Mr. Ingersoll. Of course not; there was no money at that time to handle; they had not got as far as the handle.
Now, there is another little point: Why should Dorsey voluntarily put himself in the power of Rerdell by saying, "I have paid money to Brady"?
What was the necessity of it? What was the sense of it? Rerdell was his clerk. Why should he take pains to put himself, the employer, absolutely in the power of his clerk? Why should he take pains to make himself the slave of the man he was hiring by the month? Why did he wish not only to make Mr. Rerdell acquainted with his crime, but to put in the hands of Rerdell evidence written by himself? See, gentlemen, you have got to look at everything from a natural standpoint. Of what use was it to Mr.
Dorsey to keep that account? Dorsey at that time had no partner. Dorsey at that time did not have to respond to anybody. Of what use was it to him to put down in a book, "I paid Brady eighteen thousand dollars"? Was he afraid Brady would forget it? Was he afraid he would forget it?
Did he want his clerk to help him keep the secret, knowing that if the secret got wings it would render him infamous? Let us have some sense.
The Government introduced it. They also introduced a witness to prove that it was in Dorsey"s writing. Rerdell swore that it was. Their next witness, Boone, thought part of it might be and part might not be; it did not look right to him; he rather intimated that Mr. Rerdell wrote part of it. And right there the Government dropped. No expert was brought. There were plenty of experts right over here at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, plenty of experts in Philadelphia and New York, plenty of judges of handwriting. Right up here in Congress were twenty or thirty Senators who sat for six years in the Senate with Stephen W.
Dorsey, served on the same committees with him and had seen him write every day; clerks of those committees who had copied page after page of his writing. Not one of them was called. The Government, with its almost infinite power, with everything at its command, brought no expert.
That was the most important piece of paper in their case. And yet they allowed their own witness to discredit it; their own witness swore, in fact, that Rerdell had manufactured the incriminating part of it. And yet they sent for no expert to swear to this writing. Don"t you believe that they talked with somebody? Has not each one of you in his mind a reason why they did not bring the ones that they talked with? They left it right there without another word. Now, why? Simply because they could get no man to swear, except Rerdell, that this is in the handwriting of S. W. Dorsey. That is the reason.
You know that Rerdell "kept this as a voucher." What for? Was any money paid out on it? No. Was it a receipt for any money? No. But he "kept it as a voucher." You see he was in a difficulty. How did he come to keep it all this time? It would hardly do for him to say that he did not try to keep it, that it had just been in the waste-basket of forgetfulness, and had suddenly come to life by a conspiracy of chance and awkwardness.
It would not do for him to say that he made it. So that he had to say that he kept it, and then he had to give a reason for keeping it.
What was the reason? He said he "kept it for a voucher." I suppose you [addressing Mr. Greene., a juror] have kept books. Is that what you would call a voucher? Yet that is the reason the poor man had to give.
I pitied the man when he got to the point. I am of such a nature that I cannot entirely, absolutely, and perfectly hate anybody, and when I see the worst man in trouble I do not enjoy it much; at least I am soon satisfied, and would like to see him out of it. Here he was swearing that he had this for a voucher.
Now, there are some little things about this to which I will call your attention. Here is the name of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l. An account was opened with Mitch.e.l.l, but he does not tell him to charge Mitch.e.l.l with anything; there is nothing opposite Mitch.e.l.l"s name. How would he open an account with Mitch.e.l.l without anything to be charged against him or to be credited? He put in the index of the book, "J. H. Mitch.e.l.l, page 21." You turn over to page 21, and you find Mitch.e.l.l debtor to nothing, creditor the same--silence. Not a cent opposite the name on either side.
Mitch.e.l.l was not an employee. Mitch.e.l.l was not a fellow that they were to have an account with by the day. Then John Smith is rubbed out and Samuel Jones written under it. Rerdell says he wrote Samuel Jones. I say he did not. I want you to look at it after awhile and see whether he wrote it or not.
Now, gentlemen, it so happened that when this pencil memorandum was introduced it struck me that the M. C. R. looked a great deal like Rerdell"s handwriting, and you will remember that I suggested it instantly, and said to the jury, "Look at the M. C. R." Now, gentlemen of the jury, I want you to look at that M. C. R.; I want you to see how the first line of the M. is brought around to the middle of the letter, and then I want you to see exactly how the C. and the R. are made. Take it, Mr. Foreman, and look at it carefully. And, in connection with that pencil memorandum (31 X), I will ask the jury also to look at this settlement with John W. Dorsey, made in 1879 (87 X), and compare the initials M. C. R. where they occur on both papers. M. C. R. occurs twice, I believe, on this (87 X.) Now look at the formation of the M. C.
