The New York herald., 1878-06-13

tho man had been paidoxed. or that an attempt had
been made 10 bulidozs hm. and that he had escaped
with his life by haH's breadth; when went 10
Washington stated the President that had seen
Anderson in that condition. nc certainly in tor
was not wounded.
sTREyGrH or rHS PARTIES.
O. When you represented the parish what was
about the relative strength OF the partles there? A.
Ny majority in sho parish from nine hu undrcd 10
eleven hundred; think in 1s72 II was nearly Twelve
hundred; that 10 my recollection now; IL Is very
1876.
at three separate eicctIons-1s6s 1870 and 1872.
O. In those csmpaisns At how many parts of the
vassingf A. In my own parish, and attended meet.
ings In almost every ward In town during tho three
@ State whether from your persoukl Knowledge OF
tho character OF the population there the party lines
were 50 drawn INA. you could regard party men as
drifting. floating voof a. Tho sam0 vote substan-
italy was there IN 1870 as In 1872 ,ha. is tho same
change in their sentiments: OF course good many
had been killed in 1875 and 1875; say the leading
republicans who mad not been killed were N tho
parish, bat they were SO completely intimidaied,
MIR. Anderson informed me and a other
parties did. that they could not make speeches
nor vote; I saw several parties ON the boat ut
Inc same time did Anderson, and lney all had tho
same s.ory-.hat NO man dared say he a republi-
can and dared to vote The republican ticket; was
not in the parish myself during tho year 1876.
AxpERsoN's REPUTATION
Q. Arc you sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Apder-
sous general reputation in Louisiana 10 state what II
isf 4, Now. Of my own personal knowledge, !
tho city Of New Orleans; whiie he was living
there he very dissipaied and Ihink h's rcpuia-
tion was not what you call good at least III Northern
community; IT might be called iar tho city OF New
Orcans-tlaugnterl-and think he drank good
deal; he told mo that himself talked with his nt
mate friends therc andI think II called upon TO tes
lily they would say his reputation there was not cou
Q. raxing what you know OF him there and what he
did state The view you actually took OF his services
to tue republican party ana tho character OF his sup
posed claims npon ". A. Up TO tho date OF his show
Ing me THIS Nasn document, there being no rea-
son that TIC should state anything but facts
OF documents that tho New York San OBJ
tanned wcre not signed by him, and that he
did not know where they came from. ana his state
mens about the sherman documeni-I say, taxing NIL
this into consideration, think up to the date OF the
reason 10 douD. H. and sinco tho date Of the Nasn
agreement think his msstatements 10 when no
had no reason TO make them, and tho contradictions
Of his statements hero, with what ne told me, have
led me 10 doubt him.
Tho witness was then taken In hand by Mr.. Nc
Mahon and cxamined nj great length TO show his rea
lions with Anderson and tho friendly intercourse had
with him. Notwithstanding his belief as 10 hts bad
THE LErrxR or APRIL 5.
Tho letter OF April having been called TO the aten.
General Butter thought .ne letter ought 10 be put
10 evidence, and was accordingly read by the clerk
as folows-
N.Y. DEAR M sln.Nos bearing from you slsgr.phsa ;nis
% ses. and ,oi course. doas issy. here: ~
Ia,shs' q ~. situation y ,11
sas H. ana
p Anderson have NO show. Fscssrd may sSi
are him and The rsasns given no iadics
hs sas ss'ss a or a" me- ss %
second choice. and seems 70 4 a. does nnytnnx
is's
bagger. think they were only waiting tor weiles and
and we'll SisosaS
Sn saa .% n% heSs s Gse an 4
:sIn.y can ~ s.na,nSs. dsss i, {.
sass.ly .ss.asa 4 sss !" Tss 3 would nss
mas mach il his favor little against him
have Ins only thing !. ,ha. nm .s;spe.bssgsr Do As
s.d say would like much TO come oyer u cssia leave
JANIS +. ANDERSON. Esq. Philadelphia Pa
BUTLER rAKEs THE WITNESS.
BY Mr. Buticr-Wnen did you nrst SEQ Mr.
what called the "vslting statesmen" In the fall Of
1876. That Is my recollection.
A. well, that has been so long ago can't tell AS
nearly ag can recolIect was not introduced to him,
came here, about The T5tn Of October.
Q. Now, wc will got along better II you answer ex-
actly my questions You were then barely introduced
to him, ana formed no acquaintance with himP A.
That IS my recollection.
@. When did you next have any interview with
hnn? A. Shortly after Congress met IN October last
q. VINO introduced you then? A. called on Sens-
tor Matthews either In the Senate Chamber or over at
his house. l do not remember he lrst interview.
Q. VINO introduced you, asked you. Cannot you
say nobodyf A. Nobody:
Q. Upon what subject did you nrst call upon him
A. My irst interview with Mr.. Matthews was when |
called upon him In regard 10 the Coliectorship
Q When did you first make up your mind to go In
time before l had seen Mr. Matthews; previous 10
that called upon HIM behalf of Mr.. Packard about
the Colicctorship, IN october.
q State In substance that Interview IN October2
A. rhe Interview substantially this-I wrote to
M ~. Sss or Il. s
down there, and I urged Mr.. Packard's appoint
ment; but Mr.. Matthews did not seem 10 think he
q proper man.
q Did you call upon him upon that subject moro
than oncef A. talked with him; called IL to his
a. Did he continue to be OF that opinion during
those weeks Ia October? A. In every conversation
had with him before the holidays recess he was Of
O. up 10 Christmas Day did you and he. or either OF
you. mention the papers2 A. No. sir.
q. Did you know Of tho stence Of somo OF :hsm2
A. knew oil the existence OF The Nash agreement, :,
Mr.. Anderson informed mo hsd personal owled 20
O. Did you have Information OF any otherY A.
hau formation from Anderson OF tho Weber agree
letter; do not think that at any mo had heard Of
o. some time between the 10th ana zoth you won,
TO Mr. Matthews? A. Yes, sir, called upon him at
his house.
q Repeat that conversation substantially to tho
best o your memory A. IL was Substantially THIS
That Mr.. Matthews had Withdrawn; that no wouid
mako no opposition 10 Packard; u remains IA
my mind that we converscd IN regard to tho
matter OF tho Coectorship; that Mr. Matthews
stated that he had been called on by Mr.. Ander-
son and suggestion made In regard To- my beng
handy and h. had sent Tor mo aud we talked the
matter over; Mr.. Matthew's inf0rsnea that hc had
withdrawn any opposition to Mr. Packard, and tnat
he would be very glad 10 assist me ~ could get such
recomInc ndations were necessary, and he ask ed
what recommendations l could get what iniu.
cncc could bring TO bear; PROBABLY our
tion lasted Tor IN bour.
q Didn't you write 10 Anderson 90 come and see
you about your candidacy a. wrote hin a Euni-
Der OF letters
Question repeated. A. Possibly.
Question repeated. A. Very likely I di1.
Question repeated A. have cx,ct rccollec.
tou whether wrote firsl or ne; our correspondence
was somewh hat extensive.
q. untcrrupting tho witncss)-Pardon me. You
were about TO become Candidate f0r nigh office
under tho government Here WAS a drunken. miser-
able fellow down IN Louisiana, or who naa been
IN louisiana man who, yoa had learned, had got
corrupt agreement to navo the Naval 0fflcer-