The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1878-06-13

Washington, June 5.-The Potter Investigating
Committee having reassembled General Butler
offered the following resolution:
Whereas, James L, Anderson swears that be.
tween May 25 and June /, Stanley Matthews told
him, have Just to day had letter from the
President In regard TO your case, and have writ
ten him such a letter as will secure your appoint
ment to some position, and that on or about June
3D. the President said to witness he had received
a letter from Matthews, requesting MIN TO give
him place; therefore,
Pesoiyed That the President be requested to
furnish tc the committee all original letters above
mentioned which he has received, If any or GER
tilted copies thereof
James L, Anderson was then recalled, and Mr.
Reed continued the cross examination,
SHARP TRICK.
The copy Of the agreement between Anderson
and Weber, while Anderson stated in his testt
mony on Saturday that he had mailed to Stanley
Matthews, was produced by Mr., Cox, member
of the committee who had procured it from
Matthews, 1t corresponded in every particular
with the copy already given in evidence, but An
derson on critical examination, declared that 1t
was not the copy which he had mailed to
Matthews though the writing Of the body of the
paper and Of the signatures was an excellent
counterfeit presentment of his handwriting. In
fact he would say the paper was the same, were
it not that he was positive there had been two
spots of red ink on the upper and lower corner of
the paper on which 1t had been written, and he
erased these spots with an eraser, and the paper
now pretented showed no evidence of such era.
sure.
The object Of putting this paper into the case is
not very clear for the present Cox made state
ment that in accordance with suggestion from
the chairman, he had called on Matthews aud re-
uuested the production of the Anderson-Web
contract and that Matthew'S in compliance with
the request, had handed him this paper.
ANDERSON EQUAL TO THE EMERGENCY.
Witness still persisted In declaring it was not
the paper which he had mailed to Matthew'S
Witness was cross examined minutely as to the
circumstances attending the signature of the An
derson- Weber contract. At one time he testified
to his recollection of its taking place at the office
of Seymour, notary public, and another time
expressed doubt as to whether one set of sigma
lures there were two sets to the same paper may
not have been made at the Custom House; then
he could not fix it definitely where the first set
had been made but he inclined TO the belief that
both sets were signed at Seymours office.
In reference to one of those variations, Mr..
Reed said:
Mr.. Reed-You stated distinctly the first set of
signatures were executed at Seymour's office.
Witness-Then am willing to correct it.
Q.-Do you say that is not your handwriting
on this paper (lhe copy of the Weber agreement
as furnished by Matthew'S?
Al say that to the best of my knowledge and
belief II is not my handwriting.
AN EXCELLENT CoUNTERFEIT.
Q.-Can you make 1t no stronger?
Al eau make it stronger by saying think 1t
an excellent counterfeit of my handwriting.
Q-Do you know whether it is your handwrit-
ing or not?
Al know that II Is not
O.-And you swear that 1t is not your hand
wrung'
Al swear that 1t is nOtmy handwriting. That
COpv was not written by me.
Q-And you swear that this is not the original
paperY
Q-Is this Weber's signature to 1t?
Alt is neither Weber's signature nor my sig
nature
Q.-ls that the signature to 1t of Seymour, the
Notary PuOliC2
A,-As nearly as l reCOllect it Is.
Q.-Was the orig nal all In your handwriting2 2
Alt was without erasures or tnteTlineations
except eraSure of the two blOs.
Q-Is this letter (handing one to the witness)
in your writing2
A.-Itis.