Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-02-23
pIGGOTT PINNED.
Apxrs THAR ne WROTE LETTERS 10
ARCHBISHOP WALSH.
iTs Seems 20 Rave Very Convenient Mem
cry and Makes the Uttsrancss
OF an Idiot.


trodgrcd IN couri and which cOntsncd the
statement tat the documentary and per-
eonai evidence 20 be produced before The
commission could bo rendered harmless by an
.sxs,o.ure Of tbc mcaus Oy whicn u had been
NshYne1. AZ Che suggestion OF Fres'0iug'
.Iysucs liaunen Archbishop Walshs letter TO
pjg.oti, part ~ which was read yesterday,
yas re,d la crfsns0. The Archbishop re-
fefred Co the isct mat there had been sys-
sems'ic ls,ng concerning the Nationalist
c,u.e. Witness nOw admitted receiving
fhis lcuc.. he sald i1at when he
,cro'e =, TIE Archbishop he was 10
very Distressed circumstances, owing b
having received 30 money from Houston.
aynnss.'. other work had been neglected
End '0.L H. therefore wrote 10 Archbishop
WALSH. hoping ibat he would submit the
matter o the Parnel members Of the House
Of Common, snd induce them 10 provide
witness with means with which ~ leave ine
county In return iOr the information Wit
ness should give. Witness was startled ard
surprised when the letters appeared IN the
Times. and considered u a breach OF falth.
Jlc wrote 10 Houston strongly protesting
against Their publication.
SIR Charles Russell demanded that this
letter DO produced. Houston said he had
forgotten receiving H. On being further
pressed PgrOti voluntarily exclaimed: 81
iusy say at orce tnat the statements made
% Archbishop Walsh were uniOunded."
1his statement produced sensation.
Sir Charles Russell then said to the wiz
ncss: d" You ch1crtteiv wrote Hes"
Wires replied: Wen. exaggerstions.'
Sir Charles Russell: "Did the CKaggeT =
fions have no truih :"
Witness. "Nerv little. fLanchter.1 ]
forget what ! meant when | wrOle to Arch
bishop Walsh tna' The charges were mix
iuro Of what | believed 10 be true and IN
Sruc'
Containing. the witness said that he knew
ihni criminai proceedings were projected
when bc wrote saying that &c could Dulli'y
them by exposing The discredllahle means by
which 20 Wss sought 10 institute the proceei-
ing-. iic could nos say what the proceed
ing. were 10 Doe taken for. lie imagined
fhsi thcy were FOR completely IN the PhrniX-
Parh murder but there Was No iOundh'On
for ihc statement
TIE witness again wrote 10 Archbishop
Walsh ON May Ist offering 10 furnish fur
cher Information. III reply 10 this thr Arch
bishop ,ud: understand you are anH-
fous 90 make statement 10 Hssist the Vie
tina ~ fraud ana SANDER boy exposing TIE
frlud and tsudcr. I cannot refuse 10 gc-
cent such statement fully. / accept your
assurance tpW YOU took no part 10 the pub
iicsnou."
wilne,. said be forgot writing the state.
meut
Sir Charlie. Russell read a letter dated Nav
Jfh 10 archbishop Nalsh in which Piggolt
offered % make personal written state
WUt
Witness admitted making the statement 70
h.Dih.hon walsh between M9v jih and Nav
rfl. ,, boo written 10 Archbishop Walsh
recently hut denied that ne Tad doue 80 IN
order 10 n2siu obtain written statement.
SIR Charlie, rad letter from me Arch,
Bishop o. risg1ft, he7rinr d2ie of Nla7 ih. tn
vrli.htte Nrohbi.hlp .aid lr assumed That
Ii..ntt either knew the author OF tbc fraud
or tu-N what measures hNd been taken to
procure Gee irmIuent evidence. The
writer said Doe dld rQi wish 10 know tine
name Oi ihc gentleman Who was 40 noe bot
C1H ~ the u1tier.
puadl ur.. scd witness, who reluctantly
admitted thai Do had Houston n mod whoa
he wrote.
