The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-07-13
THE CHARGES AGAINST PARNELL.
Efforts to Prove They Emanated from the
Loyal Union Barred by Justice Hannen.

Loyal Union Barred by Justice Hannen.
LONDON, July 12.-In the Parnell COM
to-day, Sir Charles Russell asked
Mr.. Soames. solicitor for the Times. to pro-
duce a list of the witnesses he had in be-
half of the Times, and also such CORE
spondence as they had which had passed be-
tween them and their allies in Ireland
Attorney-general Webster refused to
allow Mr.. Soames to submit the CORE
spondence.
Mr.. Macdonald, manager of the Times,
testified it was understood that LIE Caron.
the informer. would be cared for. He had
lost his position in the government employ.
AS long as it was needed he was to receive
assistance.
Mr.. Houston, secretary of the Loyal and
Patriotic Union, was then called. He
testified that Lord Stalbridge first. men
The articles on "Parnellism and Crime"
published by the Times, were an elaborate
reprint of ''Parnellism Unmasked." which
was prepared by PigOtt. Witness stated
he was willing to place the books of the
Loyal 10y and patIlotic Union before the court IT.
their political opponents. Witness bor-
rowed f450 from Lord Stalbridge and Sir
Roland Blenner Hassel, and ESQ from Dr.
Mcguire to buy the letters printed by the
Times. Mr.. Houston produced voucher
for f100 paid to Eugene Davis.
Sir Charles Russell-Dont you believe
that voucher is IN PIgott's hand-writings
Witness-They write similarly. / don't
believe it's Pigotts handwriting. The
witness persisted that it was Davis's vouch-
er, though obtained through Pigott.
Sir Charles Russell demanded the books
of the Loyal and Patriotic Union. He said
he desired to prove that the whole indict-
ment contained in ''Parnellism and Crime"
proceeded from the Union. PigOtt had been
used by powerful political organization
to concoct the whole plan.
Presiding Justice Hannen-Thisre1ates to
charges against persons not before us.
Mr.. Asquith also of Mr.. ParnelPs coun-
sci, submitted that the court had to inquire
into the origin and growth of the charges
against the Parnellites. The Unions books
would disclose how Pigott set to work to
supplement "Parnellism Unmasked" by the
articles entitled ''Parnellism and Crime, ," in
cluding the letters the Times had writ ten.
Attorney-generalW Webster contended that
the books were wanted in order to give the
Parnellites free range upon political mat
ters.
The court decided against the application
for the production of the books. The COM
mission adjourned until Tuesday.
While the Parnell commission was in
apparently without the knowledge of the
counsel on either side, and explained that
she was the Margaret Sullivan who was
said to have travelled from Paris to London
be in the sSs psd TO of ae1G Ss shs
which she did with every manifestation of
indignation. The woman who did come
with LeCaron on that trip, she said,
was an American lady, and did not resem-
BILE her in the least.
Justice Hannen's Ruling Denounced.
LONDON, July 12.-After the adjournment
of the Parnell commission to-day a meet
ing was held at the chambers of Sir Charles
Russell at which the leading members of
the Irish party and their counsel before the
commission were present. The greatest in
dignation was expressed by all over the de-
olson of Judge Hannen refusing to admit
the books of the Loyal and Patriotic Union,
which Sir Charles Russell sought to place
in evidence. Mr.. Parnell and Mr. Davitt
were present at the meeting, and Mr.. Par
nell expressed his determination to person
ally resent this Justice on the part of j udge
Hannen. 1t was determined that the pro-
test of the Irish party against the
ruling should take some practical shape.
and it was suggested that all the counsel
for the Parnellites be instructed to with
draw from the case forthwith. In this way
only, it was argued. could the Irishmen in
voIved in the charges before the commits
sion show the world their belief that they
cannot get justice at the hands of this one
sided commission. The discussion was en-
tirely upon the question whether the Par
nellite counsel, or Charles Russell, alone,
should withdraw from the case, most of
those present favOring the latter course.
No decision was reached, but it is quite
likely that Sir Charles, only, will with
the same time stating to the court his rea-
sons for so doing.