|;iii:!^i^;:.>Silll!!!!'iii';^y'l^ 
 
 

 Cornell University Law Library 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Date 
 
 ?.^e....G,r...W».. Harding.. .E 
 
 Hume, New York 
 May 23, 1958 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KF4921.A2 1860 
 
 The Covode investigation :report /House 
 
 3 1924 019 948 607 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019948607 
 
56th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES. f Report 
 1st Session. [ (No. 648. 
 
 THE COVODE INVESTIGATrON. 
 
 June 16, 1S60. — Ordered to be printed 
 
 Mr. Train, from the select committee, Bubmittod the following 
 
 REPORT: 
 
 The committee appointed under the resolutions offered b}' the Hon. 
 John Covode, and adopted by the House, on the oth of March last, 
 entered upon their duties upon Tuesday, March 20, 1860, and have 
 pursued them with as much assiduity as the circumstances under 
 which they were appointed, and the events following the adoption of 
 the resolutions, would allow. 
 
 Your committee found themselves greatly embarrassed in pursuing 
 their investigations for several reasons. First, because, although 
 they had been clothed by this House with power to send for persons 
 and papers, no appropriation of money was made by Congress until 
 tJie 24th day of May last. Your committee, therefore, did not feel 
 at liberty to summon witnesses from a distance to attend upon their 
 investigations, when they would be compelled to take the certificates 
 of the Clerk in discharge of their fees, and dispose of them here in 
 "Washington at a discount. In some instances the chairman of your 
 committee has furnished his own money to aid in carrying forward 
 the investigation. In other instances your committee have sum- 
 moned as witnesses persons whom they have found here in the city, 
 in preference to sending for parties at a distance, when there had 
 been no provision made by Congress for the payment of their fees. 
 ■ Again : on the 28th day of March last the President of the United 
 States saw fit to submit to this House his solemn protest_ against its 
 proceedings in the appointment of this committee. This seems to 
 your committee to have been a proclamation to the world that the 
 whole power of the Executive, instead of being exercised to forward 
 an investigation into its administration of affairs, would be exercised 
 to protect those who might choose to disobey the summons of the 
 Speaker of this House, or who, having obeyed the summons, might 
 refuse to testify before your committee. In any event, it was a 
 declaration on the part of the President of the United States which 
 his adherents would not fail to regard. Under these circumstances, 
 your committee have prosecuted their investigation to as great an 
 extent as the time and means allowed them would permit. 
 
2 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 The President, in his protest, having denied the power of ' the 
 House ' ' to investigate whether the President of the United States 
 or any other officer of the government has, by money, patronage, or 
 other improper means, sought to influence the action of Congress, or ■ 
 • any committee thereof, for or against the passage of any bill pertain- 
 ing to the rights of any State or Territory," and the investigating 
 "whether any officer or officers of the government have, by combi- 
 nation or otherwise, prevented or defeated, or attempted to prevent- 
 er defeat, the execution of any law now upon the statute-book, and 
 whether the President has failed or refused to compel the execution 
 of any law thereof," your committee have thought proper, in the 
 first instance, to examine the history of Congress, and ascertain if 
 there were any precedents which might control their conduct. • 
 
 Eegarding the construction of the first clause of the resolution as- 
 one involving the abuse of the power of the government by any offi- 
 cer thereof, your committee find upon examination that as early as 
 the 8th of February, 1826, the following resolution was submitted to 
 the Senate by Mr. Macon, and adopted: 
 
 ^^ Resolved, That the committee to whom was referred the several 
 resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States be in- 
 structed to inquire into the expediency of diminishing or regulating 
 the patronage of the Executive of the United States, and that the- 
 committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise." 
 
 On the 4th of the following May Mr. Benton, from the same com- 
 mittee, presented a report, from which your committee make the 
 following extracts: 
 
 ''The patronage of the federal government at the beginning was 
 founded upon a revenue of $2,000,000; it is now operating upon 
 $22,000,000, and within the lifetime of many now living must operate 
 upon $50, 000, 000. The whole revenue must in a few years be wholly 
 applicable to subjects of patronage. 
 
 "Po^wer over a man's support has always been held and admitted! 
 to be power over his will. The President has power over the sup- 
 port of all these officers, and they again have power over the support 
 of debtor merchants to the amount of $10,000,000 per annum, and 
 over the daily support of an immense number of individuals, profes- 
 sional, mechanical, and day laboring, to whom they can and will 
 extend or deny a valuable private as well as public patronage, accord- 
 ing to fte part which they shall act in State as well as federal 
 elections. 
 
 ''The power of patronage, unless checked by the vigorous inter- 
 position of Congress, must go on increasing until federal influence in 
 many parts of this confederation will predominate in elections as 
 conapletely as British influence predominates in the elections of Scot- 
 land and Ire and, m rotten-borough towns, and the great nj^val sta- 
 tions of Portsmouth and Plymouth. In no part of the practical 
 operation of the federal government has the prediction of its ablest I 
 atr°o°na^e "'"''^ completely falsified than in this subject of ", 
 
 "With the Blue Book they will discover enough to show that the 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 predictions of those who were not blind to the defects oi^^JSCSj^- 
 tution are ready to be reahzed; that the power and influence" of federal 
 patronage, contrary to the argument in the 'Pederahst,' is an over- 
 match for the power and influence of State patronage; that its work- 
 ings will contaminate the purity of all elections, and enable the federal 
 government eventually to govern throughout the States as eifectually 
 as if they were so many provinces of one vast empire. 
 
 "The whole of this great power will centre in the President. The 
 King of England is the ' fountain of honor;' the President of the United 
 States is the source of patronage. He presides over the entire 
 system of federal appointments, jobs, and contracts. He has ' power' 
 over the ' support' of the individuals who administer the system. 
 He makes and unmakes them. He chooses from the circle of his 
 friends and supporters, and may dismiss them, and, upon all the 
 principles of human action, will- dismiss them as often as they disap- 
 point his expectation. His spirit will animate their action in all the 
 elections of State and federal oflBcers.' 
 
 ," We must then look forward. to the time when the public revenue 
 will be doubled ; when the civil and military officers of .the federal 
 government will be quadrupled; when its influence over individuals 
 will be multiplied to an indefinite extent ; when the nomination 
 by the President will carry any man through the Senate, and his 
 recommendation can carry any measure through the two houses of 
 Congress when the principle of public action Avill be open and 
 avowed. The President wants my vote and I want his patronage. I 
 will vote as he wishes, and he will give me the office I wish for." 
 Those which, in 1826, were words of prophecy, seem already to 
 have met their fulfilment ai^d become the stern record of history. 
 
 On the 4th of March, 1828, Mr. James Buchanan, then a repre- 
 sentative from Pennsylvania, speaking upon this subject, said : 
 
 ' ' The nature of man is the same under republics and under mon- 
 archies. The history of the human race proves that liberty can never 
 long be preserved without popular jealousy. It is a condition of its 
 enjoyment that our rulers must be narrowly, watched. ***** 
 It is a maxim of despots that the people should never inquire into 
 the concerns of government. Those who have enslaved mankind, 
 from Otesar to Bonaparte, have always endeavored, by presenting 
 them with amusement and by every other means in their power, to 
 attract the attention of the people from the conduct of their rulers, 
 ******** jf ^}je government has been administered 
 upon correct principles, an intelligent people will do justice to their 
 rulers; if not, they will take care that every abuse shall be corrected, 
 * * * * *>' 
 
 "It is true that, in times like the present, the republic is always 
 most in danger when the clouds of adversity are lowering over the 
 eountry, and when direct taxation becomes necessary for the support 
 of the government, the people are watchful and jealous, and will 
 then attend strictly to their own concerns. It is in the halcyon days 
 of peace and prosperity, when the jealousy of the people slumbers, 
 that abuses are most likely to steal into the administration of your 
 
4 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION", 
 
 government. I charge not the present administration with corrup- 
 tion; but. I do most solemnly believe that several of their measures 
 have had a strong tendency towards it. * * * * * A 
 republican government ought to be open in its conduct, and have as 
 few secrets as possible. 
 
 "I now advance to attack the position in the argument of my col- 
 league, which I believe to be a pei'fect paradox. He asserted, and 
 attempted to prove, that the patronage of the government did not 
 tend to strengthen, buf. rather to weaken the administration by which 
 it was distributed. If that gentleman's character for candor were 
 not above suspicion, as I firmly believe it to be, I should doubt his 
 sincerity. To establish this position, he says that gratitude is a weaker 
 passion than self-love, which I admit; and that, therefore, the admin- 
 istration loses more by disappointed candidates, than they gain by 
 their appointments. But does not the gentleman know that when a 
 man is once appointed to office, all the selfish passions of his nature 
 are enlisted for the purpose of retaining it ? All office-holders are 
 but enlisted soldiers of thaf administration by which they are sus- 
 tained. Their comfortable existence often depends upon a i-e-elec- 
 tion of their patrons; nor does disappointment long rankle in the 
 hearts of the disappointed; hope is still left to them, and bearing dis- 
 appointment with patience they know will present a new claim to 
 office at a future time." * * * * 
 
 "For my part, judging from history, when this government was 
 commencing its operations, and when its patronage was comparatively 
 small, it required the immense weight of character which the Father 
 of his Country possessed to put the wheels of the machine into suc- 
 cessful motion. I think there was then more danger of a dissolution, 
 than a consolidation of the confederacy. I should then, when the 
 words had some meaning, have been a federalist rather than an anti- 
 federalist. I have been called a federalist, and I shall never be 
 ashamed of the name. The times have since greatly changed. The 
 power and patronage of this .government have been extended, and 
 are felt in every neighborhood in this vast empire. There is now 
 infinitely more danger of consolidation than disunion ; and the States 
 ■should now be jealous of every encroachment upon their rights. The 
 argument of my colleague would put them to sleep. Upon his theory 
 the British government must be very weak, because it possesses tea, 
 nay, I may say, twenty fold the patronage of this government." — 
 (Gales & Seaton's Reg. Deb., vol. 4, part 1, page 1362.) 
 
 On the 6th of January, 1835, Mr. CaUioun submitted in the Senate 
 the following resolution, which was agreed to : 
 
 "Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into? 
 the extent of Executive patronage, the circumstances which have con- ' 
 tnbuted to its great increase^of late, the expediency and practicability 
 of reducing the same, and the means of such reduction ; and that they 
 have leave to report by bill or otherwise." 
 
 From his report on that resolution your committee take the fol 
 lowing extract : 
 
 "So long as offices were considered as public trusts, to be con- 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 5 
 
 ferred on the honeist, the faithful, and capable, for the common good, 
 and not for the benefit or gain of the incumbent or his party ; and so 
 long as it was the practice of the government to continue in office 
 those who faithfully performed their duties, this patronage, in point 
 of fact, was limited to the mere power of nominating to accidental 
 vacancies, or to newly created offices, and could, of course, exercise 
 but a limited influence either over the body of the community or office- 
 holders themselves. But when this practice was reversed; when 
 offices, instead of being considered as public trusts to be conferred on 
 the deserving, were regarded as the spoils of victory, to be bestowed 
 as rewards for partisan services without respect to merit ; when it 
 became to be understood that all who hold office hold by tenure of 
 partisan zeal and party services, it is easy to see that the certaiuj 
 ditect, and inevitable tendency of such a state of things is to con- 
 vert the entire body of those in office into corrupt and supple instru- 
 ments of power, and to raise up a host of hungry, greedy, and 
 subservient partisans for every service, however base and corrupt. 
 Were a premium offered for the best means of extending the power of 
 patronage, to destroy the love of country, and to substitute a spirit 
 of subserviency and man-worship; to encourage vice and discourage 
 virtue ; and, in a word, to prepare for the subversion of liberty and 
 the establishment of despotism, no scheme more perfect could be de- 
 vised. And such must be the tendency of the practice with whatever 
 intention adopted, or to whatever extent pursued. * * * * ^g 
 long as the influence of the Executive is so moderate as to compel him 
 to identify his administration with the public interests, and to hold 
 his patronage subordinate to the principles and measures necessary to 
 promote the public good, the Executive power may be said to act 
 within the sphere assigned to it by the Constitution, and may be con- 
 sidered as essential to the steady and equal operation of the govern- 
 ment. But when it becomes so strong as to be capable of sustaining 
 itself by its influence alone, unconnected with any system of measures 
 or policy, it is a certain indication of the near approach of irresponsi- 
 ble and despotic power. When it attains that point, it will be dif- 
 ficult to find anywhere in our system a power sufficient to restrain 
 its progress to despotism." 
 
 ■ On the 6th of August, 1852, Mr. Houston introduced in the Senate 
 the following resolution: 
 
 "Besolved, That a committee of five be appointed to inquire into 
 abuses, bribery, or fraud in the prosecutions of claims before Con- 
 gress, commissions, or the departments; or in passing through Con- 
 gress bills embracing private individual or corporate interests; or in 
 obtaining or granting contracts; and that said committee have power 
 to send for persons and papers, and to examine witnesses under 
 oath." 
 
 On the 22d of March, 1853, Mr. Borland made a report, by which 
 it appeared that they had examined witnesses bearing heavily upon 
 the President, Mr. Fillmore, and other high executive officers. It is 
 to be observed that no resistance was made to that inquiry. On the 
 25th of February the President addressed a note to Mr. Underwood 
 
€ THE COVODE INVESTIGATION'. 
 
 simply denying the truth of the testimony of Eobert Smith as it 
 affected him, he having been theretofore notified of its contents. 
 
 With these precedents before theni, your committee have felt at 
 liberty to investigate the conduct of the President of the United 
 States or any other officer of the government, not only as to whether 
 they had " by money, patronage, or other improper means sought to 
 influence the action of Congress or any committees thereof for or 
 against the passage of any bill," &c.; but as to the manner in which 
 the patronage of the government,, by direction of the President or 
 any of his subordinates, has been administered, in subsidizing the 
 public press, in carrying elections, State or federal, or in affecting 
 the legislation of either branch of Congress, believing that either of 
 these subjects of inquiry are properly within the purview of the reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, &C. 
 
 Your committee first direct the attention of the House to that por- 
 tion of the testimony which relates to the Kansas policy of the present 
 administration of the government. The patriot will mourn, the his- 
 torian will pause with astonishment over this shameless record. 
 Accustomed as the American people are to the errors and crimes of 
 those in power, they will read this exposure with feelings of un- 
 mingled indignation. The facts revealed by the testimony prove 
 conclusively — 
 
 First. The emphatic and unmistakable pledges of the President, as 
 well before as after his election, and the pledges of all his cabinet to 
 the doctrine of leaving the people of Kansas "perfectly free to form 
 and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." 
 - Second. The deliberate violation of this pledge, and the attempt to 
 convert Kansas into a slave State by means of forgeries, frauds, and 
 force. 
 
 Third. The removal of and the attempt to disgrace the sworn agents 
 of the administration who refused to violate this pledge. 
 
 Fourth. The open employment of money in the passage of the Le- 
 compton and English bills through the Congress of the United States. 
 _ Fiftk The admission of the parties engaged in the work of elec- 
 tioneering those schemes that they received enormous sums for this 
 purpose, and proof in the checks upon which they were paid by an 
 agent of the administration. 
 
 Sixth. The offer to purchase newspapers and newspaper editors by 
 offers of extravagant sums of money. 
 
 Seventh. And finally, the proscription of democrats of high standing 
 who would not support the Lecompton and English bills. 
 
 The evidence of Hon. Robert J. Walker is conclusive as to the first 
 of these facts; and it is so compact and clear as to require no com- 
 
THE COVODE IKVESTIGATION. 7 
 
 ment. A gentleman born in a free State, a democrat of high standing . 
 and approved authority, he convicts the President and his cabinet, 
 not aloneof duplicity and inconsistency, but of treachery to himself 
 as a public qfScer, after they had implored him to accept a perilous 
 and profitless position, and to a principle which they were the first 
 to present to his favor. . The treatment which Governor Walker re- 
 tceived evinces a depth of ingratitude unusual among politicians. It 
 -shows how, even in our happy country, power may not only be used 
 to destroy an honest citizen, but also be wielded to overthrow the 
 -vital elements of constitutional liberty. He was selected as the best 
 instrument to carry out the promise of permitting the people of Kansas 
 "to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." 
 'Tempted into Kansas by the representation that if he settled the Kansas 
 ■question it would add new laurels to his name, he went forth armed with 
 "the assurances, written and verbal, of the national administration, that 
 he would be sustained and strengthened in the good work. He re- 
 .mained long enough to see himself betrayed and deserted, and the 
 j)eople of Kansas turned over to the keeping of reckless officials and 
 pro-slavery mobs. It has been frequently alleged, and as frequently 
 'denied, that the administration of President Buchanan intended con- 
 verting Kansas into a slave State. Elected, as he was, upon the 
 •distinct understanding that the destiny of Kansas should be decided 
 t>y the people of Kansas, and advocated all over the north because of 
 his supposed sympathy with northern sentiment upon this subject, it 
 was indeed a treason hard to comprehend, a crime difficult to credit, 
 that his was the hand that struck the blow at the sacred right he 
 had so ostentatiously defended; and yet Governor Walker and abund- 
 ant witnesses fasten this ineffacable stigma upon the name of James 
 Buchanan. 
 
 The impression, however, which will be made upon the country 
 by Governor Walker's testimony, establishing, as it does most 
 conclusively, the triple crime of the administration in desert- 
 ing, first, a sacred principle, then faithful public servants, and 
 finally in attempting by forgery, force, and fraud, to make Kansas 
 a slave State, strong and lasting as this impression must be, 
 it will sink into insignificance beffere the astounding develop- 
 ments contained in the testimony, respectively, of Mr. Wendell, Mr. 
 Bean, and Mr. P. W. Walker; fortunately for the cause_ of truth, the 
 ■evidence of those witnesses does not depend upon their own admis- 
 sions, however reluctantly or freely made, the appalling fact that 
 money was lavishly expended to carry the Lecomptqn and English 
 ibills i's unanswerably proved by the books and other records of the 
 JBank of the Metropolis, of Washington, through which the parties 
 ♦conducted their business operations: with all the ingenuity of these 
 parties to escape the responsibility of so degrading a position, the 
 fact is proved by their unconscious contradictions of each other; and 
 in at least one case, that of P. W. Walker, who has laid himself open 
 to the grave charge of perjury, the House of Representatives took 
 -prompt action by expelling him from the reporters' gallery, as an 
 attache of the New York Express; a decree which, in itself, is the 
 
8 THE COVODE INVfiSTIGATION, 
 
 best construction tliat could be placed upon the accusation that mouejr 
 was used to carry the Lecompton and English bills through the Con- 
 gress of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Wendell, in his testimony, to which the House is respectfully 
 referred, admits that he expended between $30, 000 and $40, 000 for this 
 purpose. He is a witness whose credibility cannot be impeached, at least 
 by the administration. He has borne the very closest relations to the 
 venerable head of that administration. Hehas been consulted bycabmet 
 ministers and by the intimate friends of the President and his consti- 
 ■ tutional advisers: They took him into their secrets in 1857, after he 
 had made himself universally known as a daring and somewhat reck- 
 less operator in the jobs and contracts of the departments. Henc&, 
 when Mr. Wendell swears to having spent that large amount of mpney 
 to carry the Lecompton and English bills, and when this expenditure 
 is proved by his bank books, and by the confessions or admissions of 
 such of his agents as your committee have been able to bringbefore 
 them, the conclusion is irresistible that he acted throughout with the 
 consent, if not the knowledge, of the "President of the United States. 
 Tour committee need not multiply comments upon this part of the 
 revelations contained in the testimony, save to add that it was natu- 
 ral that what begun in treachery to principle and friends should ter- 
 minate in confessed and unexampled corruption. 
 
 The testimony of John W. Forney, the present Clerk of tbe House 
 of Representatives, is not to be overlooked in this connexion. While 
 it shows a general willingness on the part of thfe President to subsi- 
 dize the public press, it proves also the strcyig determination to buy 
 all wh9 could be bought, and to crush out the honest men who couldi 
 not be bribed or seduced into an affiliation with the administration in 
 its Lecompto.i policy. The evidence shows clearly that Mr. Forney 
 was oiFered the printing of the post office blanks, worth at least 
 $80,000, upon the condition that he should, by an editorial no larger 
 than a man's hand, promise subserviency to the administration in its- 
 Kansas policy. 
 
 It is due to the committee that it should here be stated that Alex- 
 ander Hay, who received over $20, 000 at the hands of Mr. Wendell, 
 to be employed in the passage of the Lecompton and English bills, 
 was subpoenaed by order of your committee, and failed to appear.. 
 Process was thereupon issued by order of the House to compel his 
 attendance, which Mr. Hay avoided; and the most . strenuous efforts- 
 on the part of the officers of the House failed to procure his arrest- 
 When it is remembered that at the outset twenty-four members of 
 the House of Representatives opposed the Kansas policy of the ad- 
 ministration, and that this number finally dwindlexl down to twelve, 
 and enough were found to carry the bill through the House, the 
 committee leave it to the country to judge "whether the President 
 of the United States, or any other officer of the government, has, 
 by monej'-, patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence- 
 the action of Congress, or any committees thereof, for or against the 
 passage of any law appertaining to the rights of any State or Terri- 
 tory." 
 
THH COVODE INVESTIGATION. 9' 
 
 Pinall)-, it was more important to the administration to subdue the 
 freemen of Kansas than the polygamists of Utah. It has always been 
 charged that the war in Utah was gotten up for the purpose of 
 fastening slavery upon Kansas. To most minds the letter of the Pre- 
 sident to Governor Walker, of July 12, 1857, will furnish satisfactory 
 proof of the allegation: " General Harney has been- selected to com- 
 mand the expedition to Utah. But we must continue to have him 
 with you, at least until you are out of the woods. Kansas is vastly 
 more important at the present moment than Utah." 
 
 Upon this administration shall hereafter rest the awful responsi- 
 bility of delaying the removal of the army from Kansas' until the 
 winter of 1857, which was the cause of the fearful loss and suffering 
 occasioned by the inability of the army to reach Salt Lake. 
 
 It should be added, in concluding this portion of the report, that 
 Messrs. Hickman and Adrain, members of this House, having, upon 
 the floor of this House, deliberately asserted that they had been 
 corruptly approached by the administration during the Lecompton 
 controversy, the following action was had in the committee : 
 
 Mr. Train moved that Messrs. Hickman and Adrain be summoned 
 before the committee. 
 
 Mr. Winslow objected on the ground that the House had ordered 
 a special committee, on the motion of Mr. Hoard, to e:^amine th© 
 matters with which those gentlemen had been connected. 
 
 Mr. Covode said that as it appeared likely that the examination 
 of the persons named would protract the session, and as they had 
 already made their charges in the House, he was willing to let the 
 matter go, and pursue it no further. 
 
 The committee being equally divided (Mr. Olin being absent) the 
 motion of Mr. Train was not agreed to. 
 
 The honorable Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, a member of 
 this House, was twice summoned before this committee and declined 
 to appear. Your committee did not feel at liberty to ask the House 
 to compel his attendance. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 ABUSES AT THE PHILADELPHIA CUSTOM-HOUSE AND OTHEE PUBLIC OFFICES. 
 
 Your committee, under the second clause of the first resolution 
 trader which they were appointed, have directed their attention to 
 the charges of corruption and malpractice in the administration of the 
 offices of the government at Philadelphia. Their investigation has 
 been directed principally to two points, viz : 
 
 1. The improper combinations among the federal officers with a 
 view to control the sentiments and preferences of the people in their 
 primary political movements. 
 
 2. The improper and corrupt use of the public moneys in the em- 
 
1-0 THE COYODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 ployment of persons in the public service, in violation of law and 
 government regulations ; and the efforts on the part of the officers of 
 the government to defeat the statutes of the United States, enacted 
 for the purpose of protecting the public treasury from unjust claims 
 and improvident and unnecessary expenditures. 
 
 In relation to each of these points your committee^ have been in- 
 formed of. various instances of the corruptions existing m th^ manage- 
 ment of the Philadelphia custom-house and navy yard. Your com- 
 mittee have confined their investigations to a few of each class oi 
 cases, but sufficient to establish the allegation that, on the part of 
 certain officers holding high positions under the present administra- 
 tion, very little regard has been paid either to the laws of Congress 
 or to their duty as public officers. 
 
 In relation to the first point, the evidence shows a most reckless 
 disregard, by the collector of the port of Philadelphia, of the rights 
 ■of the people of the State of Pennsylvania to the free and untram- 
 melled exercise of their political rights as citizens. It appears from 
 the evidence that he has abused the powers of his office, and used 
 the public patronage under his control, in unjustifiable attempts to 
 direct and manage political party organizations, which belong exclu- 
 sively to the citizens of a sovereign State, and with which the execu- 
 tive officers of the federal government, as such, cannot interfere 
 without endangering the most sacred rights of the people, and weak- 
 ening our system of government, by destroying all confidence and 
 respect for those who administer the laws. The evidence on this 
 ■subject is found in the testimony of John H. Bryant, Francis Grice, 
 Samuel B. Grice, Francis McCormick, John F. Schell, Andrew Bru- 
 maker, George Downey, Patrick Lafferty, and John Dunn, the few 
 witnesses that your committee have examined in relation thereto. 
 
 In relation to the second point of inquiry, your committee have 
 established by incontestible evidence, a flagrant disregard and viola- 
 tion of law on the part of some of the officers and employes in the 
 Philadelphia custom-house and navy yard, and especially in relation 
 to Joseph B. Baker, the collector of the port of Philadelphia, and 
 his brother, George W. Baker, amounting to a series of felonies, sub- 
 jecting the guilty parties to prosecution and punishment in the dis- 
 trict or circuit court of the United States. Your committee would 
 feel disposed to recommend to Congress some immediate action upon 
 this subject ; if, in vieAV of the total disregard that has been paid by 
 the executive branch of the government to a former recommendation 
 made ^n the case of Mr. Seaman, former Superintendent of Public 
 Printing, and of the complicity of the President in protecting the 
 parties now referred to, by retaining them in office for nearly three 
 months after the matter had been brought to his notice, and to the 
 notice of the heads of the proper departments, your committee could 
 entertain any well-grounded hope that such a recommendation would 
 be regarded. The subject, however, is one for the proper consider- 
 ation of the Executive and his prosecuting officers at Philadelphia ; 
 and if they, as faithful public functionaries having a due regard to 
 their oaths of office, are disposed to discharge the duties imposed 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 11 
 
 upon them by law.^they will do it without being called upon by the 
 legislative branch of the government, unbiassed by any relationship, 
 and uncontrolled by any consideration of party ties. 
 
 Joseph B. Baker is the collector of the port of Philadelphia 
 appointed by Mr. Buchanan in 1857 to that post. He seems to have 
 been m the_ entire confidence of the President in matters relating to 
 Pennsylvania, and the person to whom he has entrusted the distribu- 
 tion of much of the patronage of that State, and especially the man- 
 agement of the local politics of that city and State. He also seems 
 to have had considerable agency in keeping up, Jby contrivances to 
 procure funds out of the public treasury, the " Pennsylvanian" news- 
 paper, the administration organ in Pennsylvania. This paper would 
 appear to have been pifncipally supported by contributions from the ex- 
 ecutive printing fund. Geo. W. Baker, the brother of the collector, and 
 a connexion by marriage of the President, was, up to a period of time 
 since the appointment of this committee, the editor of that paper. 
 The periodical contributions from the executive printing fund, amount- 
 ing to $12,000 per annum, do not appear to have been sufficient to 
 afford compensation to the editor, and the receipts from the revenue 
 seem to have been used for that purpose. 
 
 The office of assistant cashier and disbursing clerk in the custom- 
 house was vacated some months previous to the 15th of Novem- 
 ber, 1858, by the promotion of John Goodyear, the former assist- 
 ant cashier, to the office of cashier, made vacant by the death of 
 George W. Burr. On the 15th of November, 1858, the collector, 
 by and Avith the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, ap- 
 pointed his brother to fill this vacancy, at a salary of |1,200 per 
 annum. So far as can be ascertained, no publicity was given to this 
 appointment. The appointee never appaared' at his desk, nor dis- 
 charged any of the duties of his office; and although the act of Con- 
 gress of March 3, 1849, section 6, 9th Statutes at Large, page 399, 
 ' requires the Secretary of the Treasury to make at each session of 
 Congress a report of all the persons employed and occupied in each 
 custom-house of the United States, and the salary paid to each, we 
 do not find the name of Mr. George W. Baker in the Blue Book, which 
 is compiled from such report. This omission may be the result of the 
 fact that Mr. Baker was wel] known in the Treasury Department never 
 to have been employed or occupied at his lawful duties in the custom- 
 house. 
 
 George W. Baker, in his testimony, made a lame attempt to justify 
 his appointment on two grounds: first, that he acted as a sort of pri- 
 vate secretary to the collector, and secondly, that his appointment 
 was required to assist the district attorney of the United States in the 
 discharge of his duties in matters connected with the revenue service. 
 Both of these have proved signal failures. In regard to the first, if 
 he did act as such private secretary, there is no law or regulation 
 authorizing his payment for such services out of the public treasury. 
 The collector of that port receives a salary of six thousand dollars 
 per annum, the highest paid to any officer at the port of Philadel- 
 phia ; and if he was not able to discharge the duties pertaining to 
 
12 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 his office, and desired an amanuensis to aid him in the perform- 
 ance of his duties, he should have provided the means for his 
 compensation, without lending himself to the commission of perjury, 
 in order to obtain illegally for his brother such compensation from 
 the public treasury. Besides, there does not appear to be any evi- 
 dence in support of this allegation. On the contrary, Mr. G. W. 
 Baker was himself wholly unable to give to your committee any satis- 
 factory account of his position ; and although he has been for two 
 months aware of the charge against him, he has not attempted to 
 furnish to the committee evidence that he has ever performed any .of 
 the duties pertaining to his office, or in any manner connected with 
 the custom-house, except in the single instance referred to hereafter. 
 In regard to the second excuse offered by Baker to justify this ap- 
 pointment, viz : that of assisting the district attorney, your committee 
 submit that the attempt is clearly negatived by the testimony. The 
 only instance in which he ever attempted to aid the district attor- 
 ney was in a single case where he was detailed to hunt up some 
 testimony in support of a cause pending in court, in which, according 
 to his own statement, he does not appear to have done anything, 
 and only attempted to discharge his duty by making a useless trip to 
 New York; and on a subsequent occasion, when he was asked by the 
 district attorney to perform a similar duty in relation to another 
 cause, he decliuod on the ground that he was too busily engaged in' 
 the business of a steamship line — a matter wholly disconnected with 
 the custom-house. In addition to this evidence, that Mr. George. W. 
 Baker was not engaged in the discharge of the duties of his office, 
 and that these excuses are sheer pretexts to cover up a fraud upon 
 the revenue, is the significant fact stated in the testimony of James 
 C. Van Dyke, the district attorney, that the appointment of Mr. Baker 
 was made more than three months prior to the necessity of his ser- 
 vices in such cases; and another important fact that, so far from aid- 
 ing the district attorney and the collector of the port in the protec- 
 tion of the revenue, he?, while holding this office in the custom-house, 
 and while in the monthly receipt of his pay from the United States, 
 appeared before the United States authorities to defend persons 
 charged with a violation of the revenue laws, as appears from the 
 certified record from the docketof the United States commissioner, 
 as printed with the testimony. 
 
 _ This brief review of the facts, which appear more fully in the tes- 
 timony, imposes upon your committee the duty of calling the atten- 
 tion of this House to the law on this subject. Your committee are 
 of the opinion that all the laws enacted for the safety of the public 
 moneys should be strictly regarded ; and it can hardly be expected 
 that the class of lesser offenders against law and public justice can be 
 checked in the perpetration of crime if those in high places and 
 having the confidence of the heads of the departments are permitted 
 with impunity to violate their obligations to the laws by which they 
 should be controlled. Nor can you check the frequent occurrence of 
 stupendous frauds and defalcations if excesses are to be allowed and 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 13 
 
 toleration giveu to those who are detected in the commencement of 
 their career of petty pilfering upon the public treasury. 
 
 The act of Congress of May 7, 1822, (9 Statutes at Large, page 
 696,) provides "that no accounts for services of any clerk or other 
 person employed in any duties in relation to the collection of the 
 revenue shall be allowed until such clerk or other person shall have 
 certified on oath or affirmation that the same services have been per- 
 formed." 
 
 Section 13 of the same act provides "that every collector^ naval 
 <fficer, and surveyor shall, together with his accounts of the expenses 
 incident to his office, render a list of the clerks employed by him, 
 stating the rate of compensation allowed to each and the duties which 
 they severally perform." 
 
 In piirsuance of those sections of the law, G, W. Baker has, at stated 
 monthly periods from the 30th of November, 1858, up to the 30th of 
 September, 1859, and at quarterly periods from the 30th of Septem- 
 ber, 1859, to the 31st of March, 1860, presented to the collector of 
 the port an account in which he claims from the government payment 
 at the rate of $1,200 per annum. These accounts, being thirteen in 
 number, are each ^accompanied with an oath that he, the said G. W. 
 B,aker, has performed his services as stated in said account, to wit, 
 Kis services as clerk, &c., in the Philadelphia custom-house. These 
 vouchers so presented are, in pursuance of the regulations of the 
 department, regularly transmitted by the collector of the port to the 
 Commissioner of Customs, accompanied with the statement required 
 by the 13th section of the act of May, 1822. 
 
 Now assuming, as is clearly shown by the testimony, that G. W. 
 Baker did not discharge the duties of the office to which he was 
 . appointed, and that the collector of the port was cognizant of that 
 fact, they are both guilty of high crimes under two acta of Congress; 
 the first the act of March 3, 1825, (4 Statutes at Large, page 118,) 
 which provides: 
 
 " That if any person, in any case, matter, hearing, or other pro- 
 ceeding, where an oath or affirmation shall he required to he taken or ad- 
 "t'ministered under or hy any law or Laws of the United States, shall, upon 
 the taking of such oath or affirfnation, swear or affirm falsely, every 
 such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and shall, 
 , on conviction thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding two thou- 
 sand dollars, and by' imprisonment and confinement at hard labor not 
 ' exceeding five years, according to the aggravation of the offence. 
 
 "And if any person or persons shall knowingly and wilfully pro- 
 cure any such perjury to be committed, every such person so offend- 
 ing shall be deemed guilty of- subornation of perjury, and shall, on 
 conviction thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding two thousand 
 dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding five years, according to 
 the aggravation of the offence." 
 
 Your committee submit that each of the oaths taken by George 
 "W. Baker, in conformity to the act of May, 1822, constitutes the 
 crime of perjury on his part; and that on each occasion upon which 
 the collector of the port, with the knowledge that his brother was 
 
14 THE COVODE INVESTIGATIOK. 
 
 not in the performance of the duties of his office, as required by the 
 treasury regulations of 1857, No. 572, accepts such oath, pays the 
 salary thereon, and transmits such oath to the Treasury Department 
 as a voucher in support of his account with the United States, pro- 
 cures, in contemplation of law, such oath to be made, and is guilty of 
 subornation of perjury. Nor is it reasonably possible that a collector 
 can go astray upon this subject, for the regulations of the Treasury 
 Department made for the guidance of collectors, &c., are very .ex- 
 plicit. In article 608 of such regulations, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, in 1857, in speaking of the act of May, 1822, says : 
 
 "If any employe be paid during a period of sickness, leave of ab- 
 sence, waiting for employment, on mere preventive duty, or the like, 
 the oath or affirmation, to be true, must state the fact and period, in- 
 cluding the nature of the duty; and if the disbursing officer assents 
 to such oath, he connives at the violation of the law, and abets the 
 crime of perjury. If an imposition is practiced upon him in making 
 it, it will be his duty to prosecute the offender as soon as he comes to 
 the knowledge of the fact." 
 
 It has been held by the circuit court of the United States, in 
 United States vs. Babcock, 4 McLean's Reports, 113, that the act of 
 the 3d of March, 1825, above quoted, applies to oaths made in be- 
 half of claims against any of the departments of the United States 
 government, and also to oaths taken in pursuance of a regulation or 
 in conformity with a usage of the Treasury Department, if such affi- 
 davit would be admissible evidence at the department in support of 
 a claim against the United States. — (See United States vs. Bailey, & 
 Peters, 238.) 
 
 The second statute to which your committee call attention as having 
 in this transaction been violated by the collector and his brother, G-. 
 W. Baker, is the 1st section of the act of the 3d of March, 1823, 3 
 Stat, at Large, 771. This statute provides 
 
 "That if any person or persons shall falsely make, or cause or pro- 
 cure to be falsely made, or wilfully aid or assist in falsely making, any 
 deed, order, certificate, power of attorney, receipt, or otJier ivritirig, for 
 the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or enabling any other person 
 or persons to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any of their 
 officers or agents, any sum or sums of money, or shall utter or pub- 
 lish as true, or cause or procure to be uttered or published as true, 
 any such false deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or 
 other writing, or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procur© 
 to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or offices of the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, 
 certifi^te,- receipt, or other toriting in support of or in relation to any 
 claim or account, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing- 
 the same to be false, every such person shall be adjudged to be guilty 
 of felony." 
 
 To constitute the false character of the certificate, 7-eceipt, or ivriting 
 here spoken of, it is not necessary that the paper should be in itself 
 a forged paper. The evident intention of the law is to protect the 
 treasury from the use even of a genuine paper containing an assertion 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 15- 
 
 of that whicli is false. This is held^by the Supreme Court of the- 
 United States in the case of the United States vs. Staats, 8 Howard,, 
 p. 48. 
 
 Your committee, therefore, submit that the assertion contained in 
 the vouchers of G. W. Baker, that he had performed the services for 
 •which he claimed and received $100 per month, being false, he is. 
 guilty under this act of uttering and publishing, and of presenting to- 
 an oflScer of the United States a false certificate in support of his- 
 claim for salary; and the collector, knowing such assertion to be false, 
 is guilty under this act of transmitting to an officer of the government 
 such false certificate in support of, and in relation to, his accounts as- 
 collector. 
 
 These public functionaries having thus violated the law, it appears, 
 by the letters of Mr. Van Dyke to Mr. Buchanan, dated March 16, 
 1860, that coraplaint was made by some citizens in Philadelphia, and 
 that he, in .pursuance of his official duty, determined to prosecute- 
 the offence; and it also appears that, in pursuance of this high sense- 
 of duty, he wrote to the Treasury Department on the 15th and 27th 
 days of February, 1860, asking for information that seemed neces- 
 sary, in order to determine whether a prosecution could be main- 
 tained. That information was furnished by the department in th© 
 letters of the Commissioner of Customs to Mr. Van Dyke, dated Feb- 
 ruary 17 and 29, 1860. But this prosecution seems to have been most 
 effectually prevented by the President, who, on the 14th March, 1860, 
 a few days after the inquiry at the Treasury Department, informs Mr. 
 Van Dyke that, in accordance with the views of the Secretary of the- 
 Treasury, he had determined to make a change in his office. The 
 Secretary, at the time he desired this removal, must necessarily have- 
 been fully aware of the depredations by the Bakers; and the only ra-^ 
 tional ^inference is, that the removal was demanded and made in order 
 to screen the malfeasance in office of a political favorite, and his 
 brother, who edited, in Philadelphia, an administration organ. It ap- 
 pears by the letter of Mr. Van Dyke to the President, dated 24th 
 March, 1860, that the President desired Mr. Van Dyke to permit Mr. 
 Baker to control- the choice of delegates to the Charleston convention. 
 The fact that these delegates had been chosen may have been, and 
 most probably was, an all-powerful consideration with Mr., Buchanan 
 in taking the most effectual mode to prevent a prosecution of a friend 
 whom he considered a controlling political influence in that delegation. 
 It is now upwards of three months since this fraud upon the revenue, 
 and these repeated perjuries, have been brought to the knowledge of 
 the administration; and yet the guilty parties have not only gone un- 
 punished, but are retained in office in charge of the revenue of th& 
 second port in importance in the United States. Your committee 
 submit that such conduct on the part of the Executive and the Secre- , 
 tary of the Treasury is a subject for the highest censure. 
 
 As a part of the same class of irregularities, your committee call 
 attention to the payment of salaries by the naval storekeeper in the 
 Philadelphia navy yard to Theophilus Fiske and Charles Cummings, 
 neither of whom "were at any time in the performance of any of the 
 
16 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 dufties of their appointments; and to the case of Charles Clement who 
 signed the pay-roll, but did ftot receive any portion of his_ salary, 
 aeaving it in the hands of the naval storekeeper, John Cummings, for 
 ihis own benefit. . 
 
 The same is true of William M. Browne, now one of the editors ot 
 the government organ in this city— The Constitution. While an as- 
 sistant editor of the "Journal of Commerce," he held a situation 
 under Collector Schell of the New York custom-house. As will be 
 seen by reference to his testimony, he could give no satisfactory, ac- 
 ■count of any services rendered by him, while Mr. Hamilton Browne, 
 ^vho was the chief clerk of the division to which Browne was assigned, 
 «wears that he performed no service whatever. 
 
 Your committee, for want of time, have not been able to pursue 
 the investigation into the management of the post offices to any con- 
 siderable extent. It appears that in the Detroit post office one Harry 
 Scovel was the local mail agent, and received a salary as such. He 
 is what is known as the "Items" man, or local editor, of the ."Free 
 Press," an administration paper in that city. His salary was $100 
 per month, for which he rendered little or no service, his duties being 
 performed by a man who was employed by the railroad to deliver the 
 mail-bags, Scovell paying him $25 per month. Henry J. Alvord, a 
 •democratic editor in that city, held a situation in the same post office 
 at $500 a year, which was substantially a sinecure. 
 
 No, 4. 
 
 ESECUTITE BINDING. 
 
 The executive binding was continued in the hands of Cornelius 
 Wendell, in violation of the statutes of 1858, chap. 154, section 14, 
 Statutes at Large, vol. xi, p. 327. This, upon the testimony of 
 William Pettibone and Columbus Alexander, two highly respectable 
 gentlemen, practical binders, residing in Washington, was at a. loss 
 to the government of at least $50,000 per annum, or whatever the 
 government might choose to make it, as Mr. Alexander offered to do 
 -the work at 33 per cent, less than the government was then paying. 
 The following extracts from his testimony will show the character of 
 -the propositions he submitted to the Department Qf the Interior, as 
 :also to Mr. Bowman, late Superintendent of the Public Printing. 
 
 Question. Have you, within the last three years, made bids or pro- 
 posals to do binding for the executive departments; and if so, to which 
 department did you make them ? 
 
 Answer. In July, 1857, I made a proposition in writing to the De- 
 partment of the Interior, proposing to do the binding for that depart- 
 anent at thirty-three per cent, less than they were then paying for it. 
 In the month of September following I renewed my offer, thinking, 
 as I had not heard from it, that the department, in the multiplicity 
 of its business, might have overlooked it ; and I made the fur^er 
 proposition that, if they did not think proper to accede to fty former 
 proposition, I would pay into the treasury, for the use of the govern- 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 17 
 
 ment, the sum of ten thousand dollars, provided they would give me 
 the contract, at the prices then paid, for the binding «f that one de- 
 partment alone, from September, 1857, to the 4th of March, 1861; that 
 upon the signing and sealing of the contract I would pay that amount 
 over to the government for the government' s use. My object was to 
 show to the Secretary — to strike him forcibly at once — that it was a 
 matter of som^ importance, of some interest to the government. I 
 thought, perhaps, that the proposition of a reduction of the price 
 thirty-three per cent, did not strike him as being a matter of much 
 importance; but I thought the sum of ten thousand dollars would cer- 
 tainly open his eyes to some extent. 
 
 Question. Were either of those propositions accepted ? 
 
 Answer. They were not accepted; that is, the Secretary never con- 
 descended to notice them. 
 
 ******** 
 
 Question. Is there any reason you know of yourself, independent of 
 that, why the Secretary refused to accept your proposition ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; he never made any communication to me upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with him after this law was 
 passed compelling the departments to give this work to practical 
 persons ? 
 
 Answer. I never approached him upon the subject ; I saw that 
 there was an indisposition to pay any attention to it, as I had formerly 
 seen in the Superintendent of the Public Printing, when he had con- 
 trol of the executive binding. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to that. 
 
 The Witness. I know that fact. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. How do you know it ? 
 
 Answer. For the best reason in the world : I made the proposition 
 myself to the Superintendent of the Public Printing, and he declined 
 it 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Have you any estimate of the profits to be derived from 
 doing all the work for all the departments ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I could safely say that it wotild be from 30 to 
 50 per cent. I should be very glad now to take it at 50 per cent, 
 less than they are paying for it, even at the present time. 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Are you speaking now of the printing for the executive 
 departments? 
 
 Answer. The printing and binding also. I made a proposition in 
 writing through the post office to General BoAvman, I think, in Janu- 
 ary last, to do all the printing at 50 per cent, less than allowed under 
 the printing act of 1852. The printing being for the executive de- 
 partments, and the binding for 33 per cent, less, I never got apy 
 answer from him, for some reason or other. 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 2 
 
18 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 t 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know the probable amount of the printing and 
 binding for the departments for a year ? 
 
 Answer. They can make it almost any amount they choose ; it de- 
 pends entirely upon the department. They can cut out an order at 
 any time they think proper, and say that the exigencies of the depart- 
 ment or the good of the public interest requires that certain binding 
 or printing should be done, and it is ordered to be done. 
 
 Question. The question was, whether you know what the printing 
 and binding of the different departments have amounted to a year 
 since the commencement of Mr. Buchanan's administration ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I have examined critically to ascertain 
 the amount, but I should think the binding, to the best of my knowl- 
 edge, would amount to $100,000 any how j I> speak of all the depart- 
 ments. 
 
 The statute was framed by and passed Congress upon the suggestion 
 of Mr. Pettibone himself. After its passage Mr. Pettibone became an 
 applicant to the department for this work. He called the attention 
 of the President to the law in a letter which appears in the evidence. 
 The manner in which Mr. Pettibone was treated by the President 
 appears from the following extracts from his testimony. 
 
 Question. Did you hand that letter to the President in person, or 
 did you send it to him ? 
 
 Answer. I sent it to him. 
 
 Question. Did you see him afterwards in relation to it ? 
 
 Answer. I did ; after I sent it to the President it remained some 
 three weeks before I heard anything from it. I then caused a noteta 
 be addressed respectfully to him, requesting him to refer my communi- " 
 cation to the Attorney General. A few days after that note had been 
 sent I called at the Attorney General' s office, and found my original 
 letter to the President there; I asked the clerk to show it to me, and 
 he did so; it had this indorsement on it: "Referred to the Attorney 
 General, but not for his opinion." I called Judge Black's attention 
 to the indorsement, and he said to me: " This is a strange indorsement; 
 it means nothing; I cannot give an opinion; the President might as 
 well have kept the paper himself; I will take the paper back to the 
 President and have that indorsement changed." He did so, and a 
 few weeks after I called again and saw the paper with this second in- 
 dorsement, as near as I can remember the words : 
 
 "As the cabinet have had this matter under consideration, and have 
 acted upon it, I decline interfering." This M^as signed "J. B.," the 
 President' s own signature, as I was informed. 
 
 I will say here that I called upon the President after Judge Black 
 informed me of the first indorsement. He replied to me : " Why, I 
 have sent your communication to the Attorney General." I'said, ' 'I ann 
 aware of that, Mr. President, but the paper is indorsed in such a way 
 that the Attorney General cannot give an opinion." "Why how is 
 that?" said he. I told him that it was indorsed: "Referred to the 
 Attorney General, but not for his opinion." Says he "Is that so'" 
 "Yes, sir," I replied. " How do you know ?" "Because I have seen 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 19 
 
 the paper myself;" he seemed to express surprise; I then asked him 
 if I could still have the opinion of the Attorney General; "Yes," he 
 replied; I then said "How shall I get it? shall I go to Judge Black 
 and say, as coming from you, that he can give me his opinion?" He 
 said "Yes, tell him I say so; tell him to give you his opinion in ref- 
 erence to that law." I called upon Judge Black and informed him of 
 what the President had told me; he replied, "You know, Mr. Petti- 
 bone, I cannot give you the opinion except the request is in writing;" 
 he also said, ' ' I will see the President to-day and ask Him about it, 
 and^ if he authorizes me to give you an opinion, I will do so with 
 pleasure." I called upon Judge Black the next day, and he told me 
 that he had seen the President, and the President declined interfering ; 
 he said that as the cabinet had had this matter under consideration and 
 had decided it, he declined interfering with it. After Judge Black 
 informed me what he had said, I called upon the President and said 
 to him : ' 'Mr. President, did I understand you aright ? You assured 
 me I should have the opinion of the Attorney General upon a certain 
 law; now Judge Black informs me that you decline allowing him to 
 give me such an opinion." He says: "He informed you correctly; 
 I do decline." 
 
 The President, while professing to Mr. Pettibone to be desirous of 
 executing the law, and his willingness that the opinion of the Attor- 
 ney General should be taken for the guidance of the departments, 
 * indorses (to the Attorney General) Mr. Pettibone's letter, "Referred 
 to the Attorney General, but not for Ms Cfpinion." This persistent 
 violation of law is only surpassed by the meanness of such an act. 
 The inference is obvious, viz: to retain this patronage in the hands 
 of the President's friend and most effipient operator — Cornelius Wen- 
 dell. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 FEINTING. 
 
 The evidence herewith submitted proves beyond a doubt that the 
 prices paid for the executive printing and for binding have been 
 utterly disproportionate to the work done. The excess beyond a fair 
 price has been, with the knowledge and consent, if not by the direct 
 order, of the President, squandered upon a profligate press devoted 
 to the interest of the administration — upon the "Pennsylvanian," 
 the "Argus," and the "Union." It appears from the testimony of 
 Mr. Wendell that he contracted to do the printing of the post office 
 blanks, agreeing to pay to Mr. Rice, of the "Pennsylvanian," 43 per 
 cent, of the gross amount to be received for such printing. 
 
 The original arrangement and the subsequent modifications of it 
 will fully appear from the following extracts from the testimony of 
 Mr. Wendell : 
 
 Question. And I understood from your testimony that you made an 
 arrangement with him [Mr. Rice] for forty-three cents in the dollar ? 
 
20 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Answer. Giving him forty-three cents in the dollar; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And that you ceased, after a time, to pay him the 
 money under that contract, and afterwards paid a part of it to the 
 "Argus?" 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any written or verbal order from the 
 President of the United States, or the Postmaster General, to divert 
 any portion of that money — that forty-three per cent. — from William 
 Rice, who yc^ say was entitled to receive it under your agreement, 
 and pay it to the ' 'Argus ' ' ? 
 
 Answer. No written order. 
 
 Question. Any written or verbal order ? 
 
 Answer. There was a verbal understanding that Mr. Severns should 
 participate in the forty-three per cent. In April or May, I think, 
 following the agreement with Mr. Rice, which was in December, 
 there was a verbal understanding that Mr. Severns. of the -'Argus," 
 should participate in this forty-three per cent. The idea was that 
 Mr. Rice's forty-three per cent, should be reduced to twenty-one and 
 a half per cent. 
 
 Question. Let me stop you here for a moment. Was not all that 
 matter after you declined to go on with your arrangement with Mr. 
 Rice? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, it was before. The idea was, that Mr. Rice's 
 share should be reduced to twenty-one and a half per cent. The 
 other twenty-one and a half per cent, was to be divided between Mr. 
 Severns and myself. If my memory serves me, that was the under- 
 standing. I was complaining that I got no profits from this work for 
 sustaining the ' ' Union, ' ' and I insisted upon having the post office 
 blanks entire. It was an eternal struggle between Rice and myself 
 who should get the profits. 
 
 Question. What do you mean by a "verbal understanding?" 
 With whom was that understanding ? 
 
 Answer. The Postmaster General; the orders came through him, 
 but it was understood that it was by the direction of the President. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that the Postmaster General gave 
 yovL a verbal order to direct a portion of the money to Rice and pay it 
 to the "Argus?" 
 
 Answer. About the time of the revocation of this order, which you 
 liave just read, which revocation, if my memory serves me, was in 
 April or May, then this new understanding was created, that the 
 money should be divided differently from what it formerly had been. 
 
 * * * * * * * Xr 
 
 Question. Do you say that the arrangement in the case of the 
 " Pennsylvanian " and the "Argus" was made by the President? 
 
 Answer. I alwaj's understood it so, through the Postmaster General; 
 that conversations had been held with the President, and he had 
 referred the matter to the Postmaster General. 
 
 Question. Did you hold any conversations with the President about 
 the matter ? 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION, 21 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you say that in those conversations the President 
 made the arrangement concerning the ' ' Argus ' ' ? 
 
 Answer. As to the details, I cannot say; the President was desirous 
 that Rice should have something. It was a matter of frequent con- 
 versation as between the President, the Postmaster General and my- 
 self, and Mr. Rice and Governor Bigler; frequent, often. 
 
 ******** 
 
 Question. What was the occasion, or motive, as expressed, if any, 
 for this revocation of the contract with Mr. Rice ? 
 
 Answer. In order to answer your question fully, I will have to give 
 you a brief history of the matter. Mr. Rice was desirous of procuring 
 a portion of the printing, to sustain the " Pennsylvanian, " and Mr. 
 Wendell was equally desirous of having it for the "Union,'' because 
 the "Union" had no sustenance from Congress. The editor or pro- 
 prietor of the organ generally had been the printer of one or the other 
 house of Congress, and also had all the Executive patronage. I 
 thought that, not being printer to either house, and having to pay 
 the editors put upon the ' ' Union, " I was entitled to what patronage 
 the President had, which would be about one-half of what the organ 
 had ; so that I strenuously objected to its being diverted to Mr. Rice. 
 But I was not strong enough to sustain it. The influence of Mr. Rice, 
 and thfe fact of his being the editor of the home organ of Mr. Buchanan, 
 induced this order to give him the printing ; but it was understood 
 that I should do the work all the while. That was the understanding ; 
 although not expressed in the order, that was the verbal understand- 
 ing, I making such arrangements with Mr. Rice as I could. He 
 insisted upon fifty cents in the dollar ; I protested, and finally got him 
 down to forty-three cents in the dollar. That agreement ran along 
 through the winter ; I, chafing under it, and seeing that I was getting 
 behind in my business, and what was left me did not support the 
 "Union," tried to have it revoked. Mr. Severns, through his polit- 
 ical friends, tried also to get some of it ; and this order of April was 
 issued, revoking the other, with the understanding that I should pay 
 but thirty-three per cent., instead of forty-three per cent. ; that is, pay 
 Mr. Rice twenty-one and a half per cent, and Severns eleven and a 
 quarter per cent. That ran along, each party still dissatisfied be- 
 cause he could not get it all, until just previous to the election, when 
 I suggested to stop paying it. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. Suggested that to whom ? 
 
 Answer. To the President ; and, without any dissent from him, I 
 took that responsibility pending this order. * * * * 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Wendell is confirmed by the testimony of 
 Joseph B. Baker. 
 
 No one will doubt that it was one of -the first duties of the Presi- 
 dent to inform Congress of this enormous waste of the public moneys, 
 that the evil might be remedied by the necessary legislation. He 
 seems,' however, to have preferred that these moneys should have 
 
22 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 been expended under the forms of law in the support of his adminis- 
 tration, his friends, and his retainers; and for this, m the opinion of 
 your committee, he deserves the censure of all honest men. It is to 
 be hoped that this evil has been remedied by the legislation of the 
 present session; and the committee, therefore, refrain from any fur- 
 ther remarks upon the subject. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 OF THE EMPLOYMENT OP MONET TO CAEET ELECTIONS. 
 
 Your committee intended, at the outset, to inquire into the im- 
 ■proper' use of money in elections by private individuals as well as by 
 public officers, deeming that to be within the scope and meaning of 
 the resolution passed by the House. There can be no objection to 
 the use of money in the distribution of tracts, speeches, and public 
 documents, for the purpose of disseminating political intelligence 
 among the people. But when money is used for the purpose of cor- 
 rupting the freedom of elections, of buying votes, and maintainiiig a 
 force to overawe the timid, and, by management, fraud, and force, to 
 control elections, more especially when this is done by officers of the 
 government, and the money of the government employed for the same 
 purposes, the evil becomes one requiring the most careful investiga- 
 tion, and the most discreet legislation, either of the several States or 
 of the federal Congress. 
 
 The action of the House, upon the application of your committee 
 or process to compel Mr. Augustus Schell to testify, having indi- 
 cated to your committee that they should not inquire into the use of 
 money by private individuals, they therefore abandoned that line of 
 inquiry. The House afterwards, upon the application of Hon. Mr. 
 Winslow, a member of your committee, reversed its former action, 
 but at so late a period in the session that your committee could do 
 nothing further than to pursue the investigation sought by Mr. 
 Winslow as far as he desired. 
 
 It appears by the testimony of George Plitt that over $70, 000 was 
 distributed by him as the treasurer of the democratic State central 
 committee of Pennsylvania, in 1856, to carry that State for Mr. 
 Buchanan ; df this sum nearly $20, 000 was received from what was 
 known as the New York Hotel Fund, and $10,000 from W. C. N. 
 Swift, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and which was afterwards re- 
 paid to him through the famous as well as infamous live-oak contracts, 
 the remainder was derived from different sources, a large portion 
 thereof being collected in the shape of assessments upon the em- 
 ployes of the government in the offices at Washington, and the . 
 custom-house and navy yard* at Philadelphia. The following extract 
 from the testimony of Isaac West, who was inspector in the custom- 
 house during the election of 1856, is in point: 
 
I 
 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 23 
 
 Question. Were you there at the time of'tlie election of 1856, when 
 Mr. Buchanan was elected ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What do you know about moneys being raised off the 
 employes of the custom-house on that occasion? 
 
 Answer. There was a certain tax levied upon the persons connected 
 with the custom-house. 
 
 Question. What amount on each person ? 
 
 Answer. A certain percentage. On a person receiving |1, 095 a 
 year, I. think the tax for the presidential election was from $30 to $33. 
 Question. Do you mean for the presidential election alone, or for 
 both presidential and congressional elections ? 
 Answer. I mean the presidential election alone. 
 Question. What about the other election ? 
 Answer. The amount was not so great for the State election. 
 Question. How much was that ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not recollect. It strikes me that it was from $5 
 to $7, something like that. 
 
 Question. The two, then, would amount to in the neighborhood of 
 $40 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; in that neighborhood. 
 Question. Upon what salaried officers was that ? 
 Answer. Those of $1,100, or, rather, $1,095 a year. 
 Question. Were the others assessed in proportion to their salaries ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. To whom was that money paid ? 
 
