West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1878-06-15
The Presidential Election Frauds

The second day of the Investigat' on was
consumed in the cross.examination of James
r.. Anderson. IL was largely devoted to an
enueaVor to convict the witness of discrep-
ancles between his testimony on the first
day and the statements heretofore made by
him before the Senate Investigating Com
mit,ee That visited Louisiana last wear The
contracts between Anderson and Nash and
between Anderson and Weber were largely
used for the purpose of showing contradic
tons and discrepancies and disregard of
moral considerations OH the part of the
witness. For instance, he had stated ON
the first day in relation to the Nash con-
tract that at the time of its date
he had no evidence of fraud in his pos
session, and had not pretended that he lad
and yet the contract recites that he is TO
suppress evidence showing that East
Fellciana had been fairly carried bv the
Democratic party, the consideration for
such suppression being that Nash was to
secure Tor him the position of Naval Officer
lie was pressed on that point as to whether
his statement on the first day (that be had
no such evidence) was correct or not. and
ne asserted that 1t was, except that he had
the Sherman letter in his pocket at the
tlme or that could be construed into such
evidence). and also except that he had
knowledge that the vote of the State was to
be thrown out on a forged protest He ad.
United also that he did not expect to get the
position of Naval Officer.
The cross-eXaminatiOn was then directed
to the object of showing n contradiction
between the statement III the Weber con-
tract Chat the parish had been carried Inv
the Democrats by legitimate means) and
the statement made in the first testimony
that there had been some slight intimida.
ton in the parish. a long time was con.
sumed in this branch, the Witness bovino
repeated what he stated on the first day,
that in the protest which he had signed the
words Republican" or Democrat" did
not occur. lie Was asked whether he had
omitted them purposely. He said that he
had, and that he hal done so, as in the
Weber contract, with the object. on his and
Webers part, of protecting themselves.
q. You mean putting yourself in posi-.
nOn so that you could take either side of
the question? A Not at all.
q. SO that You could give testimony on
either side OF the question? a. No, sir
q. You gave testimony on one side of the
question before the Senate Committee. did
you not? A. Yes
z. You carefully suppressed all evidence
that had tendency to help the other side.
did you not? A. | did was trying to carry
out my implied bargain with Sherman, and
suppressed as much truth as possible with.
out swearing to a lie
q, And you did it by suppression. A. /
did 1T by suppression.
q. And now youare stating it on the other
side, are you? \. ! don't know that / am
stating it on the other side
q. You are doing il now entirely on n
ieVel basis? a. Doing it entirely on level
basis. ~
q; But, before, you stated it on one side {?
a. On one side
q. And when you made the protest Won
stated II on one side. A. did.
Passing on to Anderson's examination be.
lore the Senate committee, he stated that
ne had purposely cOnfounded the two docu-
ments. There were,' he said Zone afi-
davit and two protests, and jim nv state
ment i tried to carry out, as far as possibIe
my implied agreement with Mr.. sherman
and COMPOUNDED the affidavit with the
two protests"
q. Did you do il purposely? A. did.
q. Then under oath you purposelv mis-
led that committee? A. ! misled that com
mittee purPosely.
q. So that before that committee Won
meant one thing in your own mind and con.
yeved another thing TO the committee? A.
Exactly.
q. And you went through the whole e1-
animation under oath I'm that manner2
Just i'm that manner.
Coming down to his testimony as 10 the
interview with Mr. Sherman at Moreau,s
restaurant, in New Orleans Anderson was
closely cross-eXamined, and made 10 repeat
IN detail all the circumsta. ces Of the inter.
view, but his answer to all questions nat TO
MIN on That point did not show any notable
variation or discrepancy. The cross-exam.
NATION was not concluded when the com
mittee adjourned