Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-11-01
The Bribery Gases.

WASHINGTON, Oct 31.-The first of the
Jury bribery cases, that against Arthur
Payne, colored, came up in the police
court to-day. Governor Wells and Mr..
Ker for the government we're in attend
ance. Payne was attended by his counsel,
Messrs. Podgett, Newman, Davis and Cla-
gett. Mr.. Brewster Cameron, Ingersoll,
Juror, McHam and others, who had been
connected with the star route
trial sat within the bar.
After the presentation of several affidavits
Juror Brown was called, and told the story
of Payne's attempt at bribery in substance
as already related in the press. After
ss-examination witness said he was in
formed through an anonymous note that
Fall was working up this scheme. Witness
did not believe they had any intention of
paying $4,000 for his vote. He did be-
ieve that it was a job to send him to the
penitentiary.
The defense endeavored without success
to obtain statement from witness of the
conversations between himself and Gov,
Wells. The prosecution objected, and the
court sustained the objection. Witness
said that on October II last, he made an
affidavit what is known as the Ingersoll
afidavit), but upon objection from Gov.
Wells that the defense was questioning
witness on the subject, the object being to
contradict him, the original affidavit
was then produced and witness examined
upon its subject matter. Witness denied
that Falls name had been mentioned in
the affidavit, and when the docu ment
was exhibited containing Falls name in
interlineation, ne said he thought it had
been Inserted after he swore to the aft
davit. which he said was in Col. Ingersolrs
handwriting. 1t was not true he used
Falls name on that occasion. So much of
the affidavit as stated that Martin IAN
other juror,) was to be Influenced was I'M
true. He did not remember who told
him Dol. IngersOll wanted to see him. but
ne went up to his Office
and made the affidavit, which followed one
made before Assistant District ATTORNEY
Moore. In his conversation with PAYNE.
witness made an appointment for the fol-
lowing Monday. His object was to find
out the man behind Payne. He regarded
Payne as a dupe. This man believed the
written agreement had been DESTROYED.
Witness denied laughingly that he had
ever offered Payne $3.50 for written
agreement. The court remarked the mat
ter before him was not whether the Juror
had been bribed, but whether he had been
approached.
Davis replied he understood that. He
was now trying to make out by the wit
ness own words that he was unworthy of
belief; that he had made affidavits contra
dictory of one another.
The examination of witness was resumed.
He denied that he had first learned of the
existence of a written agreement at restau-
rant on Seventh street when he drank with
Payne. Witness never told VIM. R. Laws
he thought there was money in the star
route business for him (witness). He voted
for the appropriation made by his lodge to
send Payne out west. Did not remember
whether OR not he moved the appropria-
ton.
The cross examination brought out no
point of Importance. At the request of
the defense the further examination of
Brown was adjourned until tomorrow in
order to allow them to obtain by subpoena
upon the attorney general the afidavits
collected by special counsel. Wells.
A. B. Williams was called to answer for
the affidavits of Nelson and Others He
said he had returned the Nelson affidavit
to Nelson. His reason for doing SO was
he did not believe this was
an honest prosecution. The
paper was wanted for no honest purpose.
For the protection of witness (Nelson) who
whould be called before the court he had
done this. Williams was asked whether he
was present participating Oct. 16 in the
preparation of what was subsequently
published as the Ingersoll interview. This