What evidence is there of that? Is there any evidence that any route of Dorsey's was expedited not mentioned in this indictment?
Did not Mr. Ker know whether the routes had been expedited or not? Did not I offer in this court to prove what was done with every solitary route we had? I say to the gentleman that the other routes were not expedited. I say to the gentleman that only two other routes were, and we were not interested in them. And I say also that they know the record, and they knew the record when this statement was made; but they may have forgotten it. But is it fair, gentlemen, for a prosecuting officer to state to you that he supposed all the routes of Dorsey were expedited? One of those in the indictment was not expedited; and not a route outside of the indictment belonging to Dorsey, in which he had an interest, was expedited. So much for that statement.
At page 4546 you are told by Mr. Ker that--Nobody ever heard of expedition on a route before.
We proved what form of contracts had been in the PostOffice Department for twenty years, and proved that in every one of them there was a clause for expedition. So much for that evidence, gentlemen.
At page 4546 Mr. Ker tells us that J. W. Dorsey testified--That the routes were taken so low as to cut out other people, but that they knew they were to be expedited, and they knew they were to be increased.
J. W. Dorsey testified upon that subject, and his testimony will be found at page 4085:
Q. Did you have an arrangement by which you should bid an extremely small amount on the routes, with the further understanding that the service was to be increased and expedited?--A. No, sir; I never thought of such a thing.
And in his entire testimony in chief and cross, I believe there is not another question on that subject.
On page 4549, referring to the letter of John M. Peck, which was in fact written by Miner, Mr. Ker says:
Cedarville ought to have had as many mails as the other points between, according to the order, but they were going to supply it only once a week. .
As a matter of fact, gentlemen, this letter was written on the 22d of October, 1878, and at the time the letter was written the mail, according to the contract, was carried only once a week on that route, and consequently Cedarville would have had exactly the same mail as any other point; that is to say, once a week.
Page 556 of the record shows that three trips a week were put upon this route to Loup City with a schedule of thirteen hours, but not until the 10th of July, 1879, nine months after this letter was written.
On page 4609 Mr. Ker, in commenting upon an affidavit on the Toquerville and Adairville route, reads from the evidence of John W. Dorsey, citing page 3945, and ends at this question and answer:
Q. It was done so entirely, was it not?--A. It ought to have been so.
Now, let me read you the balance:
Q. Was it not so done?--A. No, sir.
Q It was not?--A. No, sir.
Q For whose benefit was it done?.--A. He--Meaning Rerdell--stole five thousand dollars on that route, or very nearly that--four thousand nine hundred dollars on that very route.
Q. When did he steal that five thousand dollars?--A. About a year ago or a year and a half; I do not remember the time.
Q. From whom?--A. From Mr. Bosler and myself.
Q. At what time?--A. I should think in February, 1882.
The question now arises, did Mr. Rerdell take this money as charged?
Read now from the record, at pages 734 and 735, and you will find in the last line of the tabular statement introduced in this case that on this very route four thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven dollars and eighty-three cents was paid to M. C. Rerdell as subcontractor on that route. We also find that it was paid on the 4th of February, 1882. This is the money that Dorsey swears Rerdell stole, and that gentleman never took the stand to deny it.
At page 4616, Mr. Ker, after going over all the evidence with regard to the affidavits as to the impossibility of the number of men and horses doing the service rendered necessary by the affidavit, comes to the following conclusion: That under the oath the proportion was, as nine to twenty-three; that under the oath of Johnson the real proportion should have been, and was, eight to twenty-two.
In other words, the real proportion, according to Mr. Ker's own statement, would have taken more money from the Treasury than the wrong proportion made under the fraudulent affidavit, and that was nine to twenty-three. Nine into twenty-three goes twice and five-ninths; that is, two hundred and fifty-five per cent, and a fraction. That is the fraudulent proportion. Mr. Ker says that the real proportion was not as nine into twenty-three, but as eight to twenty two. Eight into twenty-two goes twice and six-eighths; that is to say, two and three-quarters; that is to say, two hundred and seventy-five per cent.
The fraudulent proportion, according to his claim, only gave us two hundred and fifty-five per cent. The real proportion, which Mr. Ker admits was right, according to the evidence of Johnson, would have given us two hundred and seventy-five per cent. In other words, we got twenty per cent, less under the fraud than we would under the evidence of Johnson that Mr. Ker admits to be correct. Finding that it is twenty per cent, less under the fraudulent affidavit than under Johnson's estimate, he shouts fraud.
