Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-11-01
THE FIRST
In the Forthcoming Series OF Brib-
cry Cases. <
A Cool Witness in the Payne 1rial-A Let
ter Which Caused a Commotion in
Court-Smithsonian Curl
ositieS.
THE USUAL RUN OF WASHINGTON NEWS

WASHINGTON, October S1.-The first OF
the jury bribery cases, that against
Arthur Payne (colored), came up in
the Police Court to-day. Governor Wells
and Kerr, for the Government, were in at.
tendance. Payne was attended by his Coun-
sci, Messrs. Padgett, Newman, Davis and
Clagett. Mr. Brewster Cameron, Col. r. G.
Ingersoll, j. McLain and others, who
had been connected with the Star Route
trial sat within the bar. After the presen-
tation of several atidayits, Juror Brown
was called TO the stand, and told the story
Of PaYps's attempt at bribery in substance
as alIsaSy related in the press. Upon cross
formed through shf an nTaiii3sss aii3s, said he was in
Fall was working up this scheme. The
witness did not believe they had any in
tention of paying s.. 500 for his vote, but he
did believe that it was a job to send him to
the penitentiary.
The defense endeayored, without success,
to obtain a statement from the witness OF
the conversation between himself and Gov.
Wells. The prosecution objected, and the
court sustained the objection. The witness
said that on the 18th OF October last, he
made an affidavit, what is known IS the In
gerSoll affidavit) but upon objection from
Gov. Wells, the defense prevented ques-
tioning the witness on the subject, the
object beiag to contradict him. The orig
inal affidavit was then produced, and the
witness examined upon its subject matter.
The witness denied that Falls name had
been mentioned in the affidavit,
and when the document was exhib-
tied to him containing Falls name in
interlineation he said he thought
1t Had Been Inserted
after he swore to the affidavit, which, he
said, was in Col. IngersolPs handwriting.
1t was not true that he used Falls name on
that occasion. So much of the affidavit as
stated that Martin (another juror was to
be influenced was untrue. He did not re-
member who told him. Col. Ingersoll
wanted to see him, but he went up to his
office and made the affidavit, which fol-
lowed the one made before Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Moore. In his conversation
with Payne, the witness made an appoint
ment for the following Monday. His object
was to find out the man behind Payne. He
regarded Payne as dupe OF this man. He
believed the written agreement was de-
strOyed. The witness denied laughingly
that he had ever offered Payne $50 for the
written agreement
The Court remarked that the matter
before him was not whether a juror had
been bribed, but whether he had been ap-
preached.
Davis replied that he understood that.
He was now trying to make out by the
witness own words that he " as unworthy
of belief, and that he had made
AnidaYitS Contradictory of One An
other.
The examination OF the witnesses was
then resumed. He denied that he had first
learned of the existence OF q written agree
ment at a restaurant on Seventh street.
where he drank with Payne. The witness
never told VIM. r. Lowe that he thought
there was money in the Star Route
business for him, 1.-THE witness). He
voted for the appropriation made by his
lodge to send Payne out West; did not re-
member whether or not he moved the ap-
preparation.
The croSSexamination brought out no
At riTv rvtFtfvs or trrr, Jsvso-s%
examination of Brown was adjourned until
tomorrow.
An order was allowed the defense to OBJ
tain BY subpoena upon the Attorney Cen
eral the atfidaYits collected by Special
Counsel Wells.
A. B. Williams was called to answer for
the affidavits of Nelson and others. He
said he had returned Nelson's affidavit to
Nelson; his reason for so doing was that he
did not believe this was an honest prOsecu-
tion, and that the paper was wanted for
so Honest PurPOse.
For the protection of the witness
gNelsOn) who would be called before the
court, he had done this.
Williams was asked whether he was pre-
sent or participated on October 18th in the
preparation of what was subsequently pub
iished as Col. IngersollS interview.
This question the witness refused to an
swer, and appealed to the court. The ques-
ton was temporarily waived.
Witness knew a subpoena was out Tor the
Nelson affidavit when he gave it to Nelson
this morning Gov. Wells renewed his
question relative TO the lugersoll interview,
but again witness declined 10 answer. His
objection was sustained by the court. The
witness acknowledged that he had de-
iberately, and for the purpose OF eyading
a supOena, given the affidavit to Nelson.
He did this because he wished to compel
the government to bring Nelson into court.
Witness made this declaration in cool, de-
fant manner, charging Gov. Wells with
Having n Dishonest Purpose
in calling for the paper. He said he acted
entirely upon his own responsibility in
this matter. Ingersoll knew moth
ing of his purposes. He
did not know where Foote'S affidavit was,
but believed il had been returned to Foote
several days ago. He declined to tell
where Foote was, and in answer to an I'M
piled threat from Gov. Wells to have him
punished for concealIng the whereabouts
of a fugitive from justice, he said the
charge against Foote was only mlsde-
meanor, and he (WilliamS) could not be
forced to give such information. >,
Subppnas were issued for Col. lngersoll
and Nelson, and Baker, clerk in Col. In
gersOlrs employ.
Adjourned till tomorrow.