Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-06

Evidence--The Louisiana Electors Who
Didn't Vote for Hayes.
WASHINGTON, June 5.-The House commit
tee investigating the alleged frauds in Louis
lana and Florida in connection with tho last
Presidential election met to-day. The returns
of the electoral college Of Louisiana having
been received from the secretary of the Senate,
we're submitted for examination. After the
returns were read several members of the COM
1uittee expressed desire to be in the House to
vote the Wood tariff bill, and recess was
taken.
HAYES AND MATTHEW'S.
: The committee having reassembled, Gen.
Butler offered the following resolution:
WHEREAS Jas. Il. Anderson swears that be-
tween May 25th and June LIST, 1877, Hon.
Stanley Matthews told him, II have just to-day
had o. letter from the President in regard to
your case, and have written him such letter
us will secure yonr appointment to some posi-
iion,' and about June I'd the President said to
witness he 'had received such letter. there
fore,
Reso1yed, That the President be requested to
furnish to the committee all the original letters
above mentioned which he has received, if any,
or certified copies thereof, with copies of such
letter supposed to be written by him, as he may
prefer, in order to the cross examination of the
witness on the subject matter thereof.
The resolution was adopted.
GEO. G. GoRHAM,
recretary of the Senate, sworn and quee-
tiond by the chairman relative to papers sub
united to the committee. and he stated they
were only relating to the Louisiana electoral
college of 1876, in his possession. He knew
nothing of any record Of any proceedings of the
returning board until yesterday, when he was
informed by correspondent that such docu-
ment was in the keeping of the sergeant-at-
arms of the Senate, and that the gentleman
would give the committee any information
they desired regarding it.
JAo1Es E. ANDERSON
was recalled and further cross-examined by Mr..
Reed.
copy of the agreement between Anderson
and Weber, which Anderson stated in his testi-
mony Saturday that he had mailed to Stanley
Matthews, produced by Mr.. Cox. mem
her Of the committee, who had procured it
from Mr. Matthews. 1t correspondent in every
particular with the copy already in evidence,
but Anderson. on u critical examination of it,
declared it was not the copy he had mailed to
Matthews, though the writing of the body of
the paper aud OF the signatures was an excel
lent counterfeit Of his hand writing. In fact,
he would say the paper was the same were
it not that he positive there had been two
spats Of red ink ON the upper and lower corner
of the paper on which it had been written and
he erased these spots with an eraser, and the
paper now presented showed evidence of
such erasure. The object of putting this paper
into the case is not very clear for the present.
Mr.. Cox made statement that in accord
ance with Il suggestion from tie chairman he
had called on Senator Matthews and requested
the production Of the Anderson-Weber con-
tract and that Senator Matthews, in compli-
ance with that request, had handed him this
paper.
The witness still persisted in declaring that
il was not the paper which he had mailed to
Senator Matthew'S.
Witness was cross-examined infinitely as to
the circumstances attending the signature Of
the Anderson-W eber contract. At one time he
testified to his recollection of it's taking place
ut the Office Of Seymour, notary public: and at
another time he expressed doubt as to whether
one set of signatures, there were two sets to
the same paper may not have been made at the
custom house. Then he could not fix 1t def
nitely where the first set had been made, he
was inclined to believe that both sets were
signed at Seymour's office.
In reference to one of these variations Mr.
Reed said You stated distinctly that the first
set of signatures were executed at Seymour's
office.
Witness-Then am willing to correct it.
Recd-Now, [ want to know whether this is
the truth, or whether you said that with inten-
ton Of deceiving this committee.
Witness-AIlow me to say that have nc
interest in deceiving this committee
Reed-Of that, perhaps, we want some better
assurance.
Witness-It is a matter of indifference to MT
whether you want better assurance or not.
q. Did you see Weber sign the first ont
wherever it signed.
A. do not recolect any thing as to TIT
first signatures, whether We signed them IN tht
custom house where My impression Is, tina
we signed both of them in Seymour's office.
@. Do you say that is not your Handwriting
on this paper, the copy of the Weber agree
ment us furnished by Senator Matthews?
A. say that to the best of my knowledg
and belief it is not my handwriting.
@. Can you make it no stronger!
A. can make it stronger by saying thin
it is an excellent counterfeit of my writing.
A. Do You know whether it is your hand
writing not?
A. I know it is not.
writing?
A. ] swear that it is not my handwriting
That copy not written by me.
Q-You swear that it is not the origins
paper?
At is not the original paper.
Q.-Is this Weber's signature to it:
Alt is neither Webers signature nor m
signature
Odd YOU ever see that paper before?
Al have no recollection of seeing thu
paper before.
Q.-Is not this the paper that you malJed I
Senator Matthew'S?
Alt is not, and know by the fact th'
the sheet of paper on which l wrote that agre
ment had two spots of red ink on it, one on tt
right hand corner and one just below u
centre, which spots [ erased. l remember
very distinctly and this paper has no mark
any such erasure. Them t,o, it was doub
sheet of paper, and this is a single sheet.
o. Is that the signature to it of Seymou
the notary public?
A. As nearly as ! can recolleet it is.
@. You are pretty confident that it is?
4, I do not say that it is, but to the best
nv recollection and belief the seal is his.
@. Do you know in whose handwriting t
paper is if it is not in yours!
i. do not.
@. mean the body of itl
A. do not know.
O. Is the body of it counterfeit of 20
writing?
A. The body of it is counterfeit of nil
O. Was the original all in your han
writing?
A. 1t was without erasures or interlineatio
except erasure of the two blots.
@. Was there any envelope on any OF inc
letters that you got in the package of Wei
papers?
A. There was not.
o. So that there is no postmark to sh
that you ever sent the Butler letter.
A. Not single one.
G.. Nor postmark to show that you e.
sent the letters to D. a. Weber,
A. No.
O. No postmark to show that you sent q
of the letters whichyo claim to have lou
in the envelope containing the Weber papers
A.. None whatever.
Q, They are il your handwriting altogeth
A. Altogether.
G. Ia there any endorsement on any of tn
in Weber's handwriting?
A T do not think there il.