The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1878-07-25

rho Louisiana sub-committee.

Additional evidence taken before the sub.
Committee up 70 the 18th: Isaac W. Patton,
chairman of the Democratic State Commit
tee In 1916, testified that he sew Anderson
about October, Anderson proposed that II
the psrrucrats would support Nash for Con;
kIess ne would give them two rnsmbers OF
Qqratie majority In East Feiiciana Parish.
lne witness could not entertain the prppo.
sition but telegraphed for McCabe. in Fell
derson about his treatment of the people.
Anderson finally agreed to go back If they
would cash his scrip. Patton finally agreed
with McCabe TO pay $50 OF the amount. The
witness gave jerks $50 jerks said he would
not take il as a bribe, but would as n loan....
A. J. ReyrOids, of West Feliciana. had con-
which the latter asked witness If he didn't
think ID. A. Weber had the sherman letter on
his person when killed; had a conversation
with ID. A Weber aftet The election; told wit
ness he was not going 70 make a protest. 49,.
John CluEg, Secretary of the State
senate, testified: There was no protest on
the original returns of Supervisor Vcazey,
made up by the witness at NeaZey's request (;
Neazey swore 70 them and brought them to
New Orleans, where another set was fnH6e
throwing out three polls and giving the Re-
pnblicen5 four hundred more votes than the
Original statement. J. w. Armstrong, An,
drew Duncan and Thos. Steward, all colored
men of West Feliciana Parish, testified that
they swore to aifidavits made in the Custom
house without hearing them read, and now
declared that most OF the statements con-
tanned therein were untrue.
On the iIth number of witnesses testi-
fed 20 bad character for truth and verasity
of Hiram snedley. who testified a few days
previous that he had seen Jos. W. Jones sign
Webers name to the Anderson Weber agree
ment. W. II, Seymour, Notary Public, con-
tradicted point blank a statement made by
Smedley that he (Smediey) had told witness
the jurat to the Anderson Weber agreement
was false; never had any conversation with
smedley,..,. .John S. Dula, coloredi of West
ish Judge in 1876; was invited to re
sign, but. did not resign; made an
h&davit before the Returning Board
charging intimidation, violence and murder;
made the statements on Information receiv-
ed from Others. The cross examination by
Governor COX brought out the statement
from Dnia that he had been daily in the com.
Weber had offered the witness $500 and the
promise of position in the Public School as
teacher if the witness would fol
low his (Weber's) example, recant the
affidavit before the Returning Board
and deny intimidation in the parish. Wit
ness promised Weber that he ~otild do soi
but hts conscienee would not permit him.
Witness received $40 from Weber yesterday
and s35 oday; was to receive the balance
after testifying. .....S. II. st. Martin, Deputy
Sergeant alarms of this sub Committee
testified he was present in Weber's room
when the interviews mentioned by Dula
took place; Dula gave witness to under
stand he was with Weber on the same line
of testimony; never heard Weber offer Dula
any money, but Weber borrowed Si0 of wit-
ness yesterday and S35 to-day, which was
paid TO Dula by Weber, Dula remarking he
did not receive IL, as n bride, hut rs a loan.
..,., L. L. Weber being recalled, said that
Dula's testimony as to his offering TO bride
the latter was false; admitted loantng Dula
the money, as stated by Martin.
L. MI. Clarke and Geo. A. Swazey, both
colored, testified on the 18th that E. L. Weber
had tried to bride them to recant what they
had testified TO before the Howe Committee
Both formerly resided in the "bulldozed' "
parishes, and were afraid to return on ac-
count of the feeling against them. SwaZey Is
now employed in the New Orleans Custom
house. The testimony he gave before the
Howe Committee was based on information
be received from others. a letter from VIM
K. Chandler to Weber was introduced, in
quiring about the Sherman letter, which he
said Mrs. jerks and Anderson had been to
see him about, the former claiming to have
il in her possession.