St. Paul daily globe., 1889-02-23
he did. He was not sure whether Mr..
Houston ever expressed doubts as to
GENUINENEss OF THE LETTER,

he did. He was not sure whether Mr..
Houston ever expressed doubts as to
the
GENUINENEss OF THE LETTERS.
1t was not owing to Mr.. Houston's
doubts that witness offered to reobtain
the money. Sir Charles Russell read
from a letter to Archbishop Walsh
to Pigott in which he said:
II trust your grace will do me
the justice to believe that l am
not the fabricator of the letters, as is
falsely alleged" Sir Charles asked:
Who was the fabricator?" Witness
replied that he did not know. Sir
Charles: Did you believe there wasa
answer caused laughter. Mr.. Wemyss
Reid produced a letter from Pigott to
the late William E. Forster. then chief
secretary for Ireland, dated June 2,
1881. iii which he offered Mr.. Forster
papers which he said would break up
the league for el,500 to $1,000. Wit
ness said that the issue of the Irishman.
the paper printed by Pigott. depended
upon his receiving this sum, as his
creditors were pressing him. MIR.
Forster on June refused to ac-
cept this offer. At Presiding JUS
tice Hannen's suggestion Sir Charles
Russell agreed to read selections from
The letters instead of the whole of
them. Witness. continued that he had
been in straits since 1881. and had
anXiously turned to every quarter for
money. Sir Charles Russell produced
a batch of letters written by Piggott to
MIR. Egan, including one written on
Feb. %, 1881, in which the writer asked
MIR. Egan to give him an address at
which he could write to Mr. Parnell.
with whom he wished to communicate
on
MATTER OF VITAL IMPORTANCE.
Piggott said he had forgotten the let
ter, but admitted that he must have
idea as to what the important matter
referred TO was. On being hard pressed
and after fencing he admitted that he
must have received an answer. but had
forgotten whether or not it directed
him to write under cover to Madame
Ruyer. SO Avenue de VillierS, Paris.
Sir Charles Russell read from letter
from Piggott to Mr.. Egan, written on
Feo. 81, in which it was stated that he
PiggotD had received an anonymous
letter from two gentlemen who would
call upon and submit to PiggOtt
proposal greatly to his advantage. They
came, but declined to give their names.
They had All interview lasting two
hours, during which they asked him to
publish statement which was an out
rageous libel about the spending of the
league funds, and which was to be so
constructed that its publication would
do much harm. He added that he Was
badly in want of $500, but would be sat-
iSiied with $500 in addition to the 9200
already sent in consideration of his pa
per. Piggott concluded the letter by
saying: bad as am, can truly say
that L have always been true to those
who trusted me-" Laughter.] Witness
said Egan did not send the money.
[Laughter.l On March Q Piggott wrote
to Mr.. Egan giving an outline of the
statement referred to. He also stated
in the letter that Mr.. Egan would see
that if he (Piggott) published the state
ment he would get 95U0, and that what
ever the consequences might be he
would be compelled to accept the offer
unless MIR. Egan assisted him. On
March IL Egan replied that he regarded
the letter as threat, and
DECLINED TO PAY ANYTHING
even if he could. Witness said he re-
ceived a letter from Egan on June 1S,
1881, in relation to the sale of the Irish
man. Sir Charles Russell read Egan's
draft of letter written on the fy-leaf
of Piggott'S letter. The phrasing of the
first thirty-eight words was Identical
with the Times version of Egan's letter
of June 1S, 1881, but the date in the
text of the Times version was changed
to June IL and June Is. The witness
admitted that the similarity was remark
able. Sir Charles pressed the witness
regarding several similar resemblances
in the phrasing of letters Egan had
written to PiggOtt, and letters Piggott
had supplied Houston. The witness
admitted that assuming Sir Charles
copies to be correct, which he would not
admit, the condolences were striking.
The copies, he said, might have been
forged. If they were not the coinci-
dence could be got over, because
man were IN the habit of using
the same phrases. Ii he wanted to
forge a document having a genuine
letter to initiate would assist him. He
could not say how he would use the
original, because he had never tried.
Piggott admitted that he misspelled the
word '.hesitancy" in the witness box
yesterday. He believed that the knowl-
edge that the letter of Jan. 9, 1882, sim
ilarly misspelled the word had in-
fiuenced his mind. This letter did not
come into his possession until the sum-
mer of 1886, so he could not account for
the miSSpelling of "hesitancy" in his
own letters prior to that. After ParneIl
had declined to employ him on the staff
of the IriShman he asked priest named
Meagher to
INTERCEDE WITH PARNELL.
Sir Charles Russell produced the wit
ness letters to Meagher, and pointed
out further resemblances to the Times
letters. He then asked the witness
if he was not ashamed of
himself. Piggott replied hotly:
"Under the circumstances, no.
1t is scandalous that | should be thus
questioned. did not forge the letters.
If | did [ should not be here" Mr..
Reid produced letters written by Piggott
to MIR. Forster, in which Piggott asked
loan. After much writing, in which
PIggott pleaded poverty, MIR. Forster
sent him 800 as private loan. Some
time later, as matter of personal SYM
pathy. Mr.. Forster loaned Piggott $50 to
enable him to go to America. Piggott did
not go, however, but renewed his appli-
cations for money. until Mr.. Forster
granted him an interview. Sir Charles
Russell produced letter after letter, i'll
Guiding Piggott's demand for loan of
e2OO to enable him to go to Australia,
until the witness became dazed and for
got everything. The commission then
adjourned.
MIR. Smith stated in the house of COM
mons to-day that the expenses of the
Parnell commission would be specially
provided for in the next estimates.
1T SHOULD BE STOPPED.