On page 4617 Mr. Ker tells us that Sanderson "had no more to do with the route than you or I had." On page 731 I find that Mr. Sanderson drew all the money on the route from Saguache to Lake City, I believe, with one exception--the third quarter of one year--1878, it may be. He drew every dollar upon that route, anyhow, up to February 17, 1882, except for one quarter. And yet Mr. Ker stood up before you and said that Sanderson "had no more to do with the route than you or I had."
Let us see if we have any more evidence. I find on page 3271 a subcontract executed on route 38150, from Saguache to Lake City, by Miner, Peck & Company to Sanderson for the whole time until June 30, 1882. I find that subcontract is signed by John R. Miner and J. L.
Sanderson. This contract was to be from the 1st of July, 1878, and was made the 15th of May, 1878, and here it is in evidence. The evidence is that the contract was made between Miner, Peck & Company and Sanderson; the evidence also is that Sanderson drew the pay. And yet Mr. Ker stands up before you and says that Sanderson "had no more to do with the route than you or I had."
The subcontract, gentlemen, states that Sanderson is to have the entire pay, and it was before the contract term began. So much for that.
Mr. Ker. When was it filed?
Mr. Wilson. That does not make any difference.
Mr. Ingersoll. "When was it filed?" There was a trial in my town of a suit against the city, I believe, for allowing a culvert to get filled up and flood a man's cellar. They brought in evidence to prove, don't you see, that the culvert was not filled up, and one witness swore that the day before the rain he saw a dog go through there. One of the jurors got up and said that he would like to ask a question; he said, "What was the color of that dog?"
On page 4631 Mr. Ker states that during the investigation by Congress--Contractors got out printed letters and sent them to every subcontractor upon every star route in the country, asking them to write to their members of Congress urging their members of Congress to vote for this appropriation.
On page 1346 is Rerdell's letter upon this very route, in which not one word is said about the contractor doing anything one way or the other.
There is no evidence that any other letter was written on that route.
I call your attention to it to show how the prosecution strained every possible point, and how they endeavored to patch and piece and putty and veneer this evidence. Mr. Miner wrote a letter (page 669). I do not remember any other evidence upon this subject. And certainly it would be impossible to write a milder letter than Mr. Miner wrote. He did not ask the people to get up petitions against reduction, or ask for more service. Here is what he says, and I will read you Mr. Miner's letter:
It will be well for the people of your section to send to the member of Congress from your district such petitions as will express their opinions on the subject of this reduction.
Truly, yours,
JNO. R. MINER, Ag't.
Could you write a milder letter than that, to save your life, and refer to the subject? Could you write a fairer letter than that, to save your life?
He does not say, "Get up petitions against it." He does not say, "Send those petitions to your member of Congress and tell him to do what he can to prevent it." Not one word of that kind.
Yet that is considered as evidence of fraud; that is considered as evidence of conspiracy.
The next point made is that Mr. Ker states, at page 4632, that Brady endeavored to bribe the members of Congress into making this appropriation by doubling every star route in the Southern and Middle States, and did so during the Congressional investigation. What are the facts? The deficiency bill passed April 7, 1880.. That appropriated money only for the purpose of carrying the mails up to June 30, 1880.
The regular appropriation bill was passed at the same session, and appropriated money to carry the mails from the 1st of July, 1880. Now let us see if Brady doubled the trips in these Southern and Middle States during that investigation. On page 3393 Brady says:
Practically on July 1, 1880, we doubled up the entire service for all the Southern and Middle States.
This was after the deficiency bill had passed; it was after the money appropriated by that bill had been expended; and it was paid for out of the regular appropriation for the Post-Office Department.
Yet that was a bribe. It just shows that Congress by the regular appropriation indorsed the policy of Mr. Key to have a daily mail to every place where there was a county-seat.
At page 4652, on the route from Mineral Park to Pioche, there were two petitions, marked 17 K and 18 K. It is somewhat singular that the Government brought no persons whose names are on these petitions to show that they had not authorized their names to be signed thereto, but they brought persons to show that the signatures were not genuine.
On page 1621 the witness Wright swears that the names are the same on both petitions. He is then asked if he knows the signatures of any other people, and he says "Yes." He then says that the signature of John Deland is not genuine. He swears that he knows nearly every one of the people. He is then asked whether these signatures are in the handwriting of the people, and he replies that he thinks not. Then he is asked as to the signature of Cornell, and he says; That is not in his handwriting.
Here is his cross-examination, gentlemen: * * *
I asked him, "Do you know these people;" made him swear that he knew Mr.
Street; that he knew the signatures of many; that he knew these people.