The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-06-11
The Democratic Senators in Caucus Dis
cuss the Warner Silver Bill.
Considerable Opposition to the Bill Devel-
oped During the Meeting.
Capture of Those Chicago Hfghwaymen
Yesterday.
sPOFFORD VS.. KELLOGG.
More Interesting Testimony.

More Interesting Testimony.
WASHINGTON, June 9.-The committee ON
privileges and elections to-day resumed the
investigation of the kellogg -Spoford case, and
recalled Thomas Murray, colored.
By Mr.. Merrick-On Saturday you stated
you had not been promised money, but you
told De Lacy you could make $500. forgot
TO ask you how you were going to make the
money?
Answer-By coming here to tell the truth
and make a reputation with my people. 1t
would be worth 81 500 to have the good people
of my community with me,
Question-Your people have bad reputa-
ton, and you wanted to build up good repu-
tation for yourself?
Ayes
shellabarger-How did you get at s2,5OO9
You thought your reputation was worth
g., 500?
A.-No thought could make $4,000 out
of it.
De Lacy was recalled and questioned about
the signature to his affidavit, and the COM
mittee compared the signature to the affidavit
with the name written on a separate piece of
paper Saturday, but the conclusion differed.
Merrick then offered in evidence De Lacy's
affidavit, to abide the disposition of other
affidavits.
Vhe seargeant-at-armS reported eight wit
nesses on each side had been subpenaed.
The chairman suggested that the examina-
ton be limited to that number, as it might be
considered proper to send a sub committee to
New Orleans to examine witnesses in order to
save expense.
Jules Seveignes, member of the Packard
Legislature in 1877, and present in the joint
committee that elected Kellogg to the Senate,
was examined.
Mr.. Merrick exhibited the affidavit of the
witness, who said he wrote it, and it bore his
signature. The affidavit was read, stating that
| the witness was not present in the Legislature
in January, 1877, when Kellogg was elected for
| the long term, but voted for him the next day.
MerricK-Is that paper true?
Alt is not true.
Q.-Tell us who lied?
A.-The very parties who induced me to
make the affidavit knew it to be lie.
Merrick-I insist on knowing their names?
Al won't tell.
Mr.. Herman of the Committee-You ought to
answer the question.
Al can't answer, because 1 would impli-
| cate other parties not interested.
Mr.. Kernan-We can't help that.
Mr.. Shellabarger suggested that the witness
| be told the consequences of not answering.
The witness said that Cavanac vas posted on
| the subject.
| Mr.. Kernan-As it is not secret you must
answer.
The witness then gave the name OF Dronett.
| Mr.. Merrick-We want all the names OF
| all those who induced you to swear to what
| they and you knew was a lie.
| A-There were other parties, without my
uncle, and am sorry gave his name.
| Mr.. Merrtck-And you refuse to name the
| others?
Mr. Kernan-Did you say they knew 1t was
| a falsehood when you made the affidavit?
| A.-They knew 1t to be false.
Q.-Who were they?
A-That is what decline to answer
| Q--What reason can You give for not letting
| the world know who these men are?
Witness, after hesitating, said Cavanac is
| another.
Mr.. Kernan-Who else?
| A-Others wanted me to swear to lie;
they did not induce me. Thos. Murray and j.
| w. Elder were among them.
In reply to Mr.. Hill, the witness said Cava-
nae was present when he wrote the affidavit.
Nobody C.fered to write 1t. He wrote it by
himself.
Q.-What was the inducement made to you
previous to writing the afndavit?
A-Cavanac said should have every thing
wanted, as Kellogg was to be put out Of the
| Senate anyhow. Murray said there was sugar
Dronett told me to stand by my afiidavit.
Q.-How was 1t known that you had made
an affidavit?
Alt was the talk for two months. Dronett
said my testimony was more important for
| Spofford than the testimony of others.
Q-You made the affidavit to get suger?
A,-No, but to ascertain how all the aff1da-
Wits were manufactured. I did not believe
what they said.
Ayes, of my own motion; 1 made three
affidavits. ILaughterl
Q.-Do you not think 1t was immoral to
| swear to a lie?
A.-That depends on circumstances. 1t is
not when men want to bring about how the
affidavits are obtained.
The witness in reply to Mr.. Bailey said he
had held position in the New Orleans Gus
| tom House, but resigned as soon as he became
/ a witness. That he made af1davits for the
benefit OF the public aid to expose fraud
| Mr.. Murray said he wanted the witness to GO
| 10 Cavanac to swear In behalf of Spofford that
| he (the witness) was not present on the day
Kellogg was generally voted for. 1t was not
| lie, the witness said, because he told 1t pur-
| posely to show how things were done.
| Mr.. Merrick then cross-examined the wit
/ ness, who said he made q second affidavit for
Elder, who said he would not pay anything.
He told Cavanac he was not present at the
election Of KELLOGG. but was locked up In q
room.