The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-02-23

now to strike out the testimony of this
witness as incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial. Something over half an
hour ago Mr.. Evans stated before this
committee that he understood that Mr..
Wins was on the road down here.
Mr.. Evans-He is, Mr.. Thurman; the
sergeant-at-arms just now told me
that he is in there.
Mr.. Thurman-Very well, If you are
going to put him on, that will do away
with the question that 1 was going to
make.
Mr.. Evans-Yes, 1 am going to put
Mr.. WINS on the witness stand
THREE WEEKS AGO.
Cross-examination by Mr.. Dickson
When did you have the conversation
with WINS first? 1t is about three
weeks ago, as near as can recollect-
You have a pretty good memory,
have you? Yes, sir.
For conversations? Yes.
Have you for dates? Oh, if I care to
burden my mind with the date, 1 would
have.
Cannot you tell US about when this
was? I think it was about three
(nterrupting.) Was it during this
month? Well, l say three weeks ago;
this is the 22nd-15th, Shit would be
somewhere about the 1st of this month.
Was it in February or January I
couldn't swear.
About what time of night was it?
About midnight.
And on Sunday night? I wouldn'
swear it was Sunday night, but my
impression is that it was.
I thought I understood you to say
you do not even remember the day of
the week? I do not for certain.
Did you understand that what Mr..
WINS was relating to you was some
thing that occurred the same night?
Yes; ne had just come from
Jackson2 Yes.
Who raised the question whether the
term used was cost" or expense
you? I believe I did; think l did.
You made a distinction between
cost and expense" in determining
you and WINS, then, were trying at that
time. after WINS had talked with Jack
son. to determine in your own minds
whether what Fisher Harris said car
ried with ii any suggestion of bribery
That was my idea.
And whether it carried with it a sug-
gestion. of bribery, you thought would
be affected to some extent by the fact
that the word cost instead of Eek
pense" was used? OH
And debated that question? I want
ed to get at the exact language that
had been used by Mr.. Harris.
In order to arrive at a conclusion as
to what this meant, whether it meant
brfbe or not? If it was said no mat
ter what the COST" you would think tha-
ter what the cost, you would think that
meant bribery? 1 don't really know
whether I would cr not.
If he had said that the word was "nc
matter what the expense" you would
think that that would be a point more
directly to suggest bribery than il
cost" had been used? Well, probably
'cOSt' would be a little more
a little more suggestive? OF bribery
yes; they are very synonymous, but
probably ''cost" would be a little more
suggestive.
In your mind at all events the word
cost" would have been a little more
suggestive? I thought so.
And so when Mr.. WINS said to you
that the message was or the construc-
ton was TO secure Mr.. JacksOn's vote
no matter what the expense, you sug-
gested to Mr.. WINS that perhaps the
word cost" might have been used in
stead Of expense? No; did not.
You asked him? No; don't think
did
Didn't you say it at the time, at your
SlAs5 StSLltu llle QuCSllOI dIQSG " nclltl
the word cost or expense was used
No, not exactly; as I said before, I
wanted to get his exact words.
CONSIDERED THE WORD.
Didn't you say to me a moment ago
that il was you who first raised the
question whether or not the word cost
or the word expense had been used
Well, / may have done.
Didn't you say so? 1 said I may
have done.
Didn't you two minutes ago state
that you did? I think not.
CTestimony read)
I would not be certain.
You had in your mind the thought
that the word cost would be more
suggestive than expense; you have
stated that, haven't you? I said that
that was my Interpretation of it now
Wasn't it then? I don't know.
Didn't you state that then you
thought the word cost" would be more
suggestive? I stated that I thought
now that cost would be more sugges-
tive.
Didn't you think so then? I don't
know whether 1 did or not.
And isn't that why you were in
terrogating Mr.. WINS as to whether
the word cost was used? I interrogat-
cd him for the purpose of satisfying my
mind as to whether this offer or alleged
offer was in the nature of a bribe or
not and l wanted to get his exact
language as near as possible. so that
could arrive at some definite con-
clUsiOn in my own mind as to the
meaning of il.
So when Mr.. WINS came in and made
this statement you at once asked him
whether he used either the word Eek
pense" or cost? No; did not.
Well, in the course of that CONVEX
sation you asked him. Really 1 don't
think I ever put it that way.
Whether he used there that word
expense? There was no particular
play on the words expense and
cost" nc fine distinction drawn.
You We're trying to find out, to have
it definitely from him whet.7-r the
word Harris used was cost" or Eek
pense," weren't you? Not particularly
between those two words, it was the
whole conversation, or the whole
proposition.
That was a part of the conversation.
wasn't It? Yes.
Whether the word cost" had been
used or the word expense wasn't it?
No; not particularly.
Was that part of the conversation?
Wen, the cost and expense were men
toned.
Was that a part of the discussion be-
tween you and WINS that evening.
whether the word cost had been used
or the word expense? Yes.
HARRIS MADE NO PROMISE.
Yes. WINS did not, did he, say that
Fisher Harris had promised to give
him a thousand dollars? No; he said
ne could have a thousand.
Did he say that Harris had told him
that ne would give him thousand
dollars? No; he did not.
II he got Jackson's vote? No.
Did ne say that Harris had said that