Omaha daily bee., 1889-02-22
PlGoTT ON THE STAND.
How He Bought Bag of Letters in
France.

on the league, and desired to embody signed
documents in it. Davis declined to furnish
the documents, saying the Fcnian brother
hood was bound to Purnell not TO interfere
with his plans till after certain time. Eli
nally Davis, for 900, furnished witness
the principal facts with the understanding
that they be written, but not pub
lishCd till n certain time. Witness
at once wrote out from this information and
gave it to Houston. This was the statement
read yesterday. subsequently i'll Paris, u
man named Morris Murphy, for $500, fur
nlshcd the witness the documents which he
had tried to get from Davis. They were i'll
IA bag, and consisted of five or SIX OF Egan's
letters, some of parncll's, and some old ac-
counts. Witness read the letters made,
memoranda, but did not copy thcm. Pigott
here identified six letters of Egau's, five of
Parncll's including the letter which ap-
pearcd in the Times, and scraps of accounts
produced in court as the contents OF the
bag
Witness said that Houston then author
ized him to secure the letters. Witness here
described at length his negotiations. Muir
ply sent him to New York, where he met
Berlin, who merely gave him letter to
Murphy in Paris. Returning, Murphy took
him INTO Il private room, where five members
of the Clan.na-Gael made him swear ncTer
to reveal the source from which he obtained
the documents.
Pigott did not get the documents that
llEul. w NllltSS utlillltu Illt I'ulIHtSt VI but
letters and Murphy's offer to purchase them.
Witness knew Egan'S writing and signature,
and was convinced that ECan wrote the let
tcrs ascribed to him. Murphy was dispcased
with the refusal to return the letters. Pigott,
rcsuming, said he first heard of the eNis-
tcncc of the other letters at the beginning OF
lSSS. His informant was Thomas Brown, a
member of the Cian-naGacl Hayes nitro
duccd Brown and the witness in cafe in the
Ruc st. Honore Paris. Brown produced
the letters and the witness sent to Houston
copies of two of Parnelrs and one
of Egan's. Plgott had not the slightest
doubt that the Signatures were genuine. In
July, 1883. he heard of the other letters. a
person in Paris, who declined to reveal his
name, offered to surrender them for 1900.
He was paid 1900 pounds, of which sum the
witness received $50 back Pigott con.
tinued:
"A man named O'Brien visited me IN
Dublin under the alias of Sinclair. He said
that Parncll had sent him to try to get me
me to assist Egan. Labouchere, he said, was
acting for Egan and would pay me very
high price if had any letters of Parnelfs to
sell Sinclair suggested that | should see
Labouchcre in London, and gave me
So with which to pay my passage.
went to the place mentioned,
but Labouchere was not there. l
declined to hold conversation with Sin
clair. | afterwards wrote to Labouchcre
with Sinclair's knowledge. Labouchcre re-
piled, and had an interview with Parnell
and LabOuchCre at the lattcr's house"
Continuing Pigott said that at the meet
ing referred TO Parnell told him he held
prlma facic evidence that the witness had
forged the letters, and Labouchere proposed
that the witness admit of the forgery. Lewis
entered during the interview and said that
if the witness followed his directions he
would be his best friend, but if he failed to
obey instruct )ns he Lcwis) would prose
cute him mercilessly for perjury and forgery
Afterwards the witness saw Labouchere out
oiA Aa Z ,t.hnp I nhn1i hnr n
was prepared to pay 81 900, but that money
matters must not be mentioned TO Parncll.
Witness induced Labouchere to think he
would accede to his proposal, but on return
ing to the room he said nothing would induce
him to swear that the letters were forgeries.
Lewis then asked the witness to write to the
Times that he (witness) believed that letters
to be forgeres. when the Times would with
draw the letters. The following day the wit
ness asked whether Laboucheres offer would
hold good if the witness induced the Times
to withdraw the letters. Lewis said Yes"
On the day after the witness accidentally
met Parnell and Lewis. The latter denied
that he had given the witness any such as
Surance.
Attorney Webster read a long correspond
ence between Plgot and Lewis In his let
ters Lewis averred that he and his associ-
ates were aware that Pigott was forger
before they saw him. He suggested that
Pigott meet Parnell again. Pigott replied
that he was prepared to meet any proceed
ngs, and declined to meet Parnell again.
The witness, continuing, said that La
bouchere repeatedly wrote him in Dublin,
pressing him to testify and offering to pay
his passage. At the end of January he re-
ceived'a letter containing 9l0. He was anx-
ious to avoid testifying. He was aware that
il was dangerous to offend the Clan ma Gael
and he would be murdered.
Here Sir Charles Russell cross examined
Pigott. He caused him to write several
words which occurred in the letter Pigott
4 ,tnl utxtf
1881 to 1884. He wrote Sir Trevylan, asking
for money on account of his support of the
government, but did not offer to furnish in
formation. He denied in his statement to
Lewis that he said the publication of the let
ters by the Times had alarmed him, and that
ne had therefore asked Archbishop Walsh,
because he regarded the archbishop AS his
confessor. He denied that he knew that the
article on "Parnellism and Crime" were
being prepared.
Sir Charles Russell here produced letter
from Pigott to Archbishop Walsh, dated
March 4, 1887. In this letter Pigott told the
archbishop that he was aware that proceed
ings were contemplated with the object of
destroying the Parnelites' influence IN par
lament, and ali that he could Indicate was
that the proceedings would consist OF the
publication of statements tending to show
completely IN the crime Of Parnell and his
colleagues He assured the archbishop that
he wrote with full knowledge OF these de-
signs, and could Indicate how they could be
successfully combatted and defeated. Sir
Charles Russell pressed the witness to OK
plain how these designs could be defeated If
the letters were genuine.
Pigott replied that he had not the slightest
recollection of writing anything of the kind.
He could not have had the Parncll letters in
mind when he wrote to the archbishop. He ;
must have been thinking of the other
charges, but he could not say what those
charges We're
Sir Charles Russell then read postscript
to the letter, as follows: ~ need hardly say
that did / consider the parties really guilty,
] should not dream that your grace would
partake in the effort 10 snield them, My only
wish is to impress on your grace that the evil
dence is apparently convincing and probably
sufficient TO secure conviction by an English
jury.h
Pigott reiterated that the Parnell letters
were not in his mind when he wrote the
postscript He added that he never thought
that the letters in themselves constituted a
serious charge. He asked for the arch
bishops reply, which Sir Charles Russell
produced. Pigott, after inspecting the arch
bishops letter, SAID that he believed that he
never received IT,
The Arbitration Contract Approved.
New YogK, Feb. 2l.-The Northern Pa
cfc board Of directors, at meeting 10 day,
approved what IS called the arbitration con-
tract,n which is an agreement between the
Union Pacific and Northern Pacific COM
panies TO place the control of all competitive