The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-02

that mc these papers, &c he claimed TO be IN the city
for them be by express him In 81 LOUIS no
described to the papers that he referred 10 as bcng
sbc hs lot '1 =, ~ h,s OWN hsndwrns
and partly IN the handwriting OF Mr. Luckey and . fac
smile OF which be claimed 70 have had published IN
the NEW York HERALD few days before then; no
claimed that he had letter from man named A. u
Bradley, telling him 10 Washington, and that
WOULD CARED YoR HERE;
the Babcock being tried and in the course OF
this conversation he also told me about proposition
made 10 him by Mr. Lucxcy, and conversation inat
he had with General Babcock In reference to getting
evidence from my oicc; all OF that conversation am
not able to give In detail the exact words that ne
used the sum ana substance of that propo
sltion had been made to extract the Office OF the
District Attorney in St Louis the documentary iesti-
mony that had been gathered Tor the prosecution OF
that case.
q A proposition by Mr. Luckey and General Bah
cocks A. BY Mr.. Luckey and General Babcock, as
gathered from him. these corroboratlug papers that
he then claimed to have were not IN his possession ~
that tine but they we're subsequently, placed IN my
hands, probably two or three or tour days niierwara
the papers cipher and letter. purporting TO DO
sent by Mr. Bradley; those papers had ia my posses
sion until recently, and delivered them TO gentle
man In ST. Louis, whose name cannot now recall,
upon order OF Bells, letter written TO me and
letter written to the party TO whom delivered them
took copy Of the letter OF Bradley ana memoram
took receipt for them; have not seen the papers
since; would recognize them n were 10 SEQ them
again.
Mr. Bell here produced the letter from Bradley and
the cipher testified TO BY HIM yesterday which are
SHOWN 70 Witness
q Is that the paper 1.-THE cipher you had IN your
possessions A. Yes, SIR
Is that the letter purporting to be from Bradley
A. That Is the letter that m my possession.
a. Had you any consultation with your associate
counsel as TO the propriety OF calling Boil as witness
In the Babcock cascf A. had during the nrst part OF
the these papers In the Of Bell,
and my best recollection is that after the govern
ment had closed It's case in chief. or about that time,
these papers were placed IN my hands; l discussed
with Mr.. Broadhead ana Mr.. Eaton tho propriety oil
Introducing Bell AS witness IN Chief; wc re
discussed the matter iuly there reasons
why wc did not reduce him First, nj that time we
did not have the papers that he sald he had had IN his
possession 70 corroborac s statements these papers
now here the papers mean the second reason was
that from the statement made by Bell OF his having
taken the papers in the Avery case from my ohcc We
NOT QUITE sURk waErmER WE corLD TRUST NOT;
tho third reason and the one that controlled our ac-
ton the fact that Iuckcy, who there and with
whom the negotiations had, Bell alleged, we
expected TO be called for the defence, and deter
mined not to call Bell In chief in the trial. nor 10 cx
hibt these papers that have exhibited here but
the event that Luckey should be put on the stand as
witness, we determined TO confront Nun with inis
cipher despatch, which was alleged 10 BIO in his own
handwriting and with his knowledge Of Bradlcy's
connection with the matter, and then TO call Bell In
rebutta; that was tho plan OF The prosecution IN
tho case and we ali agreed that that was
tho safer and the better course 10 pursue;
We determined to usc Bell in rebuttal in case CT
Bradiey;s LucKcys Introduction witnesses. That
Is the he not called IN chief and as Luckey
and Bradley not called witnesses by the de-
that was the reason We did not introduce him as
witness
q. Otherwise you would have done III A. Other
wise should have done IT,
Q. Have you read tho account Of Bells testimony
htrcf A. have glanced over II IN tho Washington
Z. Did you see any statement made in that testi-
mony which aid not agree with your knowledge OF
facts as lar as he has narrated them. A. think the
statement the papers yesterday afternoon, OF the
facts given by Bell here substantially the
statement or fncts given by him 10 mo in 81. LOUIS.
notice that he stated here that the interview at
my house, that not true, at tho residence Of
Iucieu Eaton who OF counsel; rs TO the state
nent that he observed dispatches IN my offices that
used in evidence In the Babc0ck trial. don't
think he any dispatches my Office that were not
either used on the trial or offered in evidence.
