Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1878-06-05
The Potter Investigation
THE CROSs.EX ANIMATION OF An
DERSON.
Flaws in Anderson's Testimony.

10 uhN.
Stanley Matthews friends say ii will be shown
Anderson applied for aid solely on the ground Of
honest and honorable services in the republican
party, and Matthews, received the susp iclous doc
uments ftom An1Ctson, believing them to have
been gotten up at the time for backmsil. AMBER
son surrendered them in token of his sincerity
aud good faith.
Quite rrohai ly a resolution will be introduced
IN Tue House, declaring no assault is intended up
on the Presidents title.
WAsHINGToN, June 4. The Potter investigai-
ing commit met this morning, aud the chairman
read communication from the Secretary of state
IN reply to request by the comm .ttee that the
original returns from Florida ard Louisiana were
not IN his der artmeui, anu he was therefore una
Bile To forward the same.
Anderson recalled by consent, and made
yaliOu, uuimpoitant alterations IN his testimony
after which Mr.. Reed proceeded to cross examine
hun IN reference 10 an agreement .isned by Nash
aud Anderson, u suppress all evidences of fIand
III East Fehcldna, TO -ether with statement tela
i've TO the same made 10y witness on SATURDAY,
That there was no evidence of fraud IN his possess
sion at the time he signed the agreement, witness
said
"On the day signed the agreement there was
no positive evidence IN my possession affecting the
loca affairs OF my parish. AT the same time
knew 1t was the intention to throw the parish out
on forged protest"
AT thIs point cons siderable time was occupied by
the members of the committee discussing the
character of the questions proper to put to the wit
tss ON the sand III reference TO certain parts of
testimony given by him before the Louisiana in
ve-tlgatlng committee while at New Orleans.
The protest contained IN Sheiman's report,
which witness Saturday referred TO having
been filled in and altered, was then given him, 10
order that he might mark the alterations, after
which the cross-examination was again proceeded
with.
Wtnes in course OF answers, acknowledged
that he mlsled the Senate investigating committee
while at New Orleans, for the purpose OF carrying
out the bargain he had entered into with the re-
publlcans.
The committee then, at Lao o'clock, took re-
cess.
" hen the committee rcassembled the cross .ex.
animation OF Anderson WAS continued
lie also admitted that he he did not expe ct to
get the position of naval officer lie was then
asked:
Q linen that agreement does not express the
truth.
A.-No, not in that sense.
Q-Gou simply TOOK this paper like sort of
immoral promlsOiy note.
A.-Iuat Is about the construction which u
moral man might put upon it.
Q.-Iou were not very particular about the
facts exactly in it. What you wanted was to get
the thing in that shape that it would hurt Nash If
he did not carry 1t out.
A.-That was it, exactly.
Q.-ls that the sort of grdnsac, ion in VIII ch YOU
frequently enter into;
A.-No, never entered Into anything of the
KIND before u0tll was brought In contact with
republican officials in Louisiana
Q-It Is common sort OF document i'll Iouisi-
ana?
Ayes, it is a common thing in Louisiana.
z something ike this IL hereby confess
that | stole one hundred dollars, and 10 conslders
ton of that will give John Smith an office" and
you both sign 1t and that binds you. Is that the
sort OF agreement you are in the habit of max
ingi
A.-No, am not aware of its being my habit
Q.-Iou do not know how many more of the
little promisoiy notes are out'
A.-Ihat is the only one.
Q.-GOu tried ii on on a colored man first.
A.-Yes.
Q.-Inls little arrangement which you entered
into with Weber; was that sort of promisoIs
note I
A.-No, do not know that we promised any
th ng to anybody,
Q.-Ihls agreement with Nash was, YOU say, so
thai Nash would not throw you over;
A.-Exacly.
Q.-You got thing that would backen him if
he did
A.-Ies.
Q-And so for yourself blackening would i'm
prove, woIld its
Al do not know whether it would or not
Mr.. Reed-l think 1t would.
The cross examination was then directed to the
object of showing contradiction between the
statement III Tue w tDDtf contract tuat tue parish
had been carried by the democrats by legitimate
means.
A statement in S,,urlays testimony that there
had been some slight intimidation 10 this PARISH,
long line was consumed IN this branch.
he witness having repeated what he stated
saturday. that In the protest which he had signed
the words "Kepublicau' or democrat did not &C.
cur, he was asked whether he had omitted them
puIposely.
lie sand that he had, aud that he had done so,
as IL the Webber contract, with the object OIL
his and WeobeIs part OF protecting tbems, Ives.
Q-l gu mean putting yourself III position so
that yOu could take either side of the question
A.-Not at al.
$50 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;
Al did. was trii ns to carry out my i'm
piled aIgain with Sherman, aud suppressed as
much truth a possible without swearlng Is a lie
Q-And you did it by suppression:
Al did II by suppression.
Q-And row you are stating it on the other
SIDE are you
Al not know that am stating on either
side.
Q.-You are doing it now entirely on level
basls'
ABIDING it entirely on a level basis.
Q.-But before you stated it on one side
A.-un one side.
Q.-And when YOU made the protest you made
1t gu one side
Al did.
Passing to Ander.ons examination before the
Senate committee, he stated that he had purpose
ly COMPOUNDED two documents. These were, he
sand, one affidavit and two protests, add in my
statement tiled to carry out as far as possible,
my pied agreement with Mir. Sherman and
coIfounded the aft iavit with the two protests.
Odd YOU do 1t purposely
Al did
Q-lnen under oath you purposely misled
that committee
Al II isled that committee purposey.
Q.-So that before that committee YOU meant
one thing in your own mind, and another thing to
the committee.
A-ExscIly.
Q-Aud you went through the whole exsmina-
ton, under oath, 10 that manner?
Aust in that manner.
Coming down to his testimony as to the inter
view with Sherman at The restaurant 10 New Or
leans, Anderson was closely ctoss-examned and
made to repeat in detail all the clrcumstanc at
the interview, but his answers to all the questions
put to bin on that point did not show any notable
variation or discrepancy.
The cross examination was not concluded when
the committee adj burned until III o'clock to-nor-
row.
GEORGIA..