 Answer. It was generally deposited. That portion which I col- 
 lectedin my department Igave to the deputy collector, Mr. Harbeson — 
 I believe he was the treasurer, so far as the custom-house was con- 
 cerned — and he paid it over to the executive committee, I believe. 
 Question. A political committee ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did all the employds pay ? 
 Answer. I never knew one to refuse. 
 
 Question. What was the impression — that it was rather obligatory 
 upon them to pay ? 
 
 Answer. That seemed to be the impression,' they all felt it their 
 duty to pay thatmore promptly than some of their debts; that was 
 the impression, but I do not know about whether they would have 
 been removed if they had not paid; but it was considered obligatory, 
 I believe. 
 
 The testimony of B. F. Slocumb, J. L. Cramer, Nicholas Yedder, 
 Josiah M. Lucas, and Stephen G-. Dodge, clerks in the Department of 
 the Interior, are also in point. The following from the testimony of 
 George Plitt is to the same effect : 
 
 Question. Did you know anything about a portion of this money 
 being raised off the employes of the government in Philadelphia in 
 the custom-house and elsewhere ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I think there was at that time, but I am not certain; 
 that is our general custom. 
 
24 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 These contributions, upon the evidence, must have been with the 
 knowledge and at the instigation of the heads of departments, and 
 the disbursement of money in Pennsylvania must have been with the 
 knowledge of Mr. Buchanan himself. The following extracts from 
 the testimony ef Mr. Wendell will establish this last assertion :_ 
 
 Question. I wish to ask you a few further questions concerning the 
 elections in Pennsylvania. When you had interviews with Mr. 
 Buchanan previous to the election in Pennsylvania in 1858, did you 
 not freely talk with him in regard to the use of money to carry certain 
 districts ? 
 
 Answer. I talked with him freely as to the use of money in elec- 
 tions; I do not remember as to any specific districts; I talked about 
 the expenses of elections generally, the large amounts used; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell him that you were compelled to use 
 large amounts of money ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I told him I was compelled. 
 
 Question. That you were using large amounts of money? 
 
 Answer. He was cognizant of the fact that I contributed largely 
 for elections. 
 
 Question. You had conversations with him upon that subject ? 
 
 Answer. It was the subject of conversation at different times, the 
 amounts that I contributed. 
 
 Question. What was the character of the several letters from 
 Pennsylvania that he read you portions of during, one of the inter- 
 views you had with him about carrying certain districts ?' How was 
 it to be done ? 
 
 Answer. I think the most of them wanted material aid; they made 
 suggestions as to aid required in different districts , generally, and 
 the political affairs of their several districts. 
 
 Question. Why did he call your attention to those letters calling 
 for that kind of aid? Was it because he expected you to attend to it? 
 
 Answer. Well, I do not know, indeed, what the motive was ; our 
 conversations were generally about politics and the contest going on; 
 and the letters might have been shown in connexion, which in those 
 days were generally political, almost always ; I might" say my conver- 
 sations with him were always of a political character. 
 
 Question. On what occasion was it that you had these long inter- 
 views with him? Was it not immediately before the election, and 
 relative to the means to be made use of to carry the elections ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I could not say; I had them at different times. I 
 presume during the time of elections I had some long interviews, and 
 again at other times. I do not call to mind any particular date, when 
 these interviews were field. They were held at different times during 
 all my intimacy with him. 
 
 Question. On what days of the week did you have long interviews 
 with him ? Can you recollect ? 
 
 Answer. Pretty much every day, I should presume. I do not re- 
 member ^any particular day of the week. 
 
 Mr. CLm, [to the Chairman.] Do you suppose he took Sundays for 
 that purpose ? 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 25 
 
 The "Witness. I have had interviews with him on Sundays. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. "Was it not your habit, previous to the election, to spend 
 the Sabbath day with Mr. Buchanan, conversing freely upon political 
 matters, and particularly with regard to the use of money to carry 
 elections ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say it was a usual habit. I saw him on Sundays; 
 I could not say how many. 
 
 Question. I am referring to immediately preceding the elections. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I may have seen him on one or two Sabbaths 
 immediately preceding the fall election of 1858. 
 
 Question. On those occasions had you conversations with him oa 
 that subject? 
 
 Answer. Conversations on politics ? 
 
 Question. In connexion with money matters. 
 
 Answer. The expenses of the elections would usually come up du- 
 ring the conversations. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Buchanan object to carrying elections or help- 
 ing to carry them in that way ? 
 
 Answer. Never to me. 
 
 In this connexion your committee would fail in their duty did they 
 not call the attention of the House to the custom proved to exist, and 
 with the knowledge of the President, of allowing oflScers employed 
 under the government to be absent on leave from their posts, and 
 employed in electioneering for the party to which they belong. 
 Gideon G. "Westcott is a notable illustration of this practice. In 
 1856, being then an appraiser in the custom-house at Philadelphia, 
 he was "absent, on leave, in the State central committee room" some 
 four months ; during which time he rendered no service to the govern- 
 ment, yet received his regular salary. The practice has also prevailed 
 in the New York and other custom-houses, of appointing men tem- 
 porarily for the week preceding the election, and granting them leave 
 of absence, that they might devote themselves to electioneering 
 duties. This employment of the servants and moneys of the govern- 
 ment in aiding elections is a palpable violation of law, and subver- 
 sive of the rights and interests of the people. 
 
 • In view of this evidence, it is not surprising that the President, in 
 the letter to the Pittsburg centennary celebration, should have used 
 the following language : 
 
 "I shall assume the privilege of advancing years in referring to 
 another growing and dangerous evil. In the last age, although our 
 fathers, like ourselves, were divided into political parties which often 
 had severe conflicts with each other, yet we never heard, until within 
 a recent period, of the employment of money to carry elections. 
 Should this practice increase until the voters and their representa- 
 tives in the State and national legislatures shall become infected, the 
 fountain of free government will then be poisoned at its source, and 
 we must end, as history proves, in a military despotism, -j. demo- 
 cratic republic, all agree, cannot long survive unless sustained by 
 Bublic virtue. When this is corrupted, and the people become venal, 
 
26 THE COVODE INVESTIGATIOlf. 
 
 there is a canker at the root of the tree of liberty which must cause 
 it to wither and die." 
 
 It is well known to the American people that stupendous frauds 
 were perpetrated in the election of 1856, in Pennsylvania, by means 
 of forged and fictitious naturalization papers. Your committee have 
 been enabled, just at the close of the investigation, in some degree, 
 to trace these frauds. It will be seen by the testimony of William 
 Karns that these papers were first prepared and obtained in Phila- 
 delphia, some of them having the seal and the signature of a pro- 
 thonqtary who deceased about the year 1850, and others with forged 
 seals and signatures, or genuine ones obtained in some manner from 
 the proper officers in Philadelphia. These were distributed over the 
 State by hundreds, and probably by thousands. It will be seen by 
 the following extracts from the testimony of William Karns that an 
 officer of the government, Reuben P. Brown, now receiving an annual 
 salary of $2,000 in the custom-house at Philadelphia, was connected 
 with this transaction : 
 
 Question. Did you reside in Reading in the fall of 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Did you at that time receive a quantity of blank natural- 
 ization papers from Philadelphia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I received some blanks at that time. 
 
 Question. How did you receive them, by mail or express, or in 
 what way ? 
 
 Answer. I think some few came to me by mail. 
 
 Question. Did they come to you under the frank of any persons; 
 and if so, under whose ? 
 
 Answer. I think one or two came under the frank of Governor 
 Bigler, and some came under the frank of other persons, but I am not 
 positive who they were. Governor Bigler' s frank is the only one I 
 am positive about; I think there were, perhaps, three packages sent, 
 and one of them I know was under the frank of Governor Bigler. 
 
 Question. Were there large quantities of these papers sent to you? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; there were but few. 
 
 Question. How many did you get altogether, do you think? 
 
 Answer. Well, I have said to persons that I had three hundred or 
 four hundred, but that is not so; I looked them over on Sunday last, 
 and discovered that there were perhaps two hundred or two hundret 
 and thirty altogether. Some of them had what purported to be the 
 seal of the court and the signature of the prothonotary; others were 
 mere blanks. 
 
 _ Question. Did you make application to Mr. Sallade for the use of 
 his back office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I did not. 
 
 Question. Who sent these papers to you from Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. They were either left at my house by Mr. Brown, or 
 handed to me in person by him; I am not positive which. I have been 
 trying to recollect whether he gave them to me in person, or left 
 them at my house; I think they were left by Mr. Brown at my house. 
 At any rate, they came from Mr. Brown. 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 27 
 
 Question. Did you not receive a letter relative to the use to be 
 made of them ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Prom whom was that letter ? 
 
 Answer. There was no signature to it. 
 
 Question. Were there any initials to it ? 
 
 Answer. It was signed "E," at the bottom of the letter. 
 
 Question. Did you not know the handwriting of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. That letter I compared with another that I had from a 
 man in Philadelphia, which was signed "Brown." 
 
 Question. Eeuben P. Brown? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you know the handwriting of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I thought the handwriting was the same as that signed 
 "Brown." 
 
 Question. Did you not know from other circumstances that the 
 letter was from Mr. Brown ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I believe the letter was from Mr. Brown; I 
 think he asked me afterwards if I had got the letter. 
 
 ******** 
 
 Question. We understand that this letter came with these papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know that it came with them. 
 
 Question. In connexion with them? 
 
 Answer. A large bundle of the papers, as I have stated before, 
 were left at my house by Mr. Brown, or handed to me in person by 
 him. I am not positive that the letter came with the papers, but my 
 impression is that it came by mail. 
 
 Question. That is, the letter signed "K?" 
 
 Answer. Y6s, sir. 
 
 Question. And it was in reference to the use of these papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What directions did it give you in reference to those 
 papers ? 
 
 Answer. Am I obliged to answer that ? 
 
 Question. The committee have so decided. 
 
 Answer. As I have stated, there were signatures, as they purported 
 4a be, of two different prothonotaries. Some were signed ' ' Vineyard ' ' 
 or "Vingard," I am not positive which. He was prothonotary in 
 1850, but is dead. This letter explained (I cannot recollect the letter 
 exactly, though I read it last Sunday) that in filling up these papers 
 they must be made to correspond to the date. I am not certain 
 whether I got the impression from the letter or from conversation 
 that these papers had been left over in the office, and had been got 
 out in some way. 
 
 ■Question. And when they were filled up they were to be made to 
 correspond with the time the prothonotary was alive whose signa- 
 ture was attacked ? 
 
 Answer. So as to correspond to 1850, the date of the signature. 
 The others, purporting to have been signed by Pletcher, were signed 
 in 1856, I suppose ; but I do not know that. 
 
 Question. Where did it direct you to distribute them ? 
 
28 THE COVODE rNVESTIGATIOJSr. 
 
 Answer. It did not say. 
 
 Question. What else did the letter say about naturalization papers? 
 
 Answer. Well; sir, it said that there were thousands of them be- 
 ing used or distributed, I do not remember which. 
 
 How far the moneys of the government contributed towards the 
 commission of the crime your committee are unable to determine. 
 
 It is due to Senator Bigler to say that upon being informed of the 
 testimony of the witness Karns he promptly disavowed any knowledge 
 of the use of his frank in connexion with any such transaction. — (See 
 his letted, printed with the testimony. ) 
 
 Such are some of the views which your committee have thought 
 proper to submit upon a review of a portion of the evidence, which 
 they herewith report to the House. In view of all the facts and cir- 
 cumstances attending this investigation, from its inception to the 
 present time, there seems a marked propriety in closing this report 
 with a quotation from the speech of Mr. Buchanan before referred to: 
 
 ' ' My colleague has declared that he would not have introduced 
 such resolutions, because they might tend to injure the government 
 of the country in the estimation of the people. Against this position 
 I take leave to enter my solemn protest. Is it the republican doctrine ? 
 What, sir I are we to be told that we shall not inquire into the exist- 
 ence of abuses in this government because such inquiry might tend 
 to make the government less popular? This is new doctrine to me; 
 doctrine which I have never heard before upon this floor. Liberty, 
 sir, is a precious gift, which cannot long be enjoyed by any people 
 without the most watchful jealousy. It is Hesperian fruit, which the 
 ever-wakeful jealousy of the people can alone preserve. The very 
 possession of power has a strong, a natural tendency to corrupt the 
 heart. The lust of dominion grows with its possession; and the man 
 Avho in humble life was pure, and innocent, and just, has often been 
 transformed by the long possession of power into a monster. In the 
 sacred book, which contains lessons of wisdom for the politician as 
 well as for the Christian, we find a happy illustration of the corrupting 
 influence of power upon the human heart. When Hazael came to 
 consult Elisha whether his master, the king of Syria, would recover 
 from a dangerous illness, the prophet, looking through the vista of 
 futurity, saw the crimes of which the messenger who stood before 
 him would be guilty, and he wept. Hazael asked, 'Why weepest, 
 my loi-d?' The prophet then recounted to him the murders, the 
 cruelties of which he should be guilty towards the children of Israel. 
 Hazael, in the spirit of virtuous indignation, replied, ' Is thy servant 
 a dog, that he should do this thing ? ' And Ehsha answered, ' The 
 Lord has showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.' This man 
 afterwards became king by the murder of his master, and was guilty 
 of enormities the bare recital of which would make us shudder." 
 
 The testimony is now in possession of the House, and your com- 
 mittee have no further suggestions to make thereon. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 JOHN COVODE. 
 
 A. B. OLIN. 
 
 OH AS. P TRATivr 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 29 
 
 MINORITY REPORT. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW, from the minority of the committee, by special leare 
 of the House, reports as follows : 
 
 On the 5th of March, the House, on the motion of Mr. Cotode, 
 resolved : 
 
 "That a committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker 
 for the purpose of investigating whether the President of the United 
 States or any other officer of the government, has, by money, patron- 
 age, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of Con- 
 gress or any committee thereof, for or against the passage of any law 
 appertaining to the rights of any State or Territory; and also to 
 inquire into and investigate whether any officer or officers of the 
 government have, by combination or otherwise, prevented and de- 
 feated, or attempted to prevent or defeat, the execution of any law 
 or laws now on the statute books; and whether the President has 
 failed or refused to compel the execution of any law thereof. That 
 said committee shall investigate and inquire into the abuse at the 
 Chicago or other post offices, and at the Philadelphia and other navy 
 yards, and into any abuses in connexion with the public buildings and 
 other public works of the United States. 
 
 ^^ Besolved, further, That as the President, in his letter to the Pitts- 
 burg centenary celebration of the 25th November, 1858, speaks of 
 'the employment of money to carry elections,' said committee shall 
 inquire into and ascertain the amount so used in Pennsylvania, and 
 any other State or States; in what districts it was expended and by 
 whom, and by whose authority it was done, and from what sources 
 the money was derived, and report the names of the parties impli- 
 cated. And, for the purpose aforesaid, said committee shall have 
 power to send for persons and papers, and to report at any time." 
 
 These resolutions were referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. 
 Covode, Mr. Olin, Mr. Winslow, Mr. Train, and Mr. Eobinson of 
 Illinois. They involve and charge the committee with the consider- 
 ation of seven distinct branches of inquiry : 
 
 First. Whether the President, or any other officer of government 
 has sought by improper means to influence the action of Congress 
 for or against the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of 
 any State or Territory. _ ^ 
 
 Second. Whether any officer of government has, by combination, 
 or otherwise, defeated, or attempted to defeat, the execution of any 
 law. 
 
 Third. Whether the President has failed, or refused to compel the 
 execution of any law. 
 
 Fourth. Abuses at the Chicago and other post offices. 
 
 Fifth. Abuses at the Philadelphia and other navy yards. 
 
 Sixth. Abuses in connexion with the public buildings and otker 
 public works. 
 
30 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Seventh. The employment of money to carry election in the States 
 and especially in Pennsylvania, how much, where, by whom, and 
 under what authority employed, and from what source derived. 
 
 These resolutions, so large in their terms, covering so much ground, 
 and opening such an iUimitable field for the gratification of passion, 
 spleen, and malignity, and,|by consequence, rendering a deience, in 
 like measure, onerous and difficult, have occupied the committee m 
 incessant and laborious investigation from the 12th of March last, in- 
 volving daily meetings for a period of time equal to one-halt ottJie 
 whole session of the House, and to_ almost all its business sittings since 
 its organization by the election of its Speaker. 
 
 It must be obvious that by no possibility could the committee have 
 examined thoroughly any one of these seven distinct subjects of inves- 
 tigation; much less could it have given to all even a partial considera- 
 tion. . . 
 
 The person, property, and character of the citizen, as well the 
 highest as the humblest, are under the protection of the representa- 
 tives of the people. It will be to the undersigned, as doubtless it 
 will be to every fair-minded man in this House and the country, 
 should injustice have been done to any individual in the course of this 
 inquiry, by reason of the inadequate time allowed for the examination 
 of subjects of such magnitude, a source of most painful regret. 
 
 As the Congress does not expire until the Ith March, 1861, the 
 undersigned deemed, in view of this suggestion, and as a sheer act of 
 justice to private individuals, and pubhc personages whose characters 
 had seemingly been trifled and sported with, that this investigation 
 should not now close ; but that application should be made to the 
 House for leave to sit during the recess, without which permission 
 the duties charged upon the committee coijld not at all be performed. 
 
 But in this the undersigned was overruled. This determination of 
 the committee is much to be regretted, since it adds force to the sug- 
 gestions which have already obtained credence, and are extensively 
 circulated through the public journals, that this investigation was not 
 commenced, nor carried on, for the honest ascertainment of truth, 
 but that, in point of fact, it is a mere trick, and shallow contrivance, 
 for partisan purposes to compile a document, and to print it at the 
 expense of the country, and to circulate it, under the authority of this 
 House, with a view to influence the fall elections: and that to this end 
 unjust aspersions on public and private character, and unwarranted 
 insinuations against the integrity of the highest officers of the gov- 
 ernment were not at all to be regarded in the nature of impediments ; 
 conclusions possibly unjust to the motives of the mover of the resolu- 
 tions, and certainly in derogation of the justice of the House, its 
 character, and dignity. 
 
 And the undersigned fears that the course of proceeding in the 
 committee; the disregard, as it seems to the undersigned, of private 
 rights, and compulsory violation of private confidence, the more 
 criminal because unnecessary, will greatly tend to give color to these 
 suggestions. 
 
 Perhaps many things that have occurred, and have contributed to 
 
THE COY ODE INVESTIGATIOIT. 31 
 
 create and strengthen in the public mind the probabilities of such con- 
 clusion, are but the legitimate and natural results of resolutions of this 
 character. Aimed alike in terms and purpose at the President and the 
 high officers of his administration, they oifered a bait too tempting to be 
 resisted by the pack of slanderers, jackalls of society, who are ever 
 barking at the heels of decency and respectability, and snuffing for 
 their favorite repasts, the offals of slandered reputations. 
 
 The coward, sheltered under an anonymous signature, could vent 
 all his spleen and malignity without risk of discovery; and the course 
 of this investigation has stimulated informers and encouraged tale- 
 bearers. It will be well for the country if the practice should stop 
 here. 
 
 Vague and indefinite in their charges, there was scarce in the 
 wide range of politics a subject which an eager and ingenious prose- 
 cutor might not have drawn into examination under color of their au- 
 thority. 
 
 The undersigned was anxious, nay solicitous, to shield the mover, 
 if his motives were pure and patriotic, from unjust aspersions, so far 
 as laid in his power. He sought, therefore, to confine the inquiries 
 of the committee, within the just scope of the resolutions, to charges 
 founded upon reliable sources, and to examinations conducted \inder 
 the known rules of law which obtain in judicial tribunals. 
 
 The more desirable and necessary was this since the sessions of the 
 committee — obviously inquisitorial as were its duties — were secret, as 
 they need must be, and since its province was to determine ex parte 
 upon the dearest rights of the citizen, his good name and reputation, 
 denying to him the sacred right of confronting his accuser and of 
 cross-examining the witness. 
 
 But the undersigned regrets to say that all these effisrts on his part 
 were futile. Most of the charges examined were founded on anony- 
 mous communications — others upon information from persons desti- 
 tute of character, and without position — displaced office-holders- 
 disappointed office-seekers — venal place men — adventurers — merce- 
 nary Swiss, whose politics were bounded by no loftier motive than 
 self-interest. All the evidence which, unexplained, raised suspicions 
 against the administration, was, by means unknown to the under- 
 signed, regularly telegraphed to northern papers; and when the evi- 
 dence was not of this character, it was invariably garbled and dis- 
 torted. The private correspondence of the President was paraded on all 
 occasions, with a degree of indeKcacy unparalleled, by witnesses whose 
 sole purpose seemed to be to gratify their malice. Senators, repre- 
 sentatives, his cabinet ministers, and intimate friends were called upon 
 to relate his private conversations. Witnesses were summoned without 
 order and without notice, and to this end the chairman usurped all the 
 powers of the committee. In one remarkable case, a letter attacking 
 the political integrity of a member of tjjris House, Mr. Cox, of Ohio, 
 was read in committee by the chairman. The writer, after enuncia- 
 ting the charge, proceeded to say to the effect that at least the pub- 
 licity given to the affair by its examination before the committee 
 would tend to weaken Mr. Cox in his district, and might result in 
 
32 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 defeating him ; and thus it was expected room would be made for au 
 individual of opposite politics. It was thus sought to use a commit- 
 tee of this House in aid of political tricksters. The attempt thus to 
 prostitute the power of this House was, in the opinion of the under- 
 signed, a high contempt. This is but one of several cases where 
 long examinations were gone through, and private correspondence 
 paraded for the gratification of the spleen of low and malignant wit- 
 nesses. In this connexion, the undersigned may be permitted to 
 say that, inasmuch as the charges against the member from Ohio 
 were from time to time pressed, and the attacking witnesses were 
 permitted to come in again and again, to add to, and amend, and ex- 
 plain their evidence, as it had been replied to, he felt it due, as an 
 act of mere justice to that member, that the letter which had been 
 exhibited to the committee by the chairman should be spread upon 
 the records ; but that demand was refused. Again : Individuals were 
 summoned before the committee and compelled to produce private 
 letters. The undersigned was of opinion that there was no power 
 in the committee for such a purpose. He deemed that it had been 
 well settled that the power to " send for persons and papers " was 
 confined to public papers and records, and did not at all warrant the 
 application of force to extort private letters; but this opinion wa« 
 not concurred in by the majority of the committee. On the 17th 
 April, Robert J. Walker, late governor of Kansas, appeared, in 
 obedience to a subpoena, and was required to produce a letter from 
 the President, under date of July 12, 1857, touching upon the policy 
 of the government in regard to the distracting condition of things in 
 the Territory of Kansas, and suggestions as to the future official 
 course of the witness. The undersigned opposed its introduction, in 
 addition to the objection hereinbefore stated, on other and higher 
 grounds. He deemed that this point had been well settled not only 
 in this country, but in the forum of that people from whom our laws 
 and systeni of jurisprudence has been derived. 
 
 In Anderson vs. Hamilton, (8 Frice, 225,) it had been resolved that 
 communication in official correspondence, relating to matters of state, 
 cannot be produced in evidence in an action by an individual against 
 a person holding office for an injury, &c., not only because such com- 
 munications are confidential, but because their disclosure might be- 
 tray secrets of state policy which might be injurious to the interests 
 of the country; and of the same opinion was Dallas, chief justice, in 
 Home vs. Lord Bentinck, reported in the same volume. On the hear- 
 ing of ifar6?<r2/ vs. Madison, (1 Cranch, 137,) Mr. Lincoln, the Attor- 
 ney General, objected to answering certain questions, for that, he 
 held he ought not to answer as to official transactions while he was 
 Secretary of State. The court said "if anything confidential was 
 required to be disclosed he was not obliged to answer; and if he 
 thought anything was communicated in confidence he was not bound 
 to disclose it." The committee, however, dissented from these views, 
 and ' ' thought the matter perfectly within the province of the com- 
 mittee." — (Lecompton Con., dc, p. v ) 
 
 The witness declared "that he did not think the committee had 
 the right to compel the production of this letter, or to force it from 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 33 
 
 him against his will," (ibid, p. 4,) and he accordingly refused to pro- 
 duce it. It was then understood that the matter should be carried 
 before the House for its decision. The undersigned was detained the 
 succeeding day by indisposition. On that day, during his absence, 
 Ellis B. Schnabel was examined. He had not been summoned by 
 order of the committee, but on the mere paction of the chairman, in 
 defiance of the repeated remonstrances of the undersigned that no 
 witness should be summoned unless upon notice and special order. 
 Interrogatories had been previously furnished to him by the chairman, 
 without the knowledge or consent of the undersigned or his colleagues, 
 (ibid, p. 5, ) thus entirely ignoring the advantages derivable from the 
 oral examination. In violation of another well-settled rule of law, 
 parol evidence was given of a written document when the existence 
 and custody of the original was known and within reach of the com- 
 mittee, which had declared itself possessed of the power to obtain it, 
 and had signified the intention of exerting that power. The under- 
 signed forbears to dilate upon the consequences which may result if 
 the course of the committee on this point should be drawn into a pre- 
 cedent. It must be obvious to the most careless and superficial 
 observer that its tendency would be to paralyze every power of the 
 government, and place the public interests at the mercy of the 
 demagogue and the unscrupulous. The undersigned deems that a 
 discussion of the resolutions, and an inquiry into their legality and 
 propriety, would ill become the committee to whom they were re- 
 ferred, and with these remarks proceeds to examine the principal 
 subjects investigated. 
 
 First. — The Eaxcutive Binding. 
 
 The evidence on this subject illustrates the danger of afibrding, by 
 inquisitorial congressional committees, an opportunity and temptation 
 to reckless and malignant men to revenge their disappointment by 
 culumnious imputations against officers of the government. Prior to 
 the act of March 3, 1855, the executive binding was under the direc- 
 tion of the heads of the respective departments. That act placed it 
 under the supervision of the Superintendent of Public Printing. — (10 
 United States Laws, 653.) This provision was repealed by the act of 
 May 15, 1856, (11 United States Statutes,) and from that time the 
 executive binding was contracted for and paid out of the contingent 
 fund by the heads of departments. Finally, the act of June 12, 1858, 
 (11 United States Statutes, page 327,) expressly enacted: 
 
 "That all the ruling and binding for the several executive depart- 
 ments shall be executed by practical and competent bookbinders, ta 
 be appointed by the head of the department." 
 
 At no period during the present administration had the President 
 any control over the executive binding, and in no instance did he 
 interfere with the heads of the departments in their appointments. 
 
 But a man named Pettibone, a bookbinder in Washington, eager for 
 a job of public binding, had for some time been pestering the Presi- 
 dent with his importunities and complaints against the heads of the 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 3 
 
34 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 departmbnts for not conforming to the requirements of the act of 
 June 12, 1858, as he understood them. At length the President 
 referred a memorial of his to the Attorney General, with the following 
 indorsement thereon : 
 
 "Referred tn the Attorney General, though the President does not 
 intend to interfere with the decision or action of the different heads 
 of departments in the selection of bookbinder, the law having expressly 
 conferred this power upon them. 
 
 "J. B." 
 
 ■J 
 
 Pettibone appeared before this committee and made a general com- 
 plaint against the President and the heads of departments for their 
 neglect of his importunities. He states, in substance, that the me- 
 morial which he presented to the President, having, by the President' s 
 indorsement thereon, been referred to the Attorney General, that 
 indorsement was afterwards erased, and another substituted in its 
 place, "in the President's own handwriting." The testimony of the 
 Attorney General, and of Mr. Roane, a clerk in the Attorney Gene- 
 ral's office, who had the paper in charge, and the appearance of the 
 paper and its indorsement, prove the absolute impossibility that there 
 could ever have been any other indorsement by the President upon 
 the memorial save that which now appears. 
 
 Second. — The Public Printing, 
 
 The principal subject of isnquiry before the committee was in re- 
 gard to the public printing. It has furnished occasion for many cal- 
 umnies against the President and his administration, and has been 
 the main point of attack by those who are eager to gratify personal 
 revenge, or to satiate political animosity. A careful scrutiny of the 
 evidence would furnish a complete vindication of the President from 
 every assault ; but the brief compass of this report will suffer only a 
 general summary. 
 
 The public printing of this government has been treated by the 
 law, and in practice, as belonging to three , classes : Senate printing. 
 House printing, and Executive printing, or that which is done under 
 the immediate order and for the use of the several departments. 
 
 On the 26th of August, 1852, an act of Congress was passed to 
 provide for executing the public printing, and establishing the prices 
 thereof. That act was designed to establish, in some degree; a per- 
 manent and regular system for executing the public printing, and to 
 regulate its prices. The act provided for the appointment of a Super- 
 intendent of Public Printing, and prescribed his duties; the time and 
 manner in which the work should be done ; how the accounts should 
 be kept ; and the prices were fixed. It also directed that a pubUc 
 printer should be elected by each House of Congress, to serve .during 
 the congressional term. 
 
 The executive printing was required to be done at Washington by 
 the public printer of the Senate or House with one exception. The 
 11th section provided that nothing therein contained should prevent 
 the heads of departments from employing printers out of the city of 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 35 
 
 Washington to execute such printing for any of the departments as may 
 he reqmred for use out of Washington when it could be executed as 
 cheap at the specified rates, increased by the cost of transportation. 
 Post office blanks, to be used by the post office out of Washington, 
 constituted the chief kind of executive printing coming within this 
 exception. 
 
 Public printing being a large item of public expenditure, and often 
 productive of large profits, it has, from the earliest period, been re- 
 garded as an important item of party patronage. Every party has 
 elected its public printer exclusively upon party grounds, and among 
 the members of each successful party, public printing has been the 
 subject of keen contest and strife.. Whatever party happened to be 
 in power in either house, the public printing has been disposed of in 
 the way deemed most advantageous to party purposes. No success- 
 ful party has at any time failed to exercise this power or question the 
 right of its successful adversary to do the same. This uniform rule 
 of the Senate and of the House has also prevailed in respect to the 
 printing of the several departments. 
 
 The public printer being elected by each house, and responsible to 
 it, neither the President nor any head of department could exercise 
 any control over the public printing, save only in the excepted case 
 mentioned in the 11th section of the printing act. But no one 
 doubted the political propriety and absolute right of any head of 
 department to dispose of that printing in such manner as might best 
 serve the purposes and interest of the party having the administra- 
 tion. This boon has always been craved by the editors or publishers 
 of leading party newspapers, . and on them it has been generally be- 
 stowedi The local position of the leading party newspaper at Wash- 
 ington, sometimes regarded as the organ of the administration for the 
 time being, often secured to that paper the advantage of congres- 
 sional or executive patronage, and occasionally of both. But it has 
 been the experience of all political parties in this country that this 
 advantage of newspapers in the District has been the subject of com- 
 plaint by publishers abroad, who deemed their party mprits or party 
 necessities to be equal or superior to those within the District; and 
 hence of late years, in all parties, the profits of the public printiqg 
 have been eagerly and successfully competed for by persons from 
 abroad. The election of printer to the House at the present session 
 is an example. 
 
 This was the state of the law and the practice in respect to the 
 public printing at the commencement of the present administration. 
 For several months after Mr. Buchanan entered upon his administra-- 
 tion no change was made in regard to the executive printing, and it 
 continued to be done by the Senate printer of the 34th Congress until 
 the expiration of his term and until after the meeting of Congress. The 
 benefit of that printing soon became, a subject of competition. It 
 was placed by the la;w at the absolute disposa,l of the heads of the 
 departments in respect to the printing not required for use in Wash- 
 ington. It appears from the evidence that the fact was known to 
 Mr. Wendell and other printers, but not known by the head of the 
 
36 THE COVOBE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Post OfHce Department, that the printing of post office blanks was 
 very lucrative, yielding about double the profit that it was generally 
 supposed to yield. 
 
 Among the claimants were the publishers of newspapers at Wash- 
 ington, at Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. Each relied, as 
 usual, upon his services to the party, and the party influence he 
 could bring to bear in support of his claims. 
 
 After full consideration. Postmaster General Brown resolved to 
 give the printing of the blanks, until further orders, to William Rice, 
 the publisher of the "Pennsylvanian," and an order to that effect 
 was made by him on the 31st of December, 185T, with the assent of 
 the President. This order was in strict conformity with the laws, and 
 no other claimant had a right to question its wisdom or justice. The 
 disposition of this patronage to a party newspaper was in accordance 
 with the practice of all parties, and to judge between the rival 
 claimants was within the absolute discretion of the Postmaster 
 General. 
 
 The printing of the post office blanks, as has been seen, constitutes 
 the whole of the patronage in respect to the public printing that was 
 or could be disposed of by the administration. It had always been, 
 and lawfully might be, given to the printers of newpapers. Such 
 persons were always editors of partisan papers, supporting the ad- 
 ministration. Among many applicants, election had to be made. 
 The law gave the election to the department; and as the prices were 
 fixed by the act of Congress, and could neither be increased nor 
 diminished by the President, it was of no public concern to whom 
 the printing might be given. As there is no pretence but that all 
 the work was done as required by law, and nothing more than the 
 lawful price paid for it, the most zealous enemy of the President can 
 point out no just ground of complaint against him for the disposal of 
 this printing. 
 
 The imputations in respect to the printing have in the course of 
 the examination assumed many forms, and exhibited many contradic- 
 tions of each other by the accusing witnesses, and no small number 
 of self-contradictions by the same witnesses in their examination at 
 different times. Two points, however, embrace the' substance of the 
 charges against the President on this subject: 
 
 1st. That the profits arising from the printing of the post office 
 blanks were, by the order and direction of the President, applied to 
 the support of three newspapers, the "Union," now the "Constitu- 
 tion," at Washington, and the "Pennsylvanian" and "Argus," at 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 2d. That the profits of this printing were corruptly offered by the 
 President to John W. Forney, the editor of a newspaper at Phila- 
 delphia, to induce him to give up his own views and support the 
 administration on the Kansas question. 
 
 As this patronage was by law vested in the Executive, what reason 
 for censure could it afford, whether its benefits were bestowed on 
 one person only or distributed among several ? In regard to the 
 manner in which it was disposed of, there has been a great deal of 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 37 
 
 testimony by Cornelius Wendell, who has been examined many times 
 on this point, and whose testimony on one occasion seldom accords 
 with his statements on the same point at other times. To point out 
 the many contradictions of the witness in his different accounts of 
 this matter would be an irksome and unnecessary task. But the real 
 truth is clearly established, and is briefly this: 
 
 This printing was a bone of contention among several persons who 
 were eager to enjoy it, and who claimed it on the score of political 
 services to the democratic party. It was given by the Postmaster 
 General to William Rice, by the order already mentioned, dated the 
 31st of December, 1857. Until this time it had been suffered to re- 
 main in the same condition as when Mr. Buchanan's administration 
 commenced. Rice contracted with Wendell, who undertook to do 
 the work, draw the pay, and retain fifty-seven per cent, for himself, 
 and pay forty-three per cent, to Rice. This was an arrangement be- 
 tween Rice and Wendell, in which the government had no concern. 
 It was merely a private contract between them ; and if they were 
 satisfied, no one else had any reason to complain. , The work, in 
 point of fact, was not done by Wendell, but he employed another 
 person (J. T. Crowell) to do the work for from forty to fifty per cent. , 
 leaving a margin of profit to Wendell. Rice was the only party 
 authorized by the government. The contract between him and Wen- 
 dell seems to have been fulfilled for the first six months ; but after- 
 wards Wejidell refused to pay his full share to Rice, but retained a 
 portion of it for himself, and paid a portion to Severns, of the ' ' Ar- 
 gus." This he pretended to do under an arrangement or direction 
 by the President, concerning which, on different examinations, he 
 has told many conflicting stories. 
 
 That this arrangement was made by Wendell for his own advan- 
 tage ; that he pretended it was done by authority of the President, 
 and that the President had nothing at all to do with it, is conclu- 
 sively shown by the testimony of Mr. Baker, by the account stated 
 by Wendell, and by Wendell's own confession. Mr. Baker testifies 
 as follows : 
 
 Answer. In January, 1859, Mr. Rice was quite violent and indig- 
 nant about not getting from Wendell what he supposed was justly 
 due to him ; this conversation happened while I was here in January, 
 1859 ; Mr. Rice said, when he was appointed the printer to print the 
 post office blanks, that he had made an arrangement or contract with 
 Mr. Wendell to do the work for fifty per centum of the gross receipts, 
 and he contended that under that arrangement there was quite a large 
 balance due to him; I was very desirous that Mr. Wendell should pay 
 Mr. Rice, as I knew that he was in moneyed difficulties, the amount 
 he, Wendell, owed Rice, and to ascertain that amount I called upon Mr. 
 Wendell; Mr. Wendell said that Rice was not to get fifty per centum, 
 but forty-three per centum of the gross receipts; Wendell also stated 
 at that time that the money was appropriatod tb other purposes, and 
 that he did not owe him anything; that the Philadelphia "Argus" 
 had received a portion of the forty-three per centum. 
 
38 THE COVODE INVEaTIGATtON. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Wendell tell you at that time by whom this 
 was appropriated otherwise than to the publisher of the "Pennsyl- 
 vanian?" 
 
 Answer. He said he had directions from the administration, or 
 from high official sources; I do not recollect his exact words. 
 
 Question. What did you understand by the " administration ?" 
 
 Answer. I understood the President. 
 
 Question. You spoke of conversing with the President about 
 this ; what was that conversrtion? 
 
 Answer. I understood, in the fall of 1858 — I do not know from 
 whom, or how — that the "Daily Argus" was to receive 10| per cen- 
 tum from and after the 1st of August, 1858, and I inquired of the 
 President whether he had given any directions for a portion of Rice's 
 money, or what was due to Rice as printer of post office blanks, to 
 be paid to the "Daily Argus." He said he had given no directions; 
 but report said the net profits from the printing of these blanks 
 amounted to about $20,000 per annum; and if such was the case, he 
 supposed that Mr- Rice could afford' to pay the "Argus" out of his 
 own profits, or out of this sum. When Mr. Rice was first appointed 
 printer it was thought the net proceeds would not amount to over 
 $10,000 or $12,000, and when it was ascertained that it amounted to 
 $20,000, as the "Argus" was hard up, as it always is, it was given 
 without any directions from him. It was supposed, under Mr. Wen- 
 dell's understanding of it, that there had been a subdivision of it. It 
 then became necessary to learn how much was received for the blanks 
 from July 1, 1858, to July 31 of the same year, and from August 1 
 to December 10. I learned this at the Post Office Department. The 
 amount that Mr. Wendell received on account of the blanks during 
 the first period mentioned was $20,501 24, and for the latter period 
 $14,766 82. 
 
 Question. Did you procure that information from the Postmaster 
 General ? 
 
 Answer. This document I received from the Auditor, Mr. Offutt; 
 he is the proper officer of the department. 
 
 Amounts paid for printing hlanJcs used outside of the bity of Washington 
 from January 1, 1858. 
 
 5, 1858, to WiUiam Rice ■ : $4,748 77 
 
 C. Wendell, assignee of Wm. Rice. 3, 172 89 
 
 4,401 82 
 
 1,243 80 
 
 " att' y of Wm. A.Harris 4,125 82 
 
 2,811 14 
 
 20,501 24 
 
 February 
 March 
 
 5, 1858, to 
 16, " " 
 
 April 
 
 May 
 
 June 
 
 13, " " 
 
 14, " " 
 10, " " 
 
 July 
 
 12, " " 
 
THE COVODE INVESTiaATION. 39 
 
 August 31, 1858, to C.Wendell, att'y of W.A.Harris $4,147 69 
 
 September 8, " " " " 2,264 17 
 
 October 20, " " " " 2,338 97 
 
 November 10, " " " " 3,338 44 
 
 December 9, " " " " 2,677 55 
 
 14,766 82 
 
 Prom this testimony it is plain that while these parties were an- 
 noying the President in respect to the shares that should be received 
 by themselves from the post ofiBce blanks, the President made no 
 order and gave no direction concerning it. This is afterwards con- 
 fessed by Wendell himself, contradicting all his previous assertions 
 on the subject: 
 
 ' ' Gentlemen, about September- — some time in the month of Septem- 
 ber — I suggested the stoppage of the payment to the 'Pennsylvanian,' 
 on my own volition, believing that the money was thrown away there. 
 I stopped it. I had two reasons for it. One was, I wanted some of 
 the profits myself, for I was running into difficulties, and I thought I 
 was entitled to some of the profits. I suggested it to the President, 
 and without his direction I stopped it. He did not direct this stoppage^ 
 He did not direct.it to be done, nor dissent. He would say this whole 
 subject of the printing is a source of annoyance to me, do as you please. 
 I suspended the payment, and Mr. Rice, of course, was highly indig- 
 nant, and he made diverse statements, which were caught up by the 
 reporters, and this attack was made. Mr. Baker told me that the 
 President wished me to make this statement. He brought it to me 
 already written, and I signed it. It was, and is true, in every par- 
 ticular. I will read it: ' My attention has been called to a paragraph 
 in a letter to the New York Times of the 9th instant, in vague and 
 general terms, that the President had caused certain money, justly 
 due to some individual, to be used for electioneering purposes.' He 
 never did. ' With this accusation my own name has been so gene- 
 rally connected in conversation, that I feel constrained, publicly and 
 emphatically, to deny all knowledge or belief of any fact which can 
 warr'antit, and to declare that President Buchanan never did authorize, 
 advise or request me, directly or indirectly, to use either my own 
 money or that of any other person for purposes like that mentioned 
 in the paragraph referred to, or in any manner affecting any public 
 election.' That is all true. What I d"id was of my own volition. I 
 thought the money could be better applied to partisan purposes, and 
 
 I took the responsibility." 
 * ** * * * # * * 
 
 Question. Is this a correct copy of a card you published in the 
 "Union:" 
 
 "Washington 'Union,' l>ecem&er 11, 1858. 
 
 "A Cabd. — My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter 
 to the ' New York Times ' of the 9th instant, in vague and general 
 terms, that the President had caused certain money, justly due to some 
 
40 
 
 THE COVODE INVESTKSATION. 
 
 individual, to be used for electioneering purposes. With this accusa- 
 tion my own name has been so generally used in conversation that I 
 feel constrained, publicly and emphatically, to deny all knowledge or 
 belief of any fact which can warrant it, and tp declare that President 
 Buchanan never did authorize, advise or request me, directly or indi- 
 rectly, to use either my own money or that of any other person for 
 any purpose like that mentioned in the paragraph referred to, or in 
 any manner affecting any public election. 
 
 "C. WENDELL." 
 
 Answer. I presume it is. 
 
 The statement of account furnished by Wendell to Mr. Baker shows 
 that his object in withholding from Rice the share due under their 
 contract for printing the blanks was to secure for himself a larger 
 portion of the profits than had been stipulated between them. To 
 accomplish that, he was willing to divideone-half of Rice's share with 
 Severns. The foregoing confession shows that this was suggested 
 by himself, and for the express purpose of securing more of ' ' the 
 profits." 
 
 The President's positive denial that he had "given any direction" 
 for the payment of any portion to the "Argus" is also proven by 
 Mr. Baker. 
 
 Wendell was examined many times by the committee. An illus- 
 tration of what credit is due to him upon any subject concerning 
 which he has testified is furnished by a comparison of some of his 
 statements in respect to the distribution of the money arising from 
 the printing of the post ofBce blanks to sustain the ' ' Argus" and the 
 ' ' Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Comparison of Wendell's statements. 
 
 March 22d. 
 
 Question. By whom was 
 the arrangement made to 
 take care of these papers, 
 (the "Argus" and " Penn- 
 sylvanian?") 
 
 Answer. It was done by 
 authority of the President. — 
 Record, page 4. 
 
 April 5th, 
 
 Question. That arrange- 
 ment (the payment to Sevr 
 erns, of the "Argus,") was 
 dictated by whom ? 
 
 Answer. By " the powers 
 that be," sir. 
 
 Question. By what powers? 
 
 Answer. By the President 
 and the Postmaster General, 
 one or the other of them ; 
 one acting at the instigation 
 of the other, as we all In- 
 ferred. — Becofd, page 13. 
 
 JHay 1st. 
 
 I suggested the stoppage of 
 the payment to the " Penn- 
 sylvanian' ' on my own volUion, 
 believing that the money was 
 thrown away. I stopped it. I 
 suggested it to the President, 
 and without his direction I 
 stopped it. He did not direct 
 this stoppage. « e o o What 
 I did was of my own volition. 
 — Record, page 121. 
 
 Similar conflict may be found in Wendell's statements upon every 
 subject concerning which he was examined. 
 
 We have here on three different examinations three conflicting ac- 
 counts of the same transaction. On the 22d of March, Wendell swore 
 positively and unequivocally that the arrangement by which a portion 
 of the money which, under their contract, was payable by Wendell 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 41 
 
 to Rice, of the ' ' Pennsylvanian, " was withheld from Rice and paid 
 to Severns, of the ' ' Argus, " for the support of that paper, by au- 
 thority of the President. Two weeks afterwards he swore that it 
 was done by the dictation of the President, or of the Postmaster 
 General — "one or the other of them." Pour weeks later he con- 
 fessed that it was done by his own suggestion, that it was not directed 
 by the President, that what he had done was of his "own volition." 
 To comment upon such testimony were a waste of time, and yet this 
 witness was eight times examined by the committee in order to crimi- 
 nate the President, and his stories disfigure a large portion of the 
 record. 
 
 As to the second point, the charge against the administration was 
 an imputed attempt to buy the services of John W. Forney, editor of 
 a newspaper in Philadelphia, and this purchase was to be made by 
 using the public printing patronage for that purpose. It was alleged 
 that the Attorney General promised the printing of the post office 
 blanks to Forney upon the conditions mentioned. 
 
 All this was entirely and completely beyond the range or any in- 
 quiry that the House had authorized the committee to make. The 
 undersigned made no opposition thereto, lest his motives might have 
 been misinterpreted. 
 
 David Webster, of Philadelphia, was called to prove the charge, 
 and he detailed a private conversation which he had with the Attor- 
 ney General about two years ago. It was manifest that he himself 
 did not regard anything that took place in that conversation in any 
 degree disreputable or improper, for he said, on his oath, that noth- 
 ing occurred which Judge Black would wish to conceal. — (Testimony 
 Lee. Con., p. 127.) The only thing which he said, fallible as his 
 memory is, which even partisan malice could distort into evil, was a 
 statement that the Attorney General had promised the public printing 
 to Forney on condition that he would pledge himself not to betray 
 the party to which he then professed to belong. But this statement 
 of Mr, Webster, not at all supposed to be wilfully false, is untrue in 
 point of fact, and for thi# opinion the undersigned proceeds to give 
 his reasons : 
 
 First. It is directly contradicted by the Attorney General himself, 
 the other party to the conversation, who swears that he made no such 
 promise; but that, on the contrary, he distinctly cautioned Webster 
 not so to understand him. This contradiction alone would be enough 
 to settle the question of fact against the party asserting the affirma- 
 tive. The burden of proof lies upon the other party. There is oath 
 against oath. Common justice, and the universally admitted rule of 
 law, requires the point to be decided in such case against the accus- 
 ing party. But Mr. Webster' s oath is not entitled to the credit which 
 may be fairly claimed for that of the Attorney General. The latter 
 comes to the committee with no imputation upon his character, save 
 that which is implied in this single accusation; and if that be un- 
 founded there is no imputation; and whether it be true or not is the 
 very point under examination. Webster, on the other hand, accuses 
 
42 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 timself with assenting to all that he charges against the Attorney 
 General; and, in addition thereto, with having come to Washington 
 and sought the interview under instruction of Forney. If there 
 was iniquity in the transaction, Forney was to enjoy the fruits. 
 Every man knows that when the testimony of a particeps criminis is 
 offered to criminate others, it is uniformly refused all credence 
 in courts of justice unless corroborated. If, therefore, there was 
 anything criminal in this conversation, Mr. Webster was not compe- 
 tent to prove it by his own oath. If, on the other hand, the conver- 
 sation'was innocent, and had nothing in it dishonorable to either party, 
 then those who wantonly dragged it before the public, who, regard- 
 less of the sacredness with which, hitherto., society has looked upon 
 private correspondence, published before this committee private let- 
 ters — they, and they only, are guilty of an offence against good 
 morals, and must bear the burden of the just censure which, sooner 
 or later, shall, by all good men, be visited upon them. Again: Mr. 
 Webster's testimony from beginning to end shows that his memory 
 is treacherous and unreliable. He fails when he attempts to give the 
 contents of his own letter, deliberately written out. What reliance 
 can be placed upon his recollection of a desultory conversation, of 
 three or four hours in length, which occurred more than two years 
 before ? He himself seems distrustful of himself. Instead of giv- 
 ing the Attorney General' s words, he says : ' ' Judge Black gave me to 
 understand," &c. It is clear that the whole conversation underwent 
 a transmutation in the mind of the witness between the time that he 
 heard and that at which he swore to it. This is not to be wondered 
 at. He who hears a conversation, private and confidential, from one 
 who trusted in him, and then goes forth and repeats it to those who 
 have an interest to pervert it, will soon, insensibly it may be, learn 
 to pervert it himself. 
 
 Third. If the Attorney General had been dead; if this attempt to 
 blacken him, like that upon the late Postmaster General, had been 
 made when he was in the grave, the written evidence would of itself 
 have been sufficient to relieve him from all suspicion. Mr. Webster's 
 own letters furnish a triumphant refutation of his testimony. They 
 show that the Attorney General made no promise, and gave no pledge; 
 and they show further that Forney refused to do what had been sug- 
 gested, for the very reason that he and Webster could not succeed 
 in getting a promise of patronage from the Tresident or any other 
 member of the administration. 
 
 The transition from this matter to the charges brought against the 
 President, which are embodied in the narrative of Mr Fornev. is 
 natural and easy. But the undersigned has not yet been ables 
 to see what possible connexion there is between them and, the 
 resolutions of the House. It does not concern the Philadelphia 
 and other navy yards, or the Chicago or other post offices. It 
 does not concern the public buildings or other public property. 
 It does not involve the expenditure of money in carrying elections, 
 save in the respect of the total exper^diture of all Mr. Forney's means 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 43 
 
 and exhaustion of all his resources, which he alleges happened to him 
 in securing the election of Mr. Buchanan. Nor does it relate in any 
 degree whatever to the remaining three of the seven branches of 
 investigations, that is to say, whether the President has sought to 
 influence the action of Congress for or against the passage of any law 
 by corrupt means, or whether any officer of 'the government has 
 attempted to defeat the execution of any law by corrupt combination, 
 or whether the President has failed or refused to execute any law; 
 but it sets out simply with a narrative of alleged merits on one side 
 and alleged ingratitude and unfaithfulness on the other. With all of 
 this what has this House to do ? It degrades itself when it lends its 
 high name and exalted authority to the resentments of individuals, 
 and surrenders itself a willing instrument to wreak the vengeance of 
 disappointed seekers for office against the authorities of the govern- 
 ment, in whose hands, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the 
 dispensation of patronage has been placed. But the colleagues of the 
 undersigned deemed it a proper subject for consideration, and respect 
 for them leads him to treat of it. Mr. Forney up to the 1st of Janu- 
 ary, 1858, although he had commenced to break with the administra- 
 tion on the Kansas -Lecompton question, had not indulged in personal 
 rancor against Mr. Buchanan. His anxiety had been to come to 
 Washington as the editor of the organ, as it is called, and of course 
 in the hope of enjoying the public printing. Before the inauguration 
 of the President the latter told him franklj'- that such an arrangement 
 could not be carried out. Mr. Nicholson, the owner of the "Union," 
 had communicated to the President his intention of not disposing of 
 the "Union" to Colonel Forney, in consequence of the objection 
 made thereto. There was among southern gentlemen a decided oppo- 
 sition to Mr. Forney, which the President was bound to respect, and 
 the difficulties in the way were insuperable. With regard to the 
 printing of the post office blanks, Mr. Brown testifies to the President's 
 desire and his intentions to give that contract to Mr. Forney, who 
 was a practical printer. But the President had determined not to 
 interfere with the printiifg until Congress had assembled, prudently 
 determining not to forestall any action Congress might take in the 
 premises. Sincerely anxious, as the whole evidence tends to show, 
 to benefit and provide for Mr. Forney, the President repeatedly 
 offered him the most lucrative offices in his gift at Philadelphia. 
 When these were refused he proposed to give him the consulate sup- 
 posed to be the most lucrative and desirable, that of Liverpool. 
 That it was an honorable 'place Mr. Forney testifies, since he declares 
 it had been held by a number of distinguished gentlemen. To make 
 it more desirable the offer was accompanied with pecuniary advan- 
 tages. The income was to be increased by an honorable compensa- 
 tion as foreign editor of the "Unipn." The President' s_ desire was, 
 and he so expressed it, that time might soften the asperities of south- 
 ern gentlemen towards Forney, and his return to the place he coveted 
 be secured. What was there dishonorable in all this ? Had Colonel 
 Forney in fact put a price' upon all his exertions for the election of 
 Mr. Buchanan, and did he conceive himself entitled to a higher 
 
44 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 reward? In what other respect the offer could be either dishonorable 
 or degrading the undersigned fails to perceive. In truth Mr. Forney 
 did not pretend so to consider it until the beginning of 1858. Up to 
 that time he had not exhibited personal feeling against the President. 
 Nay, in the fall he had, in commenting on the President's letter to 
 the forty parsons, indulged in excessive laudation of him through the 
 columns of the ' ' Press." Mr. Forney declares that he never applied 
 to the administration for the printing of the post office blanks, and 
 that the charge that he ever asked for it or took any step, to secure it 
 is most unfounded. 
 
 He had intimated to his friends that he would accept the printing 
 of the post office blanks, but he says that was prior to September or 
 October, 1857. He, however, knew the errand Webster was running, 
 and confided to him full powers, since he says ' ' he committed his 
 honor to his keeping." But the evidence shows that Colonel Forney 
 is mistaken. Mr. Cobb says Mr. Forney was extremely anxious to 
 get the printing of the post office blanks. He frequently pressed it 
 upon Mr. Cobb-, and Mr. Cobb pressed it upon the President. Every 
 time he met him it was talked over, and this was frequently. It was 
 the subject of very earnest conversation. Judge Black says Mr. 
 Forney' s friends and he himself urged his claims very strongly. He 
 wrote and spoke to the Attorney General very often. During the 
 summer he spoke impatiently and bitterly of the delay. His appeals 
 to Judge Black to get the printing were coupled with strong asser- 
 tions that he meant to be true to the President. Mr. Forney, by his 
 own admission, came to Washington very anxious to be on good terms 
 with Mr. Buchanan after the post office blanks had been disposed of, 
 (Testimony, Lecompton Constitution, p. 204,) and that was the 
 31st December, 1857. Nothing occurred, so far as has been proved 
 before this committee, after this time, to induce a change of feeling 
 towards the President. Both the President and Forney had taken 
 their ground on the Kansas question. Forney had refused the former 
 offers of patronage, and his new political attitude did not warrant the 
 just expectation of any other offer, or, indeed, a repetition of those 
 which had been made. Forney was aware of the value of the post 
 office blanks. Under the administration of General Pierce he had 
 shared in this patronage. Nicholson, then editor of the Union, held 
 the patronage, and Forney shared one-third or one-fifth of it. Again, 
 Mr. Forney says that at no time did he ever express a willingness to 
 take the Liverpool consulate when coupled with the pecuniary offer. 
 That he was desirous of accepting it, appears from Mr. Cobb's testi- 
 mony, who says that Mr. Forney appealed to him to use his influence 
 to persuade his family to consent to this arrangement. 
 
 It is difficult to see why the proposition to connect the consulate 
 with the honorable post of foreign correspondent of the Union, for a 
 generous compensation, should have been considered dishonorable. 
 Mr. Forney says he considered it a dishonorable proposition, and a 
 degradation to him — the offer of the consulate — because he says he 
 looked upon it as sending him out of the country, away from his 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 45 
 
 friends; and he says it was so regarded by all his friends. Yet, with 
 these views he was willing to submit to the dishonor and the degra- 
 dation. Wendell says he did not regard it as a dishonorable 
 proposition, nor did Forney, as appears from the following extract 
 from his testimony: 
 
 Question. And you say that Mr. Forney, among other reasons, de- 
 clined on account of his financial difiiculties, which would prevent his 
 leaving the country ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Forney ever make any objection to this offer of 
 money as a dishonorable proposition ? Did he treat your proposal as 
 a dishonorable one? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he get indignant, and say ' ' I consider your proposi- 
 tion a dishonorable one?" 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he treated it as a business negotiation. 
 
 Further, Wendelsays: He renewed the proposals, and after several 
 conversations it was agreed that the compensation should be raised 
 in the mode alluded to. Among other objections, Mr. Forney stated 
 his inability in a financial point of view to leave, and it was finally 
 agreed that Wendell should advance $10,000 ; and he raised it, and 
 had it in possession for nineteen days when Forney totally declined. 
 There is a remarkable discrepancy in the testimony of these witnesses, 
 which the undersigned will not attempt to reconcile, but will only 
 add, except their conflicting statements, there is not a particle of evi- 
 dence against the administration. To the undersigned it is perfectly 
 clear, from all the testimony, that Mr. Forney was an urgent and 
 anxious applicant for the printing of the post office blanks during the 
 whole spring, summer, and autumn of 1857. He had been the re- 
 cipient of it under the previous administration and knew its value, 
 and he thirsted to receive it again. The President's determination 
 not to let it out until Congress met prevented the arrangement, and 
 provoked his resen^jnent and stirred his anger. 
 
