OCR Text |
Show GENERAL. I OTTER INYE&riGATIOX. Washington, 4. Mr IWd con ducted Anderson's cross-examination before the Potter committee to day and endeavored to bring out discrepancies discrep-ancies between witness' present storieB and his statements before the senate committee last fall. Contracts between be-tween Anderson and Nash and Weber c ere largely used for tbe purpose of showing contradiction and disregard of meral considerations on the part of the witness. For instance: He had sta'.ed on Saturday, in relation to the Nh.Ii contract, that at the time of its date he had uo evidence of fraud in bis possession and had cot pretended tlmt he had, and yet the contract re-citi'B re-citi'B that u is to Buppreea the evidence evi-dence showing that Ettat Feliciana had been fairly carried by tbe democratic demo-cratic party, the consideration for such suppression being that Nash was to secure for him the position of naval officer. He was pressed on that point as to whether his statement on Saiur-day(that Saiur-day(that he had no such evidence) was correct or not and he asserted that it .wi3, except that he had the Sherman , letter in his pocket at the lime (if that could be construed as auoh evi deuce), and als? except that he bad the knowledge that the vote of the Btate was to be thrown out on a forged pro-teat. pro-teat. He admitted also, that he did 1 not expect to get the position of naval officer. Question -Then that agreement does not expreeB the tru'h? Auswer Nn; not in that sense. 1 Q. You simply took this paper ! like a sort of immoral promissory note? A. That is about the construe tiou which amoral man might put ' upon if . Q. You were not very particular about stating the facta exactly in it. What you wanted was to get the thing I in that shape that it would hurt Nash I if ho did not carry it out? A. That was it exactly. i Q Is that the sort of transaction iyou frequently enter into? A. No; I never entered into anything of that I kind before until I waB brought in : contact with the republican officials in Louisiana. Q It is a common sort of docu-I docu-I meut in Louisiana? A. Yes, it is a common thing in Louisiana, j Q. Something like this: ' "I hereby I confess that I stole $100, and in consideration con-sideration ot that, I will give John Smith an office," and you both sign lit, and that binds you. Is that ihe sort of an agreement you are in the 'habit of making? A. No; I am not aware of its being a habit, j Q. You do not know how many more of these little promissory notes are out? A. That is the only one. Q You tried it ofl on a colored man first? A. Yes. Q. This little arrangement which you entered into with Weber, waa that nf a Bort ot promissory note, too? A No; I do not know that we prom-1 itsU auyihing to anybody. I Q. This arrangement with Naeh1 was, you say, bo that Nnrth would not throw you over? A. Exactly. Q. You got a tbiog that would blacken him if hedid not? A. Yes. And as lor yourself, blacking would improve you; weuld it? Wit-! Wit-! nes I do not know whether it j would or not. I Mr. Keed I think it would. ; Toe cross-examination was then directed to the object of showing a contradiction between the statement I in tbe Weber contract (that the parish had ueen carried by tbe democrats demo-crats by legitimate mmtin) and the statement made in Saturday's testimony testi-mony that there had been some slight intimidation in tbe parish. Witness testified that, betore the senate comma com-ma tee last fall, he had, lor the purpose pur-pose of carrying out hia implied bargain with Sherman, suppressed the tacts as much as ue could without swearine to a lie. He purposely misled mis-led that committee under oath. The i cross examination concluded with a repetition of the Btory of the interview inter-view with Sherman in New Orleans there baiog no noticeable variation iu tbe details. Tne committee adjourned till 11 to morrow. |