?

_Answer_. I did anticipate a verdict, and one of acquittal. I
knew that the defendants were entitled to such a verdict. I knew
that the Government had signally failed to prove a case. There
was nothing but suspicion, from which malice was inferred. The
direct proof was utterly unworthy of belief. The direct witness
was caught with letters he had forged. This one fact was enough
to cover the prosecution with confusion. The fact that Rerdell
sat with the other defendants and reported to the Government from
day to day satisfied the jury as to the value of his testimony,
and the animus of the Department of Justice. Besides, Rerdell had
offered to challenge such jurors as the Government might select.
He handed counsel for defendants a list of four names that he wanted
challenged. At that time it was supposed that each defendant would
be allowed to challenge four jurors. Afterward the Court decided
that all the defendants must be considered as one party and had
the right to challenge four and no more. Of the four names on
Rerdell's list the Government challenged three and Rerdell tried
to challenge the other. This was what is called a coincidence.
Another thing had great influence with the jury--the evidence of
the defendants was upon all material points so candid and so natural,
so devoid of all coloring, that the jury could not help believing.
If the people knew the evidence they would agree with the jury.
When we remember that there were over ten thousand star routes, it
is not to be wondered at that some mistakes were made--that in some
instances too much was paid and in others too little.

_Question_. What has been the attitude of President Arthur?

_Answer_. We asked nothing from the President. We wanted no help
from him. We expected that he would take no part--that he would
simply allow the matter to be settled by the court in the usual
way. I think that he made one very serious mistake. He removed
officers on false charges without giving them a hearing. He deposed
Marshal Henry because somebody said that he was the friend of the
defendants. Henry was a good officer and an honest man. The
President removed Ainger for the same reason. This was a mistake.
Ainger should have been heard. There is always time to do justice.
No day is too short for justice, and eternity is not long enough
to commit a wrong. It was thought that the community could be
terrorized:--

_First_. The President dis