The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-06-12

assurance that Sir Matthews naa gwen, have not
s.en an and W no, know ,hey were m ox's,encc
TO know ior my satisfaction whether Mr.
anderson really haa anything by winch we
assistance tgroat lausbtcr); haa never seen any
document ADD desired for my own satisfaction 10
u; DO said DO haa been informed from democratic
source that offer had been made from parties n
New York-hr riden or his agents there nd that
copies had been furnished to tho New York San and
q. Who was that seuator2 A. The republican Son.
ator from New York SO that tho documents, go far
MS Mr Matthews vas concerned, he sad, OF little
account.
q. Mas It senator Matthews iha. said copies had
been furnisncd9 A. senator Matthew'S; / am not
positive whether he told me or told him that tho
Nov Yors Sun had copies. but know informed him
thnt had intimaton from reputable gentleman
tba. And rsons attorneys had ole rod these
docrmcn,s to Mr. rildcn or his agcnts aud at
that interview that had ogcthc he told ne had
already informed OF that purchase; he knew at
least from me, and knew from Mr. Anderson that no
time; IL Is December that l speak Of and inat the
New FORK Sun newspaper bad copies OF them.
Q. Tue New York senator had got copies about what
tmc--do you remember? A. don't know; thing
In November or December.
q This conversation that we are now referring to
took place at tho time you had written one OF these
earlier otlcrsg Yes, SIR; about the 10Th oil March.
Q. Tnis despatch Is dated Aprll 10, 1882 A. you
desire can state why scot this despatch. Up 10
that timo 1 had nevor any vi the documents
papers except. think. had seen tho original Wash
know what, If any, claim Mr. Anderson had
these rcntemcu, and ] knew that these
OF my own knowledge. Sir. Anderson offered
to show me the papcrs, and he came over on the rc-
cctpt OF that telegram and showed me Just what he
had-letters, &C.. from Matthews cont, the despatch
under tho impression that he had disposed Of tho
TO and out whether he had The original papers IN his
possession.
BY the Cnairman--Tio thought he might have parted
with thcm2 A. Yes, SIR.
MATHEWS OPINION rArxns
Q. There good dcal OF under talk In January
or February among people as 10 what they were,
wasn't thore? A. Mr. Matthews IS tho only gentle
that ever mad any conversation with, and, In
fact he told me no did what Anderson hold,
far us he concerned ana no held tho opinion
that the Sherman document did not amount TO any.
thing, II IT was Ia existence; he SAID distinctly
tina - lar as no was concerned papers Anderson
held did not amount to anything.
Of no coascaueneeS a. So ne represented.
Q. What was hts opinion OF James Z. Anderson at
that ,mcs simply ask that IN reference 20 future
question. A. In what rcgnrdY
o. When you spoke about ndcrson an Audersons
documents what conversation did BIO have with you
as 10 Andersonf A. Well. We spoke oil Mr.. Anderson
at two different intervals. and he said
that no iet erent sympathy for him aud desired 10 60
something Tor him. and had done AL he could for him.
O. Look al that letter again OF March 3, docs IL
refresh your recollection that about March g. 1873,
ing for the papers, and that Senator Matthews had
heard from another source the same s,oryf A. Yes,
o. That is correct Is It not? A. Ycs, sir.
You thcn sought an interview with Senator
40 OUGHT TO GIVE UP THE PAPERS
@ In that into,vew between you and him did ne
ought 70 givo up the papersa A. so stated in the
lettcr.
what tho New York parties were looking alter, and
about what you both had heard, didn's he oontns
you referred to nothing else but the sherman
letter A have stated that about the time heard
this ,n,imation from New York had two interviews
With Mr.
had a. residence, and in that interview he spoke
only OF the Sherman letter.
and Mr.. Matthew's had az the time you both had
Simultaneous knowledge that somebody was negot,st-
inr Tor the papers In Andersons hands- In that
torvicw DID he make any reference 70 any othor tha&
tho sherman copys A rho letter states.
o. Have you any motives TO state IN ihiS lettcr any
thing different from what really eecurredY A. Ger
o. You ma he worc friends and were operating on
. common bass, were you noty A. He proposed hia
services for Packard and myself and was writing 10
him about the situation.
O. Whs is asp that 10 spoken OF here in tho post
script OF this iottera A. That was Mr. sypher; Mr.:
he told that Mr.. Sypnor had threatened him with
Indictment In Louisiana unless ne gave up these docu.
By tho Chairman-I wish 10 ask you few qucs.
tionr. One day last January, walking town fcnnsy-
about these masicrs, and subsequently, told you
that a genuomau had calIsd upon me and given me
the same informaston? Dld notf AZ am posi.
tive ON that; you ana mad TWO conversalsons
In regard 10 this sherman documens and Louisiana
o. ON tho occas,eu that / walked down with you,
you mentioned tho TACT oil tue sherman document
TO mo the nrss conversational A. NY recollection u
that tho first conversation was In the House OF Rep
resent atves, ind day, or two or semc time aftsrs
ward We laikod about the same subject going down
q on that nrst occasion, whenever II was, did you
tbc fact of tho Sherman document, or on both
occasionsf A. On both.
o. Al that time you treated II az existing fact
A. On believed then that q did exist because u was
tnen shortly after MIS- jerks was here, aud sup.
posed she telling me the truth that she had the
document.
A. 1t could havc been before sue came, because
sho was up hero shortly alter the recess; returned
about the 18th or 18th Of January.
q. Tho second occasion Was the ono 10 which you
mentioned that Mr. Anderson had been DOWN. A.
Yes, sir; Mr.. Sypher was over about the same time;
think Mrs. jerks WINS here 10 town at that tina
o. This reference III thiH ieltcr. "wnat heard from
fai her" It not my mentioning TO you that some
person had given the same information tnat you
hsd given me about the sherman letter. A. What
you ~ Tor med the FIRST intervfew In tho House
Was sh rasn IN yss yos seen
O. And had madc the Same communication that you
had madc TO met A. Yes ar
O That your news nos absolute news TO me, for
had heard the Same things beioroy A. Yes. sir.
O. BY what you say here you did not mean that !
no no; you represen ed TO that these parties had
gone over TO New York; u appears TO me you gave
Mr Tildcn's name or TO tho folks IN New York; my
Inference that they had gone over 20 endeavor 70
givc these things.
q. think gave you To understand tnat ala mot
represent Mr.. Tiidon IN any wnyf A. don't know
tbst YOU said word about that, but my impression
then was that you were not friendly u Mr. liidon.
O. la ali carly part OF tho winter, IRON the timc
you first camc IRON New orleans, you nndu't any
doubt In your mind mat there was an actual
letter from MT. sherman, mad your A. No, bad no
reason TO doubt u, because Mr. Anderson had some
time told 20 aad Mrs. jerks had s,id so, aud Of
course Know nothing fariher than that
q. You always spoke rs " you bsisvedny A. Oh,
I did bslcvs Il at the nmc; did NOS suppose they
had any TO tell mo anythiog but tho trutn.
BY Mr. Mem ahon--fn one OF these letters you re-
ierrcd to parties engaging IN New York. Ddn's VOC
sco Mr. Anderson shortly aftorwsrdr A. ho came
over shortly aitofward ana said he mad the papers
and would keep them IN his own possession.
q Did nc admit he was negotiating or did he deny
it2 A. He did not say he was negotiating but ns
said his attorney had becn 10 New YORK; no SAID ns
had opn,ned the papers from hs attorney ana would
koep them In HIS own possession.
Adjourned.
RIVAL RAILROADS.