R. on both papers, Mr. Lowery, and do a good job of looking, too.
Now, gentlemen, this is one of the most valuable pieces of paper I have ever had in this case, and it is as good luck as ever happened. I want you to look at the J. W. D. on that paper, and then compare it with the J. W. D. on this paper; you cannot spend your time better.
I did not suppose I would ever find one paper that would have everything on it. But, as if there had been a conspiracy as to this paper, there is an S. W. D. on this paper which is substantially the same as the S. W.
D. on the other. The M. C. R., the S. W. D., and the J. W. D. on both these papers are all substantially the same, and I think when the jury have looked at it they will say they were written by the same hand.
Now, gentlemen, there was the testimony of Mr. Boone that he thinks the upper portion of this pencil memorandum (31 X) was written by S. W.
Dorsey; that it looks like his handwriting down to and including "profit and loss," I believe; I may be mistaken; it may be down to "cash;" and then after "profit and loss" come the names of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l and J. W.
D., exactly the same J. W. D. that appears on 87 X.
Now, what paper is that 87 X? That is an account of John W. Dorsey against S. W. Dorsey in 1879. He had been out West to take care of some of the routes, and when he came back he settled, and Mr. Rerdell wrote up the account. That is 87 X, and I proved that it was made in 1879. I believe the prosecution thought at first that it was 1878.
That paper shows that it was manufactured by the one who wrote this paper, and by n.o.body else.
Now, as I said before, there is no account against J. H. Mitch.e.l.l.
Opposite William Smith there are the figures eighteen thousand. And Rerdell says that he wrote Samuel Jones himself at the suggestion of Mr. Dorsey. Again I ask you, gentlemen, why would Mr. Dorsey give such a paper to Rerdell? Why would he give him this false name? Why would he put himself in his power? It is very natural that he should give the amounts ten thousand five hundred dollars, ten thousand dollars for John W. Dorsey and ten thousand dollars for Peck, because the evidence shows that those transactions actually occurred. The evidence shows, not only in one place but in many, that the ten thousand dollars was paid to John W. Dorsey, the ten thousand dollars was paid to Peck, and that the ten thousand five hundred dollars was advanced at that time by S. W. Dorsey.
Consequently that is natural; it is proper. But my opinion is that he never wrote one word, one line of the pencil memorandum. It was all made, every mark upon it, by Mr. Rerdell. He is the man that made it.
Did he have it when he went to MacVeagh? No. Did he have it when he went to the Postmaster-General? No. Did he have it when he went to Woodward?
No. Did he have it when he made his affidavit in July, 1882? No; or he would not have made it. Did he have it when he went to Mr. Woodward in September? No; or else Mr. Woodward would have taken the stand and sworn to it. Did he have it when he made his affidavit in November? I say no.
Who made it? Rerdell manufactured it for this purpose: That he might have something to dispose of to this Government; that he might have something to swap for immunity. He "kept it as a voucher."
Why did not these gentlemen bring Senator Mitch.e.l.l to show that he had some account with Senator Dorsey in May, 1879? Why did not the Government bring Mr. Mitch.e.l.l? They knew that their witness had to be corroborated. They knew that the law distinctly says that such a witness cannot be believed unless he is corroborated. They also know that the law is that unless such a witness is wholly corroborated he cannot be believed; that you are not allowed to pick the raisins of truth out of the pudding of his perjury. You must believe him all or not at all. He must be received entire by the jury, or with the foot of indignation he must be kicked from the threshold of belief. They know it. Why did they not bring Senator Mitch.e.l.l to show that he had some account with S. W.
Dorsey in 1879? But we heard not a word from them.
What more? Rerdell says that was either in April, before he went West, or in May, after his return; and at that time, according to his testimony--that is, according to this memorandum--eighteen thousand dollars had been paid to Mr. Brady for expedition. And then following, in the month of June, before the quarter ended, eighteen thousand dollars more. That makes thirty-six thousand dollars paid to Brady. What else? Ten thousand dollars to John W. Dorsey; forty-six thousand dollars that makes. Ten thousand dollars paid to Peck; fifty-six thousand dollars that makes. He had also advanced himself ten thousand five hundred dollars; that makes sixty-six thousand five hundred dollars advanced, and not a dollar yet received from the Government. And that by a man who gave away seventy per cent, of a magnificent conspiracy because he had not the money to go on. All you have to do is to think about this. Just think of the situation of the parties at the time. I tell you I am going to stick to this subject until you understand it.
