The Portland daily press., 1894-04-04

w
lecture or letter or speech. The
number of envelopes addressed to Miss
Pollard was about twenty at one
time and a few scattering ones before
that. There was nothing in her record,
she said, to indicate the character of
the work."
"Were you in the habit of making
memoranda of your work like this adj
dress of Miss Pollard?"
mo, | was not"
"Why did you put Miss Pollard's name
and address DOWN."
Because of the unusual character Of
the work. ---.
Major Butterworth endeavored to find
out how it was that she became known
as the writer of the Sister Louise let
ter but the witnes was unable 10 tell
him. She had mentioned the fact to
friends that she had written letters for
Col. Breckenridge.
Mrs. Lowell examined her note nook
again and said in answer to Mr.. Butter
worth that the earliest date was jan
uary, 1887, nearly year after the Sister
Louise letter is said to hSle been writ
ten. The witness said she did not know
how it came that she had put Miss
Pollard's name and address on the tly
leaf of this note book early in 1885
when she did not begin to enter memo
randa in it till January the next year.
To Judge Wilson she said the first
paper that Col. Breckenridge had
brought her was the letter beginning
my Dear Sister Louise" This was in
March or April. 1856. Two or three
weeks later, the witness endorsed several
envelopes addressed to Miss Pollard, and
it was then the entry was made. rhe
first charge made against Col. Breck in
ridge was March 16, 1886, but prior
to that the witness had done work for
him but had made no entry because
she did not know his name.
This concluded Mrs. Lowells examin-
alton and Col. Breckenridge resumed tne
stand for
Another Ordeal of Characterization.
He said he recognized Mrs. Lowell as
person whom he had seen in type-writ-
ing Office at the Capitol. She had done
some writing but comparatively little
work for him. He could not recall hav-
ing taken manuscript to Mrs. Lowell for
twill you deny that you did,"
II will not"
"Do you know where the manuscript
is that you have taken to herr"
II do not know, it was years ago and
it has probably been destroyed. 1t GER
tainly never was preserved after being
copied"
II will ask if in 1886 you delivered to
her manuscripts to be copied addressed
My Dear Sister Louisc?"
II did not.n
Col. Breckinridge denied that he de-
livered such manuscript in his own
hand writing to Mrs. Lowell.
Mr.. Wilson asked Col. Breckenridge If
he had not sent Miss Pollard letters adj
dressed to Sc North Upper street, Lex
aCertainly not in 1885," the witness
said. IL believe 1 did send some civil
service papers in 1881, but that is an
indistinct memory"
Did you not write to Miss Pollard in
1886 asking her to write you a letter ask
ing for some agricultural or civil report
and to sign the name Mary Smith to
it?"
II did not, / never did,"
Col. Brec kinridge denied that he had
at any time carried to Mrs Lowell a
SEPARATELY from the letters. :" l deny en-
tirely what the witness said on the sub
| ject," he said.
Mr.. Carlisle asked permission to put
Miss Pollard on the stand to more
fully identify the times she received
letters from Col. Breckenridge during
| their separations and how she received
and destroyed letters in 1885. The plain
tiff he said testified that during all
their selarat on she and the defendant
correspondent The defendant denied
this Major Butterworth objected, but
Judge Bradley agreed with Mr.. Carlisle
and
Miss Pollard Took the Stand.
Mr.. Carlisle ask ed: Miss Pollard. did
Won correspond with the defendant dur
| ing the session of 1885-6?"
Eyes" said Miss Pollard.
"Were the letters received from him
| typewriter or manuscript"
"All were typewriter"
"How were they addressed?
"Miss Pollard, Sc North Upper street,,
Lexington"
"Can you identify any of these letters
by the heading of the address,"
ayes, Mr.. Carlisle"
Identify one them"
"Well. remem Der he used My dear
| Sister,
that won't do"
Now said Mr.. Carlisle, can you
identity any letter by the address,"
Eyes. one.I remember was addressed
| MY Dear Sister,"
YES, sometimes it was my Dear
| Sweetheart or Dear Madeline.
In answer to Mr.. Carlisle she said ::
They were all destroyed, every one, as
soon as l read them. He always
| asked me to-"
| Major Butterworth asked If Miss Pol
| lard received other letters during the
| time named from Washington. Il don't
| know exactly" she said, but have Il
| recollection that he addressed me letters
| from Massachusetts at one time. The
| letters were signed with d lead pencil.
That was the only thing in his own
handwriting he did put on Them"
Miss Pollard was excused and Col.
Breckinridge taking thesstand again was
examined about the alleged letter begin
ming my Dear Sister Louise" Judge
Wilson asked if in. the Sister Louise"
letter, written by him, he did not re-
fer to the great disparity in ages of
"Sister Louise" and himself.
81 made no such reference for the rea-
son that there was no such letter dictat-
ed by me" was the answer.
81 did not say dictated, said writ
ten."
al did not write such letter."
Did you not in your correspondence
express your hope of seeing the recipi-
emit soon again and speak of your impa-
thence IN not being albe to see her,"
81 did not" said the Colonel.
He returned the same answers to
questions as to whether he did not d.
rect "Sister Louise" to be careful TO de-
| ctrov latters nc peonle were ant to find