The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-23
M0SlIER, THE KNOW NOTHING
JOHN T. DIVENPORT's TBEiTMENT or
NITURALIzED CITIzENS.
TestInt ony Drawn from Man with Memory
49, very Defective that he should Always
he Exceedingly Careful to Tell the Truth.

Testimony Drawn from Man with n Memory
49, Vrrv Defective that he should Always
he Exceedingly Careful to Ten the Truth.
Commissioner Lyman continued taking
testimony YESTERDAY agairei John |. Davenport
Moshcr one az Davenport = clerks. who was the
complainant against all tho citizens who wcro
arrested on 1868 papers testified that he gothic
information ou which 60 base . 800 complaints
made ~ him from tAc books " the supervisors
OF election that hc know very few Of the mon
complaiu-lot All he knew WAS that they were
on the sup.ry 'sots' books az having registered
on nniurl i1ation papers dated 1868. Whom
asked how 20 sworo 90 these complaints, Mosher
SAID THAI hc took three on four packages to
Dnvenuort and swore 90 thcm-a hundred or
more 10 package. He admitted that some 81
tho warrants for the arrest II the men COM
planned uf So ro made out before tn" complaints
were verified. Next Noshcr was questioned IA
to what wa. don" Whom lavenpnrts victims
eurrrnd'red thrir certificates. On this point
his mrfuory WIS detective.
" Wore thcy told that % thoy did not surrender
lhcir uHprrs tArs would be punlshodf Mr.
"Iifirl lost ~ them surrendered their pa
pers." Nu-hpr answ, rcd.
"Muut was tie reason assigned why they
should give thrm upY'
II was because they were improperly is
:" Did not Davenport always take the papers
- d. not rccollect whether he did"
-" Dld YOU mt hear him advise them to leave
fhrrr may have been cases Of that Kind.
whore persons refused to surrender their GER
unWtos."
Davenport asked thrmY
Il think incre we're a few cases where the
man snil he did not voluntarily surrender"
When, man refused To surrendgr., what
was said hy Davenport rs 10 what would follow
fhg dii NOT CIV hs. Eaper upf'
Was he nottoll TINT II he did not give it up
ne would bo AR, -t"d2"
when WINS III" YORK begun Of taking from
the supervisors % .uks This list Of names OF per-
tan s YIN IN s6sy Mr. wnsaGies i Hgaired; and md
then ne NpIuin"d that his object was TO show
that although the Information WIS IN the office,
layed. This was, Mr.. wingate held. evidence
that the object was merely To prevent the men
from voting. Mr. MOsher could not clear up
Don't you know that on election day there
were large number of these complaints TO
whieh. Mr. Davenport had not affixed his
suppose there were some"
They were In your custody y
Yes, sir"
when did Commissioncr Davenport put his
name 10 those complaints p
do not know"
" Did he ever do tY
! suppose he did"
Don't YOU know that he did?"
know that he signed some OF these COM
plants after election day"
These complaints which you say were not
signed ON election day. were against men for
whom warrants had been issued by Commits
sioner Davenport ?"
They wer3 part Of the 3.l00."
4. Werr there not on ele, tion day number Of
these 300 compnuts before Commissioner
Davenport 10 which MIR. Davenport had not
AFFIXED his sgnature7"
think there were some"
Don't you know there were some?"
Well, believe there was"
when did you find out that Mr.. Davenport's
name was not attached to some OF these COM
pains2"
g do not know"
when did you first find out after the war
rants had been issued that the complaints had
not been sgnrdY"
On election day"
Did you inform him that some OF them had
not been signed p
/ do not recOllect."
Do you not recocct whether you have seen
davenport since election day sign some Of
these cOmplaints2"
have no recollection whatever"
Now take this complaint that you made
against Patrick Green. State what knowledge
you Ind about Patrick Green2"
did not know Patrick Green"
. W hat did you mean. then. when you swOre
that Pntrick Green > certificate was unlawfully
Il believe that il was on the ground that
there were no proper nntural i2atiOns in tho
Supreme and Superior Courts in 1868. on ac-
count Of the issue Of certificates 10 per-
sons who porsonnted applicants; on account
sumed names. and upon tho ground that the
certificates were imperfect because there WIS
only one witness whore the law requires two"
Dir. Nlnsale questioned Mo.her closely TO as
certain whether h. knew OF any such imperiec-
tons in the certificate Of Patrick Green against
whom he swore out a complaint. Mosher adj
mitted that he had slight specific KNOWLEDGE OF
any OF the 3lOO complaints 10 which he swOrc