Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-06-13

MORNING, J
a. Oh, no, sir.
Q. !, Were You surprised about anything you
A. Nothing except the Matthews letter.
@. You were surprised that Matthews had
been foolish enough to write such letters7
A. Yes, sir; and remember Smith expressed
some surprise.
@. Why did not you turn to Anderson and
say: You have been deceiving me all this time
You told me you had an agreement from Sher-
man and Stoughton, and now it turns out you
have got nothing but copy Of the letter from
Sherman. What did you mean by telling me
those lies for this year or more? Did you
make any such remark to Anderson?
A. No, sir; did not.
Witness further said Anderson told him he
had represented to Sherman and Stoughton
that he and Weber had rendered services at the
risk of their lives, and that they we're advised
to stand firm by Sherman. My recollection is
that Stoughton did not take part in the per-
sonal interview, but that they were not fully
satisfied with his verbal assurances, and next
day Anderson and Weber wrote these two gen
tlemen a letter and received from them a letter
| in regard to it.
Witness testified that he met Matthews in
the Senate chamber, and the latter mentioned
W.
ing that Anderson had called upon him and
spoken very roughly to him, and had made
threats of the publication of these documents,
| or something Of that kind, and that he told
Anderson that he felt very much hurt and dis
gusted at that action; that he had been
with Anderson's wishes, and that he had told
Anderson that he did not want to see him any
further, and that he might do as he pleased
with the papers and documents, and that he
would drop him, and he said substantially the
same to me, that it wasno use trying to do any
thing with such man, or something of tina
kind; that he was unreasonable and expected
him to do more than he could do, and that ne
had done the best he could under the circum-
stances, and that he was determined to have
| nothing further to do with Anderson.
W. H. SEYMOUR EXAMINED.
@. There has been paper produced before
this committee which seems to have your name
and seal attached. Please look at it and see
whether you can identify your signature and
| seal.
A. (After looking at the paper referred toy.
Yes sir; that is my signature and seal.
| Q. State anything you know about the exc
cution of that paper, if you know anything
further than by seeing your name there.
| A. This document was sworn to before me
at the date it purports to be given, by Ander
son and some other gentleman who was with
him.
@. Did you know the other person with
him?
A. No, sir, did not, only from. the intro
duction at the time.
@. How was he introduced?
A. he was introduced by Anderson as Mr..
Weber.
@. Did you know whether or not it was Mr..
Weber?
A. did not. knew the witnesses, Mr..
Dyke and Mr.. Weldon. They are claim agents
| nd I'M
@. Was the inside of this paper commune
Gated to you, or did the parties just present
this part of it and say they had sworn to it?
A. That is all. 1 just saw the inside. I was
not made acquainted with the contents of it.
| The gentlemen seemed very reticent about
! question to them whether there was anything
| in it that would be unprofessional for to
| sign-anything that would appear ridiculous
! or non-professional and Anderson said no.
| The document was signed when it was brought
to me. said to Weber, is it all right?
! Q. Let me call your attention to one or two
peculiarities in the document. Do you notice
! the fact that 'And D. A. Weber appears to
have been added after the journal had been
written?
A. Yes sir.
@. Do you remember your attention being
called to that, noticing it at the time?
A. am almost positive that called Ander-
sons attention to that fact and the fact that
Weber's name was not on that document, or at
least his name was not inserted, and had the
correction made when it was first presented tc
me- It was simply, Sworn to before me this
10Th November, 1876, by the before mentioned
Jas. E. Anderson said there are two gentle
men to this, and the other name must be in.
serted.
@. And then who inserted it?
A. don't knew who inserted it, but some
body did, and it is not in my handwriting.
r tI,n nj rot
signature is signed on the line Immediately be.
low Anderson's and partly beneath it, SO as tc
A. Yes, sir.
! Q. And the words Notary public are still
further to the right on the next line?
A. Yes, sir.
@. And the signature, ID. A. Weber, il
put in between the word Anderson" and tn
word notary and on the same line with you
own signature?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. will ask you whether you were in tn
habit of putting your own signature in tina
way upon the same line with that of othe
parties?
A. Yes, sir; sometimes.
@. Look at that paper again and see whethe
the words ''by the within mentioned J. E
Anderson and y. A. Weber," might not hay
neither of the parties were mentioned in tn
jurat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whatever was done was before yo
signed it?
A. Yes sir.
By Butler-And you are certain there wer
two gentlemen there to make oath?
A. Yes Sir. One was the gentleman her
(pointing to Anderson) and the other
! man who was introduced to me.
Q. Do you remember whether Anderson an
Weber signed the jurat in your presence.
+ A. think the signatures on the face of th
document had already been signed by Webe
and Anderson. then called attention to til
fact that the other name had not been adde
in the body of the Jurat.
@. Look at the signatures of Anderson an
Weber and state whether in your judgemer
they We're signed with the same pen that 20
. | used?
A. They were not signed with the san
Q. Were the two Anderson signatures mac
= at the same time and with the same ink an
pen?
4 A. The ink is not the same. The ink use
: on this occasion and the ink that Anderso
: used was evidently the same ink and the sign
ture of Weber and the names written in the1
seems to be the same ink, although not the in
= l used. Anderson and l wrote evidently frol
: the same ink. The Office is large, and we ha,
. table on which there two three inl
n stands.
E O. Did or did not these two persons, Ande
. son and the other person, write their names
- that jurat in your presence?
= A. will not be positive about that. The
: may have gone and used other ink.
; Q. Doyou recollect seeing them writil
! their names in your Office at all?
= A. No, sir, don't.
@. Are you able to state whether the nam
. had been put there before they came to t.
:, office or no?
e A. The signature of Anderson alrea'
- there before the came to the Office. Webe1
- name was not there, and l called Anderson
= attention to the fact.