The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-01-29

tioh tuat 9ucn testimony was 10 De given,
expressing surprise at the testimony and
practically apologizing to each other that
1t had come out in the investigation. He
therefore said Mr.. Dunneu was justified IN
sending out the dispatch. General Boyn-
ton declined to give the name Of his in
formant.
Mr. Dingley suggested that it was entire
~ possible that be might have said he re-
gretted exceedingly that n Congressman
should have done anything which made it
necessary that such facts should be brought
out. But that was very different from the
statement that the committee would have
Kept the testimony ont or had purposely
delayed it. That was wholly untrue. As q
matter of fact. both he and Mr.: Payne
wanted to continue the hearing on Monday,
bat Dir. Oates wanted an adjournment.
General Boynton then said that the day
before the Investigation began MI. Stevens.
who was in the same Office with him, re-
ceived q message stating that it was tho
lStevensl should either be late next
day or prolong his testimony. The purpose
OF the committee was to adjourn immedi-
ateiy after the conclusion of his testimony
until the next Wednesday, as it was un-
derstood that Mr.. Vest would not appear
and give his testimony in reference to
Cameron until after the following Tues
day. Witness had heard the same thing
two or three days before. Taking all these
things together, he thought the conclusion
reached very reasonable.
In response to q suggestion as to where
the committee could get information, Gen.
Boynton suggested that a good deal of IN
formation might be got ont of Mr.. Tanner
and Representative Abner Taylor. > The
committee might also get some information
from kilograms sent by Littler. Tanner and
others.
Mr.. w. B. Stevens, the Globe Democrat
correspondent. was recalled, and detailed
the conversation previously referred to,
which was between Mr.. Dockery and him.
self. n in which q delay in the testimony
was suggested. He stated that the sugges-
tlon for q delay in the testimony did not
come from the committee or any Of its
members. and Mr.. Dockery did not so as
sert. Mr.. Stevens said that the gentleman
10 whom General Boynton had referred
with respect to the Dingley-Payne CONVEX
sation was himself. 1t was a partial con-
versation. Then. turning to Mr.. Dlngley.
he said: You began talking In a whisper,
became more earnest, raised your voices.
and were talking loudly before you got
through. Iheard Mr.. Dingley say something
10 this effect: 1t was an entire surprise to
me lmeaning the Vest testimony l did
not know he was going to testify to any
such thing as that! You turning to Mr..
Paynel said Il had no idea what he was
going to say 1t struck me rs If you were
ca IN taken by surprise and were trying to
explain it each other. These seemed to be
expressions hat the circumstances under
which the testimony was brought were Pc
cultar, anu Iuab you IegTcttcQ tu0 tltuo dt
which it was brought out"
There was a general interruption by the
members of the committee at this point.
Mr.. Dingley and Mr.. Payne said while they
may have said something of the sort testi-
fed to by Mr.. Stevens, they had no purpose
except to get all the information as prompt
ly as possible, and they thought the publ
cations were not justified.
DOCKERY's REMARKABLE ADMISSION.
Representative Dockery said that the
statement Of Mr.. Stevens with regard to the
desire to delay senator Vests testimony
was substantially accurate. though he did
not think he had said Mr.. Vest did not want
70 testify. He probably expressed his own
desire not to testify until Wednesday. He
did not mean to nvey the impression that
tho committee desired that. YES" raid
Mr. Dookery, Il wanted to filibuster against
time"
said, in explanation of his course: Ger
itainly / did not want to bring out the testi-
mony concerning Senator Cameron until
Wednesday,. l have no concealment about
that now. During the time the resolution
was pending before the committee l formed
the belief that there were parties who
might desire that testimony in respect to
another bill. ! vas informed by q Senator
that another gentleman bad approached
hinf-I do not use approach in an offensive
W0y-oA0 ou6ACobO0 w SlO 0Oh0tOA Shou ~
would be just as well to let the resolution
for an investigation drop. To that sug
gestion tho Senator approached replied
that he could not afford to 90 that. and
The Senator then asked the gentleman
Why he wanted it dropped. This
manU replied that he did not
carer about it himself. but that
he understood that some of the boys had
bought silver, and the impression the Sen
atorigot was that they were nervous and
wanted the thing stopped. When asked to
say who the boys were. the gentleman
named two Representatives. The CONVEX
satlun was gwen to me, and thereupon /
frankly why / wished the testimony de-
layed. l believed that influences were be-
ing brought on the Senator in question
meaning tho Senator who was said to be
connected with silver speculation to make
him vote for the elections bill, and so 1
wanted the investigation delayed in the
hope of getting one more vote. 1t was just
o straw which proved very substantial.
and / want it distinctly understood that /
had no assurances whatever. and merely
went on the common rumor that his vote
on the elections bill was doubtful. No.
sir, / did not think that the exposure at
that time would endanger his prospects,"
Mr.. Dockery said he would prefer not to
give publicly the names of the two Repre-
sentatives who were mentioned, but he
would do SO privately. Senator Vest was
the man who gave him the
about the conversation.
Mr.. O'Brien Moore. correspondent of the
ST. Louis Republic, was the next witness.
He said he had no knowledge personally
concerning misrepresentation. He had heard
that Representatives Clunie, of California.
and Ketcham, of New York. were willing to
testify that they had speculated in silver,
and that Mr.. Clunie had lost money by IL.
Mr.. Peel examined the witness with re-
gard to a publication affecting his lPeePsl
said that Mr.. Perkins. of Kansas, who
was interested, according to re-
port, in silver speculation, had urged
Peeps appointment, and that the two
we're close friends. The testimony of Mr..
Moore was to the effect that Mr.. Peel had
told him that Mr.. Perkins informed him
Peel two hours before the Speaker an
bounced the committee that he IPerkinsl
on the committee to the Speaker.
Mr.. Peel desired to be sworn, and he con-
frmed what Mr.. Moore had said regarding
the conversation between them. Mr..
Moore further stated that the Democrats of
the House had recommended the appoint
ment of Jason Brown, of Indiana, on the
committee, and were disappointed
when Mr.. Peers appointment was an
nounced. Mr.. Peel testified that Mr.. Moore
had urged him not to serve on the commit
tee because Mr.. Perkins had recommended
his appointments; but he said that if Mr..
Perkins expected to be screened by his
lPeePsl appointment, he had sawed the
limb Oft between himself and the tree. fol
he would probe the matter to the bottom.