Mr. Gibbs swears that the name of Mitch.e.l.l was not in the books when he saw them, and yet those books were opened from this memorandum. Gibbs is the man who has such a control over his mind that he can "try not to remember." When I was a boy I used to hear a story of a man going around saying that n.o.body could control his mind for a minute; that n.o.body could think of one thing for a minute without thinking of something else. But there was one fellow who said, "I can; I can think of a thing a minute and not think of anything else." He was told, "If you do it, I will give you my horse, and he is the best riding-horse in the country; if you can say the first verse of "Mary had a little lamb," and not think of anything else, I will give you my horse, and he is the best riding-horse in the country." The fellow says, "How will you tell?" "Oh, I will take your word for it." So the fellow shut up his eyes and said:
Mary had a little lamb, Its fleece was white as snow, And everywhere that--
"I suppose you will throw in the saddle and bridle?"
Mr. Gibbs is the man who had such control of his mind, and he tells you that the name of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l was not in the book.
Mr. Donnelly says he does not remember any such name as J. H. Mitch.e.l.l, and yet he holds an office. He has the poorest memory for any one under the present Administration, I ever saw. He does not remember the name of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l. Who does remember it? Mr. Rerdell. But Mr. Rerdell does not say what he had charged to J. H. Mitch.e.l.l; he does not say what was in the book as against J. H. Mitch.e.l.l; he fights clear of that charge.
And why? He was afraid that John H. Mitch.e.l.l might testify. According, I think, to Mr. Rerdell, there was a charge against Belford on those books. I do not know why Belford"s name did not appear on the memorandum, but I will come to Belford afterwards.
Mr. Bliss. Mr. Ingersoll, Mr. Donnelly does not mention in any way and is not asked on the subject of Mr. Mitch.e.l.l.
Mr. Ingersoll. I think he is. I will find it after awhile if I can, and if I cannot I will admit that you are right. I do not know where it is.
I do not wish to be interrupted.
Mr. Bliss. I claim the right.
Mr. Ingersoll. Well, go on; the poor man only had seven days in which to make his speech.
Mr. Bliss. I have before me Mr. Donnelly"s evidence, and he does not mention the name of Mitch.e.l.l in any manner, and is not asked about it, so far as I can see. I think when the statement is persisted in there should be some reference given to the page.
Mr. Ingersoll. It is on page 2637.
Mr. Davidge. And at page 2639, about two inches from the top.
Mr. Ingersoll.--It is sufficient for my purpose, which is this: That he gave the names of all the accounts he could remember, and in that list of names he did not give the name of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l. So I think I can fairly say to you that that man did not remember any account against J.
H. Mitch.e.l.l. Mr. Gibbs was asked directly whether there was any account against J. H. Mitch.e.l.l, and he did not remember any such. Now, the only person that swears to it at all is Mr. Rerdell. Then you come across this contradiction: Why should the name of J. H. Mitch.e.l.l be there with nothing opposite to it? I do not know. The prosecution, of course, will be able to find writing of S. W. Dorsey that will resemble some of the writing on this pencil memorandum. There is no doubt about that. If it was written by Rerdell in imitation of Dorsey"s writing, it is not surprising that writing really written by Dorsey can be found that looks like it. Why? Because it was written in imitation of his writing, and therefore you can find writing of Dorsey"s that looks like it; otherwise it would not be an imitation. The next question arises, Can you find writing of Rerdell"s that looks like it? Yes; 87 X. The M. C. R., the S. W. D., and the J. W. D. are all exactly like it. Now, is it not infinitely surprising that Dorsey should imitate Rerdell without trying and without an object? Is it not perfectly wonderful that this memorandum should be in imitation of Rerdell"s writing, when it was written by Dorsey? But if it was forged by Rerdell, it is not wonderful that it looks like Dorsey"s writing. If Dorsey wrote it without thinking of Rerdell, I say the accident is infinitely wonderful that he imitated Rerdell. Which is the more probable--that Dorsey imitated Rerdell without design and without trying, or that Rerdell imitated Dorsey with a design, and when trying to do so? That is the way to put this argument, and I hope the gentlemen will answer it. The ingenuity that would be displayed in the answer would a thousand times pay me for the loss of the point. I want them to account for this, how Dorsey"s natural handwriting comes to look like Rerdell"s, and how it is that this looks precisely like Rerdell"s in many instances. Why is it, gentlemen? I will tell you. Mr. Rerdell had written the initials J. W. D., S. W. D., and M. C. R. so often that when he came to put them upon this memorandum he forgot to disguise his hand. That is the reason. You find on 87 X the J.
