The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1879-02-05
ALEXANDRIA La WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY s. 1879.

tudt ZIG WOUtu uo1 bS CttHtaeetJ H'oos
ecuted, the witness lodged for a full
hour the question which at first he
had promised to answer. Further
on during the Investigation the fol.
lowing occurred:
Question Did you furnish cyl
dence before the Grand Jury that
this book Legislative Documents of
1871 does not contain a single page
of minion type, and because Of long
primer being used The State Printer
made many more pages than should
have been in the book?
Answer We'll, my opinion of the
matter is, that the laws, of 1856,
(sections 1857, 1858, 1850, 26I1 26I2
2613 Revised Slatutes) was never
conformed with, and it was not the
intention Of that act 10 have the re.
ports of committees printed, nor any
such trash furnished to the Legisla
ture; this is my theory.
Question-Is that your real op'n
ion before this committee2
Answer-Yes.
Qaestion-And upon that theory
you would base an accusation OF
fraud against tue State Printer2
Answer-No, sir, / didn't do 1t,
other people had something to do
with it.
Thus, twice had the witness almost
categorieally acknowledged that
some other persons had taken hand
with him against tie State Printer.
When being closely pressed the Wit
ness sullenly set at defiance the au-
thority Of your committee, as is
made clear by the following extract
from his evidence:
Questionable. Green, who lns.i
gated you to the prosecution Of the
State Printcr3
Answer-Myself. .3.s H.
Question-Did you not swear be
fore the Third District Court that j
the man who instigated you TO d.
that had not the courage or; the man
hood to come forward you would no
name him.
Answer-I did.
Question-Giye his name2
Answer decline TO do so.
Your committee, in view Of ID
fact that the examination Of. thi
witness disclosed his, splenatic en-
] malicious motives, and that it wa
mainly on his ex parte evidence tha
two Grand Jurics had reported cha
ges Of fraud against the. State Prir
ter, that. from begin aing to end hi
. testimony, as we'll ia bis, manner 9
in what he uttered, created stron
impression that he had acted til
role of a swift witness before TIL
Grand Juries for which purpose OIL
ers had procured him. Your con
mittee, as aforesaid, were extremel
DESTROYS Of forcing the witness
disclose tue Dames Of his accompl
Ices; the more SO because every stat.
mcnt of this witness as to, the a
legged fraudulent charges in the hi
of the State Printer, were proven
be untrue by the concurring eepos
tons before your committee
Messrs. Smith and Walker, Of IL
Picayuae, ard Mr.. Barrow, forema
of the Democrat job printing office.
; Your committee, therefore, presst
the witness Green. He, when co
nered, fatty refused to give Il
names of those who had induced hi
to thus swear against the State Pri
ter. When your, committee broug)
1.-THE witness before the bar Of Il
House, charged with contumacy, tn
! action was in conformity with,
unanimous vote Of your COMMITTEE
The House thought best to relea
! the witness. Thus your commit
iwere forced to abandon the mo
promising branch Of their inyestig
ton. 1t was Green and others wi
had accused the State Printer
], fraudulent charges in a certain bi
, When your committee, in examini
this alleged fraudulent bill, broug
, Green before them to indicate t
! fraud, he failed. Your commit
naturally attempted to bring I
!, other parties, VIII Green aekne,
!, edged to have acted with him,
! fore them; that they be given a +
opportunity to prove the fraud Gre
Ehad failed to establish. This, a
only this, was the object Of your co
mittee in endeayoring to force Gre