The Somerset press. [volume] (Somerset, Ohio) 1873-1977, 1878-06-13

He was pressed on that point as to whether
his statement on the first day (that he had
no such evidence) was correct or not, and
and he asserted that it was, except that he
had the Sherman letter in his pocket at the
time (if that could be construed into such
evldence), and also except that he had
knowledge that the vote of the State was to
be thrown out on forged protest. He ad-
mitted also that he did not expect to get the
position of Naval Officer.
The cress-examination was then directed
to the object of showing contradiction
between the statement in the Weber con-
tract (that the parish had been carried by
the Democrats by legitimate means) and the
statement made in the first days testimony
that there had been some slight intimida-
ton in the parish. A long time was con.
sumed in this branch, the witness having
repeated what he stated on the first day,
that in the protest which he had signed
the words "Republican or "Demecrat"
did not occur. He was asked whether he
had omitted them purposely. He said that
he had, and that he had done SO, as in the
Weber contract, with the object, on his and
Weber's part, OF protecting themselves.
Q. You mean putting yourself in posi-
ton so that you could take either side of
the question? A. Not at all.
@. 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.
Q. You carefully suppressed all evidence
that had tendency to help the other side,
did you not? A. l did !; 1 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. 1
did it by suppression.
Q. And now you are stating it on the other
side, are you? A. [ don't know that | am
stating it on the other side.
@. You are doi"g it now entirely on a
level basis? A. Doing it entirely on level
basis.
@ But, before, you stated it on one side?
A. On one side.
Q. And when you made the protest you
stated it on one side? A. did.
Passing on to Anderson's examination be-
fore the Senate committee he stated that
he had purposely confounded the two docu-
ments. "There were," he said, one affi-
davit and two protests, and in my statement
| tried to carry out, as far as possible, my
implied agreement with Mr.. Sher nan, and
L COMPOUNDED the affidavit with the two pro-
tests"
Q. Did you do it purposely? A. I did.
Q. Then under oath you purposely mis-
led that committee? A. I misled that COM
mittee purpssely.
Q. So that before that committee you
meant one thing in your own mind, anG
conveyed another thing to the committee? :?
A. Exactly.
@. And you went through the whole ex-
animation under oath in that manner? A.
Just in that manner.
Coming down to his testimony as to the
interview with Mr.. Sherman at Moreau's
restaurant. in New Orleans, Anderson was
closely cross-examined, and made to repeat
in detail all the circumstances of the inter.
view, but his answer to all questions put to
! him on that point did not show any notable
variation or discrepancy. The cross-exam-
ination was not concluded when the COM
mittee adjourned.
The proceedings of the Potter Committee
were generally quite lively and interesting
on the third day. The little committee
room was crowded all the while Some new
| material was put on record. but, in the main,
| the cross-examlnation of Anderson was
| upon technical matters relating to points in
his previous testimony. The important
feature of the days performance was
| Anderson's assertion that the original
paper, known as the Anderson W Weber
agreement, which had been obtained from
Senator Matthews by Governor Cox for tt e
counterfeit" When it was handed to
Anderson he read and examined it
carefully, held it toward the light
and otherwise scrutinized d it very closely for
several minutes. He then returned it to
Mr.. Reed, saying: 81 never saw that paper
BEFORE" adding &c 1t is an excellent coun.
terfeit, but it is not the paper l mailed
to Senator Matthews" To show the com.
mittee how it was that he could be Sc
sure that this was not the paper he had
sent to Mr.. Matthews, he stated: "When
Weber and l drew up the agreement in
the custom-house, 1 opened my desk and
took out the last sheet of paper I had
therein. There were two spots of rec
ink on that sheet OF paper. took an eraser
and scratched off the ink-spots, and We
then wrote the agreement. This paper does
not bear the marks of any eraser. The paper
l gave to Matthews was in my own hand
writing"
Chairman Potter asked Anderson if h,
would believe that paper to be the origina
if it bore traces of those ink spots, to which
positive Yes" was answered.
To understand the full significance of tn,
letter it is necessary to consider the sequenc
of facts. After the Inauguration Anderson
filed an application for Office, called Oh
Hayes, and received special indorsemen
from Hayes. He then went to Cincinnati
called on Stanley Matthews, whom he ha,
never seen before, was told by Matthew
that a Commission would be sent to New
|
mission was announced. He was toll
to go to New Orleans, where lette
! of instruction to membe
of the Commission would be sent him. Fl
went to New Orleans, received the letter Q
introduction to Judge Harlan, and ha
secret conferences
The letter recites Packards determinatio
to force Hayes to sustain him; disclose
Packard's plan, to-wit: the production @
atfidavits of three of the Republican Ele,
tors that they never voted for Hayes, an
the collection of other evidence; recite
the destruction of one agreement. and r,
8 cites that another, inclosed, is the last do
e mentary evidence in existence.
The investigation is gradually workin
down to the point of the alleged conspirac
e by Packard and others to sacrifice Haye
e by showing that three of the Louisiana Ele
a tors did not vote for Hayes, and that th
g blanks in the certificate were file
9 by forging the signatures of the a
= sentees, who, according to Anderson, wei
Birch, Levisse and Marks, the last named b
g ing the gentleman who was lately nom
0 mated by the President to be Collector of L
ternal Revenue at New Orleans.
Mr.. French, Sergeantat-Arms of IL
g Senate, was sworn, and examined in refe
e ence to the Electoral return of the States
n Louisiana, which the committee seems
>. find some difficulty in tracing and gettir
hold of. French testified that during tt
last session he had received by Adams E
a. press box which he had understood
n contain Electoral returns of Louisian
M that he kept it sealed and under guard, occ
;r sionally taking it to the committee rool
. where Honore, the louisiana Secretary
+" State, would open it, and when he was do
r with the papers, the box would be seal
st again and placed under guard. Frenc
lie. two or three weeks after adjournment, Sc
az them to the Office of the Adams Express, a
= dressed to Honore by his directions, al
In he had never heard from them since.
The investigation into the alleged Loui
ana and Florida frauds was continued
June 6. Mr.. Cox, of the committee, said
had received from Stanley Matthews t
as originals of the correspondence betwe
es him and Jas. E. Anderson, which the Gle
an read. The letters appeared in Anderson
p previous testimony, with the exception
st one dated Philadelphia, April %, where
by Anderson resigned his claims upon t