The Charman-ThAt Is what Bell testified here, that
they offered and ruled out
The wtness-I was very cautious about tho original
dispatches after they came into m, possession, they
were put In y box; was
AFRAID OF SOME SUCH EXPLOIT
as seemed TO have been performed IN the Avery case
and was cautious enough 10 take that bundle oil de-
spatches deposit them In the sao deposit vault
ana take receipt IRON the that kept the vault.
9 Did Bell at any time furnish you with any des-
patches which were Of value 10 you IRON Cincinnati
or cIsowherey A. He furnished me lot Of copies OF
dispatches which were subsequently introduced
ferrcd TO In the Babcock trial, known the ''Bixby
despatchcs;" he sen0them 10 from Ohio believe;
received tho dispatches al any rate with note from
Bell
q You say he made inquiry or you as TO whether
you had any dispatches signed "BuIGnch" or "B.
Finch" A. Yes, SIR
~.
you had thcmy A. Yes, sir; he said IN conversation
with me that General Babcock had asked him whether
or and hnI he sod s that he
said no. he did think that had. TO which Babcock
replied that he did not recoec whether he had
dispatches signed "Bulnnch' or "B. Finch,n or
written letters signed that wayonc way or the other;
Bell during the Avery trial, in5my Office, as sub
sequcnty learned, and suppose was seeking infor-
nation by examining papers IN my desk, and man
whom had IN my employ, named Wiscman happened
TO be there At the time and he notified Bell that he
could not examine any papers In the Office while was
out, and Bell excused himself by saying that he
hunting Tor match that IN the drawer TO light a
cigar WITH SO understood when came In.
q. understand you to state that the evidence In
chief against General Babcock had been put in and
the closed before received this letter. purport
ing TO be signed by Bradley, and this ciphery A.
That is my recollection.
O. And Il was Tor that reason that Bell was not
introduced IN chiefly a. We'll, would not say that
discussed the question as 10 whether would miro
duce him In chef we might have introduced him II VIC
had had the corroboravc facts 70 use at The time,
but fully expected that Mr. Luckey would be intro
duced witness Tor tho defence, and theory
of course that Luckey knew about this transaction
Bcll or Babeock and we did not wan. TO prevent the
rather DESTROYS that he should be Called and
thought upon the whole that II was better that the
testimony Of Bell should be used IN rebual altogether.
O. Was Iuckey subpornaed . witness In that case
A. He was, think; subpTnacd him Tor the govern
ment my scIf and think he for the defence also;
1 cont recall exactly what subpGnaed him Tor.
q. Was Bradley subprnacd, too A. Not by The gov
eminent
" =
have OF Information that subject great
many men appeared there Witnesses and do
know Bradley would not know him " should
him now and don't KNOW In point OF fact, whether he
was In ST. Louis or not; great many men appeared
whose names were not len with the Clerk
TO be subpnnaed, and Of course don't know who
subpnnaed.
BELLs QUESTIONS.
Bell was present NJ tho examination OF Mr.. Dyer,
and by permission Of the COMMITTEE asked the follow
ing questions -
Mr Bcl-The question vas asked here yesterday
II II was because OF my general uurciabfy that
was not called either side. wish To ask Colonel
dyer IL he did have enough confidence IN call
mo In rcbuial
Mr.. Dycr--oh, well, have very clearly stated that
that the purpose; OF course. We appreciated
this fact every lawyer must appreciate H. that when
the witnsss gets upon the stand and says
that time he has extracted papers from
tho District Attorneys Office and has carried and
shown them somcw here he Is not man would
desire isstcn 10 all TIM time witness chief
and it Tor that reason that desired papers
corroboraic hts Statements.
Mr. BcI--You satisfied TO use NOR
Mr.. Dycr-Oh yes. we would have used you; no
.I.-