The Portland daily press., 1878-06-06
THE INVESTIGATION.
Anderson ON the Stand.
FURTHER EVIDENCE or HIS
VILLAINY.
Stanley Matthews Demands an Tn.
vestigatiOn.

WASHINGTON, June 5.-The Potter inyesti.
eating committee met at 11.30 a. m. The
chairman having received from the Secretary
of the Senate the returns of the electoral col
lege OF Louisiana, after reading the returns
several members expressed themselves DESTROYS
OF being in the House at II o'clock SO that thew
could vote on the Wood tariff bill and the COM
mittee took a recess until 3d.
Committee re-assembled and Gen. Butler
offered the following:
Whereas James E. Anderson swears that between
May 25th and June lst 1877, Hon STANLEY Matthews
told him, 81 have just today had letter from the
President in regard to YOUR case, and have written
him such letter as will secure your appointment to
some position" and that on or about the I'd the
President said to witness that he had received no
letter from Matthews requesting him to give him a
place. therefore,
ResoIued. That the President be requested to furn-
ish the committee all the original letters above
toned which he has received, if any, certified
copies thereof with copies OF any such letters sup
posed to be written by him as he may PREFER in or
der to secure an intelligent cross-examna of the
witness on the subject matter thereof.
The resolution was adopted,
Testimony of Geo. G. G orham.
Geo. @. Gorham, Secretary of the Senate,
was then sworn ard questioned by the chair
the committee this morning, stating that they
were the only papers relating to the Louisiana
electoral college of 1876 in his possession. He
knew nothing of any record of proceedings of
the Returning Board uutil yesterday, when he
was informed by the correspondent of a New
York paper that such document was in the
keeping of the Sergeaut-at.arms of the Senate,
but that gentleman, Gorham said, would give
the committee any information they desired
regarding it, whereupon Gorham left tue stand
and JONES e. Anderson was recalled and fur
Their cross examined by Mr.. Reed.
Anderson on the Stand.
The copy of the agreemement between An
derson and Weber, which Anderson stated in
his testimony on Saturday that he had M allied
to Mr.: Stanley Matthew, was produced by
Mr.. Cox. Ia member of the committee), who
had procured it from Matthews. 1t cores
ponded 10 every particular with the copy al
ready 10 the evidence, but Anderson ON q
critical examination of it declared it was not
the copy which he had mailed to Matthews,
though the writing of the body of the paper
and of the signature, was an excellent counter
felt presentment OF his handwriting. In fact
he would say the paper was the same were it
not that he was positive there had been two
spots of red ink on the upper and tn lower
corner OF the paper on which it had been writ
ten, and he had erased these spots with an
eraser and the paper now present showed no
evidence of such erasures. The object of put
ting this paper into the case is not very clear
for the present.
Mr. Cox made statement that in accord
ance with a suggestion from the charm an he
had called on Matthews and requested the pro-
ducti0n OF the Anderson Weber contract aud
that Matthews in compliance with that request
had handed him this paper
The witness still persisted in declaring it was
not the paper he had mailed to Matthews
The witness was cr0ss-eXamiDed infinitely as
to the circumstances attending the signature of
the Anderson Weber contract. At one time he
testified to his recollection of its taking place
at the office of Mr.. Seymour, the notary public,
and at another time he expressed doubt
whether one set of signatures (there were two
sets to the not have bAAn
made at the custom house. Then he could not
fix.it definitely where the first set had been
made, but he inclined to the belief that both of
the sets were signed at Seymour's office.
In reference to one of these variat ions Mr..
Reed said: "You stated distinctly that the FIRST
set of signatures was executed at Seymour 8
Officer,
Witness-Then am willing to correct it.
Mr.. Reed-NOw 1 want to know whether that
is the truth or whether you said that with the
intention of deceiving this committee?
Witness-Allow me to say tn at have no in
terest in deceving this committee.
Mr.. Reed-Of that perhaps we want some
better assurance?
whether you want better assurance or not.
Odd you see Weber sign the first one
wherever it was signed?
Al say do not recollsct anything to the
first signature whether we signed them in the
custom house or where. My impression is
Office.
Q.-Do you say that is not your handwriting
in this paper. the copy of the Weber agree
ment as furnished by Matthews?
Al say that to the best of my knowledge
and belief it is not my handwriting.
Q,-Can you make it no stronger?
Al can make it stronger by saying that
thing it an excellent counterfeit of my hand
writing.
Q.-Do you know whether it is your hand
wiring or not?
Al know that it is Lot
Q-And you swear that it is your hand
writing?
Al swear that it is not my handwriting
That COPY was not written by me.
Q-And you swear that this is no the
original paper?
Alt is not the original paper
Q-Is this Weber's signature to il?
Alt is neither Weber's signature nor my
signature.
Odd you ever see that paper before?
Al have no recollection of ever seeing
that paper before
Q.-Is not this the paper that you mailed to
Senator Matthews?
Alt is not. 1 know by the fact that the
sheet of paper on which wrote the agreement
had two spots of red ink, one GA the top right
hand corner and one just below the centre
which spot erased 1 remember it very dis
tinctly, and this paper has not mark of any
such erasure. Then too it was double sheet of
pdU6r anu tulS 10 d sluSl0 SuS6G
els that the signature to it of Mr. Sey-
mour, the notary pnblic?
A.-As nearly as recollect it is.
Q.-You are pretty confident that it is?
Al do not say it lie, but to the best of my
recollection and belief it is. The seal is his
Q.-Do you know 10 whose handwriting the
paper is, if it is not il yours?
Al do not.
OIL mean the body of it.
A Il don't know.
Q.-Is the body Of it counterfeit of your
writing?
A.-The body of it is counterfeit Of mine.
Q-Was the original all 10 your hand
writing?
A.-Itwas without erasures or interlineations
except the er assures of these two blots.
Q.-Was there any envelope on any of those
letters that you got in the package of the
Weber papers?
A.-There was not.
Csc there is no postmark to show that
you ever sent the Butler letter?
A.-Not single one.
Q.-NOr postmark to show that YOU ever
sent the letter to d. A. Weber?
A.-No.
Ono postmark to show that you sent any
of the letters you claim to have found in the
envelope containing the Weber paper?
A.-None whatever.
Q.--They are in your handwriting al
togethe?
A Altogether.
Q-lS there any endorsement on any of
them 10 Weber's handwriting?
Al do not think there is.
Citizen there is nothing in Weber's hand
writing to identify them?
A.-Nothing so far as L know.
Q.-Is there nything in anybody's hand
writing to identify them?
A.-Not to my knowledge
Csc there is no CONFEDERATION of your
statement on the letters themselves?
A.-lSigni6cantly) Yes there will be.
Q.-There is none on the letters themselves?
A.-No sir.
Mr.. Cox-Do you mean to be understood
that under other circumstances you would sc-
knowledge the signatures to be yours.
A.-Neither Of the signatures look yery much
like mine, although at that time I NAV have
written somewhat differe ntly from what I do
now.
GLOW about Webel's signature?
Al do not recollect Weber's signature.
Q,-Is this letter (handing one to witness)
in your writing?
Alt is.
(The letter was put in evidence and is as fol.
lows):
CUSTOM HOUSE, New ORLEANS.
Collectors Office, April T. 1877
To Hon. Stanley Matthews:
Dear Sir,-Packard on Monday concluded that his
only hope lay in his ability to frighten the President
by threatened exposure OF rascailty committed dur
ing the past campaign and his agents have been at
work since then endeavOrng to collect evidence Ha