a conspiracy with Brady\nhe would not care what Mr. Abbott wrote to the department. If he was\nabsolutely certain there he would not care anything about it. But having\nno arrangement with the Second Assistant, having no arrangement of the\nkind set forth in the indictment, he did not want Mr. Abbott to write\nletters; he did not want Mr. Abbott to make trouble. That letter,\ninstead of showing that there was a conspiracy, shows absolutely that\nthere was not, and the letter was not written to him while he was an\nofficial. The man was not then postmaster. He simply had been.\n\nThe next point made by Mr. Ker is a very powerful point, that Mr. Vaile\ncame from Independence, where the James boys came from, and where they\nsteal horses. Suppose I should say that Mr. Ker comes from Philadelphia,\nthe town that Mr. Phipps lives in, the man who stole the roof off of the\npoorhouse. Would there be any argument in that?\n\nMr. Ker says that J. W. Dorsey wrote in his letter that the profits\nwould be one hundred thousand dollars a year. That was a mistake. I turn\nto the letter and I find that it says one hundred thousand dollars in\nthe life of the contract, and not one hundred thousand dollars a year.\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, I claim the right to call attention to the\nfact that Mr. Ker read the letter in full referring to the one hundred\nthousand dollars clear of expenses. He read it and then followed it\nby the statement of one hundred thousand dollars a year, which was\nobviously a mistake.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That only makes it worse. After he had read the letter\nto the jury, and while the echoes of the letter were still in the\ncourt-room, he then said one hundred thousand dollars a year, while\nthe letter said one hundred thousand dollars within the life of the\ncontract. Upon such statements, gentlemen, they expect to strip a\ncitizen of his liberty. [To counsel for the Government.] You will have\nsome work to do in a little while. It may be that Mr. Ker forgets these\nthings. I do not say how it happened.\n\nMr. Ker also tells you that Miner wanted to cut out S. W. Dorsey and\nJ. W. Dorsey and Mr. Peck. Was that because he was a co-conspirator? He\nalso tells you that Miner deserted his friend S. W. Dorsey. Was he at\nthat time a conspirator? Mr. Ker tells you that S. W. Dorsey wanted to\ngratify his spite against Vaile and that the first thing he did after he\ngot out of the Senate was to write that letter to the Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General against the subcontracts. Does that show they were\nco-conspirators? Did he want to gratify his spite because he had made a\nbargain with them by which they were to realize hundreds of thousands of\ndollars?\n\nMr. Ker also says that Miner's letter to Tuttle shows the conspiracy.\n\nIt is perfectly wonderful, gentlemen, how suspicion changes and poisons\neverything.\n\nLet me read you the letter from which Mr. Ker draws the inference that\nthere was a conspiracy. It is on page 885:\n\nWashington, D. C., August 19, 1878. Frank A. Tuttle, Box 44, Pueblo,\nColo.,\n\nDear Sir: Yours 14th received. We accept your proposition, provided (so\nthat there shall be no conflict) that a friend of ours, who has recently\ngone to Colorado, has not made different arrangements before we can get\nhim word.\n\nThe petition for expedition should be separate from the petition for\nincrease of number of trips. We make no boast of being solid with\nanybody, but can get what is reasonable. Yours, truly,\n\nMiner, Peck & Co\n\nYou are told that is evidence of a conspiracy. Suppose the letter had\nbeen this way: \"We boast of being solid. We can get anything, whether\nreasonable or not.\" That probably would have been evidence of perfect\ninnocence. He writes a letter and says:\n\nWe make no boast of being solid with anybody, but can get what is\nreasonable.\n\nThey say that is evidence of conspiracy. Suppose he had written the\nopposite, \"We do boast of being solid and we can get anything, whether\nit is reasonable or not.\" According to their logic that would have been\nevidence of absolute innocence. Whenever you are suspicious you extract\npoison from the fairest and sweetest flowers. Prejudice and suspicion\nturn every fact against a defendant.\n\nOn page 4557 Mr. Ker tells us that Vaile never saw Peck, and yet had the\nimpudence to write that his subcontract was signed by Peck in person.\nThe subcontract is in evidence here. Nobody pretends that it was\nnot signed by Peck, and yet that is brought forward as a suspicious\ncircumstance against Mr. Vaile, because there is no evidence that Mr.\nVaile ever saw Mr. Peck. Is there anything in a point like that? \"My\ncontract was signed by Mr. Peck in person.\" He does not mean by that\nthat he saw him sign it. The evidence here is that it was signed by\nPeck, and yet the fact that he says Peck did sign it, and the fact that\nhe had never seen Peck, Mr. Ker endeavors to torture so that you will\nthink he wrote what he knew to be untrue.\n\nOn page 3251 Mr. Ker says that Miner does not deny writing the letter\nmarked 63 E. This letter was dated the 10th day of May, 1879, and was on\none of the Dorsey routes.\n\nMiner swears that he never signed a paper, never touched pen to paper on\nany of the Dorsey routes after the 5th day of May, 1879.\n\nNow, gentlemen, after having made all these statements to you, and I\nhave only taken up a few of them, these misstatements, these mistakes,\nMr. Ker winds up by telling you it is the safer plan to find a verdict\nof guilty, because if you find them guilty wrongfully the Court will\nupset your verdict.\n\nGentlemen, you have sworn to try this case according to the law and the\nevidence. You are the supreme arbiters of this case. It is for you to\ndecide upon this evidence, and for you alone. Yet you are told by Mr.\nKer to shirk that responsibility. You are told by him to violate your\noaths and find against these defendants, for the sake of certainty,\nand then turn them over to the mercy of the Court. That is not the law.\nThese defendants are being tried before you. They have the right to your\nhonest judgment. If you have any doubt as to their guilt you must find\nthem not guilty or violate your oaths. You are told it is the safer way\nto find them guilty and then let them appeal to the Court for mercy!\nThat doctrine is monstrous. It is deformed. Such a verdict would be the\nspawn of prejudice, and cowardice, and perjury. You cannot give such a\nverdict and retain your self-respect. You cannot give such a verdict\nand retain your manhood! If you have any doubt as to the guilt of these\ndefendants you must say they are not guilty. You have no right to turn\nthem over to the Court, no matter whether the Court is merciful or\nunmerciful. You must pass upon their guilt, and you must do it honestly.\n\nI never heard so preposterous, so cruel a sentiment uttered in a court\nof justice. It amounts to this, gentlemen: If you have any doubt of\nguilt resolve the doubt against the defendant. If the evidence is not\nquite sufficient, find against the defendants and turn them over to the\nmercy of the Court. Why should we have a jury at all? Why should you sit\nhere at all? Why should you hear this evidence, if after all you are to\nshirk the responsibility and turn the defendants over to the Court? You\nnever will do it, gentlemen.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I wish to call your attention to a few points made by\nColonel Bliss. You must remember that Colonel Bliss has been very highly\ncomplimented by his associates as a kind of peripatetic index of this\ncase, an encyclopedia of all the papers; that he never makes a mistake;\nthat he recollects amounts with absolute certainty, and that he is\ninfallible. Keeping all these things in your mind, I wish to call your\nattention to some statements that he has made. First of all, I will\nrefer to a little of his philosophy, or law, and that is, that in\nevery affidavit you should state not the number necessary on the then\nschedule, but the actual number, and that there could be no doubt about\nthe number of men and horses used at the time when an affidavit was\nmade, and that consequently anybody making an affidavit should put in\nthe number then actually used.\n\nLet us see how that will work. He says the oaths are false because they\ndo not state the actual number of men and horses employed in carrying\nthe mail at the time they were made. He says that the person making the\naffidavit swore to the number actually employed, and that where that\nnumber was not employed that fact of itself shows the affidavits to\nbe false. I say that is not the law. The law calls for the number\nnecessary, not the number actually employed. Let me show how easy it\nwould be to cheat the Government on the principle laid down by the\ngentleman. I will show you how infinitely silly that is. Let me\nillustrate. Here is a route one hundred and fifty miles long, once a\nweek. You know it is possible for one man and one horse for a little\nwhile to carry that mail and to go one hundred and fifty miles one way\nand one hundred and fifty miles the other, making three hundred miles in\na week. You can take a magnificent horse and a good, stout, tough man,\nand you can do it.\n\nThe Court. Or a boy.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Or a stout, tough boy.\n\nThe Court. A boy would be best.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You do not need any boy. Just one man and one horse will\nanswer. The man can ride the horse one hundred and fifty miles in three\ndays, and then ride one hundred and fifty miles back in the next three\ndays. All you have to swear to, according to Mr. Bliss, is the number\nactually used, and so you would come in and swear to two on this route.\nNow, when you are making an affidavit as to the number to be used on\na schedule to be made, you cannot swear to the number actually in\nuse, because they are not then in use. You have to swear to the number\nnecessary. You have to swear to the number required.\n\nNow, see. On a mail route one hundred and fifty miles long I would only\nwant a good smart horse, and one good active man or boy. I would not\nneed to carry it more than one week, because I could make the affidavit\nfor that week, and then the question would be how many men and horses\nwould be required for a daily mail on the same route. I would put in a\nreasonable number, and the difference between the number then actually\nused and the reasonable number to use would be the standard by which to\nfix my pay.\n\nIf you take the man and horse actually used, and then take the number\nthat would reasonably be used, you would make a difference of a thousand\nper cent. And yet that is the doctrine laid down here to guide us as to\nthese affidavits.\n\nLet me tell you what the law is. It does not make any difference what\nyou are really using at the time. You must swear to the number that\nwould be reasonably necessary to carry the mail on the then schedule.\nYou must swear to the number that would be reasonably necessary to carry\nthe mail on the proposed schedule. In the first place, if you put a\ngreat deal of work on a man and horse, you must put the same proportion\non man and horse in the second schedule. If you are easy on man and\nhorse in the first schedule, you must be easy on man and horse in the\nsecond. The only object, gentlemen, is to keep the proportion, because\nyou are to be paid according to the number of men and horses used.\n\nNow, they say it would be necessary to go out there in order to tell how\nmany men and horses would be necessary, and that the men who made these\naffidavits had never been on the routes. There was no need of being\non the routes. I could give you the number required on any route two\nhundred or five hundred miles long. I could give you the number of men\nand horses reasonably required to carry the mail once, twice, three\ntimes, or seven times a week; and I could give you the number reasonably\nrequired to carry it at the rate of three miles an hour or five miles an\nhour or six miles an hour without going there. I need not go there for\nthe purpose of the affidavit. I can take it for granted that the road\nis good and level, and I can keep exactly the same proportion and nobody\ncan be defrauded. If you take the rule of Colonel Bliss it would be\nthe easiest thing on earth to defraud the Government. That would be by\ntaking the actual number in use and then taking the number necessary.\n\nOil page 4761 Mr. Bliss makes the point that according to law the Second\nAssistant Postmaster-General was not bound to allow according to the\naffidavits. He is right as to that. That is what Mr. Bliss says, and\nthat is what John W. Dorsey swore he thought, and that is what Mr.\nThomas J. Brady swore he did. He did not take the affidavit as a\nfinality. Mr. Thomas J. Brady said that he took it for granted that the\nman, when he made the affidavit, thought it was true, and that the\nman, when he made the affidavit, swore to the best of his knowledge and\nbelief. But Thomas J. Brady never swore that he considered himself bound\nby the affidavit. On the contrary, he swore that he had a standard in\nhis own mind, and that expedition was to cost thirty dollars a mile,\nor something of that kind. He went by that standard, and he gauged the\naffidavits by it.\n\nOn page 4762 Mr. Bliss says that Brady admitted that he made no inquiry\nas to the truth of affidavits, and that he accepted them as absolutely\nconclusive. On page 3434 Mr. Brady swears:\n\nI accepted their statement as conclusive so far as they knew.\n\nBrady also swears that he had his standard in his own mind, as I said\nbefore, and that he had an opinion of his own, and that by that standard\nand opinion he was governed.\n\nOn page 4765 Mr. Bliss charges that Brady took the oath of Perkins on\nroute 38113 as the basis for the expedition. Mr. Turner's calculation on\nfile shows that that affidavit was not the basis of the calculation.\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, allow me to say that subsequently I stated to\nthe Court and to the jury distinctly that while the indorsement on\nthe jacket recited the Perkins affidavit as being the one used, or\nthe affidavit of the subcontractor, and while Mr. Brady transmitted to\nCongress that Perkins affidavit as the one upon which he acted, I still\nbelieved that the calculation showed that he used the other affidavit.\n\nMr. Wilson. He never made that statement until he made it during the\nprogress of my argument when I was discussing that very point.\n\nMr. Bliss. You are mistaken.\n\nMr. Merrick. He made it while I was here and I was not here during Mr.\nWilson's argument.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. If he has taken it back three times, that is enough.\nOn page 4766 Mr. Bliss charges Brady with having two affidavits on the\nPueblo and Greenhorn route, from John W. Dorsey, on the same day.\n\nMr. Bliss. Mr. Henkle called my attention to the fact that it was not\nthe Greenhorn route, but the Pueblo and Rosita route, and I corrected\nit.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Good enough. I did not know about his taking it back. I\nwas not here at the time. The fact was, however, that only one affidavit\nwas ever filed, and that was an affidavit, not by J. W. Dorsey, but by\nJohn R. Miner.\n\nMr. Bliss. There were two on the Pueblo and Rosita route by John W.\nDorsey.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. We will come to them. You will get tired of them before\nwe get through with them.\n\nOn page 4767 Mr. Bliss refers to two affidavits. The first affidavit,\nthe one not used, calls for three men and seven animals on the then\nschedule. That makes ten. On the proposed schedule of eighty hours it\ncalled for nine men and twenty-seven animals. That makes thirty-six. The\nproportion then in this affidavit is 3.6, that is, the pay would be 3.6\ntimes the original pay. In the second affidavit five men and fifteen\nanimals, twenty in all, are called for on the then schedule, and on the\nproposed schedule twelve men and forty-two animals. The proportion there\nis 2.7. So that the affidavits, leaving out the fractions, which are\nsubstantially the same, stand in this way: By the first the contract\nprice would have been multiplied by three and the contractor would have\nhad three times the original pay, and by the second he would have had\ntwice the original pay. Substituting an affidavit at only double the\npay is called a fraud, because they withdrew an affidavit for treble the\npay. That is what Mr. Bliss calls a fraud. He says still that it is a\nfraud.\n\nNow, then, there were two affidavits, and these two affidavits,\ngentlemen, Mr. Bliss well knew were filed on different schedules. The\nfirst affidavit was filed on a proposed schedule of eighty hours. The\nsecond affidavit was filed on a proposed schedule of fifty hours. The\naffidavit agreeing to carry the mail in fifty hours offered to do it\nat double the pay. The affidavit on eighty hours wanted three times\nthe pay, or substantially that. One was 3.7 and the other was 2.6. Just\nthink of trying to make that a fraud on the Government. Suppose they had\nfiled a third affidavit and offered to carry it for nothing. That would\nhave been carrying a fraud to the extreme.\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, with reference to that, I said, expressly\nreferring to these two affidavits: It is not a question of proportion.\nThe question is whether the mere existence of those double affidavits\ndid not give Brady conclusive notice that the man who could make those\naffidavits was not a reliable man, because no matter what the time was\nto which it was to be increased, he stated the number necessary on the\nthen schedule, as so and so in one affidavit and in the other he stated\nthe number differently. I referred to it solely in that connection, as\nthe language shows on the page referred to.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. For instance, a man writes, \"You owe me five hundred\ndollars according to my books,\" and writes the next day, \"I have made a\nmistake. You don't owe me anything.\" Mr. Bliss insists that the second\nletter would show that the man was not to be relied upon. That is his\nidea of honesty. If in the first letter he had written that I did\nnot owe him anything, and in the second letter I did, that might be\nsuspicious. But when in the first he writes that I owe him and in the\nsecond that I do not, there can be no suspicion as to his honesty. In\nthe first affidavit this man stated so much, and in the second affidavit\nhe put it one-third less. That simply shows the man was paying attention\nto it and wanted to make an honest offer. And yet everything in this\ncase is poisoned with prejudice and suspicion.\n\nAnother point: Mr. Bliss, on page 4770, says that on the Pueblo and\nRosita route the number of trips was seven and that there was no\nincrease. Upon that statement he bases an argument of fraud. The\nargument is that there was no increase of trips. Now, on page 866, the\norder shows that in the first place there was one trip a week and there\nwere six trips added. That makes seven. The original pay was three\nhundred and eighty-eight dollars. Six trips were added, and the value\nof the six trips, which gave two thousand three hundred and twenty-eight\ndollars of additional pay. Yet Mr. Bliss tells you that there was no\nincrease of trips. As a matter of fact, six trips were added, and that\nwas all that could be added.\n\nMr. Bliss. Were they added coincidently with the affidavit for\nexpedition?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You say they were not added; I say they were.\n\nMr. Bliss. No, sir; I said at the time of the expedition there was no\nincrease of trips and the affidavit was based upon the seven trips.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I say that at that time there was an increase.\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, the point is this: I think I am right in saying\nthat the increase of trips took place after the expedition. That is\nmy recollection about it. I have not referred to the record. I think\nColonel Ingersoll will find that is so.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. We will see whether you are right. At the time the\naffidavit was made there were just three trips, and afterward there were\nfour trips added. Let us get it exactly right. I read from page 866:\n\nDate, July 8, 1879. State, Colorado.\n\nNumber of route, 38134.\n\nTermini of route, Pueblo and Rosita.\n\nLength of route, fifty miles.\n\nNumber of trips per week, one.\n\nMr. Bliss. I see you are right. The trips were increased.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. When anybody gives it up I will stop. That is fair and\nthat is honorable.\n\nNow, the next point. On page 4771 Mr. Bliss says that the oath on the\nToquerville and Adairville route was made for seven trips, although the\norder only gave them six trips, of course the inference being that they\ngot as much pay for six trips as they were entitled to for seven trips.\nOn page 3290 the original order was for one trip. Two trips were added.\nLook on page 949 and you will find that more trips were added. The\nsecond order increased four trips, and that made seven in all; and yet\nMr. Bliss makes the statement that there were only six. That is another\nmistake.\n\nAnother point. On page 4772 Mr. Bliss states that Mr. Rerdell spoke in\nhis testimony about J. B. B. I have referred to that. I have referred\nbefore to the claim that Rerdell was sustained by the testimony of Mr.\nBissell. As a matter of fact, I do not remember that Mr. Rerdell ever\nsaid one word in his testimony as to charging anything to J. B. B.\n\nNinth point. At page 4778 Mr. Bliss states that Dorsey admitted in his\nletter to Anthony Joseph that the average rate for mail service on star\nroutes was only five dollars a mile. Mr. Dorsey says in his letter no\nsuch thing. He says the \"average cost of horseback service\"; he does\nnot use the language employed by Mr. Bliss, \"The average rate for mail\nservice on star routes,\" but he says, \"The average cost of horseback\nservice.\" That is a small point, but it shows how anxious the gentlemen\nare to get the thing fully as big as it is.\n\nTenth point. At page 4783 Mr. Bliss says that Brady cut off forty-nine\nthousand dollars of increase on the Mineral Park and Pioche route on the\n22d of January, 1879, because the mail bills showed so little business.\nThat is another mistake. The order cutting off the forty-nine thousand\ndollars was made on the 22d of January, 1880, not 1879. I mention this\nsimply for the sake of accuracy.\n\nEleventh point. At page 4785 Mr. Bliss says that the mail bills on the\nSilverton and Parrott City route showed that Brady ran the service up\nfrom seven hundred and forty-five dollars to fourteen thousand nine\nhundred dollars, and that the fourteen thousand nine hundred dollars\nwas afterwards increased to thirty-one thousand three hundred and\nforty-three dollars and seventy-six cents. The record shows nothing\nof the kind (see pages 1894-5). The original pay was one thousand four\nhundred and eighty-eight dollars (page 1854). The pay under the order\nof June 12, 1879, was six thousand five hundred and twelve dollars and\ntwenty-eight cents (page 1855). No other increase was ever made. On\npage 1855 is the increase and expedition, being in all fourteen thousand\neight hundred and eight dollars and sixty three cents. The original pay\nwas one thousand four hundred and eighty-eight dollars. A little change\nwas made in the route that brought it up to one thousand seven hundred\nand three dollars and sixty-five cents. That, together with the\nexpedition, makes a total of sixteen thousand five hundred and twelve\ndollars and twenty-eight cents. And yet Mr. Bliss told you that it\nwas thirty-one thousand three hundred and forty-three dollars and\nseventy-six cents. So that this encyclopaedia of the papers made a\nmistake, in one year, of fourteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-one\ndollars and forty-eight cents. For the whole contract time it would be\na mistake of forty-five thousand dollars. And yet, strange as it may\nappear, that mistake was made against the defendants. Well, let us go\non.\n\nTwelfth point. On page 4800, bottom line, Mr. Bliss says:\n\nThey got so much in the way of offering petitions that Mr. Rerdell being\ntold by Stephen W. Dorsey, upon this route from Pueblo to Greenhorn,\nto go to work and alter the petitions, inserted the words \"and faster\ntime.\"\n\nAs to this petition, 7 B, in which are the words \"and faster time,\"\nGeorge Sears swears, at pages 829 and 830, that it is in the same\ncondition now as when it was signed by him, he thinks. Thereupon Mr.\nBliss told you that he was mistaken in the paper. You must recollect\nthese things.\n\nMr. Bliss. Are there not two petitions there altered?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is on another route. There were 7 B, 11 B, and 12\nB. 7 B was the written paper, and you introduced 11 B and 12 B. One said\n\"quicker time,\" and one said \"on faster schedule,\" and yet in the very\nnext paragraph they asked to have it run in eight hours. Mr. Rerdell\nhad to admit that he put in the words without knowing what the petition\ncalled for, and that Dorsey instructed him to put them in.\n\nMr. Bliss. Your Honor, in the very same paragraph, the very line, where\nI said \"faster schedule,\" I called attention to the fact that the words\nwere unnecessary.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is not the only point. The point is, who wrote\n\"faster time\"?\n\nMr. Bliss. That is not what I said. You have not given the whole\nsentence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You cannot expect me to read your whole seven days'\nspeech. That would be too much. This is what you said:\n\nThey got so much in the way of altering petitions that Mr. Rerdell being\ntold by Stephen W. Dorsey, upon this route from Pueblo to Greenhorn,\nto go to work and alter the petitions, inserted the words \"and faster\ntime.\"\n\nThat is it exactly.\n\nMr. Bliss. Then follows this:\n\nHe inserted \"and faster schedule,\" \"on quicker time,\" though there was\nnot any necessity for doing that, because if they had gone further down,\nafter some argument in the petition, to the request for expedition, they\nwould have seen that there was no necessity for that little forgery up\nthere.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is a magnificent admission. \"There was no necessity\nfor\" putting that in. I am glad he admits that. He would ask you to\nbelieve that S. W. Dorsey, a man of intelligence and brains, would ask\nto have a petition forged, altered, interlined, without knowing what was\nin that petition. It will not do, gentlemen.\n\nThirteenth point. At page 4810, Mr. Bliss says that McBean told Moore,\nin reference to route No. 44140, Eugene City to Bridge Creek, \"that he\ncould carry all the mail in his pocket.\"\n\nNow, as a matter of fact, Mr. McBean does not state any conversation\nwith Moore covering this route. That was another mistake. No matter.\n\nFourteenth point. At page 4814, Mr. Bliss, in speaking of the Ojo\nCaliente route, says the service in fact never was performed in fifty\nhours; that the evidence of that is conclusive. Now, let us see. Here is\na jacket on page 3008, and that jacket shows that out of seventy-eight\nhalf trips, expedition was lost on twenty-three and made on fifty-five.\nYet Mr. Bliss tells you it never was made. The jacket on page 3040 shows\nthat expedition was lost on twelve half trips and made on sixty-six. And\nyet Mr. Bliss says it was never made. The jacket on page 3056 shows that\nat the time they were carrying seven trips a week, nineteen expeditions\nwere lost out of one hundred and ninety-two half trips. And yet Mr.\nBliss says the fifty-hour schedule never was made. Another mistake.\n\nMr. Bliss. That is long after the time I was referring to. As to the\nother point, I simply repeat it.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. It will not help it to repeat it. For every expedition\nlost on this route or any other the Government did not pay. When the\nexpedition was lost, the pay was deducted; when the expedition was made\nthe pay was given, and not otherwise. You see, gentlemen, how they have\nendeavored to get the facts before you; what a struggle it has been over\nall these obstacles—lack of memory, the immensity of this record—how\nthey have climbed the Himalayas of difficulty; how they have gone over\nthe Andes and Rocky Mountains of trouble to get at the facts!\n\nFifteenth point. On page 4820 Mr. Bliss states that there could not have\nbeen legally allowed, on the evidence on The Dalles route, on expedition\nover $4,144. As a matter of fact, the evidence does not cover the whole\nroute as to the number of men and horses used. The Government never\nproved the number of men and horses necessary to carry the mail over\nthe whole route, but only a part. Mr. Ker admits that the evidence is\ndefective in that regard. When you have no standard, gentlemen, you\ncannot measure.\n\nSixteenth point. On page 4820 Mr. Bliss, in speaking of the route from\nEugene City to Bridge Creek, says that, taking the undisputed facts as\nthey were, before and after the expedition, Brady could not legally have\nallowed more than $2,991.23. The evidence is (page 1343) that Wyckoff\nwas the subcontractor from July, 1878, to 1880. Powers first carried the\nmail in 1880. The route was increased and expedited in June, 1879. Mr.\nPowers never carried it from the expedition. Mr. Wyckoff was the only\nman who did that, and Mr. Wyckoff was not called. Consequently there was\nno evidence as to the number of men and horses used on either schedule.\nThat left the gentleman without a standard and without a measure.\n\nSeventeenth point. On page 4820 Mr. Bliss says that on the Silverton\nand Parrott City route the oath was made for seven trips a week on\nthe present schedule, when it ought to have been two trips on the old\nschedule and seven trips for the new schedule. As there is no evidence\nas to the number of men and horses used on the old schedule, of course\nthere is no evidence in this record to impeach that oath; you cannot\nfind it.\n\nEighteenth point. On page 4822 Mr. Bliss states that after the passage\nof the act of April 7, 1880, there were two increases upon the White\nRiver route. The fact is there was just one after the passage of that\nlaw. Of course a little mistake like that does not make much difference\nin a case of this magnitude.\n\nNineteenth point. On page 4824 Mr. Bliss states that Raton was put on\nthe Trinidad route April 24, 1879 (Page 1031 ). The office was embraced\non the routes July 1, 1878. The first order in reference to it was made\nJune 6, 1878. It was put on the route from July 1, 1878, increasing the\ndistance twenty-three miles. Yet Mr. Bliss tells you that it was put on\nthe route April 24, 1879.\n\nMr. Bliss. Is not that the date of the order?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. It may have been the date of your order.\n\nMr. Bliss. Is not that the date of the order in the case?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I do not know anything about that. I give you the exact\nfacts.\n\nTwentieth point. On page 4825, Mr. Bliss, in speaking of the Ojo\nCaliente route, charges that by the order increasing the trips on this\nroute in February, 1881, there was paid from the Treasury illegally two\nthousand and eleven dollars and forty-six cents. As a matter of fact\nhad we been paid for that entire quarter it would have amounted to seven\nthousand one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty-one cents. The\npay was not adjusted until April 22< 1881 (page 731). The amount that\nwas then paid was not seven thousand one hundred and thirty-nine\ndollars and forty-one cents, but it was three thousand seven hundred\nand twenty-seven dollars and twenty-two cents. It was not for the entire\nquarter, but simply for the actual service rendered. The quarterly pay\nfor the preceding quarter, before the expedition, was three thousand\nthree hundred and fifty-eight dollars and twenty-six cents; showing that\nwe received only for that quarter an excess, on account of expedition,\nof three hundred and sixty-eight dollars and ninety-six cents. But\nhe told you that we got illegally two thousand and eleven dollars and\nforty-six cents. That is a small matter.\n\nTwenty-first point. On page 4897, Mr. Bliss says in effect that Dorsey\nundertook to state that he kept no books; that he was doing a business\namounting, I think he says, to six million dollars a year, and yet he\nkept no books. On the contrary, Dorsey swore that he did keep books; on\nthe contrary, he swore that Kellogg was his book-keeper. Kellogg swore\nthat he did keep the books. Torrey swore that he was his book-keeper,\nand kept the books. And yet Mr. Bliss stood up before this jury and said\nto you that Mr. Dorsey wanted you to believe, or stated that he kept\nno hooks of that immense business. It will not do. No books but the red\nbooks, I suppose, were kept.\n\nTwenty-second point. At page 4883, Mr. Bliss says that in regard to one\nof Vaile and Miner's routes (Canyon City to Fort McDermitt) there were\nlarge profits, amounting to twenty thousand dollars a year. Then he says\neighty thousand dollars during the four years. And yet Mr. Bliss knew at\nthat time that that expedition lasted only eleven months. Trying to fool\nthe jury about sixty-two thousand dollars.\n\nTwenty-third point. On page 4815 Mr. Bliss states that the fines on the\nBismarck and Tongue River route, during Brady's administration, were\nonly thirteen thousand dollars. If you will look at page 727 of this\nrecord, where the table is put in evidence as to the fines, you will\nfind that he deducted from the pay twenty-nine thousand two hundred and\ntwenty-four dollars. Mr. Bliss made a mistake of sixteen thousand two\nhundred and twenty-four dollars. But in a case like this that is not\nimportant. Gentlemen, you know you cannot always be accurate.\n\nMr. Bliss is an accurate man, as a rule. He has been called the index of\nthis business for the Government. Twenty-fourth point. On page 4987 Mr.