The Portland daily press., 1878-06-05
THE INVESTIGATION.
Anderson Cross Examined by Mr..
Reed.
His Credibility as a Witness Des-
troyed.

WASHINGTON, June 4.-The eros s-sxamina-
ton of james E. Anderson in the Potter in
vestlgatlng committee was commenced today
by Mr.. Reed, one of the members. 1t was
largely devoted to an endeavor to convict the
witness of discrepancies between his testimony
last Saturday and the statements heretofore
made by him before the Senate investigating
committee that visited Louisiana last year.
The bulk of the examination was as to minor
details which would not be OF general interest
to the public. The contracts between Ander-
son and Nash and Weber were largely used for
the purpose of showing contradictions and dis
crepancies and disreguard of moral considera-
tions on the part of the witness. For instance
he had stated on Saturday in relation to the
Nash contract that at the time of its date he had
no evidence of fraud in his possession and had
not pretended that he had and yet the contract
recites that he is to- suppress evidence showing
that East Feliciana had been fairly carried by
the Democratic party, the consideration for
such suppression being that Nash was to
secure for him the position of naval officer.
He was pressed on that point as to whether his
statement on Saturday that he had no such
evideLce was correct or not, and he asserted
that it was except that he had that Sherman
letter in his pocket at the time, if that could
be construed into such evidence, and also ex-
cept that he had knowledge that the vote Of the
state was to be thrown out on forged protest.
He also admitted that he did not expect to get
the position of naval officer.
Q.-Then that agreement does not express
the truth?
A.-No, not in that sense.
Q.-You simply took this paper like a sort of
immoral prOmissory note?
A.-That IS about the construction which
moral man might put upon it.
Q.-You were not very particular about
stating 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 carr y it out?
A.-That was it exactly.
Q.-Is that sort of transaction one which you
frequently enter into?
A.-No, never entered into anything of the
kind before until L was brought into contact
with Republican officials in Louisiana.
CIT is common sort of document in
Louisiana?
Ayes, it is common thing in Louisiana.
Q.-Something like this, II hereby confess
that stole 500 and in consideration of that
l will give John Smith an Office and you both
sign it and that binds you. Is that the sort of
agreement you are in the habit OF making?
A.-No, 1 am not aware of its being habit.
Q.-You do not know how many more of
these little promissory notes are out?
A.-That is the only one.
Q.-You tried it off on colored man first?
Ayes.
Q.-This little arrangement which you en-
tered into with Weber, was that sort of
pIomissory note too!
A.-No, do not know that we promised
anything to anybody.
Q.-This arrangement with Nash was you
say SO that Nash would not throw you over.
A.-Exactly.
Q-You got a thing that would blackea him
if he did?
Ayes.
Q-And as for yourself backing woull i'm
prove you would it?
Al do not know whether it would or not.
Mr.. Reed think it would.
line cross-examination was then directed to
the object of showinga contradiction between
the statement in the Weber contract
that the parish had been carried by the Demo-
Gratis by legitimate means and statement
made in Saturdays testimony that there had
been some slight intimidation in the parish. A
long time was consumed IN this branch, the
witness having repeated what ne stated Satur.
day that in the protest which he had signed the
occur. He was asked whether he had omitted
them purposely. He said that he had, and
that he had done SO Gas in the Weber contract)
with the object on his and Weber's part of
protecting themselves.
Q-You mean putting yourselves in posi-
ton so that you could take either side Of the
question?
A-Not at all.
Csc that you could give testimony on eth
er side OF the question?
A-No, sir.
Q-You gave testimony on one side of the
the question before the Senate committee did
you not?
Ayes.
Q-You carefully suppressed all the evidence
that had tendency to help the other
side, did you not?
Al was trying to carry out my implied bar
gain with Sherman and suppressed the truth as
much as possible without swearing to lie.
Q-And you did it by suppression?
Al did it by suppression.
.Q-And now you are stating it on the other
side are you?
Al do not know that am stating it on
either side.
Q-You are doing 1t now on an entirely level
basis?
A-Doing it on an entirely level basis
Q-But before you stated t on one side?
A-On one side.
Q-Aud when you made the protest YOU
made it on one side?
Al did.
Passing on to Anderson's examination be-
fore the Senate committee he stated he had
purposely COMPOUNDED two documents. There
were, he said, one affidavit and two protests,
and in my statement tried to carry out as far
as possible my implied agreement with Sher-
man, and conf0unded the affidavits with the
| two protests.
Q-Did you do it purposely?
Q-Then under oath you purposely misled
that com mittee?
Al misled that committee purposelg.
,Q-So before that committee you meant one
thing in your own mind and conveyed another
thing to the committee?
A-Exactly.
Q-And you went through the whole exam
ination under oath in that manner?
Aust in that manner.
Coming down to his test mony as to the in
tervieW with Sherman at Moreau's restaurant
in New Orleans Anderson was closely cross
examined and made to repeat in detail all the
circumstances of the Interview, but his answers
to all questions put to him on that point did
not show any notable variation or discrepancy.
The cross-eX animation was not concluded
mi obi mad -.