The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1878-06-13
The Investigation.

ancies between his testimony on the first
day and the statements heretofore made by
him before the Senate Investigating Com
that visited Louisiana The contracts
between Anderson and Nash and between
Anders IN and Weber were largely used for
the purpose of showing contradictions and
discrepancies and a disregard of moral con-
siderations on the part of the witness. For
instance, he had stated on the first day in
at the time of its date
he had no evidence of fraud in his pos
session, and had not pretended that he had,
and yet the contract rccites that he is to
suppress evidence showing that East
Feliciana had been fairly carried by the
Democratic party, tie 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 the first day (that he had
NO such evidence) was correct or not, 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
evidence), and alse except that he had
knowledge that the vote of the State was to
be thrown out on a forged protest. He ad-
position of Naval Officer.
The cross-examination was then directed
to the object of showing a 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 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 Democrat" did
not occur. He was asked whether he had
had, and that he had done so, as in the
Weber contract, with the object on his and
Weber's part, Of protecting themselves.
@. You mean putting yourself in a 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.
@. You gave testimony on one side of the
question before the Senate Committee, did
you not? A. Yes.
@. You carefully suppressed all evidence
that had a tendency to help the other side,
did you not? A. 1 did 1 was trying to carry
out my implied bargain with Sherman, and
suppressed as much truth as possible
without swearing to a lie.
@. And you did it by suppression? A. ]
ul0 ~ bJ ouPR1OooIOAs
@. And now you are stating it IN the
other side, are you? A. 1 don't know that ]
am stating it on the other side.
@. You are doing it 10 entirely on q
level basis? A. Doing it entirely on a level
basis. ~ I'D
Q. But, before, you stated it on one side
A. On one side.
@. 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 COMPOUNDED the two docu'
ments. "There were," he said, Gone aft,
davit and two protests, and in my state
ment l tried to carry out, as far as possible,
my implied agreement with Mr.. Sherman,
and 1 COMPOUNDED the affidavit with the two
protests"
@. Did you do it purposely? A. l did.
@. Then under oath you purposely mis-
led that committee. A. 1 misled that com
mittee purposely.
@. So that before that committee you
meant one thing in your own mind, an6
conveyed another thing to the committee
A. Exactly.
@. And you went through the whole e1
animation under oath in hat manner? A
Just in that
Coming down to his testimony as to the
interview with Mr.. Sherman at Moreau'i
restaurant, in New Orleans, Anderson wa!
closely cross-examined, and made to repeal
in detail all the circumstances of the inter
view, but his answer to all questions put tt
him on that point did not show any notable
variation or discrepancy. The eross-exam
ination was not concluded when the com
mittee adjourned.
The proceedings of the Potter Commute,
was generally quite lively and interesting OF
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-examination of Anderson wa
upon technical matters relating to points il
his previous testimony, The importan
feature of the days performance wa
Anderson's assertion that the original paper
known as the Anderson-W Weber agreement
which had been obtained from Senate
Matthews by Governor Cox for the use o
the committee, was " an excellent counter
felt" When it was handed to Ander
son he read and examined it care
fully, held it toward the ligh
and otherwise scrutinized it very closely fe
several minutes. He then returned it +
Mr.. Reed, saying: 81 never saw that pape
BEFORE" adding, 1t is ar excellent coun
t%erfeit, but it is not the paperI mailed t
Senator Matthew's" To show the committe
how it was that he could be SO sur
that this was not the paper he had sen
to Mr.. Matthews, he stated: "Whe
Weber and 1 drew up the agreement j
the custom-house, 1 opened my desk, an
took out the last sheet of paper l ha
therein. There were two spots Of re
ink on that sheet of paper. I took an erase
and scratched off the ink-spots, and W
then wrote the agreement. This paper doe
not bear the marks of any eraser. Til
paper I gave to Matthews was in my ow
handwriting"
Chairman Potter asked Anderson if b
would believe that paper to be the origins
if it bore traces of those ink spots, to whic
a positive "Yes" was answered.
To understand the full significance of tn
letter it is necessary to consider the 81
quence of the fact. After the ~inauguratio
Anderson filed an application for offic
called on Hayes, and received a special il
dorsement from Hayes. He then went I
Cincinnati, called on Stanley Matthew
whom he had never seen before, was told b
Matthews that a Commission would be ser
to New Orleans, and this was b
fore the Commission was announced
He was told to go to New Orlear
were a letter of introduction to a membe
of the Commission would be sem him. q
went to New Orleans, received the letter
"nIrOuucIlOn 10 JuuSe I1aIlan, ana ma
: secret conferences.
The letter ~recites Packard's determinatio
to force Hayes to sustain him; disclos,
Packsrd's plan, to-wit: the production
/ afidavits of three of the Republican Ele
: tors that they never voted for Hayes, an
the collection of other evidence; recit,
the destruction of one agreement and r
| cites that another, Enclosed, is the last do
umentary evidence in existence.
The investigation is gradually workir
E down to the point of the alleged conspirae
by Packard and others to ~sacrifce Haye
, by showing that three Of the Louisiar
l Electors did not vote for Hayes, and tn
the blanks in the certificate were filled
forging the signatures of absences, who, a
cording to Anderson, were Birch, Leviss0
and Makes, the last name being the gentl
man who was lately nominated by the Pref
dent to be Collector of Internal Revenl
at New Orleans.
Mr.. French, Sergeant-at-Arms of Il
t Senate, was sworn, and examined in refe
f ence to the Electoral return of the State
Louisiana, which the committee seems
find some difficulty in tracing or gettil
hold OF. French testified that during Il
s last session he had received by Adams E
press a box which he had understood
contain Electoral returns of Louisiana; tn
e he kept it sealed and under guard, occ
sionally taking it to the committee ROOF
f where Honore, the Louisiana Secretary
State, would open it, and when he was dol