\nBliss says:\n\nThe one fact of the evidence of the payment of money by Dorsey to Brady\nremains the same whether the books were put out of the way by Dorsey or\nby Rerdell. That is the great central point, so far as the books were\nconcerned; and as to that the testimony is absolutely uncontradicted.\n\nMr. Brady swears that Dorsey never gave him a dollar. Dorsey swears that\nhe never had a money transaction with Brady amounting to one cent. Mr.\nRerdell does not pretend to swear that he knows of Mr. Dorsey having\npaid a dollar to Mr. Brady. He does not pretend to swear that he knows\nof any one of these defendants having paid one dollar to Mr. Brady. And\nyet Mr. Bliss will tell you that the fact that Dorsey paid Brady money\nis uncontradicted.\n\nMr. Bliss. I did not intend that, Colonel Ingersoll. I do not think it\nis capable of that interpretation.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. What did you mean?\n\nMr. Bliss. As to the statement being in the books it is uncontradicted.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Let me see. He now turns and says he did not mean the\nmoney, he meant the books. The evidence is overwhelming on our side that\nthe books did not exist. When you deny the existence of the book I take\nit you deny the existence of any item in it. It is a question whether\nany such books ever existed, gentlemen. Rerdell swore in the\naffidavit of June 20, 1881, and he swore to that affidavit three times\nhand-running, that no such books existed. He swore substantially the\nsame thing on the 13th of July, 1882. He told Mr. French that no such\nbooks ever existed. He told Judge Carpenter that no such books ever\nexisted. He stated to Bosler that no such books ever existed. And\nnow this gentleman says the evidence is uncontradicted that Brady was\ncharged in those books. That is a good deal worse than the other. Let us\ngo on.\n\nTwenty-fifth point. At page 4962 Mr Bliss says that Mr. Dorsey,\naccording to his own statement—Had brought Rerdell up and led him to\ninfamy.\n\nDid Dorsey make any such statement? Did Mr. Dorsey, gentlemen, in\nyour presence, swear that he had brought Rerdell up? Did he, in your\npresence, swear that he had led him to infamy? Did he, in your presence,\nswear that he had done anything of the kind? I have got the exact words.\n\nWho, according to his own statement, he, Dorsey, had brought up, had\nled to infamy, and who, according to his own statement, had stated that\nMacVeagh had told a lie.\n\nA curious use of the English language. I believe it is in that\nconnection, though, that he speaks about Mr. Dorsey having the impudence\nto go to the President of the United States. That is not a very impudent\nproceeding. In this country a President is not so far above the citizen.\nIn this country we have not gotten to the sublimity of snobbery that a\ncitizen cannot give his opinion to the President; especially a citizen\nwho did all he could to make him President; especially a citizen in\nwhom he had confidence. Not much impudence in that. I do not think that\nduring the campaign General Garfield would have regarded it impudent on\nthe part of Mr. Dorsey to speak to him. I do not believe in a man, the\nmoment he is elected President, feeding upon meat that makes him so\ngreat that the man who helped put him there cannot approach him, and\nevery man who voted for him helped to put him there. I am a believer in\nthe doctrine that the President is a servant of the people. I have not\nyet reached that other refinement of snobbery.\n\nMr. Bliss. In point of fact, Colonel Ingersoll, I made no such\nstatement. Now let me read the passage on the very page you refer to.\n\nPatched up the affidavit of Mr. Rerdell, addressed it to the President,\nadmittedly went to the President with it, and then had the impudence to\ncome here and malign the character of General Garfield by saying that\nupon that affidavit of an accused man, instead of seeking a trial, he\nwould have removed two members of his Cabinet.\n\nI meant nothing about the impudence of going to the President.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. He had the impudence then to come here and malign\nGarfield by saying that upon that statement he would have turned out two\nmembers of his Cabinet. That is Mr. Bliss's idea of impudence; and yet,\nupon the testimony of the same man, he wants to put five men in the\npenitentiary.\n\nMr. Bliss. Not upon the sole testimony, I suppose.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Not upon the soulless testimony. Now, I think that Mr.\nDorsey had a right to go and see Mr. Garfield. I think he had a right\nto take that affidavit with him. General Garfield was told what this man\nhad said concerning Mr. Dorsey. He had the right to take that\naffidavit of that man with him so that General Garfield, or the then\nAttorney-General rather, might know how much confidence to put in the\nstatement of that man. He had a right to do that. If he found in this\nway that his Attorney-General and his Postmaster-General were seeking\nto have a man convicted by means not entirely honorable, then it was\nnot only his privilege, but it was his duty to discharge them from his\nCabinet. But I am not saying anything in regard to them now, because\nthey are not here to defend themselves.\n\nMr. Bliss. I want to correct myself. Further down on that page I see I\ndid refer to the impudence of this man going to Garfield.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Well, as Mr. Bliss has been fair enough to state it, I\nwill not follow up my advantage. On another page Mr. Bliss says that\nthe idea that Mr. Vaile did what he did for Miner out of any sympathy is\n\"too thin.\" Mr. Bliss cannot believe that Vaile became Miner's friend\nso suddenly, but he thinks it highly probable that they conspired\ninstantly. That is his view of human nature. Friendship is of slow\ngrowth; conspiracy is a hot-house plant. Gentlemen, is that your view of\nhuman nature, that a man cannot become the friend of another suddenly?\nWhenever he does become his friend the friendship has to be formed\nsuddenly, does it not? There is a first time to everything. A moment\nbefore it did not exist; a moment afterwards it is dead very suddenly.\n\nThere was a boy came to town one morning and met an old friend. The old\nfriend asked the boy, \"How is your father?\" He says, \"Pretty well, for\nhim.\" \"How is your mother?\" \"Pretty well, for her.\" \"Well, how is your\ngrandmother?\" \"She is dead.\" \"Well,\" says the old man, \"she must have\ndied suddenly.\" \"Well,\" said the boy, \"pretty sudden, for her.\"\n\nWhenever one man becomes the friend of another's, a moment before that he\nwas not, and a moment after he was. It must be sudden. But I imagine that\nthere was a friendship sprang up between Vaile and Miner, and I will\ntell you why. They have been partners ever since. You, gentlemen,\nhave had the same experience a thousand times. It is not necessary to\nconspire with a man in order to like him. Neither is it necessary to\nlike him to conspire with him. Men have conspired without friendship a\nthousand times more, probably, than they have formed friendships without\nconspiracy.\n\nMr. Bliss says that because Miner failed to produce the power of\nattorney that Moore swore was given to him when he went West, the jury\nhave a right to infer that instructions to get up false petitions were\nin writing and were included in that power of attorney. Mr. Moore did\nnot swear to the contents of that power of attorney. Do you think that\nit is within the realm of probability that a man ever gave a power of\nattorney to another and inserted in it: \"You are hereby authorized\nto get up false petitions; you are further authorized to have them so\nwritten that you can tear them off and paste others on?\n\n\"N. B. You will make such contracts with all contractors.\n\n\"P. S. Don't tell anybody.\"\n\nThere was another witness in this case, Mr. Grimes (page 808). Not\nthe one that wore the coat—All buttoned down before—but Mr. Grimes,\npostmaster at Kearney. He came all the way here to swear that he stopped\nusing mail bills on the route from Kearney to Kent because he was\nso ordered by a letter from the Post-Office Department. Then it was\ndiscovered that he did not have the letter with him; he went home to get\nthe letter, but he never came back any more.\n\nWe introduced Spangler (page 341) from the inspection division of the\nPost-Office Department; I think he was in charge of that division. He\nswore, as a matter of fact, that there never were any mail bills on that\nroute at all.\n\nMr. Carpenter. He was in charge of the mail bills on that route.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. The mail bills on that particular route. That man Grimes\nwas brought clear here to prove that he stopped using mail bills, and\nthen we proved that there never were any mail bills used on that route\nfor him to stop using. I do not suppose that that man was dishonest.\nThese people just got around him and talked to him until he \"remembered\nit.\" They just planted the seed in his mind, and then came the dew\nand the rain and the lightning until it began to sprout and in time\nblossomed and bore fruit—mail bills. When we come to find out that\nthere never were any mail bills used, away went Mr. Grimes.\n\nOn page 4969 Mr. Bliss says:\n\nThey have not, up to this moment, dared to state under oath, I think,\nthat those books are not in their possession.\n\nOn page 3784 Dorsey swears that he never received any such books. Never\nsaw any such books. He swore again and again that he never heard of any\nsuch books.\n\nMr. Bliss. I stated distinctly that the defendants had not stated that\nin the form required to excuse them from the production. I stated that\ndistinctly.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. All right; away goes that.\n\nOn page 4983 Mr. Bliss says:\n\nIs it not an absurdity to suppose that Dorsey would leave Rerdell in\ncharge of his business from July, 1879, to August, 1880, and then on\nfrom that time until the close of the contract term in August, 1882;\nleave all the business in that way, and then through Bosler settle the\naccounts with Mr. Rerdell and have no knowledge in any way, not only\nof the entries contained in the books which Rerdell kept, but have no\nknowledge that he kept any books whatever? Is it not absurd to suppose\nany such thing? These ten routes represented an income of two hundred\nand fifty-odd thousand dollars a year, or a total business, including\nincome and outgo, of five hundred thousand dollars a year, for three\nyears, going no further than that. These ten routes alone represented\ntransactions amounting to half a million dollars a year. There were one\nhundred and thirty routes and Mr. Dorsey took one-third in value if\nnot in number. If the value was the same, Mr. Dorsey took not less than\nforty routes. As ten routes involved a business of one million five\nhundred thousand dollars in that period, the forty routes involved in\nthat proportion transactions amounting to six million dollars.\n\nYou made a calculation on the supposition that all the routes were\nexpedited the same as those in the indictment, and when you made that\ncalculation you knew they were not expedited.\n\nMr. Bliss. I object, your Honor, to his making any such statement as\nthat. In the first place, it is not evidence; and in the second place,\nwhich is of more importance, it is not true. I did not know any such\nthing, and I do not know any such thing.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Do you say now that the other routes of his, to the\nnumber you talked of, were expedited?\n\nMr. Bliss. I am not on the stand to be cross-examined now. But I do say\nto your Honor that there is no evidence of that in this case. And then\nI go beyond that, and say that I did not know those things then and I do\nnot know them now.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Very well; he made the argument on the supposition that\nall the routes were expedited. I say that not one of them was expedited\nin which Mr. Dorsey had an interest.\n\nMr. Bliss. There is no evidence on that subject.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Is there any evidence of what you say?\n\nMr. Bliss. I put a supposititious case; you have stated a fact.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will put another supposititious case, and mine is that\nthe other routes were not expedited.\n\nThe Court. That is the right way to meet it. Counsel ought not to turn\nto counsel on the other side and make an appeal to his knowledge in\nregard to matters not in evidence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I know, but he said he did not know it. Then I asked him,\nas a matter of fact, if he did not know—\n\nThe Court. [Interposing.] He stated his supposition, and you met that\nsupposition—\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Interposing.] I am always glad to get information.\nNow, then, I will go to another point, and that is the $7,500 check. Mr.\nBliss speaks of that check at page 4997, and he says:\n\nThere is a question raised as to whether it was drawn in Mr. Rerdell's\npresence.\n\nI do not think there was. How could such a question be raised,\ngentlemen? The check was made payable to M. C. Rerdell, or his order. On\nthe back of the check is Mr. Rerdell's name, put there by himself. He is\nthe only indorser. And yet Mr. Bliss tells you that there is a question\nraised as to whether the money was drawn in Mr. Rerdell's presence or\nnot. The check shows, and the evidence is absolutely perfect, that the\nmoney was paid to Rerdell in person. The question is this: Whether it\nwas drawn in Mr. Rerdell's presence. If it was paid to him in person,\nI imagine that he was in that neighborhood at that time. The check was\nwritten by him, everything except the signature of Dorsey. It was drawn\nto Mr. Rerdell, or order, and indorsed by Rerdell himself. There was no\nother indorser. So that it is absolutely certain that he drew the money\nin question. And yet Mr. Bliss says the question is whether it was drawn\nin Rerdell's presence or not.\n\nMr. Bliss continues and states that the money went to S. W. Dorsey. Did\nit? Mr. Dorsey, on page 3965, states the circumstances. He was packing\nto go away. He had not the time to go to the bank himself. He had\nthe check written payable to Mr. Rerdell, or order, and he signed it.\nRerdell went to the bank, got the money, brought it back and put it in\nhis carpet-sack. That is the testimony.\n\nNow, Mr. Bliss says:\n\nNo evidence was given as to what Stephen W. Dorsey was wanting just at\nthat time with seven thousand five hundred dollars in bills.\n\nAccording to Mr. Rerdell, he wanted that money to give to Mr. Brady.\nThat is what Mr. Rerdell intended to swear. But when he found that that\ncheck was made payable to him, and indorsed by him, then they had to\ntake another tack. They dare not say then, \"That is the check.\" They\ndare not say then, \"That is the money.\" Rerdell had forgotten at the\ntime he swore that that check was payable to his order. When he told his\nseven thousand dollar story to MacVeagh he forgot about that check.\nWhen he told it to the Postmaster-General, if he did—I have forgotten\nwhether he did or not—he forgot about that.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I will call your attention to the part to which I really\nwish to direct your attention. It is an admission by the Government, an\nadmission by Colonel Bliss; it is in these words, on page 4997, speaking\nof this very thing:\n\nHowever that may be, they themselves put in a check here for seven\nthousand five hundred dollars, drawn about the time Mr. Rerdell spoke\nof, the money upon which admittedly went to Stephen W. Dorsey, though\nthere is a question raised as to whether it was drawn in Mr. Rerdell's\npresence or whether it was not drawn by him. But the money went to\nStephen W. Dorsey, and there was a promise made to show you what was\ndone with that seven thousand five hundred dollars. But, like many\nanother promise in this case, it remains unfulfilled to-day. No evidence\nwas given as to what Stephen W. Dorsey was wanting just at that time\nwith seven thousand five hundred dollars in bills.\n\nMr. Dorsey offered to tell you what he did with it, and you said you\ndid not want it; you did not want to know when he was on the stand. He\noffered to tell you what he did with the money, and you would not take\nhis statement. Hear what he says:\n\nMr. Dorsey was not taking seven thousand five hundred dollars in bills\nto the West.\n\nHow do you know? Who ever told Mr. Bliss that he was not taking seven\nthousand five hundred dollars to the West? He must have got that from\nMr. Rerdell. May be that is the reason they would not allow Dorsey to\ntell, because before that time they had been informed that he would\nswear that he took the seven thousand five hundred dollars to the West.\nHow else did Mr. Bliss find this out?\n\nIt is not in the evidence, not a line. Somebody must have told him.\nWho could have told him? Nobody, I think, except Mr. Rerdell. Is it\npossible, then, that Mr. Bliss was afraid that Mr. Dorsey would swear\nthat he took it West? And was he afraid also that you would believe it?\nI do not know. He did not want him to state. Now here is what I want to\ncall your attention to:\n\nAfter all the talk about that evidence, all the talk about the seven\nthousand dollars, all the talk about the seven thousand five hundred\ndollar check, Mr. Bliss at least, admits to this jury:\n\nOf course all that transaction might have occurred precisely as Mr.\nRerdell testified, and there might have involved no corruption on Mr.\nBrady's part.\n\nIf, then, it may have occurred exactly as Rerdell swore, and involved no\ncorruption, certainly it might have occurred as Mr. S. W. Dorsey swore\nand involved no corruption. I will go on now with a little more from Mr.\nBliss:\n\nThe drawing of the money and going to Mr. Brady's room might have been a\nmere accident, as a call there to attend to some other business.\n\nOf course, that is reasonable. I might go the bank and draw five\nthousand dollars, and then I might stop in the Treasury Department, but\nthat is no evidence that I am bribing the Secretary of the Treasury. I\nmight step over to see the President; that would be no reason to believe\nthat I bribed the Executive.\n\nOf course that is not conclusive. It is only a little straw in this\ncase, as showing a transaction of that kind involved in connection with\nall the evidence you have in this case—A little straw evidence of Mr.\nBrady's acts, and particularly as at the time when that occurs evidence\nin connection with the large increases which Mr. Brady was then\nordering; evidence in connection with the books, and the evidence\nthey bear; evidence in connection with the declarations of Brady to\nWalsh—evidence all consistent.\n\nAnd then he adds this piece of gratuitous information:\n\nMr. Dorsey was not taking seven thousand five hundred dollars in bills\nto the West.\n\nHow does he know? How did he find that out? And has it come to, this?\nHas all the testimony upon that point—has the confession of Rerdell\nto MacVeagh and James shrunk to this little measure—that it is \"only\na straw\"? Has it shrunk to this measure that Mr. Bliss admits that the\nwhole thing might have been exactly as Rerdell swears, and yet have been\nperfectly innocent? Has it shrunk to this little measure? The Government\nwould not tell us—I presume the Government will not tell us, what check\nit was, the proceeds of which were taken by Mr. Dorsey to Mr. Brady.\nNeither will they say whether that sum was made up in one check or by\nadding together a number of checks; and, if so, what number?\n\nAt page 295 Mr. Bliss told you, in his opening speech, that Rerdell had\non one occasion gone with Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey to the bank, and that\nseven thousand dollars had been drawn; that he had gone with Dorsey\nto the door of the Post-Office Department, or to Brady's room, at the\ntime—he would not undertake to say which—Mr. Dorsey stating to him\nthat he intended to pay that money to Mr. Brady, and that he (Mr.\nDorsey) then went in. But when they come to put this man on the stand\nhe will not swear that Dorsey ever told him that he intended to pay the\nmoney to Brady. Probably that part of the statement, that Dorsey told\nhim that he was going to pay that money to Brady, can be found in the\naffidavit made before Mr. Woodward, in September, and repeated in the\naffidavit made at Hartford in November. But it is not in evidence here.\n\nNow, we brought all the checks that we had given on Middleton's bank,\nwith the exception of two, I believe, that amounted to some hundred and\nodd dollars. We gave the Government counsel notice that there were two\nothers.\n\nAmong those checks was this one for seven thousand five hundred dollars.\nThere were many others. I asked the gentlemen to pick out their check;\nthey would not do it. I asked the gentlemen to pick out the checks;\nthey did not do it. And now if we had failed to produce checks that were\nimportant in this case, the Government could have produced the books and\nclerks of Middleton & Company, and shown exactly the checks we drew upon\nthat bank that month. They did not do it. As a matter of fact, I offered\nall the checks on all the banks I could think of that we had any\nbusiness with in any way, except one, and that turned out to be the\nGerman-American Savings Bank, and it turned out that that went into\nbankruptcy eight months before this business; so there is no trouble\nabout that. Why did they not pick out the checks upon which they claimed\nthat the money was drawn that was paid to Brady?\n\nMr. Rerdell, on page 2254, in speaking of the money, swore that money\nwas charged to Brady on the stub. He says that Dorsey told him, \"You\nwill find the amount on the stub of the check-book.\" The jury will\nnotice that he speaks of the \"amount,\" the \"stub,\" and the \"book,\" all\nin the singular. That was followed, I believe, by about six pages of\ndiscussion, and everybody who took part in that discussion, the Court\nincluded, spoke of the sum of money as an \"amount,\" upon a \"stub,\" in a\n\"checkbook.\"\n\nI call attention to 2254-'55-'56-'57-'58-'59. On all those pages it\nis spoken of as a stub of a check-book, or amount on a stub in a\ncheck-book. After the discussion was closed, then the witness began\nto talk about \"books,\" \"checks,\" \"stubs,\" and \"amounts.\" Why did he do\nthat?\n\nHis object was to get the evidence broad enough—checks and check-books\nenough—to fit their notice, to the end that they might get possession\nof all the check-books, and of all the amounts on all the stubs.\n\nWhat more? The discussion convinced Mr. Rerdell that it would be far\nsafer to say \"stubs\" than \"stub\"; that it would be far better to say\n\"check-books\" than \"checkbook,\" and far better to say \"amounts\" than\n\"amount\"; because he would have a better chance in adding these up so as\nto make six thousand five hundred dollars, or seven thousand dollars, or\nsix thousand dollars, than to be brought down to one check, one amount,\nand one stub-book. So he went off into the region of safety, into the\ndomain of the plural.\n\nNow, the last point—at least for this evening—so far as Mr. Bliss is\nconcerned, I believe, is about the red books. Mr. Bliss tells you that\nMrs. Cushman was telegraphed to from the far West. There was a little\nanxiety, I believe, on the part of Rerdell about the book, and he\ntelegraphed her. She found it there in the wood-shed, you know, hanging\nup, I think, in the old family carpet-sack—I have forgotten where she\nfound it—and she put it away. Now, there is a question I want to ask\nhere, and I know that Mr. Merrick when he closes will answer it to his\nentire satisfaction; I do not know whether he will to yours or to mine:\nHow does it happen that Mrs. Rerdell never saw that red book? How\ndoes it happen that Mrs. Rerdell, when she was put on the stand, never\nmentioned that red book? How does it happen that she never heard of it\nwhen her husband went to New York to get it; when everything he had in\nthe world, according to his idea, was depending upon it; when it was his\nsheet-anchor; when it was the corner-stone of his safety? And yet\nhis wife never heard of it, never saw it, did not know it was in the\nwood-shed, slept in that house night after night and did not even dream\nthat her husband's safety depended on any book in a carpet-sack hanging\nin the wood-shed. She never said a word about it on the stand, not a\nword. Gentlemen, nobody can answer that question except by admitting\nthat the book was not there and did not exist.\n\nBut perhaps I have said enough about the speeches of Mr. Ker and Mr.\nBliss. Of course, their business is to do what they can to convict. I do\nnot know that I ought to take up much more time with them. I feel a good\ndeal as that man did in Pennsylvania who was offered one-quarter of a\nfield of wheat if he would harvest it. He went out and looked at it.\n\"Well,\" he says, \"I don't believe I will do it.\" The owner says, \"Why?\"\n\"Well,\" he says, \"there is a good deal of straw, and I don't think there\nis wheat enough to make a quarter.\"\n\nSo now, gentlemen, if the Court will permit, I would like to adjourn\ntill to-morrow morning.\n\nNow, gentlemen, the next witness to whose testimony I will invite your\nattention is Mr. Boone. Mr. Boone was relied upon by the Government\nto show that this conspiracy was born in the brain of Mr. Dorsey; that\nthese other men were simply tools and instrumentalities directed by him;\nthat he was the man who devised this scheme to defraud the Government,\nand that it was Dorsey who suggested the fraudulent subcontracts. They\nbrought Mr. Boone upon the stand for that purpose, and I do not think\nit is improper for me to say that Mr. Boone was swearing under great\npressure. It is disclosed by his own testimony that he had eleven\nhundred routes, and that he had been declared a failing contractor\nby the department; and it also appeared in evidence that he had been\nindicted some seven or eight times. Gentlemen, that man was swearing\nunder great pressure. I told you once before that the hand of the\nGovernment had him clutched by the throat, and the Government relied\nupon his testimony to show how this conspiracy originated. Now I propose\nto call your attention to the evidence of Mr. Boone upon this subject.\n\nOn page 1352 Mr. Boone swears substantially that on his first meeting\nwith Stephen W. Dorsey—that is, after they met at the house—he said\nto Dorsey that he (Boone) would be satisfied with a one-third interest.\nNow, the testimony of Boone is that Mr. Dorsey then and there agreed\nthat he might have the one-third interest.\n\nMr. Dorsey says it is not that way; that he told him that when the\nothers came they would probably give him that interest, or something to\nthat effect.\n\nMr. Boone further swears that when J. W. Dorsey did come there was a\ncontract—or articles of agreement you may call them—handed to him by\nJ. R. Miner, purporting to be articles of partnership between John W.\nDorsey and himself, and that he signed these articles; that that, I\nbelieve, was on the 15th of January, 1878, and that it was by virtue of\nthat agreement that he had one-third. It was not by virtue of any talk\nhe had with S. W. Dorsey that he got an interest, and you will see how\nperfectly that harmonizes with the statement of Stephen W. Dorsey.\n\nMr. Dorsey's statement is: \"I cannot make the bargain with you, but when\nJohn W. Dorsey comes I think he will, or they will.\" It turned out that\nwhen John W. Dorsey did come in January he did enter into articles of\npartnership with A. E. Boone, and did give him the one-third interest.\nSo the fact stands out that he got the one-third interest from John W.\nDorsey and not from Stephen W. Dorsey. If the paper had been written and\nsigned by Stephen W. Dorsey that would uphold the testimony of Boone.\nIf Boone had said, \"I made the bargain with Stephen W. Dorsey,\" and the\narticles of co-partnership were signed by him, I submit that that would\nhave been a perfect corroboration of Boone. Stephen W. Dorsey swears\nthat the bargain was made with John W. Dorsey, and you find that the\nagreement was signed by John W. Dorsey, and not by Stephen W. Dorsey. I\nsubmit, therefore, that that is a perfect corroboration of the testimony\nof Stephen W. Dorsey.\n\nAt page 1544 Mr. Boone says that, as a matter of fact, all contractors\nendeavored to keep what they were doing secret from all other\ncontractors. Think of the talk we have heard about secrecy. If the\nbidders upon any of these routes did not want the whole world to know\nthe amount they had bid, that secrecy was tortured into evidence of a\ncriminal conspiracy. If John W. Dorsey did not want the world to know\nwhat he was doing, if Mr. Boone wanted to keep a secret, these gentlemen\nsay it is because they were engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the\nGovernment, and crime loves the darkness. What does Mr. Boone say? As a\nmatter of fact, that all contractors endeavored to keep what they were\ndoing secret from all other contractors where they feared rivalry. Of\ncourse that is human nature.\n\nMr. Boone further says that he never knew of one contractor admitting\neven that he was going to bid. He always pretended, don't you see, that\nhe was not going to bid. He wanted to throw the other contractors off\ntheir guard. He did not want them to imagine that he was figuring upon\nthat same route, because if they thought he was, they might put in a\nmuch lower bid. He wanted them to feel secure, so that they would put in\na good high bid, and then if he put in a tolerably low bid he would get\nthe route. That is simply human nature.\n\nBoone further says that always when a letting came on he had his bids\nin; that contractors keep their bids secret from rival contractors, not\nfor the purpose of defrauding the Government, but for the purpose of\ntaking care of their business. Now, gentlemen, when men make these\nproposals and keep their business secret—as it turns out that in these\ncases they were keeping their business secret—the fact that they are so\ndoing is not evidence going to show that they are keeping that business\nsecret because they have conspired. Have you not the right to draw the\ninference, and is it not the law that you must draw the inference, that\nthey kept their business secret for the same reason that all honest men\nkeep their business secret?\n\nAt page 1545, Mr. Boone, swearing again about his talk with Mr.\nDorsey that night after the arrangement was concluded, says that\nhe—Dorsey—told me to be careful of Elkins, because Elkins was\nrepresenting Roots & Kerens, large contractors,   * the largest in the\ndepartment, at that time, in the Southwest.\n\nAnd yet that evidence has been alluded to as having in it the touch and\ntaint of crime, because S. W. Dorsey said to Boone to say nothing to\nElkins. Who was Elkins? He, at that time, as appears from the evidence,\nwas the attorney of Roots & Kerens; and who were they? Among the\nlargest, if not the largest contractors in the department; that is, the\nlargest in the Southwest.\n\nMr. Boone stated that the letter of Peck to S. W. Dorsey requested\nhim to get some man who knew the business to look after the bids or\nproposals. Now, I want to ask you, gentlemen, and I want you to answer\nit like sensible men, if Stephen W. Dorsey got up a conspiracy himself,\nwhy was it that Peck wrote to him asking him to get some competent man\nto collect the information about the bids—that is, about the country,\nabout the routes, about the cost of living, about wages, the condition\nof the roads, and the topography of the country?\n\nIf it was hatched in the brain of Stephen W. Dorsey, how is it possible,\ngentlemen, that a letter was written to him by Peck asking him to get a\ncompetent man to gather that information? Mr. Boone swears that he had\nsuch a letter. Mr. Boone swears that Dorsey showed the letter to him.\nMr. Boone swears that, in consequence of that letter, he went to work\nto gather this information. Did Mr. Dorsey do anything about gathering\ninformation? Nothing. Did he give any advice? None. Did he ask any\nquestions? Not one. Did he interfere with Mr. Boone in the business?\nNever.\n\nYou know that was a very suspicious circumstance. I believe there was\na direction given that letters be sent to James H. Kepuer. That was\nanother suspicious circumstance. Mr. Boone swears that he was also in\nthe mail business; that he did not want the letters to go some place;\nthat he had to give at the department an address; that thereupon he\nchose the name of James H. Kepner, his step-son, so that all the mail\nin regard to this particular business would go in one box, and not be\nmingled with the mail in reference to his individual business or the\nbusiness represented by the firm to which he belonged. What more does\nhe swear? That neither Dorsey nor any one of these defendants ever\nsuggested that name, or ever suggested that any such change be made;\nthat it was made only as a matter of convenience; that it was not\nintended to and could not in any way defraud the Government.\n\nNow, Mr. Boone has cleared up a little of this. He has cleared up the\nletter; he has cleared up the charge of secrecy; he has cleared up the\ncharge that we had the letters addressed to James H. Kepner & Co.; he\nhas shown that everything done so far was perfectly natural, perfectly\ninnocent, and in accordance with the habits of men engaged in that\nbusiness.\n\nNow I come to the next thing (page 1550). The next great circumstance in\nthis case, the great suspicious circumstance, was that the amount of the\nbid was left blank in the proposals. The moment they saw those blanks\nin the bids they knew then that the Government was to be defrauded, and\nthey brought Mr. Boone here for the purpose of showing that that was\ndone to lay the foundation for a fraud. What does Boone swear? He swears\nthat he always left that part of the proposal blank; always had done so;\nhad been engaged in the mail business for years, and never filled that\nblank up in his life, in which the amount of the bid should be inserted.\nIt was not left blank to defraud the Government, but to prevent the\npostmasters and sureties, or any other persons, finding out the amount\nof the bid. Away goes that suspicious circumstance.\n\nAfter the bids had been properly executed and came back into the hands\nof the contractors, from the time the figures were put into those\nroutes, what does he say they did?