Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-06
Would you have changed or qualified

tuting Of another grammar which Is a
trust book
Would you have written that Massey
and his wife went upon an extensive trip
TO Mexico months before they were mar
rled?"
II would not. sir"
The witness said that he complained at
mis- reception by Mr.. McGilvray at the
Office Of Attorney-General In answer TO
questions asked By Mr.. Nicely. the Wit
ness stated that he had very high
opinion of both Governor O'Ferrall and
Acknowledgement Scott, and did not in
any way question their transactions in
these book matters
AT the time that you wrote this ar
tlcle, did you know that you already had
had copies OF these cOntracts?'
II did. sir"
why did you not so state
Il did not deem that necessary"
Did YOU suppose that there was any
thiI.y in these contracts you were applying
for that were not in the contracts which
had been already furnished your
Il did not"
Mr. Byrd went in here TO state that
he had only seen the first copies for a
few hours. and the copies had been lost.
Then il became necessary for him 10
have other copies Of these contracts. lie
ftlt lNdi ne was tnlltltl ~ ttsH' anu
wrote 10 Mr.. John rutherford, whose
trouble in getting such records has al
ready been testified to-
MIR Byrd was vigorously cross-examined
by Mr.. Nicely upon the paragraph
which referred to Mr. Nassey's poll
cy in this matter as q "dark-lantern'
policy, the intent Of counsel being to show
that the contract copies were promptly
furnished In accordance with the regu-
lations Of the statute.
WHY INTRODUCE MGiLVRAY.
sir. Nicely asked Mr.. Byrd why he
brought Mr.. McGilvray's name into That
article the reply was: II believed that
Mr. McGIlvray and Mr.. Massey were In
With each other
What were the grounds Of this be
,ief?"
Il knew it from what | regarded a
very reliable source. | knew that Mr..
McGivray was In the employ Of the
American Book Company
Counsel for the defence objected 10
hringing Mr. McGivray into the case.
as It wac collateral matter. The Court
50 held
When the witness went before the meet
ing of the board he said he and Judge
Rhea and the others INDUCED mostly
in A discussion Of whether or not the con
'racts were exclusive. lie saw that 1t
30 the sense Of the board that the con-
.c'- were exclusive, and left the meet
His main object in going before the
aolrl was to get Tarbell's Language Les
sons placed on the alternate LIST.
IF you had gotten Tarbeli's Language
Lessons on that list would this article
I'm the Pilot have been written?
Il do not think It would.
why"
Because | should have accomplished
nv object In going before the board, ana
The investigation which I had under
taken would have been dropped. The
article was largely based upon evidence
discovered by me after that time
witness said that CHM & CO. paid MIN
nothing for the article, but that theN
did pay him for making the examination
II was his purpose to bring the facts
leaned by him 10 the attention OF the
LEGISLATURE as a matter for special
investigation by that body. Mr.. Byrd
added that he saw the articles which had
previously appeared In the Pilot, ana
observed that they were somewhat mixed
up. He then went 20 Ncv York and con-
ffrred with CHM & Co. about publishing
what he knew. and was told by that
firm TO use his own judgment In the mat
ter.
Mr.. Nicely questioned the witness go 10
whether or not he had ever gwen any
member Of the Board Of Directors OF TIE
PILOT Company. or any one else conhecte'i
with that paper. any assurance 10 ',lhh
that the firm OF CHM Il Co. would bear
the responsibility of any damages from
libel resulting from the publication, and
would pay for counsel.
The witness here claimed the protection
the law gave him as counsel Tor Inc de-
PENDANTS In this case. and ala not answer
the attorneys interrogatory.
There was some argument upon TINS
matter between Mr.. Wise and Mr.. Nee:y,
Mr.. Wise taking the ground that any
body had a right 10 Pay lawyers Zee.
The defence he said had perfect right
Ia attempt TO show that the fees OF
Messrs Wake. Nicely, and Thorn were
being paid by the American Book Com
pany. .,,..
MIR Wake. somewhat warmly; we
accord 10 YOU the right 10 make all the
inquiry you choose in this matter
HE DiSAPPROVED.
Mr.. Thorn questioned the witness close
iy and at length as TO his 1Byrdsl eriti-
cisns OF the Virginia book contract, a.
comnared with the contracts IN other
states a number of the questions being
hypothetical and based on things that
Mr. Thorn expects to prove. showing tha'
the Virginia contracts are proper ones.
Witness absolutely d.sapproved the po-
ucv of the State Board OF Education
of Virginia. as 20 the manner OF adopting
school-bo0ks. and thought that every
body should be admitted TO the meetings
as in Louisiana.
Mr.. Byrd did blame the Governor
and the Attorney General (members OF
Of EInqatiou1 moi doing
what he (Mr. Byrd thought ought 10 be
done in the book matters. as he n3yFdl
believed these matters were left 10 Mr..
Nasscy's Judgment, he being at the
mead OF the educational department.
When asked by Mr. Thorn If he would
not like for the Virginia Legislature 10
adopt a different school system, Mr. Byrd
replied that lac would like 10 see the Nir-
ginia Legislature adopt different school
superintendent.
Air Neely. for the plaintiff. asked the
witness what proportion Of the books OF
Virginia were furnished by the different
ccmpanies. lie replied he guessed that
the American Book Company furnishes
two thirds
MIR Thorn asked witness when he re-
ceived his last payment from CHM &
co. for the Investigations he made.
Witness replied: Last fall, prior 10
the publication OF the Massey article
W. y. JAMES TESTIFIES.
ur " b. James was called by MIR.
Wise He said he resided in Franklin
county. and was twice member or the
House of Delegates and once IL member
of the Senate OF Virginia. lie had known
John r. Massey since 1854.
Now. MIR. James" said Mr W lse'
will YOU state whether John r. Masse!
ever offered you bribe?
II object" interposed Mr. Thorn.