The times., 1897-04-24
Mr.. Spofford Identifies the Docu-
ments Stolen From Library.
THE OFFENSE A MISDEMEANOR
w. F. Havemeyer, of New York,
In Payment for Certain Manu-
scripts Purchased by HIN From
the Defendant.

hone, one of the parties accused of steal
ing valuable papers from the Congressional
Library, began yesterday morning in
criminal court, No 2, before Justice
Bradley closed at 4 O'Clock last even
ing with the testimony of William F.
still incomplete.
At the opening Of the trial in the morn
ing there was protracted discussion
OF a proposition as TO whether or not the
three Indictments against McElhone should
be consolidated, and Of the question: also,
as to whe ther the Offense should or
should not be classed as felony. II
of no more consequence than II misde
meanor, the counsel for defense would
have the right to challenge but three
jurors OF the panel; but if d felony. they
would have ten challenges. The court
held that 1t was misdemeauor. the
cases were consolidated and the right
of the defense TO challenge was restrict
ed to three.
a r. Spofford, the custodian OF the
Congressional Library, was first called as
a witness 1t came out in the course OF his
testimony that the abstracted manuscripts
were the property of the Government, and
that they Were part OF what's known ts
the Peter Force Collection" of valuable
papers. for the purchase of which Con gress
voted an appropriation OF 100000, in
1878 The papers were exhibited n
court. and identified by Mr Spofford lie
recognized those alleged TO be N the hand
=.
he knew them to be so from compari-
SONS of them with the Well authe nticatcd
autographs OF the author OF the papers
lie referred to Washington's dairy, the
one kept by him during The sessions OF
the Constitutional Convention of 1877, as
1.-The most precious Of the collection" He
knew the letter. purporting to he from
Benedict Arnold TO he genuine, for the
reason that it Is the only one of the
date, July, 1880. known to he in ex-
istence. He ident @fed that with the other
papers as belonging TO the Force Col
lection" when pressed by counsel 10
state how he knew, they were the same, Mr.
spofford finally exclaimed
Il know IL because these defendants
stole them and sold them in New York,
where they were afterward found y
An attempt was made 10 show that Mt
Spofford based hts identification Of the
papers upon the contents OF letter writ
ten by MI RentaTnin, in New York, To
Senator Hoar, but he would not admit it
"Do you not know, Mr.. Spofford, in
quired Mr.. shiliington, that there is a
large collection OF the Arnold letters in
Connecticut. the PROPERTY of u lady there?''
- NJ Ar
mold letters, but not OF that date he re-
piled.
We'll, now. Mr spofford,' said Mr..
shllington, Il DO not suppose Benedict
Arnold ever told you just how many let
terra he wrote in June, i78O.'
Mr. Davis inter jected a remark to the
effect that the comment by Mr. Shilling
ton was disrespectful to the witness, and
explained:
The witness has Just testified, your
honor, that there are no other Arno!ds
of that kind outside OF the Force collec-
ton, and he identifies them for that rca-
son and because they Were captured in
New York "
MI ShillingtOn protested that he only
desired to have the witness to state
just and sufficient reason for his identif-
cation. There S something behind IT"
he added, "and am after information.
"Misinformation, you mean. think
know what you are after, and l can tell
you that YOU have the wrong witness for
such questions as you have pIorounded "
was Mr.. Davis reIoinder.
Mr. SpofforG was asked If, at any line
bcforeo or after the arrestsof the defendants,
his attention had been called to the papers
in question, with request to identify
them. The question was ruled out
Mr.. Havemeynr, the next witness, is
resident of New York city, and the mau
to whom McEihoue and his alleged accom-
plice, Lewis NICK enzie Turner, are said to
have sold the purIOined manuscripts He
was called to identify the papers and to
testify as to his negotiations with the ac-
cused for the purchase. Letters had passed.
between them, and these were submitted
in evidence, together with the checks given
by Mr.. Havemeyeri in payment. The coun-
sci for the defense objected, and an ar
gument resulted, There had not been
sufficient foundation laid for their intro
duction, Mr. shiilington, said, and the ex-
animation Of the witness touching those
points was objected to.
Mr. Havemeyer could not say that the
copies of the letters taken from lis letter
book at home We're accurate, and the INTRO
dUction of these and the examination III
relation to them, were opposed by counsel
The District attorney then sought to show
that certain other papers, stolen from the
Library, but not included in the indictment,
We're purchased of McElhonc and Turner
by Havemeyer, but this was objected to,
upon the grounds that they had no connec-
ton with the issue.
District Attorney Davis explained that
Mr.. Havcmeyer was put upon the stand
before the Government was ready for him
solely to enable him, If possible to return
home tonight He said it was in direct
connection, however, to show that other
manuscripts than those specified in the
indictment. were sold by the accused
parties to Mr., Hayemeyer, as tending to
show the intent of the accused The copies
of the letters taken from Mr. Hayemeyer' s
book were not admitted. nor We're the
-