\n\nWe slept with them until we could get them to the department.\n\nHe says they never allowed anybody to see them after the amount of the\nbid had been inserted; that they would not allow anybody to see\nthe amount of the bids; that it was left out, however, only for\nself-protection, and for no other reason. That is the Government's own\nwitness. He is the man they brought to show that this blank in the bid\nwas a suspicious circumstance. He is the man they brought here to show\nthat because Stephen W. Dorsey had told him to say nothing to Elkins,\nthat injunction of secrecy was evidence of a conspiracy.\n\nAt page 1552, Mr. Boone, in speaking of these same things, says that\nhowever they were made, whether the name of the bidder or the route was\nput in, or whatever he did—that is, Boone—he did not do it for the\npurpose of defrauding the Government. They say to him, \"Don't you know\nthat you left out not only the amount of the bid, but the name of the\nbidder?\" He says, \"Whatever I did, whether I left out the amount of\nthe bid or the name of the bidder, I did not do it for the purpose of\ndefrauding the Government; I had no such idea, no idea of defrauding the\nGovernment by leaving any blank or any blanks.\" He did the work. Stephen\nW. Dorsey left no blank; A. E. Boone left every blank; and yet they\nbrought him forward to prove that that was the result of a conspiracy;\nand after he comes upon the stand he swears, \"I left those blanks\nmyself; I always left them in proposals exactly in that way; and whether\nI left out the amount of the bid or the name of the bidder, I did not\ndo it to defraud the Government; I did it simply to protect myself, as I\nhad the right to do.\" So much for that. That is gone.\n\nSo, speaking of these other proposals (the Clendenning proposals) what\ndoes Mr. Boone say—the witness for the Government, the very man who got\nup those proposals, the man who wrote them, the man who wrapped them up,\nand sealed them? What does he say? \"Those proposals were not gotten up\nfor the purpose of defrauding the Government; I did not send them to\nClendenning for that purpose.\" That is the end of that. No conspiracy\nthere.\n\nThe object, don't you see, gentlemen, was to show by Boone that he\nacted under the direction of Dorsey; that Dorsey was responsible for\neverything that Boone did; and that although Boone was guilty of no\ncrime in leaving the bid blank, still if he did it by authority of\nDorsey, Dorsey had an ulterior motive of which Boone was ignorant. Let\nus see.\n\nAt page 1554, Mr. Boone swears that Dorsey never told him at any time or\nany place that he wanted any blanks left. And yet they were endeavoring\nby that witness to saddle that upon S. W. Dorsey. But that witness\nswears that Dorsey never even told him that he wanted any blanks left in\nany paper, proposal, bid, or bond. He says that Dorsey never at any time\nor place told him (Boone) that he (Dorsey) wanted any blanks left, or\nany proposals of any particular form printed, to the end that a fraud\nmight be perpetrated upon the Government—not a word.\n\nAnd, gentlemen, I am now in that space of time where they say this\nconspiracy was born. At page 1567, before Miner got here, Mr. Boone\nswears that Dorsey told him that he would advance money for the other\ndefendants, and Mr. Boone swears that after he got here he never asked\nDorsey for a dollar except through Miner; that Dorsey never gave a\ndollar except through Miner.\n\nWhat more? This is the witness that is going to establish the guilt of\nStephen W. Dorsey. Stephen W. Dorsey never told Boone at any time that\nhe had any interest whatever in those mail routes. Boone never heard of\nit. Dorsey never told him to print a proposal with a blank; never told\nhim to leave a blank after it was printed; never told him to do anything\nfor the purpose of defrauding the Government in any way at any\ntime. This is extremely good reading, gentlemen, when you take into\nconsideration that this is the witness of the Government, their main\nprop until the paragon of virtue made his appearance upon the stand.\n\nPage 1558. Another great point: That in preparing the subcontracts,\nDorsey having it in his mind to conspire against the Government, or\nreally having conspired, according to their story, wanted a provision in\na subcontract for increase and expedition.\n\nWhy, it strikes me, gentlemen, that that is evidence of honesty rather\nthan dishonesty. If these subcontracts were to hold good during the\ncontract term, and if in the contract given to the contractor by the\nGovernment there was a clause for increase and expedition, why should\nnot the subcontract provide for the same contingencies that the contract\nprovided for with the Government? That looks honest, doesn't it?\n\nIt was advertising the subcontractor that the moment he signed his\nsubcontract the trips were liable to be increased and the time was\nliable to be shortened, and that if the time was shortened or the trips\nincreased the pay was to be correspondingly increased. But I will go on\nwith the testimony.\n\nPage 1558: In preparing the subcontract Mr. Dorsey instructed Boone to\nprovide for an expedition clause. That was a suspicious circumstance.\nWhat for? To conform to the expedition clause in the contract with the\nGovernment. If making it like the Government contract is evidence of\nconspiracy, the fact that the Government contracts have that clause is\nevidence that the Government conspired with somebody. It is just as\ngood one way as the other. The Government made a contract with the\ncontractor, the contractor made one with the subcontractor, and\nthe contractor so far forgot his duties, so far forgot his moral\nobligations, that he made it just the same as his contract with the\nGovernment. Gentlemen, is there any depth of depravity below that?\nAbsolutely copying the contract that the Government was going to make\nwith him, and treating the subcontractor, so far as the contract was\nconcerned, as the Government had treated him, he (Boone) prepared a\nclause which he thought filled the bill, and which he still thinks, I\nbelieve, would have been better to use than the other. When he showed\nthat to Stephen W. Dorsey, Dorsey suggested another form. It was the\nsame thing exactly, but in different words. There was the testimony I\nhave read to you, and now here is what Mr. Bliss states about it at page\n4865:\n\nBut Stephen W. Dorsey, away back there, knew sufficient about expedition\nto appreciate the importance of keeping for the contractors thirty-five\nper cent, and giving to the men who were performing the service only\nsixty-five per cent.\n\nWhy not? Is that a crime? Suppose I agreed to carry the mail four years\nfor $10,000 a year and I subcontract with another man. Have I not the\nright to get it carried as cheaply as I can? I just ask you that as\na business proposition. Or has every mail to treat this Government as\nthough it was in its dotage? Must you do business with the Government as\nthough you were contracting with an infant or an idiot? Must you look\nat both sides of the contract? That is the question. The Government, for\ninstance, advertises for so much granite, and I put in a bid which is\naccepted; at the same time I know that I could furnish that granite for\ntwenty-five per cent. less. Is it my duty under such circumstances to go\nand notify the Government that I have cheated it, and that I would like\nto have it put the contract down? There may be heights of morality that\nwould see the propriety of such action, but it is not for every-day wear\nand tear. Very few people have it; it scarcely ever comes into play in\ntrading horses. Must we treat the Government as though it were imbecile?\nI say it was a simple business transaction. The Government advertises\nfor proposals to carry the mail; I make my bid for $10,000, and we will\nsay that my bid is accepted. Now, I admit that I could carry it for\n$5,000 and make money.\n\nAm I criminal if I go on and perform the contract as I agreed and\ndraw the money? Or suppose the people along the route do not want it\nexpedited and increased, and so I talk to them about it; I go to Mr.\nBrown and say, \"Mr. Brown, you are living in this smart, thriving town,\nand you need a daily mail.\" I go to the next village and I say, \"Why,\ngentlemen, you will never have a town here until you have a daily mail;\nI am the fellow now carrying the mail.\" And I keep talking about it,\nyou know, and finally get a fellow to get up a petition, or I write one\nmyself, and send it around, and say to them, \"Gentlemen, what you want\nis more mail, faster mail; the mail is the pioneer of civilization,\ngentlemen; have a daily mail, and along the line at once towns and\nvillages and cities will spring up, and all the hillsides will be\ncovered with farms, and school-houses will be here, and wealth will be\nuniversal.\" Any crime about that. Every railroad has been built just\nthat way. Every park has been laid out in every city by just such means.\nNearly every street that has been improved has been improved in that\nway, by men who had some interest in the property, by men who were to\nbe benefited by it themselves, and who ought to be benefited. Should the\nmen that get the public attention in that direction be benefited, or\nthe men who do nothing? I say that the men who give attention to the\nbusiness have a right to be benefited by it. And yet here is the crime,\ngentlemen. And then we only gave these fellows sixty-five per cent, and\ntook thirty-five ourselves, because we were bound to the Government\nto fulfill the contract, as was explained to you so admirably, so\nperfectly, by Judge Wilson. The contract was to run for four years, and\nI believe in a certain contingency for six months thereafter. We had\nto carry out the contract, whether the subcontractor carried out his\ncontract with us or not.\n\nNow, this is what Mr. Bliss says:\n\nSo, after a large mass of subcontracts had been struck from the press,\nwhich gave to the subcontractors all the increase—There never was a\nsubcontract that gave to the subcontractors all the increase; there is\nno evidence that there ever was such a subcontract, he—That is, Stephen\nW. Dorsey—directed them to be put back on the press.\n\nI should think he would. If he found any subcontracts were printed that\ngave to the subcontractor all the increase, I do not wonder that he had\nthem destroyed.\n\nHere you get, we will say, a contract for ten thousand dollars for one\ntrip, with the agreement that if there are two trips the compensation\nshall be twenty thousand dollars. Thereupon you make a contract with a\nsubcontractor, and you agree in that subcontract that he shall have all\nthe increase. Of course, you want that made over again; of course, you\nwould not make that kind of a subcontract.\n\nHe directed them to be put back on the press, and this provision giving\nthe subcontractor his money struck out and this other clause put in.\n\nGentlemen, that is an entire and absolute mistake. There is no such\nevidence, there never was in this case, and I take it there never will\nbe. The evidence was—and you remember it; and you remember it; and\nyou remember it; and you [addressing different jurors]—that Stephen\nW. Dorsey allowed to the subcontractor sixty-five per cent, of the\nexpedition, and that same subcontractor provided what he should have for\none trip, and what he should have for two trips; that is to say, what\nhe should have for increase; and it provided at the same time for\nsixty-five per cent, on expedition. Mr. Boone swears it; others swear\nit. Not only that, but it is printed in the record again and again and\nagain. Why did Stephen W. Dorsey do that? I can tell you why: He did\nnot. Why did Stephen W. Dorsey do that, if it was not because his\nfertile imagination had already conceived the plan of defrauding the\nUnited States, and he was making an arrangement by which that fraud\ncould be consummated? How would that help him consummate a fraud?\nSuppose he struck out all the per cent, to the subcontractors; suppose\nhe had not had any subcontract printed; suppose the subcontract\nwas printed, and printed on purpose to deceive and defraud the\nsubcontractors; how does that show that he was trying to defraud the\nUnited States? Why, if it proves anything it proves the other, that he\nhad not entered into a conspiracy by which he could get the money from\nthe United States, but had endeavored to get it from the subcontractors.\nIf it proves anything it proves that. But the reason it does not prove\nanything is because the statement is not correct.\n\nNow, just see how a conspiracy can be built of that material. A man that\ncan do that can make a cover for Barnum's Circus with one postage-stamp;\nhe can make a suit of clothes out of a rabbit-skin; he can make a grain\nof mustard seed cover the whole air without growing.\n\nThat is given as an evidence that Dorsey had conspired. There is not\na thing on the earth that he could have done that would not prove\nconspiracy just as well as that—just exactly—no other act. Humph! That\nis the way they build a conspiracy.\n\nWhy not take another step? Why not have a little bit of ordinary good\nhard sense? On the 17th day of May, I believe, 1878, the act was passed\nallowing the subcontractor to put his subcontract on file. Now, that\ncontract ought to provide for all the contingencies of the service, so\nthat if the trips were increased the Government would know how much to\npay that subcontractor; so that if the time was expedited the Government\nwould know how much to pay the subcontractor. The subcontract ought to\nhave been made in that way, and it would be perfectly proper to make it\nin that way.\n\nI once went to see a friend of mine who had the erysipelas and who was a\nlittle crazy. I sat down by his bedside, and he said, \"Ingersoll, I have\nmade a discovery; I just tell you I am going to be a millionaire.\" Said\nI, \"What is it?\" He says, \"I have found out that if four persons take\nhold of hands after they have had a hole made in the ground and put a\npiece of stove-pipe in it, and then run around it as hard as they can\nfrom left to right, a ball of butter will come out of the pipe.\" Now,\nI think that is about as reasonable as the way conspiracies are made,\naccording to Mr. Bliss.\n\nNow, we come to Mr. Boone (page 1560). He says that the action he had\ntaken was upon his own responsibility, and that at no time had any\npapers been gotten up with any view of defrauding the Government. That\nwas good.\n\nI am like the Democrat who said, after hearing the returns from Berks\nCounty, \"That sounds good.\" Then, here is a question asked him:\n\nQ. I understood you to say that the contract was made between you and\nsomebody, fixing your interest in all this business?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Do you recollect about the date of that?—A. I think it is on the day\nJohn W. Dorsey got here in Washington.\n\nOn page 1561 he swears that at the time Boone made that contract with\nJohn W. Dorsey he and Dorsey had not conspired to defraud the Government\nin any way, nor did they ever do so after that contract was made. When\nwas that contract made? It was made on the 15th day of January, 1878.\nWho made it? John W. Dorsey of the one part, and Albert E. Boone of the\nother. And they tell exactly what that contract was for. Here is the\ncontract, on page 1561, and this shows that the statement of Stephen W.\nDorsey, that the matter was deferred until John W Dorsey should come, is\nabsolutely correct:\n\nThat the parties to this agreement shall share in all the profits,\ngains, and losses as follows: John W. Dorsey shall have two-thirds and\nAlbert E. Boone, share one-third.\n\nNow, gentlemen, there was the original partnership agreement. Let us see\nif that was ever dissolved.\n\nThe next contract was made on the 12th of September, 1878.\n\nNow, therefore, in consideration of one dollar in hand paid, the receipt\nwhereof is hereby acknowledged, I hereby, sell, assign, and transfer\nto Albert E. Boone all my said two-thirds interest in the routes in the\nname of said Boone in the States of Texas, Louisiana Arkansas, Kansas,\nand Nebraska, and in the name of said Dorsey in the States of Texas,\nLouisiana, and Arkansas.\n\nThe reason he did that was because Mr. Miner had made a contract with\nBoone to that effect; and probably I had better read that now so that\nyou will have it exactly and know what we are doing. I read from page\n1569;\n\nWashington, D. C, August 7, 1878.\n\nWhereas A. E. Boone has this day, for the purpose of saving a failure\nin the routes in the name of John R. Miner, John M. Peck, and John\nW. Dorsey—\"For the purpose of saving a failure,\" recollect. Although\nStephen W. Dorsey, according to the prosecution, was a conspirator, and\nalthough John W. Dorsey was another, and Peck was another, yet on the\n7th day of August, 1878, \"for the purpose of saving a failure,\" they\nmade this: assigned to John R. Miner his one-third interest in the\nroutes in their names, now, therefore, I, John R. Miner, agree that John\nW. Dorsey shall assign his interest in routes in the name of A. E. Boone\nin Kansas and Nebraska, Texas and Louisiana, and Arkansas; in the name\nof John W. Dorsey, in Texas, Louisiana, and Kansas. The latter clause\nnot guaranteed.\n\nJohn R. Miner\n\nNow, he said to Mr. Boone, \"I have got to have another man come in; we\nhaven't got the money to run these routes; I have got to get somebody\nwith us; if you will go out, I will agree that John W. Dorsey will\nassign to you his two-thirds interest in all the routes in Kansas,\nNebraska, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. I will agree that John W.\nDorsey, although he has a two-thirds interest in all these routes, shall\nassign them to you, A. E. Boone, and they shall thereupon become your\nproperty.\" That agreement was made on the 7th of August, 1878; and then,\nas I read you before, on the 12th day of September, Miner made that\npromise good, and John W. Dorsey did assign to Boone his two-thirds\ninterest in all the routes that Miner said he would. Then Boone was out\nof it. He had no more to do with Miner, Peck & Co., and no more to do\nwith John W. Dorsey; he went his road and they went theirs. He went out\nin consideration that John W. Dorsey would give him (Boone) two-thirds\nof all the routes that he before that time had one-third in. Then Miner\ntook in Mr. Vaile, because he had the money to go on with the business.\n\nPage 1562, still talking about Mr. Boone. There is another very\nsuspicious circumstance that was brought up by the prosecution. These\nbids were put in in different names, and that was looked at as a very\nsuspicious circumstance. What does Boone say about that? He says\nthat the object in bidding in separate names was not to defraud the\nGovernment, but was to have the service divided up and not to bid\nagainst each other. That was reasonable. The arrangement was simply\nto keep from injuring themselves; it was not made to defraud the\nGovernment, but it was made so that they might not by accident injure\neach other. It was a common thing for members of a firm to bid in that\nway, and it is a common thing for persons to organize themselves for the\npurpose of bidding and running contracts, and when they thus bid they\nalways bid in their individual names. The fact that we bid in our\nindividual names was taken as a circumstance going to show that we had\nconspired to defraud the Government, and a witness they bring forward to\nprove that fact swears that it has been the custom for all firms to bid\nin their individual names. Away goes that suspicion. The coat-tail of\nthat point horizontalizes in the dim distance.\n\nPage 1563. The point was made, gentlemen, that we bid on long routes\nwith slow time, knowing—understand, knowing—that the service would be\nincreased and that the time would be shortened. The only word I object\nto there is the word \"knowing.\" That we bid on long routes with slow\ntime thinking that the service would be increased and the time shortened\nwas undoubtedly true. That we bid expecting that the service might be\nincreased and the time shortened is undoubtedly true. That when we\nbid we took into consideration the probability of the service being\nincreased and the time shortened is undoubtedly true. The only\ndifference is the difference between thinking and knowing; between\ntaking into account probabilities and making the bid because we had\nmade a bargain with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General. That is the\ndifference. Let us see what Boone says about it. I read from page 1563:\n\nOn all service of three times a week and under there is a chance for\nimprovement in getting it up to six or seven times a week.\n\nEverybody who has ordinary common sense knows that! If I bid on service\nfor once a week there is a great deal better chance for getting an\nincrease of trips than if there were seven when I started. Everybody\nknows that. There is about six times as good a chance.\n\nAll contractors consider that—That chance—in their bids, and bid\nlower on one, two, and three times a week service than on a daily\nservice—Why?—because the chances are the route will be increased.\n\nBoone swears on the same page that he always did that himself; that\nhe always had done it. Yet that is lugged in here as evidence of a\nconspiracy.\n\nThere is a great deal better chance for expedition when a route is let\nat two or three miles an hour, than when it is let at six or seven.\n\nOf course there is. The slower it is let the better chance of getting it\nexpedited. The faster it is let the less chance of getting it expedited.\nThere is no need of bringing a man here to show that. You know that. If\nyou thought there was more money in expedition and increase than on the\noriginal schedule, you would, as I insist, bid on such routes as the\nadvertisement showed the time was to be slow and the service infrequent\nupon. Now, gentlemen, to take advantage of such a perfectly apparent\nthing as that will not do. You have heard a good deal about star routes,\ngentlemen. Every one of you by this time ought to make a pretty good\nguess.\n\nPostmaster-General; every one of you. If you do not know all about this\nsubject, you never will.\n\nThe Foreman (Mr. Crane). We ought to be good lawyers, too.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You also ought to be good lawyers, at least on this\nsubject! I do not know that you have all the testimony in your minds, as\nthere have been so many misstatements made, but if you ever are to\nknow anything on this subject you know something now; and if you, Mr.\nForeman, or you Mr Renshaw, were to-morrow to go to work to bid on some\nstar routes you would bid on the longest routes, on the slowest time,\nand with the most infrequent trips. You would do that. Then would you\nsay, \"That is evidence that we have conspired\"? Has a man got to be so\nstupid that he will not take advantage of a perfectly plain thing in\norder to escape the charge of conspiracy? If you were to put your money\nin land in the Western country you would not go where the country was\nsettled up, and give one hundred dollars an acre for land. You would go\nwhere you could get laud for two, or three, or four, or five dollars\nan acre, and say, \"There is a chance for land to rise.\" That is not\nconspiracy. So if you were going to bid on mail service you would bid\nwhere the time is slow, or the route long, and the service once a week.\nThen you would say that the country might grow, that railroads might be\nbuilt and that they might get the service up to seven trips a week; and\nthat instead of going on two miles an hour may be they would want to\nmake it seven miles an hour. That is the service to make money on. Is\nit a crime to make money? Is it a crime to make a good bargain with the\nGovernment? I suppose these gentlemen of the prosecution made the best\nbargain they could with the Government themselves. Is it a crime? I\nsay no. Is a man to be regarded as a conspirator because some outsider\nthinks he got too good a bargain? That will not do. Boone says he always\ndid that. Of course he did. He says another thing. These gentlemen say\nthat we did not go above three trips, and that is another evidence of\nfraud. They say we did not bid on any route with more than three trips\na week. Mr. Boone tells you, on page 1565, that the department never\nadvertised for four trips a week. That is the reason I think they did\nnot bid on any of these. He also swears that they never advertised for\nfive trips. That is a good reason for our not taking any routes with\nfive trips, is it not? There were not any advertised. The Government did\nnot offer to let us have any. That is a good reason for not taking any\nof them. The Government had not any of that kind. After you get beyond\nthree trips Boone swears that the next number is six or seven; never\nfour, never five. Don't you see? And yet it is a very suspicious\ncircumstance that we did not bid on any four-trip routes, or any\nfive-trip routes; that we stopped at three. Why did we stop at three?\nBecause if we had not stopped at three we would have had to go to six.\nWhy did we not go to six? Because at six trips a week we would have\nbeen obliged to put up too much money, and to put up too many certified\nchecks. It required too many men to go on the bonds. That is the reason.\nGentlemen, if there had been a conspiracy it would have been just about\nas well for us to bid on six or seven trips to get the expedition of\ntime. If there had been a conspiracy to make money, and it had been\nunderstood by the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, he could have\njust as well given us routes with seven trips a week, and put the\nservice up to seven, eight, nine, or ten miles an hour, and he could\nhave done that in the thickly-populated parts of the country; if it had\nbeen the result of a conspiracy.\n\nLet me read more from what Mr. Boone says on page 1565:\n\nThe proposals that I destroyed were upon routes of at least six times\nper week.\n\nHow did he come to destroy them? Another suspicious circumstance against\nDorsey! Boone said when he went into the business he just took the\nbidding-book and commenced at A, and was going right straight through to\nX, Y, and Z, and make a bid, I believe, on every route that was in the\nbook. I think that is his testimony. Boone says:\n\nI was going on without instructions. I was going on without authority\nfrom anybody, working on the bids.\n\nHe thinks it was the same day that Miner got here, or the day\nafterwards, and he—I suppose meaning Dorsey—came up to the room and\nsaw what the witness was doing. He was making up bids for every route\nin the advertisement, going right along with big and little, when Dorsey\nsaid there was a mistake. No proposals were to be made for over three\ntimes a week or for routes under fifty miles. When Miner came into the\nroom witness asked what was the reason of that. I say upon this point\nthat Stephen W. Dorsey never said a word about it, and that Boone is\nmistaken. But he says he asked Miner the reason. What did Miner say?\nDid he say to him, \"It is because we have got a conspiracy? We have\ngot it fixed with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General\"? No. He said\nthis, he said for fear of failure in getting bonds; that they could not\nget the bonds for all the service and could not get certified checks for\nall the service. Boone was going clear through the book from preface to\nfinis. They could not get bonds for all the service and could not get\ncertified checks for all the service. You remember that for all the\nservice over five thousand dollars they had to put up five per cent., I\nthink, in certified checks. Now, there was an immense volume, of three\nor four thousand routes and he was going to put in a bid on every one\nof them. That is what Boone was going to do. He did not understand the\nconspiracy at that time. Miner explained to him, \"We cannot get the\ncertified checks. We cannot get the bondsmen.\" He did not tell him,\n\"Good Lord, my friend, you don't understand the terms of the conspiracy.\nWe are taking no such service as that. We are taking none over three\ntimes a week, because, don't you see, we want the chance for increase.\nWe want the lowest. If we can find any service where the horses agree to\nstand still, that is the service to take. You must look over the terms\nof the conspiracy and have some sense about it.\"\n\nBoone says he was starting in, taking the advertisements, going right\nthrough the territory, all over that country, and bidding on every\nroute, not missing one. He never saw Stephen W. Dorsey do any work\non the bids. The proposals sent down to the postmasters in Arkansas,\nincluding those to Clendenning, he (Boone) fixed himself and sealed\nthem. Gentlemen, there is no evidence that Mr. Dorsey, as I understand\nit, ever saw one of those papers, but simply the form that was written\nout by Boone that was sent to Clendenning with instructions what to do\nwith the proposals. That I understand to be the evidence. They proved by\nBoone that Dorsey never saw them; never wrote them; never ordered them\nto be written; never ordered a blank to be left unfilled. And\nyet, gentlemen, he was the man whom they say had brooded over this\nconspiracy; the man that gave to it life and form. He is the man that\nused Boone and John W. Dorsey and Peck and Miner as instrumentalities\nand tools.\n\nWhat more? Did Boone take those bonds up to Dorsey and show them to him?\nHe says that he did not open them; that he did not show them to Dorsey.\nThat is what Mr. Boone swears. Surely Mr. Boone is an honorable man,\nstamped with the seal of the Department of Justice. He did not even show\nthem to Dorsey. Dorsey never saw anything except the form after Boone\nhad made it out. I showed you that form on yesterday, I think, marked 16\nX. That is the only thing that Dorsey saw. He did not know what blanks\nwere left in the bonds, or whether any were left. He never gave any\norders about them, and never saw them. Yet the prosecution want you to\nhold him responsible as a conspirator for those bonds.\n\nWhat more, gentlemen? Those bonds were never used. Nobody was ever\ndefrauded. Not a proposal was put in the Post-Office Department. They\nnever came to life. Dead! No contract, says Mr. Boone, was ever awarded\non those proposals, even the proposals sent back, unless it was a\ncontract to him, Boone. That is what he swears. And yet Dorsey is to be\nheld responsible.\n\nLet us hurry along, gentlemen. See how Dorsey came to do this. How did\nthat arch-conspirator, as they claim him to be, happen to write that\nletter to Clendenning? On page 1567 Boone says that he suggested to\nDorsey that he had better send a note with the proposals to Clendenning.\nBoone suggested it. He was not a conspirator, but he suggested it.\nDorsey was the conspirator, but never dreamed of it. How fortunate for a\nconspirator to have an innocent man think of the means of carrying out\na conspiracy; never thinking of crime, but having it all suggested by\nperfect innocence and then crime taking advantage of it. That is the\nposition! He suggested that Dorsey would better send a note with the\nproposals to Clendenning. I will read from page 1568:\n\nQ. Was there not danger that he would be declared a failing contractor?\nWas it at that time the practice of the department if a man, for\ninstance, had fifty contracts and failed on one to declare him a failing\ncontractor on all?—A. No, sir; but they would declare him a failing\ncontractor on that one route and suspend his pay until he paid up the\nloss to the Government—just my case now, exactly.\n\nQ. That was one of the reasons that you had. Now, you were informed at\nthat time that they had not the money to carry this on.\n\nWhen, as a matter of fact, did you go out of the concern?—A. The 8th\nday of August, 1878.\n\nQ. Was S. W. Dorsey then in Washington?—A. No, sir; he was not. He had\nbeen gone ten or twelve days.\n\nNow, then, we come to August 7, 1878, the time that Mr. Boone went out.\nHe did it for the purpose of saving a failure on the routes in the names\nof Miner, Peck, Dorsey, and himself. That is what he went out for, and\nthat is his only reason. On page 1570 Mr. Boone swears that so far as he\nknows neither John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner, John M. Peck, nor\nStephen W. Dorsey had any arrangement with the Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General to increase the service; none whatever.\n\nBoone went out on the 7th day of August, 1878. S. W. Dorsey was in New\nMexico. He did not return here until about the time Congress assembled\nin December. Boone swears that he then learned from S. W. Dorsey that\nhe, Dorsey, did not know that Boone was out of the concern; did not\nknow that he had left on the 7th day of August, 1878. Now, gentlemen, if\nStephen W. Dorsey was the main conspirator, if he was doing this entire\nbusiness, is it possible that A. E. Boone went out on the 7th day of\nAugust, that John W. Dorsey assigned his interest in all the routes\nmentioned in the agreement, and John R. Miner took in Vaile, and the\nservice was put on those routes by the money furnished by Vaile, that\nall that was done and yet Stephen W. Dorsey never heard of it and did\nnot even know that Boone was out, did not even know that Vaile was in?\nBesides that, gentlemen, as I told you, Dorsey was not here. He was in\nNew Mexico. He was in utter ignorance of this entire business, and yet\nthey claim that he was the directing spirit.\n\nMr. Boone further testifies, on page 1571, that Brady showed him a\ntelegram from the postmistress at The Dalles, saying that the service\nwas down. When I read that I thought may be that was where Moore got his\nhint to swear that he telegraphed to find out what was done with that\nservice. Boone further swears that Brady said that it must be put on;\nthat he said it could not be put on at the contract price, and that\nBrady told him, \"I advise you to telegraph and put it on at any price,\"\nand that unless all the service was on by the 15th day of August he\nwould declare the contractor a failing contractor on every route the\nservice was down upon. That is what Brady told him. Stephen W. Dorsey\nwas not here. According to the testimony of Moore he knew when he went\naway that the service in Oregon was not put on, but he abandoned it, and\npaid no attention to it. He happened to meet Miner at Saint Louis, and\ntold him, I believe, \"There are my notes for eight thousand five hundred\ndollars. That is all I will do. I am through! I have already advanced\nthirteen or fourteen thousand dollars. I will not advance another\ndollar.