Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-11-01
THE STAR.ROUTERS.
Foreman Dickson Again in Hot Water
Through Too Free Use OF His
Versatile Pen.
The First Of the Jury Bribery Cases Up
in the Police COUrt-Interyiew
with Col. IngersOlI.

WAsHISGToN, October 31.-The grand
jury came into the Criminal Court this morn
ing with a number of indictments, present
menis and dismissals, and after going
through he form of presenting them, placed
the following communication In the hands
OF Justice Wylie:
E s. Hutchinson, Esq, Foreman Of the Grand Jury:
STR drawn a juror upon the resula
panel OF the March term of the Criminal Court.
and at the sacrifice of business interests and per-
sOnal health, reluctantly accepted service and
faithfully performed the unpleasant duty assigned
route case came on for trial, and Notwithstanding
my earnest protest, was accepted and sworn as q
During the progress Of The trial was approached
by an agent Of the Department of Justice, named
was authorized 10 see me IN reference to the
He made dishOnes. proposition, offering to pay
August 9th be forwarded card 10 my address
making an appointment. ! Immediately reporied
q WaF Ne crime s Is Il that e Ra
acter which affects the rights and liberties OF g
fuIIy but earneStly reauest YOUR Honorable bod
should investigate the charge. aad may be sum
moned before you TO present the facts, supported
by corroborating proofs. j am, sir, very respect
fully yours, WILLIAM DICKSON.
His honor read the paper through twice,
and turning to the foreman said, sharply,
"Oid you say that the grand jury received
this letter." "Yes SIR" he answered. "Do
you know by whom il was written" Moth
ing more than it was received" sit is 4
highly improper communication" said the
Judge, "and you should take no notice of it.
1t is a paper coming from a party who in
sists on being brought before you for the
purpose of vindicsting himself. We have
no official knowledge as to who signed it.
The Court will direct the clerk to file the
paper in open court and that a rule issue 10
the person whose name appears to have been
written 10 the paper to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt"
"When shall the rule be returnableW asked
the clerk. Tomorrow morning at 10
o'clock" sharply answered the judge. The
grand jury then retired, and the regular BUSH
ness OF the court was resumed, but the intro
duction OF the letter and the action of the
Court created quite sensation.
The First Of the SIar-ROute Jury
Bribery Cases.
WAsHIEGToN, October 3I.-Ihe first of the
Star-route jury bribery cases, that against
Arthur Payne, colored, came up in the 70
lice Court to-day. Gov. Wells and Mr.. Ker,
Tor the government, were in attendance.
Payne WAS attended by his counsel, Messrs.
PIdgett, Weisman, Davis and Clssett Mr..
Brewster Cameron, Col Robert G. Ingersoll,
connected with the Slar-route trial, sat
within the bar. After the presentation of
several afiidavits, Juror Brown was called TO
the stand and told of PaYne's attempt at
bribery. in substance already related in the
press. Upon crosse examination, witness said
he was informed through an anonymous
note that Fall was making up his schemes.
Witness didn't believe they had any inten-
ton of paying $4,000 for his vote. He
L - III
the penitentiary.
The defense endeavored, without success,
10 obtain statement from the witness of the
between himself and Gov.
Wells. The prosecution objected, and the
Court sustained the objection.
Witness said on October 18th last he made
an sfiidayit (what is known as the Ingersoll
affidavit), but upon objection from Gov.
Wells the defense was prevented from ques-
tioning the witness on the subject, the Object
being 10 contradict him,
TIE original affidavit was then produced,
and the witness examined upon its subject
natter Witness denied that FItf's nume-
had been mentioned 10 the affidavit,
and when the document was exhibited to
him containing Eall's name in interlina-
tion, he said he thought 1t bad been inserted
after he seore 10 the affidavit, which he
said was in Col. IngersolPs handwriting. 1t
bat occasion. So much Of the affidavit as
stated that Martin (another Juror was 10 be
Influenced, was untrue. He did not remem-
Der who told him Col. Iugersoll wanted to
see him, but he went up to his office and
In ade the affidavit, which followed the one
made before Assistant-District Attorney
Moore Ia his conversation with Payne,
witness made an appointment for the follow
ing Monday His object WAS 10 find out the
man behind Payne. He regarded Payne as
a dupe of this man. He believed that the
written agreement had been destroyed. Wit
ness denied, laughingly, that he had ever
offered Payne $3.50 for written agreement.
The Court remarked that the matter be-
fore him was not whether juror had been
bribed, but whether he had been APP
preached
Davis replied that he uudersteod that he
was now trying 10 make out by the witness
own words that he was unworthy OF belief;
that he had made afidaviis contradictory OF
one another.
The examination of the witness was re-
sumed. He denied that he had first learned
of the existence OF a written agreement at
restaurant on Seventeenth street, when he
drank with Payne. Witness never told VIM.
Il. Laws that he thought there was money
in The Star-roule business for him (winess).
He voted for the appropriation made by his
lodge to send Payne out West. He did not
remember whether or not he moved the APP
preparation.
The cross-examination brought out no
point OF importance.
At the request of the defense, further ex-
animation OF Brown was adjourned until to-
morrow, in order to allowed them to obtain
by subpoena upon the attorney general, the
aftidavlts collected by Special Counsel Wells.
A. =, Williams was called TO answer for
the sfidavits of Nelson and others. lie
said he had returned Nelson's affidavit TO
Nelson. His reasons for so doing was that
he did not believe there was an honest
prosecution. The paper was wanted Tor no
honest purpose; for the protection OF wit
ness (Nelson) who weuld be called before
the court he had done this.
Williams was asked whether he was pres
ent and participating, or acted with, in the
preparation of what was subsequently pub
lished as Col. lngersolls interview.
This question witness refused to answer,
and. appealed 10 the Court.
The question was temporarily yaiVed.
Witness knew a subpoena was out for the
Nelson affidavit when he gave If 10 Nelson
this morning.
Gov. Wells here renewed his question in
relation TO the Ingersoll interview, but again
the witness declined TO answer. His objection
eusldiucu W OOt'ts
Witness acknowledged that he had DELHI
eraiely, for the purpose of evading sub.
peua, given the affidavit to Nelson. He did
this because he wished to compel the govern
meut TO bring Nelson into court.
Witness made this declaration in def ant
manner, charging Gov. Wells with having
dishones: purposes in calling for the paper
He said he ACTED entirely upon hilg 9'En re,
sponsibiliiy in this matter. Ipgersoll knew
nothing of his purposes. He did not know
where Foote'S affidavit was; he believed that
il had been returned to Foote several days
ago, He declined 10 tell where Foote was
aud in answer to the Implied threat from
Gov. Wells to have him punished for con
ea,,;ng the whereabouts OF fugitive from
Justice, he said the chaT are asa'nst Foo'e wa
only smisdemeanor, and he (Willisms) coulC
not be forced 10 give such information.
Subpenas were issued Tor Col. 4ngersol
Nelson and Baker, clerk in Col. lDgersoli'
employ.
Adjourned until tomorrow.