The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-06
THE INVESTIGATION.
Pathway Of the Witness Anderson
Growing Rugged.
A DISPOSITION TO HEDGE.
Authenticity Of One of His Own
Documents Denied
ANOTHER SENSATION PROMISED.
Senator Matthews in Contradiction Of
s Anderson's Testimony.
THE FLORIDA COMMITTEE
ANOTHER SENSATION PROMISED.
THE FLORIDA SUBCOMMITTEE
Changes in the Original Return
from Baker County.
Governor Hendricks Opposed to Dis
= turbing Mr.. Hayes.
[rnoM OUR SPECIAL oonnssposprsr. !

IRON OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON, June s, 1873
1t begins TO look as though Anderson getting to
Tho end OF his ropo. he gave everybody in the COM
mittee genuine surprise this morning by denying
tho authenticity Of one OF his documents OF the
papers which he said he gave 10 Senator Matthews
ono purported to DO an agreement between hims SELF
and Weber, proposing to mutually protest against
counting tho OF East and West Felicana in spite
OF tho fact reccd in the agreement that the vote was
fair This singular document. which set out with ap
parenty needless detail the rascay purpose OF tho
two was signed twicc by The names OF D. A. Weber
and Jamos E. Anderson, Witnessed by George Dicks
snd A. J. Wilder, who certify that s.this was
ngncd in presence" but do not
say by whom. and finally has the attest oil William
H. Seymour. notary public, With his notaral zeal
Last Saturday Anderson produced copy OF this
agreement between Weber and himself, and startled
the committee by saying that he had given the orgi-
nal together with the Nash agreements, to Mr. stan
ley Matthew'S, IN whose possession it still remained
go far as he knew.
AN ALLEGED FORGERY.
This morning General Cox, OF tho committee laid
before IT, from Mr. Matthews, these two papers. They
were passed. over to Anderson for Identification and
not tho paper he had HANDED Matthew's but an mi-
tason Of H. He said that the original was written on
. shee. OF paper which had two blots Of red
Ink on II which he had scratched out bc-
fore writing on II, and he unequivocally de-
clared that he did not recognize this as tho
original This amounted, OF course, 10 a charge
by Anderson that Mr.. Matthews had substituted q
fraudulent copy, which Is absurd. But Il was imme.
diaey remembered that the republicans have talked
Of probably being able TO prove that webers sigma
ture 10 the agreement is forgery, and that In fact
the document tself was manufactured by Anderson.
and tho conclusion followed that Anderson, having
heard Of this, and being alarmed, undertook to hedge
pN PncuLIARIriEs OF rHE AGREEMENT.
close Examination Of the agreement shows that
this is at least tho probable explanation OF his course
In the rst place. the two Witnesses Dicks and Scy.
mour, do not say who signed, but only, '.this was
signed in our presence, November Is. 1917 Next
the notarial certificate runs thus:-'sSworn before
mo this 10th day OF November 1876, by the
within mentioned James 4. Anderson and b.
A. Weber," and 1t will be observed that
the last four words, which VITAL stand In such
Why that they might have been fraudulently ADDED
after the notary had affixed his seal and given tho
paper back to Anderson. In short II is possible that
the document may have been thus prepared by An.
derson and considering his anteccdents the threats
are forged, and tho sudden and. under the circum-
stances. prcpostcrous pretencc Of Anderson that the
paper sent TO the committee by Mr. Matthews is not
the original Anderson gave him. tho general concIu-
sion here Is that Anderson has been trapped. OF
course, Seymour, the notary public, and tho two wit
ncssos, may turn up TO testify to Wober's signatures
ami It may thus be shown that is In error In
not recognizing the paper; bat the probabilities aro
against him and very strongly.
Mr. MATTHEW'S DENIAL.
~ The Same time comes the statement Of Mr..
Matthews, positively ana Enthusiastically contra.
dieting the testimony OF Anderson as to what Andor.
son told him. In addition to his formal and neces
sary brief statement in the Senate to-day Mr.
Matthews, In conversation with your correspondent
tins afternoon, desired 1t to DO known that he,
having, as matter OF course, settled belief that
there wore no republican frauds In Louisiana.
Anderson came TO him also claiming that there had
been no such frauds, began his story OF himself by
she most positive declarations to this effect ana nj
why's repeated these. Andcrson's appeal to HIM Tor
assistance, no says, was In the character OF n man
who had done important and honest service to the
republican party, and, moreover, by supporting ,hc
Presidents policy and in other ways had incurred
she bitter hostility OF Kellogg, Packard aud Pitkn
for which reason no could got help countena
from them That Anderson pretended that no had
and that in token OF his sincere desire NOT TO do 30
he gavo Mr.. Matthews the two papers.
AGREEMENT.
He explained lhat tho Nash agreement had been got
by him from Nash merely as means OF influence
ever Nosh who Is colorcd man, TO make him OF uso
20 Anderson; that he had always regarded Nash as
entitled to the vote OF East Felicana and that. in
giving tho agreement up to Mr. Matthews, no rc-
signed that power NASH and did so as tokon Of
entire good faith, asking Mr. Matthews TO 10. Nash
know that no had tho agreement, which was In fact
doac. II was thls theory that Mr.. Matthews says
no undertook to help Anderson, having ALSO no owns
. desire TO prevent public scandal. which he
thought would be disagrccabe, while he had 20 be.
hct and from Anderson reason TO believe, that u
could DO moro than scandal from tho publication Of
documents which would bear a dubious construc-
ton.
ASDRRsox's cREpfBrLITY
or course wherever Apdcrson's testimony Is contra
diccd by any OF honorable rcputc IL must fall TO
tho ground. No one will pretend TO believe him
pgainst Mr. Matthews. II Secretary Sherman had de-
nicd writing the alleged letters probably no more
would now DO heard OF Anderson, except az Tho de-
fendnnt on a criminal Indictment
AN ELncroR WITNESS.
To morrow Mr. Lcvisec, Quo OF tb republican elcc-
tors is TO testify. 1t Is OF him tho story ia current
that he had agreed tor sGo,ooo. promised him by a
number OF gamblers who had mado pots on tho eec-
sion his vote Tor Mr. Tdcn; that he prepared
On eloquent speech which he was to deliver In tho
electoral body when no should announce his votes
shat no reccd this speech TO small, but select
aud apprc audience, but that before tho
ful day the persons who had promised him the money
heard by telegraph from Now YORK that "Orcgon o.
K and believing that this made tho election Of Mr.
rildcn certain they refused to spend their money.
WHAT OREGON DID
oregon, In iaot, according to storios In circulation
here among political gossps, appears 10 nave boon the
source Of many woes 10 Louisiana II 10 said that