\" Why did not Miner tell him, \"If you are not going on with this\nconspiracy I am going home\"? Why didn't Miner tell him then, \"What did\nyou get up a conspiracy like this for, just to abandon it\"? Why did\nnot Miner say to him, \"This is your child. I became a criminal at your\nsuggestion. I entered into this conspiracy because you urged me to, and\nnow after we have got the routes, you are going to abandon it\"? Why did\nhe not say to him, \"Dorsey, if you are not going on with this conspiracy\nI am going back to Sandusky\"? Did Dorsey at Saint Louis treat it as his\nbantling? or did he say to Miner, \"This is all I will do\"? Did he mean\nfor himself? No. \"All I will do for you.\"\n\nCertainly he would not have made the threat to Miner that he would not\ndo anything more for himself. He then said to Miner, \"I am through!\"\nMiner knew at that time that Stephen W. Dorsey had not the interest of\none solitary dollar except the money he had advanced. Stephen W. Dorsey,\naccording to the testimony of this prosecution, knew when he left this\ncity that the routes were not in operation in Eastern Oregon. He went\naway knowing that J. W. Dorsey and John R. Miner and John M. Peck were\nin danger of being declared failing contractors. Yet he never even\ncalled on Brady to see about it. He never asked to have the time\nextended a minute. He never took the least interest in the business. He\nstarted for New Mexico, and went by way of Oberlin, Ohio. He happened\nto meet Miner in Saint Louis, and for Miner's sake, for Peck's sake, for\nJohn W. Dorsey's sake, and not for his own sake, he gave them some notes\nto the extent of eight thousand five hundred dollars that they could\nhave discounted, and said to Miner then and there. \"That is the last\ndollar. That is the last cent.\" What more did he do? He abandoned the\nwhole business. He went to New Mexico. He never wrote about it; he never\nspoke about it; he never received a dispatch concerning it until the\nfollowing December, when he came back to Washington, and then for the\nfirst time found that Boone had gone out and that Vaile had come in.\nWhat more? Although he was interested to the extent of thirteen or\nfourteen thousand dollars, he did not know until he came back in\nDecember that his security had been rendered worthless. He found that\nout then for the first time. That is a fine model of a conspirator.\nReading again from Boone's testimony, on page 1371:\n\nFully a month and a half of the time had been taken up by the\nCongressional investigation, and we—That is to say, Miner, Peck, Boone,\nand the rest—did not know what to do with the service. We dared not to\nmove. We expected that the contracts would be taken from us.\n\nDo you tell me that under such circumstances, if Stephen W. Dorsey had\nconceived this thing, he would have gone off and left it? Do you tell\nme, with the entire business trembling in the balance, without the money\nto put the service on, at the mercy of Thomas J. Brady, that if Stephen\nW. Dorsey had gotten up that conspiracy, and also put in thirteen or\nfourteen thousand dollars, he would have gone away and left it, and told\nMiner and the others, \"I will have no more to do with it,\" and leave it\nso effectually and so perfectly that he did not even know that Boone\nhad gone out and Vaile had come in until the following December, when he\ncame here to take his seat in the Senate?\n\nOn page 1580, again quoting from Mr. Boone:\n\nThe fact—Here is something that rises like the Rock of Gibraltar. It\nis one of those indications of truth that rascality never had ingenuity\nenough to invent:\n\nThe fact that Dorsey refused to advance any more money on account of\nthis business was taken into consideration by me when I made up my mind\nto go out.\n\nDo you want any better testimony than that, that Dorsey did refuse to\nadvance any more money?\n\nDon't you see how everything fits together when you get at the facts?\nHow naturally they all blend and harmonize when you get at the facts.\nNow, here is some more from Mr. Boone:\n\nIf I had not gone out the service would have undoubtedly failed, unless\nthey got the money to put it on. When Mr. Dorsey declined to furnish any\nmore money or to indorse any more notes, there was nothing else to do\nbut for me to go out and let somebody else come in who had the money.\n\nThat is a witness for the Government, and yet at the time that happened\nthey say there was a great conspiracy; that the Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General was in it; that a Senator of the United States was\nin it; and that these other men were simply tools. It will not do,\ngentlemen. If that had been the case Stephen W. Dorsey would have\nremained here. He would have gone to Mr. Brady and said, \"I must have\ntime,\" and Mr. Brady would have given him all the time he desired,\nbecause, according to this prosecution, it was their partnership\nbusiness. Brady had ten times as great an interest as Stephen W. Dorsey.\nAccording to the testimony of Mr. Rerdell, Brady had an interest of\nthirty-three and one-third per cent., and according to the testimony of\nRerdell and Boone, Dorsey only had an interest of seven-eighths of one\nper cent.\n\nThat means, as I understand it, according to their testimony,\nthirty-three and one-third per cent, of the gross expedition; not\nprofits, but of the gross expedition. That is what they swear. When\nhe gave on a route an expedition of, say, six thousand dollars,\ntwo thousand dollars would go to Brady each year. In other words,\nthirty-three and one-third per cent, of the money paid for expedition\nwent to Brady.\n\nMr. Walsh testified and gave the exact figures, and called the amount,\nif the Court will recollect, sixty thousand dollars, and twenty per\ncent, he said of that is twelve thousand dollars. That had to run, he\nsays, for three years, and that made thirty-six thousand dollars. That\nis the testimony in this case, gentlemen. If you should have a row of\nmen as long as the row of kings that Banquo saw, stretching out \"to\nthe crack of doom,\" and they should swear to it, I should still die an\nunbeliever; but that is their testimony. Dorsey ran away and left his\nconspiracy and Brady would not attend to his own business. Now, I read\nagain from Boone:\n\nWith regard to the preparation of circulars, the sending of them to\npostmasters, the printing of proposals, the printing of bonds and\nsubcontracts, there was nothing done differently from what I had always\ndone before.\n\nRecollect that. He is a Government witness. Dorsey in a conspiracy got\nBoone to help him, and in helping him Boone did nothing different from\nwhat he had always done before. There is not much left of this case,\ngentlemen, but I will keep going on just the same. Mr. Boone swears that\nhe followed the regular custom and practice of doing business.\n\nThen, there is another suspicious circumstance. At the bottom of the\ncontracts published by the Government, for the purpose of informing\ncontractors as to how the bonds or contracts are to be signed,\nand exactly what is to be done by each person, there are a lot of\ninstructions.\n\nMr. Carpenter. On the proposals.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. On the proposals. When they got up the proposals of their\nown, they, understanding the business, left off all those directions\nthat the Government put upon its forms. Why? Those directions were put\nthere for the benefit of men who did not understand the business. These\nmen did understand the business, and consequently it was nonsense for\nthem if they had to have the printing done, to put on the bottom of\nthe contracts two or three paragraphs of directions to themselves. They\nunderstood exactly how to do it without the directions.\n\nWho left them off? Stephen W. Dorsey? No. John W. Dorsey? No. He had\nnothing to do with it. Miner? No. He had nothing to do with it. Who left\nthem off? Boone says he did. Was he instructed to do it? No. Did it take\na conspiracy to leave them off? No. He left them off for two reasons,\nand good ones, too. One was to save the expense of printing. That was\na good reason. There was no conspiracy needed for that. The other was,\nthat knowing how to perfect the proposals, and understanding all\nthose instructions, there was no need of having them printed for their\nbenefit.\n\nNext, on page 1582. What instructions as a matter of fact did Mr. Boone\nreceive from Mr. Dorsey, if he received any? The question arises, upon\nwhat subject? In reference to what particular point? Boone says on this\npage that he received no instructions from Dorsey in reference to the\nbusiness except in regard to the subcontract blanks.\n\nThat is the one subject on which he received any instructions from S. W.\nDorsey. I have shown you that those instructions were in the interests\nof honesty and fair dealing. Those were the only instructions he\nreceived. On every other subject there is not a word. Why? Here Boone\ngives the reason. \"I did not require any.\" Why? Because he understood\nthe business himself. What else? \"I was to go ahead and do whatever was\nnecessary to be done.\" He did it without consulting anybody. He did it\nin his own way. He did it as he thought best for all concerned. Now,\ngentlemen, there will be an effort made to convince you that Stephen W.\nDorsey did everything during all that period. If you are told that, when\nyou are told it remember what I tell you now: that Mr. Boone swears that\nhe did it himself; that he attended to the entire business, and that he\nwas instructed by Dorsey in no particular except as to that one blank,\nand that I have clearly demonstrated was in the interests of honesty\nand in the interests of the subcontractor, so that the subcontract might\nagree with or be similar to the contract made with the Government. That\nis all.\n\nNow we come to another point. You must recollect that Mr. Boone got out\nthe circulars. Mr. Boone sent to all the postmasters to know about the\nroads and the price of grain and the price of labor, about the snow in\nwinter and the rain in the spring. He got all that up. He went through\nthe bidding-book originally and made the bids. He it was who prepared\nmost of these proposals. He did all the work until Miner came. S.\nW. Dorsey did not do any of it. Boone never saw him working upon or\ntouching the proposals. What S. W. Dorsey did he did at Boone's request.\nWhat he did he did at Miner's request. What he did he did simply because\nhe was a friend. Boone attended to it all. Now, what does Boone say\non page 1584? He swears that so far as he knew there never was any\nconspiracy on the part of these defendants with him, with each other,\nor anybody else, in reference to these routes, or any route bid for and\nawarded to them during that time. There was no conspiracy to defraud the\nGovernment in any way. That is what the Government witness swears to—a\nman brought here to stain the reputation of Stephen W. Dorsey. That\nis what a Government witness swears; swearing, too, under pressure;\nswearing, too, under circumstances where the Post-Office Department\ncould strip him of everything he had on earth; swearing under\ncircumstances where if he did not please the Government they could\npursue him as they have pursued us. Perhaps I had better read what he\nsays. I read from page 1583 of my examination:\n\nNow, then, so far as you know, Mr. Boone, was there any conspiracy on\nthe part of any of these defendants with you, or with anybody else, to\nyour knowledge, in respect of these routes mentioned in the indictment\nor of any routes bid for and awarded to them during that time—any\nconspiracy to defraud the Government in any way?\n\nAnd he answered:\n\nNo, sir.\n\nThat was a Government witness, acquainted with all the transactions\nduring that time. He was swearing under the shadow of power, with the\nsword hanging over his head, and yet he swears he never knew or heard of\nany such thing.\n\nLet us go on. On page 1589 he swears that Mr. Dorsey told him to fix the\nblanks and make them up and to write what he wanted done in Arkansas,\nand that while he, Boone, was engaged in so doing he said to Dorsey,\n\"Had you not better write a note so that I can attach it to the\nblanks?\" And Dorsey did so. Dorsey told him to fill up what he wanted in\nArkansas, and what was necessary to be executed there, and he did so.\n\nBoone indicated exactly what he wanted put in. I showed you the\nClendenning bonds yesterday and showed you just what Boone did. He\nfilled up the blanks that he wanted to have filled down there.\nOf course, the blanks that were already filled in he did not want\ninterfered with. That is what he says. There is another part of his\ntestimony. I want to call the attention of the gentlemen to it. \"I hand\nyou,\" said they, \"32 X.\" Mr. Bliss did the handing. What was that? That\nwas the Chico letter. What did they want to introduce that for? To show\nthat S. W. Dorsey was interested personally in these routes in 1878.\nThat was a magnificent piece of testimony for them to show that Dorsey\nin 1878 was writing to Rerdell to watch the advertisement of these\nroutes. So they introduced that letter. Mr. Boone looked at it. He was\na Government witness. The noose was around his neck and the other end\nof the rope was in the hands of Mr. Bliss. What did Mr. Boone say? \"Mr.\nDorsey never wrote that letter.\" Then said Mr. Bliss to him, \"That is\nnot Mr. Dorsey's writing?\" And Mr. Boone said \"No, sir.\" And at the same\ntime threw the forged scrap away contemptuously. What else? On April 3,\n1878, Mr. Dorsey was here.\n\nMr. Merrick. Was Mr Dorsey here at that time?\n\nWitness. He was here, sir; and I was in communication with him on that\nvery day.\n\nThat is the evidence of a Government witness; a man who was depended\nupon to show that not only my client, but that Mr. Miner entered into a\nconspiracy in the fall of 1877 to defraud this Government. I want you\nto remember one thing which I was about to forget. Mr. Ker, I believe,\nspoke six or seven days and I do not remember of his having mentioned\nthe Chico letter. He acted as if it had a contagious disease. He was\nfollowed by Mr. Bliss in another week, but he did not mention the Chico\nletter; at least I have never happened to read it in his speech. Both\nof them are as dumb as oysters after a clap of thunder. Not a word. They\ndid not, either of them, have the courage to refer to it. They did\nnot have the nerve to ask you to believe it. I tell you one thing,\ngentlemen, I would either admit that it was a forgery, or I would swear\nthat it was genuine. I would do something with it. I would not allow\nthat paper, blown by the wind, to scare me from the highway of the\nargument! I would do one thing or the other. I would either admit that\nMr. Rerdell forged it, or I would insist that it was the handwriting of\nStephen W. Dorsey. Why was it left where it was, gentlemen? They could\nnot get anybody to swear that it was Dorsey's handwriting. That is all.\n\nNow we will take the next step. They had so much confidence in that\nwitness that they concluded they would prove the pencil memorandum\nby him. They had such a clutch on him. So they stuck that up to\nhim. Recollecting the position he was in, recollecting the danger,\nrecollecting all that might probably follow speaking the truth, here is\nwhat he says:\n\nEverything above \"profit and loss\" in that memorandum favors the\nhandwriting of S. W. Dorsey.\n\nWhat else?\n\nAnd everything below favors the handwriting of M. C. Rerdell.\n\nFit conclusion for a Government witness, brought here to show that\nStephen W. Dorsey was the arch-conspirator. And they ended the witness;\ndismissed him from the stand, after he had shown that Dorsey did not\nconspire; after he had shown that he himself fixed the subcontracts,\nwith the exception of only one; after he had shown that he himself\nfilled out the blanks to send to Clendenning; after he had shown that he\ndid everything without being advised by S. W. Dorsey, and then he swore\nthat their principal witness was a forger. Then they dismissed him.\nThat was the end of the Government witness who was to brand the word\n\"conspirator\" upon the forehead of Stephen W. Dorsey's reputation. But\ninstead of putting \"conspirator\" there, he put the word \"forger\" upon\nthe principal witness for the Government. Magnificent exchange! Now,\ngentlemen, you know as well as I do that Mr. Boone knew all that was\nhappening during that entire time. You know as well as I do that he did\nnot swear anything for the defence that he could help swearing.\n\nWhat else? Mr. Bliss, on page 303, says that:\n\nParties conspiring make an informal verbal agreement.\n\nWhen did we make that agreement? When does the testimony show that we\nmade an informal verbal agreement? Who were present at the time? Where\nwere we? Do you recollect the number of the house? Do you recollect the\nday of the month? Has any one of you ever had in his mind which side of\nthe street that was on? What town was it in? Could you locate it if you\nhad a good map? I do not care whether it is informal or formal. Did\nwe make one? In order to make a verbal agreement you have to use some\nwords. Is there any evidence as to the words we used? Not a word that I\nhave heard, not a word.\n\nWhat else? He says that this is necessarily secret and intended to be\nsecret. The first thing done was that Dorsey told it to Moore. Then,\nfor fear it would get out, J. W. Dorsey told it to Pennell and to thirty\nfellows around the camp-fire out in Dakota. And there was a suspicion in\nBrady's mind that somebody might hear of it, and so he told Rerdell. He\nsays, \"Get the books copied; this is a secret thing.\" Then Dorsey wrote\nit to Bosler, and he was so awfully afraid that it would get out that\nhe kept a copy of the letter. You see, Mr. Bliss says the object was\nto keep it secret. Then Miner and Vaile told it to Rerdell for fear\nhe would not believe it when Brady told him. They were bound the thing\nshould not get out. Yes, sir. And then Rerdell, just bursting with the\nimportance of keeping that secret, told it to Perkins and Taylor; went\naway out there for that purpose. And then Moore, he gave it away to\nMajor and McBean for the purpose of keeping it secret. Then Miner told\nMoore. From whom did they keep it secret? Nobody in God's world but\nBoone. He is the only fellow that nobody told. Boone went through it\nall, saw all the plan and heard all the whispering, and he is the only\nman in the country, I think, that did not suspect it. And on the 7th day\nof August he left the concern because there was not a conspiracy, and\nadmits to you that if he had had even a suspicion of it he would have\nstaid—staid or died.\n\nNow, was there ever a conspiracy published so widely, that one end of\nthe country kept so secret from the other? Was there ever a conspiracy\nlike that, the news of which ran through the West like wild-fire, while\nthe fellows at the East never heard of it? Everybody knew it out on the\nplains. All you had to do was to subpoena a fellow that wanted to come\nto Washington, and he would remember it. And yet that is the evidence\nthat the prosecution desires you to believe. I do not believe it. I do\nnot think I ever shall. But then they promised so much at the beginning,\nand they have done so little in many respects.\n\nSomething had to be said, and so Mr. Bliss, on page 265, in a little\nburst of confidence to the jury, says:\n\nAt least one United States Senator was the paid agent of these\ndefendants.\n\nWho was the Senator?\n\nMr. Bliss. Did I say that, sir?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Look at page 265 and see whether you did.\n\nMr. Bliss. Read all that I said there.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will do that.\n\nBut we shall show to you that at least one United States Senator, urging\nsuch increase, was the paid agent of these defendants.\n\nMr. Bliss. I then went on and said we should show it if you put him on\nthe stand.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes, if we furnished you the evidence.\n\nMr. Bliss. No, sir; that is not what I said.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Why didn't you produce the Senator?\n\nMr. Bliss. Why didn't you put him on the stand?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. How did I know what Senator you meant?\n\nMr. Bliss. Did you have two?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. No, sir; and we did not have the one. If you could have\nproved it, it was your duty, as the attorney of the United States, to do\nit, and if you did not do it, you did not do your duty in this case.\n\nMr. Bliss. Whose name is expressed in the memorandum?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Why did you not say that to the jury? You dared not do\nit. That is like what was said here the other day before this jury, and\ntaken out of the record. We will come to it. These are the gentlemen who\ndid not wish to stain the names of citizens. These are the gentlemen who\ndid not wish to bring anybody into this case that had not been indicted.\nAnd yet Mr. Bliss, in his opening, said that he would show you at least\none Senator who was the paid agent of these defendants; and now, having\nfailed to do it, he stands here before you and asks whose name was on\nthe pencil memorandum, meaning that J. H. Mitchell was the paid agent of\nthese defendants.\n\nAh, gentlemen, I would not, for the sake of convicting any man on this\nearth, stain the reputation of another in a place and in a way where\nthat other could not defend himself. I would not do it. I do not think\nthere is any crime beyond that. It is as bad to stab the reputation as\nit is to stab the flesh; it is as bad to kill the honor of the man as to\nput a dagger into his heart.\n\nThere are so many things in these papers that I would never get through,\nif I commented upon them all, if I talked forty years. I now refer to\npage 4509. I have to change from one of these lawyers to the other. Now,\non this subject of subcontracts, showing how we are endeavoring to cheat\nand defraud the Government, Mr. Ker says, at page 4509:\n\nActing upon Stephen W. Dorsey's advice he put in this clause giving\nthe subcontractors sixty-five per cent, of the increase. I want you\nto remember the sixty-five per cent., because I will show you some\nsubcontracts with that amount in, but I do not want you to think for one\nmoment that the subcontractors ever got a dollar out of it.\n\nGentlemen, the evidence is that the subcontractors were paid the amount\nmentioned in their subcontracts. I believe all of them are on file in\nthis case, and on all that were filed in the department the money was\npaid directly to the subcontractor. And yet Mr. Ker tells you that he\ndoes not want you to think for a moment that the subcontractors ever\ngot one dollar out of it. Is it possible, gentlemen, that there is any\nnecessity for resorting to such statements? Can you conceive of any\nreason for doing it, except that they are actually mistaken, except\nfor the fact that they know they have not the evidence to convict these\ndefendants?\n\nWe are not begging of you. We are not upon our knees before you. But we\ndo want to be tried according to the evidence and according to the law.\nWe do not want your mind, nor yours, nor yours [addressing different\njurors] poisoned with a misstatement. We want to be tried, and we want\nthe verdict rendered by you when every fact is as luminous in your mind\nas the sun at mid-day. We want every fact to stand out like stars in a\nperfect night, without a cloud of doubt between you and the fact. That\nis the kind of a verdict we want. We want a verdict that comes from\na clear head and a brave heart. We do not want a verdict simply from\nsympathy. We want a verdict according to the evidence and according to\nthe law. And when the verdict is given we want every one of you to say,\n\"That is my verdict; I found it upon the evidence and upon the law;\ndig beneath it and you will not find used as the corner-stone a\nmisstatement, or a mistake, or a falsehood; it stands upon the rock of\nfact, upon the foundation of absolute truth.\"\n\nDo you know that if I were prosecuting a man, trying to take from\nhim his liberty, trying to take from him his home, trying to rob his\nfireside and make it desolate, and if I should succeed and afterwards\nknow that I had made a misstatement of the evidence to the jury, I could\nnot sleep until I had done what was in my power to release that man; and\nafter he was released, or even if he were not released, I would go to\nhim when he was wearing the prison garb, and I would get down on\nmy knees and beg him to forgive me. I would rather be sent to the\npenitentiary myself, I would rather wear the stripes of eternal\ndegradation, than to send another man there by a misstatement or a\nmistake that I had made. That is my feeling. I may be wrong.\n\nIt may be that I am guilty, according to Colonel Bliss, of sneering at\neverything that people hold sacred. But I do not sneer at justice. I\nbelieve that over all, justice sits the eternal queen, holding in her\nhand the scales in which are weighed the deeds of men. I believe that\nit is my duty to make the world a little better, because I have lived in\nit. I believe in helping my fellow-men. I do no not sneer at charity; I\ndo not sneer at justice, and I do not sneer at liberty. And why did he\nmake that remark to you, gentlemen? Is it possible that for a moment\nhe dreamed that he might prejudice your minds against the case of my\nclient, because, I, his attorney, am not what is called a believer?\nIs it possible that he has so mean an opinion of a Christian that a\nChristian would violate his oath when upon the jury, simply to get\neven with a lawyer who happened to be an infidel? Is that his idea of\nChristianity? It is not mine; it is not mine. I stand before you to-day,\ngentlemen, as a man having the rights you have, and no more; and I\nam willing to work and toil and suffer to give you every right that\nI enjoy. And I know that not one of you will allow himself to be\nprejudiced against my client because you and I happen to disagree upon\nsubjects about which none of us know anything for certain. I do not\nbelieve you will. And yet, that remark was made, gentlemen—I will not\nsay that it was made, but may be it was—hoping that it would lodge the\nseed of prejudice in your minds, hoping that it might bring to life that\nlittle adder of hatred that sleeps unknown to us in nearly all of our\nbosoms. I have too much confidence in you, too much confidence in human\nnature to believe that can affect my client.\n\nNow, gentlemen, there is no pretence, there is no evidence that every\nsubcontractor did not get the per cent, mentioned in his subcontract,\nexcept one, and that was Mr. French, on the route from Kearney to Kent;\nand the evidence there is that Miner settled with him, I believe, and\ngave him a certain amount of money in lieu of expedition. That is the\nsolitary exception.\n\nNow, gentlemen, I come to a most interesting part of this discussion,\nand I hope we will live through it. In the first place, what is a\nconspiracy? Well, in this case, they must establish that it was an\nagreement entered into between the persons mentioned in this indictment,\nor two of them, to defraud the Government. How? By the means pointed\nout and described in the indictment. While it may not be absolutely\nnecessary to describe the means, I hold that if they do describe them,\ntell how the conspiracy was to be accomplished, they are bound by their\ndescription; they must prove such a conspiracy as they describe. If\na man is indicted for stealing a horse and the color of the horse\nis given, it will not do to prove a horse of another color. If they\ndescribe the offence they are bound by the description.\n\nNow, this is a conspiracy entered into, as they claim, by the persons\nmentioned in the indictment, to do a certain thing. What is the object\nof the conspiracy? To defraud the Government. And, gentlemen, I believe\nthe Court will instruct you that the conspiring is the crime. The object\nof the conspiracy is to defraud the United States. What are the means?\nAccording to this indictment false petitions, false oaths, false\nletters, false orders. What I insist on is that the means cannot take\nthe place of the object; that the means cannot take the place of the\nconspiracy described. When you describe a conspiracy by certain means\nto defraud the Government, and set out the means so that the Second\nAssistant Postmaster-General is a necessity, then you cannot turn and\nshift your ground, and say that it was not the conspiracy set out in\nthe indictment, but that it was a conspiracy to do some of the things\nrecited as means in the indictment; you cannot say that it was not a\nconspiracy entered into with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General,\nbut was a conspiracy entered into with some others to make a false\npetition or a false affidavit. The ostrich of this prosecution will not\nbe allowed to hide its head under the leaf of an affidavit. They\nmust prove, in my judgment, the conspiracy that they describe in the\nindictment, and none other.\n\nNow, what else? You must be prepared, gentlemen, when you make up a\nverdict, if you say that there was a conspiracy, to say when it was\nentered into and who entered into it. And I suppose when you retire, the\nfirst question for you to decide will be: Was there a conspiracy? Has\nany conspiracy been established beyond a reasonable doubt? If you say\nyes, then the next question for you to decide is, who conspired? Who\nwere the members of that conspiracy?\n\nAfter you do that there is one other thing you have to do: You have\nto find that one of the conspirators, for the purpose of carrying the\nconspiracy into effect, did something; that is called an overt act.\nYou have to find, that at least one of them did something to effect the\nobject of that conspiracy. You must remember, gentlemen, that the overt\nact must come after the conspiracy. In other words, you cannot commit an\novert act and make a conspiracy to fit it; you must have the conspiracy\nfirst, and then do an overt act for the purpose of accomplishing the\nobject of that conspiracy. The conspiracy must come first, and the overt\nact afterwards. You all understand that now.\n\nNow, this indictment is so framed that the earliest time within the life\nof the statute of limitations for an overt act is the 23d day of May,\n1879. Why? The indictment charges that as the day, the conspiracy was\nentered into. Any overt act in consequence of that conspiracy must have\nbeen done after the 23d of May, 1879. Now, get that in your heads, level\nand square. The conspiracy, according to this, is not back of the 23d\nof May, 1879, and any overt act done, in order to be considered an overt\nact, must be done after the date of that conspiracy. If they prove\nany act done before that time, it shows that it was not an overt act\nbelonging to the conspiracy mentioned in the indictment. If it is an\novert act at all, it is an overt act of another conspiracy entered into\nbefore the date mentioned in this indictment, and consequently will\nnot do for an overt act in this case. Now, I want you all to understand\nthat.\n\nI forget how many overt acts are charged in this indictment; some sixty\nor seventy, I think. And understand me, now, gentlemen, no matter what\ndate they fix to an overt act in the indictment, no matter whether there\nis any date to it or not in the indictment, if it turns out to have been\ndone before the time fixed for the conspiracy it is dead as an\novert act: it is good for nothing. The overt act is the fruit of the\nconspiracy; the conspiracy is not the result of the overt act. Now let\nme make a statement to you, so that you will understand it.\n\nEvery petition, every letter, every affidavit, upon which orders for\nexpedition were based, was filed before the 23d of May, 1879, except on\ntwo routes—Toquerville to Adair-ville and Eugene City to Bridge Creek.\nIf that is true, then not a solitary petition filed in this case can\nbe considered as an overt act; and a conspiracy without an overt act is\nnothing; it simply exists in the imagination; it is an agreement made\nof words and air, and never was vitalized with an act done by one of the\nconspirators for the purpose of giving it effect. Recollect that every\npetition, every affidavit, every letter filed, was filed before the 23d\nday of May, with the two exceptions I have mentioned. That is the date\nwhen the conspiracy came into being. And consequently an overt act must\nbe after that time.\n\nNow,'when they came to write this indictment, why did they not tell the\ntruth in it? I do not mean that in an offensive sense, because a man has\nthe right to write in that indictment what he wants to. That is a matter\nof pleading. But why did they not tell the facts? Why did they put in\nthe indictment that a certain petition was filed on the 26th day of\nJune, when they had the petition before them and knew that it was filed\nin April, 1879? Why did they put in that indictment that a certain\naffidavit was filed on the 26th or 27th of May, I think it was, when\nthey knew that it was filed in April or March? Why? Because if they had\nput that in the indictment the indictment would have been quashed, so\nfar as their overt acts were concerned. The Court would have said, \"I\ncannot allow you to put on paper that a man entered into a conspiracy on\nthe 23d of May, and then did an act to carry that conspiracy into effect\nin April before that time. I cannot allow you to do that, because that\nis infinitely absurd, and pleadings have to be reasonable on their\nface.\" But you see they stated that this was done after the conspiracy.\nThey had to do it or they would be gone. I believe there is no dispute\nabout this law that if they describe the overt act—and they must\ndescribe it, because it is a part of the offence—that is, the offence\nis not complete without it—they must prove it exactly as they describe\nit.