Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-12
THE CASE OF WIN. DICKSON.
THE HEARING CONTINUED TODAY.
THE cR0SS-ExAMINATi0N OF n. A. BOWEN.

Inc nearing In the case OF VIM. Dickson late
| foreman of the star route jury was resumed this
| morning in the Police Court, Mr.. H. A. Bowen
again taking the stand. His cross-examination
| was continued by Judge Cuppy.
PHILADELPHIA WITNESS
Before beginning, Judge Cuppy called atten-
ton to the fact that there was a Philadelphia
witness in the city, for whom they would like a
subpoena. The court said that any subppnas
| would be issued that were desired
BOWEN CROss-EXAMINED.
| The witness, Bowen, then in reply to ques-
| lions said that he had not talked with anyone
about his testimony. Neither had he refreshed
his memory by reading his affidavits, nor did he
know Of anything, either material or immaterial,
in his testimony which he now would like to
change.
| Judge Cuppy then asked if he knew the
names of the Indian tribes. among whom it was
! alleged liquor had been introduced and for the
suppression of which the witness had been sent
as special agent Of the Department of Justice
| to Arizona.
The witness said it was among the various
tribes Of the Apaches.
| Judge Cuppy then read the clause in the Re-
vised Statutes prohibiting such trading. and the
had not read it. He obtained information on
| the. subject for General Crook at Albuquerque.
Ihls line OF questioning was continued, elicit
| ing from the witness the officials he saw and the
| names OF the Indian tribes that he visited. and
his means of travelling. He completed his du-
ties in about ten days, and being assigned to no
other duty rendered his resignation
THE PAPERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Judge Cuppy called the attention of the court
to the reply Of the Attorney General to the re-
quest of the defense for certified copies of affi-
davlts and papers taken in the investigation by
the department Of the bribery charges The
Attorney General states that the department
Is unwilling to furnish all the memoranda and
evidence taken In the investigation. but if any
specified paper Is mentioned which is competent
testimony, copies will be furnished. The letter
goes on to state that the joint affidavit of Bowen
Cameron and Hoover, taken in San Francisco.
is In the possession of Mr.. Wells and can be OBJ
| tanned from him with the consent of the court
Judge Cuppy said that he thought that the
counsel for the defense were better able to Judge
what papers were necessary for their cause
| than the Attorney General.
The court said that he was not aware of what
| this joint affidavit was. He was ready'to rule
upon the question as soon as he ascertained
Mr.. Wells then went on to speak of the rules
the Department of Justice in regard to official
papers. He said that these three men had made
aflidavits in San Francisco, AMI they had all
been put together. He thought that Cameron's
the present case. The Witness had repeated in
his evidence the substance of this affidavit, and
II the court thought that it was material in this
case he would produce them.
Mr.. Wells added that Mr. Cameron, who had
read the afidavits informed him that they might
| be called joint aff1davits as each one refers to
the former affidavit. Cameron making the first
then Hoover, and last of all Bowen. the latter
beginning his affidavit by saying that the facts
stated in the foregoing affidavts are correct
THE COURT RULED
that the defense was entitled to the Bowen
affidavit. and if the other two were summoned
as witnesses then their affidavits would be pro-
duced
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF BowEN's AFFIDAVIT
was then handed over to Judge Cuppy by Mr..
Wells. He occupied some time in reading it
over. Mr.. Wells. in reply to a question, said
that the erasures and alterations were the same
as in the original.
Judge Cuppy then began to question the wit
ness for the affidavits. Ibid you," asked Judge
Cuppy, remember to have omitted anything in
your Philadelphia affidavit that was in this?'
Not that remember" replied the witness;
they were substantially the same.''
Ibid you know the reason" continued Judge
Cuppy. why second affidavit was required:"
II hardly know how to answer that ques-
ton, said the witness. 1.-The first was taken in
such hurried manner that l presume the
second was necessary" He knew of no other
reason for taking the second affidavit He pre-
sumed that he fixed the date of the Dickson
conversation In the San Francisco affidavit
The witness thought that he had mentioned a
conversation with Mr.. Driver and that he looked
In the room where witness and Mr.. Dickson sat-
did you offer him glass Of water:" asked
Judge Cuppy.
Il believe offered him glass Of wine" said
the witness. that was my custom"
Il am not inquring about your custom. but
the TACT" said Judge Cuppy.
II can't say positively. but presume the wine
was offered replied the witness.
THE OFFER OF TWENTY-FIVE"
Had you said anything about money to Mr.
Dickson before he made the offer of TWENTY-FIVE
to your asked Judge Cuppy.
''No, SIR replied the witness
''Then, how did you know" inquired Judge
Cuppy, that it meant ?3500O?''
Because" was the reply THAT is technical
term used in the stock exchange and other
places"
care you stock jobber?" asked Judge
II deal in stocks some times" replied the
witness.
How did you know but that it meant
s.. 5G0?" proceeded Judge Guilty.
Because S25 600 was the technical meaning
of that term" was the reply.
why did you say in your Philadelphia affi-
davit, asked Judge Cuppy. ''that you had no
authority to offer money?''
Because it was the fact" replied the wit
ness. He supposed that Dickson knew that
he had been appointed on the 22d. He may or
may not have informed Dickson OF his appoint
ment as agent ofthe Department of Justice and
If he did SO inform him. it was on the evening
of his conversation with Mr.. Dickson
Was anything said in the conversation about
the Attorney General making speech in the
star route case - asked Judge Cuffy.
Yes, sir; he said that he supposed that the
Attorney General would make a speech, and It
would be the supreme effort Of mis- lfe' an
swered the witness. He then denied that he
ever said this case was an heritage for his pre-
decessOr, but said that
MR.. DICKSON MADE THE REMARK.
When Mr.. Dickson made this remark about
the star route case being heritage, he laughed.
"Did you join him in their hilarity? p asked
Judge Cuppy.
81 rather think did" was the reply
"You had some wine by this time, said Judge
Cuppy.
THE SECOND BOTTLE.
cit was the second bottle. think" said the
witness, and in reply to a suggestion witness