National Republican., 1882-12-13
HENRY A. BOWEN UNDER FIRE.
The Case Of William Dickson Continued in tho
Police Court
Sharp Questions Asked by Judge Cuppy
--Bowen's Refusal to Answer.
Sparring Between the Lawyers on Both Sides Of the
Case
Bowen Denies Many OF Dickson's State
ments-The Defense Closes With Him.

Judge Smell. The cross-examination of the
witness Bowen was continued by Judge
Cuppy. Witness said he had reflected upon
the testimony he had already given, but had
no changes to suggest. He would stand by
his testimony as originally given. His mis-
sion in Arizona was to prevent the introduce
ton of liquor into the various Apache agen-
cies, the Mescaleros among others. He made
inquiries in this connection of Gen. Crook at
Albuaueroue before he left Tucson, and of
the United States marshal and the district at
tnrnCv mt Tucson. He also went down upon
the Papago The witness ssconcluded
that tn0e might have been some violations
of the law in Arizona, but made no recon-
mcndations to the attorney general.
Judge Cuppy interrupted the examination
for the purpose of calling the attention of the
court to II refusal by the attorney general to
furnish copies of some of the atfidavits,
notably the joint affidavit of Bowen, Cam
eron, and Hoover, taken at San Francisco, in
answer to their subpoena. Judge Cuppy read
the letter from the attorney general wherein
he says that Special Counsel Wells is in pos
session of the papers, and that copies will
only be furnished when the court shall have
decided that they are competent and neces-
sary evidence. Judge Cuppy argued the
question, asserting that the attorney
general could know little of the case;
that the papers had been referred to in
testimony already taken, and that it was the
best judgment of. counsel that their produc-
ton was necessary. Mr.. Wells declared that
the attorney general could not be compelled
to produce papers on file; he could not see
how the Joint affidavit was of Importance to
the case in any event. Still If the court
thought its production necessary he would
yield them up. The court decided that the de-
Tense might use Bowen's portion of the aifi-
n,.;t nt tbn rnInniuIpr N bn nsp1
only when it properly came into the case.
The witness was then questioned relative to
tho facts set out in the affidavit. He said he
did not recollect anything set out i'll
that affidavit that he had failed to include
in the Philadelphia affidavit The only
reason for the taking of the second affidavit
was the hurried manner in which the first
had been prepared. The witness did not
remember whether his failure to fix the
date of his conversation with Dickson in
the original affidavit necessitated second
one Possibly he said something in the first
paper about Driver that had been omitted in
the last paper. The witness had been, and
now is, a stock operator, so that he under
stood Dickson to mean $4,000 when he asked,
"How will twenty-five do?' Was positive
that he was an cmploye of the department
of justice when the conversation took place,
because he had only received his commission
on August -. He presumed that Dickson
secret In the course of his conversation, re-
fcrring to the attorney generals speech in the
star-route trial, Dickson said he supposed that
it would be the supreme effort of his life.
He presumed that Dickson also said that the
case was q heritage from his predecessor; the
witness certainly said nothing of that kind.
They were then on their second quart
lottle of wine. The witness had three
or four conversations altogether with Dick
son; the first on August 10; the second on
the 21st, and the third on the 22d. He did
not think anything was said about star-route
matters on August 21 The witness said,
positively, that he never had an interview
with the attorney general about star-route
matters. He had an interview with the at
torncy general at Philadelphia but nothing
was said about the witness bringing the de-
partment into disreputc, nor jury bribery, so
far as he could remember. ward constable
went with witness upon that occasion.
The witness was asked if he was not in
custody at the time Mr.. Wells objected. He
said that better men than himself had been
in custody. He objected because two and
half mortal days have been wasted upon ir-
relevant matters. One counsel relieved an
other and asked the same questions over
again, and so the case would go on ad in
tinitum if the court permitted it. The con-
versation with the attorney general was ex-
traneous matter, because the witness had said
positively that the star-route case had not been
spoken of.
Judge Cuppy said they had the best rea-
sons in the world for believing that the witness
did not speak the truth about the converse
tion; that star-rOute matters had been spoken
of and they had right to have him answer
the questions, SO that they could not contradict
him.
Judge Cuppy then asked the witness if
reporter was present upon the occasion of his
conversation with the attorney general
Il hat he 10
blc) and gentleman connected with the of
flee were the only persons present except the
attorney general and himself. Never heard
the attorney general say "YOu have involved
my department in scandal and have brought
discredit upon it,"
Referring to the Dickson conversation wit
ness said he was positive that Dickson had re-
guested ami ltroduction to the attorney general
dickson complained of a headache and spoke
Of going, but witness requested him to remain
and hear particular song. Did not remem-
Der the name ofthe song; knew nothing about
Miss Howard or any other lady connected
with the establishment. Did not remember
any conversation with Driver about star
route matters, except that Driver told him
Dickson was the foreman of the jury. Upon
reflection he was of the opinion that he went
over to New York some day between the 18th
and 22d of August. Was positive that he was
not III Cape AIay at that time. Witness ac-
Driver from Jersey City on August Is.
Are you not now, and have you not been
since you got here, in the custody of James f.
Clark, the detective?" asked Judge Cuppy
Objected 20 and objection sustained.
Judge Cuppy. Have you ever been arrested
or larceny?
The witness declined to answer.
Judge Cuppy. Are you not the Henry A.
SOwen who was convicted of stealing books
rom Harry b. Seymour in Buffalo, n. Y, on
March l, 1852?
Mr.. Wells objected The court said the
Inestion might be asked, but the witness could
answer or not as he pleased.
:" decline to answer said Bowen.
Witness said he paid his board bill in
Philadelphia, and the charge of swim
was arrested. Had no recollection
of any such transaction as passing
a fraudulent check, drawn on L. f. Bowen,
No. 62 Liberty street, New York, on December
10, 1878. Had transactions with that house at
that time. Mr.. Wells objected to the line of
examination, and said Mr.. Smith should have
more manhood than to put language into the
mouth of a witness thar he never used. Mr..
Smith showed considerable irritation at this
reflection, and said the gentleman would not
address him outside of the court room in that
anguage. 1t was with some difficulty that
peace was finally restored and the examination
allowed to proceed.
Witness denied having written letter to
Marshal Jewell, chairman Of the republican
campaign committee, requesting that author
ity be given him to collect funds TO be used
in the last campaign. lie also denied having
passed a fraudulent check upon Leland
Brothers in New York in payment for board
Witness said he was q WidoMer. Some dis