\n\nIf they describe it with infinite minuteness, they must prove it with\ninfinite minuteness. If they set out that an affidavit was written on\nbark, they must produce a bark affidavit. If they were foolish enough to\nsay it was written in red ink they must produce it in red ink. If they\nallege that an oath was sworn to twice before two notaries public they\nmust produce an oath sworn to twice. They are bound to prove exactly\nwhat they charge, and if they were too particular about it that is their\nfault, not ours.\n\nI say that all these, with the exception of the two routes I have named,\nwere filed too early to play any important part in this case. Now, I\nwill come to those routes. Remember, that every overt act must be after\nthe conspiracy. There are two exceptions, and those two exceptions\ninclude petitions and affidavits. And there is a splendid kind\nof justice in the way this thing is coming out, so far as that is\nconcerned.\n\nThe petitions filed on the Toquerville route and on Bridge Creek route,\nI believe, are genuine; I believe the Government admits that they are\nhonest; and they were not attacked except upon one point, and that was\nthat a daily mail did not mean seven times a week. The point made by the\nGovernment was that a daily mail meant six trips a week—that is, where\nyou have them every day. We took the ground that daily mail meant a mail\nevery day, and that in the Western country, as here, they have seven\ndays in a week.\n\nWe contended that you cannot have a daily mail without having seven\ntrips a week. I think that was the only point made against these\npetitions—that they were for a daily mail, and that somebody put in a\nfigure 7.\n\nNo petition for increase of service alone was ever attacked by the\nGovernment in this case, except 25 L, on The Dalles route, and 20 H and\n29 H, on the Canyon City route. 25 L was filed April 23, 1879. That was\none month before the conspiracy had life. Consequently that is mustered\nout of this case as an overt act.\n\n23 L was filed June 27, 1879, and is in time, provided it had been\na dishonest petition. And it is the only petition filed on the date\nalleged in the indictment, and it was not attacked. It was signed by the\nbusiness men of Baker City, and is set out, I believe, on page 1617.\n\n20 H was filed May 7th. That is not in time. That is gone.\n\n29 H has no file mark, and never was proved. So that goes.\n\nAll the allegations as to false petitions for increase of service—and\nby that I mean additional trips—are shown to have been genuine, honest,\ntrue petitions.\n\nThere are but two affidavits, one correctly described. Both were made\nby Peck. Mr. Bliss admits that Peck had nothing to do with any of these\nroutes after April 1, 1879, and both of them were made by Peck, and were\nsworn to before that date.\n\nThe affidavit on the Toquerville route was filed by M. C. Rerdell, who\nswears that he was not in any conspiracy to defraud the United States;\nthat he was not in a conspiracy with Vaile and Miner and John W. Dorsey,\nnor with anybody else. It was filed by the subcontractor of record, M.\nC. Rerdell, and it is the same route on which Mr. Rerdell, by virtue\nof his subcontract, appropriated about five thousand dollars of money\nbelonging to other people.\n\nThe other exception is on the Bridge Creek route, and, strange as it may\nappear, that was also filed by Mr. Rerdell.\n\nAnd, strange as it may appear, it has not been successfully impeached\nas to the men and horses necessary under the existing and proposed\nschedule. The overt act is not proved, because the oath is not proved\nto be false, and because Peck and Rerdell, according to Mr. Bliss's\nadmission and according to Rerdell's oath, were not in the conspiracy,\nand the overt act has to be done by one of the conspirators, of course.\n\nThe Court. I understood—I do not know whether I have been under a\ndelusion all this time or not—that the indictment charged that these\naffidavits and false petitions were the means by which the conspiracy\nwas to be carried into execution; that they were not the overt acts. If\nthey had been set out as overt acts in the indictment, the Court would\nhave seen that they antedated the time, and if an objection had been\nmade to them the Court would not have received them as overt acts.\nThe reason why they have been admitted and regarded as in the case all\nalong, to my mind, was that they were acts tending to prove, so far as\nthey tended to prove anything, the nature of the combination between\nthese parties anterior to the 23d of May.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Before the conspiracy.\n\nThe Court. Before the conspiracy. So that whatever character belonged\nto that association anterior to that time, if it was continued on after\nthat time, carried out with overt acts done subsequently to that\ntime, they were properly received as evidence going to establish the\nconspiracy—not as overt acts, but as means to show the character of the\ncombination amongst the parties anterior to that date.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That saves me a great deal of argument. Now, I\nunderstand, gentlemen, that the Court will instruct you that you cannot\ntake any petition, any letter, any oath, any paper of any kind that was\nfiled or written or used prior to the 23d of May, 1879, as an overt act;\nthat all that that evidence is for is to show you the relation sustained\nby the parties before that time.\n\nThe Court. Yes; you are right.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Now, that saves a great deal of trouble.\n\nThere are on the Toquerville and Adairville route, and on the Eugene\nCity and Bridge Creek route, petitions filed after the 23d of May, 1879,\nset out in indictment as overt acts. I shall insist, if the Court\nwill allow me, that if there is no evidence that those petitions were\ndishonest, no evidence going to show that they were not genuine, those\npetitions cannot be used as overt acts for the reason that they are\ncharged in the indictment as false and fraudulent petitions. So,\ngentlemen, I take that ground, that as to the petitions filed after the\n23d day of May on the only two routes left for these gentlemen to\nfind overt acts upon (Eugene City to Bridge Creek, and Toquerville to\nAdairville), if those petitions have not been proved to be false they\ncannot be regarded as overt acts for the reason that they were described\nin the indictment itself as false and fraudulent petitions. It is\nperfectly clear, is it not?\n\nWhat else have we left? A couple of affidavits. Who made them? Mr. Peck.\nWhen? Before the 1st day of April, 1879, and Mr. Bliss admits that from\nthat time on he never had anything to do with this business. Mr. Rerdell\nfiled them, and Mr. Rerdell swears that he was never in any conspiracy;\nand Mr. Bliss admits that Peck, after the 1st of April, had nothing to\ndo with this business. That substantially knocks the bottom out of that\ndish.\n\nNow, they attacked the affidavit on the Bridge Creek route, but they did\nnot succeed in showing that it was not an honest affidavit.\n\nNow, gentlemen, after what the Court has decided I want to call your\nattention to another thing.\n\nDo not forget what the Court has decided—that all these things are not\novert acts, but that they simply show the relations of the parties.\n\nNow, if you go and find Vaile and Miner getting up petitions on their\nroutes, and you also find Dorsey getting up petitions on his routes,\nthen they claim that that is the result of an agreement between them.\nThat is not the law. Neither is there in that the scintilla of common\nsense. If I find you plowing in your field and your neighbor plowing\nin his field, I have no right to draw the conclusion that you have\nconspired to plow or to help each other. But if I find your neighbor and\nyou plowing in your field, and I afterwards find you and your neighbor\nplowing in his field, I have the right to conclude that you have swapped\nwork and that you have something in common. If I find you plowing in\nyour field and your neighbor walking behind you sowing grain or dropping\ncorn, and then I find you in the fall shucking out the corn together,\nand I find your neighbor taking half of it to his barn and you taking\nhalf of it to your barn, I make up my mind that you have had some\ndealings on the corn question.\n\nNow, we find that on May 5, 1879, these parties absolutely divided,\nand after that, when Vaile and Miner got up a petition on their route,\nDorsey did not help them; and when Dorsey got up one on his, Vaile and\nMiner did not help him. That shows what the relations of the parties\nwere. Does that show that they were then in a conspiracy? Does it show\nthat they had any conspiracy before that time? They had separated their\ninterest; they had ceased to act together; one did nothing for the\nother. If there had been a conspiracy before that time that conspiracy\ndied on the 5th of May, 1879; and if it did, then there is no\npossibility of any conviction in this case, no matter what the evidence\nis—not the slightest.\n\nNow, I want you to understand that ground exactly. I am not begging\nthe question. I am not afraid to meet every point, every paper, every\nscratch, in this case. But I want you to understand it. All those things\nwere allowed for the purpose of showing the relations of the parties,\nthe relations that the defendants sustained to each other; and the\nevidence is that they sustained no relations to each other after 1879;\nthat each went his own road to attend to his own business in his own\nway. That is the evidence.\n\nNow comes the next point. What are the overt acts in the indictment?\nReally they are the orders made by Mr. Brady, unless you take this poor\nlittle affidavit made by Peck and filed by Rerdell.\n\nThen comes the next point. You cannot treat anything as an overt act\nunless it was made by one of the conspirators. Is there any evidence in\nthis case that Mr. Brady ever conspired with anybody? Not the slightest.\nAnd unless he conspired with us, any other made by him cannot be regarded\nas an overt act in this case. I think everybody will admit that. Unless\nBrady conspired with us, and we with him, any order of his cannot be\nregarded as an overt act.\n\nI ask you, gentlemen, what evidence is there in this case that Mr. Brady\never conspired with any of these defendants? I will answer that question\nbefore I get through, and I think I will answer it to your entire\nsatisfaction.\n\nI will go a step further in this case, and I may go a little further\nthan the Court will go. I say that when they state in that indictment\nthat an order is made for the benefit of Miner, Vaile, and Dorsey,\nand the evidence is that it was made for the benefit only of Vaile and\nMiner, that is a fatal variance, and it cannot be treated as an overt\nact for any conspiracy. And when the indictment charges that an order\nwas made for the benefit of S. W. Dorsey, and Vaile, and Miner, and it\nturns out that it was made for the sole benefit of S. W. Dorsey, I claim\nthat that is a fatal variance.\n\nGentlemen, I was going through all these overt acts and all these\nterrible false claims. But the decision of the Court has utterly and\nentirely relieved me from that duty. So I will turn my attention to\nanother person.\n\nThe next defendant to whom I may call your attention is Mr. John W.\nDorsey. It is claimed that John W. Dorsey was one of the original\nconspirators; that he helped to hatch and plot this terrible design.\nLet us see what interest John W. Dorsey had. You have heard me read the\nagreement he made, have you not, with Miner? Now, let me read to you\nthe agreement that he made on the 16th day of August, 1878. Now, we will\nfind out what interest John W. Dorsey had in all this conspiracy. On the\n16th of August, 1878, there was no reason for telling any lie about\nit. They could not get on the routes in August, 1878; they had not the\nmoney, and so they took in Vaile. At that time, gentlemen, there was no\nreason for their writing anything in this paper that was not true, not\nthe slightest. And I take it for granted that most people tell the truth\nwhen there is no possible object in telling anything else, if their\nmemory is good:\n\n4th. The profits accruing from the business shall be divided as follows:\nFrom routes in Indian Territory, Kansas, Nebraska, and Dakota, to H. M.\nVaile, one-third.\n\nTo John R. Miner, one-sixth; to John M. Peck, one-sixth; and to John W.\nDorsey, one-third.\n\nFrom routes in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,\nIdaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and California, to H. M. Vaile,\none-third; to John R. Miner, one-third; to John M. Peck, one-third.\n[Page 4014.]\n\nAnd to John W. Dorsey nothing. The entire interest of John W. Dorsey in\nthe whole business was one-third of the profits on routes in the Indian\nTerritory, Kansas, Nebraska, and Dakota. This was signed by H. M. Vaile,\nJohn R. Miner, John M. Peck, and John W. Dorsey, and I believe these are\nall admitted to be the genuine signatures of the parties.\n\nThe only routes mentioned in this indictment in which John W. Dorsey on\nthe 16th day of August, 1878, had any interest whatever were: Kearney to\nKent in Nebraska, Vermillion to Sioux Falls in Dakota, and Bismarck\nto Tongue River in Dakota. Remember that, gentlemen. That is very\nimportant. The evidence is that he sold out his interest in the\nfollowing December, made a bargain for ten thousand dollars, and the\nevidence is that he received the money, and the evidence is that after\nthat he never had any interest in the profits, no matter how much was\nmade. And yet these gentlemen say that he was part and parcel of a\nconspiracy formed on the 23d of May, 1879. Long before that time he had\nsold out every dollar's interest he had, and had no more interest in it\nthan though he had never existed. He got his ten thousand dollars; that\nwas all. Now let us see what he did when the routes were divided.\n\nMr. Merrick. When did you say he sold out and got the money?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. The bargain was made in December, and his brother wrote\nto him at first that Vaile would not give it to him, and then that he\nwould. Don't you recollect the two letters you asked Dorsey so much\nabout?\n\nIt had been agreed to once, and then after S. W. Dorsey came out of the\nSenate John W. Dorsey was paid ten thousand dollars, and Miner swears\nthat the division was absolute, perfect, and complete; and that nothing\nwas signed by one for the other after the 5th of May, 1879.\n\nMr. Bliss. Miner does not say when. He swore that he, signed no papers\nafter the 5th of May, 1879.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. He says that he signed no papers for the other side, and\nthat the other side signed none for Vaile and Miner.\n\nMr. Davidge. You are talking of two different things.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will show you after awhile that you are wrong, as I\nalways do. I never made a mistake on you yet.\n\nThe only routes mentioned in this indictment in which John W. Dorsey\non the 16th day of August, 1878, had any interest whatever were from\nKearney to Kent, in Nebraska; Vermillion to Sioux Falls, in Dakota; and\nBismarck to Tongue River, in Dakota. And I will say right here that\nif at any time I do injustice to Mr. Bliss or anybody else, if it is\npointed out I will take it back cheerfully, and if it is not pointed\nout, and they show that I did it, I will get up and admit it and say\nthat I was mistaken.\n\nMr. Bliss. You will have a great deal to admit.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Very well, I will do it, for I have the courage of\nconviction, and I have the courage to say that I am mistaken when I am.\n\nNow, the evidence is that John W. Dorsey sold out his interest for ten\nthousand dollars, and that he received the money, and that after that he\nhad no interest in the profits when the three routes were divided, and\nthe only three were the ones I have mentioned.\n\nOn the first route, from Vermillion to Sioux Falls, John W. Dorsey was\nthe subcontractor and he gave Mr. Vaile the entire pay for all increases\nand all expeditions. John W. Dorsey had the right to subcontract, and\nMr. Vaile had the right to make the contract. The statement on page 726\nshows simply that John W. Dorsey never drew a dollar upon that route.\nThat is one route fairly and squarely disposed of. Understand, I cast\nno imputation upon Mr. Vaile for having the contract and for getting the\nmoney. When I come to it I will show you that he had a right to.\n\nThe next route is from Kearney to Kent. John W. Dorsey had an interest\nin that route, according to the agreement of August 16th, of one-third.\nYou will see from page 726 of the record that the first quarter John M.\nPeck got the money, two hundred and forty-five dollars and six cents.\nJohn W. Dorsey was entitled to one-third of that, if it was profit.\nThe next quarter was paid on the 22d of January, 1879—that is, for\nthe fourth quarter of 1878, and that was paid to H. M. Vaile. And never\nanother solitary cent was paid to anybody in such a way that John W.\nDorsey was entitled to any part or portion of it. That gets that route\nout of trouble, so far as John W. Dorsey was concerned, no matter what\nthe increase may have been after that, no matter what the expedition\nwas, no matter whether French carried it for nothing, no matter what\nhappened to Cedarville or that city of Fitzalon; it was no interest to\nJohn W. Dorsey, no matter whether the road ran direct from Fitzalon to\nCedarville or not. He was entitled to one-third of the profits on one\npayment to Peck, and that payment was two hundred and forty-five dollars\nand six cents; whether he ever got it I do not know.\n\nLet us see how he came out on the next route, from Bismarck to Tongue\nRiver. He went out there to build stations. I will come to that in a\nlittle while. Now, I call attention to page 727. The third quarter from\nJuly 1 to September 30, 1878, was paid November 8, 1878, to H. M.\nVaile. Never a solitary dollar on the route was paid to John W. Dorsey,\naccording to this record, if you can rely on these books.\n\nThat is the state of the case on these three routes. And yet it is\nsolemnly averred in the indictment that all the orders on these routes\nwere made for the joint benefit of John W. Dorsey and others. Now,\nbefore another payment was made the division of the routes had been\ncompleted, and John W. Dorsey sold out his interest in these routes and\nall others for ten thousand dollars. So that he never received a\ndollar upon the Bismarck route and the Vermillion route except as it is\nincluded in the gross sum of ten thousand dollars which he received for\nhis entire interest, and that entire interest is described perfectly in\nthe contract of August 16, 1878. Now, it John W. Dorsey had no interest\nin any route except as stated in the contract, of course nothing was\ndone upon any other route for his benefit; nothing was done in which he,\nby any possibility, had the slightest pecuniary interest. How were the\npetitions filed for his benefit? How were the affidavits made for his\nbenefit? How were the orders made for his benefit? He had no interest;\nhe had parted with it, and had nothing more to do with it than the\nattorneys for the prosecution in this case.\n\nIt is claimed by Mr. Bliss that when John W. Dorsey sold out he agreed\nto make the necessary papers for the routes, and he tried to impress\nupon your minds the idea that the bargain was that John W. Dorsey knew\nthat for ten thousand dollars he had to commit perjury and forgery and\nseveral other cheerful crimes, from time to time, as he might be called\nupon by the gentlemen who had been his co-conspirators.\n\nJ. W. Dorsey frankly and cheerfully swore that he agreed to make the\nnecessary papers. He did not swear that he agreed to commit any frauds,\nperjuries, or forgeries. Nothing of the kind. He agreed to execute, of\ncourse, the necessary legal papers—the papers that, as contractor, were\nnecessary for him to make to vest title of the route in the person to\nwhom he had sold—just the necessary papers that would allow the man who\nhad paid him for the route to draw the money from the Government if he\nperformed the service.\n\nNow, what were the papers? I say right here, gentlemen, that under the\nlaw as it was then, under the law as it is now, it is impossible for\na contractor to assign his contract so as to be relieved from\nresponsibility to the Government; the Government will not permit it. The\nGovernment will permit him to make a subcontract, and that is what John\nW. Dorsey did; that is one of the things he agreed to do. In order to\nmake that subcontract absolutely certain; in order to put it beyond his\npower to do anything with it, that subcontract was made for the entire\npay, for the entire increase and expedition. And what more? In order\nto make that absolutely perfect, so they would not have a loop-hole\nanywhere, he signed blank drafts upon the Post-Office Department for the\nentire pay of every quarter during the contract term. And then, if they\nwere fined—and nobody knew how much they would be fined—they had the\nright to fill up that order for the amount due them from the Post-Office\nDepartment after deducting fines.\n\nHe sold out in March, 1879. The regulation or order making it necessary\nfor the contractor to make an oath as to additional stock and men was\nnot in existence, was not a binding law or regulation, until the 1st\nday of July, 1879. When he sold out in March, unless he were gifted\nwith prophecy, he would not know what the regulation of the 1st of July\nfollowing would be.\n\nNow, there were two affidavits made by John W. Dorsey on route 38134,\nPueblo to Rosita. Around those affidavits Mr. Bliss hovered and Mr.\nKer remained. John W. Dorsey testifies that he received one of those\naffidavits in the morning and swore to it, and that it was filled up\nwhen he swore to it. Mr. Bliss and Mr. Ker, I believe, both say that it\nwas not filled up.\n\nMr. Bliss. Where does Mr. Dorsey say that it was filled up when he swore\nto it?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I have not the page here, but I will give it to you. He\nswore that a dozen times, that he never swore to any blank affidavits.\n\nMr. Bliss. I undertake to say that it cannot be found in his evidence.\n\nThe Court. He testified that he received them both by mail, and that the\nsecond one was contained in a letter which said that there was an error\nin the first, and the second was sent for the purpose of correcting that\nerror.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. There could not have been any error in the first unless\nit had been filled up. You cannot make an error in blank. On page 4838,\nMr. Rerdell swore that he left this city on the 17th or 18th of\nApril for the West, and then he adds, \"I think on the 18th.\" Then the\nGovernment brought the hotel-keepers from Sydney, Nebraska, and from\nDenver, and from some other place, nearly as many witnesses as you\nhad about the paper pulp. And they proved that Rerdell was beyond the\nMissouri River on the 21 st of April.\n\nNow see what Mr. Bliss says on page 4914:\n\nAnd yet, gentlemen, it is beyond dispute that as early as the 15th of\nApril, 1879, Mr. Rerdell had left this city and gone West.\n\nWhy did he have it stated on the 15th, gentlemen? I will tell you. Oh,\nI tell you the human mind is a queer thing when it gets to working. John\nW. Dorsey was in Middlebury, Vermont; if a letter had been sent from\nhere on the 15th, it certainly would have got up there before the\n21st. So they wanted Rerdell out of this town as early as possible, so\nthat it would make it highly improbable that it would take a letter from\nthat time to the 21st to get to Middlebury. Now, the evidence is that he\nleft here, he thinks, on the 18th. When did the letter get up there? I\nthink the 20th or 21st.\n\nMr. Davidge. There was a Sunday intervened.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. They say, gentlemen, that there is no evidence that the\nblanks were filled, and yet John W. Dorsey swears that he received a\nletter stating that the first affidavit was erroneous, and the second\none was sent to him to correct it. How would you correct one affidavit\nin blank by another affidavit in blank? How did he ever get those\naffidavits? I will tell you. We will have that little matter settled.\nHere is what Rerdell swears on page 2232:\n\nQ. When did you return from that visit?—A. I returned about the 5th of\nMay.\n\nQ. State whether or not after you returned, you found blank affidavits\namong the papers connected with the business?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. How many did you find?—A. Well, there were several blank affidavits\nof John W. Dorsey's and several of John M. Peck's. I don't know how many\nthere were.\n\nQ. Were they blank affidavits?—A. Well, sir, they were blank affidavits\nsimilar to that one I sent, leaving out the number of men and animals in\neach case.\n\nQ. Did they purport to have been sworn to?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Were those affidavits among the papers when you left here to go\nWest?—A. Some of them were. I think those of Peck's were here, probably\nfour or five, or half a dozen, and I had made out, before I left here,\na lot of them and sent them to John W. Dorsey. In the mean time, when I\nreturned here, John W. Dorsey was here.\n\nMr. Rerdell swears that just before he went away he sent the affidavits\nto John W. Dorsey, and the only question between them is, were they in\nblank, or were they filled. John W. Dorsey swears that they were filled,\nbecause when he received the second he received a letter stating that\nthere was an error in the first, and that error had been corrected in\nthe second. The last nail in the coffin of that doctrine.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. [Resuming.] May it please the Court and gentlemen of\nthe jury, before finishing what I am about to say in regard to the\ntwo affidavits of John W. Dorsey I will now call your attention to a\nstatement made by Mr. Bliss, on page 304, in his opening speech to you:\n\nMr. Dorsey, while Senator, was, I think, chairman of the Committee on\nPost-Offices, and chairman of the subcommittee in charge of all the\nappropriations. That brought him, of course, directly in connection with\nthe Post-Office Department and its officials, and gave him, as we all\nunderstand, necessarily, from the nature of the case, the possession of\nsome exceptional power over officials of the department—greater power\nthan a Senator would have when occupying som'-other position.\n\nThat statement was made to you, gentlemen, for the purpose of making you\nbelieve that while Senator Dorsey was a member of the Senate he was also\nchairman of the PostOffice Committee, and of the subcommittee having\npower over the appropriations, and that he not only took advantage of\nbeing a Senator, but by virtue of being chairman of that committee had\nexceptional power over the officials of the Post-Office Department.\nHe was trying to convince you that, finding himself chairman of that\ncommittee, finding himself with this power, he thereupon entered into a\nconspiracy.\n\nWhat evidence did the Government offer upon that point? Nothing. Did\nMr. Bliss at that time suppose that Mr. Dorsey was chairman of that\ncommittee? The records were all here. The Government had plenty of\nagents to ascertain what the fact was; and yet, without knowing the\nfacts, Mr. Bliss stated to this jury that he believed that; that Dorsey\nwas chairman of the Post-Office Committee and of the sub-committee;\nwanting to poison your minds with the idea that Mr. Dorsey had taken\nadvantage of having held that position. Now, the only evidence upon\nthat point I find on page 3992, and that is the evidence of Mr. Dorsey\nhimself. He is asked, Were you a member of the Post-Office Committee in\n1877? No. In 1878? No. Or chairman of the subcommittee? Here is what he\nsays, that he had not been on that Post-Office Committee \"for nearly\ntwo years\" prior to July 1, 1878. And yet an attorney representing the\nUnited States, representing the greatness and honor, the grandeur and\nthe glory of fifty millions of people, for the purpose of poisoning your\nminds, there made that statement without knowing anything about it or\nwithout caring anything about it. I thought I would clear that point up\nthe first thing this morning.\n\nNow we will go on with the affidavits. You know these terrible\naffidavits that were sworn to in Vermont. It was stated that the first\naffidavit was wrong and that the second affidavit was substituted for\nthe first. Now, if the second affidavit took more money out of the\nTreasury than the first affidavit you might say that there was a\nsinister motive, a dishonest motive in withdrawing the first and\nsubstituting the second, unless it appeared clearly that the second was\ntrue. But suppose it turns out that the substitution did not take an\nextra dollar from the United States? Then what motive do you say they\nhad in doing it? Was it a motive to steal something, or was it a motive\nsimply to be correct? What other motive could there have been?\n\nNow, let us see. The first affidavit said three men and twelve animals;\nfor the expedition, seven men and thirty-eight animals; and the\nproportion was exactly three hundred per cent—that is, three times as\nmuch. Now, then, they put in another affidavit. The second affidavit\nsays two men and six animals. That makes eight. And on the expedited\nschedule six men and eighteen animals, which makes twenty-four; and\nthree times eight are twenty-four; exactly the same. Three times fifteen\nare forty-five, and three times eight are twenty-four, and the amount of\nmoney drawn under the second affidavit is precisely the same that would\nhave been drawn under the first affidavit.\n\nNow, do you pretend to tell me that they took the trouble to withdraw\nthe first affidavit and put in the second affidavit because they were\ntrying to defraud somebody? On the contrary, they took that trouble\nbecause there was a mistake made in the first affidavit and they wanted\nto correct it, not for the purpose of getting more money, but for the\npurpose of getting a correct affidavit.\n\nMr. Crane (foreman of the jury). Was not that first affidavit\ninterlined?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. No, sir.\n\nIf there had been any fraud about it, would they not have withdrawn the\npaper? They had a right to withdraw it. Yet they left the paper there;\nthey left it there as a witness. Why? Because it did not prove anything\nagainst them; it only proved they desired to be correct.\n\nMy recollection is there were erasures in both affidavits. Let us\nfind them. Before I get through I will endeavor to show you that\nevery erasure and interlineation is an evidence of honesty instead\nof dishonesty. What are the numbers of these affidavits? [Examining the\npapers.] They are number 4 C and 5 C. Route 38134. I will read them.\n\nHon. Thomas J. Brady,\n\nSecond Assistant Postmaster-General:\n\nSir: The number of men and animals necessary to carry the mail on route\n38134 on the present schedule is three men and twelve animals. The\nnumber necessary on a schedule of ten hours, seven times a week, is\nseven men and thirty-eight animals.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nJohn W. Dorsey\n\nSubcontractor.\n\nThere does not appear to be any erasure or interlineation or anything\nelse in that affidavit. Now, here is the other one:\n\nHon. Thomas J. Brady,\n\nSecond Assistant Postmaster-General:\n\nSir: The number of men and animals necessary to carry the mails on route\n38134 on the present schedule, seven times a week, is two men and six\nanimals. The number necessary on the schedule of ten hours, seven times\na week, is six men and eighteen animals.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nJohn W. Dorsey\n\nSubcontractor.\n\nThat is the second affidavit. The first was withdrawn. That is, they\nhad permission to withdraw it, and in the second affidavit is the\ninterlineation \"seven times a week,\" isn't it? That is simply an\ninterlineation, because there had been an omission to state the service\nthat was then being performed or that was to be performed.\n\nMr. Crane (foreman of the jury). That has puzzled me a good deal, to\nunderstand the motive of those two affidavits.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. There certainly could not be any motive for putting in\nseven or three times a week, for this is simply to make it agree with\nthe truth. If I give a note to a man for five hundred dollars and should\nhappen to write in the word \"hundred\" and not the word \"five,\" and then\nshould take it back and write in the word \"five\" above it, that is not a\nsign of fraud.\n\nWill somebody give me number 18 K; I just happened to see something\nthere which may be worth something, or may not.\n\nNow, gentlemen, here is a petition marked 2 A, that Rerdell swears that\nthe words \"schedule thirteen hours\" were written in by Miner. In one of\nthese papers I happened to see the word \"schedule.\" Just notice the word\n\"schedule\" on this paper [exhibiting to the jury,] and then have the\nkindness to look at the word \"schedule\" in this other one [exhibiting\nto the jury,] and see whether you think one man wrote them both. Rerdell\nsays he wrote the word \"schedule\" in that one [indicating,] and that\nMiner wrote the word \"schedule\" in this other one [indicating.]\n\nNow, gentlemen, there is another charge against John W. Dorsey, on\nroute 38145, and upon that route he made two affidavits. In the first\naffidavit he swore it would require three men and seven animals on the\nschedule as it then was, and that makes ten; that with the proposed\nschedule it would take eleven men and twenty-six animals, making\nthirty-seven. Now, if it took ten on the schedule as it then was,\nand thirty-seven on the proposed schedule, then the Government, which\naccepted that affidavit, would have to pay him three times and\nseven-tenths as much, which is the relation between ten and\nthirty-seven. The proportion then is three and seven-tenths. On the\nfirst affidavit his pay would have been twelve thousand nine hundred and\nthirty-five dollars and fifty-two cents a year.