Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1878-06-28
JUDGE cAmpsElus TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
POTTER COMMITTEE.


Hon. Hugh j. Campbell, United States
attorney for Dakota territory testified before
the Potter committee on Wednesday. The
following is his testimony:
When the committee re-assembled Judge
Hugh j. Campbell, at present Of Dakota
territory, formerly of New Orleans, was
called, and testified that the first interview
he ever had with Anderson was in Marshal
Pitkip's Office. The protest of Anderson
was referred to him, and he gave a. his de.
cision that the statement was not according
to Law, and he (Campbell) had = statement
drawn up according to the revised statutes.
He did not remember having administered
the oath to Anderson. i eA
O, To the best of your knowledge and
belief, did you ever affix yonr signature TO
any affidavit when the party making same
was not present? A. / can swear positive
ly that never did go.
1t will be remembered that Anderson tes-
titled that it was no uncommon thing for
proper signatures to be affixed to afidavits
without the persons being present at the
time to take oath.
Cross.examined by Chairman Potter. The
witness testified that there were probably
certain blanks, mentioning occasions for
their ex pense, in the form of affdavits.
which we,e drawn up under his supervi-
sion, but he could not state positively as to
that.
Witness continued: The fact of my hav.
ing administered the oath to Anderson will
depend on my signature being found on the
document. In the preparation of this afii-
davit for Anderson / acted as sort of q
legal advisor. This protest of Anderson's
was prepared for HIM as supervisor of East
Feliciana parish. lie did not have the re-
turns of the parish present at that time.
The protest was presented and sworn to as
distinct paper. The information that came
to me was that the reasons the protest of the
supervisors had not been attached to the
returns sent by mail was because it was not
safe to do so, and l know l was very clear
in my opinion that if such fact appeared it
would be sufficient reason for not comply
ing with the law in that respect. did not
think, in that view, nonconformance with
the provisions Of the law would make it
invalid.
Witness saw Sherman, Stoughton and
Garfield in New Orleans, but his converse
ton with them was unimportant. He (wit-
ness) believed the reason why Anderson
wished to withdraw his protest was because
he had become dissatisfied and had quar-
relied with some of the republican leaders,
and was not at all satisfied with the assu-
RANGES that he might have received of being
provided for or being taken care OF. had
an indistinct impression that there were ru-
mors to the effect that Anderson was in ne
gotiation with, or had been tampered with,
by parties representing the democratic party.
l first heard Of the Sherman letter in the
summer Of 1877, after my return to New
Orleans from WASHINGTON. Al that time
heard that when Weber was killed they were
found.
Witness continued: | was not appointed
to my present position because of any cor
rupt agreement with President Hayes in re.
gard to his being counted in. was ap-
pointed on the recommendation of Judge
Hunt, of Louisiana, Mr.. Bonzeavo, Gen
Anderson, Gov. Packard and others. 1
think Packard was legally elected governor
of Louisiana, and that the same vote that
elected Packard elected the presidential
electors who voted for Hayes. have no
doubt that if there had been no pause or in.
terregnum by partial recognition Of the two
and Packard had been sus-
tained Immediately on his Inauguration, I
believe he could have sustained himself
without any civil war, but not without the
active support of the United States govern
ment. l believe both Packard and the
Hayes electors were elected, and but for the
mob spirit which was prevalentin Louisiana,
and which is prevalent there to-day, Pack
ard would now be the presiding governor.
By the chairman-Could Packard, as
matter OF fact, have sustained his govern
ment there for the last two years without the
presence of federal troops? A-No, sir. /.
By Mr.. Butler-I have only one final
question to ask you, and that is this: Isup-
pose in 1862 the authorities of the United
States, and of the state Of Louisiana as a
state of the United States. could not have
been maintained without federal troops. A
No, sir.