 The present feelings of Mr. Forney towards the President, and in 
 what light his testimony, influenced by such feelings, should be 
 received, is plainly exhibited by Mr. Forney's public speech in Wash- 
 ington on the evening of his election as Clerk to the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives. In that speech, which Mr. Forney admits to be correctly 
 reported as set forth in the record and published in his own paper, 
 Mr. Forney, among other things, said : 
 
 ' ' But I, as one man who is resolved to stand by the rights of the 
 south, who is resolved to see the fugitive slave law executed in the 
 letter and the spirit, I am resolved, for one, to protest against such 
 an act. (Loud cheers.) This country has a higher, a nobler, and 
 loftier destiny before it than the extension or perpetuation of slavery. 
 (Loud cheers.) I say it frankly, that I regret it is in existence. I 
 speak as I feel; and when I see all the power of this government 
 exercised for the protection and perpetuation of that institution, I 
 
46 THE COVODB INVESTIGATIOIT. 
 
 must protest against it. (Cheers.) I have seen, for the last eight 
 weeks, men, northern men, and I was ashamed to see them, lending 
 themselves to the depravity, if I may be permitted to use the term, 
 but certainly to the degradation, of indorsing such principles as these. 
 But, gentlemen, to bring, as I said before, these desultory remarks 
 to a close, let me, in conclusion, repeat my thanks for this demonstra- 
 tion. You may remember this passage in "Mazeppa" — my friend, 
 Mr. Jackson, of Kentucky, will also remember — when Mazeppa (I 
 cannot repeat the exact words) is bound to a wild steed, which is 
 turned off, and which flew with him over mountains, through valleys 
 and forests and across rivers, pursued by wolves, shouts back to his 
 tyrant and persecutor, that some day he would return to repay him. 
 (Loud cheers.) "Some day I will return," said Mazeppa, "to thank 
 you, count, for this uncourteous ride." Gentlemen, I have had the 
 ride for the last two or three years, (loud cheers,) laut I have also, 
 Mazeppa-like, come back, to settle with the respectable and venerable 
 gentleman at the other end of the avenue for that ride. I am returned 
 to pay my respects. (Cheers. A voice — "Give him h — 1; he has 
 no friends.") I have returned to settle accounts with him. (A voice — 
 "Don't spare him; he shot us down, like dogs, with marines." If 
 he is now sitting in his easy chair at home to-night, he must hear 
 our loud and hearty cheers, and they will remind him that his old 
 friend, Forney, has come back to settle the old debt with him." 
 (Loud cheers and laughter.) 
 
 [Mr. Forney, once more thanking the assemblage, retired from the 
 window, loudly cheered.] 
 
 It will be observed that Mr. Forney here proclaims that his hour 
 of revenge is at hand, and his audience shouted their sympathy. The 
 poetical illustration was not inapt, nor were the rufSan exclamations 
 of an exulting mob an unfit accompaniment. Mazeppa, we are told 
 in the story^ betrayed the confidence of his patron, and brought grief 
 and shame upon his benefactor. Justly banished and sent forth to 
 the desert, by a strange turn of fortune he came into power and then 
 returned to wreak a desperate, revenge. By a turn of fortune no 
 less strange, Mr. Forney, being elected Clerk of the House of Re- 
 presentatives by a dominant party whom all his life he had opposed, 
 seems to have cherished in the moment of his victory the savage 
 thought that — 
 
 "If we do but watch the hour, 
 There never yet was hupiaji power 
 That could evade, if unforgiven. 
 The patient search and vigil long 
 Of him who treasures up a wrong." 
 
 How Mr. Buchanan's administration has been "searched," and 
 how Mr. Forney' s hopes of revenge have been ' ' treasured up, ' ' the 
 records of this committee painfully exhibit. 
 
 Now, when it is borne in mind that this exulting anticipation of 
 Mazeppa-like revenge was publicly proelained by Mr. Forney at the 
 moment that this organization of the House was completed; that the 
 
THE COVODE INYESTIGATIOK. 47 
 
 resolutions for the appointment of this extraordinary committee was 
 one of the earliest acts of the House, of which he is one of the chief 
 officers; that the disposition of the patronage eagerly sought by Mr. 
 Forney from the President down until the moment of his open decla- 
 ration of hostility against the President and his administration has been 
 the subject that has principally occupied the attention of the committee; 
 that Mr. Forney is the only witness who has ventured to impute any 
 dishonorable act to the President; when these things come to be 
 dispassionately considered, and the whole proceedings of this com- 
 mittee shall be examined and understood — as sooner or later they 
 will be — public justice cannot fail to regret that the power and au- 
 thority of this House have been devoted to the malignant purposes 
 so plainly shadowed forth in Mr. Forney' s speech. And no matter 
 what resolution, prompted by party interest and stimulated by dis- 
 appointed ambition and revenge, may be now pronounced, public 
 justice will not fail to vindicate a Chief Magistrate who, venerable 
 in years, after honorable service for a whole life in the capital of 
 the nation, has been reviled by a mob, calumniated by enemies, and 
 for a whole session hunted by an inquisitorial committee, consisting 
 chiefly of his political foes. And when the records of this com- 
 mittee shall become known — the sysl^matic violation of all the 
 rules of evidence and the plainest principles of common justice — 
 the leading questions that have persistently been propounded 
 against remonstrance— the eager suggestion of whatever might de- 
 grade or criminate the President — the encouragement of inform- 
 ers-^-the refusal to call exculpating witnesses — in short, when the 
 proceedings of this committee shall come before the* people of the 
 United States, it is believed by the undersigned that they will 
 be condemned with a reprobation so strong and earnest as to prevent 
 any repetition of such an outrage against the Chief Magistrate of this 
 nation; that the usurpation of unconstitutional authority by the 
 House over the Executive will be denounced by American citizens of 
 all parties; that some future Congress will be required by their con- 
 stituents to expunge all trace of this iniquity from their record; and 
 that as this has been the first, so it will be the last effort by one de- 
 partment of the government to degrade and traduce another, and to 
 establish a political inquisition in the American government. Public 
 justice is sure speedily to repair the wrongs committed by personal 
 and. party malignity, and to the enlightened justice of his fellow-citi- 
 zens the undersigned looks with confidence to accord with hini in 
 declaring that, in respect to the public printing and to the distribu- 
 tion of the patronage which the law vested in the Executive, the 
 President and every member of the administration is free from blame 
 or reproach. 
 
48 THE C070DE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Third. — The Lecompton Ccmatitution. 
 
 Another charge preferred was the improper interference of the 
 Executive in the affairs of Kansas, and attempts on his part to influ- 
 ence the views and shape the action of the convention of its people 
 assembled to frame a constitution and form of government. 
 
 If the charge were true in its whole extent and largest scope, the 
 undersigned submits that by a fair-minded man there could be no 
 culpability imputed to the President and his advisers. Consider for 
 a moment the condition of things in Kansas. There was then open 
 rebellion against the constituted authorities of the republic. Civil 
 war existed. For the first time in the history of these States the 
 blood of their people had been shed upon mere political differences. 
 The throes of the political earthquake, the centre of whose move- 
 ments was in Kansas, vibrated throughout the whole thirty-three 
 sovereignties which form the confederacy. Involving a delicate 
 question, which had for years convulsed the couiitry, and which un- 
 fortunately still convulses it, the integrity of the Union was itself 
 threatened. In this state of things it was the right of the President 
 to interfere by reason and argument; it was his solemn duty so to do* 
 Nay, he would have been justified in bringing to the security of this 
 end all the powers of government intrusted to him, that he might 
 effect a peaceable result and quiet the agitation. Had he done so, 
 he would have but followed in the footsteps of one of his predeces- 
 sors. General Taylor, in circumstances not near so threatening, de- 
 puted a distinguished citizen of Georgia to repair to California with 
 a view to influence the action of the people of that section in framing 
 an organic law. A convention called by a military governor settled 
 that controversy. Every power of the government was brought to 
 bear in aid of that object, and the interference of the Executive was 
 successful. 
 
 The undersigned expresses no opinion upon that movement. He 
 recurs to it for the purpose of showing that, for such interference, 
 no blame was ever imputed to the administration by those individu- 
 als who find fault with Mr. Buchanan in respect to his course in 
 Kansas. 
 
 But the gravamen of the accusation against the President was, that 
 while he had held out to the world that he favored "out and out" 
 submission, he was secretly endeavoring to force upon an unwilling 
 people a constitution confijiing their suffrages to the naked question 
 of slavery. 
 
 If such charge were true, it might affect the character of the 
 President for candor and fair dealing; but the offence, if improper 
 in morals, was not impeachable inlaw. Therefore the most astute 
 mind could not extract from the resolutions submitted to the com- 
 mittee any authority for its examination. But the whole charge 
 against the President is utterly baseless. He stands acquitted of 
 that upon the solemn declaration of an individual who of all men 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATIOX. 49 
 
 living, himself an actor in those scenes, had the best means of know- 
 ing — Robert J. Walker, late governor of Kansas. 
 
 The only evidence that the supposed programme (as it is called) 
 was framed and sent from Washington rests upon the testimony of 
 Governor Walker and of the witness Johnson. In respect to the 
 first, the opinion that it was is a mere opinion founded on a declara- 
 tion of Mr. Calhoun's to Walker, that it came from the President 
 and the'administration ; and upon the fact that for this cause he urged 
 Walker to support it. Mr. Walker emphatically declares his belief 
 that it was not gotten up by the President, and adds, it is due to 
 frankness and candor to say that he does not think the President 
 knew anything about it. As to who was the author, he had a vague 
 suspicion; but he believes it was gotten up in Washington. Upon 
 cross-examination, the witness admits that it is otherwise if Calhoun 
 was to be believed; but he adds, that from Calhoun's infainous con- 
 duct, forfeiture of his pledges, and complicity with the Oxford frauds, 
 and many other forgeries, he had not the slightest confidence in his 
 veracity. If this criticism on Calhoun be just, not the slightest credit 
 is to be attached to his declarations, and it would seem those decla- 
 rations ought to be disregarded in toto. It is clear that Governor 
 Walker rejects so much of Calhoun's declarations as impugns the 
 President, and assigns as a reason the want of credibility in the 
 witness. If the witness uttered an untruth in one part of the decla- 
 ration, the whole declaration ought to be set aside. Falsum in uno, 
 falsum in omnibus. Rejecting this declaration of Calhoun, we are left 
 to sustain a grave charge upon high ofiicers of the government, in- 
 volving treachery to the administration, treason to their party, and 
 abandonment of their pledges, upon the bare opinion of a witness, 
 founded, as he alleges, on mere vague rumor or suspicion. It is well 
 to be observed that Mr. Calhoun, of whom Governor Walker speaks 
 so harshly, is dead. He cannot correct any misapprehensions or mis- 
 representations of his statements, and enough in this case appears to 
 excite doubt and suspicion in regard to the detail of conversations .of 
 officers of government with respect to these exciting, subjects. There 
 seems to be a remarkable delusion on the minds of many witnesses 
 who have undertaken to give such details; and the testimony of Mr. 
 Martin shows that Calhoun's conversations and opinions and acts in 
 Kansas were in direct conflict with those ascribed to him by Governor 
 Walker. 
 
 As to the evidence of Johnson, even unexplained by subsequent 
 testimony, it fails also of attaching the slightest knowledge of the 
 programme or its preparation to the President or any member of the 
 cabinet. The witness starts out with a public rumor — another vague 
 suspicion — declaring, in the outset, that he , knew nothing about it. 
 He had heard that Mr. Martin, a clerk in the Interior Department, 
 had been in Kansas during the sitting of the constitutional conven- 
 tion, and that he was distrusted by Governor Walker. Here was 
 something to which this vague rumor and suspicion could attach. He 
 became anxious to know who originated the plan, and why it was 
 originated. For the gratification, as he supposed, of his curiosity, it 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 4 
 
50 THE COVODE INVESTIGATIOIf. 
 
 providentially happened that Martin called on him to procure hia 
 assistance in getting his accounts settled at the State Department in 
 payment of the expenses of his second visit out to Kansas on business 
 connected with that department of the government. 
 
 Feeling a "little anxious to get a little insight" ' into the matter, if 
 he could, he ingeniously encouraged Martin with the idea that be 
 would help him, and wanted to know of him all the facts, and de- 
 manded of him to bring all his letters from the State Depattment, 
 &c. Martin had no papers nor letters; and failing in the attempt to 
 get a "little insight" into the matter from the confidence thus re- 
 posed in him by Martin, he dismisses his friend with the opinion that 
 he saw no reason why the department should pay him. 
 
 This was one of the reasons that induced him to believe that 
 Martin was connected with political movements in Kansas, and was the 
 bearer of some project connected with the convention at Lecompton; 
 and thus the witness heard things generally that got into that shape 
 that led him to the conclusion that it was so. But to these things he 
 does not testify. 
 
 If the evidence closed here, in the opinion of the undersigned it 
 would wholly fail of making out the case to an unprejudiced mind^ 
 and would be another illustration of the propriety of disregarding 
 mere rumors and vague suspicions, springing sometimes from criminal 
 credulity, indifference to truth, or the results of prejudice from 
 disappointed hopes and bafQed expectations, when such rumors and 
 suspicions assail the character of honorable gentlemen. The State 
 has a property in the character of her citizens, and it is a solemn 
 duty we owe the country to guard the reputation of her distin- 
 guished sons. 
 
 But there is full evidence to negative any other conclusions. 
 
 The charge was then reiterated against the cabinet, and especially 
 against the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Interior. The charge 
 against them is equally untrue. The evidence warrants this assertion.. 
 Both these officers have sworn to the contrary. The case does not 
 rest on their denial. Martin, who was called to prove it, refutes it 
 as to them, and Isaacs corroborates and sustains him. 
 
 There has been no contrary evidence adduced. Every member of 
 .the cabinet might have been examined. With the peculiar notions 
 of the law which the majority of the committee held, but in which 
 the undersigned did not agree, there was nothing to have prevented 
 such examination. Certainly no feeling of delicacv restrained them, 
 since a senator of the United States was called upon to repeat any 
 private conversation he might have had with the President.— (Le- 
 compton Constitution, p. 27.) With an eager and an industrious 
 prosecutor, that which was not done in furtherance of the accusation 
 it 18 fairly to be presumed could not have been done. The proof is 
 that both of the Secretaries favored earnestly, all the time, "out and 
 out" submission. The charge is not sustained. It is disproved, and, 
 must take its place hereafter with the buried slanders of the past. 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 51 
 
 Fourth. — The Lecompton English hill. 
 
 It is an appropriate place liere to examine another matter of accu- 
 sation, graver in character, and falling properly under the cognizance 
 of the committee, and that is the charge of the use of corrupt means 
 by the administration to effect the passage of the Lecompton Eng- 
 lish bill. As to the use of money, the only evidence is that of Wen- 
 dell, and in regard to his testimony, all that the undersigned has al- 
 ready said applies here with like force. Wendell' s declaration is 
 that he expended some thirty thousand dollars towards securing the 
 passage of the bill. He was doing the printing of the House under 
 a contract from the public printer, Mr. Steedman, and also supplied 
 the post office blanks. His income was large, reaching for one year 
 $100,000, and in 1857 and 1858 $40,000 to $50,000. 
 
 On a subsequent examination, he says : 
 
 ' ' I did not mean to be understood that I had paid so much in con- 
 nexionwith that bill; during the winter I did pay that for services 
 rendered." 
 
 This money was paid as follows; To Bean, five thousand dollars; 
 to P. W. Walker, twenty-five hundred dollars; and the residue to 
 Alexander Hay. With regard to the payment to Bean there is no 
 doubt. It is charged by Wendell and admitted by Bead, and, if the 
 witnesses are to be believed, it is equally clear that the considera- 
 tion was Bean's services and influence towards passing the bill. 
 Bean was in some subordinate employment about the House, so ob- 
 scure that not one of the members of the committee had the least 
 knowledge of his person, and scarcely kiiew his name. 
 
 At the time of the receipt of the money, he told Wendell ' ' be 
 knew none of the members except the Ohio members, and he would 
 not dare to approach them with money;" and subsequently, upion 
 another examination, he solemnly swore : 
 
 "I state before my God and my country that no member of Qtait- 
 gross, to my knowledge, ever received one cent of money forvMs 
 vote upon that English bill." 
 
 Walker received two thousand five hundred dollars. Thba foUows- 
 ing is extracted from his examination: ' * 
 
 F. W. Walker called and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson: 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Brooklyn, New York. 
 
 Question. Were you here during the Congress iii„whieh the. Ejig-- 
 lish bill was passed ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from 3&«-.Wendell to assist' 
 in passing that bill ? 
 
 Answer. I did not, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from, l^k. Wendell for your 
 services to assist in passing any bill during that^Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I never received from him or an^^.one,else any money, bjr 
 
52 THE COVODE INVESTIGATIOK. 
 
 virtue of any contract or agreement with him or any one else, to 
 assist in passing the English bill or any other legislative proposition, 
 or based on any consideration connected with any particular proposi- 
 tion under the attention of Congress. 
 
 Question. How much did you receive ? 
 
 Answer. I did not exactly receive money, but money equivalent. 
 
 Question. State the amount that you did receive. 
 
 Answer. I received a check for $500 and two notes for $1,000 
 each. 
 
 Question. When did you receive these ? 
 
 Answer. A day or two before the adjournment of the last session 
 of Congress. 
 
 Question. Have these notes been since paid ? 
 
 Answer. They have, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the consideration for that check and those two 
 notes ? 
 
 Answer. There never anything passed between Mr. Wendell and 
 myself upon the subject, or between me and any one else connected 
 with the matter. Mr. Wendell had had business before Congress, 
 and was likely to have in perpetuity; but not a word passed between 
 us on the subject. At various times, when we have had different 
 matters up, he has spoken to me in respect to my good will towards 
 a measure in which he was interested ; but at the time when I received 
 that from him nothing particular was said. 
 
 Question. What measures had he spoken to you about ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say particularly. 
 
 Question. Can you not recollect one of them ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that Mr. Wendell spoke to me of any spe- 
 cific measure in all the back Congresses. In this Congress he spoke 
 of his interest in connexion with printing matters. 
 
 Question. I am speaking of what occurred in former Congresses. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I had my supposition with regard to matters in 
 which he might be interested. 
 
 Question. What did he say to you when he gave you this money ? 
 
 Answer. I think there were not more than two or three words 
 
 passed between us. He took me into one of the rooms, as he was 
 
 ' about to go away, and there were some two or three persons present. 
 
 Question. Who were there ? 
 
 Answer. Some of the clerks in the Clerk's room, I think; I cannot 
 Bay positively who was there. And then he drew these notes, and 
 handed them to me. 
 
 Question. Did not he say a word ? 
 
 Answer. He might have said that he was in a hurry, or something 
 of that sort. I believe he also said, in a joking way, that he did not 
 know as these notes would ever be paid, for he might break, or some- 
 thing to that effect. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to swear that Mr. Wendell paid you this 
 money without any understanding that there should be any consider- 
 ation whatever on your part ? 
 
 Answer. I simply state the facts as they occurred. 
 
 Question. Were you engaged in amistinp- inuoaaaing either the bill 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 53 
 
 for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, or 
 what is known as the English bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 It will thus be seen that Walker positively denies any complicity 
 in regard to the passage of the English bill, corruptly or otherwise. 
 
 Subsequent developments establish, in the judgment of the under- 
 signed, the true reason for the payment of this $2,500. 
 
 There was pending in the 34th and 35th Congresses a private bill, 
 well known in Congress as the Chaffee patent bill. It involved 
 large sums of money, amounting, it was said, to millions. Every 
 effort was made to carry the bill. For some of the extraordinary 
 means resorted to to effect its passage, the undersigned refers to the 
 testimony, {Lecompton Constitution, pp. 162 and 163;) and to the tes- 
 timony of William W. Shore, passim. From that the undersigned 
 extracts the following. The two bills referred to are the Lecompton 
 English bill and the Chaffee bill : 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. Did you know of these two bills being connected by any 
 arrangement to which Mr. Walker was a party — the Chaffee patent 
 bill and the English Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. Not directly. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell j'^ou of some arrangement by which the 
 two bills made friends for each other ? 
 
 Answer. I have merely my suspicions about that; no direct know- 
 ledge. Mr. Walker never made any such statement to me. But I 
 think I can venture the assertion that they were connected, from my 
 knowledge of Mr. Hay and Mr. Wendell. 
 
 Question. Did you know that Mr. Walker was the go-between of 
 Mr. Hay and Mr. Wendell with members for passing both of those 
 bills? 
 
 Answer. That would be suppositious. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you so himself? 
 
 Answer. From my knowledge of Mr. Walker's business about the 
 House, I should say it was so, but I have no direct knowledge to 
 that effect. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that while Walker himself was not in 
 favor of the passage of the English bill at first, yet by putting the 
 two bills together he became differently interested, and he then went 
 for the English bill? 
 
 Answer. That I should say was direct knowledge on my part that 
 it was so. 
 
 Question. You knew -that? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I think I knew that. The Chaffee patent was 
 one of the largest interests in the country, and I know that the in- 
 terests of those two bills were blended together, through Mr. Hay. 
 Mr. Hay was the real agent, and Mr. Walker was regularly employed 
 by Day, and I know that Mr. Walker has exerted political influence 
 to aid in the passage of the patent. 
 
 Question. G-o on and make your statement with regard to your means 
 of knowledge of the blending of the interests of the two bills, and 
 
54 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION, 
 
 the money influence that was thought to bear after those interests 
 were blended. 
 
 Answer. I hardly know where to begin; 
 , Question. What I want to find out is your knowledge of the money 
 influence in connexion with this matter ? 
 
 Answer. In regard to that I knew that there was an immense deal 
 of money expended here upon the Chafl"ee patent; that every means 
 were used to advance that interest; that some men were paid for saying 
 nothing, and some were paid for what they did. My connexion with 
 the bill was for saying nothing. I was then writing occasional letters, 
 and I received from Mr. Hay a certain amount of money for doing 
 nothing, neither to advance the interests of the patent nor to oppose 
 it. I was paid not to oppose the interest of the Chaffee patent. I was 
 with Mr. Hay and Mr. Walker, aiid was knowing to all these facts; 
 that influences were used in one way to advance political measures, 
 with the view of making friends of the Chaffee patent. The one 
 seemed to turn upon the other. Of course, every means they could 
 devise was made use of to carry out that particular end. 
 
 Subsequently he swore as follows: 
 
 Question. Do you know any member of Congress who received 
 money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any member of Congress who had an 
 interest ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any member of Congress having an 
 interest indirectly in the passage of that bill, or who received any 
 money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Mr. Wendell was to receive any 
 money from the passage of the bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I know that he received a great many 
 pecuniary favors from Captain Hay; probably those matters were 
 mutual ; I think he had an interest in the Chaffee patent. 
 
 Question. What interest had Mr. Hay. in it ? 
 
 Answer. I think he was part owner of the patent ; -he was in com- 
 pany with Mr. Day. 
 
 And again : 
 
 Question. In your previous examination you said that you think 
 you can venture the assertion that the Chaffee patent bill and the Le- 
 compton bill were connected, from your knowledge of Mr. Hay and 
 Mr. Wendell. Will you please to explain .yourself fully upon that 
 point ? 
 
 Answer. Of course, I cannot detail what I do not understand, hoyr 
 they were blended ; my suspicions were caused by my knowledge of 
 Mr. Wendell and Mr. Hay. Mr. Hay, two years ago, had the sole 
 charge of the Chaffee patent; he was very intimate with Mr. Wen- 
 dell, and Mr. Wendell has already testified, I understood, that he 
 furnished a large sum of money to Mr. Hay, and, as I have already 
 said, I know that everything that possibly could be brought to bear 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 5J 
 
 upon the Chaffee patent was resorted to; and if it became necessary 
 to make a vote or two for the Chaffee patent by making a vote or 
 two for some other measure it was undoubtedly done. 
 
 Question. Your idea, then, is that Mr. Wendell and Mr. Hay, to 
 pass the Chaffee patent bill, were willing to let the Lecompton bill 
 pass? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 From all this the undersigned submits that the true cause of the 
 payment of the money to Walker was on account of his services in aid 
 of the Chaffee bill ; and this conclusion is rendered clear by the tes- 
 timony of Wendell, (p. 125,) who declares he gave it at the instiga- 
 tion of Hay. 
 
 As early as the 10th of May the information touching Hay came to 
 the committee. He was subpoenaed of course, but no application for 
 the compulsory process of the House to attach him for contempt was 
 aske.d for until shortly before the day fixed for the adjournment, 
 utterly too late to apprehend him. This is a source of great regret. 
 The undersigned has been thus particular, and perhaps tedious, in 
 alluding so much at length to this matter ; but he felt it his duty to 
 do so. Developments may be made hereafter, if the truth can be 
 arrived at, in the future history of the country, to expose the foulest 
 and blackest conspiracy against the characters of distinguished gen- 
 tlemen, which,- in the opinion of the undersigned, would move the 
 indignation of the whole American people, irrespective of party. Pru- 
 dence restrains the undersigned from further allusion to it, lest that 
 might prove an obstacle to its further solution. It is the solemn and 
 deliberate judgment of the undersigned that -no money was in fact 
 paid towards the passage of the Lecompton English bill ; and that 
 the money paid to Bean nominally for that object was paid for other 
 reasons unknown to him. 
 
 But suppose it otherwise : Who authorized the payment? We 
 La,ve the solemn, often reiterated declarations of Wendell that it was 
 his own money ; that neither directly nor indirectly, in any manner, 
 shape, or form, was it the money of the government, or paid under 
 its direction, or with its knowledge, or with the promise of reimburse- 
 ment. Surely upon this testimony, a lifetime service for his country, 
 a hitherto unimpeached character, an election to the highest office in 
 the world by the suffrages of the American people, will weigh down 
 a charge from such foul and corrupt sources. Every cabinet officer 
 examined has sworn in the most solemn manner to the contrary. 
 Every democrat who voted against his party on the Lecompton issue, 
 who has been examined, disproves the charge of improper influence 
 having been brought to bear upon him to gain his vote upon the pas- 
 sage of the bill. Mr. Cox, of Ohio, denies it. Mr. Horace P. Clark 
 
 'The President argued with me in favor of the admission of 
 Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, upon the ground that her 
 admission would quiet the slavery agitation and give repose to the 
 country. And in answer to the suggestion that the Lecompton con- 
 stitution was a fraud, his reply was that if so it would be a harmless 
 one, because, in his judgment, the people of Kansas could change their 
 
56 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 constitution, if obnoxious to them, whenever they saw fit. It im- 
 pressed me that this was a dangerous doctrine. I was not ready to 
 concede the right of the people of a State to change their constitu- 
 tion, except in the mode pointed out by the constitution itself, and 
 could not acquiesce in the doctrine. He also pressed upon my atten- 
 tion the additional ground that the rejection of the application of 
 Kansas for admission under the Lecompton constitution might lead 
 to dissolution of. the Union. I became perfectly impressed with the 
 sincerity of Mr. Buchanan's belief that the existence of the Union 
 would be endangered unless Kansas was admitted under the Lecomp- 
 ton constitution.. At one of the interviews I had with the. President a 
 distinguished senator of one of the southern States was present, and 
 he made remarks calculated to impress upon my mind the belief that 
 one southern State at least would secede from the Union unless Kan- 
 sas was admitted unqualifiedly under the Lecompton constitution. 
 Without expressing myself very decidetily upon the subject, I made 
 up my mind to take the hazard and not vote for the bill. I thought 
 the President had reached an incorrect conclusion upon insufBcient 
 grounds. Among other facts stated by the President was this : that 
 one southern State, Alabama, had passed a law imperatively requir- 
 ing the assembling of a State convention with a view to secession, in 
 the event of the rejection of the application of Kansas for admission 
 under the Lecompton constitution. And the appeal- was, I thought, 
 very properly made to me, as the representative of a district contain- 
 ing a very large amount of capital, that repose to the country ought 
 to be obtained even at a very considerable sacrifice of individual 
 opinion. I could not accede to the arguments which were addressed 
 to me. But yet I will say that no efforts were made by the President 
 improperly to influence my action; nor was a single word said to me 
 by him which I think it was not his privilege and his duty to have 
 said to me under the circumstances." 
 
 Mr. Haskin says : ' ' The President expressed a great deal of re- 
 gret that I should take ground against him, saying that, from forty 
 years' political experience, he was satisfied that any man who went 
 against the administration of his party would be without the pale of 
 bis party, and that would be an end of him politically. He said that 
 he appreciated my frankness; but no inducements were held out by 
 the President except those of friendly argument." 
 
 Mr. Adrain and Mr. Hickman were not examined. 
 
 On the day of , Mr. Hoard, of New York, moved the 
 
 appointment of a committee to investigate whether the President 
 had ever made improper propositions to those gentlemen and to Mr. 
 Haskin on this subject, and the committee was appointed, Mr. 
 Hoard being placed at the head. Subsequently a notice was made 
 in this committee to summon Mr. Adrain and Mr. Hickman. The 
 undersigned opposed it on the ground that the special authority to 
 Mr. Hoard's committee was the exclusion of the general authority 
 to the Covode committee, and on the vote, the chairman voting 
 with the undersigned, the notice to summon these witnesses failed. 
 Prom all these suggestions the undersigned submits that the charge 
 IS not sustained, but is untrue and libellous. 
 
THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 57 
 
 Fifth. — Mail contracts. 
 
 Among other persons who appeared before the committee as prose- 
 cutors against the administration were William Chase Barney and 
 Elwood Fisher, The charge of the former is that the Postmaster 
 General refused to consider his proposails for carrying the mails of the 
 .United States from New York, via the Isthmus, to San Francisco. He 
 was underbid by one Johnson, a man like Barney, of no means, and 
 an adventurer whose sole aim was to dispose of the contract at a 
 profit. Having advertised for contracts, the Postmaster General 
 awarded it to the lowest bidder whose proposals were guaranteed, 
 and that happened to be Johnson. With a most commendable pru- 
 dence, the Postmaster General, in anticipation of Johnson's failure of 
 performance, which, from the subsequent correspondence, to foresee 
 required no extraordinary sagacity, and of which even Chase Barney 
 had no doubt, entered into a provisionary contract with Mr. Vander-' 
 bilt to supply the mails. It was fortunate that he did so. It resulted 
 as all parties had foreseen; and Mr. Vanderbilt, at the last inoment, 
 came forward to prevent a failure in the regular communication be- 
 tween the Atlantic and our distant possessions on the Pacific. It is 
 difficult to perceive in what manner William Chase Barney was 
 aggrieved. One cause of complaint was that the Postmaster General 
 had violated the law in making a contract for carrj'ing the mails with 
 Mr. Vanderbilt, instead of contracting with Barney for the postage. 
 Barney had neither money, nor credit, nor ships. He had no ability 
 to carry out his contract had he succeeded; but he was at the mercy 
 of others. Indeed, he had no idea of retaining any part of the line 
 but that from New York to Havana; and in this matter he was acting 
 as the paid lobby agent of others. But the letter of the Postmaster 
 General is so clear and so conclusive that, while the undersigned refers 
 the House to that and the other documentary evidence printed by 
 the Senate, and here appended as illustrations of the propriety of 
 conduct on the part of that distinguished and exemplary officer, he 
 feels that he owes an apology to the House for detaining it so long on 
 a subject so trifling. 
 
 Sixth. — The Tehmntepec route. 
 
 On this point the undersigned refers the House to the documents 
 printed in the last Congress upon the call of the Senate. The two 
 discourses of Mr. Elwood Fisher, who seems to have taken extraor- 
 dinary pains to convince the world that he did not appear as a vol- 
 untary witness, are very long, but are completely refuted as to any 
 qharge of blame against the administration by the clear and concise 
 testimony of Senator Benjamin. 
 
 The variety of subjects investigated before the committee pre- 
 cluded the possibility of the undersigned dilating at length upon any 
 of them. The subject of the expenditure of money in elections was 
 barely touched upon, and after the qvMsi decision of the House in the 
 Schell case was not resumed. It is obvious that it is habitual with 
 
58 THE COVODE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 all parties to employ money in carrying elections, in publishing docu- 
 ments, and defraying expenses. There were frauds in Pennsylvania 
 with both of the great parties. Such as were proved cannot too 
 severely be condemned. But as, in the opinion of the undersigned, 
 the remedial measures are alone in the power of the State govern- 
 ment, he has no suggestion to make to this House therefor. 
 
 There were proved irregularities in the navy yard at Philadelphia. 
 This subject has been thoroughly examined by a board convened 
 under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, to whose report, 
 already before the House, the undersigned respectfully refers, and 
 the whole siabject will undoubtedly claim the attention both of the 
 department and the Congress. 
 
 There were also reprehensible irregularities in some of the post 
 offices and custom-houses, chiefly in the minor appointments, by the 
 chiefs of those offices, as will be found in the testimony at length. 
 They were not at all proved to have been in the knowledge of the 
 President or any member of his administration, and doubtless if they 
 had been called to their attention, would have been corrected to the 
 extent of their powers. No government has ever yet existed in Which 
 the executive branch has been able ' to secure everywhere faithful 
 and trustworthy agents. In a country as extensive as is ours, it is 
 hardly to be expected that we could be more successful than other 
 people. We must expect occasional breaches of duty, occasional 
 betrayal of trusts, so long as our present imperfect nature exists. 
 When abuses occur it is our duty to rectify them as speedily and as 
 effectually as we can. But when we come to review this whole pro- 
 ceeding, the illimitable field of inquiry, the large power conferted 
 upon this committee, its long and laborious investigation, it is a cause 
 of congratulation that the misappropriation of not a dollar of the 
 public moneys by the Executive has even been hinted at, much less 
 proved; that no extravagance has been fixed upon that branch of the 
 government; that no proof has been made that the President has ever 
 interfered with the execution of any law, or failed or refused to exe- 
 cute any statute — a conclusion as agreeable to the true patriot as it 
 may be disagreeable to the malignant partisan. ' 
 
 It is a fact well known to this House that in all the messages which 
 the President has transmitted to the houses of Congress, from time to 
 time, he has invoked scrutiny into all branches of the public service, 
 and has promised to second any and all efforts which the legislature 
 might deem it proper to take to secure a faithful administration of 
 the public affairs; and the undersigned is confident, from the record 
 of his past life and faithful services, he has stood, and still stands 
 ready to redeem these pledges. 
 
 In conclusion, as the majority of the committee has not thought 
 proper to introduce articles of impeachment or censure, the under- 
 signed is strengthened in the opinion that the whole intent of the 
 resolution was to manufacture an electioneering document. At all 
 events, the failure to take such action is a clear indication on the 
 part of the majority that none was justified by the evidence, in which 
 opinion the undersigned fully concurs. 
 
 WARREN WINSLOW. 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 59 
 
 THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. 
 
 congress of the united states. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, 
 
 March 5, 1860. 
 
 On motion by Mr. Covode, 
 
 Besolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the 
 Speaker for the purpose of investigating whether the President of the 
 United States, or any other oiBcer of the government, has, by money, 
 patronage, or other improper means, sought to influence the action of 
 Congress, or any committees thereof, for or against the passage of 
 any law appertaining to the rights of any State or Territory; and 
 also to inquire into and investigate whether any ofScer or officers of 
 the government have, by combination or otherwise, prevented and 
 defeated, or attempted to prevent or defeat, the execution of any law 
 or laws now .on the statute-books, and whether the President has 
 failed or refused to compel the execution of any law thereof; that 
 said committee shall investigate and inquire into the abuse at the 
 Chicago or other post ofBces, and at the Philadelphia and other navy 
 yards, and into any abuses in connexion with the jpublio buildings 
 and other public works of the United States. 
 
 '" Besolved, further, That as the President, in his letter to the Pitts- 
 burg centenary celebration of the 25th November, 1858, speaks of 
 "the emploj^ment of money to carry elections," said committee shall 
 inquire into and ascertain the amount so used in Pennsylvania,, and 
 any other State or States, in what districts it was expended, and by 
 whom, and by whose authority it was done, and from what sources 
 the money was derived, and report the names of the parties impli- 
 cated. And for the purposes aforesaid said committee shall have 
 power to send for persons and papers and to report at any time. 
 
 The Speaker appointed Messrs. Covode, of Pennsylvania, Olin, of 
 New York, Winslow, of North Carolina, Train, of Massachusetts, and 
 J. C. Robinson, of Illinois. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. W. FORNEY, 
 
 Glerk. 
 
 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 Washington City, D. C, 
 
 Tuesday, March 20, 1860. 
 
 The committee met upon call of its chairman. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The chairman laid before the committee the following from the 
 Clerk's oflSce, which was ordered to be placed upon the journal: 
 
60 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. 
 
 congeess of the united states. 
 
 In the House op Repeesentatives, 
 
 March 5, 1860. 
 On motion by Mr. Covode, 
 
 Besolved, That a committee of five members be appointed by the 
 Speaker for the purpose of investigating whether the President of the 
 United States, or any other officer of the government, has, by money, 
 patronage, 'Or other improper means, sought to influence the action of 
 Congress, or any committees thereof, for or against the passage of 
 any law appertaining to the rights of any State or Territory; and also 
 to inquire into and investigate whether any officer or officers of the 
 government have, by combination or otherwise, prevented and 
 defeated, or attempted to prevent or defeat, the execution of any law 
 or laws now on the statute-books, and whether the President has 
 failed or refused to compel the execution of any law thereof; that said 
 committee shall investigate and inquire into the abuse at the Chicago 
 or other post offices, and at the Philadelphia and other navy yards, 
 and into any abuses in connexion with the public buildings and other 
 public works of the United States. 
 
 Besolved, further, That as the President, in his letter to the Pitts- 
 burg centenary celebration of the 25th November, 1858, speaks of 
 "the employment of money to carry elections," said committee shall 
 inquire into and ascertain the amount so used in Pennsylvania, and 
 any other State or States, in what districts it was expended, and by 
 whom, and by whose authority it was done, and from what sources 
 the money was derived, and report the names of the parties impU- 
 cated. And for the purposes aforesaid said committee shall have 
 power to send for persons and papers and to report at any time. 
 
 The Speaker appointed Messrs. Covode, of Pennsylvania, Olin, of 
 New York, Winslow, of North Carolina, Train, of Massachusetts, and 
 J. C. Robinson, of Illinois. 
 Attest: 
 
 J. W. FORNEY, 
 
 Glerh 
 
 After some time spent in consultation. 
 
 The committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., on Thursday, 22d 
 instant. 
 
 Washington, March 22, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Olin, Train, and Robinson. 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, Washington. 
 
 Without concluding the examination of the above witness, the 
 committee adjourned till to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
JOUENAL OF COMMITTEE. 61 
 
 Washington March 23, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, (continued.) 
 No. 2. J. B. Guthrie, Treasury Department. 
 
 The Chairman of the committee was authorized to request from the 
 Hon. Preston King, (United States Senate,) the minutes of Mr. Wen- 
 dell's testimony before the special committee of that body of which 
 he is the chairman, for the use of this committee. 
 
 The Chairman was also authorized to address the following letter 
 to the Secretary of the Treasury : 
 
 House of Repeesentatives, 
 
 Friday, March 23, 1860. 
 Sir: Will .you have the kindness to inform the select committee, 
 of which I am the chairman, whether one George W. Baker is now, 
 or has been, employed in the custom-house at Philadelphia; and if so, 
 for what length of time, in what capacity, asnd at what compen- 
 sation? 
 
 I have the honor to be, yours respectfully, 
 
 JOHN COVODE, Chairman. 
 Hon. Howell Cobb, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Ordered, That Wm. Blair Lord, of New York city, be the clerk 
 and stenographer of this committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 o'clock a. m., on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, March 26, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, (continued.) 
 Adjourned till to-morrow at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Tuesday March 27, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Robinson. 
 
 The Chairman laid before the committee a communication from the 
 Treasury Department, in reply to one from the chairman of the com- 
 mittee of the 23d instant. 
 
 The communication is as follows : 
 
 Treasury Department, March 24, 1860. 
 
 Sir : I have received your letter of the 23d. instant, requesting to 
 be informed whether "George W. Baker is novr^ employed in the 
 
62 JOUENAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 custom-house at Philadelphia; and if so, for what length of timOj in 
 what capacity, and at what compensation." 
 
 In reply, I have to state that it appears by records of _ this depart- 
 ment that Geo. W. Baker was appointed a clerk to discharge the 
 duties of assistant cashier, at a salary of $1,200 per annum, on the 
 15th November, 1858, vice John Goodyear promoted, and that he 
 has continued to, and does now, occupy tha,t position at the same rate 
 of salary. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 HOWELL COBB, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. John Covode, 
 
 Chairman of Select Committee of the House of Representatives. 
 
 Cornelius Wendell submitted to the committee an additional por- 
 tion of the minutes of his testimony before the Senate select com- 
 mittee, but the committee decided not to resume his further examina- 
 tion until they could obtain the whole of said testimony. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 3. William 'Pettibone, Washington. 
 
 No. 4. C. Alexander, Washington. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday, March 28, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witness was examined : 
 No. 5. Augustus Schell, New York. 
 Adjourned to 10^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, March 29, 1860. 
 
 The committee raei pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Winslow, and Robinson. 
 The following witness was examined : 
 No. 5. Augustus Schell, (continued.) 
 Adjourned to meet on call of chairman. 
 
 Monday, April 2, 1860. 
 
 The committee met upon call of the chairman. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Winslow, and Train. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, April 3, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Train, and Winslow. 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 63 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 5. Aug;ustus Schell, (continued.) ■ 
 
 No. 6. S_. P. Butterworth, New York. 
 
 The Chairman was authorized, upon motion of Mr. WiNSLOW, to 
 request from Hon. Preston King, (United States Senate, ) the minutes 
 of the testimony of William Pettibone, given before the select com- 
 mittee of that body, of which he is chairman, for the use of this 
 committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 "Wednesday, April 4, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No. 5. Augustus Schell, (continued.) 
 No. 6. Samuel F. Butterworth, (continued.) 
 No. 7. James O'Reiley, New York. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, the chairman was instructed to request 
 the Attorney General of the United States to transmit to this com- 
 mittee the original letter, on file in his office, of Wm. Pettibone to the 
 President of the United States, upon the subject of giving out the 
 executive binding. 
 
 The committee proceeded to consider the proper course to be pur- 
 sued in relation to the refusal of Augustus Schell, a witness before 
 this committee, to furnish a list of the names of the subscribers to 
 the New York Hotel electioneering fund, referred to in his testimony. 
 
 After some discussion, the further consideration of the subject was 
 postponed until to-morrow' morning. 
 
 Adjourned till 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, Ajpriil 5, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, (continued.) 
 
 No. 8. Richard Schell, New York. 
 
 Mr. Olin moved that the chairman be instructed to present to the 
 House the following special report, and recommend the adoption of 
 the resolution accompanying the same : 
 
 The select committee, of which Mr. John Oovode is chairman, appointed 
 under resolutio'ti of the House of Bepresentatives of March 5, 1860, 
 respectfvUy submit the following special report : 
 
 That, during the progress of their investigation, they have summoned 
 as a witnes Augustus Schell, collector of the port of New York, and that 
 on the 28th ultimo, among others, the following questions were pro- 
 
64 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 pounded to said Schell, and the following answers severally made to 
 the same by him, to wit: 
 
 "Question. Were you connected with what was known as the New 
 York Hotel fund prior to the election of 1856? 
 
 "Answer. I was a member of the committee which met at the 
 New York Hotel. 
 
 "Question. Was there a fund created by the efforts of that com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 "Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 ' ' Question. Have you a list of the subscribers to that fund ? 
 
 "Answer. I think I have it among my papers. 
 
 ' ' Question. Will you furnish it to the committee ? 
 
 ' ' Answer. I will. 
 
 ' ' Question. What amount was raised by subscription ? 
 
 "Answer. I cannot recollect distinctly; some $30,000 or $40,000. 
 
 "Question. Where was that money expended, substantially? 
 
 "Answer. In different places; part of it was sent to Pennsylvania, 
 and part of it was expended in New York, both the city and State; 
 at least, I suppose so; I did not expend it myself. 
 
 "Question. When will you furnish this subscription list to the 
 committee ? Can you send for it? 
 
 "Answer. I cannot well send for it; I can get it when I return 
 home, and will send it on next week." 
 
 On the day following the witness again appeared before your com- 
 mittee, and asked leave to withdraw so much of his testimony given 
 the day before as related to his furnishing your committee the list of- 
 subscribers to the New York Hotel fund, so called. He also sub- 
 mitted to your committee a written statement, which closed as follows: 
 
 ' ' I am not certain that I have in my possession any list of the con- 
 tributors of the moneys; but if I have such list, I must, on reflection, 
 decline to produce it, feeling that such production, without the au- 
 thority of the persons whose name's may be connected with it, would 
 involve a breach of the implied confidence recognized as existing in 
 such cases." 
 
 On the 3d instant said Schell again appeared before your com- 
 mittee, when the following questions were propounded to him, and 
 the following answers severally returned to the same, to wit : 
 
 ' ' Question. The committee have given you abundance of time to 
 reflect on this subject. They think they have the power to compel 
 the production of that paper. What we want to know now is, 
 whether you are going to furnish it or not. 
 
 "Answer. With all due respect to the committee, I have reflected, 
 upon it since the time of my former examination, and in my opinion 
 the power was not given to the committee to ask for the production 
 of a paper entirely private in its character. 
 
 "Question. The committee differ with you in opinion. They 
 desire now to know whether you will or will not furnish that paper. 
 
 ' ' Answer. I see no reason to change my opinion in reference to it. 
 
 "Question. You say, then, that you will not produce that paper? 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE, 65 
 
 "Answer. I decline to do so for the reasons I have stated, sup- 
 posing it to be in my possession; I do not know even that it is, as I 
 stated in my original examination. 
 
 "Question. You do not decline, as I understand you, to produce 
 that paper because you were not summoned to bring it, but because 
 (rf the alleged want of power in the House of Representatives to com- 
 pel you to produce a private paper. 
 
 "Answer. I decline to produce it because I think this committee 
 have no power to order the production of it, if it is in my posses- 
 sion." 
 
 Your committee, regarding that paper as material to the proper 
 investigation of the matters referred to them by this House, have 
 concluded that it is the duty of your committee to insist upon the 
 production of the paper by the witnessf if within his possession or 
 control. And your committee respectfully submit to this House that 
 it is a contempt of the authority of this House, on the part of the 
 witness, to refuse to answer to every material fact within his knowl- 
 edge, and especially to refuse to produce a paper required by 
 your committee. Believing that this House is clothed with power to 
 order the party into custody, there to remain until released by the 
 same authority, your committee recommend the adoption of the fol- 
 lowing resolution: 
 
 Mesolved, That the Speaker issue his warrant, directed to the Ser- 
 _geant-at-arms, commanding him (the said Sergeant- ait-arms) to take 
 into custody the body of the said Augustus Schell, and the same 
 forthwith to bring before this House, at the bar thereof, to answer as 
 for a contempt of the authority of this House in refusing to produce 
 a paper when thereunto required by a committee of this House. 
 
 JOHN COVODE, Chairman. 
 A. B. OLIN. 
 CHAS. R. TRAIN. 
 
 The question b«ing taken upon the motion of Mr. Olin, it was 
 agreed to, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — The Chairman, Messrs. Olin, Train, and Robinson. 
 
 Nay — Mr. Winslow. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, the unanimous consent of the com- 
 mittee was given that he (Mr. W.) be allowed to present to_ the 
 House the following as the views of the minority of. the committee 
 upon the subject embraced in the special report: 
 
 The mdersigned dissents from the views of the majority, (f Ae select 
 
 committee. 
 
 The resolution of the House, the last in the series referred to thxs 
 committee, it is true, is very large in its terms, and mi^M segm, from 
 a cursory examination, to impose upon the committee the very onerous 
 duty of investigating every election held in each State of the confed- 
 eracy, the money expended therein, the subscriptions made, and by 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 5 
 
66 JOUBNAL OF COSUOTTElE, 
 
 wKom, and for what purpose; whether sucli purpose and expenditure 
 were corrupt, or otherwise. 
 
 But the undersigned submits, upon general reasoning^ and upon 
 the face of the paper, and consideration of the terms in which it con- 
 cludes, that such is not the true construction, and hence not the intent 
 of the House. 
 
 Without stopping to inquire into the propriety of attempting by- 
 law to prevent any interfeirence with the elective franchise by the 
 use of money in printing and distributing p.olitical tracts and docu- 
 ments; in supporting and establishing presses as vehicles for the com- 
 munication of particular political opinions among the people, and of 
 defraying the expenses of public meetings and assemblies, as prac- 
 ticed and pursued in every section of the country, without corrupt 
 intent, an inquiry into which the undrirsigned does not choose to 
 enter, it may well be questioned, in vieW of the general sentiment of 
 the country, the peculiarity of our institutions, and the principle of 
 free speech and a free press, whether such an attempt would be wise; 
 proper, or expedient. Indeed, it may be doubted whether Congress 
 has any right whatever to enact laws to punish bribery at elections in 
 the States, or to suppress, by laws remedial or otherwise, any cor- 
 rupt means or measures taken to influence them, and whether that 
 power is not peculiarly and exclusively the legitimate duty of the 
 several States under the second section of the first article of the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 However this may be, still, granting it for the sake of the argn- 
 ment, the undersigned submits that this House has no authority' to 
 inquire into the private contributions of any person whatever towards 
 such a purpose unless it be first determined that such purpose was 
 corrupt; and that such inquiry would be a wanton and improper inter- 
 ference with the just privileges of the citizen, subversive of the rights 
 of the people, tending to an undue and dangerous concentration of 
 power in the legislative branch of the government, to a derogation of 
 the dignity of thfe Hotise, by converting it into an odious inquisition, 
 and thus diminishing the public confidence in its action and charac- 
 ter. 
 
 For what reason would this House institute such inquiry? Suppose 
 the names of such subscribers reported, to the House, what measures 
 could the House be advjsed to take ? Is it a crime to spend moiley, 
 legitimately, to influence elections? What publiq statute woulfi 
 thereby be violated ? Under what law could a person so accused be 
 put to answer? And what jurisdiction has this House to institute 
 investigations, unless iu aid of legislation, which by the argument it 
 has no authority to make, or with a view to impeachment ? 
 
 That the House so thought is apparent from the order it gives, that 
 the "names of the parties implicated^' should be reported. 
 
 The resolution contemplates, then, a report only of those who have 
 done a wrong act — that is, a corrupt one^-and does not authorii;e the 
 report of any others. Augustus .Schell was required to produce to 
 the committee a list of the inames.Qfithe persons subscribing to a fund 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 67 
 
 which, it was alleged, was contributed towards defraying the expenses 
 of an election in Pennsylvania. He dechned to produce it. 
 
 The ufldersigned submits that he was not bound to produce it until 
 it wae. first determined that the subscribers had contemplated a cor- 
 rupt use of the fund, or had corruptly expended it. ' Until then, con- 
 ceding the authority of the House for argument, neither he nor they 
 had committed either a wrong or a crime, nor had done any act of 
 which this House should or can take cognizance. 
 
 To_ compel the witness to answer would, then, be but for the grat- 
 ification of an idle curiosity, which, in the case of the House, it is not 
 decorous to suppose, or to elicit by illegitimate means a supposed 
 legitinaate result— a doctrine which ithe law of no free people could 
 justify or admit. 
 
 And it indeed would, in the opinion of the utidersign'ed, give much 
 plausibility to the captious, who might charge the design and scope 
 of (the whole resolution to be, to do the very act and thing it seems to 
 deprecate, and thus subject this House to an improper and unneces- 
 sary criticism of its motives. 
 
 The undersigned might well stop here, but the iinportance of the 
 subject justifies a fuller discussion. 
 
 The House of Representatives is invested with high powers, but 
 these powers are accurately defined and strictly limited by the Coh- 
 stitutioii, which, while it protects the House in, the exercise of its 
 constitutional function, does not the less guard! and secure the rights 
 of individual citizens and of the States. 
 
 Henfce it is obvious that inquiries by the House into the act of indi- 
 vidual citizens in the States, if made at all, must be made of objects 
 within its jurisdiction. 
 
 It may, in the Jlrst place, act on individual persons, private citizens, 
 or others in the maintenance of its own parliamentary prerogatives ; 
 secondly, it may inquire into facts in order to legislate thereon ; and 
 tJiirdly, it may investigate the conduct of public officers with a view 
 to their impeachment before the Senate. 
 
 The particular fact as to which Augustus Schellhas been called to 
 testify, and for not responding to which it is proposed to arraign him, 
 has no relation to the parliamentary prerogatives of the House. No 
 evidence exists that the money contributed through him was employed 
 to affect corruptly its official action; no question of the legality of the 
 election of any, of its members or officers is involved, nor, indeed, of 
 their official conduct. Of course the inquiry proposed cannot be jus- 
 tified on that ground. 
 
 If it be conceded, for the argument's sake, that Congress has any 
 power to legislate on this subject, and the assumed object of the in- 
 quiry be to assist the House iii such legislation, then it is not at all 
 material to that object to ascertain from Augustus Schellwhat per- 
 son's contributed the'money which he delivered to the Pennsylvania 
 central committee. The fact who those subscribers are can hardly 
 aid the committee in the preparation of a bill. It can have no possi- 
 ble effect in enlightening the House in the performance of any of its 
 legislative functions under the Constitution, 
 
68 JOUENAL OP COMMITTEE. 
 
 Again : if the object be to provide for the punishment of a public 
 officer, then it must commence with suggestions of some breach of duty 
 by such oflScer, and must proceed in those recognized forms which the 
 law has sanctioned and adopted, consonant with the universal prin- 
 ciples of justice and right. But Augustus Schell was no public officer, 
 but a mere private citizen at the time of receiving this money; and 
 further, it is not suggested that he received it from any public officer. 
 And if he or any one of the contributors had beeij a public officer, 
 what law did he violate ? 
 
 This House cannot impeafch except for acts made criminal by law, 
 as the undersigned understands the law to be now well settled. And 
 what provision of the Constitution, of any law, statute, or act of Con- 
 gress, or even of usage or custom, is there to punish the act here 
 inquired into, even if done by a public officer? None whatever; and 
 if there were any such law, and the infringement of it were imputa- 
 ble to a;ny public officer as cause of impeachment, he himself cannot 
 be interrogated thereto. 
 
 No public officer of these States,. from the President to a village 
 postmaster, can be required to furnish evidence whereby to be im- 
 peached. 
 
 Like all others, they are presumed to be innocent until proved 
 guilty, and it is their undeniable right to stand upon this presumption. 
 The House oversteps its power in calling upon a public officer to com- 
 municate to it self-accusatory matter on which to found an impeach- 
 ment before the Senate. But no public officer being concerned,' and 
 no unlawful act imputed to any public officer in the premises, the 
 proposed inquiry becomes an act of highhanded usurpation, and of 
 odious violation of the personal rights of the citizens. The contrib- 
 utors are to be presumed to have acted from right motives — for law- 
 ful and honorable purpose. Nothing to the contrary of that has 
 . been proved or suggested. 
 
 If anything unlawful has been done by those individuals in Pennsyl- 
 vania to whom the money was delivered, they, and they only; are 
 responsible for the wrong, if any was committed. But neither they, 
 if they unlawfully disbursed the money they received, nor still less 
 they who contributed the same, are amenable therefor to this House. 
 This House is not a court, nor is it a public prosecutor. If these par- 
 ties have committed a wrong, or an offence against the law of the 
 land, they are to be tried by the law which acts with juries, and all 
 those other safeguards which the Constitution assures 'to its meanest 
 citizen. 
 
 In fine, the* undersigned verily believes that except for the gratifi- 
 cation of purposes of mere party spirit, thus to pursue those purposes 
 is a procedure of invidious inquisition into the innocent conduct of 
 private persons, and cannot, in the end, be of any advantage to one 
 party, nor injure the other. In this point of view, it would be wholly 
 indifferent to the undersigned, if it were not in its nature, as he be- 
 lieves, discreditable to the House, to the institutions, and to the 
 reputation of the people of the United States. . ^ 
 
 But he feels himself impelled to protest against it by the higher 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 69 
 
 consideration, that it involves flagrant usurpation on the part of tte 
 House, and violation of the rights and liberties of the people, ana of 
 the whole spirit of the Constitution. 
 
 For these reasons the undersigned is of opinion that the witness is 
 not compellable to produce the list, nor answer questions as to its 
 contents. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the Printer of the House be directed to print, for 
 the use of this committee, twenty copies of the resolutions of the 
 House of Reresentatives of March 5, 1860, under which this commit- 
 tee are acting. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Friday, AprU 6, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Train, Winslow, and Eobinson. 
 
 Mr. Robinson moved to reconsider the vote of the committee of 
 yesterday agreeing to the special report of the committee in the case 
 of Augustus Schell. 
 
 Mr. Robinson said that, while he agreed with the majority of the 
 committee in their construction of the resolution under which the 
 committee were acting, upon reflection he had serious doubts con- 
 cerning the power of the House to clothe any committee with the 
 power embraced by the second resolution authorizing the appoint- 
 ment of the committee. 
 
 Mr. "Winslow said that it was not in order to move a reconsidera- 
 tion in a committee. He would, however, move that Mr. Robinson 
 have leave to withdraw his name from the majority report, and to 
 sign the report of the minority with a protestando, or to submit his 
 own views separately to the House. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Teain, the Chairman was instructed to apply to 
 the Treasury Department for copies of the contract made with Messrs. 
 Mather, Bixby, Mclntire, and others, of New York, for doing the 
 work rn the public stores in that city, together with all modifications 
 of that contract, and all subsisting contracts, and all correspondence or 
 propositions from other persons to the department in relation to doing 
 the work embraced in the said contracts. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 9. George H. Purser, New York. 
 
 No. 10. George W. Baker, Philadelphia. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Saturdat, AprU 7, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
70 JOUENAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 No. 11. Alexander H. Evans, Washington city. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, April 9, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the memhera 
 present. 
 
 The Chairman laid before the committee the following communi- 
 cation from the Attorney General's office : 
 
 Attoenet General* s Office, April 7, 1860. 
 SiE : In reply to your letter requesting me to transmit from the 
 files of my office a certain original letter of William Pettibone, I have 
 to say that the letter you mention is a part of the records of this 
 office ; it must remain here, and cannot be converted to the ' ' use of 
 said select committee," as you desire it to be. The safe custody of the 
 paper in question is of great importance, inasmuch as it will probaibly 
 be needed in certain criminal proceedings hereafter to be instituted. 
 But you shall have a regularly certified copy of it, if that will serve 
 your purpose ; or the clerk having it in charge may take the original, 
 exhibit it to the committee, and return it again to its proper place. 
 Mr. A. Eoane is the clerk whom it will be necessary to subpoena with 
 the diices tecum, if you desire to see the original. 
 Respectfully, yours, &c., 
 
 J. S. BLACK. 
 Hon. J. Covode, 
 
 Chairman Sekct Committee, House of Seprfisentatives. 
 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
 No. 6. Samuel F. Butterworth, (continued.) 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Wednesday next. 
 
 Wednesday, April 11, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin and Train. 
 
 The Chairman was instructed to apply to the Treasury Department 
 for copies of all or any communications of the collector of the port of 
 Philadelphia nominating George W. Baker to any office in the Phila- 
 delphia custom-house, or in relation thereto, and the action of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury thereon ; also copies of all the monthly 
 oaths, certificates, or vouchers, if any, made by George W. Baker in 
 order to draw his salary. 
 
 The committee then proceeded to the examination of the following 
 witness : 
 
 No. 12. Isaac Y. Fowler, New York. 
 