\n\nNow I come to the second affidavit, which said that for the schedule\nas it then stood ijt would take twenty men and animals. On the proposed\nschedule he said it would take twelve men and forty-two animals, making\nfifty-four. Now, the ratio of the second affidavit was as twenty is\nto fifty-four. The ratio in the first affidavit was as ten is to\nthirty-seven, so that under the second affidavit, which they say was\nwillful and corrupt perjury, he got eight thousand four hundred and\nfifty-seven dollars a year instead of twelve thousand nine hundred and\nthirty-five dollars and fifty-two cents. There were three years for the\ncontract to run, and a little over. Under the first affidavit he would\nhave received thirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and\nseventy-five cents during the contract term more than he took under the\nsecond. An affidavit was put in there that he thought was erroneous. He\nwithdrew that affidavit and put in a second one. If he had allowed the\nfirst to remain and they had calculated the amount on the first he would\nhave received thirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and\nseventy-five cents more than he did under the second affidavit. But he\nwithdrew the first and put in the second, and took from the Treasury\nthirteen thousand nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and seventy-five\ncents less, and they charge that as a fraud, as an evidence of\nconspiracy and perjury. Now, that is all there is against John W.\nDorsey.\n\nOn page 4090 John W. Dorsey swears that General Miles wanted to know how\nfar apart he (Dorsey) was building the stations on the Tongue River and\nBismarck route. Let us turn to page 4090. You know they were trying to\nprove that when John W. Dorsey went out there and built the ranches\nthat he was going to build them about fifteen or seventeen miles apart,\nbecause it was claimed that they knew there was to be increase and\nexpedition. You remember that. Now, when John W. Dorsey came upon the\nstand he swore that when they went out there they started to build\nthose stations, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty or\nthirty-five miles apart, as they could get water. Then he swore that\nwhen he went himself over, I think, to Miles City, where General Miles\nwas, that General Miles asked him how far he was building his stations\napart. John W. Dorsey told him. Then General Miles gave him his advice.\nNow, I want to read this to you. I asked him this question:\n\nQ. When you got to Fort Keogh did you go to see General Miles?—A. Yes,\nsir.\n\nQ. Did you have any conversation with him in regard to this route, with\nregard to the needs of the country for mail service; and, if so, what\nwas it? A. I told him all about the business generally. He seemed to\nunderstand it pretty well. He wanted to know how far apart we were\nbuilding stations. I told him. He wanted to know how often the mails\nwould run, and I told him it would be weekly service, I thought. \"We\nhave been pent up here two or three years,\" he says, \"with mails from\neighteen to twenty days apart, reaching us by the way of Ogden and\nBozeman.\" And he says, \"We can get it in seven or eight days over this\nline.\" And now I would like to say that he did not say that he knew\nthere would be an increase, but he said he should like to have it\nincreased to three trips a week, or daily, and fifty hours' time. I told\nhim there was no use to try to get it at all; that it could not be done\nat present; that nobody knew the distance through that country; that we\nexpected to have it measured; that it was claimed by everybody that it\nwas a good deal more than two hundred and fifty and probably over three\nhundred miles, and nobody would undertake to carry it. Said I, \"If\nyou extend it the contractor can throw up his contract and you will be\nwithout any mail.\" He said, \"We are going to ask for what we want, but\nwe will take what they will give us.\"\n\n\"Your stations are too far apart; you can't run any fast time with your\nstations so far apart; you want more stations, and nearer together.\" The\nresult was that when I went back I met Mr. Pennell, who had built the\nstations thirty to thirty-five miles apart, and going back we put in\nintermediate stations. We only carried out lumber enough from Bismarck\nto build eight or nine stations, for the windows, &c.; we did not think\nof building any more at that time. Mr. Pennell says the order was to\nbuild the stations seventeen to twenty miles apart in going out. That\nis no such thing. There was not a station built going out closer than\nthirty to thirty-five miles.\n\nQ. What, if anything, did General Miles say that convinced you that you\nought to build stations nearer together?\n\nThen he testifies that on account of what he said he did this, and that\nhe had no instructions from Washington.\n\nThat is the testimony. Mr. Bliss endeavored to frighten the witness by\nstating in his presence that he (Bliss) did not believe General Miles\nwould swear to any such thing, judging, of course, from the conversation\nthat he (Mr. Bliss) had had with General Miles. Notwithstanding that\nthreat, John W. Dorsey, confident that he was telling the truth, knowing\nthat he was telling the truth, told his story, and the Government never\nbrought General Miles to contradict him.\n\nNow, the next thing about John W. Dorsey is the conversation that he had\nwith some men in July or August out on the road, that I have spoken to\nyou about before. Nothing could be more perfectly improbable. It may be\nthat he did tell some man that he was a brother of Senator Dorsey, and,\nperhaps, he did say that if he got into a tight place or hard up for\nmoney he could borrow money from his brother. I do not know what he may\nhave said on that subject. But, gentlemen, there is not a man on this\njury, not one of you, who has the slightest suspicion that John W.\nDorsey at that time told those men substantially that his brother was in\na conspiracy with the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, and that\nhe, John W. Dorsey, was also a conspirator. There is not one of you who\nbelieves that, not one, and you never will. Why not? Because it is\nso utterly and infinitely unreasonable and absurd. Now, that is the\nevidence against John W. Dorsey. My attention is called to one other\npoint in his case, and so I will call your attention to it.\n\nMr. Bliss, gentlemen, on page 243, in speaking of the two affidavits on\nthe Pueblo and Rosita route, says:\n\nWe find this extraordinary condition of things. On route 38134, from\nPueblo to Rosita, which, I think, is the same route upon which the\nobliging Mr. John W. Dorsey, as I have just stated to you, was allowed\nto make the affidavit instead of Mr. Miner.\n\nNow, he goes on to describe these two affidavits, and then he says:\n\nThose two affidavits were before Mr. Brady, made by John W. Dorsey on\nthe same day, and yet Mr. Brady chose to pick out one or the other of\nthem and say, \"I believe that as the absolutely conclusive statement of\nthe number of men and animals that are now in use upon that route,\nand upon that affidavit I will make my order taking from the Treasury\nthousands of dollars of money.\" You will see that the first affidavit\nmade the number two men and six animals, making eight as the number of\nstock and carriers then in use; but the other one called for three\nmen and twelve animals, making fifteen as the number then in use, and,\ntherefore, according as he accepted one or the other, by the rule of\nthree, to which I called your attention just now, there would be twice\nthe amount of money allowed from the Treasury under the one affidavit\nthat there would be under the other.\n\nJust think of that, gentlemen. The number of men and animals then in use\nhas nothing to do with the number of men and animals stated in the other\naffidavit; those amounts bear no relation to each other. The number of\nmen and animals in use in the first affidavit, and the number that would\nbe necessary on the next schedule, do bear a relation to each other. The\nnumber of men and animals on the second affidavit on the then schedule\nbears relation to the proposed number on the proposed schedule, and\nnot to the number on the other affidavit. And yet Mr. Bliss stood right\nbefore you, with those two affidavits that would take the same amount\nof money out of the Treasury, to a fraction, precisely the same—not the\ndifference of the billionth part of a farthing—and stated to you that\none would take twice as much money from the Treasury as the other. You\nwill think that he is as defective in mathematics as in law. I say to\nyou now that the amount that would be taken out of the Treasury on those\ntwo affidavits is precisely the same.\n\nI did not think that anybody could excel Mr. Ker in mathematics, but Mr.\nBliss bears off the palm. He bean, off the palm even in misstatement,\nand bears off the palm in mistake. The two affidavits would call for the\nsame amount of money precisely, and yet Mr. Bliss stands up before you\nand says there is twice as much on one as the other. Now, what is that\nfor? That is to prejudice you: that is all.\n\nGentlemen, you saw John W. Dorsey; you heard his testimony; you know\nwhether he is a man to be believed. It is for you to judge whether he is\nhonest or dishonest, and I leave his testimony with you. It was direct;\nit was to the point; and his manner on the stand was absolutely and\nperfectly honest.\n\nNow, there is another point made. You know you have to think of these\nthings as you can, and step on them and then go on. Another point is\nmade, and it was urged by Mr. Bliss day after day. And what is that?\nThat Mr. Brady took the affidavits of all these men as absolutely true;\nthat he allowed them to fix the limit of the money they would take out\nof the Treasury; that he allowed interested men to make the affidavits,\nand then he took the affidavits as absolutely true; that he allowed the\ncontractors themselves to fix the sum they would seize. Now let us see\nwhat that is. Mr. Brady swears that he regarded the affidavit as the\nhonest opinion of the man who made it, but not as necessarily true;\nthat he had a standard of his own. Your views upon all such\nquestions, gentlemen, will depend upon which side of human nature you\nstand—whether you are a believer in total depravity, or whether you\nthink there is a little virtue left in human nature. If you stand on\nthe side of suspicion, if you allow the snake of prejudice to forever\nwhisper in your ear, why, your idea will be that every man is a rascal;\nand whenever he does a decent action you will say, \"This action is a\nlittle velvet in the paw for the purpose of covering the claw of some\ndevilment that he has in store.\" If you judge from that side you can\ntorture any act, no matter what it is, into evidence of guilt. But you\nmay judge from the other side and say that men, as a rule, are decent;\nthat they would rather do a kind act than a mean thing; that they would\nrather tell the truth than tell a lie. I tell you to-day that there is\nan immensity of good in human nature. There are hundreds and thousands\nand millions of men to-day who are honest, who would not for anything\nstain the whiteness of their souls with a lie. They are laboring-men, it\nmay be, working by the day for a dollar or a dollar and a half, and only\ntaking enough of it to keep life and strength in their bodies and giving\nthe rest to wife and child. And there are battles as grand as were ever\nwon by a celebrated general, and just as bravely fought, with poverty\nday after day; and the man who fights the battles gains the victory and\ngoes down to the grave with his manhood untarnished. You know it, and so\ndo I. And yet you are all the time told to suspect everything, no matter\nwhat it is. There is a flower there; ah, but there is a snake under it!\nAlways making that remark; accounting for every decent looking action by\na base motive. That is not my view of human nature.\n\nNow, Mr. Brady says that he had a standard of his own; that he let these\nmen make their statements, and he took their statements as being what\nthey believed to be the truth. And why not? Suppose I say to a man,\n\"What will you take for that horse?\" And the man says, \"That horse is\nworth a hundred dollars.\" Suppose he goes and swears to it; that would\nnot make any difference in the price I would give for the horse, not a\nbit. You see I am not buying an affidavit, I am buying a horse. So, when\nBrady says to the contractor, \"What will you carry the mail at six miles\nan hour for?\" and the man says \"Twenty-five thousand dollars,\" and he\nswears to it, Brady is not buying the affidavit; it is the service. If\nhe does not believe the service is worth that much, he says, \"I can't do\nit,\" and that is all. But they say \"No; that is not what Brady did.\"\n\nNow, as a matter of fact, there are nineteen routes in this indictment,\nand I believe eighteen of them were expedited. I have made a calculation\nfor the purpose of showing that the amount to be paid was a matter of\nbargain; that it was a matter talked over between the parties; that\nit was the result of agreement, and that Mr. Brady did not take the\naffidavit as the actual amount, and that they were not bound to take the\namount that he actually said. Now, I have deducted what was allowed\nfrom what could have been allowed on the affidavits, and I find that\nthe price did not depend upon the affidavits. I find that there was\na difference between the amount called for by the affidavits and the\namount granted of over three hundred thousand dollars. And yet these\ngentlemen say to you that Brady allowed the men who made the affidavits\nabsolutely to fix the amount. Gentlemen, that will not do. It was\na matter of agreement, a matter of bargain, the same as any other\nagreement or any other bargain.\n\nNow, gentlemen, suppose they had had a conspiracy and said, \"We want to\nget all the money we can out of the Treasury.\" They would have agreed\nupon a per cent.; they would have had all those affidavits showing\nsubstantially the same per cent., wouldn't they? Because they would have\nwanted harmony in it. They would have said, \"It won't do for you to make\nan affidavit on that route with one thousand two hundred per cent., on\nthis route with five hundred, on that route with two hundred and twenty\nper cent., and on the other route with three hundred and forty per cent.\nThat won't do; that is nonsense; we are in a conspiracy and we want all\nthese things to agree and harmonize.\" And the result would have\nbeen that they would have had about the same per cent, in all those\naffidavits. And yet those affidavits vary in per cent, all the way from\ntwo hundred and twenty to one thousand two hundred. They say, \"Result of\nconspiracy.\" I do not look at it in that way.\n\nIt is also claimed that the persons who sold out—that is to say, John\nM. Peck and John W. Dorsey—agreed to make the necessary papers that the\nother parties required. That being so, why should not affidavits have\nbeen made in blank? Now, I ask you if the other parties were willing to\nswear to anything that these men would write, why were they made that\nway? Why not avoid the suspicious circumstance of blanks and put the\namount in at first, knowing that the men would not hesitate to swear? Of\nwhat use was it, gentlemen, to have an affidavit suspiciously made, to\nhave blanks suspiciously left, when the men were willing to swear to\nany numbers they would put in? Why did not the parties who made the\naffidavits write in the amounts? Does not that very fact, that blanks\nwere left, show that they were to take the judgment of the men who were\nto do the swearing? Why would they leave blanks? Why did they not fill\nthem up at the time and have them sworn to?\n\nWhy were they not continuously written? That is another point, if this\nwas a conspiracy. Guilt is always conscious that it is guilty. Guilt is\nalways suspecting detection. Guilt is infinitely suspicious. Guilt would\nmake all the papers as nearly right as possible. Guilt would look out\nfor erasures. Guilt would abhor blots. Guilt would have avoided\nhaving blanks filled in with different colored inks. Guilt would\nwant everything fitting everything else, nothing to excite suspicion.\nInnocence is negligent. The man with honest intentions is the one that\ndoes not care. But the guilty man does not travel in the snow. He wants\nno tracks left.\n\nNow, another thing: The fact that no effort was made to have the\naffidavits in the same handwriting, no effort to have the blanks\napparently filled at the same time, that they were interlined, that\nthere were erasures—all those things tend to show that the parties\nwere honest in what they did. It was just as easy to have one without an\nerasure as with it; ii was just as easy to have one continuously written\nas to have the blanks filled up; just as easy to have one without any\ninterlineations as with it. And yet these parties, knowing that they\nwere conspirators (according to these gentlemen), Mr. Brady occupying\na high and responsible position, were so careless of their reputations,\nthat they did not even endeavor to make the papers passable upon their\nface.\n\nAnother thing: These very routes were investigated by Congress in\n1878—this very business. If the parties at that time had been conscious\nof guilt, why were any suspicious papers left on file? Why were not\nothers substituted that had no suspicious interlineations, no suspicious\nerasures, no suspicious blanks that had been filed? Why were these very\naffidavits at that time reported to Congress?\n\nThe first investigation was in 1878, and on account of that\ninvestigation the contractors for about a month and a half were left.\nThen there was another investigation in 1880.\n\nMr. Merrick. Is there any evidence that they were all reported to\nCongress?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I think so; I think that is here in the record. I\nunderstand the evidence to be that it was all reported to Congress.\n\nMr. Merrick. The investigation of 1880 was general, and not as to these\nparticular routes.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. In 1878 there was a special investigation growing out\nof these Clendenning bonds and out of the Peck bids, and out of the\nconnection that they said Stephen W. Dorsey had with this business. That\nis what it grew out of. Now, in the light of that investigation, let us\ntake it for granted for one moment that according to their statement the\nparties had conspired. If anything on earth would make them afraid about\npapers I think it would have been that investigation; and yet no effort\nwas made to conceal one, not the slightest.\n\nThen we will go another step. General Brady was Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General. All these papers were absolutely in his power. He\ncould have called for them at any time. Every suspicious paper could\nhave been destroyed or an unsuspicious one substituted for it.\n\nNow, I want to know if it is conceivable that General Brady, under these\ncharges, when the new administration came in, under the threat of the\nGovernment, would voluntarily leave those papers upon the files if they\nhad been dishonest and he knew it?\n\nTake another step. So far as we have learned from the prosecution I\nbelieve there is one paper claimed by them to have been lost. They do\nclaim that there was a second affidavit on the Bismarck and Tongue River\nroute. One is gone and one remains. Which remains? The affidavit for\none hundred and fifty men and one hundred and fifty horses. It seems to\nme absolutely capable of demonstration that we did not take the one that\nis gone. Had we been going to take anything we would have taken the one\nfor one hundred and fifty men and one hundred and fifty horses, and\nleft the other. But the other, about which nobody ever did complain, was\ntaken, and the one upon which they build their great argument of fraud\nupon that route was left. And then it turned out that General Brady only\nallowed forty per cent, of that affidavit.\n\nNow, this prosecution was not begun in a moment. It was talked about for\nweeks and months, I might almost say for years. Talk, talk, talk in\nthe papers everywhere. These men were not suddenly charged with this\noffence. They understood it; they knew it. I think I have been engaged\nin this suit, or suits growing out of this business, for two years. It\nwas a matter of slow growth. Mr. Brady retired, I believe, some time in\nApril, 1881, knowing at that time that these charges had been made and\nthat the charges were being pressed. Mr. Dorsey knew it at the same\ntime. All these defendants knew it. Now they say that at that time we\nwere in conspiracy with Mr. Brady, and they say that at that time we\nwere in conspiracy with Mr. Turner. We had the papers in our power.\n\nNow, if Mr. Dorsey was wicked enough to conspire, if Mr. Brady was\nvillainous enough to conspire, I ask you whether they would have left\nbehind the evidence of their conspiracy? Why were the papers left?\nBecause General Brady never dreamed that one of them was dishonest.\n\nWhy did not Vaile and Miner, John W. Dorsey and Peck and Stephen W.\nDorsey ask for the papers? Because they believed every one to be honest,\nand they had no use for them. They were willing that the Government\nshould make out of them what it could. I ask again, is it conceivable\nthat John R. Miner, if he knew there was on the files of the department\na petition that he had changed, that he had erased, that he had\ninterlined or forged, is it conceivable, if he had been wicked enough\nto enter into the conspiracy, that he would have been foolish enough to\nleave the paper there? Would he not have gone to Brady and said to him,\n\"I conspired; you know it; I changed the petition, and I want it; I\nerased a word in a petition, I want it; I signed a name to a petition, I\nwant it\"? And Brady would have said, \"Yes, and you ought to have called\nfor it long ago; you can have it.\" If S. W. Dorsey had interlined an\naffidavit or had filled a blank, if S. W. Dorsey had made an erasure\nor an interlineation, he, of course, must have known it, and if he\nconspired with Brady he must have known it, and he must have gone to\nGeneral Brady and said, \"I want that affidavit on such a route; we can\nwrite another, and I want that; I want that petition;\" and it would have\nbeen given. You cannot conceive of such infinite stupidity as to say\nthat those people knew that those papers were dishonest, and that they\nstill left them on file as weapons for their enemies. You cannot do it.\n\nSo much, gentlemen, for the affidavits, and so much for the papers.\n\nNow, there is another question, and I have no doubt that you have asked\nit yourselves. It has been asked a great many times by the prosecution.\nThat question is this: Why did Dorsey retain Rerdell in his employ after\nthe 20th of June, 1881? These gentleman tell you that it is evidence of\nguilt that he did it. I will tell you why he did it. At that time the\npublic mind was almost infinitely excited on this question. At that time\nthe public was ready to believe anything. It had its mouth wide open,\nlike a young robin, ready for worms or shingle-nails—it made no\ndifference—anything that dropped in. Every newspaper was charging that\nthese defendants were guilty, that Stephen W. Dorsey was a conspirator,\nthat millions had been taken from the Treasury, and there were nearly as\nmany mistakes in the press then as in the speech of Mr. Bliss now. But\nI can excuse that, because it was before the evidence. Now, what was Mr.\nDorsey to do in the then state of the public mind? That man, no matter\nhow bad he was, how base he was, had the power to have him indicted.\nThat man could have gone before the grand jury and had Mr. Dorsey or any\nother public man indicted in the then state of excitement and feeling of\nthe public. What was the result of his going even to James and MacVeagh?\nI believe Mr. Turner says that on account of the statement of this man\nRerdell, he (Turner) was turned out of his office. That is the effect.\nWhat became of McGrew? What became of Lilley? What became of Lake? What\nbecame of twenty or thirty other officials upon whose reputation this\nman had breathed the poison of slander? Stephen W. Dorsey at that time\nknew that that man in the then state of public excitement was powerful\nfor mischief. That man made the affidavit of June, 1881, at the request\nof James W. Bosler, as he himself says, and swore that he went to the\nGovernment simply to find out the Government's secrets; swore that he\nwas still upon the side of Stephen W. Dorsey; took back what he had\nsaid, and swore that it was a lie. The question then was what to do with\nhim? Stephen W. Dorsey made up his mind not to do anything more, just to\nlet him alone, just let him stay as he was. That was the wise course.\nIt was the course that any wise man, in my judgment, would have pursued\nunder the circumstances. What else could he do? Let him alone. Let him\nalone. He did not at that time expect that he would ever be indicted. He\nshrank from an indictment, as every sensitive man does, because when you\nhave indicted a man you have put a stain upon him that even the verdict\nof not guilty does not altogether remove. He did not want that stain.\nHe was a man of power; he was a man of position, a man of social and\npolitical standing, a man wielding as much influence as any other one\nman in the United States. He did not wish to be indicted. He did not\nwish his reputation to be soiled and stained. And so he allowed that man\nto stay where he was. He may have made a mistake, but whether mistake or\nnot, that is what he did.\n\nThere is another question. Why did we fail to produce our books and\npapers? I will tell you. The notice to produce them was given to us\non the 13th day of February. We had noticed curious motions. Two days\nafterwards, Mr. Rerdell went on the stand. What did they want the books\nand papers for? For Mr. Rerdell to look at. Why did he want to look at\nthe books and papers? To stake out his testimony. He hated to depend\nupon his memory. We took the responsibility of letting the witness\nswear to the contents of the books and papers, and let them call that\nsecondary evidence. We took that responsibility rather than to furnish\nthe books and papers to be looked at by that man in order that he might\nmake no mistakes in his testimony. What happened afterwards justified\nour course. If we had shown to him the books and papers, and checks,\nand stubs, do you think he would have made any mistake about that seven\nthousand five hundred dollar check? Would he have said that he went\nwith Dorsey, and that Dorsey drew the money, and that he looked over\nhis shoulder, and that then he and Dorsey walked down to the Post-Office\nDepartment, if he had known that that check was drawn to his order? If\nhe had known before he swore, that he indorsed that check, he would have\nsaid he went down and got the money himself; he would not have said that\nDorsey did. He would have made no mistakes there. He would not have\nbeen driven into the corner of saying \"stub\" or \"stubs,\" \"checkbook\"\nor \"check-books,\" \"amount\" or \"amounts.\" No, sir. And that one thing\njustified absolutely the wisdom of our course.\n\nThen the Court decided that, having failed to produce our books on\nnotice and allowed the other side to introduce secondary evidence of\ntheir contents, we would not be allowed then to produce them. I insisted\nthat we had the right then to produce them, and the Court decided that\nwe had not. We took the responsibility of refusing, and we took that\nresponsibility because we made up our minds that we would not allow\nthat man to look over the books, checks, and stubs for the purpose of\nmanufacturing his testimony.\n\nThe Court. Where did you offer to produce the books?\n\nMr. Merrick. Where did you offer the production of the books? That is\njust what I was about to ask.\n\nMr. Carpenter. The Court said we could not.\n\nMr. Merrick. Where did you make the offer?\n\nThe Court. I want to know.\n\nMr. Carpenter. Mr. Ingersoll did not say he made the offer.\n\nMr. Merrick. I think he did.\n\nThe Court. I think he did.\n\nMr. Carpenter. Just read it, Mr. Stenographer. He says nothing of the\nkind.\n\nThe Stenographer, (reading)\n\nI insisted that we had the right then to produce them, and the Court\ndecided that we had not.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is exactly what I say.\n\nThe Court. The Court did not give any intimation at that time, but\nafter that point in the trial had passed, several days, several weeks,\nI think, the attention of the Court was called to this question, and the\nCourt remarked, in the course of the opinion, that it understood the\nlaw to be that after a party, upon whom notice had been given to produce\nbooks, had failed to produce the books, and the other side had given\nsecondary evidence, then the Court would not allow the party having the\nbooks to produce them for the purpose of contradicting the secondary\nevidence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That is all I claim.\n\nThe Court. But there was no such offer made, so far as I recollect.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Why should we make the offer after your Honor had decided\nthat we could not do it?\n\nMr. Merrick. I will answer the question. Because whether it would have\nbeen accepted or not was a question for the counsel for the Government\nwhen the offer was made. And again, the learned counsel will recollect\nthat after the notice was given, when S. W. Dorsey was on the stand on\ncross-examination, I demanded those books and those stubs, and he asked\nleave to consult his counsel. The Court denied that request, and then\nthere was a peremptory refusal to produce any book or any paper.\n\nThe Court. Oh, yes. Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Davidge repeatedly announced\nto the Court that they were not going to produce books to assist the\nprosecution.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes; I said that twenty times, and the Court, as I\nunderstood it, held that after we had refused to produce the books and\ndriven the other party to secondary evidence, we could not then produce\nthe books.\n\nThe Court. You made no offer to produce the books.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I resisted the opinion of the Court and made the best\nargument I could, but the Court said that was not the law.\n\nThe Court. The remark of the Court arose upon an argument on the part of\nMr. Ingersoll, and if I am not mistaken, upon the effect of the refusal\nto produce the books and papers, Mr. Ingersoll contending that there was\nno presumption against his client on account of the refusal to produce\nthe books and papers, and that the jury ought to be instructed that the\nonly effect of refusing to produce the books and papers was to leave the\ncase upon the secondary evidence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I am not referring to that discussion, nor to that\ndecision of your Honor; I am referring to the decision you made during\nthe trial.\n\nThe Court. That was the only occasion since this trial began, in\nwhich the Court referred to that rule of law which denied the right\nto introduce primary evidence for the purpose of contradicting the\nsecondary evidence, after the primary evidence had been withheld in the\nfirst instance.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Of course, I am not absolutely certain, I never am; but\nI will endeavor to find in the record exactly what you said on that\nsubject.\n\nAnd now, in order that we may be perfectly correct, and in order to\nshow, too, how easy it is to be mistaken, Mr. Merrick just said upon\nthat very subject of the books and papers, that while Mr. Dorsey was\nupon the stand, he asked leave to consult his counsel. If Mr. Merrick\nwill read the testimony he will find that Mr. Dorsey made that remark\nwhen he was asked about the affidavit of June 20, 1881.\n\nMr. Merrick. You are right.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. That just shows how easy it is to make a mistake when it\ncomes to a matter of recollection.\n\nMr. Merrick. I think it was upon a question of the insertion of the\nchange in the character of the affidavit—its being addressed to the\nPresident; and when I asked him if he had not made that change he asked\nleave to consult his counsel. For the moment I thought it was upon the\nbooks. But the substance still remains, that, on the question of the\nbooks, I asked him on his cross-examination—and the counsel will state\nhis recollection to be the same—about the stubs and the books, and\ncalled upon him to produce them, and the counsel replied, \"We will not.\"\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I presume I did. I made that reply a good many times.\n\nMr. Merrick. Will the counsel be frank enough to state when that\ndecision was made?\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Which decision?\n\nMr. Merrick. When he was on the stand on cross-examination.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. And I said we would not produce them?\n\nMr. Merrick. After the testimony in chief and Rerdell was gone.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Then I said we would not produce them. And now I will say\nthat the decision of the Court was made before that time that we could\nnot produce them, and if I do not show it then I will publicly take it\nback.\n\nThe Court. I do not think you can show it.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. If I do not, then I will beg your Honor's pardon, and if\nI do—if I do—Now, I think what happened afterwards in this case with\nthat very witness justifies the course that we pursued. He also stated\nat the time that we had, I believe, some twenty thousand pages of\nletters on all possible subjects to a great number of people. We\nknew that there was a spirit abroad—and some of it in a part of the\nprosecution—to find something against somebody else somewhere. We made\nup our minds that our private books and correspondence never should be\nransacked by this Department of Justice. We took the consequences, and\nwe are willing to take them. We say that the inference from our refusal\nis an inference of fact, and must be decided by the jury, and is not an\ninference of law.\n\nWe have been asked a good many times why we did not put James W. Bosler\non the stand. The prosecution subpoenaed Mr. Bosler. They appeared\nto have an affection for him. They subpoenaed him, and he came here.\nAfterwards they issued an attachment for him. They had him, arrested at\nmidnight and brought here. He gave some testimony, and you will find it\non page 2611.