New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-06
TnE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.
ANDERSON PUT ~ AN UNCOMFORTABLE PLACE 81
ME-. REED-HE c0NTRADICTs HIMSELF AND AS
TONlsUFs BOTH PARTIES
lBY reLEGnArH TO THE TRIBUNE


ToNIsHEs BOTH PARTIES.
lpY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRBUNEL
WASHINGTON, June 5.-James +. Anderson, the
,baupion Democratic witness, surprised both the
Republicans aud Democrats to-day by hisfailure to
identify the original of the so-called Anderson
Weber agreement.
In his testimony on Saturday. 1t may be relnem-
bered Anderson swore that immediately after
fling his protest touching the election IN East
Feiieiana Parish with the Returning Board, he ana
Weber Jointly signed paper dcnOuncIng the pro-
lest they had made as fraudulent That paper An
Ferson said he mailed to Stanley Matthews, IN
whose possession it remained as late until about
,ix weeks ago. General Cox obtained thepaper from
Mr. Matthews to-day, and Mr.. Reed had
h in his possession while orosS-examining
Anderson in regard to its signature. Anderson
became good deal confused in his testimony touch
ing the circumstances under which tins paper was
6gned and repeatedly contradieted himself. Mr.
Reed then handed the paper to him. and asked him
fhe recognized il. He read it through carefully,
turned it over held it up to the light scrutinized
hintenty on both sides, and finally replied that he
had never seen the paper before. This answer
sansed a genuine sensation, not only among the
Republicans but among the Democrats, and was as
unexpected to Mr. Anderson's counsel as to any one
Else.
Anderson said that the paper was q very clever
counterfeit of the original agreements that the body
Silt was written in a hand that very nearly resem
hed his owns that the signatures not only OF himself
Ind Weber, bat Of the witnesses and OF the notary
before whom il was attested, also looked genuine;
INIT that be was convinced that this was not the
original paper on account of certain marks which
hat paper contained and which he did not find upon
his He said that when about to draw up the
agreement he took from the drawer OF his desk IN
.be Custom House the last sheet OF foolscap paper
which IL contained Upon this sheet were two spots
red ink one near the middle Of the page and the
.ther. a larger One on the m9rgin near the top
Weber objected to using blOtted paper, and Amber
ION said that he went to the Collectors office, but
rot finding the stationery clerk returned and erased
he spots from the paper before writing the agree
nent upon it those erasures were OF such CHAR
lcter that they could not fail to appear; as he
ound no trace of them on the paper he held in his
hand he was sure that It was counterfeit and not
Inc paper which he mailed to Senator Stanley Mat
shews.
OF course Mr.. Anderson was mistaken about this
PAPER but whether Intentionally not IS a
question the answer to which may have very i'm
bortant bearing upon this whole investigation.
There Is not shadow of doubt that the paper
which Anderson failed to recognize to-day Is the
paper which he mailed Senator Matthews, and
which has been in the latters possession ever since
Il was received. The body of the agreement,
which covers about page Of fOOscap, is written IN
Anderson's own hand and the signature of the
notary before whom 1t was attested is undoubtedly
genuine 1t seems hardly credible that Anderson
could have failed TO identify this paper if he had
desired to do so and the theory accepted by the
Republicans and by many others who were present
in the committee room to-day Is that Anderson,
for some reason does not desire to have the paper in
4 H-1 ew,rl ofHl aa
ment with Weber
What object could he have in wishing to diseredit
This paperf Perhaps some reports IN circulation
tonight may throw light upon the problem. Other
Republican papers besides THE TRIBUNE pub
shed this morning a report that Senator Kellogg
had examined the signature of Weber upon the so
sailed Anderson Weber agreement held by Senator
Matthews and had declared ii to be forgery. 1t
was also reported that the Republicans having
charge Of the defence in this investigation had
samples of Weber's handwriting and that COM
BarisOn of them with the signature to the paper IN
question would demonstrate that the latter was not
written by the same hand as the former 1t IS re-
Anderson said to his counsel that the Republicans
we're arranging to "put up job" upon him; that
they intended TO produce counterfeit copy
Of the Weber-AndersOn agreement and after
having induced HIM to swear that IL
was the original, convict nm Of o. per- per,
such trap there were certain marks upon the
original paper which he remembered distinctly
and by which be cOnld identity il, and these marks
were the erasures already described. MI. SypheT,
Andersons counsel, advised him to be very careful
about his testimony on this point, aud was greatly
surprised when Anderson declared to-day that the
paper produced was not the original which he had
sent to Mr.. Matthews.
The theory of many Republicans who have
studied the case most carefully is that WebeTs
signature to the paper is not genuine that Ander-
son knows that il is forgery, and is cOgnlzant OF
the circumstances under which the forgery was
tod tn a h4 faqr
might produce evidence to prove its talslty, ana
thus convict him of perjury and that to escape
this danger he has resorted to the expedent OF re-
fusine 10 identity the paper at ALL His future test
mOny in regard to this paper and the disclosures
which may yet be made about it, are looked for
Nth great interest.
Mr. MATTHEW'S DEMANDS A HEARING.
PUBLIC OPINION NOW TURNING IN HIS FAVOR.
lBY TELEGRAPH TO IHE TRIBUSE
WASHINGTON, June 5.-SeDatOr Stanley Matthews