Omaha daily bee., 1889-02-23
THE PARNELL COMMISSION
Pigott Concludes to Relieve His
Overburdened Conscience.
HE is AN ACCOMPLISHED LIAR.
The Persuasive Powers OF Sir Charles
RusselI's Cross-ENamination
Draw Forth Some Start
ling Confessions.


crowded again this morning when the Par
nell commission reass embed. The cross
examination of Richard pigott was contin-
ucd. He admitted wTitlug the letter to Arch
bishop Walsh which Sir Charles Russell pro
duced in court and which contained state
ment that the documentary and personal evi-
dcncc to be produced before the commission
could be rendered harmless by the exposure
Of the means by which it had been obtained.
At the suggestion Of Presiding Justice Han
men, Archbishop Walsh's letter to 'tgott,
part of which was read yesterday, was read
in extcnso The archbishop referred to the
fact that there had been systematic lying
concerning the nationalist cause. Witness
now admitted receiving this letter He
said that when he wrote to the archbishop he
was i'm very distressed circumstances, owing
10 having received no money from Houston.
Witness other work had been neglected and
lost He therefore wrote TO Archbishop
Walsh, hoping he would submit the matter
to the parnellite members in the house OF
commons, and induce them to provide witness
with means with which TO leave the country
in return for the Information tire witness
should give Witness was startled and sur
prised when the letters appeared IN the
Times, and considered it brccch of faith
He wrote TO Houston strongly protesting
again st their publication.
Sir Charles Russell demanded that this
letter be produced.
Houston here said that he had forgotten
receiving it. On being further pressed,
pigntt voluntarily exclaimed 81 may say
at once that the statement | made to Arch
bishop Walsh was unfounded."
This statement produced "A sensation Sir
Charles Russell then said to witness: - \ ou
deliberately wrote lies ~
Witness replied: "Well, exaggerations.
Sir Charles Russell-"Dd the exaggera-
tons have no truth!'
Witness-''Vcry little. IaughterD |
forget what meant when | wrote to Arch
bishop Walsh that the charges were mix
ture of what | believed to be true and ur-
true
Continuing, witness said he knew that
criminal proceedings were projected when
he wrote saying that he could nullify them
by exposing the discreditabe means by
which it was sought to institute the proceed
ings. He could not say what the proceed
ings were to be taken for He imagined they
were for completely in the Phoenix park muir
ders, but there was no foundation for the
statement. Witness again wrote to Arch
bishop Walsh on May l., Offering to furnish
further information. In reply to this letter
the archbishop said:
Il understand you are anxious to make a
statement to assist the victims of fraud and
slandcr by exposing fraud and sander l
cannot refuse to accept such statements
fully. | accept your assurance that you took
no part in the Publication
Witness said he forgot writing the state
ment,
Sir Charles Russell read letter dated
MAY 3, to Archbishop Walsh. In it l'igott
offered to make personal written statement
Witness admitted making statement to the
archbishop between May and May T. He
had written to the archbishop recently, but
denied that he had done so in order to again
obtain written statement.
Sir Charles Russell read letter from the
archbishop TO Pgott bearing date of May Z,
in which the archbishop said he assumed
that Pigott either knew the author of the
fraud, or knew what measures had been
taken to procure fraudulent evidence. The
writer said he did not wish to know the
name of the gentleman who was at the bot
tom of the matter.
Sir Charles Russell pressed the witness,
who reluctantly admitted that he had Hous-
ton in mind when he wrote it. In reply to
question by Presiding Justice Hannen, wit
ness SAID he was not sure that he had re-
Ceived the letter. Sir Charles Russell
quoted from letter written by Pigott to
Archbishop Walsh on May II. Witness
said he could not say what the latest proDo.
Bition mentioned in the letter meant He
only remembered making one proposition,
namely, that he had been shown cOmpromis-
ing letters. His opinion having been asked
rs to the genuneness of the letters, he had
stated that the letters credited to Parnell
were rather doubtful.
This statement created sensation in the
court room.
Witness further testified that he would not
swear that he had not told Archbishop
Walsh that the letters were forgeries. He
doubted The authenticity OF the letters be-
cause he did not know the handwriting in
the bodies of them. He believed he told
Archbishop Walsh that he thought the
Egan letters were genuine, but would not
swear that he did He was not sure whether
Houston ever expressed n doubt as to the
genuineness of the letters. 1t was not owing
20 Houston's doubts that witness offered to
reobtan the money
Sir Charles Russell read from letter to
Archbishop Walsh from Pigott in which he
says: ~ trust your grace will do me the
Justice to believe that am not the fabrica-
tor of the letters as is falsely alleged"
Sir Charles asked, "Who was the fabrica-
torm
Witness replied that he did not know.
Sir Charles-"Did you believe there was
fabrication"
WitncSs-"No.'
This answer caused laughter.
Reid produced letters from Pigott to the
late William f.. Forster, then chief secretary
for ireland, dated June ,, 1881, in which he
offered Forster papers which he said would
break up the league, for fl,OO0 TO 81, 800.
Witness said that the issue of the lrishmen,
the paper printed by l'igott depended upon
his receiving this sum, as his creditors were
pressing him. Forster, on June 8, refused
TO accept this Offer.
AT Presiding Justice Hanncn's suggestion
Sir Charles Russell agreed to read seleC.
'n'n0 iiNH' 'ilS 'bNS1Si h'oN'Hh " t''' N'''lt
of them.
Witness continued that he had been in
straits since 1881, and unXicllsly turned to
every quarter for money.
Sir Charles Russell produced u batch of
letters written by Pigott to Egan, including
one written on February %, 1881, in which
the writer asked Egun to give him the ad-
dress nj which he could write PnrEel, with
whom he wished to communicate Il matter
of vita! inheritance.
pigott said he had forgotten the letter,
but, admitting that he must have written II,
had not the slightest idea as 10 what the i'm.
portnnt matter referred 10 was. On being
hard pressed, and after fencing he admitted
that he must have received an answer
Sir Charles Russell read from a letter
from Pigott to Egan, written on February
%, in which 1t was stated that he (Pigottl
had received an anonymous letter from two
gentlemen, who would call upon and submit
10 Pigott proposal greatly TO his advan-
tage. They came, but declined to give their
names They had an interview lasting two
hours, during which they asked him TO pub
lish n statement, which was an outrageous
libel about the spending of league funds,
and which was TO be so constructed that its
publication would do much harm. He added
that he was badly in need OF $500,
hut would DC satisfied with 400 in addition
10 the f200 already sent in consideration of
his paper Pigott concluded the letter by
sayipg: bad as am, | can truly say that
j have been true to those who have trusted
me-" Witness said that Egau did not send
I'm Nm, bts,Ntt 20