W. D. precisely as it is on the pencil memorandum. You find the M. C.
R. precisely as it is on the pencil memorandum. You see if you have done the same thing many times with your hand, the hand gets a mind of its own. It is in that way that you learn to play upon the piano. The hand becomes educated and follows the keys through all the mazes of melody without asking one question of the mind. You can write a name so often, you can make initials so often, that when you come to write them, no matter what your object is, the hand, educated with a mind of its own, pursues the old accustomed motions and paths. That is the reason that J. W. D. and S. W. D. and M. C. R. are exactly in the handwriting of Rerdell in this pencil memorandum. According to that, Dorsey had paid out in all, I think, about $65,000, or something like that There is no truth in it, gentlemen.
Now, in order to prepare your mind for the next point I am going to make, and in order that you may know something about this man Rerdell, I will give you some further information about him. I do not think you are sufficiently acquainted with his character, and any little points that I have I want to give to you. I want to paint his portrait in every lineament, every mark. I want to give you every hair in his head.
Remember that this witness is to be corroborated. He is to be propped and indorsed. Everybody admits that he is the pewter of perjury and has to be plated with the silver of respectability gotten from somebody else. They all admit that. He is an empty bag. Somebody has to fill him up before he can stand upright. They admit that. I want to call your attention to a few things as to which he lacked corroboration.
On page 2215, Rerdell swears that Miner told him that the amounts in the bids were filled in by S. W. Dorsey. On page 4177 Miner denies this, and says that he filled in the bids with only two exceptions.
On page 2216 Rerdell swears that the mail matter for J. W. Dorsey, Peck, and Miner was handed him by S. W. Dorsey, and that Dorsey said that he was going to take the business out of Boone"s hands. On page 3766, Dorsey swears that he had no such conversation with Rerdell.
On page 2217, Rerdell swears that S. W. Dorsey applied to him to go West. On page 3768 Dorsey swears that he did not employ him to go West.
On page 2218, Rerdell swears that he received instructions from S.
W. Dorsey as to what to do on the Bismarck route. On page 3769, S. W.
Dorsey swears that that is utterly untrue.
On page 2219, Rerdell says that he was instructed to establish a _paper post-office_ sixty miles north of the route. What was that for?
According to his testimony there was a mistake in the advertis.e.m.e.nt, and the route was too long, and this was a device to shorten it by adding sixty miles to it to make a post-office thirty miles off the route, or sixty altogether, so as to get pay for the increase of distance. If it was to be a fraud, why put the post-office off the route? Why not have it on the route? Where would the fraud be if they traveled the sixty miles except in having a postoffice where none was needed? They certainly would make nothing from the Government by traveling the sixty miles. If they traveled the sixty miles they would be paid for that sixty miles, but if they wanted pay for the sixty miles without traveling that sixty miles, they would not have put the post-office so far off the route. They would have put it on the route, or very near to it, and pretended that it was off the route.
Gentlemen, it is infinitely absurd to suppose that Stephen W. Dorsey would have instructed that man to go out in that country and get up a false post-office. How long would a fraud like that last and live? How long could the money be drawn for that service in that country? They say no human being lived there. Who was to be postmaster? Who was to make the reports? How long, in your judgment, would it be before the department would find out that there was no such post-office, no postmaster, and no mail? No one could think of a more shallow device than that Stephen W. Dorsey, a man who is blest with as much brain as any man it is my pleasure to know, would never dream of such an idiotic device. And yet, that is the testimony of Mr. Rerdell.
It may be that Mr. Rerdell when he got out there thought he could start a town and make money in some other way. But it will not do to say that Stephen W. Dorsey told him to get up a false and fraudulent post-office when Mr. Dorsey must have known that the mail could not have been carried to it but a few days before it would have become known that there was no such office. They would have to appoint a postmaster and he would have to live there in his loneliness a hermit of the plain, and would have to make a report like that from Agate that gave such delight to Mr. Bliss to read. There was not a letter sent to that place; not one, nor would there be. Mr. Dorsey knew if there was a postmaster appointed he would have to report, and in three months from that time he would have to report, first, that there was no post-office; second, that there had never been any mail; and third, that he did not expect any.
You see it is utterly absurd to lay such a charge at the door of Stephen W. Dorsey.
On page 3769 Dorsey swears that the statement is a falsehood--that he never did any such thing. He also denies it on page 3924.