The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-02-23
PIGG0TT GOES TO PIECES
HE NOW CLAIMS THAT HE LIED
TO ARCHBISHOP WALSH.


We're Forgeries.
LONDON, Feb. 22.-The court room was
crowded again this morning when the Par
nell commission assembled. The cross
examination of William Piggott was re-
sumed. He admitted writing letter to
Archbishop Walsh, which Sir Charles
Russell produced in court, and which con-
tanned statement that the documentary
and personal evidence to be produced be-
fore the commission could be rendered
harmless by an exposure of the means by
which it had been obtained.
THE LETTER READ IN FULL.
At the suggestion of Presiding Justice
Halnen, the archbishop's letter to Piggott,
part of which was read yesterday, was read
IN e,Ctenso. The archbishop referred to the
fact tnat there had been systematic lying
concerning the nationalist cause. The
witness now admitted receiving this letter.
He said that when he wrote TO the arch
stances, owing to having received no money
from Houston. The witness other work
had been neglected and lost.
WANTED MONEY.
He therefore wrote to Archbishop Walsh,
hoping that he would submit the matter to
the Parnellite members Of the House of
Commons and induce them to provide tae
witness with means with which to leave the
country in return for information the wit
ness should give. The witness was startled
and surprised when the letters appeared In
the Times, and considered it a breach of
faith. He wrote to Houston strongly pro-
testing against their publication.
Sir Charles Russell demanded that this
letter be produced.
Houston said he had forgotten receiv-
ing it.
PIGGOTT ADMITS LYING.
On being further pressed, Piggott volun-
tarily exclaimed; II may say at once that
the statements made to Arch bishop Walsh
were unfounded."
This statement produced sensation.
Sir Charles Russell then said to the wit
ness: "You deliberately wrote les"
The witness replied: Well, exaggera-
tions
Sir Charles Russell: Did the exagera-
tions have no truthl
The witness: Very little, [LaughterJ /
forget what | meant when | wrote to
Archbishop Walsh that the charges were a
MIXTURE of what | believed to be true and
untrue.
KNEW PROCEEDINGS WERE PROJECTED.
Continuing, the witness said he knew that
criminal proceedings were projected when
he wrote saying that he could nullify them
by exposing the means by which 1t was
sought to institute the proceedings. He
could not say what the proceedings were to
be taken for. He imagined that they were
for comnlicity in the Pheuix park muir
ders, but there was no foundation for the
statement. The witness again wrote
to Archbishop Walsh ON May !, Offering to
furnish further information. In reply to
this letter the archbishop said: 81 under
stand you are anxious to IN Ike a sta ement
to assist the victims of fraud and slander
by exposing fraud and slander | can not
refuse to accept such statement fully.
| accept your assurance that you took no
part in the publication"
HIS CONVENIENT MEMORY.
The witness said he forgot writing that
state rent.
Sir Charles Russell read letter dated
May 5, to Archbishop Walsh, in which
Piggott offered to make personal written
statement. The witne admitted making
the statement to Archbishop Walsh between
NAV and May z. He had written to
Archbishop Walsh recently. but denied that
he had done so in order to again obtain a
written statement.
THE ARCHBISHoP'S ASSUMPTION.
Sir Charles read letter from the arch
bishop to Mr.. Piggott, bearing date of May
7. in which the archbishop said he assumed
that Piggott either knew the author of the
fraud or knew hat measures had been
taken to procure fraudulent evidence. Toe
writer said he did not wish to know the
name ofthe gentleman who was at the bot
tom of the matter.
Mr.. Russell pressed the witness, who
reluctantly admitted that he had Houston
in mind when he wrote.
In reply to question by Presiding JUS
tice Hannen, the witness said be was not
sure that he received the letter.
DOUBTFUL ABOUT THE PARNELL LETTERS
Sir Charles quoted the letter written by
Piggott to the archbishop on May IL The
witness said he could not say what the
latest proposition mentioned In the letter
meant He only rem mbered making one
proposition, namely: That he had been
shown compromising letters. His opinion
having been asked as to the genuineness of
tue letters, he had stated thai the letters
credited to Parnell were rather doubtful.
This sta ement created q sensation IL the
court room.
AGAIN IN DOUBT.
The witness further testified that he
would not swear that he had told Arch
bishop Walsh that the letters were forger-
les. Laughter.l He dou ted the authen-
ITCHY of the letters because he did not know
the handwriting of the bodies of them. He
believed he told the archbishop that he
thought the Egan letters were genuine, but
he would not sN ear that he did. He was
not sure whether Houst N. ever expressed
doubts as to the genuineness OF the letters.
1t was not owing to Houston's doubts that
the witness offered 60 re-obtain the money.
THE FABRIcAToR.
Mr.. Russell read letter TO Archbishop
Walsh from p ggott, in which be said: II
trust your grace will do me the justice TO
believe that am not the T. bricator Of the
letters, as is falsely alleged"
Sir Charles asked: "Who was the fabri-
catorf'
The witness replied that he did not know.
Sir Charles-Did you believe there was a
fabIicator4
Witness-No. This answer caused laugh
teri
AN OFFER TO FORSTER.
Wemyss Reid produced a letter from Pig
gott to the late William Z. Forster, then
chief secretary for ireland, dated June 81,
1881, in which he offered Forster papers
which he said would break up the league
for 91, 500 OF 9l 900. The witness said that
the issue Of The IriShntdTt, paper printed
by Piggott, depended upon his receiving this
sum, as his cred tors were pressing him.
Secretary Forster, on June 8, refused to
accept this offer.
AT Pres ding Justice Hannen's suggestion
Sir Charles Russell agreed to read selec-
tions from the letters Instead OF the whole
Of them.