The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-03-06
DUDLEY IN THE SWEAT BOX
THE BooDLER cuTsA SORRY FIGURE.
Confronted With One of the Original
Blocks of Five Letters He Refuses
To Swear That He Did Not Write
1t, But Tries Hard to Get 1t.
Wash. Cor. y. Y. Evening Post. J

Wash. Cor. v. Y Evening Post.l
Judge James of the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia having denied the motion of
". w. Dudley's counsel to quash the subpoena
under which Dudley was required TO submit
himself to examination touching mis- celebrated
letter before the commission in Washington,
issued from the supreme court in this city, the
examination came off this afternoon. The re-
porters were excluded by the commissioner at
The request of Dudley's counsel, and the result
was that Dudley, or some one on his behalf,
subsequently stuffed the correspondent of the
World with story that the Erening Post had
produced nothing but "a multiated copy" and
much other fabulous matter. The fact is, the
original letter was produced, as supplied by Mr..
ClapOOl, L. $. district attorney at Indianapolis,
and has been returned to him, after strenuous
Efforts on behalf of Dudley's cou nsel to get
possession of il.
The following is the stenographic report of
the more important portion of to-day's pro-
ceedings. Mr.. WOrthingtOn of Washington
appeared for Dudley, Messrs. L. p Wheeler
and Lawrence Godl1in for the EUe1ai1,g Post.
After Dudley had been questioned as to his ac-
quaintance with various persons, the examina-
ton ran on:
Q-''DO you know whether those gentlemen or any
Of them have ever seen ur SIGNATURE"
Mr. Worthington-'1 object TO the question and
advise the witness 10 decline to answer it, because
does not appear that the be pertinent to
any Of the issues in this case"
Mr. Godkin-"I repeat the question. Do you de-
cline 70 answer il p"
Witness-''You have the statement of my coun-
sell"
NIr. Worthington-"You have to act upon it."
Wines decline 10 answer it. upon the advice
estate whether you were treasurer of the re-
publican national committee on the gath day of Oc
WitncsS-"Shall an swer the question ?"
hay no Obi RI
answering the question"
Q--"Did you have a confidential clerk while you
were actingas such treasurer? if so. who he
Mr.. Worthington-'I object to that question on
the ground that the answer cannot be material TO
any OF the issues in this case and advise the wit
ness to decline TO answer it for that reason"
NltneSS-'l decline TO answer the question"
Q-"Wh here were the headquarters OF the national
republican committee, OF which YOU treasurer,
On the 18th DAY OF October, 1882"
Any own headquarters were At the Everett
house in New York"
Q-"Where was the headquarters of the commit
Ar Fifth-ave., New York CITY"
Q-"Nil You look at this letter, Col Dudley,
and look at the signature which is annexed thereto
and state whether that Is your signature nOt2'
zone OF the originals of the blocks-of-v' letters
now in possession OF the district attorney Indian
apOlis, was here shown to the witneSs.)
Mr.. WOrthington-'Wiy you kindly allow ne to
look at that letter before the witness answers the
question? Colonel. you have already been -dviSed
what answer 10 make 70 that question. You had bet
ter look at the letter. (Lett,r handed witnessl
object to that question because the letter which
offered TO the witness is evidently mutilated, and
has something written upon il which does not per
tain to the original letter. and for other reasons
which the witness himself will state"
Witness-'I shall decline To answer that question
| and state as follows am advised by nv counsel,
George Bliss as well by my counsel present, 10
decline 10 answer that question, or any other ques-
ton calling for information to what lette- or let
ters did write, or TO which my name is appended,
other than the referred to in the Omplaint for
lafiD m INV
| letter, other than the one upon which the
complaint is based, is not pertinent to any
eve that since this suit begun the attorney of the
United States for the district of Indiana or some
one in his behalf has presented TO the grand jury for
that district charges against growing of the
alleged writing by of the letter referred TO in the
complaint in this case OF some similar letter, and
that Notwithstanding the fact that the grand jury.
after fully investigating the charges have adjourned
without finding any Indictment or making auy pre-
sentiment against me, new prosecution based upon
substantially the same charges has been most I'M
justly and OppresSiyey instituted against before
U. 5 commissioner in Indiana, and that it is in
tended to use any information that may be
tracted from in this proceeding as pretext for
continuing this last prosecution, and therefore
claim my privilege"
MIR. Godkn-"I move to strike out all after the
words, Il decline to answer that question: "
Q-"NOw, will you look at the letter which have
just handed to YOU, and point what differences,
ii any there be between that letter and the letter
which you have set forth in your complaint in this
action ."
to answer the question, for the he has just
stated in his to the las tprevious question"
Witness-"I decline to answer for those reasons"
Q-"Do | understand you to say, Col. Dudley,
der the advice of counsel, that your to the
last two questions which have put to you would
affect your status in the criminal proceedings which
you state are pending in Indiana in any way?''
Mr. Worthington-"I advise the witness 10 decline
TO answer the question or to further explain the
grounds OF his declining TO answer this question"
Wtuess-"l decline, under the advice Ofmy coun-
sci, to answer"
Mr. Godkin-"Counsel for the defendant asks the
commissioner 70 mark the papers handed to the wit
as exhibits a and b."
The Commissioner-"The commissioner. in compli-
with this request, has marked the two papers
respectively as exhibit and exhibit b.
Then ensued discussion between counsel
and the commissioner in regard to annexng to
the commission copy of the papers shown the
witness. The commissioner. at the request of
Dudley's counsel requested the defendant to
allow the original papers shown the witness to
be annexed TO the commission, but the counsel
for the ErcRiaq Post refused so to do, on the
ground that the obvious purpose of this re-
quest by the plaintiff was to withdraw the ex-
hibit from the jurisdiction of the court in In
diana, which, Oh his own statement, was in
curing into the criminal charges against the
plaintiff, and thus TO defeat the ends of justice
by making it impossible TO procure trial of
submitted were then marked for identification
by the commissioner, who refused TO allow the
said copies to be annexed to the commission.
AS the matter now stands the counsel for the
EUeRi1g Post will have to ask the New York
supreme court 10 decide what effect Dudley's
refusal to answer ought to have on his suit in
New York City.