\n\nMr. Merrick. I do not know that there was an attachment.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. You know you have a right to prove things by\ncircumstances. Now, it is said that he put the marshal out of the house;\nI think that is evidence tending to show that an attachment was issued.\n\nMr. Ker. And kept him out with a club.\n\nThe Court. I understood also that Mr. Dorsey kicked somebody else out of\nhis house about the same time.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Oh, yes; it has been a very lively term of court.\n\nThere were two very important things that they were to prove by Mr.\nBosler, and they were patting him on the back here for weeks. Friendship\nsprang up between them. It was a very young plant at first, but the\nBosler ivy grew upon the oak of the prosecution. I saw him sitting here,\neverything delightful. The prosecution, I hoped, began to flatter itself\nthat Mr. Bosler was on their side; I hoped that was so. Finally they put\nMr. Bosler on the stand. What did they want to prove by him? That Dorsey\nwrote a letter to him on the 13th of May, 1879, telling how much money\nhe had given to Brady; that is one thing they wanted to prove by him.\nThe second thing was that Rerdell had written a letter to Bosler,\nI believe, on the 20th of May or 22d of May, 1880, stating that he\n(Rerdell) had been subpoenaed to go before the Congressional committee\nand take his books and papers; that he got very much frightened; that\nhe had taken the advice of Brady and got a very valuable suggestion from\nBrady, which he was going to follow. They wanted to prove that by Mr.\nBosler.\n\nRerdell had already sworn that Dorsey sent a letter to Bosler on the\n13th of May, 1879. Rerdell had sworn to the contents of that letter;\nthat the contents were that he had paid Brady so much money, &c., which\nyou remember, and then that he, in 1880, had written a letter to Mr.\nBosler, and I believe he pretended to have a copy of it. Now, here comes\nBosler's testimony, on page 2611.\n\nQ. Have you made a search among your papers to find a letter alleged to\nhave been written to you by Stephen W. Dorsey, and dated on or about the\n13th of May, 1879?—Yes, sir.\n\nThat is the letter that Rerdell swore about.\n\nQ. Have you searched?—A. I have.\n\nQ. Did you find it?-A. No, sir.\n\nQ. Have you made search for a letter purporting to have been written by\nhim to you, and dated on or about the 22d of May, 1880?—A. Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Did you find that letter?—A. I did not.\n\nThe Court: Was there ever such a letter?\n\nBosler replied: \"There never was such a letter received by me.\"\n\nThere is the testimony of Mr. Bosler, and on that testimony the two\nletters of May 13, 1879, and May 22, 1880, turn to dust and ashes.\n\nNow, they say, \"Why didn't you put Bosler on?\" Not much necessity of\nMr. Bosler after that. And besides, gentlemen, I believe I will take you\ninto my confidence just a little bit. The evidence of Rerdell as to\nthe affidavit of June 20, 1881, and the affidavit of July 13, 1882 (an\naffidavit in which he swore that there was nothing against Mr. Bosler,\nan affidavit that was made apparently for the benefit of Bosler),\nall that evidence, the evidence of Mr. Stephen W. Dorsey upon those\nquestions, advertised the prosecution that Mr. Bosler knew of many\ncircumstances; that he was present a portion of the time, and I did not\nknow but finally the prosecution would get so much confidence in Mr.\nBosler that they would call him. I was hoping they would. They did not.\nIt did not work quite as I expected. That is all there is about that.\n\nNow, there is one further point to which I wish to call your attention.\nI want you to remember that a partnership is not a conspiracy, although\nall the facts about a partnership are consistent with the idea of a\nconspiracy up to a certain point; and all the facts about a conspiracy\nare consistent with a partnership up to a certain point. The fact that\nmen act together does not show that they have conspired; does not show\nthat they have a wicked design. The fact that they are engaged in the\nsame business does not show that they have a wicked design or that they\nare there by conspiracy. In other words, I want your minds so that you\nwill distinguish between a fact that may be innocent, and generally\nis innocent, and a fact that must be evidence of guilt. I want you to\ndistinguish between the facts common to all partnerships, common to all\nagreements, and those facts that necessarily imply a criminal intent. If\nyou wil do that gentlemen, you will have but little trouble.\n\n[At this point a volume of the report of the trial was handed up to the\nCourt by Mr. Ingersoll with a reference to a certain page].\n\nThe Court. Without looking at the book I take risk of saying that\nthe Court never announced its opinion on that question until the case\nreferred to a few moments ago.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I just gave my memory on the subject. It does not make\nany great difference in this case, of course.\n\nMr. Carpenter. This is during the cross-examination of Rerdell.\n\nThe Court. Yes, the Court did state on that occasion:\n\nThat is not the point here. If they are allowed to go on and\ncross-examine this way without the production of the books, they cannot\ncontradict the witness afterwards by producing the books.\n\nI had forgotten that I had announced it twice.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. If the Court please, I did not want to bring this up,\nbecause I knew you had, and so I thought I would slip you the book and\nlet you off easy.\n\nThe Court. I do not think it weakens the position at all that the same\nannouncement has been made twice instead of once.\n\nMr. Carpenter. We thought it made it stronger.\n\nThe Court. Still, the books were not produced.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Now, if the Court please, I am not arguing—\n\nThe Court. [Interposing.] I will leave you to the jury.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Your Honor knows that I have always shown great modesty\nabout trying to do anything against any decision.\n\nThe Court. I do not dispute that.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Now, the next question, gentlemen, is what is meant by\ncorroboration? If you tell a man that he is not a great painter, he does\nnot get angry. He says he does not pretend to paint, or is not a great\nsculptor. But if you tell him he has no logic, he loses his temper.\nYet logic is perhaps the rarest quality of the human mind. There are\nthousands of painters and sculptors where there is one logician. A man\nswears, for instance, that he went down to a man's house in the morning\nat six o'clock, and that Mr. Thomas was standing just in front of the\nhouse, and when he went in the dog tried to bite him, and that after he\ngot in he had such and such conversation. Now, there are thousands of\npeople who have brains of that quality that they think the fact that\nhe did go there at six o'clock in the morning, and did see Mr. Thomas\nstanding out in front of the house, and especially the fact that the dog\ndid try to bite him, is a corroboration of the conversation that took\nplace in the house. There are just such people. In this case, for\ninstance, in Mr. Brady's matter, they say that the fact of Walsh being\nin his house is important. Suppose that he was, what of it? Is that\ncorroboration? Corroboration must be on the very point in dispute. It\nmust be the very hinge of the question. Then it is corroboration, if the\nquestion is what did the man say. It is not corroboration to prove that\nthe man was there unless the man swears that he was not there. Then the\ninference is drawn that if he would lie about being there he might lie\nabout what he said.\n\nNow, understand me. They will say, for instance, \"Here is an affidavit,\nand these blanks have been filled up. Rerdell says they were filled up,\nand he says they were filled up after they were sworn to.\" Now, the fact\nthat the affidavit is there and that the blanks are filled up is not\ncorroboration, because the point to be corroborated is that it was done\nafter it was sworn to. And so the existence of the affidavit, while it\nis necessary, is no corroboration; the filling up of the blank is no\ncorroboration; its being on file is no corroboration. Why? The point to\nbe corroborated is not that the blanks were filled, but that they were\nfilled after the paper had been sworn to! That is the point. And when\nthey begin to talk to you about corroboration I want you to have it\nin your minds all the time that to be corroborated about an immaterial\nmatter is nothing; it has nothing to do with the question; but there\nmust be corroboration on the very heart of the point at issue!\n\nThere is another thing, gentlemen. It does not make any difference what\nI say about this man, or that man, or the other man, unless there is\nreason in what I say. If I tell you that the evidence of a witness is\nnot worthy of belief, I must tell you why. I must give you the reason.\nIf I simply say the witness is a perjurer, that shows that I either\nunderrate your sense, or have none of my own, because that is not\ncalculated to convince any human mind one way or the other. You are not\nto take my statement; you are to take the evidence, and such reasons as\nI give, and only such as appeal to your good sense. If I say, \"You must\nnot believe that man,\" I must give you the reason why. If the reason I\ngive is a good one, you will act upon it. If it is a bad one I cannot\nmake it better by piling epithet upon epithet. There is no logic in\nabuse; there is no argument in an epithet.\n\nAnd there is another thing. An attorney has a certain privilege; he is\nprotected by the court. He is given almost absolute liberty of speech,\nand it is a privilege that he never should abuse. He should remember\nif he attacks a defendant, that the defendant cannot open his mouth. He\nshould remember that it does not take as much courage to attack, as\nit does not to attack. He should remember, too, that by the use of\nepithets, by abuse, that he is appealing to the lowest and basest part\nof every juror's head and heart. It is on a low level. It is a fight\nwith the club of a barbarian instead of with an intellectual cimeter.\nThere is no logic in abuse. There is no argument in epithet. Remember\nthat. The weight and worth of an argument is the effect it has upon an\nunprejudiced mind, and that is all it is worth. Therefore I do not want\nyou, gentlemen, to be carried away by any assault that may be made—I\ndo not say that any will be made—but any that may be made, that is not\nabsolutely justified by the evidence.\n\nThere has been one little thing said during this trial; that is, about\nthe testimony of defendants. I believe Mr. Bliss takes the ground that\nyou cannot believe a defendant; that defendants cannot be believed\nunless they are corroborated. Mr. Bliss has the kindness to put the\ndefendants in this case on an equality with his witness Rerdell.\nGentlemen, you cannot believe any witness unless his evidence is\nreasonable. Every witness has to be corroborated by the naturalness of\nhis story. Every witness is to be corroborated by his manner upon the\nstand and by the thousand little indications that catch the eye of\na juror or of a judge or of an attorney. Congress has passed a law\nallowing defendants to swear when they are put upon trial. Will you tell\nme that that law is a net, a snare, and a delusion, and the moment a\ndefendant takes the stand the prosecution is to say, \"Of course he will\nlie\"? Why do they say that? Because he is a defendant, and you cannot\nbelieve a word that he says; he is swearing in his own behalf. There is\nthat same low, slimy view of human nature again, that a defendant who\nswears in his own behalf must swear falsely. I do not take that view.\nThe defendant has the same right upon the stand that anybody else has,\nand if his character is not good his character can be attacked; it\ncan be impeached by the prosecution precisely as you would impeach the\nreputation of any other witness. If he tells a story which is reasonable\nyou will believe it, and you will believe it notwithstanding he is a\ndefendant and notwithstanding he has an interest in the verdict. In old\ntimes they would not allow a man to swear at all if he had the interest\nof a cent in any civil suit. They would not allow him to testify when he\nwas on trial for his own liberty and his own life. That was barbarism.\nThe enemy—the man who hated him—he could tell his story, but the man\nattacked, the man defending his own liberty and his own life, his mouth\nwas closed and sealed. We have gotten over that barbarism in nearly all\nthe States of this Union, and now we say, \"Let every man tell his story;\ndon't allow any avenue to truth to be closed; let us hear all sides, and\nwhatever is reasonable take as the truth, and what is unreasonable throw\naway.\" And, gentlemen, let me say here that it is not your business to\ngo to work picking a witness's testimony all apart and saying, \"Well, I\nguess there is a little scrap now that there is some truth in,\" or \"here\nis a line, and I guess that is so, but the next eleven lines I do not\nbelieve; the next sentence, I think, will do.\" That is not the way to\ndo. If a witness is of that character you must throw his entire evidence\nto the winds, for it is tainted and the fountains of justice should not\nbe tainted with such evidence, and a verdict should not be touched\nand corrupted with such testimony. You will take the evidence of these\ndefendants as you would take that of any other man, and it is for you to\nsay whether that evidence is true. It is for you to say that.\n\nIf corroboration was so necessary why were not their witnesses\ncorroborated? Why didn't they call Mr. Bosler to corroborate their\nwitness?\n\nNow, one of the defendants in this case is Mr. John R. Miner, and I want\nyou to think of the terrible things they have against him. One of the\ncharges made against him is that he wrote a petition and wrote in six\nnames attached to it. His explanation is, that if he did anything of\nthat kind it was because he received a petition which was so worn that\nit could not be presented, and he copied it, and that the six names were\nfound on that petition. There was no other way on earth for him to get\nthose names, and we find them on the same route in, I believe, seven\nother petitions which were filed; we find that those very names are\non the other petitions, and I think Mr. Hall's name—the one the most\ntrouble was made about—was on three or four petitions of the other\nkind.\n\nMr. Carpenter. He admitted that he wrote them.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes; Hall admitted that he wrote them. But I believe this\npetition was never filed in the department.\n\nI think Mr. Woodward said he found it among the papers at some other\nplace.\n\nThere is a petition called the Utah petition that has some names in\nUtah. I think Mr. Woodward swore that he tound it in room No. 22 or 23.\n\nMr. Merrick. In the case itself, in the department.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. Yes; but it has no file mark. Mr. Woodward says he does\nnot now remember how it got in there. As I was about to remark, there\nwas a petition called the Utah petition with some names of persons\nliving off the route, I believe—two or three sheets. The petition\nitself was genuine, and was indorsed, I believe, by Senators Slater and\nGrover and by Congressman Whiteaker. Now, then, how did these names come\nin there? The petition is ample without those names; large enough.\nI will tell you what I think. I think that it is a part of another\npetition, and that it was the result of an accident. I think it was done\nin the Post-Office Department, not intentionally, but as an accident.\nThe evidence is that they kept three routes in one pigeonhole, and that\nthe papers sometimes got mixed; that is Mr. Brewer's testimony. A very\nstrange thing happened to that petition. While it was before this jury\nit came apart again. And if some clerk not absolutely familiar with the\npapers had taken it up, he would have been just as liable to put it\non the wrong petition as on the right one. My plan is to account for a\nthing in some way consistent with evidence, if I naturally can. I do\nnot go out of my way hunting for evidence of crime. And when there was\na petition, large enough, with a plenty of genuine names on it, I cannot\nimagine anybody would go and get names from any other petition and paste\nthem on to that. But being in this same country, and the testimony being\nthat they had three of these routes in one pigeon-hole, my idea is that\nthe papers got mixed and mingled sometimes, and I say the probability\nis that it was an accident. That is the best way to account for it. If\nMiner had known that that petition was there that he had made, would he\nhave allowed it to stay there? Why would he want to do such a thing\nif he was in a conspiracy with Brady? Why would he have to resort to\nperjury and interlineation in order to get Brady to make orders that he,\nBrady, had conspired to make? Absurdity cannot go beyond that. Here\nis the doctrine: \"I have conspired with the Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General. He will do anything for me that I want. Now, I will\ngo and forge some petitions.\" That seems to me perfectly idiotic. This\npetition was indorsed by Senators Grover and Slater and Congressman\nWhiteaker.\n\nThen, there is another petition; that one I showed you this morning,\nwith the words \"schedule thirteen hours,\" and the evidence was (that\nis, if you call what Rerdell stated evidence) that Miner wrote the words\n\"schedule thirteen hours.\" I have shown you, this morning, those words,\nand without any other particle of argument I want to leave it to you who\nwrote those words—whether Rerdell wrote them or Miner.\n\nThen, there is another wonderful thing about that petition. It is not on\nany of the routes in this indictment, and has no business here—I mean\nthe Ehrenberg petition. The one I spoke of was the Kearney and Kent.\n\nThe next petition is the Ehrenberg and Mineral Park. They say that there\nhas been some word erased and another written in. Nobody pretends that\nit is not a genuine petition. Nobody pretends that it was not signed by\nevery one of the persons by whom it purports to be signed. Then, another\npeculiarity; it is not on any route in this indictment, and has no more\nto do with this case than the last leaf of the Mormon Bible; not the\nleast.\n\nLet us see if they have any more of these terrible things. Here is\npetition 2 A, on the Kearney and Kent route. That is the petition that\nhas the words \"schedule thirteen hours.\"\n\nThat is the one indorsed by Senator Saunders. Petition 18 K, on the\nroute from Ehrenberg to Mineral Park, is not a route in this case. It\nturned out that the names on it are genuine, and the genuineness of the\npetition has not been challenged. The only point made is that the word\n\"Ehrenberg\" has been written by somebody else. There is no evidence\nto show that the petition was not properly signed; that the persons on\nthere did not sign their names or authorize somebody else to do it. The\nprobability is there may have been some mistake in the name, or it\nmay have been misspelled. There was some mistake made, and the word\n\"Ehrenberg\" was written in. On page 4186 Mr. Miner swears positively\nthat in regard to the petition 2 A he never wrote the words \"schedule\nthirteen hours.\"\n\nThen, there is another petition, I think it is on page 1247, the Camp\nMcDermitt petition. There are the words \"ninety-six hours.\" And they get\nthat down there to a fine point. Mr. Boone swore that he did not know\nwho wrote the word \"ninety,\" but that Miner wrote the word \"six..\" Well,\nthat is too fine a point, gentlemen, to put on handwriting. It seems\nthere is an interlineation there of the words \"ninety-six,\" and they say\nthey do not know who wrote the word \"ninety\" and that Miner wrote the\nword \"six.\" But Miner swears that he did not write it at all.\n\nNow, then, you take away the evidence of Mr. Rerdell as to Miner, and\nwhat is left? The evidence left is that of A. W. Moore. And what is\nthat? It is that Miner instructed him to get up false petitions. This\nwas the first time he ever went out. But Moore swore that he made\narrangements to do what Miner instructed him to do; that he made such\narrangements with Major; but Major swears he did not. Moore swore that\nhe made some arrangement with McBean, and the Government did not ask\nMcBean whether he did or not, but I will show that he did not. The\ntestimony shows that on the first trip, at the time he saw Major, he\ndid not see McBean. Now, just see. He swore, in the first place, that he\nmade that arrangement with Major and McBean. I find afterwards that his\nevidence shows that he did not see McBean on the first trip, but he did\nsee him on the second.\n\nOn page 1408 we find that when Moore went West the second time—when he\nleft here and had made a bargain with Dorsey for one-quarter interest in\nhis route, and Miner told him to go West and let Dorsey's routes go to\nthe devil, and he said he would, and never notified Dorsey that he\nwas going to do it—that man comes here now and swears that he made a\ncontract with Dorsey for one-quarter interest, and then started West and\nmade a contract with Miner, letting Dorsey's routes go. He did not have\nthe decency to even notify Dorsey that he was going to do so. That\nis the man. On the first trip he did not agree with anybody about\npetitions. Now, understand my point, because it kills Mr. Moore again.\nWe have to keep killing these people—keep killing them. It is something\nlike the boy who was found pounding a woodchuck. He was pounding him\naway in the road with all his might, and a man came along and said to\nhim, \"What are you pounding that woodchuck for?\" He said, \"Oh, I am just\npounding him.\" \"But,\" the man said, \"he is dead.\" \"Yes, I know it,\" said\nthe boy, \"but I am pounding him to show him that there is punishment\nafter death.\"\n\nNow, on page 1408, we find that this man Moore went to the West a second\ntime. I have shown you that the first time, he swears that he did not\nsee McBean at all. He saw Major and made the arrangement with him, he\nsays. Major swears that he did not. They do not put McBean on the stand.\nNow, he goes a second time.\n\nOn the second trip, he says he had nothing to do with the petition\nbusiness at all, and did not explain the petition business to anybody\nbecause he had not the time, and on the first trip did not see McBean\nat all. And yet he swears that he made an arrangement with McBean about\nthese very petitions. The proof that he did not see Mc-Bean on his first\ntrip is found on page 1398.\n\nThere is one other point about which we have heard an immensity of talk\nand upon which a great deal of air has been wasted, and that is, that\nthere was a bargain that Brady was to have fifty per cent, of all the\nfines that he remitted. In other words, that he made a bargain with\nhis co-conspirators that if he fined them a thousand dollars and then\nremitted it, that he was to have five hundred dollars or one-half of\nthat fine. That is a nice bargain; for me to put myself in the power of\na man and say, \"Now, you fine me what you want to, and then if you will\ntake it off, I will give you half of it.\" It seems to me that that would\nbe quite an inducement for him to fine me. Yet, here is a man who makes\na bargain that Brady may impose a fine upon them and that he may have\nhalf of it back—that is, upon their doctrine, although they have never\nproved it, but they state it just the same as though they had. But here\nare the facts. Here are the fines and deductions on twelve routes.\nThe fines amount to eighty-nine thousand six hundred and thirty-eight\ndollars and twenty-two cents and the remissions amount to seven thousand\nfour hundred and twenty-eight dollars and fifty-four cents; that is\nall. And yet they pretend that we had a bargain. Now, come to the mail\nroutes, and we find that the fines amounted to sixty-one thousand two\nhundred and thirty-two dollars and twenty cents and all that they could\nget their co-conspirators to take off of that (although according to\nthe doctrine of the prosecution they were to have fifty per cent.) was\nthirteen thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars and sixteen cents.\nThat was all they could get off. There are the figures. There has been\ntalk enough on that subject, but all the air that wraps the earth could\nnot answer those facts. Words enough to wear out all human lips could\nnot change those facts. Fines eighty-nine thousand dollars, remissions\nseven thousand dollars; fines sixty-one thousand dollars, remissions\nthirteen thousand dollars. And yet they pretend that he had a bargain\nby which he had fifty per cent, of all he remitted. I need not make any\nmore argument on that point.\n\nThere have been one or two things in this trial that I have regretted,\nand one I find in Mr. Ker's speech. And I find frequent reference to it\nin other places, and that is the blindness of S. W. Dorsey. Affidavits\nwere made by Drs. Marmion, Bliss, and Sowers that Mr. Dorsey had lost\nat least eleven-twelfths of his vision. And yet it has been constantly\nthrown out to you that it was a ruse, a device, and I believe Mr. Ker\nsaid in his speech that Mr. Dorsey saw a paper in Mr. Merrick's hand,\nMr. Merrick, I believe, holding a balance-sheet from the German-American\nSavings Bank—a paper several feet wide or long—and because Mr. Dorsey\nsaid to him, \"I believe you have it in your hand,\" why they said this\nman is pretending to be blind. His testimony was that he had been in a\ndark room for three months; that his eyes had not been visited by one\nray of light for three months, and that for six months he had not read\na solitary word. And yet the prosecution sneeringly pretended that there\nwas nothing the matter with his eyes. They subpoenaed Dr. Marmion, but\nthey dare not put him on the stand. They threw out hints and innuendoes\nthat these doctors had sworn falsely, but they dare not put it to the\ntest. It seems that nothing in the world can satisfy them about Stephen\nW. Dorsey except to see him convicted, except to have them put their\nfeet upon his neck. Gentlemen, you never will enjoy that pleasure. You\nnever will while the world swings in its orbit find twelve honest men\nto convict Stephen W. Dorsey—never. This Government may put forth its\nutmost power; it may spend every dollar in its Treasury; it may hire all\nthe ingenuity and brain of the country, and it can never find twelve men\nwho will put Stephen W. Dorsey in the penitentiary—never, and you might\nas well give it up one time as another. Try it year after year; poison\nthe mind of the entire public with the newspapers; get all the informers\nyou can; bring all the witnesses you can find; put all of those whom you\ncall accomplices on the stand, and I give you notice that it never can\nbe done, and I want you to know it. Spend your millions, and you will\nend where you start. As long as the average man runs there will always\nbe one or two honest men in a dozen; so you cannot convict one of these\ndefendants. Go on, but it will never be accomplished.\n\nThere is one other thing which perhaps may be worth noticing. I believe\nthat they proved by Mr. Dorsey that he wrote an account of his relation\nto this business, and published it in the New York Herald. The only\npoint with which Mr. Merrick quarreled in that entire paper was the\nstatement that Peck was a large contractor, and when Dorsey was put on\nthe stand he explained that while Peck had not many routes in his own\nname, that he was the partner of a man named Chidester. That is the only\nthing of which he complained, and yet that communication pretended to\ntell the relation that Dorsey sustained to this entire business, and\nif that had not accorded precisely with Dorsey's testimony on the stand\nevery word of it would have been read to you again and again. And Mr.\nKer says that letter was written for the purpose of poisoning public\nopinion. Was the letter of the Attorney-General of the United States,\nwritten just before this trial began, written to bias public opinion\nalso?\n\nMr. Merrick. Is there any evidence of that letter in this trial? If not\nI object to any reference to it.\n\nThe Court, You cannot refer to that, because it is not in the case.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I take it back. Was Dickson indicted to bias public\nopinion?\n\nMr. Merrick. I object to that also. He was indicted by the grand jury on\ncompetent testimony.\n\nThe Court. There is no evidence in this case that he was indicted.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will take it back then. I would ask the Court, however,\nafter the attorney for the Government has said that Dorsey wrote that\nletter to bias public opinion, if I have not the right to say that he\nwrote that letter because letters had been written by others.\n\nMr. Merrick. Not unless those letters are in proof.\n\nThe Court. The fact that he wrote the letter is in evidence in the case.\nThat of course makes it the proper subject of comment on either side.\nAnything else not in evidence is not a subject of controversy.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I will take it for granted, however, that the jury\nunderstand what is going on in this case.\n\nMr. Merrick. Yes, they understand the evidence.\n\nMr. Ingersoll. I understand that the jury, as members of this community,\nas citizens of the United States, have at least a vague idea of what the\nDepartment of Justice has done.\n\nIt is also claimed, and has been claimed, and I have answered it again\nand again and again, that S. W. Dorsey is the chief conspirator. Why? Is\nit possible that it is because he was the chief man politically? Is it\npossible that any politician was envious of his place and power? Is it\npossible that any politician was envious of the influence he had with\nPresident Garfield? Is it possible that he had interfered with the\ncareer of some piece of mediocrity? Why is it that he is made the chief\nfigure? These are questions that are asked and questions that you can\nanswer. How does it happen that his name never figures in any division?\nThat his name never figures in any paper made in regard to this\nbusiness? How does it happen that when he was contending with the\nGerman-American National Bank that he must be paid, how is it that it\nnever occurred to Miner or Vaile to tell him, \"Why, this is a conspiracy\nof your own hatching. You advanced this money to give life to your own\nbantling, and you have got to wait until the conspiracy bears fruit, and\nif you are not willing to wait you can do the next worse thing, have it\nmade public\"? If at that time, when he was opposing and fighting Vaile\nbecause he had cut out his security, Vaile had known that Dorsey was in\nthe conspiracy, one word from him and Stephen W. Dorsey's mouth would\nhave remained shut forever. But it did not occur to Miner, it did not\noccur to Vaile. That won't do. Why didn't Vaile say to him, \"Mr. Dorsey,\nyou are making a great deal of fuss about a few thousand dollars. You\nare in the Senate; you are interested in these routes, and I want to\nhear no more from you\"? Why didn't he say it? Because it was not true;\nthat is why.\n\nNow, gentlemen, if what the prosecution claims is true, not only Stephen\nW. Dorsey, not only Thomas J. Brady, not only John R. Miner, not only H.\nM. Vaile, and John W. Dorsey are guilty of conspiracy, but hundreds and\nhundreds of other people. Do you believe it is possible that all the\npersons who petitioned for an increase of service, who petitioned for\nexpedition—do you believe they were in a conspiracy? Do you believe\nthey were dishonest men, and do you believe they asked for what they\ndid not want? Do you believe that these defendants had at their beck and\ncall the representatives of the entire great Northwest? Do you believe\nthat members of Congress of the Lower House and of the Senate were\ntheir agents and tools? Was Senator Hill a conspirator? Was the present\nSecretary of the Interior a conspirator? Were Senator Grover and Senator\nSlater also conspirators? Were generals, judges, district attorneys,\nmembers of State and Territorial Legislatures—were they all\nconspirators? Did they indorse false petitions for the purpose of\nputting money in the pockets of these defendants? Let us be honest.\nDo you believe that General Miles was a conspirator, or that General\nSherman, whose title is next to that of the President, and whose name\nis one synonymous of victory, entered into a conspiracy? Do you believe\nthat he knows as much about the mail business as Colonel Bliss? Do you\nbelieve that he knows as much about the wants of the great Northwest as\nthe gentlemen who are prosecuting this case? Was he a conspirator with\ntheir Representative in Congress from Oregon? Was Horace F. Page a\nconspirator? These are questions, gentlemen, that you must answer.\nWere all these men, these officers of the Army, State officers, Federal\nofficers, and men of national reputation—were they all engaged in\na conspiracy; were they endeavoring to assist these defendants in\nplundering the Treasury of these United States? These are questions for\nyou to ask and questions for you to answer. Is it not wonderful that\nsuch a conspiracy should have existed in all the Western States at one\ntime?\n\nGentlemen, is it wonderful that all the people of the West want mails?\nDo you not know, and do I not know, that the mail is the substantial\nbenefit we get from the General Government? Don't you know that the mail\nis the pioneer of civilization? Do you not know that there ought to be a\nmail wherever the flag floats? Do you not know that the only way to keep\na great country like this together, a vast territory of three million\nsquare miles—three million five hundred thousand square miles—is by\nthe free distribution of the mail? If you are going to keep the people\nwho populate that territory together, if you are going to keep them of\none heart and one mind, if you are going to make them keep step to\nthis Union and to the progress of this nation, you must have frequent\nintercourse with them all. The telegraph must reach to the remotest\nhamlet; the little electric spark, freighted with intelligence and\npatriotism, must visit every home; and the newspaper and the letter,\nbearing words of love from home and news from abroad, must visit every\nhouse, so that every man, whether digging in the mine or working on the\nfarm, may feel the throb and thrill of the great world, and be a citizen\nof a mighty nation instead of an ignorant provincial.