I have told you every one in this indictment; every one. You will hardly believe it. Now let me give you the recapitulation. S. W. Dorsey is charged on eight routes with having transmitted four false oaths.
The evidence is he never made one nor transmitted one, and that the four oaths were all true. On five routes he is charged with having filed false petitions. The evidence is that all the petitions were genuine.
None of the petitions charged in the indictment to have been transmitted by him were transmitted by him. He is charged with filing fraudulent subcontracts, and the evidence is that the subcontracts were genuine, and besides that, as I have said a dozen times, it is utterly impossible to fraudulently file a subcontract. Not a single, solitary charge in this indictment against Stephen W. Dorsey has been substantiated. Not one. He has been called a robber, he has been called a thief, but the evidence shows he is an honest man. Not one single thing alleged in that indictment has been substantiated against him, and I defy any human being to point to the evidence that does it. Now think of it. All this charge has been made against that man upon that evidence; no other evidence; not another line so far as the indictment is concerned.
What is outside of the indictment? That he wrote two letters, taking possession of routes that had been turned over to him as security, which he had a right to do. What else? That he got up some petitions, or had them gotten up, in the State of Oregon. The man who got them up was brought here as a witness. I believe his name was Wilcox. He swore that everything he did was honest, and that every name to every petition was genuine. Now let us see. Another point has been made upon S. W. Dorsey.
I want to read it to you. This is from the argument of Mr. Merrick:
"Peck, John W. Dorsey and Miner, or some other one of Stephen W.
Dorsey's friends. Who was making up this conspiracy? Who was gathering around him arms and hands to reach into the public Treasury for his benefit, while his own were apparently unoccupied with pelf? S. W.
Dorsey. 'My brother and brother-in-law will go in, and Miner, or if not Miner, then one of my other friends.'"
This is quoted.
"One-of S. W. Dorsey's other facile friends. That was in 1877, gentlemen, the morning of this day of fraud and criminality. In that room where Boone and S. W. Dorsey sat arose the sun, and there was marked his course. There was fashioned the duration and the business of that criminal day."
Now, let us see what the evidence is. The object of that speech is to convince you that Dorsey said to Boone. "I will either put in Miner or one of my friends." Do you know that there is not money enough in the Treasury of the United States, there is not gold and silver enough in the veins of this earth to tempt me to misstate evidence when a man is on trial for his liberty or his life. Let us see what the evidence is:
"Q. Who else besides his brother-in-law and brother?--A. I could not say positively whether Mr. Miner's name was mentioned. He either mentioned his name or a friend of his from Sandusky, Ohio."
Now, I submit to you, gentlemen, what does that mean? Mr. Boone, in effect, says, "He told me either it was Miner or a friend of his from Sandusky. That is, he either described Miner by his name or he described him as a friend of his from Sandusky." Then there was objection made, and after that comes another question:
"Q. Was anything said of Mr. Miner's coming to Washington?--A. I could not say whether his name was mentioned or a friend of his; a personal friend."
What does that mean? Boone cannot remember Whether he called him Miner or called him a friend of his from Sandusky. What else?
"A. There was to be nobody that I understood outside of the parties I spoke of.
"Q. You and John W. Dorsey and Peck?--A. And Mr. Miner."
"Q. Or one of his friends?--A. Or Mr. Dorsey's friend. The arrangement made was not made until they came here. It was only to prepare the necessary blanks and papers pending their coming because the time was getting short, and it was necessary to get the information to bid upon.
Nothing was said about any interest at all until after they came here, and then there was a partnership entered into."
