Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-06-07
THE ELECTORAL INVESTIGATION.
Developments Before POtter's Com.
mittee.

After our report of the testimony of the wit
ness LeViSee closed yesterday, he was interro-
gated with reference to the Electoral returns
OF Louisiana filed with the Secretary of the
Senate. One of the returns was handed wit
ness, and he was asked:
is that your rhandwriting-lOok at it care
1ully: we want to be Sure?"
Witness, (emphatically.)-"N sir; that is
not my Signature.'
The papers in question were those obtained
from the Secretary of the Senate, and were the
returns OF the electoral college of Louisiana.
mere were three sets of returns from that
sSta;teIthose of the Kellogg administration, the
government. The papers submitted to wit
ness mes were the returns from the Hayes and
wheeler electors, with certificates that those
men were elected, etc, in the form required
by law.
At Mr.; McMahons request the witness
marked the paper which he had just declared
contained forgery of his signature, so he
might identify it,
O." Is this your signature on the other side
OF the same certiticate?
WitneSS.-"NO, sir T.: that is not my signature:
The name is spelled correctly, but the is a
bad imitation; l write good plain hand when
my nerves are quiet that writing on the inside
is not mine either; am sure of it; never
made b like that"
Another one of the Hayes certificates was
shown witness. He examined it. and said:
mo, sir; that is not my signature either
don't hesitate to say that is not my hand
writing
McMahon.-" at the one on the other
Side.'
Witness.-"That is not mine either; l never
make an A like that; that is not my b: but
tne l. resembles mine. (ShOwn another 1e-
turn.) Yes, sir; that is my signature beyond
doubt
Witness examining another return) -" No.
slr: that is not my handwriting either"
The returns or certificates which had the
forged signature were mailed from New Or
leans on the 29th of December To show that he
could not have signed them the witness said:
- n lot NOV nrla ,rin TO tl,a
I'D OF December, and certainly never signed
any papers subsequent to that relating to the
election. L only recognize my signature to
Mr.. Cox to Mr.. McMahon-" Then you have
presented only one paper on which he recog-
niZeS his Signature.'
Set
The clerk then read one of the returns,
which was the regular certificate OF an electO-
raj college, giving all the details OF the pro
ceedingS with names of electors and result of
vote: also having the certificate of the Secre-
tary of State attached. After this the witness
explained that three certificates were made
out and signed-One to be preserved in the
records of the state. one to be sent to the
President of TIE Senate by mail and the other
bymesSenger. Speaking of the one on which he
recognized his signature as genuine, he said:
There ought to be two more to correspond
with that having my signature; one should be
been sent to the President of the Senate; if
any papers were gotten up later than Dec I 1
did not sign them l have heard that there
was some mistake in the papers, and that it
corrected papers,"
McMahon.-'' There is no other copy of that
the d copy with your by
the pOStmark on the return signed by him as
New Orleans, December 9th.)
The witness again examined two of the GER
tiicateS, and declared that the signatures pur-
porting to be his were not genuine. He was
not in New Orleans on the 10th of December,
when these certificates were signed in his
name. :" never knew any such papers were
to be executed, and | never authorized any
body to sign my name. The signature is a bad
attempt to initiate my handwriting; do not
OF the other electors, except Gov. Kellogg
lshoWn the certificates; rather think that is
his signature.
The clerk of Secretary GOrham, who brought
the returns to the committee, was sworn, and
he testified that his name was James III. Nc
kinney: he received the papers there before
ate, and sealed them in large envelope; he
broke that seal in the committee room at the
request of Chairman Potter; the papers be-
fore him We're the ones he brought he had
never permitted them to get out of his sight"
Mr.. McMahOn.-'And don't want the gen
tleman to ever let them get out of his sight,
either
The chair then called attention to the fact
that Secretary Gorham had already testified
that these were the original returns that went
before the Electoral commission.
THE LETTERS SURRENDERED BY HON. STANLEY
MATTHEWS
to the investigating committee comprise the
A letter dated New Orleans, March q, 1877
in which Anderson says: "As soon as the com
mission is appointed please write me definite
instructions. Nash will be here this week and
will demand possession of that agreement, az
ter offering (possibly) clerkship. OF course
| shall decline: l shall inform him that it is
A letter of May 5, 1877, from New Orleans
states that the President and Secretary Evarts
had alleged in March that their reason for not
giving him cOnsulship was that it was their
vacancies, and yet since that time there had
been one removal and several vacancies two
He No urges 80 Matthews % VS. hs
liest consideration to Osecuring him the position
of deputy collector in the New Orleans GUS
On May 10, 1877, from New Orleans, he in
forms Matthews that he had presented his
letter to Gen. Anderson, who Informed him
that two OF the deputies would be retained
and the third had been promised. He then
suggests an appraisership, with a consuShis
as possible appointment sui sequently, and
SSays SGyGa if M Vii Mahfydmg by Is to be done for me-
May 25, 1877, he writes from Washing gton
that he cannot accept the position offered by
Eyarts, and is "disguSted with the whole
affair."
June 2, 1877, he writes from Washington:
After my interview with the President yes
terday, and while thoroughly disgusted and
d
responsible position here, and he assured me
there was no intention on the part of the ad-
miniStratiOn to provide for me. On the spur
OF the moment sent dispatch which have
since thought you may miScOnStrue. Do not
understand me as threatening you. 1 may
have many bad qualities, but ingratitude is
not one of them. have thought of plan by
which the President can get rid of me without
embarrassing himself. That is to give the
appointment / ask to gentleman whom /
shall designate. He is Baltimore merchant
OF unimpeachable character, but democrat
Ipresume, however, that would not interfere
will suggest the matter to the President on
Monday
June6, 1877, he writes from Washington that
a simultaneous attack had been made upon
him by different newspapers, which he thus
explains: ut seems certain anti-admniStra-
tiOn republicans in Louisiana wrote to others
here that l was in possession of documents
damaging to the administration, and suggest
ing the manner in which might be induced to
use them; at the same time they would re-
venge themselves Oh me. Their plan was to
have the papers attack me in such manner
as to force the President to throw me over.
This part of the programme has been carried
out. AT the same time they represented to me
that the President had no intention to do any
thing for me. l fell into the trap so far as to
send you that telegl lam. Their impression was
that l would Immediately proceed to throw
mud for their edifcatiOn. / have told you on
several occasions that had no desire to EN-.
barrass either yourself or the President. re
peat it, and as my appointment to another