Let us boil it down. False pet.i.tions. That is the charge. The evidence is that the pet.i.tions are all true. A false oath is the charge. The evidence is that the oath is true. A fraudulent order decreasing the service, another fraudulent order increasing the service, that is, leaving it just where he found it. In other words, according to this indictment, Brady committed a fraud in reducing the trips, and another fraud by putting the trips back. I think it was only one trip that he reduced. Now, that is all there is in that case. People may talk about it one day or one year. That is all there is, and that is nothing.
38145. Fraudulently filing what? A subcontract with J. L. Sanderson. I say you cannot fraudulently file a subcontract against the Government.
It is an impossibility. Besides all that, Mr. Sanderson filed his own subcontract. There is no evidence that anybody else did file it or present it for filing. It was not our contract; it was Sanderson"s subcontract. How comes that in his indictment? Let me tell you. In the first indictment they had Sanderson; and when they copied that first indictment, with certain variations to make this, they forgot this part and put in the fraudulent filing of Sanderson"s contract. It never should have been in this case. It has not the slightest relationship.
The real charge of fraud in this route is that a retrospective order was made, and this order bore date February 26, 1881, and was retrospective in this: that it was to take effect from the 15th of January, 1881; but understand me, this was Sanderson"s route. He received that money, and it has nothing to do with us. Still I will answer it. That retrospective order gave pay from the 15th of January, 1881. Now, it seems that before the order of February 26, an order had been made by telegraph, dated 15th of January, 1881, to Sanderson, and this telegraphic order was for daily service on eighty-nine miles. The jacket order of February 26, 1881, was for daily service on the whole route from January 15, 1881.
If that order had been carried out he would have received pay for daily service on the whole route, instead of for daily service on the eighty-nine miles to which he was ent.i.tled. It turned out that the order of February 26, 1881, was signed by Postmaster-General Maynard. The only possible charge is that Sanderson received pay for a daily service on the whole route from January 15, 1881, to February 26, 1881, instead of eighty-nine miles. But we find in the table of payments introduced by the Government, that for that quarter a deduction was made of three thousand four hundred and twenty-two dollars and nineteen cents, showing that the department could only have paid for the daily service on the eighty-nine miles, and that is exactly what the daily service would come to on the balance of the route. That ends that route. We had nothing to do with it anyway. It was Sanderson. He filed his own contract, he got his own orders, he collected his own money and settled with the department. We have nothing to do with it and we will bid it farewell.
The next is No. 38156. First, filing false oath June 12, 1879. The oath was filed May 6, 1879.. That is the end of that. I do not care whether it is true or false, that is, so far as this verdict is concerned. I care whether it is true or false, so far as my clients are concerned, but so far as this verdict is concerned, it makes no difference. There is a fatal variance. Second, it is alleged that Brady made a fraudulent order June 12, 1879. The order of June 12, 1879, was made by French.
There is another fatal variance. You have no right to take it into consideration. French is not one of the parties here. Third, sending a subcontract of Dorsey and filing it. As I told you before, you cannot by any possibility thus defraud the Government; not even if you set up nights to think about it. There is no proof that the subcontract was a fraud. Let us have some sense. It is an absolute impossibility to commit this offence, and therefore we will talk no more about it. Fourth, the fraudulent order of Brady increasing the distance four miles. This was done on the 20th of December, 1880. That is the only real charge in this route. I turn to the record and find from the evidence, on page 943, that the distance was from five to six miles, according to the Government"s own proof. Beside all that, the order of which they complain is not in the record. It was never proved by the Government and never offered by the Government, so far as I can find. That is the end of that route. The only charge in it is that they increased the distance four miles, and the evidence of the Government is that it was from five to six.
The next is 46132. Overt acts: Filing a false oath by everybody June 24, 1879. The evidence shows it was filed April 11, 1879. That is the end of that. No matter whether it is true or false, it is gone. Second, the fraudulent filing of a subcontract. Well, I have shown you that that cannot be fraudulent. The subcontract of Vaile shows that Vaile was to receive one hundred per cent. It was executed April 1, 1878, in consequence, as my friend General Henkle explained, of a conspiracy made on the 23d of May following. The service commenced July 1, 1878. There could have been no fraud in it. It was filed as a matter of fact May 24, 1879, and not June 4. Even if it had been a fraud, which is an impossibility, the description is wrong and the variance is fatal. There is no evidence that any order was fraudulent. Every one in this case is supported by pet.i.tions, and every pet.i.tion is admitted to be honest, or proved to be honest and genuine. There is no proof at all, and not the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to prove that there was any fraud on this route. So much for that.
No. 46247. Let us see just where we are. First, filing false and forged pet.i.tions. When? July 26, 1879. By whom? By Peck, Dorsey, and Rerdell.
