St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-03-20
THE ROGERS FAMILY.
Father and Son Give Further Pam
Electric Testimony.


WASHINGTON, March 19.-Dr. Rogers
continued his testimony before the telephone
investigating committee to-day:
Referring to his transfers OF stock DR..
Rogers added to the names he had alreayd
stated those of Gen. Frank Armstrong (of the
Indian Office at that time), Gen. Thomas Crit
tenden, Gen. A. B. Upshaw (now of the In
dian ofice), Col. Boudinott, Il. @. Winter, A
ID. Coake and the Republican and Chronicle
washington newspapers). Witness sold the
stock To the newspapers-gavei IL for advertis-
ing. Possibly he had given American Postal
stock TO Messrs. Money and Manning. Wit
ness had expressly contemplated legislation
for the American Postal company, and it was
so stated in the pamphlet, but the bill was
never introduced. He saw no impropriety
in giving stock to the members of congress.
''Congressmen do not take the vows OF chas-
tity, poverty and obedience" said the with
ness. II went upon that principle" he
added, to the amusement of the spectators.
MIR. j. HARRIS ROGERS
was then recalled. Mr.. Oates inquired if
the witness was correctly reported in the
interview published in the New York Tri-
bune of March 16. Witness said the inter-
view was correct.
Mr.. Oates-It is set out there that Col.
Oates was an attorney for Senator Harris and
/ Col. Young.
witness-It was, sir; Mr.. Hine told me that
/ Col. Oates and Mr.. Hanback, were attorneys
/ for Col. Young and Senator Harris. He is a
newspaper man, and said he had so reported
| in the press. 1 believed it and thought it was
| highly probable. I had heard before this al
J Bladensburg that you were backing Col.
I Young in everything. paid little attention
! to it then, but when Hine told me that you
acted austerely, and your subsequent action
\ led me to believe that there was great truth
| in what he said.
| Mr bot Vvoa
| Witness-The transactions in the committee
room. After you had read twenty or twenty
| five letters you turned to a letter and said to
/ Mr.. Hanback,: "Here is a letter, No. 2l5,
a way up there. Do you feel like reading
/ this stuff? Mr.. Hanback, said ''no," he did
not. Then you said, "Here is Rogers here.
/ He looks like
AN INTELLIGENT MAN.
] My clerk can go over them with Rogers.
/ They can look them over and sift out the rel
evant from the irrelevant letters and we can
look over the relevant letters afterward."
Mr.. Oates-Don't you know that said you
could stay there with the clerk?
Mr.. Martin-And go through the letters
and names such as were relevant and make
! q list, and that we would go overit ourselvesi
Witness (firmlY)-Such as we two consid
cred relevant. 1 decline to take the RESPONSE
bilitv, and said it was delicate thing for me
TO do. You said it was only between our
selves. said, suppose it should come VI
before the committee" You said it was al
| private between ourselves and would never
come up in the committee room. / thought
il q very indelicate proceeding for sub-com-
mittee. 1t struck me as an indelicate thing
TO ask the inventor to pass on these letters
Mr.. Oates-Did anybody ask you to pass Oh
| the question of relevancy?
! WitnesS-I swear most positively that yoU
and 8r. Hanback, asked me to go over the
letters and assert the relevant from the irrel
evant.
Mr.. Oates-Did ask you TO make any sep
aration of the relevant from the irrelevant?
Witness-To assist that gentleman, yes
sir; you did.
Mr.. OateS-Did not ask you merely to ar
range the letters in order?
Witness-I told you they were already ar
ranged, and there was no use in my going
over them.
MR.. CASEY YOUNG
was then called and sworn. He was asked
to state all the facts within his knowledge
about the organization of the company. He
said in reply:
The statements made by DR.. Rogers M
his son were in the main correct. There wer
some inaccuracies attributable to fault o
memory, but substantially their statement
were correct. When witness came TO con
gress in 1874 he had tried to have young Mr.
Rogers appointed electrician OF the house
He had known DIR. Rogers and his family 70
thirty years.
Witness was then proceeding to refer t
letters received by him from DR.. Roger
and to comment upon them with state
ment that there was not letter in his pos
session which reflected in any way on DR.
Rogers or anybody else, when he was inter
rupted by an objection by Mr.. Ranney
who said that the letters ought to be read
As the witness did not have all the letter
with him the committee adjourned until to
morrow TO give him an opportunity to pro
duee the documents.