National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-02-04
TRIAL 0E JUDGE WRIGHT.
SECOND DAY,s PROCEKDIxes IN fHE
CRxHxMAL coUxr.

MORE ABOUT THE YoRaERxHs OF THE IN
DIAN NAMES TO VOUCHERS AND GER
TlFICATES TESTIMONY FOR THE DE
FENCE BEeAN-CLAPPERT0N' TRsII.
AQNY ATTACKED.
Ths trial Of Judge J. v. Wright, Tor forgsriss,
dragged its slow length along through yesterday.
Nehemiah Hayden iasntined tho receipt and
the fictitious sIgnaturssf James Sspp - b hid
handwriting. Judge Wright told him the reosipt
was legal, but the department required witness
tosueh receipts.
VIII. Champion swsra: witness produesd the
records Of He interior Department and turned to
page SO, volume ., where the appointment Of
Judge Wright SIly n n n lsec' .ppss..s.
passed, and they are not charged with anything
under the nrst bounty.
the vouchers 9ons q which Wss tie receipt IL
question) were teceived from st. Louis, and filed
IN the sTbitration case. October 10, 18Th
Joseph A. Williamson sworn: Witness was .
clerk In the Interior Department.
q. Do you know the custom Of the Department
IN requiring the filing Of recsiptsi
letter from Secretary Broyning, dated In $50. 70
The sscsstsIy q war = reaasioa e tas Rsynsnt
soldiers and not q Indians, - the law does not
give authority 70 that Department b the matter.
Secretary Coz, and the ssscHers iisd IN that De.
So. ! Wright No, OH; not these vouchers.
jest BY the Second Comptroller, and be proceeded
to sFgs that the Interior Dspartmsnt had nothing
to do with the bounties.
could BE- proved, and he would rule On the ques-
M: WIii.nsSn resumed u. stand, and stated
them to Ale receipts in the Departnsnt.
The Government here restsd.
HR. cLAPPERToH WAS RECALLED,
and Identified two letters and Telegram sent BY
him to Mr.. Stanton.
the receipts were msds in Nj. StaStosS o1lesi
Mr.. Harrington objected on the ground that
saa: ,.;nsPiiss IN n: ssssd jury ses.ss and nd
oath administered 70 the grand jury.
Tho Court ruled that the question could b an
MI. Clappsrtou said h aid not stats IN the
grand jury-roon that tho receipts were made
here, but he had said the signstares were A.
@ :. IN Ss Witt tn sss e sss sa:s q
his father with seventeen receipts.
MI. stanton proposed 70 submit . motion to
ne sa.
The Judge stated that he Was not In the habit
of hearing part Of ease, and would not take It
Nathan q. Draper vas sworn worn witn.s. was on
the grand jury which returned the indictments
against Wright; recolleets that Olapperton was
perton said some Of the receipts were made In
Washington and some In St. Louis, and were
signed here somewhere in or about this neighbor-
Cross-examined: Don't reeolleet thu. Clapper. |
ton said the attestation was placed on the receipts
In this city. He did not mention particularly the
Redirect: The receipts on which the indict- |
mepts were found were the ones that no referred |
". vr,X-
we're several hundred drafts in the room, and |
sventy-nine indictments were found - matter |
Joshua Ross sworn: witness resides 1t Museo- |
ind Greek BY marriage; was ct Fort Gibson in |
May, 1859; recollects that Judge Wright came ont
tie sscSpS bounty
Then Judge Wright disbursed the hrst bounty;
witness was present st the time when Lacy Hawk |
4. n, ,s
Witnessed. Witness produced the books Of Ross, /
1unther & Co., and referred to . charge against |
sr h .so e:
Nash to R, q. & Co., that he had advanced goods |
~ 1862 witness sspisiasd the manner IN Wsieh
Judge Wright paid the Indians, stating that on /
.eceiying their drafts they would get the me--
If Nash spd H. G. Msigs. Endorsed on the draft.
' James E. Miller: Witness was . member Of the
grand jury who found the Indictments; could not
,eIpt in question:; don't recoiiect whether 6e
Clapperton) said the receipts were made here, In
he Indian Gointry Or st. Louis, but knows he
Henry q. Meigs sworn: Witness HI has resided a.
Fort Gibson since 1885; has been clerking for D.
Ross & Co., Ross. Gunther & Co., and VIM.
With tss % o. Which Ss
The court then adjourned until this morning.