Now, after they had solemnly written that in the indictment, and after it had been solemnly found to be a fact by the grand jury, the attorneys for the Government come into court and admit during the trial that all the pet.i.tions upon this route were genuine; every one. It was admitted, I say, that every pet.i.tion was genuine. Read from page 1008 of the record and there you will find what the Court said about these very pet.i.tions:
"I shall take the responsibility of dispensing with the reading of pet.i.tions when there is no point made with regard to them."
The pet.i.tions were so good, they were so honest, they were so genuine, they were so sensible, that the curiosity of the Court was aroused to find what on earth they were being read for on the part of the prosecution. You remember it. Every one genuine, honor bright, from the first line to the last. In reply to the Court at that time Mr. Bliss said:
"There is no point made as to the increase of trips. These--" Meaning the pet.i.tions--"relate to the increase of trips. There is no point made there."
It is thus admitted that every pet.i.tion was genuine. Second, a fraudulent order increasing one trip. This order was never proved by the Government. It was not even offered by the Government, so that the route stands in this way: First, a charge of false pet.i.tions; second, an admission that the pet.i.tions were all genuine; third, a charge that a fraudulent order was made; fourth, no proof that the order was made.
That is all there is to that. And that is the end of it.
No. 38134. First, sending false and fraudulent pet.i.tions, and filing the same. When? July 8,1879. On page 1031 of the record I find the following:
"Mr. Bliss. The pet.i.tions under your Honor"s ruling I am not going to offer."
Why? Because they were all genuine. The court had mildly suggested the impropriety of the Government proving its case by reading honest pet.i.tions. Consequently, when it came to this, the next route, he said:
"The pet.i.tions under your Honor"s ruling I am not going to offer."
Why? Because they are all honest, and under a charge in the indictment that they are all fraudulent he did not see the propriety of reading them. That is what he meant. This remark was made because the Government admitted these pet.i.tions to be honest. When were these pet.i.tions filed?
The indictment says July 8. The evidence says May 6. So that if every pet.i.tion had been a forgery you could not take them into consideration on this route. It is charged that Miner & Co. signed and placed in Brady"s office a false oath on July 8. On record, page 1032, it appears that it was filed May 8, 1879, and not as described in the indictment.
The pleader has the privilege of describing it right or describing it wrong. If he describes it right it can go in evidence. If he describes it wrong it cannot go in evidence, and they have no right to complain if you throw out evidence that they make it impossible for you to receive.
It has been charged with regard to this affidavit that Dorsey was not at that time contractor, and therefore had no right to make the affidavit.
The affidavit was made April 21, 1879, and the regulation that such affidavits must be made by the contractors was made July 1, 1879. That is a sufficient answer. The next charge is a fraudulent order made by Brady, July 8. The pet.i.tions were all admitted to be genuine. There was no evidence that the order was not asked for by the pet.i.tions. There was no evidence that the order in and of itself was fraudulent; not the slightest. There is nothing like taking these things up as we go and seeing what the Government has established. I know that you want to know exactly what has been done in this case and you want to find a verdict in accordance with the evidence.
Route 38140. Overt acts: First, making, sending, and filing false pet.i.tions. When were they made and sent? The 23d day of May, 1879. There were some pet.i.tions filed May 10, 1879, and there was a letter of the same date. They are misdescribed. They are all genuine but they are out of the case as far as this is concerned. I will tell you after awhile where they are applicable in this case. A letter of Belford, of April 29, 1879, and a letter of Senator Chaffee, of April 24, 1879, we have, while the indictment charges that they were all filed May 23, 1879.
There is an absolute and a fatal variance. All these pet.i.tions, however, are admitted to be genuine and honest. See record, pages 1001-1003. The charge in the indictment is that they were forged, false, and altered.
The admission in open court, by the representatives of the Government, is, that they were genuine and honest. There is the difference between an indictment and testimony. There is the difference between public rumor and fact. There is the difference between the press and the evidence. The next is that a false oath was filed by John W. Dorsey on the 23d of May, 1879. When was that oath filed? April 30, 1879. A fatal variance. Yet the man who wrote the indictment had the affidavit before him. Why did he not put in the true date? I will tell you after awhile.
Did he know it was not true when he put it in the indictment? He did, undoubtedly.
Third. Fraudulent order of May 23; reducing the time from nineteen and three-quarter hours to twelve hours. As a matter of fact, no order was made on the 23d of May upon this route. It is charged in the indictment that it was made on the 23d of May. The evidence shows that it was on the 9th of May. There is a fatal variance, and that order cannot be considered by this jury as to this branch of the case. Here is an order of which they complain. They charge that it was made on the 23d day of May, the same day the conspiracy was entered into. As a matter of fact, it was made on the 9th of May. On this description it goes out, and it goes out on a still higher principle: That an order could not have been made on the 9th of May in pursuance of a conspiracy made on the 23d of that month. But I am speaking now simply as to the description of this offence.