 After the examination had been continued a short time 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw appeared and stated that he desired to enter his pro- 
 
JOTTENAIi OF COMMITTEE. 71 
 
 test against the exammation of witnesses while he was obliged to be 
 absent. 
 
 Mr. Olin said that it was at the earnest solicitation of Mr. Fowler 
 that the committee had commenced his examination. But if Mr. 
 Winslow felt any great solicitude about it, he had no doubt the com- 
 mittee would consent to suspend his examination until such time as 
 Mr. Winslow could be present. 
 
 Mr, Winslow said that the only solicitude he felt was about his 
 own reputation. He asked that the committee examine no more wit- 
 nesses until 12 o'clock m. 
 
 The question being taken, the committee accordingly took a recess 
 until 12 o'clock. 
 
 At 12.40 p. m. the committee were again called to order — all th® 
 members being present. 
 
 The examination of Mr. Fowler was resumed. 
 
 The following witnesses were also examined : 
 
 No. 13. John Ready, New York. 
 No. 14. John C. Elliott, New York. 
 No. 15. Adam Wegmann, New York- 
 No. 16. James Owens, New York. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thuesday, A^U 12, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Winslow, and Train. 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 No. 17. W. B. Shaw, New York Herald. 
 No. 18. James C. Vandyke, Philadelphia. 
 No. 19. George W. Bowman, Washington. 
 Adjourned to 10^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Feidat, AprU 13, 1:860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs Winslow and Robinson. 
 
 The examination of the following witness was commenced : 
 
 No. 20. George Plitt, Philadelphia. 
 
 The examination proceeded until the witness was asked how much 
 money he, as treasurer of the democratic State central committee, 
 .had disbursed in Pennsylvania in 1856. 
 
 Mr. Winslow objected to the witness answering the question. 
 
 After some discussion the committee took a recess. 
 
 At 2 p. m. the committee again met. — Mr. Winslow absent. 
 
 The committee resumed the consideration of the question pro- 
 pounded to Mr. Plitt, to which Mr. Winslow objected this morning, 
 SBjid after some discussion it was determined that the witness should 
 answer the question. 
 
 Yeas — The Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train. 
 
 Nay — Mr. Robinson. 
 
72 JOUENAIi OF COMMITTEE, 
 
 The examination of the witness was then continued and concluded 
 The following witness was also examined : 
 No. 21. Isaac West, Towsontown, Maryland. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, April 16; 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin and Winslow. 
 
 The Chairman laid before the committee a communication from the 
 Treasury Department, transmitting copies of papers concerning 
 George W. Baker, asked for by the committee on the llth instant; 
 also copies of papers asked for by committee on the 6th instant, in 
 relation to contract with certain parties in New York to do the work 
 in the public stores in that city. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, April 17, 1860. 
 
 Ihe committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, and Winslow. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No._22. B. P. Slocumb, Washington. 
 No. '23. J. L. Cramer, Washington. 
 No. 24. Nicholas Vedder, Washington. 
 No. 25. Robert J. Walker, Washington. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday, April 18, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin and Robinson. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No. 26. Ellis B. Schnable. 
 No. 27. Thomas C. McDougal, Harrisburg, Pa. 
 No. 28. John J. McBlhone, Philadelphia. 
 No. 2^, Robert J. Walker, (recalled.) 
 Adjourned to 1 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, AprU 19, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin and Winslow. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was ordered that the clerk of this 
 committee be directed to insert the following in the journal of the 
 committee: 
 
 "Mr. Winslow. I understand that on the 17th of April 1860 
 certain interrogatories were prepared by the Chairman, and handed! 
 by his direction, by the clerk to the witness, Schnabel, to be replied 
 to when he was- examined. This was not by the direction of the com- 
 mittee, nor were the said interrogatories ever authorized by any vote 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 73 
 
 of the committee; and I understand now friam Mr. Olin that he was. 
 not apprised of the fact. I desire this statement to be placed upon 
 the records of the committee. 
 
 "At Mr. Olin' 8 suggestion it was here stated that on "Wednesday, 
 (April 18,) a quorum being present, the witness (Schnabel) appeared 
 and produced the said interrogatories and his answers as recorded on 
 that day, there being present the Chairman, Mr. Olin, and Mr. Rob- 
 inson." 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW also stated that he desired a copy of the first day's 
 examination of Gov. Robert J. Walker, for his use in the House ; and 
 on his motion it was 
 
 uO'rdered, That the clerk of this committee be directed to prepare 
 a copy of the first day' s examination of Gov. Robert J. Walker for 
 the use of Mr. Winslow. 
 
 Mr. Winslow also moved that the practice of requiring witnesses 
 to sign their testimony be hereafter discontinued; that the clerk of 
 this committee be directed to retain in his own possession hereafter 
 the records of this committee of every kind, unless otherwise directed 
 by this committee. Agreed to. 
 
 The following witnesses were then examined : 
 
 No. 29. S. B. Blanchard, Washington. 
 
 No. 30. William F. Bayly, Washington. 
 
 No. 31. Valentine Blanchard, Washington. 
 
 No. 32. W. E. Kennangh, Washington. 
 
 No. 33. John Wagner, Washington. 
 
 No. 34. A. Roane, Washington. 
 
 No. 35. J. S. Black, Attorney General. 
 
 No. 18. James C. Vandyke, (recalled.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk of this committee be directed to place in 
 the hands of Attorney General J. S. Black, for perusal, the minutes 
 of the testimony of Ellis B. Schnabel, as given before this committee 
 on the 18th instant; also the minutes of his own testimony as given this 
 day, for revision. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Fkiday, April 20, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 Bftato, Messrs. Olin and Winslow. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Monday next- 
 
 MoNDAT, April 23, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 mBtn, Messrs. Olin, Winslow, and Robinson. 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 No. 3. William Pettibone, (recalled.) 
 No, 36. A. R. Quantrille, Washington. 
 
74 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Olin, it was 
 
 Ordered, That in any debate that might arise in the House con- 
 cerning matters relating to this committee, any member of the com- 
 mittee shall be at liberty to refer to and use any of the records of 
 this committee. 
 
 Adjourned to meet on call of the chairman. 
 
 "Wednesday, April 25, 1860. 
 
 The committee met upon call of its chairman— .all the members 
 present — at 11 a. m. 
 
 Adjourned to 11 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, April 26, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 m?in, Messrs. Olin, Train and Winslow. 
 
 Mr. Robinson subseqwently appeared, pending the examination of 
 Mr. Bean. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 37. Thomas L. Olingman, United States Senate. 
 No. 38. M. P. Bean, Prfemont, Ohio. 
 
 Pending the examination of Mr. Bean, the following question was 
 aaked him : 
 
 "Question. Did you not receive a check from Mr. Cornelius Wen- 
 dell for $5,000 a very short time before the English bill was passed?" 
 
 Mr. Winslow objected to the question, on the ground that in its 
 present form it did not indicate any connexion with the subject under 
 investigation. 
 
 The question was t.ak«n, after discussion, upon requiring the wit- 
 ness to answer it, whpn it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 3, 
 nay 1, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — The Chairman, Mtssrs. Olin and Train. 
 Nay — Mr. Winslow. 
 
 The witness asked until to-morrow morning to decide whether or 
 not he" would answer the question ; and also requested that a copy of 
 the question, in writing, might be given to him. 
 
 The clerk of the committee was accordingly directed to give the 
 witness the following question in writing : ' 
 
 ' "Question. Did you not receive a check from Mr. Wendell for 
 $5,000 a very short time before the English bill was passed ; and if 
 so, upon what consideration, and for what purpose was it paid to 
 you?" 
 
 The further exa^aination of the witness was then postponed. until 
 
 Adjourned to 11 a. m. to-morrow 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 75 
 
 Fbidat, April 27, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witness was examined: 
 
 No. 38. M. P. Bean, (continued.) 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ohha, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Winslow be allowed to take possession, until 
 the next meeting of this committee, of the manuscript of the second 
 day's examination of Robert J. Walker. 
 
 Adjourned to 11 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, April 30, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 39. Samuel Medary, Kansas. 
 
 No. 38. M. P. Bean, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 40. Graham N. Pitch, United States Senate. 
 
 At the request of Mr. Fitch, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk of the committee -be directed to hand to 
 Mr. Pitch the manuscript of his testimony for his revision. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Winslow be a,llowed to take possession of the 
 testimony of Cornelius Wendell until some future meeting of the 
 committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, May 1, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. ^ ,g,; ..,, 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 41. Josiah M. Lucas, Postmaster of the House of Representa- 
 tives. 
 
 No. 42. Stephen G. Dodge, Washington, 
 
 Pending the examination of Mr. Dodge, 
 
 'Mir. Winslow objected to the witness making a verbal statement 
 to the committee in the copimittee-ropm concerning some conversa- 
 tion he (the witness) had had with Governor Willard, of Indiana, re- 
 lating to the reasons for the rerngval of the witness from a clerkship 
 in the Pension office; the statement of the witness not being taken 
 down by the stenographer oi the committee as testimony. 
 
 After discussion, the question was taken upon allowing the witness 
 to make his statement, and it was decided in the affirmative— yeas 3, 
 
 nay 1, as follows: t> i • 
 
 Yeas.— The Chairman, Messrs. Traiff and Robmaon. 
 Nay. — Mr. Winslow. 
 
76 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 The examination of the witness was then concluded. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednksday, May 2, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No. 43. Sheldon McKnight, Detroit. 
 No. 44. Henry J. Alvord, Detroit. 
 Adjourned to 11 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, May 3, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Robinson, and Train. Mr. Winslow subsequently 
 appeared during the examination of Mr. Wendell. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 44. Henry J. Alvord, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, (recalled.) 
 
 Adjourned to 11 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Friday, May 4, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow and Train. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No. 4.5. Matthew Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 No. 46. Thomas McDonough, Philadelphia. 
 No. 47. John H. Bryant, Philadelphia. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, May 7, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witness was examined: 
 No. 48. S. M. Johnson, New York. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, May 8, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 49. Charles E. Stuart, Kalamazoo, Michigan. 
 
 No. 50. W. C. N. Swift, New Bedford, Massachusetts. 
 
 Pending the examination of Mr. Swift, a discussion arose in the 
 committee as to what testimony should be taken by them in relation 
 to contracts for live-oak timber. 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 77 
 
 After some time spent in discussion, 
 
 On ipotioD of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That this committee will use so much of the testimony 
 taken by the special committee upon naval contracts and expendi- 
 tures of the last Congress as may be adapted to the purposes of this 
 investigation in relation to contracts for live-oak timber. 
 
 Also, on motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Winslow be permitted to take possession, until 
 some future meeting of the committee, of the testimony of S. M. 
 Johnson, given on the 7 th instant. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday May 9, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Train and Eobinson. Mr. Winslow and Mr. Olin 
 subsequently appeared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 51. Joseph Grice, of New York. 
 
 No. 52. Henry L. Martin, of Washington. 
 
 No. 53. A. J. Isaacs, Leavenworth, Kansas. 
 
 No. 54. Francis Grice, Philadelphia. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, Mm] 10, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Robinson. Mr. Olin subse- 
 quently appeared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 55. Robert Darlington, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 1. Cornelius Wendell, (recalled.) 
 
 Adjourtied to 11 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Feiday, May 11, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Winslow and Train. 
 The following witness was examined: 
 No. 56. Thomas P. Watson, Georgetown, D. C. 
 Adjourned to 10^ a, m. to-morrow. 
 
 Saturday, May 12, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to • adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Winslow be permitted to take possession, until 
 some future meeting of the committee, of the testimony of A. J. 
 
78 JOURNAL OF COMjyXTEE. 
 
 Isaacs and H. L. Martin, taken on the 9th instant, and of the testi- 
 mony of George H. Purser, taken on the 6th ultimo. 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Tuesday next. 
 
 Tuesday, May 15, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Train, Winslow, and Robinson. Mr. Olin subse- 
 quently appeared during the examination of F. W. Walker. 
 
 On motion, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the testimony of ©eorge H. Purser, taken on April 
 6, be furnished to the select committee of which Hon. Mr.'Barr is 
 chairman. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 57. William M. Browne, Washington. 
 
 No. 58. F. W. Walker, Brooklyn, New York. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday, May 16, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Olin. Mr. Robirison subse-' 
 quently appeared during the examination of Mr. Schnabel. 
 
 The following witness was examined, Hon. J. S. Black being 
 present by permission of the committee : 
 
 No. 26. Ellis B. Schnabel, (recalled.) 
 
 On motion by Mr. WmsLOW, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the testimony of F. W. Walker, taken on the I5th 
 of May, and so much of the testimony of Cornelius Wendell of the 
 10th of May as refers to said Walker, be reported to the House, and , 
 that it be recommended to the House that the following resolution be 
 adopted : 
 
 ^'■Besolved, That F. W. Walker be expelled from the reporters' 
 gallery of the House." 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, May 17, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Train, Robinson, and Olin. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 19. George W. Bowman, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 59. Thomas J. McCamant, Washington. 
 
 On motion, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Olin be instructfed to offer the following resolu- 
 tion in the House of Representatives, and recommend its adoption: 
 
 " Besolved, That the select committee appointed under resolutions of 
 this House of March 5, 1860, be authorized to employ a stenogra- 
 pher, at the same rate of compensation as that received by the Globe 
 reporters; also, that said cqmmittee have leave, from time to time, 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 79 
 
 during the progress of their investigation, t-o have the testimony 
 taken before them printed." 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Friday, May 18, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. * 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was ordered that the clerk of this 
 committee be directed to insert the following in the journal of the 
 committee : 
 
 "Mr. Winslow. I was not present yesterday when Mr. Bowman? 
 was examined. I did not know that there would be any examination 
 of witnesses, nor did I know Mr. Bowman was to be examined at all. 
 There never Was any order of this committee to, summon him. I have 
 repeatedly protested, and again protest, against the chairman sum- 
 moning witnesses on his mere motion, without the consent of the 
 committee and a record of such consent. Had I been present I 
 should have objected to the examination of Mr. Bowman. I look in 
 vain for any authority in the resolutions submitted to us to investigate 
 newspaper attacks upon ourselves. I think the House has not charged 
 ua with that duty, and I think it derogatory to our dignity and self- 
 respect to enter into such contests and investigations with editors of 
 newspapers, having n'o reference to the subject-matter of our investi- 
 gations." 
 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
 No. 60. Samuel B. Grice, Philadelphia. 
 
 Adjourned till half-past 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Saturday, May 19, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Train and Winslow. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Winslow be permitted to take possession, until 
 some future meeting of the committee, of the testimony of Francis 
 Grice, taken on May 9, and the testimony of Samuel B. Grice, taken 
 Oil May 18. 
 
 Adjourned to half-past 9 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, May 21, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The Chairman laid before the committee the following from the 
 Clerk's office: 
 
80 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 " THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. 
 "CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 "In the House op Representatives, May IS, 1860. 
 " On motion of Mr. Oltn, from select committee to investigate, &c., 
 "Besolved, That the select committee appointed under resolutions 
 of this House of March 5, 1860, be authorized to employ a steno- 
 grapher, at the same rate of compensation as that received by the 
 Globe reporters. Also, that said committee have leave, from time 
 to time during, the progress of their investigation, to have the testi- 
 mony taken before them printed. 
 ' ' Attest • 
 
 "J.' W. rORNBY, Clerk.". 
 * 
 
 It was, on motion. 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Train, of this committee, be directed to take 
 charge of the matter of Charles A. Dunham, a recusant witness — ^he 
 having been summoned on the 11th of April to appear before this 
 committee, and having failed to do so — and bring the same before 
 the House for its action. 
 
 On motion by Mr. Olin, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk of this committee arrange the testimony 
 already taken under the appropriate heads, and give the same in the 
 printer's hands ; and that the testimony hereafter taken be so arranged 
 by the clerk and placed in the printer's hands as soon as practicable 
 after the same shall be written out; and that the printer be hereby 
 directed to print of the same, for the use of this committee, fifteen 
 copies, and no more, which copies shall be delivered by the printer to 
 the committee or its clerk : Provided, That said fifteen copies are not 
 to be struck off until a proof-sheet shall have been first submitted to 
 the committee for its revision. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, May 22, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Train, Winslow, and Robinson. Mr. Olin subsequently 
 appeared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 61. Edwin G. Dill, Washington. 
 
 No. 62. William C. Barney, New York. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Olin it was 
 
 Ordered, That the Postmaster General be called upon for copies 
 of all the correspondence between the Post Office Department and 
 William C. Barney, in relsftion to contracting to carry the mails be- 
 tween New York and New Orleans and San Francisco, and that a 
 copy of the testimony of said Barney be furnished the Post Office 
 Department. 
 
JOUENAL or COMMTTTEE. 8^1 
 
 On motion it was also 
 
 Ordered, That the Chairman of this committee be instructed to 
 call upon Richard Smith, esq., president of the Bank of the Metropo- 
 lis, Washington, D. C, for a copy of the draft of $4,000 to M. P. 
 Bean, of April 12, 1858, together with all indorsements, transfers, 
 &c., that have been made upon the same. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 "Wbdnesdat, May 23, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs Train, Winslow, and Robinson. 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 No. 61. Edwin G. Dill, (recalled.) 
 No. 62. William C. Barney, (recalled.) 
 No, 1. Cornelius Wendell, (recalled.) 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 . Thuesday, May 24, 186t). 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin, Train, and Winslow. Mr. Robinson subsequently 
 appeared during the examination of Mr. Fisher. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 63. Joseph B. Baker, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 64. Elwood Fisher, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Olin moved that the committee ask leave of the House to sit 
 during the sessions of the House. 
 
 Mr. Winslow asked the yeas and nays on that motion, which, 
 being taken, resulted as follows: 
 
 Teas — ^The Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train — 8. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Winslow and Robinson — 2. 
 
 The motion was accordingly agreed to. 
 
 Permission was given to Mr. Winslow to take possession of the 
 testimony of Mr. Fisher till some future meeting of the committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Feidat, May 25, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present f the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Train and Winslow; Messrs, Olin and Robinson subse- 
 quently appeared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined; 
 
 No. 65. William H. Davidge, New York. 
 
 No. 66. Hamilton Bruce, New York, 
 
 No. 67. James E. Harvey, Philadelphia.^ 
 
 No. 68. Francis McCormick, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 69. John F. ScheU, Philadelphia, 
 
 No, 70, Andrew Brumaker, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 71, David Webster, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 72, A. 0,T. Nicholson, U. S. Senate. 
 H. Ren. Com. 648 6 
 
82 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 Pending the examination of David Webster, 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW moved that the witness have time to see Judge 
 Black before being required to state a conversation between witness 
 and Judge Black, referred to in his testimony. 
 
 The question being taken by yeas and nays upon that motion, it 
 was not agreed to — yeas 2, nays 3, as follows : 
 
 Yeas^-Messrs. Winslow and Eolainson — 2. 
 
 Nays — the Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train — 3. 
 
 Mr. Winslow stated that he wanted to introduce a resolution in the 
 House to call for some papers from one of the departments, and if he 
 should find it necessary, in support of that resolution, he desired per- 
 mission of the committee to refer to the testimony of Elwood Fisher, 
 given before this committee on the 24th instant. 
 
 Permission was granted accordingly. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Satuedat, May 26, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Olin and Robinson; Mr. Winslow subsequently appeared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 73. George Downey, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 70. Andrew Bru maker, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 62. William C. Barney, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 74. Patrick Lafiferty, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 75, J. P. Benjamin, U. S. Senate. 
 
 No. 76. John Dunn, Philadelphia. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That there be printed with the testimony taken before 
 this committee, in relation to contracts for carrying the California 
 mails, &c., the documents contained in Senate Executive Document 
 No. 72, 35th Congress, 1st session, in relation to the route across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and the documents contained in Senate Ex- 
 ecutive Document No. 45, 36th Congress, 1st session, in relation to 
 the contract with Daniel H. Johnson to carry the California mails, &c. 
 
 Permission was given Mr. Winslow to take possession of the testi- 
 mony of A. J. Isaacs, May 9th, William H. Davidge and James E. 
 Harvey, May 25th, and William C, Barney, May 26th, until some 
 future meeting of the committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, May 28, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs._ Winslow, Train, and Eobinson. 
 The following witness was examined : 
 No. 77. James Murphy, New York. 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 83 
 
 Tuesday, May 29, 1860. 
 
 No quorum of the committee were present. The Chairman and 
 Mr. Train were present. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the 
 Chairman, Messrs. Train, Winslow, and Robinson. 
 
 Mr. Winslow moved that subpoenas be issued for the following wit- 
 nesses: 
 
 D. S. Koon, Pittston, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 O. P. Gaines, Boonton, New Jersey. 
 
 John Brisbane, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 George Sanduron, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 A. Davis, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, 
 
 Ira Tripp, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Joseph Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 J. W. Palmer, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Chairman said: I have in my possession letters asking me to 
 Bubposna hundreds of persons as witnesses; in every instance where 
 I find they have no direct connexion with the government I decline 
 to subpoena them. There is no evidence here that a single one of 
 these persons has any connexion whatever with the government; I 
 therefore shall vote against putting the government to the expense of 
 subpoenaing them here. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I applied for these witnesses in April last, and an 
 order was made for their being summoned. They have never been 
 summoned; I am informed, upon information said to be reliable, and 
 not by an anonymous letter, that large sums of money were expended 
 by Mr. Scranton, of Pennsylvania, and by his friends in his district, to 
 secure the election of Mr. Scranton to the present House ; I have se- 
 lected from a list of witnesses, comprising some thirty names, these 
 eight persons for whom I desire subpoenas. The investigation of this 
 matter is covered, in my opinion, by the second resolution submitted 
 to this committee. 
 
 Mr. Teain. I have no objection, after the majority of the commit- 
 tee have closed the investigation so far as they desire to go, to go 
 into any inquiries upon the suggestion of Governor Winslow or Mr. 
 Eobinson, which are properly within the scope of the resolutions 
 under which this committee are acting. But at present I decline to 
 vote in favor of the motion of Governor Winslow. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. As I have said once before, I have great doubts 
 whether we have any right — indeed I am satisfied that we have no 
 right — to investigate the expenditure of moneys by private parties in 
 elections. But in this case, as our investigations heretofore have 
 been given a pretty wide range, I will vote in favor of subpoenaing 
 these witnesses. When they are here, if Governor Winslow or any 
 
84 JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 
 
 other member of the committee becomes satisfied, and will ",,80 state 
 to the committee, that the moneys that have been so spent can be 
 traced back to any parties connected with the government, and show 
 that it was government money, I will insist upon their examinationj 
 otherwise I shall oppose it. At present, I will vote in favor of sub- 
 poenaing the witnesses. 
 
 The Chairman. I will vote myself for subpoenaing them if Gover- 
 nor Winslow wiU state that he can trace the money back to the gov- 
 ernment or to government officers. As Mr. Scranton is now here, I 
 am willing to subpoena him and get his explanation as a starting point. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW asked for the yeas and nays on his motion to have the 
 foregoing named persons subpoenaed as witnesses. 
 
 The yeas and nays being taken resulted as follows — ^yeas 2, nays 2. 
 
 Teas — ^Messrs. Winslow and Robinson — 2. 
 
 Nays — ^The Chairman and Mr. Train — 2. 
 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I ask that this matter be referred to the House, 
 that they may advise us upon the subject. 
 
 Mr. Train. I object to that; I do not think the House has anything 
 to do with it. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I desire to make an application to the House, by the 
 consent of the committee, to have these witnesses subpoenaed. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I think myself that better be done. 
 
 Mr. Winslow asked the yeas and nays upon his motion for leave to 
 submit this matter to the House. 
 
 The yeas and nays being taken resulted as follows — yeas 2, nays 2. 
 
 Teas — Messrs. Winslow and Robinson — 2. 
 
 Nays — ^The Chairman and Mr. Train — 2. 
 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I move that subpoenaea issue for the following 
 persons : 
 
 William McMullen, Philadelphia. 
 
 William B. Reed, Philadelphia. 
 
 William S. Kelley, Philadelphia. 
 
 Thomas Kearns, Philadelphia. 
 
 John Hagan, Philadelphia. 
 
 David Cook, Philadelphia. 
 
 H. Marley Van Horn, Philadelphia. 
 
 By these witnesses I desire to prove bribery of the officers of 
 elections and bribery of the electors in Philadelphia, in the fall 
 election of 1856. 
 
 +u'''^^i^^™'*'*"^" ^ ^^^® °° objection to subpoenaing a portion of 
 them, but it has not been our habit to subpcena so many witnesses 
 tor a particular matter, and I object to putting the government to all 
 this expense. 
 
 Mr Winslow called for the yeas and nays, which being taken 
 resulted as follows— yeas 2, nays 2. 
 
 Teas— Messrs. Winslow and RobiDsonr— 2. 
 Nays— The Chairman and Mr. Train— 2, 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 85 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOW. I move for siibpcenaes for the following persons: 
 
 Eichard Golder, Greensboro', Pennsylvania. 
 
 Edward J. Keenan, Greensboro' , Pennsylvania. 
 
 Alexander Johnson, jr., Greensboro', Pennsylvania. 
 
 James F. Nelson, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. 
 
 John W. Reddell, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. 
 
 I am informed that these persons can prove the expenditure of 
 money in the congressional election in the Westmoreland district of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Chaieman. I have a general knowledge of that matter, and 
 that those men have no connexion with the government whatever. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW asked for the yeas and nays, which being taken De- 
 salted as follows — yeas 2, nays 2. 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Winslow and Robinson — 2. 
 
 Nays — The Chairman and Mr. Train — 2. 
 
 The motion was not agreed to. 
 
 Subsequently, when Frederick Bngle was called on the stand — 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW asked the clerk if there was any record showing that 
 the committee had directed Mr. Engle to be summoned; to which the 
 clerk of the committee replied that there was no record of that kind. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined; 
 
 No. 78. Henry Wilson, Boston. 
 
 No. 79. Frederick Engle, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 80. John Appleton, Washington. 
 
 No. 46. Thomas McDonough, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 81. Edward W. Power, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 77. James Murphy, (recalled.) 
 
 No. €4. EUwood Fisher, (recalled.) 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Thursday, May 31, 1860, 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Train, Winslow, and Robinson. 
 
 The Chaieman laid before the committee a communication, with ac- 
 oompanying documents, from the Postmaster General, in reference to 
 the call of this committee of the 22d instant. 
 
 Ordered, That they be printed with the testimony relating to that 
 subject. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 74. Patrick Laflferty, ( recalled.) 
 
 No. 82. William H. Witte, Philadelphia- 
 No. 83. Samuel S. Cox, House of Representatives. 
 
 No. 46. Thomas McDonough, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 78. Henry Wilson, (recalled.) 
 
 Patrick Lafferty having refused to answer a question propounded 
 to him by the committee — 
 
 On motion of Mr. Train, it was 
 
 Ordered, That Patrick Lafferty be reported to the House for con- 
 tempt, he having refused to answer a question propounded to him by 
 
86 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 a special committee of the House; and that so much of the testimony 
 of Edward "W. Power and Patrick Lafferty as may be necessary to a 
 proper presentation of this matter to the House be also reported at 
 the same time. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW moved that he (Mr. W.) be permitted to have a copy 
 of so much of the journal of this committee of yesterday as relates 
 to the summoning of witnesses, to be used in the House, if he (Mr. 
 W.) should find it necessary. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That a copy of the testimony of David Webster be fur* 
 nished to Mr. Winslow for his use. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Fbidat, June 1,1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow and Train. Mr. Robinson subsequently ap- 
 peared. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 
 No. 74. Patrick Lafferty, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 84. Benjamin Andrews, Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 No. 85. Horace P. Clark, House of Representatives. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That an extract (indicated by Mr. W.) from the Presi- 
 dent's annual message to Congress, of December 6, 1858, be ap- 
 pended to the testimony of Hon. Horace P. Clark, in relation to the 
 carrying of the California mails, &c. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Saturday, June 2, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Winslow and Train. Mr. Robinson .subsequently 
 appeared. 
 
 Mr. Teain moved, that inasmuch as Patrick Lafferty had given suf" 
 ficient answers to the questions propounded to him, the order of this 
 committee of May 31&t, in relation to him, be rescinded. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That hereafter witnesses shall be summoned pursuant to 
 the order of the committee; and that the clerk shall enter upon the 
 journal of this committee the names of the witnesses so ordered to be 
 summoned, at the time such order shall be made. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 86. Charles B. Flood, Cleaveland, Ohio. 
 
 No. 87. William W. Shore, Providence, Rhode Island. 
 
 No. 35. J. S. Black, (recalled.) 
 
 Ordered, That the following persons be summoned to appear before 
 this committee as witnesses: 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 87 
 
 D. S. Koon, Pittston, Pennsylvania. 
 
 0. P. Gaines, Boonton, New Jersey. 
 
 John Brisbane, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 George Sanderson, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 A. Davis, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Ira Trippe, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Joseph Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 J. W. Palmer, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 William McMuUen, Philadelphia. 
 
 William B. Reed, Philadelphia. 
 
 William S. Kelly, Philadelphia. 
 
 Thomas Kearns, Philadelphia. 
 
 John Hogan, Philadelphia. 
 
 David Cook, Philadelphia. 
 
 H. Marley Van Horn, Philadelphia. 
 
 Hon. Charles Brown, Philadelphia. 
 
 David Webster, Philadelphia. 
 
 G. G. Westcott, Philadelphia. 
 
 Hon. William B. Mann, Philadelphia. 
 
 Albert Schofield, Philadelphia. 
 
 Thomas Davidson, Philadelphia. 
 
 Reuben F. Brown, Philadelphia. 
 
 Colonel William C. Patterson, Philadelphia. 
 
 Captain George W. Walling, New York city. 
 
 David H. Johnston, New York city. 
 
 Adjourned to 9^ a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, Jum 4, 1860. ' 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, and Messrs. Wiuslow and Train. Mr. Robinson subsequently 
 appeared. 
 
 The following from the Clerk's office of the House of Representa- 
 tives, was ordered to be entered upon the minutes : 
 
 "THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, 
 
 "PIEST SESSION, 
 " CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 "In the House op Representatives, Jum, 2, 1860* 
 
 "On motion of Mr. Winslow : 
 
 ''Resolved, That the Speaker be directed to issue his warrant, di- 
 rected to the Sergeant-at-Arms, ordering him to summon the follow- 
 ing named persons to appear, forthwith, before the select committee, 
 appointed under the resolutions of the House, of the 5th of March 
 last, for the purpose of investigating certain alleged corruptions: 
 
 "D. S. Koone, Pittston, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 "O. P. Gaines, Boonton, New Jersey. 
 
 "John Brisbane, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
88 JOUENAIi OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 '^ George SaBderson, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania, f 
 "A. Davis, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 " Ira Trippe, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 " Joseph Scranton, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 " J. W. Palmer, Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 "' WiUiam McMullen, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 " WUliam B. Eeed, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 "■"WUliam S. Kelly, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 ""Thomas Keama Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 ** John Hagan, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 •* David Cook, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 "H. Marley Van Horn, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
 "Attest • 
 
 "J. W. FORNEY, Clerh" 
 
 The following witness was examined : 
 
 No. 88. Charles W. Clement, Philadelphia, 
 
 Ordered, That the following persons be summoned to appear before 
 this committee as witnesses : 
 J. M. Sallade, Reading, Pennsylvania. 
 William Kearns, Reading, Pennsylvania, (probably.) 
 "WiUiam B. Shaw, "Washington. 
 Cornelius Wendell, Washington. 
 John B. Haskin, House of Representatives. 
 Thomas B. Florence, House of Representatives. 
 William Montgomery, House of Representatives- 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, June 5, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present : the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Robinson. 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 No. 87. William W. Shore, (recalled.) 
 No. 11. A. H. Evans, (recalled.) 
 
 The following witnesses were ordered to be summoned: 
 WiUiam B. Rankin, Columbus, Ohio. 
 Com. J. H. Ward, New York city. 
 Thomas Faron, New York city. 
 S. P. Hanscom, Washington. 
 J. EUiott, Washington. 
 Jacob Thompson, Washington. 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Wednesday, June 6, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournmet. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Robinson.. 
 The foUowing witness was examined : 
 No, 89. J. L, Elliot, Washington. 
 
JOURNAL OP COMMITTEE. 89 
 
 On motion of Mr. Eobinson, 
 
 The Chairman of this committee be instructed to report to the 
 House of Representatives the names of the following persons who 
 have not obeyed the subpoenas issued under direction of this com- 
 mittee, and ask the process of the House to compel their attendance : 
 
 Charles A. Dunham, New York.' 
 
 Alexander Hay, New York. 
 
 G-. G. Westcott, Philadelphia. 
 
 Albert Schofield, Philadelphia. 
 
 "William Kearns, Reading, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m- to-morrow. 
 
 Thdesdat, Jum 7, 1860. 
 
 The committee had no session to-day on account of the protracted 
 session of the House of Representatives yesterday. 
 
 Fbidat, June 8, 1860. 
 
 The committee met at 9 a. m. Present: the Chairman, Messrs. 
 Winslow, Train, and Robinson. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 90. George Landuron, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 No. 91. William B. Mann, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 92. Jacob Thompson, Interior Department. 
 
 No. 93. J. H. Puleston, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. 
 
 No. 94. A. Davis, Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
 
 No. 95. David S. Koon, Pittston, Pennsylvania, 
 
 No. 96. James H. Smith, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 No. 97. Thomas Smith, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 No. 98. Ira Freeman, jr., Washington, D. C. 
 
 No. 99. George W. Walling, New York city. 
 
 Mr. Winslow moved that the remainder of the witnesses in rela- 
 tion to the election of Mr. Scranton, of Pennsylvania, be discharged 
 without examination. Agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Winslow moved that the testimony of George Sanderson, J. 
 H. Puleston, A. Davis, and David S. Koon in relation to Mr. Scranton, 
 and the testimony of James H. Smith and Thomas Miller in relation 
 to Mr. S. S. Cox, taken to-day, be stricken out. 
 
 After consultation, it was agreed that Mr. Cox and Mr. Scranton 
 b© consulted, and their wishes in regard to the matter be ascertained. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Satubdat, Jum 9, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chair- 
 man, Messrs. Winslow, Train, and Robinson. 
 The following witnesses were examined : 
 No. 100. Charles Brown, Philadelphia. 
 No. 101. William C. Patterson, Philadelphia. 
 
90 JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 No. 102. Andrew M. Sallade, Reading, Pennsylvania. 
 
 No. 103. Joseph H. Geiger, Golumbns, Ohio. 
 
 No. 104. John B. Haskin, House of Representatives. 
 
 No. 83. Samuel S. Cox, recalled. 
 
 No. 105. P. Barry Hays, Philadelphia. 
 
 At the request of Mr. Cox, the Chairman was instructed to invite 
 Hon. Howell Cobb to appear before this committee on Monday next 
 
 Mr. Train moved that Hon. Garnet B. Adrain and Hon. John Hick- 
 man be summoned to appear before this committee as witnesses. 
 
 Some discussion took place as to the power of this committee over 
 the subject to which theiir testimony would relate, and the time the 
 examination of that subject would occupy. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW called for the yeas and nays on the motion of Mr. 
 Train, and proceeded to say: 
 
 The objection I have to summoning these witnesses arises from the 
 following state of facts : The House having ordered a special committee 
 to be appointed, on the motion of Mr. Hoard, to examine the matters 
 with which the names of Mr. Adrain, Mr. Hickman, and Mr. Haskin 
 have been connected, I think that is an exclusion of the authority of 
 this committee to examine them upon the same matters, I shall, 
 therefore, vote against the motion. 
 
 The Chairman said: Before I give my vote, I will state that as it 
 appears likely that the examination of the persons named will protract 
 our session, and as they have already made their charges in the House, 
 I am willing to let the matter go, and pursue it no further. Under 
 these circumstances, I shall vote against the motion. 
 
 The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and resulted — ^yeaa 
 2, nays 2, as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Train and Robinson — 2. 
 
 Nays — The Chairman and Mr. Winslow — 2. 
 
 Accordingly the motion was not agreed to. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Train, it was 
 
 Ordered, That John W. Forney be summoned to appear before thie 
 committee to testifj^ on Monday next. 
 
 At the request of Mr. Winslow, it was agreed that he have ample 
 time to call witnesses in reply to Mr. Forney. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. on Monday next. 
 
 Monday, Jiim 11, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members pre- 
 sent. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 106. J. W. Forney, Clerk of House of Representatives. 
 
 No. 103. J. H. Geiger, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 96. J. H. Smith, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 107. Albert H. Schofield, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 108. Gideon G. Westcott, Philadelphia. 
 
 No. 83. Samuel S. Cox, (recaUed.) 
 
 On motion, it was 
 
JOURNAL OF COMMITTEE. 91 
 
 Ordered, That the Chairman be instructed to request the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to furnish this committee with copies of the corres- 
 pondence of James C. Vandyke, of Philadelphia, (addressed to the 
 Commissioner of Customs of the Treasury Department, ) and the replies 
 of the department thereto, in relation to the employment of George 
 W. Baker and others in the custom-house in Philadelphia; also a copy 
 of the pay-roll of the collector's office of New York during the months 
 of October and November, 1858. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. to-morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, June 12, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members pre- 
 sent. 
 
 The following witnesses were examined: 
 
 No. 109. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 No. 1 10. William Karns, Eeading, Pa. 
 
 No. 1, Cornelius Wendell, (recalled.) 
 
 No. 111. John Covode, House of Representatives. 
 
 After consultation, it was agreed that no more witnesses be exam- 
 ined, except Charles A. Dunham and Alexander Hay, of New York, 
 and — Davidson, of Illinois, should they appear. 
 
 Adjourned to 10 a. m. on Thursday next, unless sooner called 
 together for the purpose of examining the persons before named. 
 
 Thursbat, June 14, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 The following witness appeared and handed in a written statement, 
 which was ordered to be printed with the testimony: 
 
 No. 112. James W. Davidson, Monmouth, 111. 
 
 Sundry other documents were ordered to be printed with the tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. Train be directed to prepare a report for this 
 committee. 
 
 Adjourned to 9 a. m. on Saturday next. 
 
 Satubbay, June 16, 1860. 
 
 The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
 present. 
 
 Mr. Teain submitted a written report, which was read to the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. Olin moved that it be adopted. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and 
 the motion agreed to — yeas 3, nays 2, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — The Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train — 3. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Winslow and Eobinson — 2. 
 
 When his name was called, 
 
92 JOUENAIi OF COMMITTEE. 
 
 Mr. Robinson said: I shall vote in the negative, for the reason that 
 there are many things in the report that I do not concur in. I concur 
 fully in that portion of the report which relates to the course of the 
 administration upon what is known as the Kansas-Lecompton ques- 
 tion. I concur, also, in some other parts of the report. But, as I 
 have said, there are many portions of it in which I do not concur, and 
 therefore I shall decline to sign it. 
 
 Leave was granted to Mr. Winslow to prepare and submit to the 
 House a report on the part of the minority. 
 
 Mr. Olin moved that Mr. Teain be instructed to submit the report 
 and accompanying testimony to the House, and ask that 50,000 copies 
 of the same be printed for the use of the House, 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 The committee thereupon adjourned mne die. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 93 
 
 LEGOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 No. 25, 
 
 Tuesday, April 17, 1860. 
 
 EGBERT J. WALKER called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. When were you appointed governor of Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. I think that it was (though I cannot give you the exact 
 date) some time in April, 1857. But I did not go to Kansas until 
 May. I recollect one date particularly ; I reached Lecompton on the 
 27th of May, for that was the date of my first inaugural address. 
 
 Question. While governor of the Territory did you receive a letter 
 from Mr. Buchanan hearing date, I think, about the 12th of July or 
 the 12th of August, I am not sure which, in reference to the affairs of 
 the Territory, and the policy to be pursued by you? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW, [to witness.] I think you are not bound to answer 
 that question. I think it is a matter between the President of the 
 United States and one of the officers of the government, and, under all 
 legal rules, I think this testimony would not be proper. Tou can best 
 judge of that matter yourself ; I know nothing about the letter, or 
 its contents, or the object of the inquiry. But I think that no House 
 of Congress, or any of their committees, have a right to question a 
 witness in regard to the instructions and letters from the Executive to 
 any officer of the government. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I supposed this matter was perfectly within the province 
 of the committee. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think it is contrary to received legal opinion both 
 here and in England. 
 
 The Chairman. I think we can call upon the President for this cor- 
 respondence, if we choose. 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOW. Then it would be a matter for the President to de- 
 cide whether he would give it to you or not. The President has a 
 right to withhold any correspondence from the House which he con- 
 siders incompatible with the public interest. 
 
 The Witness. I did receive various letters from the President, 
 which were not official letters. I do not see upon what principle I am 
 bound to communicate them to you. I certainly have no desire to 
 suppress anything, nor do I think the President has. But, whilst I 
 am the last person on earth to withhold from the committee any in- 
 formation that is proper, I do not, as ab present advised, and in the 
 present posture of the case as it is now presented, see how I am called 
 upon to publish it. I think I have the right to publish those letters, 
 at my own time, and if I deem it necessary, or if it should be necee- 
 
94 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Bary for the vindication of my own honor or reputation. But I think 
 I have the right to judge of that time for myself. That appears to 
 me to he the proper view of the case. I wish you to_ understand, gen- 
 tlemen, that I have certainly not the slightest ohjection to all knowing 
 any letter that ever was written to me by the President, or that lever 
 wrote to him. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I did not suppose there would be any ohjection on 
 your part. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. My ohjection is in regard to official communications 
 of the President. 
 
 The Witness. The official communications, I think, have all been 
 published. They constitute a large portion of one of the volumes of 
 the documents of Congress. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I am inquiring now in regard to a letter that has not 
 been published, and which I think bore date the 12th of July or the 
 12th of August; a letter in reference to the policy to be pursued by 
 the administration in reference to the submission of the Lecompton 
 constitution, or the constitution then about to be formed, to the 
 people — the whole instrument to be submitted to the people. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It is understood that I object to the witness giving 
 any information in reference to any official communications of the 
 President to him. 
 
 Mr. Olin. My view of the matter, if Mr. Oovode concurs with me, 
 is that we should insist upon putting the question, leaving the witness 
 to make such response as he sees fit, in reference to answering the 
 inquiry at all or withholding any answer for the present. 
 
 The Chairman. I concur in that view. 
 
 The Witness. I think, gentlemen, that whether the letter to which 
 you refer be strictly confidential and private or not, or whether I might 
 choose to regard it as not a private and confidential letter, it still 
 undoubtedly was not an official letter ; it was not addressed to me by 
 Mr. Buchanan in his capacity as President of the United States. But 
 still I do not think I am called upon to produce it. I wish it distinctly 
 understood that I consider that I have a right to publish that or any 
 other letter, if it should be necessary, to vindicate my honor in any 
 matter connected with the discharge of my official duties with which 
 such a communication might be connected ; but I think that I have 
 the right to judge of the place, time, and manner of making that 
 publication. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I had supposed that the power of Congress was sufficiently 
 adequate to call for the production of even a private and confidential 
 communication, or a communication of any character made by an officer 
 like the President of the United States, whose conduct in the discharge 
 of his duties is always open to inquiry ; and that the merely private 
 nature of such a correspondence, its confidential character, would not 
 put it beyond the power of the House or exempt it from examination. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think there is not a single administration of the 
 government in which it will not be found that the President has 
 refused to communicate to Congress some papers called for. He is 
 always requested to do so "if not incompatible with the public 
 interest." I think in the case of the committee of Mr. Wise in rela- 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOlSr, ETC. 95 
 
 tion to General Jackson tlie ground wag expressly taken that ttey 
 would not insist upon questions in relation to private conversations, 
 until General Jackson himself absolved the witnesses and begged them 
 to give the conversations. I object to this upon this ground : I hold 
 that the power ,pf the House, and of a committee acting under authority 
 of this House, is not sufficient to enable them to call for any letter 
 from the President of the United States to any officer of the govern- 
 ment where it is official, or what is sometimes called private, where it 
 touches the public policy of the government. Mr. Walker is the judge 
 of his own rights ; I give no opinion about that matter, he has the 
 right to judge of that. But I am speaking now of our powers, not in 
 the least of the propriety of the acts of the witness ; that is a matter 
 for the witness to decide. . 
 
 The Witness. I wish it distinctly understood that I think, under all 
 the circumstances of the case, I have the right to publish any letters 
 I may haVe received from Mr. Buchanan while I was governor of 
 Kansas touching on its public policy," although they were not official, 
 whenever I deem it necessary for the vindication of truth, or of my 
 own honor or reputation. But I have always supposed, although I do 
 not assume umpireship in this matter or to be the ultimate judge of 
 it, that it was my right, as an individual, to communicate this letter 
 when and in what manner I pleased. But I pronounce no ultimate 
 judgment upon such a point ; I do not wish to violate any rule of law 
 or set at defiance the tribunals of my country or the House of 
 Eepresentatives. ' 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. I would ask vrhether that letter, the original letter, has 
 not passed out of your hands ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; never. It never was out of my hands, unless, 
 perhaps, when some gentleman sitting by me took it in hia hands to 
 read it. It is in my possession now. 
 
 Question. Have you not fully communicated the contents of that 
 letter to several gentlemen ? 
 
 Answer. I have shown it confidentially to various gentlemen, as I 
 have always thought I had the right to do, a^id as I how think I have 
 a right to publish it, if I please. 
 
 Mr. Ohn. I understand that the witness does not decline to answer 
 the inquiry upon the ground that this was a strictly private and confi- 
 dential letter, which he was in honor bound to keep from public 
 observation. 
 
 The Witness. I have not at any time considered the letter in that 
 light ; I have always taken a different view of it. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. But you base it upon the ground that you have a right 
 to direct the mode and time of its publication, whenever you choose? 
 
 Answer. That is my position in relation the matter ; and I think 
 now, and I have always thought, and that is the opinion of gentle- 
 men to whom I have shown the letter, that if I should publish it the 
 country will concur with me in opinion that the motives that have 
 mduced me to withhold it were public motives, and such as my 
 
96 LECOMPTON CONSTITTTTIOlir, ETC. 
 
 country will approve. But it has never been out of my possession for 
 a moment, except when, in my presence, some gentleman has had it 
 to read it ; and it is now in my possession. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I hope the committee will not press the question nowP 
 
 Mr. Oi-iN. There is no pressing about it. I understand the witness 
 to decline to produce that letter. 
 
 The Witness. I have given my opinion about it. 
 
 The Chairman, [to witness.] It is proper to ask you directly whether 
 or not you decline to produce the letter ? 
 
 The Witness. I must say that, as at present advised, I think it is 
 my duty not to produce it. I think most conscientiously that I have 
 a right to publish it when and where I please, and to show it to 
 whom I please ; but I do not think this committee have the legal 
 right to compel the production of this letter, or force it from me, 
 against my will. 
 
 The Chairman. That, I suppose, is a question for the House to 
 determine. 
 
 The Witness. That is another thing ; the power of the House is 
 entirely a different affair. I will say that I did show this letter to 
 various persons, and I did so in vindication of my public course. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In showing that letter, did you not always state in con- 
 nexion with it that the President had entirely abandoned the position 
 taken in that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I think you will find in my published letters, which are 
 accessible to you all and which were published over my signature as 
 an individual, and also in my letter of resignation as governor of 
 Kansas, that I have repeatedly declared that the President had 
 abandoned his original position. You will find that in my letter of 
 resignation, which may be found among th* documents of Congress, 
 and in some five or six letters that I published afterwards, addressed 
 to various committees. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. If any opinion of the witness is intended to be put 
 upon record, I must object to it. 
 
 The Witness. I only state where these things are to be found. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Are you willing to state whether there are any copies of 
 that letter in existence ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there is one copy in existence, and one only. It 
 was given to a very near friend of mine, simply for the purpose of 
 preventing any injury to myself from the loss of the original, and. for 
 no other purpose whatever. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you not aware of a copy of that letter deposited k 
 bank? ^ ^ 
 
 Answer. I have never heard of a copy of it being deposited in a 
 bank, and I think that is totally impossible. There was never but 
 one copy, unless it was stolen, and that copy was deposited with a 
 frifind and relative of mine, in case the original should be lost ; and 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 97 
 
 I believe that gentleman has never shown it to a human being. I do 
 not wish it to be understood that Mr. Buchanan has ever objected to 
 my publishing any of his letters. 
 
 Question. Was there not a very strong eifort made on the part of 
 the President and his friends to get you to refrain from publishing 
 that letter ? 
 
 Answer. There never was the slightest effort made upon the part 
 of the President to induce me to restrain the publication of that letter, 
 not the slightest effort upon the part of the President. On the con- 
 trary, I firmly believe that the President could take no exception, 
 whatever to my publishing the letter. He and I have never conversed 
 upon the subject. And I wish it distinctly understood' that at the 
 time that I showed this letter to various friends I thought I had a 
 right to publish it, or I never would have shown it. And I deem it 
 due to myself to say that if I did not publish it it was from no 
 motives pertaining to myself, from no selfish considerations, but solely 
 from motives, as I considered, connected with the public interest. 
 
 No. 26. 
 Wednesday, April 1%, 1860. 
 
 ELLIS B. SOHNABEL called and sworn. 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. You stated to me yesterday that you were very anxious 
 to get off to Charleston to-day, and in consequence of the preparations 
 you desired to make this morning you would find it inconvenient to 
 attend here for a long examination at present. To facilitate the 
 giving your testimony I ordered our clerk to furnish you a list of 
 interrogatories. Have you received those interrogatories, and have 
 you prepared your answers to them ? 
 
 Answer. I have, sir; I copied the interrogatories, writing the 
 appropriate answer after each one of them, so that it may read 
 properly ; here they are and I have signed them. 
 
 The interrogatories and answers were then read as follows : 
 
 Question 1. Were you ever shown a letter, dated July 12, 1857, 
 written by the President of the United States to G-overnor Eobert J, 
 Walker, the latter then in Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw but one letter in manuscript, written by the 
 President to Grovernor Walker, and that, I believe, bore date July 12, 
 
 Question 2. Was it shown to you confidentially, or are you at 
 liberty, without violating any promises of secrecy, to speak of its con- 
 tents? 
 
 Answer, I am under no obligations ot secrecy whatever, i have 
 discussed the merits of that letter with a great many persons within 
 the last eighteen months. I presume twenty different people, in 
 Washington to-day, have been long aware of my knowledge of^this 
 
 H. Ret). Com. 648 1 
 
98 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 letter. Governor Walker exhibited it to me in vindication of his 
 course in Kansas ; and at the time also stated that he, himself, was 
 under no confidential restraints. At this time Governor Walker was 
 exceedingly indignant and angry. He also freely expressed his fear 
 that the President would not only destroy the democratic party, but 
 the country with it. I urged immediate publication. He feared the, 
 consequences to the country, and thought its welfare would be best 
 secured by being not too precipitant. Although he stated with 
 determined emphasis, that inasmuch as the President had suddenly 
 changed front, since the date of that letter, the tendency of which 
 change might be to disparage him (Walker) in public estimation, 
 as a iaithiul servant of the people, should that ever appear, either 
 in assailing his honor, or the manner in which he discharged his 
 duties as a public officer, he not only felt entirely free, but would 
 justify and defend himself before the country by publishing the letter 
 ofthel2thof July, 1857. 
 
 He expressly stated that the letter was semi-official and entirely 
 divested of confidential restrictions. As for myself, having no con- 
 fidential obligations resting upon me, and having freely discussed the 
 matter with numerous persons, at intervals, during a year and a half, 
 at least, I feel perfectly free to speak of its contents. 
 
 Question 3. What is your recollection of its contents? 
 
 Answer. The time I saw the letter was soon after the resignation 
 of Governor Walker. I had, with many other gentlemen, earnestly 
 urged his appointment, hence I felt a profound interest in his success. 
 
 Conversing with him about what was deemed an indirect removal of 
 him irom Kansas, led to the introduction of this letter at the inter- 
 view referred to. I considered it a most extraordinary document when 
 I remembered that Mr. Walker was no longer Governor of Kansas. 
 It seemed to me, from the contents of this letter, that he was forced 
 to abandon his post, because he had faithfully carried out, as far as 
 he had power, the instructions and advice of President Buchanan. I 
 consider the letter an unqualified endorsement of Governor Walker's 
 course in Kansas. I was particularly struck with the potent fact, that 
 the President considered the submissioa of the constitution by the 
 convention to the people of Kansas the true principle and interpre- 
 tation of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. 
 
 Further, that his views were equivalent to advising Governor 
 Walker to devote himself to the policy of submission, for the double 
 reason, first, that it would secure his success, and his success would 
 prove fatal to the resolutions against Governor Walker, passed a short 
 time previous in Georgia and Mississippi. 
 
 The President plainly indicated to Governor Walker that his 
 success depended upon the doctrine of submission, and adds, almost in 
 the following words, that upon the doctrine of submission of the con- 
 stitution to the people he (tiie President) was willing to stand or fall. 
 
 I remember, also, that I was impressed with the singular solemnity 
 of the President from the fact that the advice contained in the letter 
 was clenched with a seemingly devout prayer. This is substantially 
 my recollection of the spirit and meaning of that document as it was 
 read to me by Governor Walker. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 99 
 
 Question 4. Have you recently conversed with any member of this 
 administration on the subject of this letter. If so, are you at liberty 
 to speak of it ? 
 
 Answer. I have recently had such conversation. There is no secret 
 about it, no confidential restraint upon either of the parties. I have 
 described the scene to many persons since Friday last. I presume this 
 committee, like many others, have heard of it. I had an accidental 
 discussion with Attorney General Black upon the truth of the existence 
 of such a document as the one referred to in this testimony ; he deny- 
 ing and I affirming. He declared that no such document existed, 
 and never did exist. I told him I had seen it. He affirmed that I was 
 mistaken, that if such a letter existed, no good citizen would with- 
 hold it. I inquired of him whether he invited its production in the 
 name of the President ? He replied, yes ! that he challenged its pro- 
 duction ; that if General Walker had such a paper, his duty to his 
 country, as well as to himself, required him to produce it. That in 
 point of fact, however, he said, the story was not founded in truth, or 
 words to that effect. Many severe remarks passed between us. He 
 was in a state of great excitement. When I referred a second time 
 to my having seen it, he again, in high rage, declared that 1 was in 
 gross error ; that the President never wrote such a document, and if 
 Governor Walker or any other person pretended to have such a docu- 
 ment, it was a mere pretense to cover up a perpetrated or intended 
 treason to the democratic party, or a mere pretext for deserting to the 
 black republican ranks. He further added, that if any one attacked 
 the administration on this ground, (to use his exact words,) " we will 
 put a shirt upon him from which he will never escape." 
 
 Question 5. In case you had such interview, what led to it? 
 
 Answer. I was making a visit to one of the editors of the Constitu- 
 tion in reference to another matter entirely. I met Judge Black there 
 accidently. I did not expect to see him. My business with the editor 
 was in no way directly or indirectly connected with this committee. 
 I decline answering the question solely on the ground of irrelevancy. 
 
 ELLIS B. SCHNABEL. 
 
 April 18, 1860. 
 
 No. 27. 
 Wednesday, A'pril 18, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS 0. MacDOWELL called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a lawyer by profession, but at present I am one of 
 the editors and proprietors of the "Patriot and Union," of that place. 
 
 Question. Have you ever been shown a letter, of date 12th July, 
 857, written by the President to Governor Walker while in Kansas? 
 
100 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it shown to you confidentially, or are you at liberty 
 to state its contents ? 
 
 Answer. It was shown to me in strict confidence as to its contents, 
 and I am not at liberty to state them. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the date ? 
 
 Answer. I think that it was in September last that I saw it in the 
 city of Baltimore. 
 
 Question. I had reference to the date of the letter ; do you recollect 
 that? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not. 
 
 Question, Do you recollect the circumstance that it was a letter 
 written to him in Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. I recollect that very well. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Who showed you the letter? 
 Answer. Governor Walker. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it shown to you in presence of others ? 
 
 Answer. No, Sir. 
 
 Question. Are you not aware that a number of other gentlemen 
 have seen that letter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I am not, except from hearsay ; of course I do 
 not wish to give that as evidence ; I am mistaken about seeing the 
 letter in Baltimore ; it was in this city that I saw it. The letter was 
 spoken of by Governor Walker, in Baltimore, at the Gilmor House ; 
 and I think that the same week it was showa to me, and read to me in 
 this city, by Governor Walker. 
 
 Question. Have you recently conversed with any member of the 
 administration upon the subject of this letter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have never conversed with any member of the 
 administration upon the subject of the letter at all ; and did not feel 
 myself at liberty to mention the fact even that I had ever seen it. I 
 believe I did, in an incidental conversation, mention the fact that I 
 had seen it quite recently in this city ; and hence the reason, I pre- 
 sume, that it has come to the ears of the committee. 
 
 Question. Have yon not had conversation with otber gentlemen rel- 
 ative to the contents of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know that I have ; not as to the details 
 of the letter. No, sir, I have not ; I have studiously refrained from it. 
 
 Question. Have you not had interviews with other gentlemen that 
 satisfied you that they knew what the contents of the letter were? 
 
 Answer. I suppose I am to believe what they said ; other gentlemen 
 had told me that they had seen the letter. Mr. Schnable told me he 
 had seen the letter. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that thera was quite a number of gen- 
 tlemen familiar with the contents of tl at letter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; indeed, I had refrsoa to believe that the contrary 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 was the fact, that but very few knew its contents. I supposeJhJ 
 from the strict secrecy in which it was read to me. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a copy of it being prepared? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; except from hearsay. 
 
 Question. It was the original letter you saw ? 
 
 Answer. So represented to me ; I am satisfied that it was. 
 
 Question. You know the handwriting to be Mr. Buchanan's? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 Question. What, in your judgment, was the object of Governor 
 Walker in showing you that letter ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, it arose, I presume, from a conversation that I 
 had with Governor Walker relative to his course in Kansas, and the 
 difficulty then existing, and for aught I know still existing ; a mis- 
 understanding between Governor Walker and the administration, in 
 regard to his course in Kansas, and nothing else. 
 
 Question. Was it not to show you that the President had abandoned 
 the position he took in that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I presume so, sir ; I presume the object of Governor 
 Walker was to justify himself to me, from the best evidence he had in 
 his possession, after the conversation we had had relative to his coarse. 
 
 Question. To show that the subsequent course of the President was 
 an abandonment of his position in that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I presume that was the intention. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 Question, You are under obligations of secrecy to Governor Walker, 
 are you ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 No. 28. 
 Wednesday, April, 18, 1860. 
 