Now, I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, what is the meaning of that testimony. The meaning is simply this: Boone could not remember whether he mentioned Miner's name or called him a friend of his from Sandusky, yet the object has been to make you believe that the testimony was that S. W. Dorsey said, "I will either have Miner or I will get another friend of mine." Dorsey had no interest in it, not the interest of one cent, not the interest of one dollar, directly, indirectly, or any other way. He had no interest in having a friend of his. All that Mr. Boone said is that Mr. Dorsey either called this man Miner or described him as a friend from Sandusky, Ohio. The evidence is that Mr. Miner did come, and the evidence is that the arrangement was made. What else is there outside in this case against Stephen W. Dorsey? I ask you to put your hand upon it. I ask anybody to point it out. What other suspicious circumstance is there? I want you to understand that all the suspicious circumstances in the world are good for nothing. All the evidence on earth tending to show a thing does not show it. Anything that only tends that way never gets there; never.
You cannot infer a conspiracy. Unless you have the facts proved, you cannot infer the fact and then infer the conspiracy. There has not been--I want to say it again--there has not been a solitary fraudulent act proven against Stephen W. Dorsey. They have not done it and they cannot do it. All I ask of you, gentlemen, is to find a verdict in accordance with this testimony.
May it please the Court, it appears from the evidence in this case, I think the evidence of Mr. James, that Stephen W. Dorsey at one time, about sixteen or seventeen months ago, made a statement in writing of his connection with all these routes. That statement he gave to the Attorney-General and the Postmaster-General. There is no evidence of what was in that statement. The only evidence is that such a statement was made, embracing his connection with these routes.
The Court. You offered to prove that.
Mr. Ingersoll. Oh, no. The reason it was established was I wanted to show whether that statement was made before or after Mr. Rerdell made a statement. The fact simply appears that he made a statement.
The Court. You offered to prove the fact.
Mr. Ingersoll. I do not remember offering to prove it. I proved it.
The Court. If it was not proven--Mr. Ingersoll. [Interposing.] I did prove it as a fact.
The Court. That he made a statement.
Mr. Ingersoll. Yes, sir. Right here it is [taking up the record].
The Court. Oh, well, you cannot base any remarks upon that.
Mr. Ingersoll. Let me read what the evidence says:
"Q. Was this statement of Rerdell's made to you after you had received the statements of S. W. Dorsey as to his connection with all these entire routes or with this entire business?
"The Witness. To what statement do you refer?
"Mr. Ingersoll. To the statement that was made in writing and given to you and the attorney-general by ex-Senator S. W. Dorsey?
"A. It must have been after that.
"Q. You mean Rerdell's statement was after that?--A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Did you ever see that statement made by Senator Dorsey?--A. It was referred to the attorney-general.
"Q. Did you ever see it?--A. Certainly.
"Q. Do you know where it now is?--A. I do not."
I am not going to say a word about what was in that statement, but the Court will see that that has a direct bearing upon their action with regard to Rerdell's statement whether it was made before or after, which I will endeavor to show, and the only point that I wanted to make upon that statement now, was that the Government has not endeavored to prove that anything in that statement was inconsistent with the evidence in this case. I am not going to say what the statement was; simply that he made a statement, and it follows as naturally as night follows morning, and morning follows night, that if that statement had been incorrect it would have been brought forward. That is all.
The Court. For anything the Court knows it might have been a confession.
We do not know anything about it.
Mr. Ingersoll. If it had been a confession it would have been here. That is the point I make. If there had been in that anything inconsistent with the testimony it would have been here.
The Court. Probably it would.
Mr. Ingersoll. Yes, sir; that is my point.
The Court. When a man is charged with crime no man has a right to say that because he did not deny it that is evidence of his guilt.
Mr. Ingersoll. No, sir; and no man has a right to say that because he did deny it is evidence of his innocence.
The Court. It is not evidence either way.
Mr. Ingersoll. It is not evidence either way, and if I am charged with a crime and I make a written statement to the Government of my entire connection with that thing, and they go on and examine it for one year and finally finish the trial without showing that that statement was incorrect, it is a moral demonstration that my statement agreed with the testimony.
The Court. On the principle, I suppose, of an account rendered and no objection made?
Mr. Ingersoll. Good. That is a good idea.
The Court. I do not see anything in that.
Mr. Ingersoll. I see a great deal in it, and it is a question whether the jury can see anything in it.
The Court. It is a question whether the Court too----