Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-06-09
I,,terrogatfnq the IntervteWers.

the Louisville Commercial; A. z. Buell., of the
Washington Critic, and Charles Nordhoff, of
the New York Herald. Hill, the first witness,
related the incidents of his interview with
Anterior; that he had called upon him at his
(Atherton's) residence late in the evening, and
stating that charges having been made in
connection with the bottled spirits investiga-
ton, he (HilD had called upon him to learn
what the Kentucky whisky men had to say
upon the subject. The witness then
stated the substance of the conversation which
ensued, and declared that the interview pub
lished in the Commercial, April %, was SUBJ
stantially correct recital OF that conversation;
that the only errors were of verbiage, not
facts; that the statements were correct,
though the language was not verbatim.
Anterior, who was present, asked permls-
sion to question the witness and was allowed
to do SO, but failed to secure any admissions
other than those contained in the direct state
ment;
Buell. was examined at some length
as to the information he had upon which to
base the charges that had from time to time
appeared in his paper. Witness stated that
the information was entirely general cumula-
tive, derived from great number OF CONVEX
sations with different people, fromcurrent gos-
sip, from newspaper articles, and from the
accomplished. He had been inclined
to regard the bonded spirits
bill fromlIhe start as a job, and their firm was
not inclined to give it the benefit of any
doubt. He had no specific information apart
from that in possession of other people.
The general run and tenor of public dis
cussion on these matters were the only means
of information which he possessed. he was
asked why he had in various articles
in the Critic mentioned the names
Of Gen. Boynton,. Mr.; Nordhoff,
journalists who were under suspicion of be-
ing corruptly Influenced. The witness did not
remember having ever mentioned Gov Boyn-
ton. He had alluded to the others only in a
spirit of chaff. He had treated the charge
that influential journalists had been bribed as
farce He had spoken of it in his paper as
joke; at least that was his intention. He
might be poor oker, but that was the best
he could do.
Witness was asked: Can you give us any ia
formation going to show that any member OF
congress or senator, or any journalist ever re-
ceived or was offered any consideration what
ever in connection with this bill?
Ans.-No, sir, have no information what
ever, only suspicion based on the fact that
never before knew bill which involved $780,.
OOO, 900 between individuals and the govern
ment passed through the house under sus-
pension of the rules. thought that was a
pretty plain indication that the benefciaries
of the bill did not court inquiry or discussion.
Witness did not desire to have it supposed
for moment that he had alluded to any
newspaper men in spirit oil malice, Out only
in spirit of joking.
Hawley asked if the witness knew any sena-
tor or member of congress who had received
or been promised any consideration.
Witness did not know. He had conversed
with good many members of congress, but
without referring to them would not care to
give their names on the subject. The con-
versations held with them covered a period of
several months. The impression produced
upon his mind was with the exception of one
or two representatives and possibly one sena-
tor, that the members OF each house took no
other interest in the measure than they natur-
ally would in any pending legislation.
Hawley then read an article Clipped from
the Critic, in which were mentioned the names
of Nordhoff, Carson and Boy nton, and In
auired Whence came the rumor that justified
you in assailing the names of influential jour-
nalists with the subject of bribery and corrupt
ing influences?
Witness did not know. He heard it passing
as a joke, as mere chaff, and laughed at it.
Hawley-What would you say if they joked
them down?
Answer Qaughing)- no, general.
Hawley-Well, you should do so, ii you are
an honest man.
Hawley continued-Is there any fact what
ever upon which you can base the insinuation
against the three gentleman named in that
article? Answer. No, cannot say I have any
information. have reason to believe that one
of the gentlemen named sometimes gets valu-
able consideration. cannot say have any
information or reason to suppose either of the
three gent emen were in any way corruptly
influenced IN this connection.
Mr.. Woodruff took the stand and said, for
the honor OF the profession he had been trying
to discover the names of the journalists, If
there were any. who attempted to profit cor
ruptly by this legislation. Carlisle agreed
with him (Willis) that the parties should be
exposed, and told Col Wharton ne could give
information, at his (witnesso request. The
chairman called upon him but he declined to
give names, and he (witness) with good deal
of warmth, said to him: 81 have never
known in the past years,a piece of rascality in
danger OF being exposed, that it did not
have lawyer standing in front of it to pro-
tect it. daughter, in which Col. Wharton
Joined heartlly.) Anterior made the state.
ment that the first time he heard the name of
Senator Voorhees,, mentioned in connection
with the bill was when it appeared in the dis.
patches, that he never spoke with Carlisle or
Willis, or Thompson about the names of the
parties who approached him.
Star Route Arguments