 JOHN J. McELHONE called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 • Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Do you know Governor Robert J. Walker? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Were you ever shown by him a letter written to him 
 in 1857 while he was governor of Kansas by President Buchanan? 
 
 Answer. Do you refer to his letter of the 12th of July, 1857? 
 
 Question. I do. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I was shown that letter on several occasions; on 
 
 one occasion, I think, in New York, at the St. Nicholas Hotel, while 
 
 Colonel Forney and Major Polk, of Tennessee, were present ; I dined 
 
 here with Major Polk, of Tennessee, and I think it was just previous 
 
102 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 to the dinner ; at all events, it was in the afternoon ; he drew the 
 letter from his pocket. 
 
 Question. Who? Grover nor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Governor Walker drew the letter from hii 
 pocket in order that Major Polk might hear what were its contents; 
 Colonel Forney and myself had already qeen it, and heard the decla- 
 rations that were made in it ; I can state very frankly with reference to 
 the points of the letter, because Governor Walker himself on that oc- 
 casion evinced no desire that it should be regarded in any way as a 
 confidential communication ; in drawing the letter from his pocket 
 we all noticed that where it was folded down the paper was being 
 worn away ; when one of us directed his attention to it he said, " Yes, 
 the letter is wearing away," and that he had determined to have it 
 lithographed in order that it might be preserved ; the impression 
 which I got at the time was, that he was resolved to make it public ; 
 how soon, whether the day after or the year after, I could not tell ; I 
 do not recollect about that. 
 
 Question. Were you at any time made acquainted with its contents? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; my recollection is that I heard it read several 
 times. 
 
 Question. What is your recollection as to the contents' of that 
 letter ? 
 
 Answer. I will state that I was so impressed with the belief that it 
 would be published that I did not pay the same attention to it that 
 the others did ; and I could not now, with any justice to the letter 
 itself, give even a fair synopsis of it ; I know, however, that it con- 
 tained all that was claimed for it with reference to what it was said 
 Mr. Buchanan had written to Governor Walker ; I think there was .a 
 synopsis of it published in the "Press," in a letter from "Occasional;" 
 it has passed out of my recollection since. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What appeared to be the object of Governor Walker in 
 showing this letter ? Was it to show that Mr. Buchanan had aban- 
 doned the position he took in the letter, and to justify himself? 
 
 Answer. He always justified his producing the letter from the fact 
 that it was necessary for his defence, because of the position in which 
 he was placed by the administration in removing him from the gover- 
 norship of Kansas, and also by the charges made against him in the 
 "Union" at that time; the general belief was that those charges 
 were, of course, made by the advice and with the consent of the admin- 
 istration itself ; he wanted to show that he had not done anything in 
 Kansas contrary to the instructions that he had received from Mr. 
 Buchanan himself. 
 
 By Mr. EoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. You say that letter fully sustained the published reports 
 of it at the time ? 
 
 Answer. That is my impression now, and I think it is so, too ; it 
 was a very strong letter. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 103 
 
 Question. In regard to the submission of tlie constitution to the 
 people ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. It took strong ground that the constitution should be 
 submitted to the people ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I will state another thing : there was a 
 letter written by Mr. Cobb which took the strongest ground in favor 
 of the submission of the constitution of Kansas to the people, stating 
 that in honor, because of the pledges made by the democratic party in 
 1856 to the people, there was no alternative but that of submitting 
 the constitution to the popular vote. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. To whom was the letter written ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect. It was written to some influential man 
 in Kansas ; my impression is that it was written to Mr. Calhoun, the 
 president of the Kansas constitutional convention. It was intended 
 for publication, ^'^hy it was suppressed I do not know. It was a 
 very powerful argument, as I recollect it ; I wrote it myself from Mr. 
 Cobb's dictation. It was in no way a confidential letter. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question You wrote out the letter ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you say that the ground taken in that letter was 
 that in honor they were bound to submit the constitution of Kansas 
 to the people, in consequence of the pledges made by the democratic 
 party in 1856, that the people of Kansas should control this question? 
 
 Answer. I think that the expression was, that as ho-nest men and 
 hoping for justice for themselves, they should agree that the constitu- 
 tion should be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection ; 
 that they should decide for themselves whether they should or should 
 not have slavery. As I recollect, the letter insisted that it was the 
 wish of the administration that that course should be pursued. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. At the time that letter was written, was thete not a strong 
 hope entertained by the administration that that course would make 
 Kansas a slave state ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect anything at all about that ; I do not 
 know that I ever heard it stated. 
 
 Wednesday, April 18, 1860. 
 
 EGBERT J. WALKER recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When you were here yesterday you declined to produce 
 
 the letter of the 12th of July, 1857, written to you by Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 It is right to inform you that since that time the Oomm^ittee have 
 
 availed themselves of the next best evidence they could obtain, and 
 
104 LECOMPTON CONSTITCTION, ETC. 
 
 have examined several witnesses to prove tlie existence of the letter, 
 and also its contents. 
 
 Answer. Will the committee allow me to hear the testimony to 
 which they refer? 
 
 The Chaikman. Certainly ; the committee deem it your right to 
 hear it read. 
 
 [The testimony of Mr. Schnable, Mr. MacDowell and Mr. Mc- 
 Elhone was then read to the witness. All these proved the existence 
 of the letter ; Mr. Schnable and Mr. McElhone testified in regard to' 
 its contents, and Mr. Schnable also testified concerning an interview 
 with Judge Black, the Attorney General, within a few days past, in 
 which Judge Black denied the existence of any such letter, and chal- 
 lenged its production if any such letter existed ; accompanied with 
 threats towards Grovernor Walker, if it was made public] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. It now remains with you to determine whether, in the 
 present position of the matter, you will produce 4;hat letter — first, to 
 save the committee from subpoenaing witnesses to prove its contents, 
 and next, in justification of your own course. I will now put the 
 direct question to you. Will you now produce that letter ? 
 
 Answer. It is due to me, gentlemen, to preface my answer by a few 
 remarks. 
 
 After the reply made by General Cass, as Secretary of State, to my 
 letter of resignation, I thought very seriously of publishing, then, this 
 letter of the 12th of July, 1857. The reason which induced me to 
 thick so seriously of publishing the letter at that time was this: that 
 that communication of General Cass seemed to dissent from the fact 
 stated by mej as regarded the construction which Mr. Buchanan had 
 given to the Kansas-Nebraska bill on the subject of submitting the 
 constitution by the convention to the vote of the people. I was very 
 indignant at that time, and if I had acted upon the excitement of the 
 moment I would, under such circumstances, have published the letter 
 in vindication of my veracity and my honor. After conferring, how- 
 ever, with many friends, some of whom thought it was due to myself 
 to publish the letter, and others dissented from that course, I came to 
 the conclusion that I would suspend my decision upon that question. 
 Many of those friends urged very strongly a very different construction 
 of General Cass's communication from that which I was inclined to 
 give it, and insisted that it did not make any question of veracity be- 
 tween myself and the President. I did not think at. all of publishing 
 it until after this letter of General Cass ; and I deem it my duty to 
 say, as I think all the gentlemen who conferred with me at that time 
 will remember, that I had no doubt its non- publication for a time 
 would be injurious to me personally and politically, and that I never 
 could replace myself fully in the position which I would occupy before 
 the public by publishing it at a future period, because the popular 
 attention would be withdrawn from the subject. But still I might 
 vindicate myself on the page of history, which I was always deter- 
 mined to do. It was always, after this controversy, merely a question 
 of time with me in regard to the publication of that letter. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 105 
 
 I am free to declare to you, gentlemen, and I say it in no offensive 
 sense, that I was very much alarmed about the condition of the coun- 
 try. I had fears, even, that the government itself might be endan- 
 gered ; and inasmuch as I have always been devotedly and enthusi- 
 astically attached to the Union — a subject upon which I have written 
 much and thought much — I was apprehensive, and so I told these 
 gentlemen, that if I published that letter at that time, although it 
 would undoubtedly be beneficial to myself personally, I feared it 
 would involve consequences that might imperil the government. And 
 therefore, when I finally came to the deciwion to delay this publication, 
 it was on this ground and this alone, and I have never been actuated 
 by any other motive in this affair. 
 
 It was a long time before I would agree to go to Kansas. I refused 
 two or three times verbally and once in writing. But the request was 
 renewed from time to time with great earnestness by the President, 
 and by many friends through whom he communicated with me upon 
 this subject ; and the great reason presented by him and them was, 
 that the Topeka legislature were about assembling to put the so-called 
 State government into actual operation, and that there was danger of 
 revolution and civil war, which might extend throughout the Union 
 and endanger the government. The President considered it the most 
 important position in the country, and peculiar and very flattering 
 reasons were given why I should go. It was said that I was a northern 
 man by birth and a southern man by long residence and adoption, 
 and perhaps enjoyed the confidence of the whole nation as to my im- 
 partiality upon this question, and that possibly I could do more, irom 
 these peculiar circumstances, to reconcile conflicting elements in Kansas 
 than any other person. The last person whom the President sent to 
 me on this subject, to urge me to go, was Judge Douglas, of the 
 Senate, who was very earnest and very excited, and who seemed to 
 regard the success of the Kansas and Nebraska bill in that Territory 
 as., to a great extent, dependent upon my consenting to go. 
 
 It is necessary for me here to bring in a domestic allusion, although 
 I do not wish to do it ; but it seems to be necessary in order to under- 
 stand and explain this matter. All my family were very averse to 
 my going, particularly my wife. I had given her a promise that I 
 would not go without her consent. After the visit of Judge Douglas, 
 which was the last of the numerous ones that were paid to me on the 
 part of the President's friends, I finally consented that I would go, 
 on two conditions — first, that inasmuch as I had pledged my word 
 to Mrs. Walker that 1 would not go without her consent, that, if 
 possible, should be obtained, and I would contribute whatever aid I 
 could to that result ; and secondly, that there should be found to be a 
 perfect concurrence between the President and myself upon the policy 
 that was proper to be adopted in Kansas. I stated that, in my judg- 
 ment, it was the true construction of the Kansas and Nebraska bill 
 that the constitution itself should be submitted by the convention to 
 the vote of the people. I stated that the phraseology of the bill was 
 very peculiar, and that, in my apprehension of the case, my interpre- 
 tation of that law, the submission of the constitution to the vote of 
 the people was the great principle embodied in that act. I stated that 
 
106 LECOMPTOSr CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 I was further confirmed in that view of the subject by the words of 
 the Minnesota act, for that Territory was embraced in the Kansas and 
 Nebraska bill in the same manner as Kansas itself. It applied to all 
 the Territories. And that in that act of Congress of March, 1857, it 
 peremptorily required the convention to submit the constitution to the 
 vote of the people. I considered the Minnesota bill as giving a defini- 
 tive construction by Congress to the Kansas and Nebraska act, and 
 that, so far as I knew, that portion of the Minnesota bill by which 
 the constitution was required to be submitted to the people was passed 
 without a dissenting vote in either House of Congress. 1 do not say 
 that the Minnesota bill itself had passed without a dissenting vote, 
 but that that portion of it, so far as I know, had passed without any 
 dissent, so far as I know. 
 
 There was a universal concurrence in those views with all t,hose 
 gentlemen representing the President who conversed with me upon 
 this subject, and by the President himself, very distinctly and une- 
 quivocally expressed to me. After this consent thus given by the 
 President t.o my views, he visited Mrs. Walker, and I think Judge 
 Douglas did also, although I am not absolutely certain of that, I 
 know that Mr. Buchanan did, the object being to induce her to with- 
 draw her opposition to my going. I was present at the interview be- 
 tween her and Mr. Buchanan, in which the argument pressed by hiin 
 was that there were peculiar reasons why I was the person who, more 
 than all others, as he was good enough to say, might perhaps save 
 the country by preventing this impending revolution, and securing 
 the peaceable settlement of that question, and that there were many 
 patriotic reasons why I ought to go. A long conversation ensued, 
 the result of all of which was that my wife did consent. 
 
 First, my instructions were drawn out, which, according to my 
 judgment, fully confirmed the doctrine of the submission of the con- 
 stitution to the vote of the people, and the President himself so re- 
 garded them. I then set about to draw up my inaugural address. It 
 was deemed important that I should present that address before\the 
 meeting of the Topeka legislature, with the view to prevent this 
 revolutionary action on their part, which action would undoubtedly 
 have brought about a collision by force; for there could not have been 
 two governments in actual operation in Kansas at the same time ; the 
 one a State government, with a State legislature, a State governor, 
 and State laws ; and the other a territorial government, with a terri- 
 torial legislature, a territorial governor, and territorial laws. It was 
 therefore deemed very important that this address should be published 
 before the meeting of the so-called Topeka legislature. I prepared 
 that inaugural address, and Mr. Buchanan, by appointment, met me 
 at my house, where he spent many hours, which were devoted to that 
 subject. That address was not then complete, excepi that portion of 
 it that related to the question of the constitution being submitted to 
 the vote of the people, and what I said on the subject of slavery in 
 Kansas. What I said on the subject of submitting the constitution 
 to the vote of the people Mr. Buchanan fully approved. As regards 
 what I said on the subject of slavery in Kansas, he suggested a slight 
 modification, which, with some little variation trom the words which 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITDTIOJSr, ETC, 107 
 
 he suggested, but embodying substantially the same idea, was adopted 
 by me. That modification suggested by Mr. Buchanan applied to 
 only a single sentence. 
 
 I published that address on the 2'7th of May, 1857, at Lecompton, 
 Kansas. The Topeka legislature, I think, were to meet about ten 
 days afterwards, according to my best recollection ; I know it was 
 some time afterwards. That address, not from any particular merit 
 it possessed, but from the solemnity of the occasion, produi'.ed a very 
 deep impression upon the popular mind in Kansas ; and undoubtedly, 
 with my subsequent efforts at Topeka, it did suspend the putting into 
 actual operation the Topeka State government, and did prevent a dis- 
 astrous revolution and civil war, which would undoubtedly have ex- 
 tended to the bordering States of Iowa and Missouri, and which, I 
 think, would have extended throughout the Union. For, according 
 to the returns which I subsequently obtained and forwarded to the 
 government, according to my best recollection, the Topeka party had 
 8,000 troops armed and drilled and disciplined, determined upon sus- 
 taining that government, as I believe. The reference to this you will 
 find in my various communications submitted to the government. 
 This inaugural address of mine was transmitted, I think, very early 
 in June to the Secretary of State, the official organ of communication, 
 and its receipt was acknowledged some time in June, I think ; and 
 of course the government, not only the President, but all the cabinet, 
 had before them then, officially, my views upon this subject. No dis- 
 sent was ever expressed, which, from the repeated communications 
 that passed between us, I, of course, regarded as a distinct and con- 
 tinuous approval. The organ of the government here, too, " The 
 Union," continued until, I think, some time late in the fall, in 
 various editorials, to sustain my course in advocating the submission 
 of the constitution to the vote of the people. 
 
 When I first arriveil in Kansas, every effort to make Kansas a slave 
 State was apparently entirely abandoned. It was universally con- 
 ceded that it could not be made a slave State by a fair vote of the peo- 
 ple, which I thought was the only way in which it could be properly 
 made either a slave State or a free State. It being my opinion, which 
 I have always entertained, that when a people come to frame a State 
 constitution, they have a right to determine that, and all other ques- 
 tions appertaining to their local government, for themselves. I do 
 not know the period during my whole life, commencing with the 
 agitation, when a youth, of the Missouri compromise, that I have 
 failed to advocate that doctrine. 
 
 It is due to frankness and candor for me to say, though I do not 
 desire to introduce politics, that I certainly was very anxious to make 
 Kansas a democratic State. And the only plan to accomplish this 
 was to unite the free State democrats with the pro-slavery party, and 
 all those whom I regarded as conservative men against the more 
 violent portion of the republicans. But at the same time I deter- 
 mined that I would use no improper means to accomplish this object, 
 but that I would do it, if I did it at all, boldly and openly by legitimate 
 argument addressed to the people in written addresses and in very 
 numerous speeches upon the stump. And I believe that the object 
 
108 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 would undoubtedly have been accomplished if I had not been arrested 
 in that course, and that Kansas would unquestionablyhave been a 
 democratic State, and would have inserted provisions in her State 
 constitution, as suggested in my inaugural address, in case she be- 
 came a free State, conservative of southern rights. I thought, too, 
 that if the constitution was not submitted to the people, but was 
 attempted to be forced upon them against their known will, and I so 
 stated in my correspondence with the President, as you will see, it 
 would accomplish no good object for the slaveholding States ; because 
 the people thus exasperated would then elect a violent republican 
 legislature, and that legislature would send two very violent repub- 
 licans to the Senate of the United States, and a member of Congress 
 would be elected entertaining similar views. No possible object for 
 the benefit of the South or any portion of the Union could be attained 
 by forcing the constitution upon the people against their will. I be- 
 lieve, too, and I so stated, that such a course would destroy the demo- 
 cratic party, probably produce civil war in Kansas, and endanger ths 
 government. 
 
 Shortly before I arrived at Lecorapton, the county of Douglas, of 
 which Lecompton is the capital, had held a public democratic meet- 
 ing, and nominated eight gentlemen, I think, as delegates to the 
 Lecompton convention, of which John Calhoun, then the surveyor 
 general of the Territory, was at the head. The resolutions of the 
 meeting required them to sustain the submission of the constitution 
 to the, vote of the people. They published a written pledge to that 
 effect. Eumors were circulated by their opponents that they would 
 not submit the whole constitution to the people They published a 
 second circular a day or two before the election denouncing these 
 rumors as falsehoods, and reaffirming their determination, if elected, 
 to submit the constitution to the people. But for these assurances, it 
 is universally conceded, they had no chance whatever of being elected, 
 not the slightest. 
 
 "When the democratic territorial convention assembled at Lecompton 
 in July, 1857, they passed resolutions unanimously endorsing, I be- 
 lieve, my course, although nearly all that convention was composed 
 of pro-slavery men ; for they constituted a majority of what was then 
 called the democratic party there. A resolution was offered in that 
 convention. I do not recollect its exact words, but in substance in 
 favor of sustaining the constitution to be adopted by the Lecomptoa 
 convention, whether it was submitted to the people or not. But after 
 considerable debate upon the merits of the question, upon a test vote, 
 that resolution was laid upon the table by a vote of 42 to 1. I still 
 continued to entertain not the shadow of a doubt that the constitution 
 would be submitted to a vote of the people by the convention, nor do 
 I believe the slightest doubt then existed in the Territory. 
 
 I deem it due to frankness to say, that from my long residence in 
 the south, and my very deep gratitude to the State which had adopted 
 me and clothed me with the highest honors it could bestow, and re- 
 peated from time to time, and my general views on the subject of 
 slavery, I should have greatly preferred, with a view to maintain the 
 equilibrium of the government and to perpetuate the Union on the 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC 109 
 
 basis of the Constitution, which I considered the great and paramount 
 object— I should have preferred that a majority of the people of 
 Kansas would have made it a slave State. I avowed these views, as 
 regards the equilibrium of the government, very iuUy in my public 
 printed communications in Kansas, and especially that of September, 
 1857- I never disguised my opinions upon this subject, and I espe- 
 cially reiterated the opinion that I was thus in favor of maintaining 
 the equilibrium of the government by giving the south a majority in 
 the Senate, while the north would always necessarily have a majority 
 in the House of Representatives, which opinion I have entertained 
 ever since the Missouri compromise, avowing it at that time and on a 
 great many public occasions ever since, especially in my efforts to 
 make two slave States out of Florida, and six slave States out of 
 Texas. This opinion I still entertain, not from any sectional views, 
 but because I do believe it would best tend to accomplish the great 
 and paramount object of preserving the Constitution and the govern- 
 ment ; but at the same time it was perfectly obvious to myself and to 
 every person that it was possible to accomplish that object by no fair 
 means in Kansas. I was determined that, so far as my action was 
 concerned, there should be a fair vote of the people, and that I would 
 countenance no frauds or forgeries, or villainy of any kind, especially 
 in connexion with a question so solemn as that. 
 
 This attempt to make Kansas a slave State developed itself in the 
 fall of 1857. It first was fully developed by the terrible forgeries in 
 the pretended returns — they were not legal returns — that were sent 
 to me as governor of the Territory, and which I rejected, although 
 that rejection gave a majority of the territorial legislature to my 
 political opponents, the republicans, at which, I am free to say, I was 
 deeply grieved. I did my best to secure a democratic majority in 
 that legislature, and exerted myself most anxiously, making stump 
 speeches, &c. The first forgery presented to me was the case at Ox- 
 ford, which was a forgery upon its face ; and that it was so, has since 
 been acknowledged by one ot" the judges whose name purported to be 
 signed to it. In a public document since published by him he de- 
 clares that he never did affix his signature to it. In Oxford more 
 than sixteen hundred votes were attempted to be given in a village of 
 six houses, where there were not fifty voters; and it is now ascertained 
 that not thirty votes were really given ; the rest were all forgeries. 
 My rejection ot that return, inasmuch as it affected the two large 
 counties of Johnson and Douglas, gave a majority of the territorial 
 legislature to the republicans. 
 
 I was then very bitterly denounced, at which I felt jprofoundly in- 
 different, because I thought that any man who would approve or 
 indorse such forgeries was a base and dishonest man, and I preferred 
 his censure to his approval. Various personal threats were made, 
 which I also disregarded. 
 
 The next return presented was that from McGree county, where 
 there certaioly were not twenty voters, but which was returned as over 
 twelve hundred votes, given at three different precincts, and where it 
 is now ascertained that there was no election holden at all — not a vote 
 given in the county. These pretended returns were also rejected by 
 
110 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 me ; and at lengtli it was fully developed that, contrary to all thfl 
 pledges given, especially by Calhoun himself, the president of the 
 convention, that they would submit the constitution to the vote of th« 
 people, another course was resolved upon. 
 
 Finally, a few days before the vote was taken upon the sulgect, 
 Mr. Calhoun, the president of the convention, called upon me, and 
 submitted substantially the programme as to slavery, which was sub- 
 sequently adopted by the convention, and asked my concurrence. He 
 presented various prospects of the highest place from the people of 
 this Union if I would concur, and assured me that that was the pro- 
 gramme of the administration. I said that that was impossible, and 
 showed Mr. Calhoun this letter of Mr. Buchanan to me of the 12th of 
 July, 1857. He said that the administration had changed its policy. 
 I told him I did not believe it; but let who would change their views 
 on that question, with me the question of submitting the constitution 
 to the vote of the people was fundamental, and I never would change 
 or modify my views on that question in the slightest respect ; that I 
 would fight it out to the end, be the consequences to me personally or 
 politically what they might. Mr. Calhoun continued to insist that L 
 ought to go with the President upon this subject. I denied that he 
 had any right to speak for the President ; that the office that he held, 
 though far the most lucrative in the Territory, I believed was not 
 connected with the administration of civil afifairs, but to surveying of 
 the public lands ; and that if the President had any intimations to 
 give to me on this subject, they could come from himself. I asked 
 him if he had any letter from the President. He said he had not, 
 but that the assurance came to him in such a manner as to be entirely 
 reliable ; that this particular programme (which was finally adopted 
 in Kansas) was the programme of the administration. I stated that 
 I never would assent to it, and I gave various reasons. I stated, in 
 tl?e fir^st place, that I had openly pledged myself to the people of 
 Kansas — declaring that I was so authorized by the President — so far 
 as my power and that of the government would avail, that this con- 
 stitution should be submitted fairly to their vote for ratification or 
 rejection ; that I had by these pledges (on which they relied) induced 
 them to suspend putting theTopeka State government into operation, 
 which otherwise undoubtedly would have been done ; and that it 
 would be dishonorable in me to forfeit these pledges, and that I could 
 not do it. I stated that although I insisted that the Kansas and 
 Nebraska bill required that the constitution itself should be submitted 
 to the vote of the people, yet if they would make a good constitution, 
 and submit the slavery question distinctly, by itself, to a fair vote of 
 the people, although it did not correspond with my views, yet I would 
 not interfere; but that the particular programme which they proposed 
 to adopt did not submit the question of slavery to the people of 
 Kansas ; that it only submitted it to those constituting a small 
 ininority who were in favor of the constitution because the vote was 
 limited to a vote " for the constitution with slavery," and "for the 
 constitution without slavery," and those who were opposed to the 
 constitution were not permitted to vote at all. Therefore, I con- 
 sidered such a submission of the question a vile fraud, a base counter- 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. Ill 
 
 feit, and a wretched device to prevent the people voting even on that 
 question. I said to him that not only would 1 not support it, but I 
 would denounce it, no matter whether the administration sustained it 
 or not ; and I always have denounced it, and shall ever continue to 
 do so. 
 
 It is due to frankness to say, that when I came on here iu Novem- 
 ber, ISoT, the President himself distinctly and emphatically assured 
 me that he had not authorized anybody to say that he had approved 
 of that programme. I told him that such being the case, I could not 
 but believe that some member of the administration, or some person 
 in high authority enjoying its confidence, must have given these as- 
 surances, or Mr. Calhoun would not have made the commuuication that 
 he had to me, and also changed his own course upon the subject. For 
 Mr. Calhoun had been the distinguished and special leader of the 
 Douglas party in Kansas, and was supposed to have been appointed 
 surveyor general upon Judge Douglas's recommendation. He, Judge 
 Douglas, certainly requested me to have him, Calhoun, retained, as- 
 suring me that he would support the submission of the constitution to 
 the vote of the people ; as he did, until a late period. 
 
 When Mr. Calhoun made this communication to me he requested 
 me not to mention it to Mr. Stanton, the secretary of state of Kansas, 
 and I believe I never have done so ; nor should I have communicated 
 it to you now except as necessary to my vindication from the testimony 
 you have shown me to-day. It is also due to frankness to further say 
 that I am fully impressed with the conviction that the President him- 
 self did not get up this programme, though I do believe it was gotten 
 up by some of the administration, or others high in authority. 
 
 I feel very serious embarrassment about this question of producing 
 this letter. I had refused yesterday to produce it, and I really and 
 sincerely think, with all proper respect for this committee, that you 
 have np right to demand it of me. And I certainly should not have 
 produced the letter but for the testimony you have taken to-day, and 
 especially the defiance that is thrown out by the President, and the 
 suggestion that I have been exhibiting a letter that does not exist, 
 and the intimation that eveu if it does exist, I dare not produce it. 
 Gentlemen, that is all false ; for I have always reserved the right to 
 produce this letter, and publish it when and where and as I pleased, and 
 have never made the slightest suggestion to the contrary to any human 
 being; nor have I given any promise or pledge in relation to it whatever. 
 
 I suppose that this testimony which you have shown me to-day will 
 be given to the public. 
 
 Mr. Olin. That is our intention. 
 
 The Chairman. At the proper time, when we get through our in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. It will all be made public. 
 
 The Witness. It seems, then, that not only are these intimations of 
 Judge Black, such as I regard as affecting my honor, and which, were 
 I now to remain silent, would produce most erroneous and unjust im- 
 pressions against me upon the public mind which I could never re- 
 move, but it is also perhaps due to the President himself — inasmuch 
 as you have proved the letter to a great extent by the testimony of 
 
112 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 witnesses who have seen it— to make puhlic this letter ; although I 
 assure you that I do it with the most intense reluctance, not from any 
 considerations personal to myself, but from other considerations of a 
 public character. But these statements which you have shown me, if 
 any injurious effects to the country are to he produced at present, would 
 perhaps he quite as complete from the version sworn to, as the letter 
 itself. I think the letter has become now, as it were, a public letter. 
 Its contents are proved before you, and these must be published. Be- 
 sides, the President has also expressed, not to me but to others, his 
 willingness that I should publish it. I am not restrained, then, by any 
 sense of honor from publishing this letter now, althouo;h for the rea- 
 sons that I have stated to you I would not have given it to you ; and 
 I had made up my mind to go to jail, even, under the order of the 
 House, sooner than have submitted this letter to you. 
 
 But I think, in the present aspect of the case, that it is my duty to 
 produce the letter — my duty to myself, and perhaps to the President — 
 and I now do produce it. It is not marked " private" or " confiden- 
 tial," as you will observe. 
 
 [The witness here produced the letter, which he handed to the com- 
 mittee, who examined it.] 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Is this letter in the handwriting of the President ? 
 
 Answer. It is all in the handwriting of the President, the body of 
 the letter as well as the signature. I do not wish to part with this 
 letter ; but will read it, so that your clerk can take it down. 
 
 The witness then read the letter, as follows : 
 
 " Washington, July 12, 1857. 
 
 " Mt Dear Sie : I duly received your letter of the 28th ultimo, on 
 Friday last, and read it to the cabinet, then in session. The news 
 which it contained was not calculated to assure us of your success, 
 though we did not despond. Hence you may judge with what satis- 
 faction we received an account of the proceedings of the national dem- 
 ocratic convention held at Lecompton on the 3d instpnt. 
 
 " The point on which your and our success depends is the submis- 
 sion of the constitution to the people of Kansas. And by the people 
 'I mean, and I have no doubt you mean, the actual bona fide residents 
 who have been long enough in the Territory to identify themselves 
 with its fate. The legislature determined three months as the period 
 of residence to entitle individuals to vote for members of the conven- 
 tion; and if the convention should think proper to adopt the same pe- 
 riod to entitle individuals to vote for or against the constitution, it 
 appears to me this would be reasonable. 
 
 " On the question of submitting the constitution to i\iehonafide resi- 
 dent settlers of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall. In sustaining 
 such a principle we cannot fall. It is the principle of the Kansas-Ne- 
 braska bill ; the principle of popular sovereignty, and the principle at 
 the foundation ot all popular government. The more it is discussed 
 the stronger it will become. Should the convention of Kansas adopt 
 this principle all will be settled harmoniously, and, with the blessing 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 113 
 
 of Providence, you will return triumphantly from your arduous, im- 
 portant, and responsible mission. 
 
 " The strictures of the Georgia and Mississippi coaventions will then 
 pass away, and be speedily forgotten. In regard to Georgia, our news 
 from that State is becoming better every day ; we have not yet had 
 time to hear much from Mississippi. Should you answer the resolu- 
 tion of the latter, I would advise you to make the great principle of 
 the submission of the constitution to the bona fide residents of Kansas 
 conspicuously prominent. On this you will be irresistible. With the 
 question of climate every person is acquainted ; and the more you insist 
 upon this the more will our opponents urge that we are violating the 
 principle of non-interference at the foundation of the Kansas and Ne- 
 braska law. It is strange that people at a distance, who have no 
 practical acquaintance with the condition of Kansas, should undertake 
 to be wiser than those on the spot. 
 
 " It is beyond all question the true policy to build up a great demo- 
 cratic party there, to sustain the Constitution and the laws, composed 
 of pro-slavery and free State democrats ; and if the majority should 
 be against slavery, to obtain such constitutional provisions as will se- 
 cure the rights of slaveholders in Missouri, and other States, and 
 maintain all the laws guarding the just rights of the south. 
 
 ' ' You are right in your conjecture as to the cause of Judge Wil- 
 liams's appointment. We supposed it would be peculiarly acceptable 
 to yourself, and that he might aid in carrying out your policy. Colonel 
 Cumming has been appointed governor of Utah. This will leave his 
 place vacant, after the brief period required for settling up his busi- 
 ness, and I shall certainly be disposed to fill it by the appointment of 
 Mr. Stevens. General Harney has been selected to command the ex- 
 pedition to Utah, but we must continue to leave him with you, at 
 least until you are out of the woods. Kansas is vastly more important 
 at the present moment than Utah. The pressure upon me continues 
 without intermission. 
 
 "I pray that Divine Providence, in which I place my trust, may 
 graciously preserve my life and my health, until the end of my term. 
 But God's holy will be done in any event. 
 
 " With every sentiment of esteem, I- remain always sincerely your 
 
 friend, 
 
 " JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 "Hon. Robert J. Walker." 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What was the occasion of this letter being sent to you ? 
 
 Answer. The occasion of it was to reply to my letter. Mr. Buchanan 
 says : " I duly received your letter of the 28th ultimo, on Friday 
 last, and read it to the cabinet, then in session." This letter was in 
 reply to mine of the 28th of June, 1857. And inasmuch as I have 
 produced the letter of the President, I wish the opportunity to pro- 
 duce my letter to which this is the reply. I have not got it here, but 
 I will get it here with all due despatch, if I can. I think I have a 
 copy of it; and if I have, I ask the privilege of putting it on record here. 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly ; you are entitled to that. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 8 
 
114 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 The Witness. The President, in what he says about climate, does 
 not refer to my inaugural at all, for we were perfectly agreed about 
 that ; he referred to what I said about the climate in Kansas and ob- 
 servations of the thermometer, if I remember aright, which I gave 
 him in my private letter of 28th June, 1857, to which his was a reply, 
 showing that it was exceedingly cold there and unfit for slavery ; as 
 cold in winter as the average of New, England. 
 
 By Mr. Oun : 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge as to where this device in the 
 constitution, in reference to submission, was gotten up ? 
 
 Answer. I believe it was gotten up in Washington ; Calhoun told 
 me that it came from the President and the administration, and urged 
 me on that ground to support it ; inasmuch as I was an appointee of 
 the President, I ought to go with the President ; I then showed him 
 this letter, as I have told you. 
 
 Question. I think you stated that, in your opinion, it was not ac- 
 tually gotten up by the President ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was not gotten up by the President. 
 
 Question. Are you willing to state whether it was not done with his 
 knowledge and assent ? 
 
 Answer. It is due to frankness and candor to say that I do not think 
 he knew anything about it ; that is my opinion. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know who took the constitution to Kansas? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything but mere vague rumor or sus- 
 picion ; I know that Mr. Calhoun showed me this programme relating 
 to the pro-slavery portion of the constitution, substantially as it was 
 adopted, and said it was brought on directly from the President and 
 the administration. 
 
 Question. Then, by the intimation you received from Mr. Calhoun, 
 the President knew what was doing. 
 
 Answer. If Calhoun's statement to me was true ; but I tell you, 
 gentlemen, that from the infamous manner in which Calhoun behaved, 
 forfeiting all his pledges, and from the fact that he must have been 
 privy to the forgeries of the returns from Oxford, and also many other 
 forgeries, I have long since ceased to have the slightest confidence ia 
 his veracity. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. What reason have you for expressing the opinion that 
 the President knew nothing about this? 
 
 Answer. His strong and decided assurances to me when I came here 
 in November. 
 
 Question. His denial of it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was so solemn, so serious, so grave, that I be- 
 lieved him then, and I have believed him ever since on that point. 
 
 Subsequently the following was received by the chairman : 
 
 "ApKii 20, 1860. 
 " Sib : In accordance with the reservation made in my testimony, I 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 115 
 
 herewith communicate to you, as a part of my evidence, a copy of my 
 letter of the 28th June, 1857, to which Mr. Buchanan replied on the 
 12th July, 1857. 
 
 " Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 " R. 'J. WALKER. 
 " Hon. John Covode, 
 
 ''Chairman of Investigating Committee, <&g. 
 
 " P. S. — ^I send you a printed copy of my letter." 
 
 [Private.] 
 
 ^ Lecompton, K. T., June 28, 1857. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have been in a constant whirl of business and excite- 
 ment since my arrival here, including seven public addresses. That 
 a vast majority of the people of Kansas are with me is certain, but 
 there are restless men on both sides who desire revolution. Before 
 delivering my inaugural I conversed freely at various points with the 
 people and with emigrants. There are several parties here : Ist- 
 Free-State democrats, composed of men who supported your election j, 
 2d. Pro-slavery democrats, who supported your election ; 3d. Pro- 
 slavery men, (a small party, mostly know-nothings,) who opposed 
 your election and supported Fillmore ; and, 4th. Republicans, who 
 supported Fremont. With me g,re : 1st. All the free-State democrats, 
 constituting a plurality of the settlers ; 2d. A majority of the masseis 
 of the pro-slavery democrats, but a considerable portion of their leaders 
 are against me on the poiut of submitting the constitution to the- 
 people. The pro-slavery know-nothings are against me generally. 
 The republicans are against me generally, but three of their papers, 
 including the most influential, are against the Topeka movement, if 
 the convention will submit the constitution to the people. The relative 
 strength of the respective parties is : 1st. ,Free-State democrats ; 2d. 
 Republicans ; 3d. Pro-slavery democrats ; 4th. (which is very small,) 
 Pro-slavery know-nothings. Supposing the whole number of settlerjs 
 to be 24,000, the relative numbers would probably be as follows : 
 Free-State democrats, 9,000; republicans, 8,000; pro-slavery demo- 
 crats, 6,500 ; pro-slavery know-nothings, 500. If, however, I had not 
 taken distinct ground in my inaugural in favor of submitting the con- 
 stitution to the people, and urged this measure in two speeches at 
 Topeka, their legislature would certainly have passed a complete code 
 of laws, and could have put them in practical operation by the popular 
 will in a large majority of the counties of the Territory, and they will 
 do the same thing next fall if the constitution is not submitted to the 
 people. This is of course all wrong ; but it would have been done, and 
 would have united nearly all the free-State democrats with the repub- 
 licans, and rendered a bloody collision and a tedious and sanguinary 
 civil war inevitable, requiring the active services of troops in a large 
 majority of our counties certain. When you recollect how many hun- 
 dreds have fallen on both sides in the late civil wat, how many houses 
 were burnt, how much property was plundered, and how many were 
 the insults and injuries, you may find the cause in part. But the 
 principal cause is a fear that a pro-slavery constitution will be forced 
 ny a minority upon the majority. The number of slaves in Kansas is 
 
116 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 probably about two hundred, it being estimated that two hundred 
 have been taken away since the last severe winter. The following 
 extracts are taken by me from the United States government register 
 at Fort Leavenworth, for January, 1857 : 
 
 January 3, 1857, 6 degrees below zero ; January 6, 1857, 4 degrees 
 below zero ; January 15, 1857, 9 degrees below zero ; January 17, 
 1857, 1 degree below zero ; January 18, 1857, 20 degrees below zero ; 
 January 19, 1857, 7 degrees below zero ; January 22, 1857, 1 degree 
 below zero ; January 23, 1857, 1 degree below zero. 
 
 (Note — This was at seven a. m., not the coldest hour, and attached 
 to a house warmed by many fires. Parson Ker's thermometer at 
 game fort, with different exposure, and I believe at an earlier hour, 
 indicated, as I am informed, a temperature five degrees lower, and 
 in 1836 the thermometer, as I am credibly informed, fell one day 
 thirty-three degrees below zero.) 
 
 But the temperature is not the worst. To this must be added, first, 
 the very great scarcity of fuel in this prairie country ; second, and far 
 ■worse, the almost incessant and tremendous winds blowing during 
 the winter from the ice and snow-covered Eocky mountains over tree- 
 less wastes, often sweeping houses before them. Last winter, I am 
 told, several negroes died in their beds from cold in Kansas. It is 
 estimated in Europe that severe winds in winter are equal in their 
 effect on animal life and comfort to -a fall of twenty degrees in the 
 thermometer ; but here it must be much greater, not being interrupted, 
 as in Europe, by forests. St. Pet,ersburg, in Eussia, would, it is said, 
 be uninhabitable in winter but for the stillness of the atmosphere, of 
 ■which you must know. The permanent existence of slavery here is 
 then preposterous ; and I never heard but one pro-slavery man in 
 Kansas who did not concede the fact ; and all admit that a very large 
 majority of the settlers are for a free State. Indeed, it is claimed that 
 a majority of the 9,251 registered voters are for a free State. A very 
 large majority of the squatters, who came to the Territory from slave 
 States, are said to be for a free State, partly from conviction that their 
 claims would bring a larger price, and partly because many of them 
 came here expressly to settle in a free State. The same is the case, to 
 a limited extent, with pro-slavery men holding town lots, shares, and 
 interests in projected railroads. The rage for speculation here is uni- 
 versal, and prices cannot be maintained ; but it the convention fail to 
 submit the constitution to the people there will be a universal crash. 
 The Missourians will never vote here again unless stimulated by that 
 ■wretched, hypocritical emigrant aid society, (falsely so called,.) ot 
 Massachusetts, which imported bands of abolitionists to vote one day 
 and leave the next in very many cases. Indeed, it was this that 
 caused the irruption from Missouri. That great State nobly sustains 
 my inaugural, b ecause she knows a slave State here is impracticable, 
 and that such an attempt by the minority would certainly make Kansas 
 an abolition State. Yet South Carolina seems to understand this matter 
 much better than Missouri, bordering on Kansas and so much more 
 deeply interested. As I passed slowly into the Territory, stopping at 
 various points, many called to see me. The free-State democrats uni- 
 versally urged Ineto insert an extract from my Pennsylvania letter of 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUnOlir, ETC. 117 
 
 September last in my address, and they would immediately break up 
 the Topeka movement, and they feared its success if I did not. But 
 I did not feel warranted to go so far, and therefore merely expressed 
 the general opinion (which is an axiomatic truth) that " ulti- 
 mately" the location of slavery in this country would be gov- 
 erned by climate, the thermometer, &c. My Texas letter contained 
 this doctrine much more clearly and strongly, and so did my Penn- 
 sylvania letter ot last September, both of which the democracy of the 
 entire south enthusiastically indorsed. Yet now the extremists object 
 to the axiomatic truths stated in my inaugural, and which they them- 
 selves have repeatedly asserted in Congress and elsewhere, viz. , that 
 climate and the dollar, and not philanthropy, drove slavery from the 
 north. But they were predetermined to attack me, (as I assured you 
 they would,) as is proved by their assaults preceding my address. 
 They will be, however, a miserable minority even in the south, and 
 only strengthen me and the administration in the north. From Penn- 
 sylvania I am assured we will sweep the State, and most intelligent 
 democrats from New York write to me that, as a consequence of my 
 positions, we will carry New York next fall. But rest assured that it 
 is an undoubted truth that, unless I had inserted this climate doctrine 
 (so well understood here) in my address, the Topeka legislature would 
 have passed their code of laws, civil war would now be raging through- 
 out Kansas, extending shortly throughout the country, the democracy 
 and your administration overwhelmed, and the government itself 
 overthrown. The expression of these great truths, so often heretofore 
 promulgated by me, was a solemn duty, and I care not about the abuse 
 heaped upon me if the country is saved. 
 
 And now let me assure you that a recent act of yours (unintention- 
 ally) has done a great injury in Kansas. It was the appointment of 
 Judge Williams. When Cunningham's resignation was heard of here 
 there were numerous aspirants for the place, and all called on me to 
 recommend them, whether pro-slavery or free- State democrats. I de- 
 clined to interfere, unless they could unite on a good democrat. They 
 did unite most cordially — free-State and pro-slavery democratic leaders 
 — on Mr. Stevens, a moderate free-State democrat, but an upholder of 
 the laws,*a very able lawyer, a most excellent, highly popular, and 
 eloquent man, who stumped Ohio last fall for you, and emigrated last 
 November. He has no superior in talents or moral worth in the Ter- 
 ritory, and was persuaded to accept the office, if tendered. This re- 
 commendation was the first real union of the free-State and pro-slavery 
 democratic leaders. When the paper, thus signed, was brought to, 
 me I agreed to transmit it with my recommendation to Washington, 
 hut before the paper was sent or the mail started we got the news here 
 by telegraph to Jefferson city that Williams was appointed, and Mr. 
 Stevens immediately notified me not to send on the application. There 
 was great chagrin among our friends and equal rejoicing among the 
 black republicans and violent pro-slavery disunion leaders, both saying 
 I had no influence in Washington, and that I was not even consulted 
 as to appointments. Now, unless I am thoroughly and cordially sus- 
 tained by the administration here, I cannot control the convention, 
 and we shall have anarchy and civil war. With that cordial support 
 
118 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 the convention (a majority of whose delegates I have already seen) 
 •will do what is right. I shall travel over the whole Territory, make 
 speeches, rouse the people in favor of my plan, and see all the delegates. 
 But your cordial support is indispensable, and I never would have 
 come here unless assured by you of the cordial co-operation of all the 
 federal officers. No doubt you reasoned that Williams was a good 
 democrat and a warm friend of mine, as well as yours, from old Som- 
 erset, and that I would make no complaints. But this shows the neces- 
 sity of hearing from me. We have nearly all the returns in for elec- 
 tion of delegates to the convention, and the whole vote for successful 
 and unsuccessful candidates is but 2,100 out of 9,251 registered voters. 
 The republicans say this is the entire strength of the pro-slavery party 
 of Kansas. This is not so ; but I have no doubt the free-State men 
 constitute a majority of the registered voters. The black republicans 
 would not vote, and the free-State democrats were kept from voting by 
 ' the fear that the constitution would not be submitted by the conven- 
 tion, and that by voting they committed themselves to the proceeding 
 of the convention. Bub for my inaugural, circulated by thousands, 
 and various speeches, all urging the people to vote, there would not 
 have been 1,000 votes polled in the Territory, and the convention 
 would have been a disastrous failure. But, notwithstanding the small 
 vote, if the convention makes a good conservative constitution, and 
 submits it to the people, they will vote next fall, and we will succeed 
 with a great deal of hard work. The labors of my office are excessive, 
 keeping me constantly employed when not travelling and stump- 
 speaking, but my health is excellent. This is a delightful and salu- 
 brious summer climate, but intensely cold in winter ; and I could 
 with truth (as I now know) have made my inaugural much stronger on 
 this point ; but I shall in due time have the range of the United States 
 thermometer at Fort Leavenworth published. It must be remembered, 
 however, that the cold increases as you go west, rising every mile as 
 you approach the Eocky mountains and with decreasing timber. As 
 I start to-day to address a. public meeting, fifty miles distant, I have 
 not time to write to Mrs. Walker. Please, therefore, let her hear 
 from me through you. 
 
 Even the most violent of the pro-slavery party men herfi treat me 
 in the social circles with marked respect and kindness. They praise 
 all my inaugural but the thermomeler (although they do not dispute 
 the facts) and the submission to the people, but without that civil war 
 would soon be raging in Kansas. The " Union" should warmly and 
 constantly support me. The extremists are trying your nerves and 
 mine, but what can they say when the convention submits the consti- 
 tution to the people and the vote is given by them ? But we must 
 have a slave State out of the southwestern Indian territory, and then 
 a calm will follow ; Guba be acquired, with the acquiescence of the 
 north ; and your administration, having in reality settled the slavery 
 question, be regarded in all time to come as a re-signing and re-seal- 
 ing of the Constitution. 
 
 Please say to Governor Floyd that the glorious sons of the " Old: 
 Dominion" here warmly sustain me, 
 
 It will never do to send General Harney to Utah until the difficulties 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITOTIOX, ETC, 119 
 
 in Kansas are settled. He is a terror to the black republicans and 
 just the man for the occasion. "When first passing through Law- 
 rence some of these black republicans told me the violent pro-slavery 
 men, if I went for submitting the constitution to the people, would 
 assassinate me or drive me from Lecompton. I told them I had fixed 
 the exact day for running, namely, when G-eneral Harney ran first. 
 They looked serious and did not relish the joke. I shall buy nothing 
 in Kansas — lands, lots, railroad shares, &c. This is already known, 
 from repeated refusal, and I think helps me much with the people, I 
 shall be pleased soon to hear from you. Cuba ! Cuba ! ("and Porto 
 Eico, if possible) should be the countersign of your administration, 
 and it will close in a blaze of glory. 
 
 Most truly your friend, 
 
 K. J. WALKER. 
 
 James Buchanan, 
 
 F'resident of the United States. • 
 
 P. S. — If Colonel Cumming resigns as superintendent of Indian 
 afiairs here, I think the democracy here would be delighted to have 
 the Mr. Stevens to whom I have referred, and I will send on his re- 
 commendation to that end next week. He should be a firm Union-loving 
 democrat, who will co-operate with me and be present at Lecompton 
 in September. 
 
 Ton may read this letter, if you pleaBe, to the cabinet. 
 
 No. 37. 
 
 Thursday, April 26, 1860. 
 THOMAS L. CLINQMAN called and examined. 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. Did the President ever inform you that Secretary Thomp- 
 son devised the mode of submitting the constitution to the people of 
 Kansas which was adopted by the Lecompton convention ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to the question. Mr. Clingman is a senator 
 -of the United States, and I do not think it is competent for the com- 
 mittee to inquire concerning any conversations between the President 
 and a senator touching the policy of the government. I do not know 
 what Mr. Clingman will say ; he may answer or not, as he chooses. 
 
 The WiiNESS. I can answer the question very readily, and perhaps 
 it will better satisfy the committee for me to do so. I have never heard 
 the President say anything with reference to that matter ; he never 
 mentioned to me that Mr. Thompson had any connexion with it. That 
 would be my answer ; but, at the same time, 1 think it proper to say 
 that I am not prepared to admit, without further reflection, that I 
 would be under any obligations to repeat any conversations I might 
 have had with the President. As to this particular question, I thought 
 it better to say that I knew nothing about it, simply because it might 
 relieve the minds of the committee. I am very sure that the President 
 never said anything to me about the Lecompton constitution being 
 
120 LECOMPTON COHSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 prepared by Mr. Thompson, or mentioned his name or that of any 
 other person in connexion with the getting up of the Lecomptoa 
 constitution. 
 
 The Chairman. We had some information from a man connected, 
 with Kansas at that time, and we thought it better to ask you if there 
 was anything in it. 
 
 No. 38. 
 Thuksdat, April 26, 1860. 
 
 M. P. BEAN called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Fr6mont, Sandusky county, Ohio. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a printer, editing and publishing a paper now. 
 
 Question. What paper ? 
 
 Answer. The "Democratic Messenger" is the name of it. 
 
 Question. You held a clerkship here for a few years; how long did 
 you hold it? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed by Colonel Allen shortly after he was 
 elected Clerk of the House ; I think I took my place on the 14th day 
 of December, 1857, within a week or ten days, or such a matter, after 
 he was elected Clerk. 
 
 Question. You were in that position 'during the pendency of the 
 Lecompton question before Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you state whether you were enlisted in the passage 
 of the English bill, and what compensation you received for it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not understand the question. 
 
 Question. Were you enlisted for the passage of that bill ? 
 
 Answer. I was opposed to the passage of the Lecompton bill. 
 
 Question. How about the English bill? 
 
 Answer. I was in favor of its passage, from principle, not from 
 interest — as a matter of policy. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from any party during the^ 
 pendency of the English bill ? 
 
 Mr. Train (to the Chairman.) I suppose you mean, to be employed 
 for its passage. 
 
 The Witness (to the Chairman.) Extend that question, and I can 
 answer it fully. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How will you have it extended? 
 
 Answer. Extend it so as to include what the member (Mr. Train)' 
 said, and I can answer it fully, 
 
 Question. Answer the question as I have asked it. 
 
 Answer. I do not want to refuse to answer any question ; but I. 
 would rather have time to study it before I answer it in that shape. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 121 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money; and if so, in what amounts,, 
 and from whom ? 
 
 Answer. I never received any money from any party to be used for 
 the purpose of influencing a member of Congress for or against the 
 passage of any bill. 
 
 Question. Did you not receive a considerable sum of money just at 
 that time, or a check for a considerable sum of money ? 
 
 Answer. I do not want to answer that question now ; I rather not 
 answer it now. 
 
 Question. I will state to you that we have the documents in relation 
 to this matter, which will, perhaps, lead you not to hesitate to answer. 
 Did you not receive a check from Mr. Cornelius Wendell for $5,000 
 a very short time before the English bill was passed ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think the witness is bound to answer that 
 question. 
 
 Mr. OuN. What is the objection to it? 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I have no objection if the witness chooses to answer. 
 But I would not answer such a question if it was asked me. 
 
 Mr. Omn. Why not? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Because I think you have no right to ask me such a 
 question, unless you put some question showing its relation to the sub- 
 ject of your examination. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Put one question at a time. Let this be answered, and 
 then we can ask what use he put the money to, if he received it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW, Connect the question with any subject embraced in 
 our investigation, and that will be a different matter. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not care whether the witness answers the ques- 
 tion or not ; we can have the bank books brought here to show it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. As I have said before, I cannot sit here and suffer 
 questions that I do not think proper to be put without objection. 
 
 Mr. Olin. If we are to embody in one question the whole transac- 
 tion, with all its circumstances, &c., an answer to which would prove 
 the entire case of corrupt use of money, you would never get an answer 
 in the world. 
 
 Mr. WnsiSLow. As I have said before, you have no right to get at a 
 legal result by illegal means. 
 
 Mr. Olin. This is not illegal means. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. You have no right to ask general questions of any 
 witness about his private business. 
 
 The Chairman. It is not to be supposed that he received $5,000 to 
 attend to his business as newspaper clerk. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not know anything about that. If you can 
 prove that Mr. Wendell put $5,000 in his hands, you can then put the 
 question to him as to the purpose for which it was put there. 
 
 Mr. Train. Why not prove that by this witness as well as by 
 anybody else? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. If he chooses to answer it he can. 
 
 Mr. Olin. He has no option but to answer the question. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think he has. 
 
 Mr. Olin. He can assert that it was private business. But we are 
 to decide that when we get the facts. I have examined too many 
 
122 LECldyJ^ON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 knaves and tried too many questions of law to be deceived by any 
 Bucli pretence as that. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think that you ought to use language offen- 
 sive to me vrhen I am doing that only which I consider my duty. I 
 may not have examined as many knaves as you have, but I have tried 
 many questions of law myself, and it is not a pretence with me when 
 I object to this course of examination. I do not suppose you meant to 
 be personally offensive to me in what you said. 
 
 Mr. Olin. That was not my intention. I referred to the plea of 
 private business, on the part of the witness, as a reason for refusing 
 to answer the question. 
 
 By the Chairman (to witness :) 
 
 Question. What did Mr. Wendell give you fiv« thousand dollars 
 for, a few days before the passage of the English bill ? 
 
 Mr. OuN. Has he said that Mr. Wendell did give him $5,000 ? 
 I think that question would be open to the objection of assuming 
 what has not been proved. 
 
 The Witness. I want no difficulty with the committee ; Mr. Co- 
 vode understands that. I have already said that I received no money 
 from Mr. Wendell, or any other person, to be used for the purpose of 
 influencing a single member of Congress for or against the passage 
 of any bill. I do not know whether I am right or wrong ; but it 
 strikes me that I cannot be compelled to answer that question any 
 fuller than that. If it be decided that I must answer, I will go on 
 and answer the question fully. 
 
 The Chairman. I will put it to the vote of the committee whether 
 the witness be required to answer the question fully. 
 
 The question was then read as follows : 
 
 Question. Did you not receive a check from Mr. Wendell for $5,000 
 a very short time before the English bill was passed? 
 
 The question being taken, whether the witness be required to 
 answer the question, it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 3, nay 1, 
 as follows : 
 
 Teas — The Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train. 
 
 Nay — Mr. Winslow. 
 
 In giving his vote Mr. Winslow said : 
 
 I think in the way the question is put the witness is not bound to 
 answer it. 
 
 The Witness, [being called upon to answer the question, said :] I 
 want time before I answer that question. I do not want to answer it 
 this morning. I want to understand my legal rights in this matter. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. Wendell offer you $20,000 if you performed 
 •certain political services connected with the passage of the English 
 
 Answer. He made a proposition of that kind to me ; not the Eng- 
 lish bill, but any other bill, before the committee was raised. 
 
 Question. Was it for raising the committee? 
 
 Answer. The matter was so long ago that I have forgotten the ex-^ 
 act particulars about it. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC^ 123 
 
 Question, Connected with the English hill ? . : . . ' 
 
 Answer. It was connected with the whole Lecornpton controversy. 
 
 Question You have said that Mr. Wendell offerl^you $20,000 for 
 that service? ^ ' . 
 
 Answer. I did not say that he offered that ; hut that he made a 
 proposition with which that was connected. 
 
 Question. Will you state how much he really gave you? 
 
 Answer. That is the question I want time on before I give an 
 answer. I do not say that I will not answer it ; but I want to under- 
 stand my legal rights before I do answer it. 
 
 The clerk of the committee was directed to furnish the witness in 
 ■writing with the follow question : 
 
 " Question. Did you not receive a check from Mr. Wendell for 
 $5,000 a very short time before the English bill was passed; and if 
 so, upon what consideration and for what purpose was it paid to 
 you?" 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When you were subpoenaed in Ohio did you not decline 
 to come until you could go and see Judge Hall ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I had some business in court over there that I 
 wanted to see kbout. 
 
 Question. Did you not go and see Judge Hall and have an inter- 
 view with him before you came here ? 
 
 Answer. I did, and told him that I was coming here ; but he knew 
 nothing about this transaction. I did not decline to come here. I 
 told Mr. Allen, who summoned me, that I was taken by surprise. 
 My paper went to press that evening. It was a little country printing 
 office, and you know how it is when you take away an extra hand, I 
 asked Mr. Allen if it would not do as well for me to come on on Tues- 
 day, instead of starting then, as I wanted a letter from Judge Hall, 
 and did not know how long that would detain me. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell the officer that before you came on here 
 you wanted to have a conversation with Judge Hall, and see him 
 about it ? 
 
 Answer. Not in regard to this matter. I was talking with two or 
 three friends present, the postmaster was there, about coming here, 
 and said I must see Judge Hall, or get a letter from him. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 Question. How long time do you want to answer the question pro- 
 pounded to you by the committee? 
 
 Answer. I do not ask longer than till to-morrow morning. 
 
 Friday, April 27, 1860. 
 
 M. P. BEAN recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Have you prepared your answer to the interrogatory fur- 
 nished you yesterday ? 
 [The interrogatory was read as follows : 
 
124 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 " Question. Did you not receive a check from Mr. Wendell for 
 $5j000 a very short time before the English bill was passed ; and if 
 so, upon what consideration and for what purpose was it paid to 
 you?"] 
 
 Answer. I have not had a consultation with anybody, but I will 
 answer the question. I received such a check from Mr. Wendell 
 The consideration was my services, as I understood the matter, in 
 aiding that Lecompton settlement. I cannot tell whether it was be- 
 fore the conference committee was raised, or after it was raised, and be- 
 fore the bill was passed. 
 
 By Mr. Oijn : 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether the check was made payable 
 "Kansas?" 
 
 Answer. That is my impression ; but I am not positive about it. 
 
 Question. And you deposited that check in the Bank of the Metrop- 
 olis, of this city ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How soon after the receipt of it ? 
 
 Answer. Within a very few hours, I think. I went up as soon as 
 I could get away from the office here, I think. 
 
 Question. And took a certificate of deposit from the bknk ? 
 
 Answer. I think I drew $100 or $200 in money ; I think it was 
 $200, a small amount. 
 
 Question. And took a certificate of deposit for $4,800? 
 
 Answer. For the balance, whatever it was. 
 