Fourth. A subcontract was fraudulently filed. I have shown you it is impossible to fraudulently file a contract; utterly impossible. All the agreements imaginable between the contractor and subcontractor cannot even tend to defraud the Government of a solitary dollar. I make a bid and the contract is awarded to me at so much. The mail has to be carried. The Government pays, say five thousand dollars a year, it makes no difference to the Government who carries the mail under that contract, so long as it is carried. It is utterly impossible to defraud the Government by contracting with A, B, C, or D. That is the end of that route. The order itself is misdescribed, and that is all there is in it. When the order is gone everything is gone.
No. 38113. Overt acts: Fraudulently filing a subcontract. We do not need to talk about that any more. Second, Brady fraudulently made an order for increase of trips. The evidence is that an increase was asked for by a great many officers, a great many representatives, and by hundreds of citizens, and that the increase was insisted upon not only by the officers who were upon the ground, but by General Sherman himself. I do not know how it is with you, but with me General Sherman"s opinion would have great weight. He is a man capable of controlling hundreds of thousands of men in the field--a man with the genius, with the talent, with the courage, and with the intrepidity to win the greatest victories, and to carry on the greatest possible military operations.
I would have nearly as much confidence in his opinion as I would in the guess of this prosecution. In my judgment, I would think as much of his opinion given freely as I would of the opinion of a lawyer who was paid for giving it. General Sherman has been spoken of slightingly in this case; but he will be remembered a long time after this case is forgotten, after all engaged in it are forgotten, and even after this indictment shall have pa.s.sed from the memory of man.
No. 38152. Overt acts: Fraudulent orders of August 3, 1880, discontinuing the service and allowing a month"s extra pay for the service discontinued. That is all. May it please your Honor, in this route the only point is, had the Postmaster General the right to discontinue the service? And if he did discontinue it, was he under any obligation to allow a month"s extra pay? It is the only question. I call your Honor"s attention to the case of the United States against Reeside, 8 Wallace, 38; Fullenwider against the United States, 9 Court of Claims, 403; and Garfielde against the United States, 3 Otto, 242. In those cases it is decided not only that the Postmaster-General has the right to allow this month"s extra pay, but he must do it. That is in full settlement of all the damages that the contractor may have sustained.
The Court can see the very foundation of that law. For ill.u.s.tration, I bid upon a route of one thousand miles. I am supposed to get ready to carry the mail. Five hundred miles are taken from that route. The law steps in and says that for that damage I shall have one month"s extra pay on the portion of the route discontinued. It makes no difference whether I have made any preparation or not. The law gives me that and no more. If I should go into the Supreme Court and say that my preparations had cost me fifty thousand dollars, and the month"s extra pay was only five thousand dollars, I have no redress for the other forty-five thousand dollars. That is all that is charged in this instance. And if the Second a.s.sistant Postmaster-General or any one else had done differently he would have acted contrary to law. He is indicted for doing in this case exactly what is in accordance with the law. Let us get to the next route. That is all there is in this.
No. 38015. Overt acts: Sending a false oath. When? May 21. The evidence shows that on May 14 it was sent, on May 15 it was filed. A fatal variance, no matter whether it is true or false. That oath is gone. That is the end of it.
What else? They did not show that the oath was false. First, it is misdescribed in the indictment as to the date it is filed; second, the evidence shows that it is honest and genuine, which is also fatal. That is the end of this route, as far as the indictment is concerned. Second, that Dorsey made and Rerdell filed false pet.i.tions. There is no proof that any of the pet.i.tions were false, no proof that any were forged, and no proof that John W. Dorsey or M. C. Rerdell had anything to do with that route one way or the other. All the pet.i.tions on record, page 1160, are admitted to be genuine except one. One pet.i.tion asking for a ten-hour schedule was attacked and only one. But this pet.i.tion was filed May 14, 1879, and that is out so far as the indictment is concerned.
The Court. What is the date of the indictment?
Mr. Ingersoll. The 23d day of May. The indictment says that this was filed July 10, 1879; the evidence says May 14, 1879. A fatal variance.
It is not the same one they were talking about. They did not find the pet.i.tion they described. It is their misfortune. Now, here is only one pet.i.tion attacked. Who attacked it? Mr. Shaw. See page 1159. They were going to show that that was a forgery, and they were going to show it by Shaw. That was the only one they attacked. What does Shaw say?
"I signed a pet.i.tion for increase of service and expedition upon that route, but I did not read the pet.i.tion. If I had, I should have discovered a ten-hour schedule."
He would not have discovered it if it had not been there, would he? That shows it was there.
"I would not have recommended a ten-hour schedule on a seventy-mile route."
