National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-09-20

MAJCR A. c. RICHARDS, RECALLED. "a
1.-THE board will allow me, / would like TO make
an explanation in regard to my testimony as II is
reported IN the papers in reference TO MIR. Ken
dig. ] see the papers have represented thai 1
stated that would not believe him under oath.
That is not the way intended to be understood.
much as Mr.. Kendig had testifedu under oath
that he saw Green and Fisher in Mr. Evans
office, and that Mr.. Evans had testified to tho
contrary and that to settleit in my mind eitherWay
It would require some other testimony; some cor
roborating testimony either sustaining Mr.. Evans
or sustaining Mr.. kendig TO convince me Of the
truth Of his statement, did not wish to be un-
deTstood as saying that would not believe Mr..
Kendig under oath, or anything like that, but
the weight Of testimony was equal so far as the
two individuals were concerned, and 1t would re-
9uire some other testimony TO satisfy my mind
with regard to II.
BY Mr.. Henkie: @. Would you bsIive Mr..
KeBdig as readily as you would man Of ordin-
arily good reputation for truth? A. should not,
Of course. must take the facts OF his character
into consideration.
q. Would you believe him as soon as you would
Mr.. Evans. That is the practical issue involved
in this case? A. never heard that Mr.. Evans
had been convicted of any crime, or had spent any
time in jail. 1.-The had should consider them
probably on par.
Q. The question wanted you to answer in this
particular case was: You state that Mr.. Evans
and Mr. kendig have testified directly in an OPP
posite direction about matter affecting Mr.. Ey-
ans, so far as his testimony goes. What want to
know in this connection is, is your mind upon a
balance by reason Of the fact that Mr.. Kendg
with Mr.. Evans, and that MIR. Evans testified d.
rectly 10 the contrary? A. cannot state here
that mean TO be understood that would not be-
leye Mr.. Evans under oath.
Q. We do not expect you to? A. think, ac-
cOrding TO Mr.. Evans theory, he must be mis-
taken In the man. that he did not recognize the
brought here rs the man who was in his office
originally, either from q change in the mans ap-
pearance, something of the kind, but, as i
stated yesterday, it must be an entire mistake on
his part because there can be no doubt in my mind
that Green lie the man.
O. Then you think Mr.. Kendig testified to the
TRUTH A. think so, and that Mr.. Evans is mis-
taken as to the fact
Mr. Evans. Did not Mr. Kendig swear positively
in Baltimore that at the time he saw
Green in my office / was not there?
a He testified that when he first went into
your Office he found Mr.. Fisher there, and, think
some other person, as understood; that there
were some other persons waiting, apparently on
business: that after he sat there for short time
you came in and passed a few words with this man
Green, which he stated was the man. and then
went out
Mr.. Evans. That is what testified to.
Witness. do not remember whether he put
Fisher out of the Office at that time or not
Mr.. Evans. Here are gentlemen who heard what
he testified to in Baltimore. They remember that
be testified that was not there when Fisher was
there. A. donot remember his testifying that
do not remember his testifying to Fisher leaving
the office at all at any time. He might have left
him in the office.
By MI. Cook: q. Where is Mr.. KsndigG A.
do not know.
No other witness being.in attendance, the board
adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.