 Question. Did you subsequently take out a portion of that balance? 
 
 Answer. A short time afterwards I got a draft on New York for 
 $4,000, and the balance I drew out from time to time, as I needed the 
 money. Some I sent home, and some I spent here. 
 
 Question. What did you do with that draft on New York? 
 
 Answer. I sent it home to my banker, and gave him orders to pay 
 certain debts of mine out of that draft. 
 
 Question. What bank was that draft deposited in ? 
 
 Answer. In the Exchange Bank of Bucyrus, Ohio, where I was 
 then living. 
 
 Question. Who were the cashier and president of that bank at thai 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I am not certain whether Mr. Eeynolds or Mr. Quimby 
 was cashier ; I think Mr. Reynolds was cashier, and Mr. Quimby was 
 president. 
 
 Question. You say that that balance of $4,000 was subsequently ap- 
 plied to pay certain debts of yours ? 
 
 Answer. As far as the debts reached ; and the balance was lying 
 there when I went home. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect for what, and to whom any considerable 
 amount of that money was paid ? 
 
 Answer. There was a judgment due the Cincinnati type foundry, 
 the cost and everything of which amounted to considerably over $300. 
 Then there were various little amounts running from $25, or there- 
 abouts, up to about $100 or $200. The whole amount paid out for 
 debts reached as near as I can remember to $2,000, or in that neigh- 
 
LECOMPTOK CONSTITUTION, ETC. 125 
 
 borhood. I gave to the banker all the debts that I could remember 
 that I wanted him to pay. What they amounted to I do not remem- 
 ber, and I did not know at the time. I told him to pay whatever 
 they amounted to. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect anything else you ipaid besides this 
 judgment ? 
 
 Answer. I paid my brother some borrowed money. The original 
 amount was $150 ; I directed Mr. Quimby to send him $175. My 
 brother was then living below Columbus, and I think I directed a 
 draft upon New York to be sent to him. 
 
 Question. You say this money was given you, as you supposed, in 
 consideration of your services ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What services were you expected to perform? 
 
 Answer. To get every member that I could to vote for the bill, or 
 for raising the conference committee, whichever it was. 
 
 Question. How get them? 
 
 Answer. I know of no other way except by electioneering with 
 them. 
 
 Question. By personal solicitations ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where did you stay in this city during that session of 
 Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Nearly opposite Brown's, over Weaver's confectionery 
 store. 
 
 Question. Did anybody room with you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Judge Hall, a member of Congress. 
 
 Question. Do you know the amount of the fund used>for the pur-, 
 pose of interesting persons to aid in the passage of that bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; 1 never had any means of knowing. 
 
 Question. You never had any information upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know from what source this $5,000 came? 
 
 Answer. Nothing more than that I got it out of the bank. I never 
 inquired where it came from. 
 
 Question. Who handed the check to you ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Wendell, himself. 
 
 Question. What conversation had you with Mr. Wendell upon the 
 subject prior to the receipt of the check ? 
 
 Answer. I could not give the exact conversation. 
 
 Question. Can you give the substance of it ? 
 
 Answer. I can give something near the substance of it. Mr. Wen- 
 dell sent for me — it was over in the old hall — he sent for me to meet 
 him in Colonel Allen's room, the clerk's office, when the Colonel was 
 out, or before he came up in the morning, I went around there, and, 
 if I remember correctly, he asked me to sit down, and asked me what 
 I could do towards helping along this matter, or something of that 
 kind. I told him that I did not know that I could do more than I 
 was doing ; 'that I was then doing all I could to get that thing settled. 
 He claimed that I could do more, and I clainaed that I had no influ- 
 ■ence with any member who was not already inr favor of the settlement 
 
126 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 of it ; in favor of raising the committee, perhaps. T do not know 
 whether it was before the committee was raised, or after I told him Judge 
 Hall was in favor of it. He turned to me and said : ' ' You might jnst 
 as well make some money out of this as any one." I told him I did 
 not know how I could get the money. He said : " You damned little 
 fool, you might as well make money out of this as anybody else." I 
 can tell you how he got that idea. There was a young man in the 
 same room with me, of the name of Eeynolds, of Tennessee — S. D. 
 Keynolds — he was a strong Lecompton man, and I was opposed to it. 
 I used to bore him and joke him about the weakness of the administra- 
 tion, that could not get a measure passed that they were anxious to have 
 passed. I told him I would take the contract for putting that measure 
 through for $10,000. He took it in earnest. Now, I meant no such 
 thing, and was only joking him and boring him about the matter ; 
 and that was the way Wendell came to me. I told Wendell at the 
 time that I was only boring Reynolds ; that I had no such power ; 
 that I knew none of the members except some of the Ohio members, 
 and I would not dare to approach them with money. It was then that 
 Mr. Wendell made the proposition about the |20,000 that Mr. Covode 
 asked me about yesterday ; I refused to have anything to do with it 
 that morning, and told him I would study about it, and see him again. 
 I met him again the next morning, and finally took the check for 
 |5,000, and agreed to do all I could for it ; which I was then doing, 
 and had been doing before. 
 
 Question. Did he designate any manner in -which you were to exert 
 your influence ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Whether with money or solicitation ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he never intimated that he wanted me to use this 
 on any member. 
 
 Question. Did he intimate that you were to keep it yourself? 
 
 Answer. He did not say ; I took it as my own, and sent it off and 
 used it. 
 
 Question. With whom did you have any communication about it? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I talked with any one ; Eeynolds knew 
 all about the transaction ; 1 may have told him ; I do not know 
 whether I did or not ; I know that he knew all about the transaction, 
 but whether he got it from me or Wendell I do not remember ; I may 
 have talked with Reynolds about it at the time ; I do not remember 
 how that was ; but I talked with nobody but him at any time about it. 
 
 Question. After the receipt of this check, what did you do towards 
 performing any service? 
 
 Answer. Just as I had been doing all along before. 
 
 Question. Whom did you see? 
 
 Answer. I never ran after a single member ; I never had any op- 
 portunity without forcing myself upon any member, which I never 
 did upon any subject ; I urged the settlement of that question as I 
 had been doing before. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect any conversation you had, with any 
 member ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; I never did converse with any , member alone 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 127" 
 
 about it, unless it was with J udge Hall, who was always in favor of 
 doing just what was done ; I do not think I conversed with any other 
 member alone. 
 
 Question. Did you ever state to any one in what way you disposed 
 of that $5,000, or any portion of it? 
 
 Answer. I think not, unless it was this man Reynolds ; I may hav& 
 ,told Eeynolds ; I think it very likely that I did ; I knew that he knew 
 all about it, and was noways reserved with him ; I never told anybody 
 else. 
 
 Question. You have not told to any one, whom you recollect, what 
 disposition you made of the $4,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I think not, only to the members of this committee ; I am- 
 positive I did not. 
 
 Question. Tou say that you got from the Bank of the Metropolis a. 
 draft on New York for $4,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I am satisfied that I did ; I took back the certificate of 
 deposit withia a few days after I deposited the check there, and sent 
 that $4,000 home. My object in doing that was to secure it ; I was 
 afraid that they would find out that I was not doing anything, and 
 would stop payment upon it. 
 
 Question. You returned the certificate of deposit, and of course 
 this draft would appear upon the bank books. 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about their manner of keeping 
 books. 
 
 Question. Is your recollection distinct that you took a draft upoa^ 
 New York for $4,000 ? 
 
 Answer. It has been so long ago that I do not remember the exact- 
 points ; but I am pretty well satisfied that that was the amount I got. 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Question. What conversation had you with Mr. Wendell at th& 
 time he proposed to give you $20,000 ? 
 
 Answer. That grew out of my gassing with Reynolds, my joking 
 and plaguing him ; he proposed if I would take the contract to give 
 me $20,000. Here is a memorandum which he made and handed to- 
 me when he left me, or during the first conversation, I do not now 
 remember which it was, In place of telling it, he wrote it dowa 
 while I was looking on. Says he: "Here is what I will do," and 
 then wrote this : " $5* , $5^ — , $5«' , fS^" ." 
 
 The understanding was, that this was $5,000 apiece. I said, "I 
 would rather take the $5,000 down, and not take the contract." 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Was this $5,000 apiece for four men ? 
 Answer. I forget the number of men who were needed to pass the' 
 bill, or raise the committee, whichever it was. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Is this [the memorandum the witness had produced] ia 
 Mr. Wendell's handwriting ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
128 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Wendell evince a willingness to invest a great 
 deal more than that in Lecompton ? 
 
 Answer. He made a remark something like this : "A bushel of 
 gold is no object in this matter. " 
 
 Question. In what matter ? 
 
 Answer. In the passage of the bill, or in the settlement of the Le- 
 ■compton question. There was no bill then before the House, I think ; 
 I am not certain which it was. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether it was before the conference 
 ■committee was raised or after that you changed your deposit and took 
 a draft ? 
 
 Answer. I did it within a few days after I first went to the bank ; 
 I think it was in the same week. I got uneasy about it ; I did not 
 •dare to talk with anybody about it, and did not know but what they 
 might go and attach it, or do something to stop payment, if they 
 found I was doing nothing ; and I could do nothing more than I had 
 been doing. 
 
 Question. Could you understand why it was that Mr. Wendell 
 ■offered you only $20,000, when he said that a bushel of gold was no 
 object in getting that matter settled ? 
 
 Answer. He said that when he was urging this proposition upon 
 me ; urging me to engage in this matter. I understood him by that 
 to mean, that if I even wanted more I could have it ; that was what 
 I understood by that remark. 
 
 Question. Did you not give Mr. Eeynolds a portion of this money 
 in consideration of his services in getting you the agency in this mat- 
 ter? 
 
 Answer. He said to me one day " you made a good thing out of 
 this, and you never would have got it but for me, and you ought to 
 give me something." Says I, "I will give you something, Sim." I 
 told him that I would go up to the bank the next morning. I did go 
 up and drew out some money ; I do not remember how much I gave 
 liim ; it was either $150 or $300, I do not know which ; it was not 
 •over $300, and I do not think it was under $150 ; I think it was one 
 of those two sums. 
 
 Question. Did you know any other parties who were engaged here 
 as outsiders in helping to get the Lecompton bill passed ? 
 
 Answer. There were plenty of them. 
 
 Question. Who were engaged in that business? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any one who had the handling of any 
 money. 
 
 Question. We understand that one man who had the handling of 
 money in that matter would not tell any one else about it ; I mean, 
 who were engaged in getting that bill through ? 
 
 Answer. There were a great many men here from Ohio pressing 
 members to vote for that bill. 
 
 Question. Can you name any one who came at that particular time, 
 for that purpose, that you knew of? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any who came for that purpose. There 
 were men here from a number of districts who urged members to vote 
 for that bill. Colonel Medary was here. Mr. Johnson was here, as a 
 
LECOMPTON tfONSTlTUTiON. ETC. 129 
 
 candidate for United States marshal ; that was the business he was 
 here about. 
 
 Question. Where does Mr. Johnson live? ; , ; 
 
 Ansv^er. He lived then in Toledo ; but I think lj.e is now in Cleve- 
 land. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. In whose district was he then living ? , 
 
 Answer. In Mr. Mott's district. There were a number, t cannot 
 remember all of them, who came here for that purpose, as I suspected. 
 There was old Colonel Sawyer, formerly of Ohio, but who was then hold- 
 ing a land office somewhere in Minnesota. John K. Miller was here ; 
 he was, formerly a member of Congress from Mt. Vernon, Ohio ; and 
 Judge Kennou was here from St. -Olairsville. 
 
 Question. Was there any man from Fremont here then — from the 
 town where you now live ? 
 
 Answer. Mr^ A. J. Dickerson was here, but only for a short time ; 
 he was a candidate for United States inarshal. 
 
 Question. Was he here when the bill passed ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; there were a great' many men here from Ohio ; 
 some for offices, and some for other purposes. 
 
 Question. I want to know those who were here interested in that 
 bill? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any man who came here on purpose for 
 that. There Was but one from our district, I know. 
 
 Question. Do you know who was the principal agent in getting the 
 postmaster at Columbus restored at the time of that trouble ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know only what I have heard — -street rumors. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Tell what you know; street rumors would not be 
 evidence. 
 
 Answer. I was not cognizant of anything about that matter my- 
 self. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not know that Mr. Johnson was particularly 
 active in that matter ? ' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, he was. 
 
 Question. Was not Mr. Johnson a particular friend of Mr. Cox at 
 that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I think not ; Mr. Cox is not from his district at 
 all ; he lives in the southern judicial district of Ohio^ and they had 
 nothing to do with the appointment of marshal there. 
 
 Question. Have you not got reliable information that the passage 
 of that Lecompton measure cost a great deal more money than the 
 amount you have named ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard men talking on the street's about it ; I know 
 nothing of myself at all. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 9 
 
130 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 By Mr, Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Who did you hear talking about its costing a great deal 
 of money ; let us have the names, and we can call them as witnesses. 
 
 Answer. I heard men taTking, saying that men could be bought ; I 
 know of no one who would be likely to know anything about it who 
 did talk in that way ; I do not think a man who knew anything about 
 that matter would talk about the streets promiscuously about it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What other clerk connected with the House was particu- 
 larly interested in this matter ? 
 
 Answer. None that I know of, except that the southern boys 
 generally were pitching in for it ; but I do not think the clerks were 
 officious about the matter ; I did not know of any who were. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 
 Question, What time did you leave the clerk's office ? 
 Answer. The Monday after Mr. Forney was elected. 
 Question. You remained in office until Mr. Forney was elected? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I asked for a discharge and he gave it to me. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was not Mr. Carter, the chief clerk, engaged in this 
 matter ? 
 
 Answer, He seemed to be very anxious that the bill should pass, 
 and took a great deal of interest in it ; but I never knew him to be 
 engaged in any speculation of this kind. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Did you know any man of the name of Crowell here in 
 Washington ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember any such name. 
 
 By Mr. Winslot^ : 
 
 Question. Do you say that you did not pay this money or any por- 
 tion of it to any member of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I would not dare to venture upon any such opera- 
 tion as that ; I had too high an opinion of our Ohio members to do 
 anything of that kind ? 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. You made no donation to any member of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Q»estion. Do I understand that you have a distinct recollection oi 
 taking a draft on New York for $4,000 from this Bank of the Metrop- 
 olis? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I am positive about that ; as to the exact date I 
 cannot give it ; but it was very shortly after I deposited the check. 
 
 Question. It was for $4,000, was it ? 
 
 Answer. I may be mistaken within a couple of hundred ot dollars 
 of the amount ; but I feel positive that it was for $4,000. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 131 
 
 Question. Whatever tlie balance was, you took a draft on New York 
 for it? 
 Answer. I still left on deposit a balance of $700 or $800. 
 
 By tbe Chairman : 
 
 Question. Perhaps by stating the particulars of the transaction, I 
 can refresh your memory ; you went there with the check for $5,000 
 and deposited it ; you drew $200 in money and a certificate of deposit 
 for $4,800 ; in a few days afterwards you took back the certificate of 
 deposit, drew out $100 for your use then, got a cre(iit on the books of 
 the bank for fTOO, and got a draft on New York for $4,000 ; so that 
 out of the $5,00U, you used $1,000 here, and sent off $4,000. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, that is what I did ; I could not state it better 
 myself. 
 
 Question. Your account was closed when you surrendered your cer- 
 tificate of deposit, and a new account was opened by you with the 
 bank ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Monday, April 30, 1860. 
 
 M. P. BEAN recalled. 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about any connexion of Senator 
 Fitch with the payment of any money in relation to the Lecompton 
 bill in any way? 
 
 Answer. I do not, except, as I explained to Mr. Oovode this morn- 
 ing, in reference to a newspaper that some parties wanted me to go in 
 in Ohio. Perhaps it would be as well for me to give the whole trans- 
 action. It was proposed to me to go out into Ohio. 
 
 Question. By whom ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Johnson first made the proposition to me. 
 
 Question. Who was he ? 
 
 Answer. He was appointed United States marshal afterwards for 
 the northern district of Ohio. At that time the newspapers there 
 were nearly all opposed to the Lecompton bill, and it was proposed to 
 me to go out there and buy out a newspaper and support whatever mea- 
 sure was passed upon that question. I agreed to do so, if they would 
 furnish me the funds. Johnson agreed to try and raise the funds for 
 me. I never supposed that he could do it ; but he kept telling me 
 that he could do it until it became a bore to me. I kept telling him 
 that he could not do it, and it was of no use trying. The thing ran 
 along that way, I think, until after the committee reported the Eng- 
 lish bill. I am not positive as to the dates, but I think it was after the 
 report of the English bill, when Johnson came to me one day and said : 
 "I want you to go down with me and satisfy yourself that I have raised 
 that money. Gro down and see Senator Fitch now." I went down and 
 saw him, and that, I think, was the first and the last time I ever saw 
 him. Mr. Fitch was dressing, about to leave the city; I think he had 
 his coat off. I do not remember whether I took a seat or not. The 
 
132 LECOMPl'ON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 interview did not last over five or ten minute's. Mr. Fitch said to me : 
 " This matter is all right ; these funds have been raised." I would 
 not swear that he said he had the chieck in his pockdt: But he either 
 said that he had "the check" or " the papers" in his poeket, and 
 that he was waiting for Colonel Medary to come hack, intending to 
 hand the papers back to. the one he got it from, as he himself had to 
 go home. That is all I know anything about, and' that was in con- 
 nexion with a newspaper. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What was the amount? 
 
 Answer. The amount was $5,,000,, I had in view,, then the same 
 press I have since hou,ght,,and which I took possession of the ,2Qth of 
 August last. 
 
 Question, You say that that $5,000 had, nothing to do with the 
 $5,000 that you r|eceived for your services in the Lecompton matter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Wihslow : 
 
 Question. You did not receive that $5,000 at all? 
 
 Answer. I never saw it ; I never received a single dollar of it. 
 After the English bill passed I do not remember but a single demo- 
 cratic paper in Ohio that did not support that hill, and the thing,fell 
 through with that. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You understood from Dr. Fitch that he had the money 
 or the papers in his pocket? 
 
 Answer. He njay have s?iid "papers," or he may have said ',' check." 
 At any rate, the understanding was that money had been r,ais|ad. .1 
 state before my God and my country that no member pf, Congress, to 
 my knowledge, ever received one cent of money foi: his vote upqn that 
 English bill. 
 
 Question. Will you give the information that you suggested to me 
 you would give relative to who negotiated with a memher of Con- 
 gress? 
 
 Answer. I did not mean by that that there was any moneyed trans- 
 action. 
 
 Question. Well, negotiated in any way ? 
 
 Answer. I thought and understood from your conversation then 
 that you were driving at Mr. Cox. I had in view this man Efickerson, 
 from Fremont, that you had a letter from. He told me himself that he 
 helped to manage that matter with Mr. Cox. But there was no moneyed 
 transaction in the matter. I am satisfied there was none. 
 By Mr. Kobinson: 
 
 Question. What was the arrangement ? 
 
 Answer. The oily arrangement I ever heard anything about,; or 
 knew anything about, was that his postmastei: at Columbus shouldbe 
 reinstated.' 
 
 Question. For what? 
 
 Answer. If he would vote for the English bill. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 135 
 
 Question. Whom did yon get thatifrom? 
 
 Answer. From tMs man Dickerson ; I never talked with Mr. Cox 
 upon the subject. ,. v ,, ., ,/ , 
 
 Question. Did this man Dickerson pretend that he made the ar- 
 rangement with Mr. Cox to do that? • 
 
 Answer. Thait he was one of the parties. I suspected it was true, 
 because his postmaster was reinstated there. 
 
 Monday, April 30, 1866. 
 
 SAMUEL MEDAR Y called and sworn. ' 
 
 ByMr. Train: ''"' ■;■'■ '^"" " 
 
 Question. Where is your residence now ?; ,,•!,. ,, '. 
 
 Answer. It is in Kansas ; that is, I am there ; my family are yet in 
 Ohio. 
 
 Question.. Were you in W^shingtqn at or prior to the time: of, the 
 passage of the English Lecompton bill in 1858 ? 
 
 I Answer. I was not here at, the tinqe pf its,, passage j.bu^ I was h,ere 
 a ph(prt time before. . - ,,, , , -■,:;• ,, 
 
 ; Question. About what time did you leave; here? 
 
 Answer. About the time the committee of conference was raised ', I 
 thii^k it was the next day or ,so thatjl ieftifqr,Phip,. , 
 
 Question. The committee of, conference was ordered on the 14th day 
 of,April,,.lB58. .^qn say you left here ioiuipfi.i^t^ly after;that ? , 
 
 Answer. ,Yes, sir ; a day or, two after,. ■,; 
 
 Question., Had you ;been engaged, in endeavoring to procure the 
 passage of, the Lecomptpn bill ?,: ., ;. 
 
 Ajjswer. Well,, sir, not more than I am always engaged in political 
 matters — using my influence. I was in favor of its passage. , , 
 
 , Question. Did you bring any influeiicetp bear; upon members of 
 Congress with whom you were acquainted ? 
 
 Answer, I dp no]t,,think I (lid ; it di(J. not, seem tp haye any effect 
 upon those with whona I talked. , 
 
 Question;.,, Did you receive any coinpensation for any services, you 
 rende][edi ;while you were here in refere^cpto ithat fflatitpr,? 
 
 Answer., No, sir ; , not either then pr at any othpr time, , 
 
 Question. Did you ^t apy.tipae, receive a, check fropi .Senatoi;, Fitch 
 for|5,Q00? . ^ 
 
 Answer. No, sir,; I never saw such a chpck at any time. 
 
 Question. Did he give you $5,000 in any fprpa ? 
 
 Answer, ,No,,8ir ; I never got ,|5,000 in, my life for, anything, ex- 
 cept; what I earned. , . ,( ',. i 
 
 Question. Then, if anybody testifies that you did rescpiye |5,000 from 
 him, he testifies what you say is, fals$? ,. 
 
 Answer. Certainly false ; positively false ; I was never offered. 
 
134 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 $5,000, and I never saw $5,000 or five cents, nor anything else of the 
 kind in connexion with that matter. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether any money was ever paid to any 
 member of Congress to influence his vote ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything of the kind. 
 
 Question. Do you know what influences were brought to bear to 
 induce certain gentlemen to change their votes ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, and it is wholly a mystery to me yet ; Iwas in 
 Ohio when I heard that a certain gentleman had changed his vote, 
 and I was as much surprised as anybody else at his sudden change. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed postmaster at Columbus, Ohio? 
 
 Answer. In March, I think. 
 
 Question. Before you returned from here ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was sometime in March, as I think the records 
 of the office will show. 
 
 Question. Who was the one removed? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Miller ;! was appointed in his place in March, I th'ink. 
 
 Question. He was restored afterwards, was he not? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, when I went to Kansas. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you know anything about Mr. Bean receiving any 
 money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I did not, until I was coming on here this time ; I 
 met him at the Relay House, and he said he had been subpoenaed to 
 come on to Washington, and he told me what he would testify to ; that 
 is the first I knew anything of it. 
 
 Question. Was there any talk at any time of money being raised to 
 buy out or start papers in Ohio to sustain the administration ? 
 
 Answer. There was a strong application made to me to buy out the 
 'Ohio Statesman again ; during the pendency of the matter I went 
 home and made inquiry to see whether I could buy it or not ; but I 
 could not; but that had nothing to do with infiuencing members of 
 Congress, but to excoriate those we did not think inclined to keep in 
 the ranks. 
 
 Question. Was there any proposition to raise means for that pur- 
 pose? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I said that if I went home and bought the paper 
 I would have to pay cash, and I would want somebody to let me have 
 some money for a year ; but I spoke to nobody about it, and made no 
 effort until I saw whether I could buy the paper or not ; if I could I said 
 I should want a loan from some one, and should ask it for a year ; it is 
 probable that a great deal of the stories going about grew out of this 
 matter, or something of the kind ; but it had nothing to do with buy- 
 ing members of Congress, but was meant to excoriate some of them ; 
 I did not want to buy them, but I wanted " to put them through," as 
 the saying is ; I have heard a great deal of this matter since I came 
 here this time, and have heard persons' names connected with it that 
 I am sure knew nothing about the matter. 
 
 Question. Was there not something said- about a paper in Cincin- 
 nati? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 135 
 
 Answer. There was sometliing said about that. I said that if I 
 took any paper I would buy the old one back. I went back and called 
 «pon them, and told them to " name their pile," and I would buy the 
 paper back. That was the expression I used, and they told me that 
 it was in other hands, and I could not get it. And that ended the 
 matter, as far as I was concerned. 
 
 Question. Did you not understand that if you were to go to the ex- 
 pense of buying the paper b^ck, to sustain the administration, you 
 w^ere to have some assistance ? 
 
 Answer. Not a dollar ; I never asked for nor received anything of 
 the kind. During the thirty years' warfare which I have waged in 
 politics, I never had the gift of a dollar ; never received anything but 
 what I earned, and never asked a favor ; and I regret that at this day 
 there should be any suspicion of the kind, I defy all the world, dead 
 •or alive, to prove anything of the kind. I have been foolish, perhaps, 
 spending my life and my fortune. But I never received any money, 
 and never knew there was such a thing as bribery going on until of 
 late years. 
 
 Question. What members did you try to influence ? 
 
 Answer. I talked with most of our democratic members ; told them 
 they were pursuing an improper course. It is not worth while that I 
 •should make a speech here, and tell you all I said to them. But I 
 believed it was better for Kansas to have the question settled in that 
 way ; and now, since I have been there, I believe so more than I did 
 before. I think it was a great misfortune to Kansas that that was not 
 done ; but that is past. There was nothing at all between myself and 
 Any member of Congress except argument. 
 
 Question. Was not there a complaint made to you, while you were 
 a candidate for postmaster at Columbus, that your member was oppos- 
 ing the policy of the administration, or something of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was nothing of that kind. The place was 
 offered to me. I told the President that I could not accept it — that it 
 was an office I did not want. He said that he should remove the 
 postmaster then holding the office, and I agreed with him that if he 
 was President, and had a party, ho ought to remove him. I was sat- 
 isfied, and so I told the President, that his conduct was such that I 
 would not permit an appointee of mine to perform. The President 
 ^aid he wanted me to take the appointment, but I told him I could 
 not. He asked if he sent my name to the Senate, and they confirmed 
 me, whether or not I would then accept the appointment. I told him 
 that if I did it would be more on his account than on my own. 
 
 Question. Was it for you or Mr. Miller that Mr. Cox wanted the 
 place ? 
 
 Answer. When Mr. Miller went back the story was that Mr. Cox 
 had got a pledge that Mr. Miller should go back again. I know 
 nothing about that. I was invited to go back to Kansas, and after 
 .some two weeks' consideration I agreed to go. All the offices I have 
 «ver got I have got unsolicited. When I got to Kansas I found that 
 things could be harmonized. I found a different population there 
 from what I expected, a population that was disposed to listen to what 
 was said to them, who were disposed for peace. I succeeded in getting 
 
136 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION,, :ETC. 
 
 a better condition of things,. eB^ablished there, and sooner than I ex- 
 pected. As to Mr. /Miller ap^ Mr. Coxj I kn.ow, nothing ahoijt that. 
 
 By^Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. You replied to a question, I think, with regard to whether 
 you had received a "check from Senator Fitch, that you never 'did 
 receive such a check. , 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never did. 1 never had sight of such a check. 
 
 Questicfn. D6 you know of any agency of Senator Fitch id aiding 
 the passage of the Lecompton Mil ? 
 
 Answer. None whatever. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Senator Fitch 
 touching that matter ? , ' ' 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; nothing of the kind. I do not know that I evhi 
 had a conversation with Senator Fitch at any time. A gentleman 
 mentioned to me that perhaps he would help me to get the money, 
 i By the, Chairman: ,, C 
 
 Question. What money ? 
 
 Answer. For the paper.. But I do not think that Senator Fitch 
 ever'knew anything of it at all. I never had any conversation with 
 him about, it. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW': 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt means used tq secure the 
 passage of the Lecompton bill ? ; s 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I fought butside of that, entirely. Sbjfar as the 
 English bill was concerned, I was never friendly enough to that bill 
 to pay .anybody anything to vote for it. i . 
 
 No. 40. 
 Uo^-D AY, April 30, 1860. 
 
 GRAHAM N. FITCH appeared at the request of; the committee. 
 
 The testimony of Sam. Medary and M,.P. Bean, so far as dt related- 
 to Mv. Fitch, was then read over to him, and he was then told thait. 
 he was at, liberty to make any statement he desired to the committee; 
 that it was not proposed to administer any oath to him, as it was not 
 the custom of the committee to administer any oath to a member of 
 Cengress. ,,;,:■■ ,. . •. ■-, , .,,, ;- 
 
 Mr. Fitch desired to be sworn, and was accordingly qualified by 
 taking an oath by the uplifted hand. . ,, , 
 
 ""Ir. Fitch then said : 
 
 I need not speak about anything that yoii may have in view luei^e,, 
 of which I, of course, know nothing, except from outside rumor, hsr 
 yond the testimony, which has been read, to me. Governor Medary 
 has told you the .truth. There never was a, word passed betw^een 
 himself and myself upon any subject connected with- the Leopmpton- 
 English billj or any other measure before either branch of Congress,. 
 
* 
 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION,. ETC. IST 
 
 I never said anything except: to my own collea^'gnes, members of fhe^ 
 House and ,t!^e Senate, upon, that subject; and certainly not with them 
 in relation to, aAy, money. matter, either, to ,b§ given to members or 
 outsiders, for a..press or for any other; purpoaei, with a view. directly, or 
 indirectly, in any way, shape,,or, form,. to inftuence, the vote of any 
 member, or the cpurse of any c^tii5en,vup0n this subject* it never had, 
 one dpUaii'ij njore or ,less,,9f ,jmy owp, money or i the njopey of anybody 
 else in my, possession,, or any obligations, ifpr any such.purpose,: either 
 for, the pijrpose. of being gontributedj; donated, or deposited, for the use 
 or benefit of any ,iriember : of, either hougej or for ^^W outsider. It may 
 possibly be that the man whose testimony .was lagt, read to me may 
 labor under a mistake to this extent; I may have seen him, if it is the 
 gentleman who just left the room, (Mr. Bean,) but I have not the 
 slightest recollection of ever having seen him before. But if he was 
 an officer of the House, as I understand he was, it would be rather 
 strange if I had not m^t bim spmjC tim^. , Some gentleman (who it 
 was I cannot say — my impressioh is that it was the Mr. Johnson to 
 whom the testimony read to me|alludes) askedime if, I would interest 
 myself in attempting to raise funds to establish a democratic press in 
 Ohio. I forget the term he gave the particular part of the State it 
 was to b^in.^ 'What-my answer wag I cannot say. I know very well 
 what my impression -was, and that was, that I had enough siidi dis- 
 tricts in inyown State to attend to, if there was anyi money to be 
 raised ; and I gave no further attention to the matter. 
 
 This same gentleman, if it was Mr. Jdhnson, requested me to speak 
 to some friends upon the subject, who, he thought, (from some cir- 
 ciimstanbes within his own knowledge, of which I was entirely igno- 
 rant,) might feel some interest in the matter. I do not know, but 
 what I promised' to do so; bubif I did, I have no recollection of ever 
 having fulfilled that promise. But I desire to say, so that no suspi- 
 cion^ or impression which '-might be created by questions here, or 
 answers to those questions, may exist] !that I have never, directly or 
 indirectly, been instrumental in any way, shape, or form, in con- 
 tributing, depositing, or using money, or any; obligation for money, 
 for the purpose of establishing a press outside of Indiana, either with' 
 a view of defeating or opposing any measure then pending or which 
 had been pending before Congress,- or influencing anybody's: vote for 
 or,^g^inst, in or out of Congress. Any statement of the kind is 
 wholly untrue ; there can be no shadow or foundation in fact for it. I 
 can well perceive that this gentleman's testimony may create some 
 such impression without. his so intending it. ' : 
 
 By the (^HAiaMAN : 
 
 .Question. Have you any recollection o£ any person calling, at your 
 room with Mr. Johnson, as would appear from the testimony here ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection rwhatever, of it., . I do, not, remember 
 that I ever saw this, gentleman l)efore., I heard one of you, gentlemen, 
 call him by name,'and I scrutinized hifi features closely to, see if I 
 could recollect him ; but, I. : have no recollection of? the; interview of 
 which he speaks. I may have seen him, for I recollect, distinctly that 
 some one asked me if T would assist in raising funds to establish 
 
138 LEOOMPTGN- CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 press in the western part of 'Ohio. My impression is, that it was Mr. 
 Johnson ; but I attached no importance to it then or since. I recol- 
 lect of no papers of any description ever having been left with me, in 
 connexion with that or any other subject. If they were soleft with 
 me, they were papers the contents of which I was entirely ignorant. 
 I never had anything to do with money, or any obligation for 
 money, or anything to do with Ohio politics, or any question pending 
 before Congress. As for the English bill, I had not feeling enough 
 about the matter to care five cents whether it passed or not. I did 
 not then think there was anything in it, and I do not now. I voted 
 for it out of deference to my colleagues, 
 
 Thursday, May 3, 1860. 
 
 COENELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question.- Had you not very frequent interviews with Mr. Buchanan 
 during the pending of the Lecompton- English bill? 
 
 Answer. I had several interviews with him during that time ; yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Question. What was the character of the conversations at those 
 interviews ? 
 
 Answer. Those were on the subject of carrying the Lecompton bill, 
 the number of votes it would probably get, &c. 
 
 Question. Were you not the medium through whom his desires 
 were made known to others to some extent? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I cannot say that I was. (Mr. Winslow here 
 ■entered the committee room.) His views were well known ; he desired 
 to carry the bill. 
 
 Question. Was it in accordance with his desires that you took a 
 deep interest in carrying the bill? 
 
 Answer. Well, I cannot say that it was. I was in as a partisan; 
 looked upon it as a party measure, and went for it with all my power. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge how much money you disbursed 
 ■on that occasion to carry that measure? 
 
 Answer. I would respectfully submit whether that is a proper 
 question. If I had disbursed money to any members of Congress, I 
 presume the question would be a proper one. But if I saw fit to 
 employ gentlemen outside to aid in carrying it, I would respectfully 
 ■suggest whether it is proper for the committee to inquire into my 
 money affairs. 
 
 Question. I will put the question in another way. Was it not 
 jour habit to operate upon members of Congress through third parties? 
 
 Answer. I have done so, or tried to do so. 
 
 Question. Did you not try to do so on that occasion? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 139 
 
 Question. Can you state to what amourit ; or will it be necessary 
 to have the hooks from the hank to refresh your memory? 
 
 Answer. I could not state what amount of money I expended in 
 and about the Lecompton question without making some references. 
 
 Question. Do you mean references to the hank books, or references 
 to your own account hooks? 
 
 Answer. To the bank books ; I do not think my own books would 
 show it; I was rather careless about my money matters then. 
 
 Question. Would you know, when you saw the bank books and the 
 checks, which checks were for business purposes and which for political 
 purposes? 
 
 Anbwer. Yes, sir; I think I could distinguish between the business 
 and the political — I think I could. 
 
 Question. Did you not, in paying money to outsiders, pay it for a 
 specific purpose, or for the votes or support of particular persons? 
 
 Answer. I may have paid outsiders to aid in procuring votes for 
 particular measures. 
 
 Question. For that particular measure — the Lecompton bill I am 
 speaking of? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I paid some money to outsiders to aid in carry- 
 ing the Lecompton bill. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether, in drawing checks for that 
 purpose, you put in the names of the parties themselves, or did you 
 put in fictitious names? 
 
 Answer. I have probably done it both ways ; drawn them diriectly 
 to the parties sometimes; sometimes " for political purposes;" "pay 
 to politics $1,000;" "pay to Kansas;" "pay to bearer;" I have done 
 it in different ways. Sometimes a man would want a check drawn 
 one way and sometimes another. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Where did this money come from. Was it your own 
 money, or was it furnished by somebody else? 
 
 Answer. It could be considered my own money. Sometimes I had 
 money lying in hank to my own credit ; sometimes I borrowed the 
 money of a friend. 
 
 Question, Was all the money you spent in procuring the passage 
 of this Lecompton bill your own money, or was some of it furnished 
 you by others to be spent in this way ? 
 
 Answer. There never was a dollar furnished by any living man. 
 
 Question. It was all your own money ? 
 
 Answer. It was all my own. I would give my notes and obtain 
 the money on them. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect from whom you borrowed? 
 
 Answer. Well, from any man who would lend me. I was always 
 willing to borrow ; from no particular party ; fromRiggs & Co., from 
 the different banks, and from individuals in town here, until I ran 
 the town dry, and then I would go north and borrow. I borrowed 
 largely in Philadelphia and New York. I borrowed from members 
 of Congress, from the officers of the House ; any friend who was a 
 
140 LECOMPTON OOSSTITUTIONy ETC, 
 
 moneyed man, and had money to , lend, I would borrow frow, if I 
 
 could. !' ' ' ' p . il ', ' 
 
 Question. Has any person ever helped you to pay any ot these ihor- 
 
 rowed moneys? . i , ' " '■ 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I :wiBh they would. , . 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : ,,,, .,,„,/ 
 
 Question. What Mr. Kohjnson wants . to know is whether it was 
 government money, furnished you by, government officers to corruptly 
 carry,thatbill, or was it your own funds?. . ,, .< - ,'/ 
 
 Answer. There was never a dollar furnished me by any government 
 o,i£qer for that or any other purpose-, , i • ,: ' ,-- ., ' 
 
 Question. Neither directly nor indirectly ? , ; ; ■ 
 
 -Answer. No, sir.;,, , ,, ,, -,,' .-,', •■',•' 
 
 •By the GBAiBMaiT : vi.-r ' ■ . / , 
 
 Question. Did not a considerable portion of that money come out of 
 patronage tha,t you were Receiving from, the, government?, 
 'Answer. Well,'I had been receiving a large amount of money fron^ 
 the government, for work. , ,^ ,, / 
 
 Question. Did it riot come otrt of patronage received from the gov- 
 ernment ? , ' 
 
 Ahs-wer. I mk4e my money in that way— from public wort. 
 
 Question. Were you not induced to believe that by usmg mopey 
 freely in that way you would have patronage to reiniburae you ?, 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW (to the Chairman.) Induced by whoQi? 
 
 The Chairman. By officers of the government. 
 
 The Witness. No, sir ; I rievei' was. I was enjoying at the time 
 all the psirtrbriage of the gbvernnient in my business, Ithink, or nearly 
 all. There was no pledge or promise that there should be any more 
 given to me, for I had it all then. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson: 
 
 Question. Was there any promise that it should be continued' to'' 
 
 you?' '•-■ ■ '"■'' ■' " _ ■ '■'■■;■ 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I cannot say that there was. ' ' |' 
 
 By the Chairman : . , 
 
 Question. Was not that your expectation in paying these large 
 
 amounts? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think that is a proper question. j 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSoN, I do not think we have anythiiig to do with Mr. 
 
 Wendell's expectations. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you, by looking at the bfinkbookg,, ascertain, how 
 much money you spent in the passage of that bill, and to whom you ; 
 paid it? 
 
 Answer. I probably co^ld. I might.^ot give every particular item. 
 
 Mr. Eobinson. We better let Mr. Wendell go to the bant and, ex- 
 amine the books. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 141 
 
 The Chaikman. We can have the bank-bo6ts hroOght here. 
 
 Question (to witness.) Did you not, on the 8th of April, 1858, give 
 Mr: Bean a check for '$5,000 ?' .' : 
 
 Answer. I remember giving him a check for $5,O0O Or |5,000 in 
 money, but the date I have forgotten. " ' - • ■ 
 
 Question. "Was that money for himself or for another ? What pur- 
 pose had you in view-in giving him that |5,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I was informed" that by enlisting Bea,n he dould be of great 
 service in the passage of the bill. Who informed ine I have forgotten ; 
 but it must have 'been some one in whose opinion I had entire con- 
 fidence, cii' I should not have broached the subject to him. I did 
 broach it, and, if my memory serves me, he did agree to use all his 
 infliience for a consideration, which consideration I paid him. 
 
 Question. Did you not propose to give him $20,000 td accomplish 
 certain objects ? ■ ' - ■ 
 
 Answer. T do not think I did. I do not remember of dbing so; I 
 remember giving him $5,000., but the conversation I held with him T 
 cannot (call to mind. I was engaged day and'night in that business 
 at that time, and took a Very active part in it. 
 
 Question. Was not the money that you gave to Mr. Bean, or pro- 
 posed to give him, for a specific purpose — that is, to get the votes of 
 certain individuals for Lecompton? ' ' 
 
 Answer. I think I undei-stood that Beto had sflme influence with 
 the Ohio members, some of whom were supposed to be a little doubt- 
 ful On the subject. If I recollect a,right, he' was the owner of a paper, 
 or had control of some papers in Ohio in districts of which the re|)re- 
 sCntatives were considered ddnbtful, and it was thought that he might 
 influence them, from his position as editor of a paper, and therefore it 
 was deemed- 'essential to secure his services ; but who gave me that 
 hint I do not remember. I may have talked largely about mbney with 
 him; my acquaintance with him was very slight, however. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Did .he represent to you that he had influence with any 
 member? 
 
 Answer. I cannot remember that he did. The details of the con- 
 versation have escaped my memory entirely. The main purpose was 
 that he should use all his influence with the Ohio members, and that 
 I should pay him for his services. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Bean not tell you distinctly that that money 
 was to go to certain members ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember that he did. 
 
 Question. In giving him that $5,000 did you expect that he was 
 to keep it, or to pay it, or a portion of it, over to other parties ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I might have had an idea that he was to divide it 
 around ; but I would simply suggest, with all deference, that my 
 thoughts and' ideas would not be evidence. 
 
 Question. Did you not on that occasion specify a certain individiHii 
 whose vote was to be had for that $5,000 ? 
 
142 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOHr, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I miglit have done so, but it does not occur to my mind 
 now. 
 
 Question. Did you not specify certain votes that were to be paid for 
 by this $20,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot remember that I did. 
 
 Question. Were there any other parties from Ohio besides Mr. 
 Bean — go-betweens — to secure the votes of certain Ohio members ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I cannot say that there was. I was in conversation 
 daily and hourly, as I have before observed, with members and with 
 outsiders on the subject. There were several members from Ohio 
 whose votes were considered doubtful, and it was desirable to have 
 them think as the party did, if possible. 
 
 Question. Who was your agent for that purpose with the Pennsyl- 
 vania delegation ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I had any pa,rticular one for the Penn- 
 sylvania members. 
 
 Question. Had you more than one ? 
 
 Answer. I was in conversation with dozens of gentlemen, making 
 and receiving suggestions as to the proper mode of accomplishing it. 
 I do not know as I could swear that I had any agent in the matter 
 at all. 
 
 Question. Were there more than one that were used with the Penn- 
 sylvania delegation in connexion with money matters ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I used any money with reference to 
 any Pennsylvania member particularly ; it does not occur to my mind 
 now. 
 
 Question. Did you not attend to one member yourself, directly and 
 personally? 
 
 Answer. I attended to several members — that is, I would talk with 
 them about it. 
 
 Question. In a money way? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never attempt to use money with a member of 
 Congress. I borrow of them, or lend to them, if I have any^ but so 
 far as regards influencing their votes, never in my life have I^p- 
 proached a meinber of Congress in any way. 
 
 Question. Did you not spend this money in consideration of receiving 
 large patronage Irom the government ? 
 
 Answer. As to the motives that influenced me, they might have 
 been diverse. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Would you have had the right to retain this patronage 
 without spending this money? 
 
 Answer, I suppose so ; there was nothing of that kind promised. 
 I might have thought that I would be well treated. I had my own 
 ideas. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you not induced to believe, in interviews'with the 
 President during the pendency of the Lecompton measure,' that you 
 would be remunerated, taken care of in some way, for your services? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 143^ 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not from any assertion of his. 
 Question. From the tenor of the conversations ? 
 Answer. I had the idea that if I stood hy the party, and aided it 
 all I could, he would stand by me. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was there any understanding, directly or indirectly,, 
 secret or otherwise, between you and the administration, thatjyou. 
 should be rewarded in any way, shape, or form, for what you were- 
 doing for the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. I understand that your only expectation was what every 
 partisan expects for fidelity to his party? 
 
 Answer. That was all. I was an active and enthusiastic man, and 
 went further, perhaps, than I ought. I will state here that this was- 
 not in reference to the Lecompton bill proper ; that was defeated. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. It was in reference to the English bill? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman here stated that he desired to have some conversa- 
 tion with the witness, not to be taken down by the reporter. 
 
 After some minutes thus spent in conversation, 
 
 Mr. Winslow said : Is this being taken down by the reporter ? 
 
 The Chairman: No, sir ; I directed the reporter not to take it down, 
 as I wished merely to ask the witness for some information not to'be 
 regarded as evidence. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I must repeat my objection to any conversation with 
 the witness^ in the committee room which is not put upon record. I 
 will question the witness myself, so that it may appear upon the re- 
 cord. ' 
 
 Question (to witness.) Did you have a conversation with Mr. Oovode 
 just now, touching some contract for $70,000 for passing the Lecompton 
 bill? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the tenor of that conversation? 
 
 Answer. I understood Mr. Covode to ask me if I knew anything 'of 
 a contract of that kind, and I told him that Mr. Pugh had spoken to 
 me about it, but I never knew of the existence of such a contract 
 until he told me. 
 
 Question. Were you a party to any such contract with Mr. Pugh, 
 in any way, shape, or form ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. What Mr. Pugh is that? 
 
 Answer. He is a claim agent, I believe, residing here in Washing- 
 ton. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Is he here now? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I saw him yesterday. 
 
1 44 LEGOMPtON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. I understand yoii to swear that you never bad anything ' 
 to do with Pughin connexion with passing the LecomjJtoii'bill ? 
 Answer. No/sir; '" 
 
 Question. That you were no party to any contract for |70,000, or 
 ■anything else ? , : 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mi:' Robinson: ,_ ,;,,,' ;,,,, 
 
 Question. t)id Pugh claim tha,t you were a p9.rty to that contr,act? 
 Answer. Pugh assumed, in conversation .w^-th ,me_, that I was.^the 
 iiscal agent of the government in passing the English bill, \?hich I 
 denied, of course ; he insisted tbathe naust have the money for aiding 
 in the passage of the bill, and, as I understood, wrote,: threatening 
 letters to parties .cpnnectpd with the goyernmiesnt, on the subject. ; 
 
 Question. Did, he claim that there was a contract, or that , he had 
 labored and wanted to be paid according to the amount of his, labor ? 
 What was bis claim ? 
 
 Answer. The claiim was that he had labored for the cause, and 
 ought to be paid by some one who had promised him a large amount 
 of money, but who it was I never could get at. 
 Question. Did he ever say who had promised it ? 
 Answer., I dor not think he ever did to me. 
 
 Question. The naturei of his, claim was, then,, that he had; been 
 promised a, l3,rge amount of money, and that yott were the agent of 
 the government, and he made the claipi upon you ? 
 
 Answer. That was the nature of his. claim ; I repudiated, it entirely; 
 I never had any agreement with him or held any conversation with 
 him upon the subject, until he came to me and tendered his , services, 
 but I told him that I did not think that he could aid me any ; where 
 be got that idea into his head I do not know ; he did not post me on 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Olin here examined, the witness in relation to a list of ^sundry 
 amounts taken from Mr. Wendell's account with the Bank of the Me- 
 tropolis this year. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect giving, about the 25th of April, 1858, 
 a draft to Mr. Witte for $3,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect, but it is very probable that I did, for 
 my money transactions with him were pretty heavy. 
 
 Question. What was the nature of your money transactions with 
 bim? 
 
 Answer. Borrowing and lending. 
 
 Question. Simply borrowing and lending ? , c 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, and the money transactions I had pendingelec- 
 tions in the falls of 1856 and 1858, as I testified before, I may have 
 contributed through him. 
 
 Question. This was in the spring of 1858. Can you tell what was 
 Witte' s business here at that time? 
 
 Answer. Eeally, he could answer that better than I can. 
 Question. State so far as you know. 
 
 Answer. I think that he had some business, in connexion with some 
 friend of his, with the Navy Department, relative to building some 
 engines for sloops-of-war ; I think that was his business here. 
 
LEGOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 145 
 
 Question. And you say'this was a loan to him? 
 Answer. It might have been a loan ; I loaned him a great deal of 
 money at different times, 1 know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it not at that time, in connexion with the passage 
 of the English bill? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it was. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. -Had you any negotiations or conversations with him in 
 respect to that matter ? 
 
 Answer. The passage of that bill ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. 0, yes, sir ; fully and freely. 
 
 Question. Was he active in trying to procure its passage ? 
 
 Answer. Well, he appeared to take a warm interest in it. It was 
 frequently a subject of conversation with us. I think I saw him diaily 
 while he was here. 
 
 Question. Do you know what occasion he had for the use of this 
 |3,000 which you say you loaned him ? 
 
 Answer. I expect it was to pay some note that was maturing at 
 that time. We have been very intimate in every way, personally, 
 pecuniarily, and politically. If I had a dollar he could have it, and 
 the reverse. 
 
 Question. You drew some checks on the bank payable to numbers. 
 For instance, on March 26, 1858, you drew a check to No. 450. Do 
 you recollect what that was ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, indeed. 
 . Question. Why were they marked in that manner ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sometimes in drawing checks I would put down 
 figures, or a letter or two, as a designation, perhaps, by which to re- 
 member them afterwards. 
 
 Question. There is a check drawn payable to " 0. W. 0." To 
 whom is that payable ? 
 
 Answer. I presume it was Charley W. Carrigan ; I had some large 
 money transactions with him. 
 
 By the Ohaibman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of Mr. Witte at that time getting a large 
 margin of profits upon the contracts for building steam engines for the 
 war sloops? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Witte the principal man from Pennsylvania, 
 connected with the passage of that Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that he was. He might have used his influ- 
 ence with the Pennsylvania members, or he might not. I do not re- 
 member of ever hearing him converse with any members from that 
 State upon that subject. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 Question. Would your check-hook show what these checks were for, 
 which were designated, for instance, by such numbers as No. 233, No. 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 10 
 
146 . LECOMt'TON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 237, No. 238 ? Here are three or four draVn in succession : on tlie 
 25th of March, 1858, one. No. 233, for $500 ; No. 237, |1,000 ; No. 
 239, |2,000 ; and on March 27, No. 243, $10,000. Do you know for 
 what purpose these checks were drawn ? 
 Answer. I could not tell now. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Would your own hooks show to whom these numhers re- 
 ferred ? 
 
 Answer. They might give me some clue. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Did you attend personally to this business, drawing these 
 checks? , 
 
 Answer. They might have heen in my own handwriting, and they 
 might not. My hook-keeper generally drew them. I know I lodged 
 a power of attorney, some time ago, with the bank, authorizing him to 
 draw checks in my name, " C. Wendell, per John Larcomhe." 
 
 Question. On April 8, 1858, there was a check drawn for $5,000, 
 .payable to " Kansas." That you say went to Bean ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know the date upon which I gave him that check. 
 
 Question. Here is a check payable to Glossbrenner for $5,000? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was that for ? 
 
 Answer. Probably for borrowed money ; I was in the habit of bor- 
 Towing a great deal from him. 
 
 Question. Here is a check to " Hughes" for $750, on the 15th of 
 .April, 1858. What Hughes is that? 
 
 Answer. That is more than I can tell, upon my word. It might 
 have been Mr. Hughes, editor of the " Union;" I should say so, if in 
 looking at Mr. Hughes's accounts I should find him charged with that 
 sum at that time. 
 
 Question. Mr. Eice for $500, on the 16th of April. Who was he? 
 
 Answer. That might have been some of the post oflace plunder for 
 Eice of the " Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. On the 28th of April you drew a check payable to Crowell 
 for $5,000. What was that? 
 
 Answer. Borrowed money, I presume, of Joseph T. Crowell, of New 
 Jersey. I was in the habit ofborrowing money from him very largely. 
 I do not remember any transactions with him but that» 
 
 Question. There was a check to Mowry, on the same day, for $500. 
 Who was he ? 
 
 Answer. Our delegate from Arizona, I reckon. I was dabbling in 
 silver mines, I think, at that time. 
 
 Question. On the first of May you drew a check payable to Phillips 
 for $1,000. Who was he ? 
 
 Answer. Hon. H. M. Phillips, of Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What was that for ? 
 
 Answer. Money loaned to me. 
 
 Question. He had loaned you money and this was a check to repay 
 the loan ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 147 
 
 By tte Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know how much money you borrowed from him 
 altogether ? 
 
 Answer, I borrowed a great many thousand dollars ; 1 have the 
 honor of owing him about |10,000 now. I think if you will look at 
 the first of every month you will find checks for about $1,000 each 
 month. I owed him some $12,000 or $15,000, and he proposed to me 
 to pay him $1,000 on the first of every month. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Who was Megargee? 
 
 Answer. The paper manufacturer ; I have dealt with him for many 
 years. » 
 
 Question. Here is a check for $300 for Bigler. What was that ? 
 
 Answer. It might have been Senator Bigler, I do not recollect. It 
 might hav@*been a contribution for the party up in his benighted sec- 
 tion. What date is it ? , • 
 
 Question. May 7. Here is a check on the 25th of May for $5,088 80, 
 for S. M. & K. Who was that? 
 
 Answer. I do not call to mind, really. 
 
 Question. Here is a check to Hall for $600. 
 
 Answer*. That might have been to Mr. Hall for printing paper ; I 
 dealt largely with him in printing paper. I think I bought my sup- 
 plies for the " Union" for some time of him and Megargee. 
 
 Question. Here are two checks to McLean, one on the 9th of June, 
 for $1,000, and one on the 10th of June, for $2,000. 
 
 Answer. That was this Steadman affair, I think ; he was interested 
 with Steadman. It must have been that. 
 
 Question. Here again, on the 15th of June, are two other checks 
 payable to numbers— No. 397, $1,000 ; No. 398, $600. What were 
 they for ? 
 
 Answer. Eeally I cannot call to mind. They might have been the 
 numbers of the checks, and the checks made payable to the numbers. 
 Sometimes when I did not want it to go on the book who got the 
 money, I had, the checks drawn in that way. 
 
 Question. Was it the design in drawing the checks in this way, or 
 omitting to make them payable to some person or their order, that it 
 should not be known to whom the money was paid ? 
 
 Answer. It might have been, in some cases. Probably I used money 
 that I did not want anybody to know about ; most likely wanted to 
 forget it myself. 
 
 Question. What was your reason for that ? 
 
 Answer. Well ; I do not know of any. I would say to my book- 
 keeper — draw a check to John Jones, or to Peter Smith, or to some- 
 body's order, just as the case may be. I might be using money that 
 I would be willing to forget myself five minutes afterwards. 
 
 Question. On the 27th of March, 1858, you drew a check, No. 243, 
 for $20,000. You certainly can tell what you drew a check of that 
 amount for. 
 
148 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION; ETt!; 
 
 Answer. I forget, really. It might have heen for 8ome property that 
 I purchased at that time, for I bought some property here. But I 
 think that check was for Mr. Maguire, borrowed money. 
 •• Question. Why did you not make it payable to Mr. Maguire^ then? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. It might have been for this property. 
 Are there no initials about it, nothing except the number of the check? 
 
 Question. No, sir ; nothing. 
 
 Answer. Well, I was always very careless about my money affairs. 
 I have heard that I was so in my boyhood, and I know I am so now. 
 • Question. It seems to me that this is altogether too careless. 
 
 Answer. This check may have been for some property. But if it 
 was in March, 1858, I think it must have been to Maguire lor bor- 
 rowed money. I have a recollection of paying him $20,000 at one 
 time. 
 
 Question. On the 25th of March you drew out with the same 
 description of checks as this one of $20,000, at one time $500, another 
 for $1,000, and another for $2,000, making, on that day, $3,500 ; and 
 on the 2'7th you drew a check for |20jbo6, neither of these checks 
 designating the purpose or the direction to which the money was 
 destined. 
 
 Answer. I think that, by taking the memorandum you have and 
 comparing it with my books at home, I could explain what these 
 checks were drawn for — I will not say every one of them, for I know 
 that sometimes checks would be drawn, and I would get the money 
 and put in my pockety and then the devil himself could not tell what 
 became of it. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect of using only $5,000 for the Lecompton 
 controversy ? 
 
 Answer. I used more than that. 
 
 Question. About what amount did you use ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell. 
 
 Question. Tell as nearly as you can — for you must have some gen- 
 eral recollection upon the subject — about what amount of money you 
 used with a view to aid in the passage or defeat of any measures 
 pending before Congress that spring of 1858. 
 
 Answer. I could not tell ; 1 would not like to set the amount. 
 
 Question. Tell as near as you can. 
 
 Answer. I probably .used, in furtherance of my schemes, from 
 $30,000 to $40,000, but how much of it was applicable to that par- 
 ticular measure I could not say. 
 
 Question. There are two checks here, one for $20,000 and the other 
 for $20,000 and some odd dollars, besides various other checks. 
 
 Answer. I do not think the $20,000 check was used for any such 
 purpose ; I have no recollection of using as large an amount at any 
 one time as $20,000 for any purpose ; I have been engaged in pretty 
 many operations for the last three or four years, and used a great 
 deal of money. 
 
 Question. Did all the money thus used pass through the channel 
 of the bank ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it did. 
 
iiSiCOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. ' 149 
 
 Question, Did you not constantly keep upon deposit there all the 
 money you had under you control? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; 1 frequently had a great deal of money about my 
 person. 1 have had $8,000 or $10,000 in my tobacco box at one time. 
 If I had any money about me, it was almost certain to be in my to- 
 bacco box. 
 
 Question. So that all the money used on that occasion did not go 
 through the bank ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it did. As to what these checks were for, 
 I might, by reference to my own books pf these dates, be able to dis- 
 tinguish what the most of them were for. 
 
 Question. There are som,e checks to Carter ; one on the 16th of 
 March, for $2,600, and one oh the 21st of May for $2,200? 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was Carter a leaner of money? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I borrowed of him frequently. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Were these checks to pay borrowed money ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I presume they were. 
 
 Question. Had you any other transactions with Carter? 
 
 Answer. As the pay clerk of the Clerk's office of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, he paid me for bills that I had. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether this first check, for $2,600, was 
 to pay a loan ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; I know he loaned me money. He and Gloss- 
 brenner both loaned me money — I do not recollect in how many in- 
 stances — and took my notes. Carter and he, being the moneyed men 
 of the House, would, between them, arrange it for me. Sometimes I 
 would want a little more time than the note called for, and I would 
 pay part of it and get an extension. 
 