\n\nI am in favor of frequent mails everywhere, all over the plains, all\nthrough the mountains, everywhere, wherever the flag flies, I want the\nman who sits under it to feel that the Government has not forgotten him;\nthat is what I want. I take pride in this country. I am one of the men\nwho believe that there is only air enough in this entire continent to\nfloat one flag. I am one of the men who believe that it is the destiny\nof the United States to control every inch of soil from the Arctic\nto the Antarctic, and that when a nation loses its ambition to grow,\nincrease, and expand it begins to die. And what right has a man who\nis carrying the mail to interfere with the policy of the Post-Office\nDepartment? These are large questions, gentlemen of the jury, and I want\nyou to deal with them in a large and splendid American spirit. I want\nyou to feel that we are citizens of the greatest Government on this\nglobe. I want you to feel that here, to every man, no matter from what\nclime he may come, no matter of what people, no matter of what religion,\nthe soil will give emolument, the sun will give its light and heat, the\nGovernment will give its protection. I like to feel that way about\nthe Government. And yet, because the department adopted a splendid and\ngenerous policy, it is tortured into evidence of conspiracy.\n\nNow let me speak just a moment about these people—the defendants in\nthis case. First, there is Stephen W. Dorsey. I take a great interest in\nthis case; I admit it. I would rather lose my right hand than have you\nconvict Stephen W. Dorsey. I admit it. I admit that if he were convicted\nI would lose confidence in trial by jury; I would believe that there\nwere no twelve men in the world that had the honor and the manhood to\nstand by what they believed to be the evidence and the law. I would feel\nas though trial by jury was a failure. I admit I have that interest in\nit—all that anybody can have in any case. You can only convict that\nman by the testimony of A. W. Moore and M. C. Rerdell. That testimony\nwithdrawn from the record and there is not one word against him. I want\nyou to know and I want you to remember what kind of a man he is. You\nhave seen him; you know him; and you know something of him. It is for\nyou to decide whether you will take the testimony of Rerdell as against\nthat man. It is for you to decide whether you will take the testimony of\nA. W. Moore as against that man. These men who are prosecuting him seem\nto forget who he is and what he has been. Yet men disgrace the position\nthat Stephen W. Dorsey helped to give them, by attacking him.\n\nJohn W. Dorsey can be convicted by the testimony of nobody. There is no\ntestimony against him, except that of one man. He is an honest man. He\ntold exactly what he did, and he told it like an honest man. He told\nwhy he did not put his money in the bank at Middlebury, Vermont, because\nthey thought that he owed a debt which he did not think he owed. He need\nnot have told it, but he is an honest man, and that is the reason he\ntold it. The prosecution does not appreciate that kind of man, that is,\nthey say they do not.\n\nThe only witnesses against Miner are Rerdell and Moore, and they being\ndead, that is the end of it.\n\nWhat evidence is there against Harvey M. Vaile? One witness, Mr.\nRerdell. What did Harvey M. Vaile do? At the solicitation of Mr. Miner\nhe advanced money to prevent his having a failing contract. What else\ndid he do? He wrote a letter saying that he was trustee for S. W.\nDorsey, and he was, because the concern owed S. W. Dorsey a few thousand\ndollars, and agreed out of the profits to repay Stephen W. Dorsey. That\nis all. That is all. You have seen Mr. Vaile here from day to day. You\nknow that he is a man of mind. I think he is an honest man. I think he\ntestified to the exact truth. He did what any other man had the right to\ndo, he helped a man, not entirely from charity, but believing after all\nthat it might be a good investment, as you have done if you have\never had the opportunity. And there is not the slightest scintilla of\nevidence against him, not the slightest. I believe every word that he\ntestified, and so do you.\n\nAnd then they come to Thomas J. Brady, and they tell you that that man\nis to be convicted upon the testimony of whom? Mr. Walsh. And who else?\nMr. Rerdell. You have some idea of human nature. You have a little and I\nhave a little. Here is Mr. Walsh, an athlete; a man who, had he lived in\nRome in ancient times, might have been a gladiator. He loans Mr. Brady\ntwenty-five thousand or thirty thousand dollars. For some of this money\nhe has notes, for other portions he has not. He sends word to Brady that\nhe would like to fix the interest. He goes there and Brady takes these\nnotes and puts them in his pocket and they part as philosophers. If we\nbelieve that, we must believe it as idiots. You do not believe it. You\ndo not believe any man ever allowed another to take twenty-five thousand\ndollars in notes belonging to him and put them in his pocket and walk\noff, he taking off his hat at the door and you bowing and wishing him\na happy voyage. My mind is so constructed that I cannot believe that; I\ncannot help it. I imagine your minds are built a little after the same\nmodel. I do not believe the story; you do not.\n\nWho is the next witness against Mr. Brady? Mr. Rerdell.\n\nIt is sufficient for me to speak the name. I need argue no further. That\nis enough. You saw Mr. Brady on the stand and you heard him give his\ntestimony. No man could listen to it without knowing it to be true. I\nsay now to each one of you that when you heard it you believed it, and\nevery one of you believed it was the truth. Take from this record the\ntestimony of Rerdell, Walsh, and Moore, and what is left? Some papers,\npetitions, orders, affidavits, all made, signed and filed in the\ncloudless light of day. That is all that is left. Where is your\nconspiracy? Faded into thin air, nothing left.\n\nI presume it will be said by the prosecution that I spent about three\ndays on Mr. Rerdell. I admit it. Why? Because I regarded Rerdell as your\ncase. Because I made up my mind that when I killed Rerdell the case\nhad breathed its last. That is the reason. And had it been necessary to\nspend a few weeks more I should have done so. But it is not necessary.\nProbably I wasted a great deal of time upon the subject, but if he is\nnot dead I do not want it in the power of any human being to say that it\nwas my fault. I went at him with intent to kill, and I kept at him after\nI knew that he was dead. I admit it.\n\nNow, gentlemen, let us see what I have proved. Let us see what up to\nthis time I have substantiated in my judgment.\n\nFirst, I think I have shown that John W. Dorsey, John M. Peck, and John\nR. Miner agreed in 1877, to go into the mail business. That Peck wrote\na letter to Stephen W. Dorsey, who was then a United States Senator,\nasking him to get some competent man to get reliable information as to\nthe cost of service on routes in the Western States and Territories then\nadvertised by the General Government. That S. W. Dorsey gave that\nletter to A. E. Boone. That he told him to say nothing about it to other\ncontractors. That Boone sent out circulars for the purpose of getting\nthe requisite information; that is, the cost of corn and oats and the\nwages of men.\n\nThat John R. Miner came to Washington on the 1st of December, 1877. That\nhe went to the house of Stephen W. Dorsey, as had been the custom for\nseveral years. That he occupied a room in that house, and that he and\nMr. Boone went on with the business of making proposals and getting up\nforms of contracts.\n\nThat John W. Dorsey came here in the early part of January, 1878. That\nafter his arrival the partnership was formed between him and A. E.\nBoone, and that the partnership was dated the 15th day of January, 1878.\n\nThat S. W. Dorsey, at the request of his brother and brother-in-law,\nadvanced the amount of money necessary to pay incidental expenses. That\nhe gave his advice whenever it was asked. That he assisted the parties\nall that he conveniently could.\n\nThat the last bids or proposals were put in by these parties on the 2d\nof February, 1878. That the awards were made on the 15th day of March of\nthe same year. That Miner, Peck, Dorsey, and Boone received about\nfive times as many awards as they had anticipated. Thereupon another\npartnership was formed with the style of Miner, Peck & Co., and that\nthe partners in this firm were John R. Miner, John M. Peck, and John W.\nDorsey. That thereupon John W. Dorsey and John R. Miner went West for\nthe purpose of subcontracting the routes. That John R. Miner on his\nreturn from the West met Stephen W. Dorsey at Saint Louis about the 16th\nof July, 1878. That Stephen W. Dorsey up to that time had advanced eight\nthousand or nine thousand dollars. That he then gave to Mr. Miner notes\namounting to about eight thousand five hundred dollars to be by him\ndiscounted at the German-American National Bank of Washington. That\nStephen W. Dorsey then told Miner that he would advance no more and\nwould indorse no more. That Stephen W. Dorsey went from Saint Louis to\nNew Mexico; that John R. Miner came to the city of Washington, arriving\nhere about the 20th of July. That John R. Miner then found that\nservice in eastern Oregon was not in operation, although it had been\nsubcontracted; but he then applied to Thomas J. Brady for an extension\nof time. That Brady refused to give it. That Miner, Peck & Co. had not\nthe money to stock the routes not then in operation, and that Stephen\nW. Dorsey had refused to advance further means. That John W. Dorsey\nwas then in the West and that John M. Peck was then in New Mexico. That\nthereupon Mr. Miner applied to Harvey M. Vaile, and that Mr. Vaile went\nto Mr. Brady and asked whether an extension of time could be given,\nprovided he undertook to put the service on those routes. That Brady\nthen gave him until the 16th day of August, 1878. That thereupon Miner,\nunder the authority of powers of attorney from John M. Peck and John W.\nDorsey, agreed upon the terms on which H. M. Vaile should advance the\nmoney necessary to put the service in operation.\n\nThat the contract bears date the 16th day of August, 1878, and was duly\nexecuted by all the parties on the last of September or first of October\nof that year.\n\nThat the service was not in operation by the 16th of August, and that\nin August, Brady telegraphed to H. M. Vaile to know what routes he was\ngoing to put service on.\n\nThat thereupon Vaile replied that he would see that all the service\nof Miner, Peck, and Dorsey was put in operation. That through the\nassistance of Mr. Vaile the service was put in operation.\n\nThat before that time Stephen W. Dorsey had been secured by Miner, Peck,\nand John W. Dorsey executing PostOffice drafts upon the routes that had\nbeen awarded to them.\n\nThat on the 17th day of May, 1878, an act was passed by the Congress of\nthe United States allowing subcontractors to place their subcontracts on\nfile.\n\nThat after Vaile came in and agreed to furnish the money necessary to\nput the service in operation, John R. Miner having powers of attorney\nfrom Peck and John W. Dorsey, executed to H. M. Vaile subcontracts for\nthe purpose of securing him for the money he had advanced.\n\nThat H. M. Vaile put these subcontracts on file, thus cutting out and\nrendering worthless as security the PostOffice drafts that had been\ngiven to S. W. Dorsey for the purpose of securing him.\n\nThat John W. Dorsey returned from the Bismarck and Tongue River route in\nNovember, 1878, and that he then offered to sell out his entire interest\nin the business to Vaile for ten thousand dollars, and left instructions\nauthorizing his brother, S. W. Dorsey, to make such sale for such\namount. That John W. Dorsey then returned to the Tongue River route.\n\nThat Stephen W. Dorsey returned to Washington in December, 1878, and for\nthe first time found that the subcontracts had been given to Vaile. That\nhe and Mr. Vaile had a quarrel with the German-American National Bank on\nthat question.\n\nThat afterwards Dorsey was to give ten thousand dollars to John W.\nDorsey, and ten thousand dollars to John M. Peck. That he then concluded\nnot to do so.\n\nThat on the 4th day of March, when S. W. Dorsey's Senatorial term\nexpired, he immediately wrote a letter to Brady insisting that the\nsubcontracts that had been filed by Vaile were in fraud of his rights.\nThat thereupon the parties in interest came together. That S. W. Dorsey\nacting for Peck, his brother, and himself agreed with Vaile and Miner to\na division of the routes.\n\nThat S. W. Dorsey paid Peck ten thousand dollars for his interest,\npaid John W. Dorsey ten thousand dollars for his interest, and took\nsubstantially thirty per cent, of the routes and paid himself the money\nthat was owing to him by Miner, Peck & Co.\n\nThat the parties at the time executed to each other subcontracts and\nsuch other papers as were necessary to vest, as far as they then under\nthe law could vest, the routes so divided in the parties to whom they\nfell.\n\nThat on the 5th of May, 1879, the division was completed, and that from\nthat time forward Vaile and Miner had no interest in the routes that\nfell to Stephen W. Dorsey, and that from that time forward Stephen W.\nDorsey had no interest in the routes that fell to Vaile and Miner, and\nthat John W. Dorsey and John M. Peck had no interest in any route from\nthat date forward until the present moment. That S. W. Dorsey took\nentire and absolute control of his routes, and that Miner and Vaile took\nentire control of their routes. That from that time until the present\nneither party interfered with the routes of the other.\n\nThat Vaile and Miner made no paper of any sort, character, or kind for\nStephen W. Dorsey after the 5th of May, 1879, and that neither John W.\nDorsey, nor John M. Peck, made any papers of any kind, sort or character\nfor Miner or Vaile after that date, no matter what date papers bear that\nwere made before that time. That S. W. Dorsey made no papers for Miner\nor Vaile after that date. And that Miner and Vaile made no papers for S.\nW. Dorsey after that date, May 5, 1879. That all the papers bearing date\nafter the 5th of May, were in fact signed by the parties at or before\nthat time. That they were so signed for the purpose of making the\ndivision complete.\n\nThat Vaile and Miner on their routes got up petitions that they had a\nright to do. That S. W. Dorsey upon his routes got up petitions, as he\nhad a right to do.\n\nThat the routes were increased and expedited by the Second Assistant\nPostmaster-General in accordance with the policy of the department and\nin accordance with the petitions filed and the affidavits made, as he\nhad a right to do.\n\nThat it was not for the contractors to settle the policy of the\nPost-Office Department.\n\nThat the evidence of A. W. Moore is unworthy of belief, and that his\nstatement that he settled with S. W. Dorsey is demonstrated to be false\nby the receipts that he afterwards gave in final settlement to John R.\nMiner, as admitted by himself. That his testimony as to the existence of\na conspiracy is rendered worthless and absurd by the fact that he sold\nout not only his interest, but his services up to that time, for six\nhundred and eighty-two dollars. That his conversations with Miner\ncould not have taken place. That he never made or offered to make such\ncontracts with Major as he pretended he was instructed to make, and as\nhe swore that he did make. That his conversation with S. W. Dorsey never\noccurred.\n\nThat the testimony of Rerdell is utterly and infinitely unworthy of\ncredit. That he is not only contradicted by all the evidence, but by\nhimself, and how can you corroborate a man who tells no truth? There\nmust be something to be corroborated.\n\nThat the red books never existed.\n\nThat the pencil memorandum was forged by himself.\n\nThat the Chico letter was written by him.\n\nAnd that the letter from Dorsey to Bosler, said to have been dated May\n13, 1879, was born of the imagination of Mr. Rerdell.\n\nThat Rerdell's letter to Bosler of the 22d of May, 1880, was never sent,\nwas never received, and was never written until after this man made\nup his mind to become a witness for the Government. That Bosler never\nreceived that letter, or the letter pretended to have been written by\nDorsey on the 13th of May, 1879.\n\nThat the tabular statement in which thirty-three and one-third per cent,\nwas allowed to Brady never existed. That Rerdell did not visit Dorsey's\noffice in New York in June, 1881, and that he had no conversation\nwith Torrey. That Rerdell was not there. That he did not have the\nconversation detailed by him with Dorsey at the Albermarle Hotel. That\nDorsey did not write the letter of the 13th of June, 1881.\n\nThat Rerdell swore in June, 1881, that Dorsey was entirely innocent.\nThat he swore to three affidavits of the same kind. That he again swore\nto the same thing on the 13th of July, 1882. That he admitted by his\nletter of July 5, 1882, that S. W. Dorsey did not even ask him to make\nthe affidavit of June, 1881, but that he was persuaded to do it by James\nW. Bosler. That he was not locked up at Willard's Hotel. That he was\nnot threatened with a prosecution for perjury. That he was not shown the\nletters he had written to a woman. That the whole story with regard to\nthe making of that affidavit was utterly and unqualifiedly false. That\nhe never had the conversation with Thomas J. Brady that he claimed. That\nBrady never suggested to to him to have any books copied. That there\nwere no books of Dorsey's that needed to be copied. That he did not see\nS. W. Dorsey draw any money at Middleton's bank at the time he states.\nThat he, Rerdell, drew the money himself. And that his entire testimony\nis absurd, contradictory, and utterly unworthy of credit.\n\nLet me say another thing to you, gentlemen, right here. It would be\nbetter a thousand times that all the defendants tried in the next\nhundred years should escape punishment than that one man should be\nconvicted upon the evidence of a man like this—a man who offered to the\nGovernment to make a bargain while the trial was in progress, that he\nwould challenge from the jury all the friends of the defendants, and\nhelp the Government to get the enemies of the defendants upon the jury.\nYou never can afford to take the evidence of such a man. It turns a\ncourt-house into a den of wild beasts. You cannot do it.\n\nI have shown that the story of Walsh is improbable, and that all that\nBoone swears against these defendants cannot be believed. That Walsh\nnever loaned the money to Brady that he claimed, and that Brady never\ntook from him the notes as he says. That Brady never made in his\npresence the admissions that he swears to. Think of it; Brady robbing\nWalsh, and at the same time saying to Walsh, \"I am a thief and public\nrobber.\"\n\nI have shown to you, gentlemen, it seems to me, that no reasonable human\nbeing, taking all this evidence into consideration, can base upon it a\nverdict of guilty. It cannot be done.\n\nNow, gentlemen, the responsibility is upon you, and what is that\nresponsibility? You are to decide a question involving all that these\ndefendants are. You are to decide a question involving all that these\ndefendants hope to be. Their fate is in your hands. Everything they\nlove, everything they hold dear, is in your power. With this fearful\nresponsibility upon you, you have no right to listen to the whispers of\nsuspicion. You have no right to be guided or influenced by prejudice.\nYou have no right to act from fear. You must act with absolute and\nperfect honesty. You must beware of prejudice. You must beware of taking\nanything into consideration except the sworn testimony in this case. You\nmust not be controlled by the last word instead of by the last argument!\nYou must not be controlled by the last epithet instead of by the last\nfact. You must give to every argument, whether made by defendant or\nprosecution, its full and honest weight. You must put the evidence in\nthe scales of your judgment, and your manhood must stand at the scales,\nand then you must have the courage to tell which side goes down and\nwhich side rises.\n\nThat is all we ask. We ask the mercy of an honest verdict, and of your\nhonest opinion. We ask the mercy of a verdict born of your courage, a\nverdict born of your sense of justice, a verdict born of your manhood,\nremembering that you are the peers of any in the world. And it is for\nyou to say, gentlemen, whether these defendants are worthy to live among\ntheir fellow-citizens; whether they shall be taken from the sunshine and\nfrom the free air, and whether they are worthy to be men among men.\n\nIt is for you to say whether they are to be taken from their homes,\nfrom their pursuits, from their wives, from their children. That\nresponsibility rests upon you.\n\nIt is for you to say whether they shall be clothed in dishonor, whether\nthey shall be clad in shame, whether their day of life shall set without\na star in all the future's sky; that is for you.\n\nIt is for you to say whether Stephen W. Dorsey, John W. Dorsey, John R.\nMiner, Thomas J. Brady, and H. M. Vaile shall be branded as criminals.\n\nIt is for you to say, after they have suffered what they have, after\nthey have been pursued by this Government as no defendants were ever\npursued before, whether they shall be branded as criminals.\n\nIt is for you to say whether their homes shall be blasted and blackened\nby the lightning of a false verdict.\n\nIt is for you to say whether there shall be left to these defendants\nand to those they love, a future of agony, of grief and tears. Nothing\nbeneath the stars of heaven is so profoundly sad as the wreck of a human\nbeing. Nothing is so profoundly mournful as a home that has been covered\nwith shame—a wife that is worse than widowed—children worse than\norphaned. Nothing in this world is so infinitely sad as a verdict that\nwill cast a stain upon children yet unborn.\n\nIt is for you to say, gentlemen, whether there shall be such a verdict,\nor whether there shall be a verdict in accordance with the evidence and\nin accordance with law.\n\nAnd let me say right here that I believe the attorneys for the\nprosecution, eager as they are in the chase, excited with the hunt,\nafter the sober second thought, would be a thousand times better pleased\nwith a verdict of not guilty. Of course they want victory. They want\nto put in their cap the little feather of success, and they want you to\ngive in the scales of your judgment greater weight to that feather than\nto the homes and wives and children of these defendants. Do not do it.\nDo not do it.\n\nI want a verdict in accordance with the evidence. I want a verdict in\naccordance with the law. I want a verdict that will relieve my clients\nfrom the agony of two years. I want a verdict that will drive the\ndarkness from the heart of the wife. I want a verdict that will take the\ncloud of agony from the roof and the home. I want a verdict that will\nfill the coming days and nights with joy. I want a verdict that, like\na splendid flower, will fill the future of their lives with a sense of\nthankfulness and gratitude to you, gentlemen, one and all.\n\nThe Court. Let me inquire of the counsel for the defence if there are to\nbe any other arguments upon their side?\n\nMr. Henkle. May it please your Honor, inasmuch as I alone represent\ntwo of the defendants, it is perhaps due to this jury and to myself to\nexplain why I do not propose to argue the case. I had prepared myself,\nwith a good deal of labor and painstaking, to submit an argument to the\njury.\n\nBut after the exhaustive and able argument of my Brother Wilson, I and\nmy colleagues were of the opinion that there was room but for one\nmore argument on the part of the defence, and with entire unanimity we\nselected our colleague, Brother Ingersoll, to make that argument. And\nhow grandly he has justified the choice, the jury, your Honor, and the\nspectators will determine.\n\nI saw some time ago a little paragraph in a paper in this city, which\nrepresents the interest of the Government, in which it was said that the\ndefendants' counsel were afraid to argue this case because they would\ncome in collision with each other; that each would try to throw the\nconspiracy at the door of the others and exonerate himself, and that\ntherefore they were afraid to argue the case. I want to say to your\nHonor that so far from being afraid to argue the case, I should have\nbeen very happy to pursue the argument, so far as I am concerned. But\nout of tender consideration to the jury, who have been kept for six\nlong months from their business and their interests, which I know\nare suffering, we have unanimously concluded that we would close the\nargument with that which your Honor has just heard. And I simply want\nto say further, that I not only do not antagonize with anything that has\nbeen said by my Brother Wilson, or by my eloquent friend who has just\nconcluded, but I indorse most fully and cordially every word that has\nbeen uttered. And so far as my clients are concerned, gentlemen of the\njury, the case is with you.\n\nMr. Davidge. May it please your Honor, perhaps I ought to add a single\nword. It was understood among counsel when Colonel Ingersoll, as stated\nby General Henkle, was unanimously selected to represent the defendants,\nthat both Colonel Ingersoll and myself should have the privilege\nof addressing the jury if, in the judgment of either, it should be\nnecessary. I have felt such a deep interest in the present case that I\nhave almost hoped he might leave unoccupied some portion of the field of\nargument. I have listened to every word that has fallen from his lips.\nHe has filled the whole area of the case with such matchless ability and\neloquence that I have no ground upon which I could stand in making any\nfurther argument. He has so fully uncovered the origin of this so-called\nprosecution, its methods, and the character and weight of the evidence\nupon which a conviction is sought, that I can add nothing whatever to\nwhat he has said. I need not add that every syllable he has uttered\nreceives my grateful indorsement, as well as that of all the defendants\nand their counsel in this case.*\n  • Twelve jury men decided this morning that the Government\n    had not legally established a case of conspiracy against the\n    Star Route defendants. This verdict of absolute acquittal\n    coming so unexpectedly has created a very marked sensation.\n    The announcement in the court room of the verdict was\n    followed by an uproarious scene of applause, tears,\n    hysterics and cheers. Every one expected the jury to\n    disagree. Judge Wylie himself, a week or ten days ago,\n    called up the counsel for the prosecution and said to them,\n    \"I do not think you are going to get a verdict out of that\n    jury. I have watched it carefully, and I am certain that\n    four of the best men on it are in doubt.\" Last night an\n    employee of the Department of Justice reported that the jury\n    stood eleven to one for acquittal. This came from one of the\n    bailiffs, who claimed to have overheard a vote.\n    At any rate the prosecution had intended, if a disagreement\n    was reported, to ask to have the jury dismissed, on the\n    ground of the condition of Juror Vernon. Had this been\n    attempted, Dr. Sowers, who attended Vernon yesterday would\n    have testified that Vernon was all right mentally, after he\n    had braced him up with two drinks of brandy.\n    The court room was crowded when the jurors took their\n    places. Every one of the defendants was there. Dorsey sat by\n    his wife, flushed and expectant. Upon the left of Mrs.\n    Dorsey was her sister Mrs. Peck. Brady was just back of his\n    special counsel. Judge Wilson, looking as hard and grim as\n    ever. All of the counsel for the Star Route defendants were\n    in their seats. Colonel Ingersoll's face showed great self-\n    control, although he was evidently laboring under strong\n    nervous excitement. He was flanked by his entire family.\n    Mr. Farrell, Mr. Baker (Colonel Ingersoll's secretary), and\n    the white-haired and white-bearded Mr. Bush, the hard\n    working associate of Colonel Ingersoll, were also present.\n    When the jurors took their places in the court room\n    precisely at ten o'clock, Judge Wylie looked at them, and\n    said In his slow hesitating way: \"Gentlemen, I have sent\n    for you to learn—ahem—to learn if you have agreed—ahem—\n    upon a verdict.\" Mr. Crane the foreman said: \"We have\n    agreed.\"\n    Judge Wylie gave a start of surprise and looked towards the\n    seats for the counsel of the Government. Not one of them was\n    present. This looked very ominous for the Government's case,\n    and indicated besides that the bailiffs must have betrayed\n    the secrets of the jury room to the prosecution, as neither\n    Bliss nor Merrick came to the court room at all. Mr. Ker,\n    one of the counsel for the prosecution, came in and stood In\n    the door as the Judge said to the Clerk, \"Receive this\n    verdict.\" There was the usual silence as every one turned\n    toward the foreman. Mr. Crane said very deliberately. \"We\n    find the defendants not guilty.\"\n    Then there followed a scene of great confusion and uproar,\n    which the Judge could not restrain. Indeed he did not try.\n    The triumph of such an unexpected success after two years of\n    fighting in the face of the entire power of the Government,\n    made the humblest person connected in the most remote degree\n    with the defence crazy with joy. When Colonel Ingersoll came\n    out of the Court House a crowd gathered in front of him, and\n    then one stout-lunged, broad shouldered man cried out \"Three\n    cheers for Colonel Ingersoll.\" There was a wild scene of\n    tiger-like cheering from the excited crowd. This\n    demonstration was a personal compliment to the Colonel, for\n    when the defendants passed out there was not the slightest\n    sign of approval or disapproval beyond the congratulations\n    of personal friends. Colonel Ingersoll stood on the broad\n    steps of the Court House and smiled with the benevolent air\n    of a popular orator in front of a congenial crowd, and\n    laughed outright when some over-euthusiastic admirer called,\n    \"Speech, speech.\"\n    The morning was clear and bright. Colonel Ingersoll watched\n    the crowd a moment, himself a picture of radiant good\n    nature, as he stood with his white straw hut encircled with\n    a blue band, pushed back from his face. His short thin black\n    coat was partially buttoned over a white duck waistcoat. He\n    rested his hands in the pockets of his gray trousers. The\n    request for \"Speech, speech\" so amused him that he chuckled\n    over It all the way to his open carriage, which came up a\n    moment after. He was driven through Pennsylvania Avenue with\n    his family. People called out to him from the sidewalk, and\n    he was obliged to lift his hat so much that he finally sat\n    bareheaded, like a conquering hero, waving his hands to the\n    right and to the left. His house was thronged all day. Mrs.\n    Blaine and her daughter Margaret were among the first who\n    called. There was a profession of people all day long who\n    had no sympathy at all with the defendants, and who were\n    perfectly indifferent whether they went to the penitentiary\n    or not, but who were most heartily glad that their friend\n    Colonel Ingersoll had accomplished such a great personal\n    victory.\n    Now that the case is over, it is time to tell some facts\n    about the prosecution which have been withheld until the\n    case was closed. In the first place, the management of the\n    prosecution has been equally scandalous with the crimes\n    charged against the defendants. The District Attorney here\n    has always been allowed a five dollar fee for the\n    prosecution of cases. Attorney-Generals who preceded Mr.\n    Brewster ruled that this should be the official fee of\n    special counsel. This was made up by allowing the payment of\n    lump sums as retainers. When Bliss and Merrick were put upon\n    the extravagant pay of one hundred and fifty dollars per day\n    it was inevitable that they would prolong the case to the\n    uttermost. Bliss has, on top of all this pay, put in an\n    extraordinary list of personal expenses, which have been\n    allowed up to a very recent date. The amount of extra matter\n    run into this case only to prolong it has resulted in so\n    confusing the case as to materially aid the defence.\n    Then the reporting of the case has been turned into a huge\n    job. The stenographers will clear between thirty and forty\n    thousand dollars on their work.\n    The other day I estimated from official sources, the cost of\n    the Star Route trials at one million dollars. It will go\n    above that. It will foot up near one million two hundred\n    thousand dollars. This evening Col. Ingersoll was serenaded.\n    There was a large gathering of friends of the Star Route\n    defendants at Colonel Ingersoll's house to-night. Indoors\n    the acquitted men, their counsel, and a large number of\n    their more intimate friends, many of them women, met to\n    exchange mutual congratulations. And in the street a crowd\n    had gathered, partly out of curiosity—and partly to express\n    their sympathy with the defendants. They cheered Ingersoll\n    and the other counsel as well as the defendants and the\n    jury, and called for speeches. Colonel Ingersoll and Judges\n    Wilson and Carpenter spoke briefly.\n    Col. Ingersoll's speech was short and vigorous. He hailed\n    the verdict of the jury as a victory for truth and justice,\n    and as a notice to the administration that it could not\n    terrorize a jury by indicting jurymen, and a warning to the\n    President that he could not force a verdict by turning\n    honest servants out of office.\n    The Sun, New York, June 15,1883.\n"
}