The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-06-20
THE POTTER COMMITTEE.
INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS
Startling AdmlssIOns-M Matthews Wanted, but
Won't Appear.

Washington, June S.-The House Committee
investigating the alleged frauds In Louisiana and
Florida resumed the inquiry to day.
Mr.. Mckinney, Deputy Clerk Of the Supreme
Court and Clerk Of the Electoral Commission
submitted printed copies OF the original certia-
Gates used before the Electoral Commission, and
testified that the originals now before the Potter
Committee compared with the printed copies
The certificates were never read In full In the
Commission but were ordered to be printed and
at his (McKinney's) suggestion the certificates
were printed in the back Of the book containing
the record Of the proceedings Of the Electoral
he recently compared said certificates, finding
they had become mixed and were duplicated.
The Commission dealt only with printed papers
except In one or two instances; could not explain
how the certificates became mixed and duplicated
In printing.
During the examination by Mr.. Mcmahon, Mr..
Cox accused him of assuming he was counsel for
the prosecution, whereupon Mcmahon said Cox
was entirely mistaken, and that he Cox was as
Suming role entirely foreign to him, namely,
"A defender of fraud"
The examination proceeded, and witness stated
In reply to Mr. McMahon that when Gen. Garfield
came to him inquirlng into the matter of the mix
ture OF certificates In the printed volume, he said
"YOu will probably see the importance of these in
few days. There have been some charges made
that some Of the certificates were forged"
GRAVE DISCREPANCIES DISCOVERED,
In reply to questions by Chairman Potter, Mr..
Mckinney testified that Mr.. Garfield came to him
in the clerks Office of the Supreme Court, and to
the best of his recollection asked him If he re-
membered any difference in the Kellogg LOuisi.
ana certificates, to which he replied he did, but
did not recollect what the difference consisted In.
II got the octave volume called Count of the
Electoral Vote In which the duplication ap.
peared and while Gen. Garfield read certificate
No. l, looked at No. 2, aud the difference was
that one Of the certificates was separate, as TO
Hayes and Wheeler, and the other was a Joint
certificate" The certificates, witness stated, were
never compared after they were received from the
printer, and, in one or two instances, at the re-.
quest of members, the papers were sent direct
from the printing offices to their houses that they
might receive them early iU the day.
The polntsoUght to be developed by the exam
ination of Mckinney is that certificate No. |,
which Levissee identified as containing his genu.
inc signature, contains only the single statement
that electors voted for President and Vice Presi-
dent while certificate No. g. to which Levssee
says his signature is forgery, contains double
statement of the vote for President and of the
vote for Vice President. 1t appears that In both
yrinted volumes, the one in quart0 form cores
DOnding with the Congressional Record and the one
in octave form 1t is only No. that Is printed OF
this curious fact the only explanation that could
be offered by Mckinney Secretary of the Electoral
Commission, was that the printed copies of No.
and No. 8 were so nearly identical In the first page
that in gathering together the copies that were
NOT used, they got mixed up together, there being
no printed number to distinguish them and when
he hand to Mr. Murphy, the official stenographer,
the copies TO be printed In the appendix, he had
given him two of the same kind instead OF two
different kinds, That was the substance of Nc.
Kiuney's testimony, except that another some
what interesting incident was also related in 1t,
and that was that some five or six weeks ago Gen.
Garfield called upon him and asked him If he
recollected the difference between certificates
numbers one and three, Mr.. Mckinney did not
at first reCOlectit but when he and Garfield COM
pared certificates in the printed volume, the re-
collection of the difference came fresh upon him,
and he stated it to Garfield ard furnished him
with separate copies. 1t was In procuring these
copies from the store room where they had been
thrown as waste paper that he discovered how
the two sets of Kellogg certificates had got mixed
up together and that disclosed to him how he had
made a mistake in furnishing copies to Murphy.
All this was gotOut as the result of great amount
OF questioning and crOsS-questloniDg.
SENATOR FERRY ON THE STAND.
After recess, Hon. Thos. W. Ferry, who, as Presi-
dent of the Senate, received the electoral returns
of the last Presidential election, appeared before
the committee, was sworn, and examined at great
length in regard to the manner In which returns
from the different States had reached him, the
examination being directed mainly, however, to
the Louisiana returns. He testified that when he
received the first return from Louisiana by the
messenger (GhOmas q. Anderson) he did not ac-
Cept it because 1t appeared to be informal,
QuestlOn-Did you decline to receive the re-
turns2 Answer-I did not decline, l asked him
whether he was fOmtliar with the statute, and
whether this was compliance with it, and point
ed him to the statute, and upon that he withdrew
with the return.
Q.-Wilhout further remarkH Al could not
cay without further remark, but there was noth.
ing tnat impressed itself on my mind. l adopted
the practice In all cases where discovered any
informality on the outside Of the package to call
the attention of the messenger to 1t. II the mes
seDger Insisted upon my receivingit, did so, and
In such cases declined to part with 1t again for
correction, or for any purpose, until IL was laid
before the Houses In joint convention.
SENATOR FERRY's PROFOUND IGNORANCE.
Q.-Did you, at any time, learn from anybody
that the Louisiana return first presented was de
fectiVe in containing but one list of voters for
President and Vice President7 A.-No, sir
knew nothing Of it.
Q.-When did you first hear Of that? Any time
before the election was completef A.-No, sir
not until quite recently except as appeared on
the count OF course / am cognizant OF that.
10, foot 80 H., ,ef
Louisiana returnsi Have you any present recol
lection of which package you broached tlrstH
Yes; think the record will show announced
It was the one received by mail with no cores
pondiug one by the messenger. That was the
first read BY the teller Ny present recollection
Is that the teller was Senator Allison. II was
either Senator Allison or Senator Ingalls,.
Q.-Did he open the return or did you2 Al
used large shears to cut off the ends Of the en-
We Opes, and pulled out the contents and handed
them TO the tellers, so that did not know In ad-
vance the contents Of any Of them.
Q.-Speaking from present recollection, do you
recOllect cutting off the end Of that retuTn3 A.
No more than that cut most OF them of. There
were some that tore open with my fingers, but
found the paper so tough got pair of shears.
My belief Is, every return was opened by myself,
either with my fingers or pair Of shears, without
any exception.
In reply to further questions, the witness testl
fed that in receiving, or objeoting to receive Ie
turns and In opening returns and In every re-
Epect, he had acted impartially and did not
know the contents Of any returns until they were
opened on joint meeting.
Q.-Did you then know, from nything thathad
been suggested 10 you outside, or from anything
that was said IN the meeting that any Of the sig
natures were not genuine4 A.-No; the only
thing that can remember that was said In rela-
ton TO the second Louisiana return and can
not remember who said Il, was the expression
Of fear that In the correction Of the returns the
date of the time when they met was put in, in
stead of the time when the college should have
met
Q-That expression Of fear must have been
before the returns were opened, because, on
opening them, the fact would have disclosed
iIself7 A.-Yes, sir; remember l made the re-
mark that II any return was correct 1t would
probably be the one that came by mail, and the
reason Tor this opinion was the fact that 1t was
made at the time.
Odd the messenger or anybody else say any
thing TO yOn about The manner in which the cor
recied Kellogg return was nader A.-NO, sir;
knew nothing about that
Q.-Then it was not until long after the cleo