He was the man that was going to prove that ten hours was not there. But it shows that he was not able to do it, because he first swore that he never read it, and second, that he would not have signed it if he had.
Good by, Mr. Shaw. That is all there is as to that matter. The Court will understand I am going now upon what is in the indictment, and not what has been thrown in from the outside.
The Court. I understand that.
Mr. Ingersoll. I am going according to the strict letter of this indictment. I am holding these gentlemen to the law. That is what the law is for. You cannot come into this court and throw seven or eight cords of paper at a man and say, "You are guilty." They have managed this case after that fashion, but I propose to bring them back to the law.
Route 35051. First. Signing, sending and filing false pet.i.tions. When?
August 2, 1879. There is no evidence of any pet.i.tions being filed on that day--none whatever. The only thing near it is a letter of Frederick Billings, on record, page 1217. This letter was dated July 31, 1879.
Under the charge of signing, sending and filing false pet.i.tions, the only evidence is that a man by the name of Billings wrote a letter, and there is not the slightest testimony to show that a solitary word in that letter was false--not one. Nothing to connect it with Mr. Billings; no evidence that he ever spoke to him on the subject; no evidence that Billings knew who was carrying the mail; no evidence that he ever knew or did a thing except to write that letter, and he was interested, I believe, in the Northern Pacific railroad. Now, that is everything there is there; that is all there is in that case. n.o.body has tried to show that the letter of Billings was not true.
What else? A fraudulent order of August, 1879. Who made it? The indictment says Brady made it. The evidence says it was signed by French, and it was in accordance with Billings" letter. Is there any fraud now in that route? Let us be honest. False pet.i.tions: Not one filed. False oath: Not one attacked. Simply a letter that we did not write, and that there is no evidence that we ever asked to have written.
That is the end of that. But they cannot even get the letter in, gentlemen. They did not describe it right.
The next route is 40104. Overfacts: First. Fraudulently filing a subcontract. That you cannot do. When did we file it? July. 23, 1879, the indictment says. What does the evidence say? May 8, 1879. First, we could not commit the offence; secondly, you could not prove it under this description.
Second. Filing a false oath. When did we file it? July 23. That is what the indictment says. What does the evidence say? November 26, 1878.
A fatal variance. See record, page 1305. That is the end of that. The indictment is for something. You have got to follow it, and it certainly is not as hard work to write an offence against a man as it is to prove it. If they cannot write an offence, you certainly ought not to find the man guilty. Besides all that, that oath was not even impeached, it was not ever attacked. There was not a word said upon the subject except in the indictment. It was charged to be false, and not one word of evidence was offered to this jury to show that it was false.
Third. An alleged fraudulent order of increase by Brady, July 23, 1879.
Brady never signed any such order. It was signed by French. That is the end of it, no matter whether it was good or bad, honest or dishonest.
That is the end of it, and yet there is not a particle of evidence to show that it was dishonest, but you must hold them to their own case as they have written it, and not as they wish it was now.
Fourth. A fraudulent order of April 10, 1880, allowing one month"s extra pay on the service reduced. This order was not even proved by the Government. As a matter of fact, it was not offered by the Government; and if it had been offered, and if it had been proved, it would have only established the fact that Mr. Brady acted in accordance with law.
Now, we come to some more. 44160. First, filing false pet.i.tions. When did we file them? July 16, 1880. The proof is that they were filed long before that time The proof is that Peck, Dorsey and Rerdell had nothing to do with this route after the 1st of April, 1879, and the pet.i.tion claimed to be signed by Utah people and claimed to be fraudulent in the pet.i.tion marked 19 Q. It was filed on the 7th day of May, 1879.
That is a fatal variance. This indictment charges it was filed July 16, 1880. The pet.i.tion cannot be considered.
There is another pet.i.tion marked 20 Q, claimed to have been written by Miner, upon which the name of Hall is said to have been forged. It has no file mark whatever, and consequently cannot be the pet.i.tion referred to in the indictment. That was filed. That, however, has been explained by General Henkle fully. This pet.i.tion was identified by McBean, and was signed by him, and he recognized the signatures of many of the citizens of Canyon City. Mr. Merrick admitted that the pet.i.tion, 19 Q, was never acted upon. As a matter of fact, orders had been made before the pet.i.tion was received, which shows conclusively that they were not acted upon. The pet.i.tion marked 20 Q, to which Hall"s name was, as is claimed, forged, was never filed, and was consequently never acted upon. This charge stands as follows: Two pet.i.tions, one being filed May 17, 1879--a fatal variance--and the other not filed--another fatal variance. These pet.i.tions are both described as having been filed July 16, 1880. The variance is absolutely fatal, and these pet.i.tions cannot be considered.
Besides, the order was made before the pet.i.tion 19 Q was filed.