 Question. Here is a check of May 26, 1858, payable to "B," for 
 $1,594 30. Do you know what that transaction was ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot call to mind now ; my transactions as to money, 
 as you see, were pretty large, and really my memory is not very re- 
 tentive as to details. 
 
 Question. No I Here is a check, on the 12th of March, for $2,500, 
 payable to S. N. or S. U. What is that ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot call to mind what that would be. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you recollect drawing any check to "Save the 
 Union?" 
 
 Answer. Perhaps it might have been. I do not remember it, though, 
 upon my word. But I would draw a check for all I had in the world 
 for that. I do not call to mind a check for S. U. 
 
 [ The witness desired to have the memorandum used by Mr. Olin 
 in his examination, in order that he might compare it with his books, 
 before he was again examined. The memorandum was given to him.] 
 
150 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTrON, ETC. 
 
 No. 45. 
 
 i^'RiDAT, May 4, 1860. 
 MATTHEW JOHNSON called and sworn. 
 
 The Chairman made the following statement to tlie committee : 
 
 Mr. Johnson has understood that his name was made use of by Mr, 
 Bean in his testimony, and he came to my room last night and re- 
 quested that he should be examined while he was here. 
 
 Question (to witness.) Do you recollect having any conversation 
 with Senator Fitch^ relative to raising money for establishing papers 
 in Ohio t6 sustain the administration ? ' 
 
 Answer. I had conversations with Senator Fitch in regard to rais- 
 ing some money to establish some papers to advocate the policy of the 
 administration on the Lecompton question. 
 
 Question. Please state all that occurred. 
 
 Answer. I will state the whole matter, as I prefer to do. I had 
 more than one conversation -with Mr. Bean, who was a clerk in the 
 House of Eepresentatives, in regard to procuring the control of one or 
 more papers in Ohio to change their tone on the subject of Lecompton. 
 He agreed that if I woUld raise $5,000 he would resign his clerkship 
 in the House and go home and purchase a Fremont paper, and said 
 that he could control two others if he did so. 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. You mean a paper published in the town of Fremont? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. He said he could control two others, one at Ba- 
 cyrus and one at some other place ; the other place I cannot now 
 mention. I told him that I would endeavor to raise the money ; I 
 talked to one or two persons, but I do not now have any recollection 
 of any one but Dr. Fitch, as to whether it was possible to raise that 
 |5,000 from any source. Dr. Fitch gave me but little encouragement 
 at the time ; he said that they had in their own State as much as they 
 could do, but he would see what he could do. Afterwards I went to 
 Dr. Fitch's ; -I cannot recollect of Mr. Bean going with me, but yet 
 he states circumstances in his testimony [that part relating to Mr. 
 Johnson had been read to him] that I recollect seeing myself, but I 
 cannot recollect of his being there. 
 
 By the Chairman : , 
 
 Question. You recollect the circumstances he mentions, but do not 
 recollect of Mr. Bean going with you ? 
 
 Answer. I recollect going myself to see Dr. Fitch and finding him 
 about to leave the city, and Mr. Bean states the same thing, but I 
 have no recollection of Mr. Bean being with me. Dr. Fitch said that 
 he thought that if we would go on and make the arrangements the 
 money would be raised or could be raised. My impression at the time 
 was that it was a mere getting clear of us, simply to get clear of an 
 annoyance of being troubled about it, although he certainly held out 
 the idea that the money would be raised or could be raised. That 
 was all that occurred until after the passage of the English bill. The 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 151, 
 
 morning of the passage of the English bill the Ohio delegation tele- 
 graphed home that they were a unit in voting for that bill, and I know 
 that that obviated the necessity of turning any of the papers, I knew 
 that would settle the matter about the press in that State ; therefore 
 that was the end of the whole thing. I left the city a day or two after 
 the English bill passed, and I know nothing further about it. 
 
 No. 48. 
 Monday, May T, 1860. 
 
 S. M. JOH¥SON called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. I reside in New York city. 
 
 Question. Were you not engaged at one time in editing the 
 " Union," as it was then called? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. At what time did you leave it ? 
 
 Answer. I left there on the 1st of April, 1859. I was engaged in 
 the Union from about the £rst of January, 1857, I think, 
 
 Question. Will you please state to the committee what conversation 
 Mr. Buchanan had with you, if any, relative to the constitution that 
 was sent to Kansas ; who prepared it, and who took it out ; any con- 
 versation that he had with you on that subject? 
 
 Answer. I never had any conversation with Mr. Buchanan with re- 
 gard to that constitution. What year was that? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. In 1857, I think. 
 
 The Witness. It must have been in 1858 that I went into the 
 Union. I was not editor of the Union in 1857. I went to Kansas in 
 the spring after Governor Walker went. I went out there at the'sug- 
 gestion of Mr. Buchanan. I think I was coupled in the programme 
 to go to Kansas as secretary, ^nd afterwards the President asked me 
 to assist him in getting Walker to accept the appointment. I urged 
 Walker to accept that appointment. It was named by the President 
 to me that I should go oat with him a little time as secretary, as it 
 was supposed that it would take but a few months to settle affairs • 
 there. However I refused to go, and there was not much said about 
 it. I know I was here, and the President urged me to assist him in 
 obtaining Mrs. Walker's consent to Mr. Walker going out in May. I 
 think Mr. Walker's letter of acceptance is in my handwriting. There 
 was a point raised as to committing the administration to the principles 
 embodied in that letter. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It is understood, I suppose, that I object to this 
 whole matter as not embraced in the resolutions under which we are 
 acting ? 
 
 The. Witness. I know nbthing of any constitution sent to Kansastby 
 Mr. Buchanan. 
 
152 LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Were you there when the constitution was said to have 
 been taken out ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I was not. I returned here from Kansas about 
 the 10th of July. I was in Kansas but a short time. I met Mr. 
 Walker there, and in a short time I returned here. And then, from 
 time to time, I saw the President, until I went into the "Union " in 
 the January following. I think that Lecompton constitution was 
 originated in 185T, and I went into the " Union " in 1858. I never 
 heard the President speak of any constitution being sent out to Kansas 
 at all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you hear anything about it from other quarters? 
 
 Mr, Winslow. I object to that. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know who took that constitution out ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have only my suppositions. From circum- 
 stances I have an impression about it, that is all. I could not state 
 anything positive about it. 
 
 Question. Do you know who prepared it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that. 
 
 By Mr. Oun : 
 
 Question. Did you learn from any source that it was taken out there 
 from this city ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose I did. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I object to any hearsay testimony. 
 
 Mr. Olin. If I can find out from whom this witness heard it, then 
 I can see that person, and examine him. 
 
 The Witness. I had my impression with regard to it, but the facts 
 upon which that impression was based I do not know. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. What information have tou upon that subject ,that led 
 you to the conclusion, or gave you the impression or belief, that that 
 constitution was drawn up in this city by or under the supervision of 
 either of the heads of department here and sent to Kansas. 
 
 Answer. When you ask me to testify as to any evidence I possess 
 •that that. constitution was drawn up by any of the heads of the depart- 
 ments, I can only say that I have none to give. I can only say that 
 I know no reason or fact upon which I could base any conclusion. I 
 had my own private impression from some little things that occurred 
 that the project originated here, that is all. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I do not think the impressions of the witness should 
 be received as testimony. 
 
 The Chairman. The witness has said that he did not know that any 
 of the heads of the departments had done it. 
 
 The Witness. I do not know anything at all about the preparing 
 of that project. 
 
 The witness here made some statements to the committee which he 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOf, ETC. 153 
 
 said he did not wisli to be regarded as testimony. After having con- 
 versed some time with the committte — 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw interrupted the witness and said : I submit whether 
 we ought to talk with the witness unless the conversation is put down. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Certainly ; I will talk with the witness every chance I 
 can get, and if I find an honest man ,by talking to him I may find out 
 something to be put down. 
 
 The Witness. I am not at all anxious to talk. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. If this is to be persisted in I want my objection to 
 it entered upon the minutes. I do not know what you are about ; I 
 am all in the dark as to the object you have in view. 
 
 Mr. .Olin. I supposed that the witness might know something about 
 the management of this matter. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Why not put the question to him directly^ then ? 
 
 Mr. Olin. Mr. Covode has just put the question to him, and he says 
 he knows nothing about it. 
 
 The Witness. I have no knowledge about the matter, but I have 
 my ideas about it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to any statements being made by the witness 
 that are not placed upon the record. 
 
 Mr. Train. I difler with Governor Winslow entirely as to the pro- 
 priety of talking with the witness. I think it is my dutyto talk with 
 the witness before I examine him, to find out what he knows that is 
 competent and what is not competent, and if he does not know of any 
 facts himself he may be able to give information by means of which 
 we shall be able to obtain proof of the facts we desire to find out. I 
 think it is right to talk with the witnesses, as well here as any- 
 where else. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think that when the committee is in session, and 
 the witness is under oath, everything the witness says should be taken 
 down if it is proper testimony. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Suppose it is not proper testimony ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to starting out with anything from the wit- 
 ness that is not proper testimony. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Then you object to the witness stating "anything that is 
 not testimony. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think it is not right to have the witness talk with 
 the committee while it is in session, unless what he says is testimony. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question (to witness.) Have you not had some conversation with 
 Secretary Stanton upon this subject ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question-. Eelative to that programme ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sip. 
 
 Question. Did you not state to him some knowledge you had of the 
 getting up of that programme ? '*' 
 
 Answer. J stated my impressions ; I did not state my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Did you not state to him how you got those impressions ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you state to this committee how you got those im- 
 pressions ? 
 
154 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I could ; but I suppose that would not be testimony. 
 
 Mr. Olin. We can hear your answer, and if it is not testimony then 
 we can decline to take it down. 
 
 The Witness. I do not myself think it is testimony ; but I have no 
 objection that I know of to stating it. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I object to the witness stating anything that is not 
 testimony. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I think the question is a pertinent question. 
 
 The Witness. I was strongly inclined to believe 
 
 Mr. WiifsLow. I object to your belief. 
 
 The Witness. If I am hot permitted to make an explanation I can- 
 not testify at all. I came to my own conclusions, as you all do in 
 reference to anything. 
 
 Mr. Train. Let the witness make his statement, and let Governor 
 Winslow's protest go upon the record. 
 
 The Chairman. It appears that the witness has some evidence sat- 
 isfactory to himself to induce him to believe what he has communicated 
 to others. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. He says distinctly that he has no evidence at all. 
 
 Mr. Olin. He does not say that. 
 
 Mr, Winslow. He says that he has only an impression. 
 
 Mr. Olin. He says that there were some circumstances which in- 
 duced him to come to certain conclusions. The committee are inclined 
 to have the witness state what those circumstances were. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I do not object to any fact that has any bearing,Upon 
 the question. But I say you have no right to ask the witness what 
 his belief or impression is. The witness must state facts. 
 
 By the) Chairman : 
 
 Question (to witness.) What were the circumstances that brought 
 your mind to this conclusion ? 
 
 Mr. Olin. Perhaps the better way would be to ask the witness if 
 he had formed the opinion that this instrument was prepared here, in 
 this city, and if so, what fact or circumstance within his knowledge 
 induced that opinion. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Very well ; just answer the question in that form, then. 
 
 Answer. Well, I can answer that only by referring to circumstances 
 to which I first alluded — to the appointment of Governor Walker ; to 
 the pledges that the President gave to me in his behalf, that he 
 would support and carry out certain principles — for instance, that the 
 constitution should be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas ; 
 that Mr. Walker, in the administration of the affairs of the territory, 
 should be entirely unrestricted and unencumbered by any further in- 
 structions from the government ; the President, agreeing to carry out 
 the utmost doctrines of what is called popular sovereignty ; and that 
 Mr. Walker should represent that principle in the administration, 
 &c* Mr. Walker then went out to Kansas ; ,1 went out subsequently. 
 In the June elections there it was argued very strongly that the 
 constitution to be framed should be submitted to the people ; and it 
 
LECOMPTON CONbTITUTION, ETC. 155 
 
 was asserted that the authority of the whole administration would 
 support Governor Walker in that course. He had secured the indorse- 
 ment of the democratic convention of the territory, the proceedings 
 of which I myself bore to the President^ arriving here about the 10th 
 of July, a day or two before the letter of the President to Governor 
 Walker was written. Everything seemed to be going off siaceessfully. 
 I urged Mr. Buchanan to write that letter. I told him that I thought 
 it was right he should do so, indorsing Mr. Walker's course, giving 
 him encouragement, and tending to carry out his views fully. I told 
 him the circumstances of what Walker was trying to do there, in 
 order to get the people to vote fairly, honestly, and faithfully, he 
 guaranteeing to all parties and all interests eq^ual rights in the political 
 affairs of the Territory. Having made these statements as prelimi- 
 nary, I will now go on and say that I became distrustful of the 
 parties who got up what they called -the counter project of submitting 
 the slavery clause of the constitution alone, aud I very freely denounced 
 it. I was very anxious about Mr. Walker's success, because I thought 
 that he had made some sacrifice in going out there, and I knew that 
 he was perfectly honest in his endeavors to administer the a"ffairs of 
 the Territory. I talked with the President, after this new light had 
 broken upon us — that was before any distinct project was known here 
 in Washington — and found him to insist that all that he ever meant 
 in reference to popular sovereignty, was submitting the slavery ques- 
 tion to the people. I thought that very strange, and watched the 
 matter very closely. Subsequently the project came up of sub- 
 mitting that clause in the peculiar manner ia which it was sub- 
 mitted, and I found the President very decidedly to indorse it, 
 though I thought his doing so condemned the whole course of Mr. 
 Walker. I was anxious to know who originated this plan and why 
 it was originated. I took public rumor to start with, that it was a 
 project that originated in this city ; that, one of the secretaries was 
 engaged in it. But I knew nothing at all about that. I heard that 
 Mr. Martin from the Interior Department had been sent to Kansas ; 
 I think he is a clerk in the Department of the Interior. That he was 
 in Kansas I. am certain from information from gentlemen there, and 
 from Mr. Walker himself. Mr. Walker distrusted him ; all parties 
 pretty much distrusted him. I am merely stating what I suppose to 
 be the facts of the matter. Mr. Martin was connected with the 
 Interior Department, but what branch of it I do not know. He 
 subsequently called on me to get me to assist him to get his accounts 
 settled with the State Department. He stated to me that he wen(|out 
 there on some political business connected with the State Department, 
 although his nominal business, I think he told me, was connected 
 with the Interior Department. I felt a little anxious to get a little 
 insight into the matter if I could, and encouraged Mr. Martin with 
 the idea that I would help him at the State Department, and wanted 
 to know from him all the facts I could. He told me that a part of 
 his mission was from the State Department and political in its nature, 
 and he thought he should be paid. I told him that I would see 
 General Cass and talk with him, but that in the meantime I wanted 
 him to bring me all his letters from the State Department, so that 
 
156 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 when I went up with his account I could have the authority of that 
 department which was given to him. I think he said he was sent 
 oiit by the Interior, and bore no papers from the State Department. 
 Well, after one or two or three conversations, in which he stated that 
 he had done this political business for the State Department, and I 
 think he said he was continued in his clerkship, but had gone to 
 extraordinary expenses which the State Department refused to pay 
 him— I dismissed him by saying that I saw no reason why the State 
 Department should pay him, as he had no credentials from that 
 department. That is one of the reasons that led me to suppose that 
 Mr. Martin, who by public rumor was connected with political 
 movements in the Territory, was the bearer of some project connected 
 with the convention at Lecompton. And I heard things here gen- 
 erally that got into that shape that led me to conclude that it was so. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 Question. Did Mr. Martin tell you what was the precise nature of 
 his business ? *' 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I could not get the precise nature of it from him. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Were you out there when the constitution was submitted? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I went out in June and came back on the 10th 
 or 11th of July, after looking around there and seeing what I could 
 see. 
 
 Question. Were, you there when the Lecompton convention was in 
 session ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I was not. 
 
 Question. How long before it sat did you leave ? 
 
 Answer. I must have arrived here on Sunday or Monday, the 10th 
 or 11th of July, and liave left the Territory four or five days before 
 that time ; there was a democratic convention in the Territoryj but 
 that was a party convention ; I was not there when the convention 
 sat. 
 
 Question. You saw Mr. Martin there, did you? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he went out there subsequently to that time. 
 
 Question. And what Martin did there you do not know ? 
 
 Answer. No, sirj I do not. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Did you have a conversation with the President in rela- 
 tio^to the manner of the submission of the constitution, in which he 
 tola you or explained to you the manner of submitting the constitu- 
 tion, merely submitting the slavery clause, and said to you that it 
 was a sharp trick, or something of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; my general idea was that the impression was en- 
 tertained that that plan of submission would compel the people to 
 vote ; but the President never said it was a sharp trick, or anything 
 of the kind, to my knowledge. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOlir, ETC. 157 
 
 No. 52. 
 
 Wednesday, May 9, 1860. 
 
 H. L. MAETIN called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? . 
 
 Answer. My home is in Mississippi ; I came here from the Balti- 
 more convention in 1852 on business with the executive branch of the 
 government, growing out of a treaty with the Choctaws ; failing to 
 get it adjusted, at the end of about two years I took a clerkship, and 
 transferred its management to others, and have been in this city most 
 of the time since, but not in office all the time. 
 
 Question. In which department ? 
 
 Answer. I am in the Land Office, under the jurisdiction of the In- 
 terior Department. 
 
 Question. Are you still engaged in the Land Office ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; I have not been in office all the time, however. 
 
 [Mr. WiNSLOw read to the witness the testimony of Colonel Johnson 
 so far as related to him.] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you the person alluded to in that evidence who went 
 to Kansas in 1857 ? 
 
 Answer. I presume so ; I went there in October, 1857. 
 
 Question. Was it you who took out a draft of a constitution from 
 here to the Lecompton convention ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I took no constitution. 
 
 i^uestion. What papers did you take ? 
 
 Answer. These are the papers I carried, (producing two manu^ 
 scripts,) which, by permission of the committee, I will read ; under 
 authority of which I went to Kansas. 
 
 Question. Can you not make a statement without reading them ? 
 
 Answer. They contain a better statement of the matter than I could 
 make. 
 
 [Witness here read a letter of instructions from the Acting Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office and one from the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs.] 
 
 Question. Did you take no other papers to Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. Not the scratch of a pen on any other subject from any of 
 the departments, except a letter from Mr. Secretary Cobb. 
 
 Question. Were you at Lecompton during the sitting of that con- 
 vention ? 
 
 Answer. I was, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not sit in that convention ? 
 
 Answer. I was in the hall a good deal of the time. I was engaged 
 a portion of the time investigating the affairs of the land office at that 
 place, which was in the same building, but in the basement story. 
 
 Question. Why did you ask pay tor your services from the State 
 Department for attending to business for the Interior Department ? 
 
158 LEGOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I did not. Mr. Johnson misconceived the subject in giving 
 his testimony. I went to Kansas twice ; first in 1857, under these 
 instructions which I have read, to attend to the business therein con- 
 fided to me. In December, 1-857, 1 again went to Kansas as bearer of 
 despatches from the State Department. 
 
 Question. I am speaking of the time when the convention wasin 
 session. Were you not in the convention, acting and consulting with 
 the membej s relative to the constitution ? 
 
 Answer. I conferred with the delegates freely ; I was consulted by 
 them, and invited into the.hall where thev held their meetings, and 
 accepted their coi^tesy. Not only myself, but many other gentlemen 
 not connected with the convention occupied seats in the hall. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of other papers being prepared here 
 and sent out to Kansas to that convention to you, or to somebody 
 else? 
 
 Answer. None were sent to me, sir. 
 
 Question. To somebody else, then? 
 
 Answer. None to my knowledge, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that you, yourself, was a party to having 
 these papers attended to in that convention ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. I went out under the direction of the Secre- 
 tary of the Department of the Interior, in which I was a clerk. I 
 went under the direction of no one else. 
 
 Question. Did you not go out at that particular time to attend to 
 that business, knowing that the convention was to meet there? Was 
 not that the main object of your going out at that time, and this other 
 business only a pretext? State frankly. 
 
 Answer. If the committee please I claim to be a gentleman, acting 
 upon the impulses, and governed by the principles which prompt, 
 regulate and control the action of gentlemen ; and whatever occurred 
 verbally between Mr. Secretary Thompson, the head of the depart- 
 ment in which I was a clerk, and myself, in relation to my trip to 
 Kansas, I have always regarded, and still regard, as private and con- 
 fidential, not to be divulged voluntarily to any one ; but, believing 
 the Secretary to be a gentleman, and one who would scorn to shield 
 himself under the rule to. which I have referred, from any imputa- 
 tion which all the facts might cast upon him, under compulsion,'! am 
 ready to answer fully all questions in regard to what occurred between 
 the Secretary and myself in reference to my going to Kansas, and 
 what transpired there. 
 
 Question. You will answer my question, then, if you please. 
 
 Answer. Mr. Secretary Thompson called me to his house on the 
 evening before I started to Kansas and directed my attention to the 
 movements of the people of Georgia and Mississippi in retierence to 
 affairs in Kansas. The committee are aware, I presume, that the 
 people of both those States had indicated a disposition to complain at 
 the course of the administration, and especially that of Gov. Walker in 
 Kansas, and public speeches were being made in the south lay our ablest 
 statesmen, urging the convention to^make a pro-slavery constitution 
 and send it up without submission to the people of the Territory, and 
 demand, admission as a State into the Union under it, premising that 
 
LBiCOMPTON COHSTITUTION, ETC. 159 
 
 it had been declared by the opposition, both in and out of Congress, 
 that no more slave States should be admitted into the Union, and indi- 
 cating a determination to make an issue of secession and disunion on the 
 refusal of Congress to admit Kansas should she thus present herself 
 for admission, an issue he Alleged on which the party would be divided 
 and weakened, and perhaps the Union dissolved. " This threatened 
 issue, so portentous of evil, we are anxious to evade. We are in 
 favor of the submission of the constitution, when made, to the popular 
 will of Kansas for ratification or rejection; but 1 am not willing to 
 take the converse of the proposition ; that is, I am not prepared to 
 take ground against the admission of Kansas if a pro-slavery consti- 
 tution should be rpade and sent directly to Congress by the convention. 
 I am not prepared to say that the convention have not the right to 
 make a constitution and demand admission under it. We are com- 
 mitted to the legality of that convention, and hence I am exceedingly 
 anxious that whatever is done by it should be submitted to the popular 
 ratification. You see as I do, that if the convention should make a 
 constitution and send it up without submitting it to the people, under 
 the surroundings, Congress would refuse, in all probability, to admit 
 the State ; the south would at once take the position that it was on 
 account of the slavery clause in the constitution that Congress refused 
 the admission, and the issue of disunion would be the result That 
 I am anxious to avoid." It had been regarded here very generally, 
 that all reasonable prospect of making Kansas a slave State was at an 
 end, and he made several suggestions as to how the constitution might 
 be shaped to protect the rights of slave owners of the slaves then there 
 and their natural increase, and indicated, that all fair-minded men 
 ought to be willing to go a step further than that ; that yodiig men from 
 the southern States had gone therein considerable numbers and estab- 
 lished themselves homes for the future ; they may inherit negroes, 
 ■family servants, that they would not be willing to dispose of, and all 
 just men ought to be willing to allow them to bring such servants to 
 Kansas and keep them rather than force them to abandon their homes 
 or sell them, for many men would abandon their homes or change 
 their residence rather than sell their old family servants. He further 
 suggested that they might adopt a system of gradual emancipation, as 
 was done in Pennsylvania ; perhaps tbat might be more satisfactory. 
 That is substantially what he said. The whole drift of the conversa- 
 tion, however, was that whatever might be done ought to be submitted 
 to the people, and the constitution ought to be so shaped as to not be 
 reasonably objectionable to the free State democrats in the Territory. 
 - Question. It appears tome that you have not yet answered my 
 question directly. Do you not know of a programme being prepared 
 here and sent to Kansas? . . _ 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not ; and so far from knowmg it, I am well 
 satisfied that there was no programme prepared here. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Will you state the facts upon which you come to that 
 
 conclusion? „ , , j i ,. tit 
 
 Answer. I have stated the substance of wh^t occurred between Mr. 
 
160 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Secretary Thompson, at whose instance I went there, and myself. The 
 instructions which I have just read emhrace the legitimate business 
 upon which I went, and the other was merely incidental. He con- 
 ferred with me very fully and freely, and I have stated the substance 
 of his position on the question of submitting the constitution by the 
 convention to the vote of those to be enfranchised by it for their rati- 
 fication or rejection. If any programme had been made or agreed 
 upon by himself, or any member of the administration; to be sent to 
 the convention for its adoption, I feel quite sure he would have con- 
 fided it, or at least a knowledge of it, to me. He did not even pencil- 
 mark anything for me, but talked over the principles involved, and 
 bow the schedule of the constitution might be shaped so as to be most 
 acceptable to the free State democrats in the Territory. Being per- 
 sonally acquainted with Mr. Secretary Cobb, and knowing that he had 
 friends in the Territory, I called the day on which I left the city, and 
 had a pretty full conversation with him in regard to the movements 
 in G-eorgia and Mississippi, in reference to and the afiairs of Kansas. 
 He confided to my care a letter to Hugh M. Moore, late of Georgia, 
 who was a delegate to the Lecompton convention ; and that was per- 
 haps the paper of which you have had an inkling, and to which you 
 have referred. That paper I read, and it had no relation to a pro- 
 gramme whatever. It was an argument urging, in strong and forci- 
 ble terms, the submission of the entire constitution to the people of 
 the Territory. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. You say the whole drift of Secretary Thompson's conver- 
 sation was that whatever constitution was formed should be submitted 
 to the people ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that whatever constitution that the convention 
 made ought in fairness to be submitted to the voters of the Territory. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do I understand you to say that was the substance of 
 Secretary Cobb's conversation also ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir, it was. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Did the conversation of Secretary Cobb tend to the same 
 point ; that the constitution ought to be submitted ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that you carried out the programme 
 in your head instead of in your pocket ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not mean that either ; I carried no pro- 
 gramme of any sort. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. I understand you to say that you took out no constitution ; 
 no programme ; no paper from the Secretaries except that letter which 
 you took to Major Moore. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 161 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you take out any private instructions from the Presi- 
 dent, tlie cabinet, or any other party, with regard to a programme ? 
 
 Answer. None whatever. 
 
 Question. 1 understand you to say that in your conversations with 
 Secretaries Cobb and Thompson they pressed upon you the submission 
 of the constitution out and out. ^ 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When you went to Kansas what course did you take ? 
 Did you press the submission of the constitution ? 
 
 Answer. I did. Without assuming to speak for the administration, 
 I urged, to the extent of my ability, upon general principles, the Cin- 
 cinnati platform^ and the commitments of the party, that all required 
 the submission of the constitution. I maintained that position up to 
 the time when the plan of full submission was defeated by a test vote. 
 
 Question. Who was president of the convention ? 
 
 Answer. General John Calhoun. 
 
 Question. Did you know him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What ground did he take ? 
 
 Answer. He went in for open, full submission ; his course was open, 
 frank, and manly ; he took a firm stand in favor of the submission of 
 the entire constitution to the people for their ratification or rejection. 
 
 Question. Were you there when the final vote was taken ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was. 
 
 Question. When was it taken ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state positively the part^sular- day, wishing to be 
 accurate as to dates ; I applied to the State Department for a copy of 
 the journal of the proceedings of the convention, and was informed by 
 Mr. Assistant Secretary Appleton that it is not on file there. 
 
 Question. State what the vote was. State in a narrative way the 
 action of the committee on the question. 
 
 Answer. General Calhoun was president of the convention and ap- 
 pointed a committee on the schedule to which this subject was referred. 
 He appointed Hugh M. Moore, who was vice president of the conven- 
 tion and an open advocate for the plan of full submission, chairman 
 to said committee, and a majority of its members who were known to 
 entertain similar views. 
 
 That committee, after full deliberation, reported a schedule em- 
 bracing a clause making Kansas a slave State, and recommended the 
 submission of the entire constitution, when framed and adopted by 
 the convention, to the popular ratification or rejection. Mr. Blake 
 Little, from the same committee, made a minority report of a schedule 
 likewise embracing a clause making Kansas a slave State, but adverse 
 to the Bubpiission of even the slavery clause to the people, and recom- 
 mending that when adopted they should send the constitution directly 
 to Congress and demand admission under it. Upon these two reports 
 the great battle of submission and anti-submission was fought, ex- 
 tending through several weeks. During most of the time I was satis- 
 fied we had a majority in favor of submission ; but unfortunately for 
 
 H. Kep. Com. 648 11 
 
162 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 the cause of submission, a difficulty sprung up between Governor 
 "Walker and a portion of the convention, within a day or two after it 
 reassembled, and it finally extended to a majority of the convention, 
 which really, in my judgment, defeated the submission of the consti- 
 tution in its entirety to the people. 
 
 It arose about certificates of election of members of the territorial 
 legislature from Douglas and Johnson counties. It was alleged that 
 frauds had been committed at Oxford, and threats of personal violence 
 were made by Lane and his adherents against Walker and Stanton if 
 they should give certificates to tne democrats claiming to be elected 
 from those counties, who had the certificates of the judges of the elec- 
 tion. Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton published a card an- 
 nouncing that they had taken, or would proceed to take, testimony 
 in the case, and if it should appear that fraud had been committed 
 certificates of election should be awarded to the republicans ; where- 
 upon a mandamus was issued by Judge Oato, at the instance of the 
 democrats claiming to have been elected from those counties, for the 
 purpose of enforcing their right to certificates of election, and thus de- 
 volve on the legislature, the judge of the elections of its own members, 
 the investigation of the question of frauds at Oxford. Governor 
 Walker declined a compliance with the mandate of Judge Cato, and 
 awarded certificates of eleQtion to the republicaus. Thereupon some 
 of the extreme anti-submission members of the convention, with the 
 friends of the thus defeated democratic candidates for the legislature, 
 called a meeting to denounce the course of Governor Walker in this 
 matter, and it was held in the hall of the convention, though at night 
 after the convention had adjourned. They denounced him in bitter 
 speeches, and passed resolutions of censure upon his conduct, without 
 identifying themselves with, or endorsing the frauds, if any had been 
 practiced ; taking the ground that Governor Walker and Secretary 
 IStanton were not judges of the election, and had no authority of law 
 for going behind the returns of the judges to inquire into the question 
 of fraud in the election of members, but if frauds had been practiced 
 it was a question for the legislature to settle. That made a breach 
 between the governor and a large portion of the convention, which I 
 labored in vain to prevent, and afterwards to heal. Governor Walker 
 very soon afterwards left Lecompton, and, it was understood there, 
 had gone to George Sanders's, near Leavenworth city, some forty miles 
 distant. During the discussion in the convention of these two'reports 
 upon the schedule, General Calhoun took a leading part, advocaijng, 
 with much force, the out-and-out plan of submission, and made the 
 best speech I heard made upon the qviestion, in which, while censuring 
 the course of the republicans and condemning their principles, advo- 
 cated most fully and ably their right to a voice in fixing the organic 
 law of the new State, and insisted that it was right that they should 
 have a vote upon the constitution. During the two or three weeks of 
 the discussion, the submission wing of the convention held caucusses 
 at night for purposes of consultation ; and it was from the number who 
 attended and participated in those meetings, for I was generally 
 present, that we ascertained we had a majority of the convention. 
 
 Whether it was on account of Governor Walker's course or not I do 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 163 
 
 not pretend to say ; but at least three members who had been in the 
 habit of attending our caucusses at night, assenting to suggestions 
 and conclusions in favor of submission, finally, on the test vote as to 
 the submission of the constitution, voted against it ; and one of them, 
 Mr. Mobley, adhered to that vote and finally voted against the plan 
 of partial submission. 
 
 The convention reassembled for business on the 19th of October ; 
 and it was somewhere, I suppose, about the first of November, or 
 early in November, that the fight finally terminated upon the two re- 
 ports on the schedule, when the out-and-out plan of subniission was 
 defeated by a majority of one vote, and the minority report adopted 
 by the same vote. A short time before the test votes just mentioned 
 were taken, it was suggested by Kush Elmor^, esq., a member of the 
 convention and a man of some infiuence, 'that the plan of partial sub- 
 mission — that of the slavery clause alone — was stronger than that of 
 full submission. That had been tested .in our side caucusses ; in 
 which, although but about two or three members preferred that plan, 
 they declared their determination not to vote for out-and-out submis- 
 sion, and he presumed every full submission member, if he could not 
 get that, would vote for a partial submission ; he therefore proposed to 
 llajor Moore to offer the plan of partial submission as a substitute for 
 Moore's majority report, sajing', " If you will accept that as a substi- 
 tute for your report I have' no doubt we can carry it." 
 
 G-eneral Calhoun was appealed to and he hesitated. He called upon 
 me, being present, for my opinion, and I gave it that they ought to 
 adhere to the out-and-out plan of submission ; and upon my advice, I 
 have no doubt, that proposition was waived. So the battle was fought 
 out on the majority report,, and, as before stated, it was defeated by a 
 majority of one vote. ' On the announcement of that result a sharp 
 discussion sprung up, which extended amid great excitement until a 
 late hour at night, the anti-admission wing expressing their determi- 
 nation to finish up their business and adjourn sine die before breakfast. 
 Colonel Isacks and myself induced Mr. Blair, who had voted with the 
 majority, to move a reconsideration, on the assurance that if we could 
 get a reconsideration the plan of partial submission, for which he had 
 expressed his willingness to vote, should be brought forward. Gov- 
 ernor Walker, also, who had been in the hands of the anti-submis- 
 sioniets the day before and that day, was also appealed to on the same 
 ground. They voted for a reconsideration, which was carried. The 
 plan finally adopted was then brought forward and carried by a ma- 
 jority of three votes. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. At what time was it that this partial submission was 
 first named to G-eneral Calhoun ? 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it after Governor Walker had left Lecompton^ 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 Question. What is your opinion ? 
 
 Answer. I am inclined to think it had been moated before. 
 Question. Had you conversations with Governor Walker? 
 
164 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he ever speak to you or you to him about this partial 
 submission ? 
 
 Answer. I think not, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether it was submitted to him while at 
 Lecompton ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. > 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 (Qaestion. I think you stated that General Calhoun supported the 
 ■©ut-and-out submission up to the time of its being lost. Now can you 
 tell us when Governor Walker left Lecompton? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir : it must have been two or three weeks before the 
 convention adjourned sine die. 
 
 Question. Then he left some time before the final vote ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; some time before, 
 
 Question. After he was gone, up to the final vote, you say that 
 •General Calhoun was still pressing out-and-out submission ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. When did Walker return to Lecompton, or did he return 
 at all? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he did ; if he did, I did not see him, 
 though I have an indistinct recollection of hearing that he drove down 
 in an ambulance and held a short interview with Mr. Stanton, and 
 returned to Sanders's the same night. 
 
 Question. Do you think that was before the vote ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say whether it was or not. 
 
 'Question. Was he there at the time the vote was taken ? 
 
 Answer. I think he was not ; I never saw him about the convention 
 liall ; he was not there when they reassembled for business, after the 
 recess. ^ 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Tou spoke of the reassembling of the convention ; will 
 you explain that remark ? 
 
 Answer. The convention met first in June, and partially organized ; 
 an election was then pending for a delegate to Congress and members 
 of the legislature ; they all wanted to go into the canvass, and so 
 they adjourned to meet again on the 19th of October; no business 
 was done at the first meeting. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. It was at the second meeting you was, then ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know the contents of that letter sent by Secre- 
 tary Cobb to his friend in Kansas, or was it sealed ? 
 
 Answer. I read it, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it not the primary object of your going to Kansas 
 to be there while the convention was in session ? 
 
 Answer. _ I cannot auswer as to the moving cause in the Secretary's 
 mind ; he impressed me with the importance of the business that I 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 165 
 
 ■went there to transact, but he stated that I would doubtless see mem- 
 bers of the convention. He knew I had acquaintances there, and in 
 that connexion spoke to me of the importance of submitting whatever 
 constitution they might make to the popular ratification. 
 
 Question. Did you not, before going there, write a letter to the 
 south — to Mississippi, I think — giving the programme that was ex- 
 pected to be carried out, which was published in a Mississippi paper ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never wrote a line to Mississippi or anywhere 
 else, in regard to the convention, until I went to Kansas. 
 
 Question. Was it after you went there that you wrote a letter to 
 Mississippi, which was published in a Mississippi paper, and was 
 afterwards copied? 
 
 Answer. I have a letter here, written from Kansas for, and pub- 
 lished in the Eastern Clarion, at Paulding, Mississippi, of date the 
 31st October, 1857, signed Henry L., my own name being Henry L. 
 Martin, which, with permission of the committee, I will offer, and 
 ask that it be taken and deemed part of my testimony. There is but 
 one portion that refers to this subject, and I will mark it, with the 
 request that the committee will read it. 
 
 Question. Did not Secretary Thompson impress your mind with 
 the importance of being there at the meeting of that convention, after 
 giving you his views fully on the subject? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not particularly. He said I would probably be 
 thrown in contact with the members. 
 
 Question. Did you go with or without the knowledge of the Presi- 
 dent? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether he knew anything about it or not. 
 
 Question. There was one point which you did not explain — why it 
 was that Mr. Johnson was induced to make application to the State 
 Department for compensation ? 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. While on thig other matter, before leaving that point, I 
 wish to ask the witness a question. Do you know in any way in the 
 world, either by written or oral instructions, or intimations, advice or 
 counsel, from the President of the United States or any member of the 
 cabinet, and especially the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, or have you the slightest reason to believe that any 
 paper forming a constitution for Kansas, or this programme as they 
 call it, was drawn up and transmitted from Washington to Kansas ? 
 If you have, state it. 
 
 Answer. I have none upon earth, but, upon the contrary, every 
 fact that I know in regard to the matter, either from Secretaries 
 Thompson and Cobb, or anybody else connected with the administra- 
 tion, is against that presumption. Mr. Secretary Thompson, when 
 he was conferring with me as to what ought to be done, alluded to 
 Secretary Stanton's inaugural address to the people of Kansas, in 
 which he took the ground that the convention ought to make a con- 
 stitution, and submit the slavery clause alone to the people, objected 
 to that on the ground that it was the worst form ifi which it could be 
 submitted. 
 
166 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Tour advice was to press, as far as your influence went, 
 out-and-out submission ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I have one additional question to ask — whether you have 
 any reason to believe the administration were using any influence in 
 any other quarter against out-and-out submission? 
 
 Answer. None whatever. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Mr. Johnson, in the testimony which has been read to 
 you, speaks of a conversation with you with regard to some com- 
 pensation from the State Department, and I think you said that had 
 reference to another time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; my second visit to Kansas. 
 
 Question. Please state what that was for, and when it was ? 
 
 Answer. I started from Washington, I think, on the 2d of Decem- 
 ber, 1857. Mr. Secretary Thompson sent for me and asked if I could 
 go to Kansas. I told him I did not like such a long and fatiguing 
 trip, which would be attended with considerable sacrifice of personal 
 comfort. Said he " We have got to send some despatches out to Mr. 
 Stanton, and I would like to have you go." " Very well," I replied, 
 " I will go if you desire it." He said he wanted me to stairt at once, 
 and that I must call at the State Department and get the papers, 
 which I did. 
 
 Question. Did you go without any appointment, or any instructions ? 
 
 Answer. I had neither written appointment or instructions. I had 
 a short conversation with Mr. Secretary Thompson on the subject. 
 Said he, " Tell our friends in Kansas, whatever they do, to send up 
 the constitution untrammeled by any question of fraud in the election 
 upon it ; do not embarrass it by any suspicion of fraud," or language 
 to that efl'ect. The Lecompton convention adjourned sine die, I think, 
 on the 9th of November. Provision was made in the constitution for 
 its partial submission to a vote of the people on the 21st of December, 
 and for an election for members of the State legislature and for State 
 officers on the 4th of January following. It was on the 2d of Decem- 
 ber, after the adjoiirnment of the constitutional convention, that I 
 started to Kansas with despatches for Secretary Stanton, then acting 
 governor. I had no business to transact for the Interior Department, 
 and hence I applied at the State Department for compensation for that 
 trip. 
 
 Question. Did you not draw your pay from the Interior Department 
 all the time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; but it is the rule in all the departments, I be- 
 lieve 
 
 Question. Would you have gone out from the Interior Department 
 at that particular time if it had not been for the meeting of the con- 
 vention ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. I went under instructions from the 
 Secretary. It was not of my own volition. 
 
 Question. Was there any other person besides yourself admitted to 
 sit in the convention except the delegates ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 167 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; all democrats in fellowship with, the party were 
 allowed to occupy seats iu the hall. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 
 Question .» "Were you in the seats among the delegates? 
 Answer. Sometimes I would take a vacant seat hy the side of a 
 delegate and talk to him. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. It appears strange — the majority of the convention being 
 in favor of submission, and you being in favor of it — that it should 
 have failed. How did that happen ? 
 
 Answer. It was a close contest. I think, for the reasons before 
 assigned, that we had a majority in favor of submission all the time 
 until Governor Walker's course prejudiced the cause of submission. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. In what way ? 
 
 Answer. By absenting himself from the seat of government, and 
 placing himself without the pale of communication with the delegates. 
 He did not co-operate with them, giving the aid of his influence by 
 counsel and encouragement. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You did not get any communication from Washington 
 when the convention was sitting ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. I received no despatch myself, and I am not 
 aware of any one there having received one. 
 
 Question. Did you meet Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, out there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, at Leavenworth City. He knows the position I 
 occupied, and, in fact, so did every member of the convention ; and I 
 am utterly astonished that the idea should have obtained anywhere 
 that I opposed or interfered with the plan of out-and-out submission; 
 That letter in the "Eastern Clarion" speaks for itself; and by the 
 principles and avowals of that letter I have stood all the time. And 
 there were reasons pressing with peculiar force on Secretaries Thomp- 
 son and Cobb why they should desire the submission of the constitu- 
 tution . These reasons operated on me ; for if it was not done, and the 
 constitution, sent up without submission to the people, should be re- 
 jected by Congress, there was an avowed purpose on the part of the 
 leading statesmen in the south to make an issue of disunion, upon the 
 ground that there was manifestly a determination on the part of a 
 northern sectional majority that no more slave States should be ad- 
 mitted into the Union. 
 
 By Mr. EoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. What time did you return to Washington ? 
 
 Answer. I left Lecompton on the 13th of November, I think, and 
 stopped at Leavenworth City until the 16th, where I learned Governor 
 Walker was still at George Sanders's ; and on the 16th or 17th I left 
 that city for Washington, in company with Governor Walker. We 
 travelled together several days. 
 
168 LECOMPTON CONSTITDTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. When you arrived here did you communicate to Secretary 
 Thompson the final result of that convention ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. The manner of submission and all ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he approve of that ? , _ _ 
 
 Answer. I cannot say positively, hut my impression is that he did. 
 He thought the question of submission was saved, as the slavery was 
 the only, question that had amounted to an issue in or out of Kansas— 
 the only bone of contention — and as that had been submitted, he 
 thought there existed no reasonable ground of complaint. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. And he saw no objection to guaranteeing the existence of 
 slavery there, and perpetuating it by this contrivance ? 
 Answer. I do not think he urged any objection to it. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Did you have any talk with any other member of the 
 administration with regard to the manner of this submission ? 
 
 Answer. Perhaps I had with Mr. Secretary Cobb ; I am not sure. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether he approved the manner of sub- 
 mission ? 
 
 Answer. I am not positive whether I had any conversation with 
 him on the subject. I think I heard no objection to it from that 
 quarter. 
 
 Question. You preferred the submission of the whole constitution, 
 rather than the manner in which it was submitted ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And only took this thing as a dernier resort ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I stated afterwards, however, that it was a sub- 
 stantial compliance with the commitments of the party and the Cin- 
 cinnati platform, and advocated the admission of Kansas under it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did not Secretary Thompson intimate to you that your 
 mission was a successful one out there ; that you had rendered services 
 in getting that matter settled ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember what he said on that subject, but I 
 heard no complaint from him, or any member of the cabinet, or from 
 the President, as to my course in Kansas. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. "When did you last see Governor Walker on leaving the 
 Territory ? 
 
 Answer. We left the Territory at the same time and came down on 
 the boat together. Grovernor Walker left Lecompton some time before 
 the adjournment of the convention, and was understood to be at G-eorge 
 Sanders's. I do not know, except from what I heard, that he was 
 there. 
 
 Question. At the time Walker left the Territory was not General 
 Calhoun notoriously advocating this project of the manner of submis- 
 sion? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 169 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir ; it had then been adopted by the convention. He 
 advocated the voting by the democratic party there their sentiments 
 for or against slavery. He advocated their voting upon the constitu^- 
 tion. He manifested much anxiety that the action of the convention 
 should be sustained by the people, because he believed that action met 
 the peculiar views of Mr. Douglas. 
 
 Question. Before Governor Walker left the Territory was not G-en- 
 eral Calhoun a persistent advocate of the plan of submission which 
 was finally adopted ? 
 
 Answer. It had then been adopted, and, as before stated, he urged 
 the people to sustain the action of the convention ; but, up to the time 
 the out-and-out submission was defeated, I don't] think he ever advo- 
 cated the plan that was finally adopted over that of entire submission. 
 
 Question. I did not ask you that. 
 
 Answer. I have already stated that he advocated the plan that was 
 adopted. 
 , Question. Openly so, before Walker left the Territory ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, there has been some hard swearing on this 
 matter, and we want to get at the truth. 
 
 Answer. I hope you do not mean to insinuate that I have not told 
 the truth. 
 
 Question. Not at all ; but the case stands thus : Before Walker left 
 the Territory Calhoun goes to him, according to his own evidence, 
 with this plan that was finally adopted, urging him to give in his 
 adhesion to it, and assuring him, upon the best possible knowledge in 
 the world, that it was the plan of the administration. Now, that ia 
 not very probable to be true, if Mr. Calhoun was all this time a per- 
 sistent advocate of submitting the entire constitution to the people ; 
 that you will see at once. 
 
 Answer. General Calhoun advocated openly the out-and-out sub- 
 mission until it was voted down. He then, as a means of saving the 
 submission on the slavery question, gave in to the plan of submis- 
 sion finally adopted. I think it was brought forward by Mr. El- 
 more, and it carried. Well, sir, I do not think he had conferred 
 with Governor Walker for some time before that, and I am satisfied 
 he did not confer with. him afterwards, unless it was after the con- 
 vention had adjourned. 
 
 Question. Long before this final vote Walker testifies that Calhoun 
 came to him and shadowed forth the project that was substantially 
 adopted by the convention, endeavored to pursuade him to give in 
 his adhesion to it and abandon the project of entire submission, and 
 assured him that that project was the scheme of the administration, 
 upon undisputed knowledge. Governor Walker replies to him, "Sir, 
 I am the man with whom the administration are to communicate. 
 If the Executive wants to influence my action upon that subject he 
 had better make the communication to me." And he told Calhoun, 
 further, that no President or anybody else should ever pursuade 
 him to give in his adhesion to that measure. Now, you see that 
 was the position of Calhoun at that time, unless Walker is very 
 
170 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 much mistaken about it. Do the journals of the convention show 
 the votes taken, and how many were in favor of submitting the 
 whole Constitution to the people ? 
 
 Answer. I presume so. 
 
 Question. And you say that Calhoun appears as voting for the en- 
 tire submission ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I say he so voted. Whatever he may have 
 said to Grovernor Walker, I am satisfied, from what he said to me, 
 and to others in my presence, and from his action in the convention, 
 that he was an advocate of out and out submisson. He made the best 
 speech in favor of it that I heard made in the convention. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. About what time was the majority report voted down and 
 the minority report voted on ? 
 
 Answer. It was, to the best of my recollection, early in November 
 the majority report was defeated. 
 
 Question. And immediately upon, the loss of the majority report tbe 
 minority report was adopted ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And then there was a reconsideration of that vote, and 
 this final plan of submission was incorporated into that minority re- 
 port, and that was adopted ; and long before that time Governor 
 Walker had left Lecompton, and Calhoun had no chance to have con- 
 sulted with him upon the question ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I should say about two weeks, to the best of 
 my recollection. 
 
 By Mr. Qlin : 
 
 Question. Do you know who was the author of that provision ? 
 
 Answer. I think I drew it up myself. 
 
 Question. When were the preliminaries first talked over ? 
 
 Answer. I heard the subject talked of from the time I went into the 
 Territory. Mr. Cobb, of Alabama, spoke of it to me as the plan that 
 would probably be adopted. This was before the 19th of October. I 
 combatted the idea, and told him he was mistaken. This was the 
 idea developed by him: "They will make two constitutions, just 
 alike, with this exception : one establishing slavery, and the other 
 interdicting it, and submit to the people to determine bet ween them." 
 
 Question. About what period did you draft this provision ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was after the out-and-out submission had been 
 voted down. 
 
 Question. Is not your memory distinct as to that ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is it was the very night after it had been 
 rejected by the convention, for up to that time I had not given a 
 moment's consideration to any other than the entire submission plan, 
 with a view to embrace it. 
 
 Question. And no similar provision had been drafted in writing 
 prior to that time ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I am aware of, although there may have been. 
 
 Question. Who consulted you about drawing it up ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOSr, ETC, 171 
 
 Answer. General Calhoun, Eusli Elmore, and Hugli M. Moore ; I 
 do not recollect whether any others. We had heen associated together 
 upon the out-and-out plan of submission ; and that having failed, the 
 question was, what was best to be done now ? and it was a question, 
 of discussion among us at that time as to what course Governor Walker 
 would pursue. I think, therefore, it must have been after the con- 
 vention adjourned sine die that General Calhoun pressed this plan 
 upon Governor Walker ; because it was an anxious inquiry by Cal- 
 houn and other friends of submission, whether Governor W^alker 
 would co-operate in urging the ratification of this plan by the people, 
 I wish here to negative, most unequivocally, the idea that I ever gave 
 General Calhoun the assurance, or said ught to him, or any one else, 
 that would have justified him in the statements on my authority which 
 Governor Walker has testified Calhoun made to him in regard to this 
 scheme being that of the administration, or that the administration 
 had any plan or scheme on the subject. I never claimed to represent 
 the administratioii in or to the convention. 
 
 Question. It is a little extraordinary that you should not have rep- 
 resented what were the views of the administration. 
 
 Answer. I mean I did not assume to speak for them, or to represent 
 them by authority. I did represent what I knew to be the views and 
 wishes of Secretaries Thompson and Cobb, but I did it upon general 
 principles, by referring to the commitments of the party north and 
 south to the Cincinnati platform, and to the inaugural address of 
 President Buchanan, and to his annual message relating to Kansas. 
 
 Question. And Calhoun thought he had done Douglas a service in 
 submitting it in that form. [Referring to his testimony previously 
 given, but printed below.] 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and as a reason for thinking so he showed me a 
 paper containing an article in the "Chicago Times," which he alleged 
 was Douglas's organ. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Did the " Times" advocate submission in that form ? 
 
 Answer. General Calhoun said so. I did not read the article. 
 
 Mr. Robinson remarked that there was never a word published in 
 the " Times" showing any such thing. The " Times" denounced the 
 project from the start. 
 
 Answer. The plan finally adopted was regarded by General Cal- 
 houn, and he so assured his friends, as the favorite plan of Mr. Douglas ; 
 and he stated, when we finally succeeded in getting the slavery clause 
 submitted^ that he had rendered an important service to his friend, 
 Douglas ; and he at once wrote to him announcing the result, and 
 enclosed him a copy of the schedule. 
 
 Question. How do you know that fact? 
 
 Answ'er. I saw the letter, and carried it to the post office at Leaven- 
 worth City myself. 
 
 Question. When was it? 
 
 Answer. It was soon after the adjournment of the convention, on 
 the 9 th of November. 
 
172 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Wednesday, May 9, 1860. 
 
 Appendix to the Testimony of H. L. Martin, leing the Instructions under 
 which lie went to Kansas. 
 
 Gbneeal Land Office, 
 
 October 1, 1857. 
 
 Sir ; By direction of the Secretary of the Interior, you are herehy 
 instructed to repair immediately to Doniphan, in the " Delaware dis- 
 trict," in Kansas, and then proceed as follows : 
 
 1. You will collect all the facts respecting the alleged propriety and 
 necessity for removing the land office from Doniphan, and if, upon the 
 data you may ohtain, your judgment should be satisfied that a change 
 is indispensable, you will designate the place most suitable for the loca- 
 tion of the land office in the Delaware district. 
 
 2. Whilst at that office, you will thoroughly examine into its con- 
 dition, the state of the archives, the manner of transacting public busi- 
 ness, and whether its duties are promptly and efficiently discharged. 
 
 3. Complaints having reached the department touching the sale of 
 the Indian trust lands, you are hereby instructed to investigate this 
 matter thoroughly, with a view to determine whether those sales were 
 conducted in strict accordance with law and instructions, or whether 
 there has been any irregularity, impropriety, or illegality in the man- 
 ner in which that business has been transacted ; specifying, of course, 
 any cases in which the interposition of the department may be neces- 
 sary to enforce the ends of justice, or redress any grievance or wrong. 
 
 The trust lands, referred to in the foregoing, are — 
 
 First. The loioa trust lands in the Delaware district, situated in 
 the northern part of the Territory, offered in June last, at Iowa Point; 
 
 Second. The eastern part of the Delaware lands, in same district, 
 including townships and fractional townships 7, 8, 9, 10, of ranges 
 19, 20, 21,. 22, 23, including lots and blocks in the towns of Jackson- 
 ville, Delaware, Hardville, Lattaville, and Leavenworth City, offered 
 in November last at Leavenworth. 
 
 Third. The western part of the Delaware trust lands, in same dis- 
 trict, in townships and fractional townships 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
 ranges 15, 16, 17, 18, offered at Osawkee in June last. 
 
 Fourth. After concluding your investigations in the Delaware dis- 
 trict, you will then immediately proceed to the Faivnee land district 
 land office at Lecompton, and make similar investigations respecting 
 the condition of the business of that office, the sales of — 
 
 Fifth. The Peorias, Kaskaskias, Piankeshaws, and Weas, in town- 
 ships 15, 16, 17, 18, ranges 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, offered in June 
 last at Paoli. 
 
 Sixth. The Shawnee reserve lands. (See treaty of the 10th May, 
 1854, United States Statutes, vol. 10, page 1053.) 
 
 By that treaty you will find that two hundred thousand acres are 
 ordered to _be_ selected for the Shawnees, certain selections are to be 
 made for missionary societies, and individual selections for Shawnees. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOIT, ETC. 173 
 
 A report, it is understood, has been made to the office of Indian Af- 
 fairs of these selections, but is not yet finally acted upon. 
 
 Tour attentign is here drawn to this to the end that you may in- 
 quire into the present condition of these Shawnee lands, in regard to 
 the white settlements thereon, the extent and localities of these settle- 
 ments, and whether any, and if so, what, authority or assurance, if 
 any, was given by the Indian agent for entering upon these lands, 
 and how far, if at all, he has undertaken to commit the government 
 in the premises . 
 
 Seventh . You will next repair to the office of the surveyor general 
 at Lecompton, and will there make a thorough examination into the 
 condition of its business, of the archives, and the general administra- 
 tion of that surveying department, reporting any defects which may 
 exist, with the remedy. Your attention, in connexion with this duty, 
 is specially directed to the fact that an additional compensation of 
 $1,000 was allowed to the surveyor general of Kansas and Nebraska 
 by the department on the 10th August, 1855, to commence with the 
 30th April of that year ; also two clerks, at $1,100 per annum, with 
 an allowance for incidental expenses. All this has been and is still 
 paid out of an appropriation made for Indian purposes, of which the 
 sum of $15,000 was placed under the control of this office in January, 
 1856. 
 
 These additional expenses have been allowed to the surveyor gene- 
 ral to compensate him for an additional and intricate service which 
 he had to perform respecting Indian trust lands in Kansas, in super- 
 intending their survey, classification, valuation, &c. The business 
 connected with this branch of the service having been nearly com- 
 pleted, you will investigate the present condition thereof, and report 
 the time when such additional expenditures should cease. 
 
 Eighth. You will also report when, to what extent, and in what par- 
 ticular localities in Kansas it would be proper to introduce lands into 
 market by the President's proclamation. 
 
 You will make a full report in regard to the several matters referred 
 to in the foregoing under separate heads. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOSEPH S. WILSON, 
 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 H. L. Martin, Esq., 
 
 0/ the General Land Office. 
 
 Department of the Interior, Office Indian Affairs, 
 
 October d, 1857. 
 
 Sir : The Secretary of the Interior is desirous of availing of your 
 visit to Kansas on business connected with the General Land Office to 
 institute an inquiry respecting the alleged transfers of individuals of 
 the Shawnee and the confederated bands of the Wea, Kaskaskia, 
 Peoria^ and Piankeshaw Indians, for whom, by treaties entered into, 
 respectively, in the year 1854, provisions were made for their selections 
 in severalty, with restrictions as to alienation, as indicated in the 
 
174 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 accompanying copies of treaties atove referred to. This inquiry will 
 extend to the number of transfers, and generally to all matters con- 
 nected therewith. 
 
 Treaties were, during the same year, negotiated with the Dela- 
 wares, Kickapoos, Miamies, loways, and the Sacs and Foxes of Mis- 
 souri, by which reservations for the use of the respective tribes were 
 retained as common property. It has been represented to the depart- 
 ment that in most, if not all, these cases trespasses have been made 
 upon said reserves by the citizens of Kansas Territory. In this con- 
 nexion, the Secretary is also desirous that your inquiries be extended 
 to this subject, with a view to ascertain the truth of the representa- 
 tions, and the extent to which said trespasses, if any, do exist. Copies 
 of the treaties with the tribes above referred to are also herewith. He 
 is further desirous that you should acquaint yourself of the manner in 
 which the various agents of the Indian department discharge their 
 duties generally, and particularly with a view to protect the Indians, 
 within their respective agencies, from the depredations referred to. 
 
 Upon the conversation you had with the Secretary upon the subjects 
 hereinbefore indicated, you have been informed fully of his views in the 
 premises, and of the reason which has influenced him in designating 
 you for this duty. Therefore, no further details are deemed necessary. 
 
 A full and detailed report of all the information elicited in reference 
 to the foregoing subjects is desired at as early a day as practicable. 
 Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 
 
 CHARLES E. MIX, 
 Acting Commissioner. 
 
 Henry L. Martin, Esq. 
 
 No. 53. 
 
 Wednesday, May 9, 1860. 
 
