New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-23
LITTLE LEFT OF PIGOTT.
DAMAGING LETTERS CONFRONT " THE
TIMESS' WITNESS.

UAMAGlNG LETTERS CON1 NN4'A AA-
TIMESSp WITNESS.
SIR CHARLES RUssELL's TERRIFIC oRoss-Ex.
ANIMATION CoNTINUED-PIGorr's AT
TEMPrs TO RAISE MONEY IN VARIOUS
oUARrERs-soME LIGHT ON THE
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FORGED
LETTERS.
London, Feb. 22.-The courtroom was crowded
again this morning when the Parnel Commission
reassembled The rossexamnaton of Richard
Pfgott was continued He admitted writing a
letter to Archbishop Walsh, which Sir Charles
Russell produced in court, and which contained
statement that the documentary and personal
evidence to be produced before the Commission
could be rendered harmless by exposure of
the means by which it had been obtained.
At the suggestion of Presiding-Justice Hannen
Archbishop Walshs letter to Pigott, part of which
was read yesterday, read in extenso. The
Archbishop referred to the fact that there had
been systematic lying concerning the National
cause.
The witness now admitted receiving this let
ter He said that when he wrote to the Arch
bishop he was in very distressed circumstances,
owing to having received no money from MIR.
Houston The witnesss other work had been
neglected and lost He, therefore, wrote to Arch
bishop Walsh, hoping that he would submit the
matter to the Parnelhte members of the House
of Commons, and induce them to provide the
witness with means with which to leave the
country in return for the information the witness
should give. The witness was startled and sur
prised when the letters appeared in " The Times
and considered it breach of faith. lie wrote
to Houston strongly protesting against thelr
publication.
al hat this letter
be produced.
Houston here said he had forgotten receiving IT,
p1eorr ADMITS HAVING WRITTEN LIES
On being further pressed, Pigott voluntarily
exclaimed: 81 may say at once that the state
ments I made to Archbishop Walsh were un-
founded"
This statement produced sensation
Sir Charles Russell then said TO the witness
sYou deliberately wrote lies
The witness replied: Well, exaggeratlons.
Sir Charles Russen-Did the exaggerations have
no truth?
Witness-very little Laughter) iorgeo VIVA.
meant when wrote to Archbishop Waisn siiaU
the charges were a mixture OF wnaO Uen0''N "
be true and untrue. Aro4
Continuing. the witness said he knew 'ha'
cr,minaI nroceedinps were projected when he wrote
saving that he could nullfy them by exposing INC
aiscredita,ble means by which it was sought 10
Institute the proceedings He could not say whaC
the proceedings were TO be taken for lie una
that they were for completely in the PLoehiA r".A
murders but there was no foundation lor 'pe
s+atement. The witness again wrote to Arcn-
bishop Walsh on May /, offering to furnish iur'ner
information. In reply to this letter 1ne Ar'"-
bishop said: ....,.
q. ssiHt bs Victims of rahd and Islander by exposing
sSo fraud and SANDER cannot refuse 20 scsSpt St
soeh soe took s'sop no part in the publication
rh ,yitpess said he forgot writing Che state'-
menk s..od xsr
to Archbishop Walsh, in which P1gots onereo !"
make personal written statement.
The vitue IS admitted making the statement 10
Arcbh,sbop Walsh between May and May z. de
"a -,,r;tten IN Archbishop Walsh recently but
denied that he had done SO IN oruor "s"'" "
tain the written statement
81, Charles Russell read letter from Arch
nsbon walsh to Pigott, bearing date of May z, IN
.-h,.h tha Archbishop said he assumed that P1gott
.,ths- tnew the author of the fraud or knew what
r,aasures had been taken to procure frauduienb
.,,d.nce The writer said he did not wish 10
,rnow the name Of the gentleman who was at the
bottom Of the matter.
Sir Charhs Russell pressed the witness, VINO
reluctantly admitted that he had Houston in mlnd
when he wrote.
In renlv to a question by Presiding-Justice Han
non the witness said that he was not sure he re-
ceivcd the letter.
TIE WITNESS THOUGHT THE PARNELL LETTERS
DOUBTFUL.
Sir Charles Russell quoted from letter written
bv pirott TO Archbishop Walsh on May IL. The
witness said he could not say what the latest
proposition mentioned in the letter meant lie
only remembered making one proposition, namely
that he had been shown compromising letters
His opinion having been asked as to the genuine
ness of the letters he had stated that the letters
credited to Mr.. Parnell were rather doubtful
This statement created sensation in the court
room
Tbs witness further testified that he would not
swear that he had not told Archbishop Walsh that
the letters were forgeries. Iaughter) lie doubt
ed the authenticity Of the letters because he did
not know the handwriting of 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
Mr.. Houston ever expressed doubts as to the gen
uineness of the letters.
Sir Charles Russell read from letter to Arch
bishop Walsh from Pigott, in which he said:
trust your Grace will do the Justice to BE-
beve that sm not tho fabrica'or OF the HusSS AS
falsely alleged
Sir Charles asked: " Who was the fabricator%
The witness replied that he did not know.
Sir Charles-Did you believe there was fab
Kicator?
Witness-No.
This answer caused laughter.
Mr.. Wemyss Reid produced u letter from Pigott
70 the late William E. Forster. then Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland dated June 9 S6l, in which he
offered Mr.. Forster papers which he said would
break up the League for 1900 pounds or 1000
The witness said that the issue OF The Irish
man. the paper printed by Pigott, depended upon
his receiving this sum- his creditors press
ing him. Mr.. Forster, on June 5. refused to ac-
eept this offer u,. .. e.