National Republican., 1882-12-15

an explanation lhoding up certified cory
of Camcron's affidavit,
Objected TO aud objection sustained.
The witness said his sworn statement in
cludcd many facts not mentioned in that re-
port, for he did not know of them when he
made the report. The letter was written on
the train between Pittsburg and Columbus.
Mr.. Smith asked if tho witness had ever at
tempted to go before the grand jury in this
cuse, or ever attempted to swear out warrant
for Dickson's arrest.
A. never did.
Witness said he referred the attorney-gen-
eral to Mcssrs. MerriCk and ker for further
information; did not report to those gentle
men the occurrence at Drivers because there
was nothing to communicates.
Going back to the day before his departure
from Washington, witness said he told Mr..
Merrick of Dckson's desire to meet him, as
stated by Bowen. Witness told Mr.. Merricb
that he thought Dickson was an internal
scoundrcl, and he wanted nothing to do with
the affair
Mr. Mcrrick few into y rage, said he knew
Dickson to be an honorable man. and that he
probably knew of some attempts to corrupt
the jury that he wished to communicate to
the government Mr.. Kcr also urged the
witness TO go, and in answer to his Suggcs-
ton that one of them, who knew Dickson,
should 20, said that Dickson knee they were
government counsel, and that it was the bet
ter plan for him to tell Cameron. Mr.
licr also indorscd Dickson, and witness
finally yielded the point with reluctance.
Did not tell them that Dickson wanted $4,000,
because he did not then know it. Did say that
Dickson asserted that he had been offered n
bribe by the defense. Witness did not think
it was right for him to 90 to Drivers and
meet Dickson, but waived his own opinion
and went under protest under the direction
of government counsel. When he found that
Dickson was for sale he refused TO have any
thing to do with him.
Mr. Smith. Did you not have Bowcn's
positive statement that it was Dickson's idea
to sell out?
A. No, sir; did not have such Il statement
Bowen said that he inferred that Dickson was
commercial. Here was an inference on one
hand and on the other the absolute statement
of government counsel.
Witness said he went to Drivers about 5
o'clock on August % and remained with Bowen
about twenty minutes. Had some converse
tion with Bowen and the latter wrote the
card TO Dickson advancing the time for the
meeting. Went to the department, where he
transacted some business, and returned
with More to Drivers Neither More
nor Hoover knew anything about the
proposed meeting but il was the
intention of witness lin fact it was by Mr..
Merricks direction) that Hoover should he
u witness to the meeting. One of witncssIs
reasons for suspccting Dickson was the fact
that he had told George Kennedy that he
thought there was nothing in the case. Again,
the attorney general received a letter from u
person in Philadelphia The witness was not
allowed to repeat the contents of this letter.
A long argument took place at this point,
wherein the defense endeavored to prove that
Bowen had told Cameron, before the latter
saw Mr.. Merrick, that Dickson had asked,
How will twenty five do?" Bowcn's state
mcnt as shown by the record, said Mr.. Cuppy,
was to the effect that he told Cameron every
thing that transpircd in the conversation be-
tween Dickson and himself. The real point
was that one witness swore one way and the
other swore another way.
Mr.. Wells. 81 think the real point is, that
the witness has not been discrodited by any
body's testimony, and they are trying to make
it out by argument"
After another wrangle about the possession
of papers in the case, the court adjourned until
to-day.