In rcry 70 70 question hy the pre-idiue
Justice witness .tId be Nas Dot auic 'hAt D.
received tue letter.
sir ChaIic, quoted q letter written by
pigfott to the AfchbishOpon NAV I'm. VII
res~ said De- could NOT say what the latest
uropo,iiioH mentioned iu lhe letter mclut
Iic only remembered maxi ~ ono PROPOSE
fl0n-namely, that ne had been shown
compromising letters. His opinion having
been asked Gs go glnUueues Of the letters
lr has stated that re letters credited 10 Par
uei were rihef doubtful rms statement
created sensation iu tbe courtroom WIZ
ness further testified that Dee would nptsWedr
inat hs had not told Archbishop Walsh that
the icilcrs we're torgefi'-. lLIughterI ne
doubted ihc authenticity oi the letters te-
cause Le did not 1now The handwriting OF
. .ft Nd. l4nIft N.II o. Ia
Archbishop that he Thought the Egan letters
were Genuine, bar wOull not swear That ne
db. lie was NOT sure whether Houston ever
.xurc,sed doubts rs 10 the ecuuiues. OF the
lnt,rs. Il was not owing 10 lioustOn's
doubt, that witness offered 10 reobiain The
money.
Russell read letter 10 Archbishop Walsh
from pierott. iu which hesaid: 4" tfustyour
Grace VIII do me the Justice 90 believe that
sm not faoroalor OF letters, as Us falsely
alleged"
sir Charles asked; "Who was is6rIea-
tori"
Witness replied that be did not know.
SIR Charles: lid you believe there was
fihricatory'
Witness: "No."
1hi, answer caused lsughter.
Wemyss Reid produced letter from Pig
poti TO the late William L. Forster then
thici Secretary for ireland. dated June ,
1881. m winch he offered Forster papers
which no sad would break up tue league for
rl.3O0 or 200. Witness said that The Is
sue Of The ltishman (neWspapcD printed
hy Piggou. depended upon his receiV-
inc this sum, as his creditors were press
ing him. Forster, on June 5tb, refused TO
accept lbE offer
At Presidns-lnstce Hannen's suggestion
q sHNa.IsF fHHHH
from the letters Instead OF the whole OF
Chem.
Witness continued that lee had been In
straits since 1881. and had anxiou.iv turned
60 every quarter for money. sir Charles
Russell produced a batch of letters written
by PigpOtt 10 Epan, including one written
ON February %. 1881, In which the
writer asked Ersu 90 give him an ad-
dress at which he could write TO Par
neu with whom ne wished 10 COM
rnunicete on a matter oi vital importance
Ptggott said he had forgotten toe letter. but
admitted that he must have written II. lie
lad not the slightest idea as 10 what the
importsnt matter referred To was. On being
n,rd pressed and after fencing he admitted
shat he must have received an answer but
had forgotten whether or not 10 directed him
20 write urder cover 10 Madame Reu2er, 90
Ayenue de Ni,Ners, PATS. Sir Charles
Russell read from the letter from Pigeott
% Egau written on February 2'ih,
lu whi.h d was stated that he
IiegotO had received an ANONYMOUS
letter from two gentlemen who would caii
upon and submit 10 Pirgott q proposal
gfestly 10 his advantage. They came. but
declined TO give their names. They bad an
interview lasting two hours, duriog which
they asked him 90 publish statement. which
was an ouifageou. lihel, ab0u, tho spending
oi league funds, and which was 70 be SO
constructed that It's publication would DO
much harm lie added that he was badly In
waut ~ $500. bat would be satisfied with
$500 IN addition TO The GOO already sent IN
consideration Of his paper. Plcgott concluded
hls letter by saying: But - | am | can
truly say that J have always been true 20
those who trusted me.' lLaughterl Wit
ness sad kgau aid not send money.
tLauabier.l ON March On Piggott wrote to
EgaU giving an outline Of tae statement re-
ierced to- lie sso stated IN the letter that
Egan would see that # be tPiggo'D publish
a ~ 4. elaaf