 A. J. ISAACS called and examined. 
 By ihe Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you live ? 
 Answer. In Leavenworth City, Kansas. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I wish to know if you were at Lecompton when the con- 
 vention was in session ? 
 
 Answer. I was not there during the first part of the time. They 
 had two sessions ; and I was not there during the first session that I 
 remember of, nor was I there immediately alter its reassemblage. 
 
 Question. Were you there when the final vote was taken? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I received a note from a member of the conven- 
 tion to the effect that the convention would refuse to submit the con- 
 stitution, and requesting me to come over. After that proposition to 
 submit the constitution to the people had failed, it was determined by 
 the convention to send it up , and it was thought that if I was therel 
 
Lecompton constitution, etc, 175 
 
 might have some influence in preventing that result, those gentlemen 
 knowing that I was favorable to the submission of the constitution. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. Martin, who has just given 
 his testimony here ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you see him out there ? 
 
 Answer, Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know what his views were, or what he was 
 endeavoring to impress upon the people there? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Martin came out there with some instructions from the 
 office of the Secretary of the Interior relative to the proposed change, 
 or to inquire into the practicability of changing the land office from 
 Doniphan to some other point in that land district. It had been rep- 
 resented that it would be more convenient for the people to have it 
 at some other point, and the question was, what point should he- 
 selected. The instructions embraced that point, and also some further 
 matters that he was instructed to inquire into relative to the land 
 office at Lecompton, there being some charges of mismanagement of 
 the office. That I am confident of, for he showed me his written 
 instructions to that effect. As to his individual course out there, he 
 was always, in all the conversations that I had with him, and so far 
 as I had any means of knowing, in favor of the submission of the con- 
 stitution. I know that some of the extreme anti-submission members- 
 of the convention thought that he, not being a resident, was a littl© 
 too earnest about a matter in which he was not personally concerned. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Calhoun, sir ? 
 
 Answer, I do, sir. 
 
 Question, Do you know what his views were ? 
 
 Answer, Mr, Calhoun made a speech in favor of the submission of 
 the whole constitution to the people ; he voted for it, and finally when 
 he could not get it, he was very active in favor of the plan which was 
 adopted ; and he may have entertained that plan in his own mind 
 before, but if he did I never knew it, and I was very intimate with, 
 him — at least I had conversed freely with him on this subject. 
 
 Question. Up to the time of the final vote you think he was for 
 out-and- out submission ? 
 
 Answer, About up to that time. I was not at Lecompton except 
 about a week previous to the final vote. I went over there, at the- 
 suggestion of a member of th^ convention^ for the purposes that I have- 
 indicated ; and when I arrived there, I think the evening after I 
 arrived, there was a caucus held at his office of the friends of sub- 
 mission, when it was proposed, in the event the other proposition hai 
 failed, (and I think the other had failed that day,) that they would, 
 then go in for this partial submission ; and that was the first time that 
 I recollect of having heard the plan presented in anything of a tangible- 
 shape so as to make an impression upon my mind. It may have been 
 spoken of previously — I had various conversations with a multitude of 
 people in regard to what would be the probable action of the conven- 
 tion ; but I was not a member of that body, and I would not pretend 
 to say that I never had heard of any such plan ; but I do not now 
 remember that any such plan ever made an impression upon my mind^ 
 
176 LECOMFTON CONSTTTUTIOy, ETC. 
 
 except about that time. I know that if Mr. Calhoun had entertained 
 any serious purpose of such a plan for any length of time, I should in 
 all probability have been made aware of it ; knowing that I had my 
 own views about that matter, he might possibly have kept it from me ; 
 but I do not think he would. I had a plan of submission which I had 
 mentioned to him ; he being a prominent member of the convention, 
 and being a northern man, I supposed he would exercise some influence 
 upon his northern friends in the convention. It was for that reason 
 that I had communicated with him. 
 
 No. 57. 
 
 Tuesday, May 15, 1860. 
 
 "WILLIAM M. BROWNKcalled and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Washington city. 
 
 Question. In what are you engaged? 
 
 Answer. I am one of the editors of the " Washington Constitu- 
 tion." I 
 
 Question. Were you at one time connected with the " Journal of 
 •Commerce," in New York? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. During the time you were connected with that paper, did 
 you not write some articles defending Mr. Schell from some charge or 
 some difficulty he was in ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I recollect specially, sir ; perhaps generally I 
 might. If a charge that I thought was not well founded was brought 
 against Mr. Schell, I presume I defended him ; but I have no special 
 recollection of having done so. It is very possible that I might, how- 
 ever. 
 
 Question. We have information that you had a situation under Mr, 
 Schell, in the custom-house, as clerk, or received compensation as clerk 
 in that department. Will you please state whether that is the fact. 
 
 Answer. I held a clerkship for a few months ; I really cannot tell 
 you how many — three or four. 
 
 Question. What situation was it ? 
 
 Answer. It was a clerkship in the warehouse ; invoice clerk, I 
 think it was, but I am not certain as to the technical name that was 
 employed in the department. 
 
 Question. Was that during the time that you were connected with 
 the " Journal of Commerce" ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, Why was that situation given to you ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Was there no special reason ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir^ none that I know of. If you mean to ask whether 
 
LECOMPTON CONSriTUTION, ETC. 177 
 
 it was given io me as a reward for services rendered, I will say that 
 was not the ease. 
 
 Question. Did you ever render any services in that situation ? 
 
 Answer. _Tes, sir ; whenever called upon to do so. 
 
 Question. Were you ever called upon ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, but not often ; because the force is sometimes 
 larger than required for the ordinary business ; but when there is a 
 press of business the extra force is called upon to do the work ; at 
 least I so understood it. 
 
 Question. Was not that a sinecure given to you without expecting 
 you to render service? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How much service did you render, in your judgment, 
 during the time you held the place ? 
 
 Answer. I did everything that I was required to do. 
 
 Question. What service did you render ? What were you required 
 to do? 
 
 Answer. I went to the custom-house every day, and did whatever 
 the head of the bureau told me to do. Sometimes he told me that 
 there was nothing at all for me to do, and at other times there was. 
 
 Question. How many days, during the whole time you were in 
 office, did you have anything to do ? 
 
 Answer, It would be impossible for me to tell you the number of 
 days ; it would be impossible for me to recollect. 
 
 Question. Did you do anything but sign the pay-roll? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was it ? 
 
 Answer. I did the duties belonging to the desk that was assigned 
 to me. I took whatever papers were presented to me, and copied 
 them. It was simply clerical labor. 
 
 Question. What pay did you get ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was somewhere between eleven hundred and 
 twelve hundred dollars per annum — not twelve hundred.'^ 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. Schell give you that place immediately after 
 you had rendered him some service in defending him from charges 
 against him ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect any occasion partiqularly when a charge 
 was brought against him. If I had seen a charge mad& against him 
 that I deemed unfounded, I believe I should have defended him ; but 
 I know there was no special reason of that sort for giving me this 
 place, and I think if I had defended him on any special occasion I 
 should have recollected it. 
 
 Question. Are you receiving compensation from that or any otheir 
 department now ? 
 Answer, Not a penny, sir. 
 
 Question. When did you cease to receive that compensation ?' 
 Answer, Immediately on leaving New York. 
 Question. Have you got any since you came here ?" 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Answer. How many months did you hold that situation ? 
 Answer. About four or five — perhaps not so much ; I really cannot 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 12 
 
178 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 tell you now from memory. I could tell if I were to look at my 
 memoranda ; Taut I think it did not exceed five months. • 
 
 Question. Can you not give us some idea of the amount ot service 
 that you rendered ; whether it_ amounted to a day in a month, or a 
 week in a month, during that time ? _ , , ^- . 
 
 Answer Sometimes it was not a day in a month, and sometimes it 
 was several days in a month. I was at the custofn-house _ every day, 
 or almost every day, except during the time when I was sick. I was 
 very sick six or seven weeks during the time ; hut almost every day 
 that I was ahle to he out of my own house I was at the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Who filled that place before you ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Did anybody fill it after you? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that there was no provision for such a 
 place ; that it was a mere sinecure, in order to give you a salary ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not know anything of the kind, and never 
 heard of it. There certainly was no such understanding between me 
 and Mr. Schell, or between me and anybody else. 
 
 Question. But did you not know about that understanding? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you render one week's service, put it altogether, 
 during the whole time you were receiving that pay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I am certain that I did. 
 
 No. 58. 
 
 Tuesday, May 15, 1860. 
 
 F. W. WALKEE called and examined. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In Brooklyn, New York. 
 
 Question. Were you here during the Congress in which the English 
 bill was passed ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from Mr. Wendell to assist 
 in passing that bill ? 
 
 Answer. I did not, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from Mr. Wendell for your 
 services to assist in passing any bill during that Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I never received from him or any one else any money, by 
 virtue of any contract or agreement with him or any one else, to 
 assist in passing the English bill or any other legislative proposition, 
 or based on any consideration connected with any particular proposi- 
 tion under the attention of Congress. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from Mr. Wendell for any- 
 thing ? 
 
LBCOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 179 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. How much did you receive ? 
 
 Atiswer. I did not exactly receive money, but money equivalent. 
 
 Question. State the amount that you did receive. 
 
 Answer. I received a check for |500 and two notes for $1,000 each. 
 
 Question. When did you receive these ? * 
 
 Answer. A day or two before the adjournment of the last session of 
 Congress. 
 
 Question. Have these notes been since paid ? * 
 
 Answer. They have, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the consideration for that check and those two 
 notes ? 
 
 Answer. There never anything passed between Mr. Wendell and 
 myself upon the subject, or between me and any one else connected 
 with the matter. Mr. Wendell had had business before Congress, 
 and was likely to have in perpetuity ; but not a word passed between 
 us on the subject. At various times, when we have had different 
 matters up, he has spoken to me in respect to my good will towards 
 a measure in which he was interested ; but at the time when I received 
 that from him nothing particular was said. 
 
 Question. What measures had he spoken to you about? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say particularly. 
 
 Question. Can you not recollect one of them? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that Mr. Wendell spoke to me of any specific 
 measure in all the back Congresses. In this Congress he spoke of his 
 interest in connexion with printing matters. 
 
 Question. I am speaking of what occurred in former Congresses. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I had my supposition with regard to matters in 
 which he might be interested. 
 
 Question. What did he say to you when he gave you this money ? 
 
 Answer. I think there were not more than tw;o or three words 
 passed between us. He took me into one of the roojns, as he was 
 about to go away, and there were some two or three persons present. 
 
 Question. Who were there ? 
 
 Answer. Some of the clerks in the Clerk's room, I think. I cannot 
 say positively who was there. And then he drew these notes, and 
 handed them to me. 
 
 Question. Did not he say a word? 
 
 Answer He might have said that he was in a hurry, of something 
 of that sort. I believe he also said, in a joking way, that he did not 
 know as these notes would ever be paid, for he might break, or some- 
 thing to that effect. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to swear that Mr. Wendell paid you this 
 money without any understanding that there should be any considera- 
 tion whatever on your part ? 
 
 Answer. I simply state the facts as they occurred. 
 Question. Were you engaged in assisting in passing either the bill 
 for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, or 
 what is known as the English bill ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 Question. Did you take any part in that contest ? 
 
180 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. As a correspondent writing for the press, I had an interest 
 in the matter. I was opposed to the passage of the Lecompton bill, 
 and my immediate friends in Congress were opposed to it, and voted 
 against it. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have any conferences with Mr. Wendell 
 about it in any way ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he never talk to you about the measure? 
 
 Answer. Only as I talked with everybody else ; there was nothing 
 specific passed between us. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Wendell ever come to you and ask you to assist 
 in the passage of any particular measure ? 
 
 Answer. Never, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you ever tell him that you had assisted in the passage 
 of any particular measure in which he was interested ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think 1 ever did. 
 
 Question. And youi say that he just came to you and handed you 
 this $2,500, without intimating to you what it was for, and without 
 any understanding between yoii and him whatever ? 
 
 Answer. I say that no words passed between us on the subject — I 
 say that nothing passed between us, except the incidental remarks 
 which I have already given. 
 
 Question. There was no understanding that you had helped him in 
 any of his measures ? ' 
 
 Answer. Not a word. 
 
 Question. Had he any means of knowing that you had assisted him 
 in any measures in which he was interested ? 
 
 Answ-er. He knew my general favor to him might have been worth 
 something ; but whether he knew what I did or not, I cannot say. 
 
 Question. Had you been laboring for Mr. Wendell's interest? 
 
 Answer. I had alway been a friend to him. 
 
 ^Question. Had you labored for his interest in the passage of any 
 nieasure before Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I had been generally friendly to him, and wherever I 
 could speak well of him and for him I had always done so. 
 
 Question. Now state in what you had assisted him. ' 
 
 Answer. I cannot state that I had rendered him any specific service; 
 I cannot tell that my efforts have been of any avail whatever. 
 
 Question. In what did you try to assist him? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say particularly. Without having a word with 
 Mr. Wendell upon the subject, I supposed or inferred that it would 
 be a matter of interest to him to have a printing bureau established, 
 and the mode of doing the public printing changed ; and I favored 
 that measure, not ptoticularly for that reason, but because it commend- 
 ed itself to my judgment. Last year, when Mr. Taylor drew up his 
 report on that subject, I interested myself in the matter, and was with 
 him in getting up that report. 
 
 Question. But you never had any conference with Mr. Wendell 
 about it, you say ? 
 Answer. Not a word, prior to my being interested in it. It was a 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 181 
 
 matter of inference, rather than assurance, that it might he agreeahle 
 to him. 
 
 Question. At what time were these two notes drawn, and when did 
 they fall due? 
 
 Answer. I can hardly state ; I have no means of knowing now. 
 
 Question. When were they given to you? 
 
 Answer. A day or two before the adjournment of the last Congress. 
 
 Question. Who paid those notes ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. What did you do with them ? 
 
 Answer. I put them into the hank, and let them come to Washing- 
 ton for collection. 
 
 Question. You do not know who paid them ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know how they were collected here. 
 
 Question. And you got that |2,500 without the least idea what it 
 was for ? 
 
 Answer. I got it precisely as I have stated. 
 
 Question. Are you in the habit of getting such windfalls as that? 
 
 Answer. Well, if you wish to know about that, I will say that I 
 do occasionally receive windfalls without a word being said as to what 
 they are for. I have received them at the present session. I have 
 had a gentleman put |200 in my hand without saying anything about 
 any measure whatever ; and I do not know that a gentleman, who 
 has done a similar thing on three or four occasions, ever had a measure 
 before Congress in his life? 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. State who it was. 
 
 Answer. I decline stating who it was, because it is not connected 
 with Congress at all. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. Who was it that handed you the $200 ? 
 
 Answer. I decline giving his name, because it was a gentleman in 
 no way connected with Congress. He was a personal friend of mine. 
 
 Question. Are you now employed to assist in getting any measures 
 passed through this Congress? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I am interested somewhat in a matter before 
 this Congress; or, at least, I have supposed I was. 
 
 Question. What is that ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. E. K. Collins wrote to me about a claim, with which 
 you are doubtless familiar, that he has against this government for a 
 balance due him for carrying the mails. 
 
 Question. You are engaged in that ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that there is an engagement. He wrote me 
 about it, and wished me to promote it as far as I could; and I have 
 felt interested in getting it through. 
 
 Question. What is your business? 
 
 Answer. I am connected with the press, and I am also here 
 politically. 
 
 Question. Are yop a reporter ? 
 
182 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I am chieflly here in political matters and political in- 
 terests, and it is in connexion with those that what money I have 
 received has come to me. 
 
 Question. What paper are yon reporting for? 
 
 Answer. I am corresponding for the New York Express. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you recollect any conversation that took place hetween 
 you and Mr. Wendell at the time he gave you the money of which you 
 have spoken ? v 
 
 Answer. Nothing more than I have already stated. 
 
 Question. Was there anything said about it at any other time? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; althoqgh we are well acquainted, he never 
 stopped to converse with me for three minutes. This matter might 
 have heen talked about at some time, but there was never any agree- 
 ment, stipulation, or anything of the kind between us. 
 
 Question. You did not understand, at the time the money was 
 handed to you, whether it was for your own private use, or whether 
 it was to be paid over for some other purpose ? 
 
 Answer. I supposed it was for my own private use. 
 
 Question. What reason had you to suppose that it was for your own 
 private use, inasmuch as there was no conversation to that effect, and 
 you had rendered no service to Mr. Wendell? 
 
 Answer. I had no other reason than supposition, based upon my 
 general good-will to him, and what I believed to be his good-will to_ 
 me. 
 
 Question. What use did you make of that money ? 
 
 Answer. I spent it when I got home, in paying niy debts and sup- 
 porting my family. 
 
 Question. Can you tell any particular places in which you paid it 
 out? 
 
 Answer. If I had my account-book here I probably could. I sup- 
 pose I paid ten dollars in one place, twenty dollars in another, and 
 fifty dollars in another : to the grocer so much, for dry-goods so much, 
 and so it went. I only spent a small part of it here in Washington ; 
 I might have paid the balance of my little bill here, for I never 
 allowed my bills to become large. 
 
 Question. What did you do in aiding the passage of the English 
 bill? 
 
 Answer. I did not do anything, for I was opposed to it. 
 
 Question. You did not apprehend that this money was given to you 
 for your opposition to that bill, did you ? 
 
 Answer. I apprehend not. I supposed my action in reference to 
 that bill was well understood. 
 
 Question. Then you had no idea what this money was paid you for? 
 
 Answer. I had no other idea than what is comprehended in the 
 answer I have already given. 
 
 Question. You think it was on account of your general good- will 
 towards Mr. Wendell ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say what was the motive that influenced him. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 183 
 
 Question. I am asking what yout idea was as to the consideration 
 for which this money was paid you. 
 
 Answer, I have just stated it. I thought Mr. Wendell might have 
 given it to me for my general good-will. i 
 
 Question. You suppose that was the consideration ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say with certainty what it was. 
 
 Question. What did you suppose was the consideration^ — what was 
 the cause, in your judgment — that induced him to place that money 
 in yonr hands?. 
 
 Answer. I can onlysay, as I have said, that I suppose Mr. Wendell 
 gave it to me for good-will. 
 
 Question. He had made you no promises to pay you this ? 
 
 Answer. He had not ; never. 
 
 Question. You had rendered him no services that you are aware of? 
 
 Answer. No specific services that I am aware of. 
 
 Question. Has any other person in the employ of government paid 
 you anything this session for your good-will ? 
 
 Answer. No person ever did it. 
 
 Question. How was it about that $200? 
 
 Answer. That was connected with a political movement that is go-* 
 ing on, and has nothing to do with Congress ; this political movement 
 could not have been kept up without money ; but that is a matter en- 
 tirely outside of Congress. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Hay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know where he is now ? 
 
 Answer. He was in New York, but I do not know whether he is 
 there now or not ; very probably he may be ; I presume if he should 
 be addressed at No. 23 Cortland street, New York, he might be found, 
 and would come on if you want him ; still, I do not know. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You state that you were opposed to the passage of the 
 Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, with those with whom I was more immediately 
 in communication ; when the English bill came up, however, I 
 thought it would be better for all to just take it, as it in effect gave a 
 submission of the constitution. 
 
 Question. I did hot ask you for your reasons ; I only want the facts. 
 I understand from your testimony that you were opposed, originally, 
 to the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I understand that afterwards you thought it better, from 
 political motives, that the English bill should pass ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you of that opinion when it finally passed ? 
 
 Answer. In accordance with the wishes of my political friends, I 
 finally went against the whole. 
 
18 i LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, who are those political friends— to what party 
 were you attached ? 
 
 Answer. I was a straight-out American. 
 
 By Mr. OliN : 
 
 Question. At the time the money was handed over, or the notes 
 and ohligations equivalent to money, was there anything said about 
 your paying anything to a man by the name of Hay ? _ 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; 1 do not think anything was said, except that 
 Mr. Wendell handed it out laughing, and saying, "I do not know as 
 these notes will be worth anything ; I do not know as they will ever 
 be paid." There was nothing else passed between us, and we parted. 
 
 Question. Did you have no conversation at any time with Mr. 
 Wendell about any money transactions with Hay ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; never. 
 
 Question. No part of the proceeds went to Hay ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where were the notes paid ? 
 
 Answer. I sent them here to have the money collected, and it, was 
 collected. 
 
 Question. Who remitted the proceeds to you ? 
 
 Answer. I got the money there. I sent them through the Mechanics' 
 Bank of the city of Brooklyn ; that is, I left them there for collection, 
 and made no inquiry about who paid them ; I merely took the pro- 
 ceeds, paying them for making the collection. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Thursday, May 10, 1860. 
 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you tell, in looking over your book, the date of the 
 first of the political checks ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot, indeed ; years ago I have been in the hahit of 
 contributing. 
 
 Question. I mean about this Lecompton matter. The 8th of April 
 is the only one we know of, and probably there were some before and 
 after that. What we want is to get at the political checks of that 
 period ; the other checks, of course, we do not want to know anything 
 about. In your testimony you said that you paid thirty or forty thou- 
 sand dollars in connexion with the passage of the Lecompton or Eng- 
 lish bill. 
 
 Answer. I did not mean to be understood that I had paid so much 
 in connexion with that bill ; during the winter I did pay that for' ser- 
 vices rendered. 
 
 Question. We want you to begin with the first payments, and ex- 
 plain them. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 185 
 
 Answer. I cannot ; they were entered upon my books intentionally 
 in such a way that I am not able to explain them ; for instance, I find 
 "paid notes;" now, I would raise money on notes, use it for party 
 purposes^ and the notes would go on my book payable at such a date, 
 and they would be paid ; I disguised it as much as I could, not only 
 with regard to the parties, but the entire facts. I have a distinct im- 
 pression that the money I paid for services rendered in the passage of 
 that bill exceeded thirty thousand dollars^ but I could not possibly 
 give the details as to how it was paid out. 
 
 Question. So far as you know, state to whom you paid money. 
 
 Answer. I would respectfully submit to the committee whether it is 
 right to compel me to state every agent I may have engaged in every 
 business transaction, political or otherwise. 
 
 Question. I think it certainly is. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I paid money to Alexander Hay — some con- 
 erable amount — how much I could not say ; and I also paid money to 
 a Mr. Walker. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Can you not give your opinion how much you paid 
 them? 
 
 Answer. I should not dare to ; in fact, I have been connected with 
 Mr. Hay in business, and money transactions to an enormous amount 
 have passed between us, I suppose over a hundred thousand dollars; 
 what portion was paid to him for services in this matter I would not 
 undertake to approximate. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What was Mr. Walker's first name ? 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 Question. What was his position here ? 
 Answer. He wasa reporter for some paper. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you mean a man who wears spectacles ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he is the man ; he is frequently in the repor- 
 ters' gallery. * 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know what amount you paid him ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, indeed ; no other individual occurs to me that I 
 can possibly designate as having given money or notes to in relation to 
 this subject ; it was a matter that I tried to banish from my mind as 
 soon as possible, and I intentionally disguised my books ; there may 
 be checks put down to initials, some of which were used there ; there 
 may be money paid within sixty or ninety days on the notes I had 
 discounted for money used in this way ; I was using at that time, as 
 my books will show, a heavy amount of money, in sums varying from 
 ten dollars to twenty thousand, and it was a subject the details of 
 which I banished from my mind as soon as possible ; but my /recol- 
 
186 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 lection is distinct that the entire expenses were a little over thirty 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. Do you know where Walker lived, where his home was, 
 and whom he was expected to have influence with ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state now ; he was an active man, I know ; I had 
 been acquainted with him for some time before that. 
 
 Question. Did you not, in making these payments, always do it in 
 reference to a party having influence with particular members? 
 
 Answer. I took men who I thought would have influence. I would 
 not have been likely to give them large amounts of money unless I 
 supposed they would be likely to aid me in the accomplishment of my 
 ends. 
 
 Question. What we want to get at is to know what members each 
 one was expected to have influence with. 
 
 Answer. I expected them to have influence upon any gentlemen 
 that they were acquainted with, and could persuade. I never had 
 specific arrangements ; they were always general. If, in my judg- 
 ment, they could operate specifically, that was an idea of my own. I 
 do not remember ever making any specific arrangements with regard 
 to a particular vote or a particular member. 
 
 Question. Did you not authorize one or both of these men to pay a 
 specific amount for a specific number of votes ? 
 
 Answer. Idonot remember ever doing so. This was a very exciting 
 subject, and I had couversations daily and nightly about it, and entered 
 into it with a good deal of zeal ; and I may have said and done things 
 that escape my recollection now. In looking over this book before 
 me, I find payments and names that probably may have been for 
 money used and notes given about that time to gentlemen from whom 
 I was in the habit of borrowing money ; but I could not designate one 
 with certainty. 
 
 Question. Did you not authorize one of these gentlemen to pay as 
 much as ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand dollars for a vote, to pass the 
 Lecompton bill? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I ever did ; I have no recollection of any 
 such thing. 
 
 Question. You think therfewas no specific amount agreed to be paid 
 to any one, but your agents %ere to make the best arrangements they 
 could ? , 
 
 Answer. They worked the best they could to carry the bill ; but I 
 am almost positive that I never made any specific arrangement of that 
 kind. 
 
 Question. In employing agents — one, I see, in Ohio, another in 
 Pennsylvania, and another somewhere else — did you not have a specific 
 object in view, that each of these agents was to have influence with 
 his particular delegation ? 
 
 Answer. I might have had that idea in my mind. The idea that I 
 had was that they were men who had influence. ' 
 
 Question. Did not these men tell you whose votes they expected to 
 get, and how much it would cost to get them ? 
 
 Answer, I could not say. I felt very little interest as to what it 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC, 187 
 
 cost then, and I desired not to know whether they expended the money 
 that I gave them or not. I preferred to be in ignorance about it. 
 
 Question. Did you not state to these men that if it was necessary a 
 much larger amount could be had — that the bill must be passed ? 
 
 Answer. I might have said so — any amount in reason. 
 
 Question. Did you not authorize one of these gentlemen to pay as 
 much as fifteen thousand dollars for a vote ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect. I think if I had that would have re- 
 mained distinctly upon my mind. 
 
 Question. Have you no recollection of the relative amount paid to 
 either of these men — which of them got most of the money ? 
 
 Answer. I think that of the two I paid Mr. Hay the most ; my im- 
 pression is that I did ; but my political as well as pecuniary transac- 
 tions with him were so mixed up that I cannot speak with certainty. 
 I was borrowing money from him continually. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Who did you say Mr. Hay was? 
 
 Answer. He is a gentleman of New York now, I think. He for- 
 merly resided in York. 
 
 Question. What was he then ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what position he was in. 
 
 Question. Had he any connexion with the government ? 
 
 Answer. I reckon not. 
 
 Question. Was he connected with either house of Congress? 
 
 Answer. In no official capacity. 
 
 Question. Was he brought here for the purpose of aiding in carrying 
 that bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he was. 
 
 Question. How came you to have money transactions with him in 
 reference to the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I thought he was a suitable agent 
 
 Question. Where did you find him ? 
 
 Answer. I found him here. 
 
 Question. You thought he was a suitable person to employ in this 
 matter ; why did you think so ? 
 ■ Answer. I took him to be a man of influence. 
 
 Questian. Influence with whom ? 
 
 Answer. With members of Congress. 
 
 Question. What members of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Members of Congress generally. He had a very extensive 
 acquaintance, and had been previously engaged about the House in 
 some capacity, so that his acquaintance with members might give him 
 some influence. 
 
 Question. But you had a specific object in employing Mr. -Hay, as 
 you had in employing other men. 
 
 Answer. I thought he was best adapted for the purpose. 
 
 Question. What purpose ? 
 
 Answer. To aid in carrying the bill. 
 
 Question. How could he accomplish that object ? 
 
 Answer. By his acquaintance with members. 
 
188 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. What members ? 
 
 Answer. Any members that he could have influence with. 
 
 Question. Did you have particular members in your mind that you 
 thought he would influence ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot pay. I might have had such an idea. 
 
 Question. " Might have' ' is not answering the question. Did you ? 
 
 Answer. I think it is very probable that I did. 
 
 Question. Do you not know whether you did or not? 
 
 Answer. I do not know positively! I wanted him, thinking that 
 he could influence members of Congress from his intimate acquaint- 
 ance with a large number, and so I engaged him«. 
 
 Question. Tou intrusted him with large amounts of money ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I intrusted him with any until the 
 work was done. 
 
 Question. At some time, either for the purpose of carrying the bill 
 or to pay him for his exertions, you gave him more than five thousand 
 dollars ? 
 
 Answer. I think I did — considerably more. 
 
 Question. If it was before the bill passed, what was he to do with 
 that money ? 
 
 Answer. It was not my business to inquire. 
 
 Question. But you had an object ; you do not trust a man with 
 more than five thousand dollars without some object in view ? 
 
 Answer. I had an object ; I wished to accomplish the passage of 
 the bill. 
 
 Question. How did you expect to accomplish the passage of thb hill 
 with this money ? 
 
 Answer. I expected to buy his services. 
 
 Question. What did you expect him to do ? 
 
 Answer. What I expected would not be evidence. I would submit 
 to the committee whether what I expected or surmised would be tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Question. I think you evade the question ; I think you have been 
 dodging. I want to know what you expected he was going to do ? 
 
 Answer. I had no right to suppose that he would use the money to 
 purchase the votes of members. 
 
 Question. Then what did you expect he would do ? 
 
 Answer. I expected he would use his influence with the 'members 
 that he was intimate with. I did not know but he might use money, 
 but I certainly did not ask him to do so. 
 
 Question. Did you not expect that he would expend that money ? 
 Did you suppose he was going to pocket all that money himself, or 
 that he was going to expend it in some mode connected with the pas- 
 sage of that bill ? 
 
 Answer. I might have had an idea that he would expend some of it. 
 
 Question. Do not say " might have." 
 
 Answer. What can I say ? It may have crossed my mind that he 
 would expend some of the money. 
 
 Question. Did it not cross your mind ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Queslion. Can you swear that it did not ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 189 
 
 Answer. I cannot. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to swear that you paid individuals five 
 thousand dollars and upwards without having any understanding 
 how that money was to be used ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I do. I had no understanding with him. 
 
 Question. Was there no understanding or expectation upon your 
 part how it was to be used ? 
 
 Answer. It might have crossed my mind that he was to use a por- 
 tion of the money given him. He may have told me, and yet I cannot 
 call the circumstance to mind. 
 
 Question. It was not for the purpose of paying him for his services 
 that the whole of that money was given him ? 
 
 Answer. That was as he saw fit. 
 
 Question. What was your own expectation about it? 
 
 Answer. It might have crossed my mind, as I said before, that he 
 would use some of it. 
 
 Question. Did you not expect that he would expend some portion 
 of it? 
 
 Answer. The only answer I have to give to that question is what I 
 have already given. 
 
 Question. You avow having paid Mr. Hay ten or fifteen thousand 
 dollars with the understanding or expectation that he was going to 
 keep all that money, and you were simply securing his personal influ- 
 ence to go round and solicit gentlemen to vote one way or the other ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Had I known that he would have pocketed every 
 cent of it, I would have given it to him. 
 
 Question. If you knew that he could secure the passage of the bill, 
 you mean. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. But did you not expect that he wotild use it without put- 
 ting it in his own pocket ? 
 
 Answer. He might have used some of it. 
 
 Question. Did he not have to use it in order to carry the bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Do you not know how he applied it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. Did you pay this money before the bill passed, or after- 
 wards? 
 
 Answer. That I could not say. 
 
 Question. What is your recollection about it ? 
 
 Answer. It ia my impression that I gave him a note, and he had 
 it discounted and used a portion of the money during the passage of 
 the bill ; that he got the note discounted, kept a portion, and gave 
 me a portion of the proceeds of the note. 
 
 Question. Where did he get that note discounted? 
 
 Answer. I think it was in the Bank of York. 
 
 Question. Where was it paid ? 
 
 Answer, I think it was paid in the Girard Bank. 
 
 Question. Was it not paid in Washington ? 
 
 Answer. Ireally cannot tell; I had so many of them travelling round 
 
190 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 that I could not trace one of them. It might have heen paid in Bal- 
 timore. 
 
 Question. Are you sure you gave him a note ? May it not have 
 heen a check that you gave him ? , 
 
 Answer. I do not think I did ; I do not find! any check of that date 
 which appears to have gone to him. My notes in those days were 
 equivalent to checks. I have an impression that, pending the con- 
 test, he raised me five or ten thousand dollars, a portion of which he 
 kept as applicahle to his services in regard to the Lecompton hill. 
 
 Question. Did you have any settlement with him after the hill had 
 passed? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I recollect having a settlement with him, and 
 giving him several notes. 
 
 Question. I mean, did you have any settlement with him as your 
 agent in the passage of this hill ? 
 
 Answer. I think I settled up with him entirely, and gave him notes 
 to the amount of twelve or fourteen thousand dollars ; hut whether it 
 embraced only the money used on the Lecompton bill, or other money 
 that I had had a part of myself, I could not say, and I do not know 
 that I have any hook of reference from which I could tell as to that. 
 I probably could tell the amount for which I gave him notes, a por- 
 tion of which was money used to carry that bill. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, let us have that. 
 
 Answer. I have not the book here, but I think I can find a reference 
 to it. If my memory serves me, there were some twelve^ fourteen, or 
 sixteen thousand dollars. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Was that the amount which you gave him for his ser- 
 vices ? 
 
 Answer. I could not tell whether it was entirely for that, or whether 
 I had a part of the money. I would give my notes in continuation of 
 notes ; for instance, if notes were coming due I would sometimes give 
 a new note to pay the old one. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When you came to a final settlement, what was the 
 amount that had been appropriated for that particular object ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. I do not feel as if I could approximate to 
 the amount. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Was it more or less than fifteen thousand dollars, in your 
 judgment ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. 
 
 Question. In making your final settlement with either of these men, 
 did they tell you where they had expended any portion of this money? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not want to know ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not want to know. I never was anxious to 
 trace money. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 191 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Where did they live — in whose district ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Hay lived in Dr. Ahl's district. 
 
 Question. What members of the Pennsylvania delegation was he 
 most intimate with ? 
 
 Answer. I could not tell yon, really. He appeared to have a long 
 acquaintance with some of them. 
 
 Question. Was that money not specifically appropriated for the use 
 and benefit of the Pennsylvania members ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that it was. 
 
 Question. Did you expect him to pay any money to others than 
 Pennsylvanians, or was that his field of operations ? 
 
 Answer. The entire House was his field of operations. Wherever 
 he could use any influence I expected him to do it, and he agreed to 
 do it. 
 
 Question. You think you paid Hay more money than you paid this 
 other man, Walker? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where did Walker live at the time ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, indeed ; he was a reporter here ; I think 
 New York is his place of residence when at homo. 
 
 Question. I believe you say you have no recollection of paying any 
 money in connexion with the passage of the Lecompton bill, or Eng- 
 lish bill, except to them and this man Bean ? 
 
 Answer. They are the only ones that I can call to mind, but I 
 might have paid something to others. 
 
 Question. When you gave money to. this man Bean, did you do it 
 with the view of his operating upon any particular member of Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I did. I have a distinct recollection of 
 being informed that he was a very influential man with the Ohio del- 
 egation. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect in whose district he lived ? , 
 
 Answer. I think I have heard that he lived in Hall's district. 
 
 Question. I tliink you say that you employed Bean upon the re- 
 commendation of some other person ? 
 
 Answer. It must have been, for I had a very slight acquaintance 
 with him, and did not know where he was from. 
 
 Question. Was it not Reynolds, of Tennessee, who gave you the 
 information ? 
 
 Answer. It might have been. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How did you expect to be reimbursed for this enormous 
 expenditure of money ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I may have expected it from a continuation of 
 the work from government. I had an idea that in going in for it I 
 would be entitled to the favorable consideration of government in 
 matters pertaining to my business. I was, as I have said before, 
 heavily concerned in doing work for the government. 
 
192 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. And you thought this would he calculated to continue 
 you in that business ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I did have such an idea. 
 
 Question. I suppose, of course, that without government patronage 
 you would never have felt interested enough in the passage of the bill 
 to expend that large amount of money on it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think I should have done it. I probaUy 
 expected a continuance during this administration. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. The amount of it all is, that you swear you expended 
 thirty thousand dollars and upwards upon three men — Bean^ Hay, 
 and Walker — to carry this bill, not knowing how that money was 
 to he expended, who they were to influence, or in what manner that 
 money was to be brought to bear to effect the passage of the bill ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; not knowing or caring how the money was to 
 be expended. I desired, after the money left my hands, not to know 
 anything about it. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Had you no idea to what use it was to be put ; no con- 
 versation as to how it might be used effectually ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I had. I might have had. I have 
 paid larger amounts than that, without asking any questions as to 
 what became of it. 
 
 Question. You expected that it would be used in some particular 
 way? 
 
 Answer, I expected it wouldbe used to accomplish the end. 
 
 Question. You were not intending to go at Congress promiscuously 
 with this sum, I presume ; you had some definite idea about the 
 matter ? 
 
 Answer. I was satisfied that these men had influence in Congress. 
 
 Question, On some particular men ? 
 
 Ansfver. I did not suppose they could influence every member. 
 Mr. Hay, I knew, had influence with almost every member from his 
 State, Pennsylvania, as well as with members from other States. 
 
 Question. You had canvassed the matter, and knew about what 
 number of votes could be secured in addition to those who voluntarily 
 and zealously supported the administration ; there were some who were 
 rather lukewarm, and some who were opposed to the bill, who, as you 
 supposed, might be induced to change their course. Was it not talked 
 over and canvassed who was most likely to be influenced ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir ; I presume it was. 
 
 Question. Then the money was designed for these particular subjects, 
 was it not ? 
 
 Answer. Very probably it was. 
 
 Question. It strikes me that money would hardly have been paid 
 without some definite object or purpose to be accomplished with the 
 money. 
 
 Answer, The object was accomplished, and the money was paid. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 193 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. But the money was paid before the object was accom- 
 plished, was it not? 
 
 Answer. I think some of it was paid before the bill passed. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You have stated something with regard to another five 
 thousand dollar^ that was paid to Mr. Bean. Of course it was not for 
 him to keep, but to hand to other persons 
 
 Answer. I do not remember that I stated that. 
 
 Question. Was not that your understanding — that he was to hand 
 some portion of it to others ? 
 
 Answer. I think I had the impression that he was to use the money. 
 
 Question. Can you not tell where he was to use it? 
 
 Answer. There was a conversation about buying a paper opposed to 
 him in his district ; but I do not know the details, because, as I say, 
 I studiously desired not to know. 
 
 Question. Now, in conversation with Mr. Buchanan relative to the 
 number of votes requisite to pass the Lecompton bill, did you not 
 disagree with regard to the number of votes that it would take — he 
 saying that he would only have to get three, and you expressing the 
 opinion that it would require five, six, or eight? 
 
 Answer. I remember, on the passage of the first bill, he thought it 
 would be caTried, and I was under the impression that it would be 
 lost, and that we required five or six votes to carry it, as the result 
 proved ; but as to the English bill, the committee of conference, &c., I 
 do not remember whether the conversation applied to that or not. 
 
 Question. Did you not, for political purposes, within the last three 
 or four years, use a much larger amount of money than you used on 
 previous occasions — some hundred thousand dollars ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is, that it was about one hundred and 
 twenty-eight or one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. How much of that money was used to elect Mr. Bu- 
 chanan ? 
 
 Answer. I think I expended, in contributions, printing, and in 
 divers and sundry ways, some thirty-seven or thirty-eight thousand 
 dollars. 
 
 Question. After Mr. Buchanan was elected, was he not familiar with 
 theenormous expenditure that you had incurred in securing hiselection ? 
 
 Answer. He knew that I had been very active and had expended 
 considerable money. 
 
 Question. Did he not know the amount ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember whether the amount was ever mentioned, 
 between us ; I could not say. 
 
 Question. You and he talked freely about using money ? 
 
 Answer. We had conversations about the expenses of elections. 
 
 Question. Do you think he duly appreciated your services in ex- 
 pending that amount of money ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I never thought he did. 
 
 Question Did he not latterly rather fall off as regards his friendly 
 feelings toward you ? 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 13 
 
194 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I have thought for some eighteen months that he did. 
 
 Question. Was his influence not used in your favor, to keep the 
 government patronage in your hands, so as to reimburse you for this 
 large amount of money that you had expended ? 
 
 Answer. At first it was coming to me, and it continued on until 
 December after his inauguration, when a portion of it was taken 
 from me. 
 
 Question. By whose act ? 
 
 Answer. By the President's. 
 
 Question. That was taken from you to divide with other friends of 
 his? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. With what officers of the government did you confer 
 most at the time you were making these negotiations to carry the Le- 
 compton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say who they were ; it was a subject of con- 
 versation whenever and wherever I met with them. 
 
 Question. Had you not frequent conversations with the President 
 at that particular time upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. Not more than at any other time, that I am aware of. 
 
 Question. You conferred with him relative to the passage of that 
 Ml, did you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was a subject of conversation between us. 
 
 Question. He knew at that time that you were expending large 
 amounts of money, did he not ? / 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he did ; I could not swear that he 
 knew I was expending large amounts of money. 
 
 Question. Did he not know that you were required to expend money 
 at that particular time ? 
 
 Answer. That I could not say, sir ; I do not know whether he did 
 or not. 
 
 Question. In giving testimony relative to expenditures of money 
 in the fall of 1858, you have stated before both committees in what 
 particular districts you expended money pretty generally. I wish to 
 ask you whether there were not still some other districts in which you 
 expended money ? 
 
 Answer. There might have been. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection how much you expended in 
 the Foster district, in Pennsylvania? 
 
 Answer. 1 have not. I do not remember expending a dollar there, 
 and yet I might have done it. I know that my judgment was against 
 it. 
 
 Question. Was this sum which appears on your book as having been 
 expended on the 22d of September, 1858, expended in the Foster 
 district, or paid directly to him ? 
 
 Answer. I never paid it to him ; there never was any money 
 transaction between us. 
 
 Question. What explanation have you to give of this item of two 
 hundred and fifty dollars paid to Mr. Foster, of Pennsylvania, on the 
 22d of September, 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I have none. Whether it means the Foster district or 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 195 
 
 not, I am not able to say, but I am inclined to think that it does not, 
 from the fact that the word " district " does not occur. The entry is 
 to "Mr. Foster, Pennsylvania;" but who it was I do not know; 
 whether it was a contribution for that district or not, I cannot remem- 
 ber. 
 
 Question. Have you not some account at home that would show ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think I have. I remember that I was 
 always opposed to giving money in districts where it would be of no 
 use. 
 
 Question. Have you anything to show where this money was paid, 
 or whether it was paid in Philadelphia or not ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I have ; I might have, by reference to some 
 other book. 
 
 Question. Is there any reference to show what day you were in 
 Philadelphia, or whether you met him there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir •/! do not think there is. 
 
 Question. Have you not settled with Witte for a much larger 
 amount expended in that district ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not think I have ; I do not remember. 
 
 Question. Do you remember settling with Witte for any money 
 expended ? 
 
 Answer. I would generally give him the money and let him expend 
 it. 
 
 Question. On one occasion you stated that that morning you had 
 had a question up before you ; was it a settlement for money used in 
 that district ? 
 
 Answer. I never had a settlement for any specific money ; we 
 would occasionally balance accounts and see how we stood ; and loans 
 of money, exchange of notes, and political money would all come in 
 together. 
 
 Question. Is there any other Foster in Pennsylvania that you know 
 of, besides General Foster ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any other man of that name that I have 
 ever had transactions with. I will look at that to-day, and see if I 
 can remember anything about it. 
 
 Question. Please state, then, if in your power, where you paid this 
 amount to Mr. Foster, whether it was in Philadelphia or not, and 
 whether you sent it in a check, when you examine your accounts. 
 
 Answer. I will examine my books, and give the information when 
 I come before the committee again, if I am able to do so. 
 
 Question. Have you not had to increase the quantity of money paid 
 to some of these men, after the first opening of negotiations, so that 
 it turned out that it required more than you at first supposed to pass 
 the bill? 
 
 Answer. I could not say as to that. 
 
 Question. In settling with these men, did they not tell you that 
 they had to expend all or nearly all of that money ; that they had not 
 much left out of it ? What is your recollection about that ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I could swear to anything about the 
 details. 
 
 Question. Is it not your impression that they conveyed to you the 
 
196 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 idea that they had to use all or nearly all the money to get the bill 
 through? 
 
 Answer. Some of them might, and some might not. The general 
 conversation was as to accomplishing the end. 
 
 Question. Can you tell whether there is any entry on the bank 
 books of the 22d of September, 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. (After examining the books.) There is nothing to show to 
 whom I have given it. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow : 
 
 Question. At the time you speak of, when you paid these sums of 
 money to Bean, Hay, and Walker, I think you said you were doing 
 the whole of the printing for the government? 
 
 Answer. I think I was. 
 
 Question. Can you give me some idea what your income was in 
 your business then ? 
 
 Answer. I could not. The past two years it has not been so much 
 as it was previously. The profits h ave been equally as good ; but a por- 
 tion went to Steadman, Harris, Eice, and others. 
 
 Question. How large were your profits on that work ? 
 
 Answer. I think I made over one hundred thousand dollars one 
 year. 
 
 Question. Clear profits? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Give me a general idea how it was along during 185T 
 and 1858? 
 
 Answer. I think in 1857 and 1858 my profits were very small. 
 
 Question. Your business was extensive? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; very. I might have made, during those years, 
 forty or fifty thousand dollars. I mean that my profits were small, 
 comparatively, to what they had been previously. 
 
 Question. I see that your bank account runs up to $929,000 in 
 about two years. Now, the money that you speak ot^ — was it money of 
 your own, or money of the government? 
 
 Answer. It was my own. 
 
 Question. I ask you if this money was paid at the instance or re- 
 quest of the government, or any member of it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. So far as you know, they were totally ignorant of that 
 fact? 
 
 Answer. Totally so. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that you never had a conversa- 
 tion with the President advising you to pay money for the passage 
 of bills ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; never. 
 
 Question. You never approached any member of Congress, directly, 
 to secure his vote ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. And you merely placed money in the hands of these peo- 
 ple to be used as they might choose to use it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 197 
 
 Question. I wish to know if you were to be reimbursed by the gov- 
 ernment in any manner, shape, or form, by contracts or otherwise? 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no understanding of that sort. 
 
 No. 26. 
 Wednesday, May 16, 1860. 
 ELLIS B. SCHNABEL recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you willing now to answer the fifth interrogatory 
 which was formerly put to you in these words: "In case you had 
 such interview, what led to it?" 
 
 Answer. In my former examination I declined answering the fifth . 
 interrogatory on the sole ground of irrelevancy ; but as the objection was 
 raised by myself, and the question yet remains upon the minutes of 
 the Committee, I now waive the objection and answer it. The answer 
 is forced from me in self-defence, it being necessary, in part, to expose 
 the base calumnies and false and (as I believe) malicious charges made 
 by Attorney General Black in reference to my previous testimony, the 
 nature and effect of said calumnies and charges having been explained 
 to me since my return from Charleston by the chairman of this commit- 
 tee, Hon. John Covode, and the same, in part, being reiterated by the 
 editor of tbe " Constitution," Gr. W. Bowman, in his paper bearing 
 the dates of April 21, 1860, April 28, (morning issue,) April 28, (even- 
 ing issue,) and May 5, by innuendo referring to me, I have no doubt, 
 but my name being, as I believe, cautiously suppressed. The circum- 
 stances which led to the interview between General Bowman, Attorney 
 General Black, and myself, previously referred to, were simply these: 
 I called upon General Bowman, editor of the " Constitution ; " my 
 visit was to him ; Attorney General Black I did not expect to meet ; 
 he was present by accident, as I previously stated ; the interview took 
 place in General Bowman's private residence ; the object of my visit 
 was, if possible, to put a stop to what I deemed the suicidal aod anti- 
 democratic policy of the " Constitution," in constantly publishing 
 laudatory articles on Mr. Buchanan, followed up by unceasing and 
 despotic attacks upon Senator Douglas ; and I so stated this object to 
 those gentlemen ; I denounced the policy as one calculated to demor- 
 alize and defeat the party for years to come, by splitting it, especially in 
 Pennsylvania, into violent and hostile factions, making a reunion and 
 harmony hopeless during the lifetime of its present leaders ; and I 
 expressly stated to Messrs. Bowman and Black that I had not done 
 this for the benefit of Senator Douglas, but entirely in behalf of the 
 future interests of the democratic party ; believing, as I then told them, 
 that the attacks upon Douglas were doing him no harm, but good 
 rather than otherwise, while the democratic party was infinitely the 
 sufferer by their abominable and, as I believed, vicious and traitorous 
 course. I failed in my mission. 
 
198 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. ' 
 
 [The remainder of the reply was struck out hy the committee on the 
 ground' of irrelevancy.] 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What day was this when you were at Mr. Bowman's ? 
 
 Answer. It was on Thursday or Friday of the week preceding my 
 examination here ; it might possibly have heen on Saturday, but it 
 was a few days before my examination, at any rate. 
 
 Question. Who were present at that interview ? 
 
 Answer. General George Washington Bowman and Mr. Black ; no 
 other persons. There might have been other persons about the house, 
 but the doors, during the heat of the combat, were carefully closed by 
 the general. 
 
 Question. What letter did you allude to, from the President of the 
 United States to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. The letter described in that testimony of the 12th of July, 
 1857. I was uncertain at the time whether it was the 12th of July 
 01 the 12tli of August ; but that was the letter referred to. 
 
 Question. You affirmed the existence of such a letter as you 
 spoke of? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and Attorney General Black denied it. 
 
 Question. Will you state what you said there were the contents of 
 the letter, as near as you can ; the language which you said the letter 
 bore. 
 
 Answer. I shall have to give you something again which you will 
 say is irrelevant. I described the letter as a letter pledging the 
 administration to the policy of the submission of the constitution. I 
 further said — which was necessarily no part of my description of the 
 letter in my testimony, because there I was describing the letter 
 itself — I further said, in conclusion, that I believed the administratioa 
 were pledged to that policy, and I knew of it from the fact that 
 certain witnesses who were present at the time informed me that 
 William Bigler had so pledged it in Kansas, to wit : Isaac E. Eaton, 
 of Kansas, with whom Bigler travelled and slept (so he told me;) 
 Hon. William Montgomery, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Perrin, of New 
 York, who was secretary of state, or in some way connected with 
 Governor Walker, and Kobert J. Walker himself. When I said that 
 Bigler took the ground there that it was the policy of the administra- 
 tion to have the constitution submitted. Black denied this ; and I 
 contended that it was impossible for Bigler to know the fact, he not 
 being connected with the cabinet, and yet for Judge Black to he 
 ignorant of it. 1 have since been told that Judge Black stated that I 
 had said that James Buchanan in this letter pledged the power of the 
 administration and of a democratic Congress to have it kicked out of 
 Congress if it was sent here without a submission to the people. This 
 reached me, I think, when I was in Charleston ; I cannot now give 
 the name of the author, but it reached me in the shape of a rumor. I 
 have had so many people talking with me that I do not now remem- 
 ber from whom I got it. 
 
 Question. Is that all that you affirmed about that letter, that it 
 contained only the President's pledges to Governor Walker that the 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 199 
 
 policy of the administration should he a suhmission of the constitu- 
 tion? 
 
 Answer. All that I said positively there with regard to the letter 
 is covered in my answer as to its contents, although my answer as to 
 its contents is probably more full than the conversation was, because 
 I had made memoranda of this letter, although I had never had it in 
 my hand. 
 
 Question. I wish to know distinctly the whole contents of the letter 
 as you affirmed it to exist — that is to say, whether the letter as de- 
 scribed by you was just this letter, pledging to Governor Walker the 
 power of the administration to cause the constitution to be submitted 
 to the people ? 
 
 Answer. I never said that. I stated expressly that Bigler went to 
 Kansas so pledging the administration, as these witnesses informed 
 me. I stated nothing substantially as to the contents of the letter 
 other than is contained in my former answer given under oath. 
 
 Question. You do not understand me. I want to know, as near as 
 you can give us, the contents of the letter from the President to G-ov- 
 ernor Walker as you stated it there. 
 
 Answer. That purports to be my knowledge of the letter. 1 stated 
 substantially the same as is there contained. 
 
 Question. In that testimony you are giving what you recollected the 
 letter to be as Governor Walker showed it to you. That is not what 
 I am asking. I want you to give me, as near as you can, what you 
 stated in the presence of Messrs. Black and Bowman were the contents 
 of the letter. 
 
 Answer. It was, that' Mr. Buchanan stood pledged to a submission 
 of the constitution as the proper construction of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 billj and asked Governor Walker to base himself upon that position 
 and it would render him irresistible ; that he himself was willing to 
 stand or fall upon submission. 
 
 Question. I want to know, in the first place, what the letter con- 
 tained as you stated it there. 
 
 Answer. I have just stated, I further stated that Bigler went to 
 Kansas, as I was informed by these gentlemen whose names I have 
 given, pledging the faith of the administration to that doctrine, 
 urging the submission of the constitution himself; and Mr. Mont- 
 gomery told me only a few days ago that he perfectly understood Bigler 
 to intimate the idea there that Mr. Buchanan would insist upon such 
 a course as that. 
 
 Question. Having stated that fact, do you say that Judge Black 
 denied that any such letter had been written to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he denied it, and defied its production. 
 
 Question. That, then, was the real point of issue between you and 
 the Attorney General— you affirming the existence of the letter as 
 you described it, and he denying it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that was not the issue. 
 
 Question. Was not that the question between you — you affirming 
 and he denying ? 
 
 Answer. I affirmed the existence of the letter of the 12th of August 
 (or July) as I have described it, and he denied it. 
 
200 LECOMPTON CONSTITUnON, ETC, 
 
 Question. That raised the issue between you, did it not? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the real issue between us was a very different 
 thing. The issue is not before this committee yet. 
 
 Question. But you and Judge Black came to a.n issue upon this 
 proposition? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; we came to an issue on another proposition which 
 this is a part of. 
 
 Question. That, I say, was the point of issue on that question be- 
 tween you ? 
 
 Answer. This question was a secondary one. 
 
 Question. I am not talking about primary or secondary ; there was 
 an issue upon the existence or non-existence of that letter, was there 
 not ? 
 
 Answer. The issue was this : He declared if Stephen A. Douglas 
 was nominated by the convention "we go for defeat." I demanded 
 his reasohs, and that brought up this letter and the position of the 
 administration and Judge Black. 
 
 Question. That has nothing to do with this inquiry. I want you 
 to confine yourself to the question that I ask you. Did you not come 
 to an issue upon the existence or non-existence of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly we did. 
 
 Question. I will ask you did Judge Black in conversation at all 
 admit the existence of any letter from the President to Grovernor 
 Walker? 
 
 Answer. There was no other letter talked of but this one. 
 
 Question. That is not an answer to the question. The question is, 
 whether Judge Black, in that conversation, admitted the existence of 
 any letter written by the President to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. We spoke of no^other letter than this, and he did not 
 admit the existence of this. 
 
 Question. I ask you if Judge Black admitted the existence of any 
 letter from the President to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. There was no other letter talked of but that from Mr. 
 Buchanan to Mr. Walker. 
 
 Question. What do you mean by "talked of?" 
 
 Answer. No other letter was in issue. I positively asserb that. 
 
 Question. That is not the point. I ask you if Judge Black admitted 
 the existence of any letter irom the President to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I remember of. 
 
 Question. Then, in that whole conversation there was a denial upon 
 the part of Judge Black, either expressed or implied, 'of the existence 
 of any letter from the President to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. I have no remembrance of his speaking of any other letter, 
 either he or any other man in the room. 
 
 Question. There was no admission on the part of Judge Black of 
 any letter from the President to Governor Walker in which he dis- 
 cussed the propriety of submitting the constitution of Kansas to the 
 people, and recommending that course, or shaping that as the policy 
 of the administration ? 
 
 Answer. My answer is this: That no other letter but the leMer of 
 the 12thof July was discussed by Attorney General Black and loyself. 
 
LECOMPTOK CONSTITUTION, ETC. 201 
 
 Question. Or referred to? 
 
 Answer. If any other letter was referred to I do not know it, and 
 do not believe there was any reference to any other letter. 
 
 Question. I will ask you if Judge Black did not distinctly admit in 
 the course of conversation that he had frequently read a letfer from 
 the President to Governor Walker ? 
 
 Answer. I have already asserted that none other was discussed. 
 
 Question. I will ask you whether Judge Black did not admit or 
 assert that he had frequently read a letter from the P.resident to Grov- 
 ernor Walker while in Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. There might have been a great many letters passed between 
 Grovernor Walker and President Buchanan. I have stated in my 
 former examination that I never knew of but one. I have stated that 
 the Attorney General denied the existence of this letter, and that I 
 could only explain his denial on the ground that he had never heard 
 of it, or that President Buchanan took good care not to confide such 
 secrets to his keeping. 
 
 Question. Did you say that, or is that last part merely your mental 
 inference ? 
 
 Answer. That was the substance of it ; it might not be the exact 
 words. I think the words were a little more harsh, if anything. 
 
 Question. Did you understand Judge Black as denying that there 
 was a letter from the President, in which he had committed himself 
 in favor of the policy of the submission of the constitution ? 
 
 Answer. I understood him to deny the existence of the letter of the 
 12th of July, in which I expressly stated that President Buchanan 
 had pledged himself to the policy of submission. 
 
 Question. Did you name the date of the letter? 
 
 Answer. I named two dates for the same letter. I was uncertain 
 whether it was dated the 12th of July or the 12th of August,, but 
 when I referred to my minutes I found that it was the 12th of July. 
 There was only one letter spoken of, in whicb the policy of submis- 
 sion was adopted by the President. 
 
 Question. And Governor Walker's name was mentioned there? 
 
 Answer. Certainly. 
 
 Judge Black. Do you remember whether I said that there was a 
 letter written by President Buchanan to Governor Walker which I 
 had seen very often, and did you reply to that, " No ! the President 
 has no copy of that letter, and you never saw it?" 
 
 Witness. Do you niiean by this letter the letter of the 12th of 
 July? 
 
 Judge Black. Did any such language as that occur ? 
 
 Witness. I remember no such remark being made by the Attorney 
 General ; but I expressly stated, with reference to the letter of the 
 12th of July, that Governor Walker had informed me that President 
 Buchanan had no copy of it. 
 
 Judge Black. Did you describe that letter as one which would ruin 
 the character of the President, and disgrace him in public estimation 
 forever, with a threat that it would be brought out by this committee, 
 or anything to that effect — words equivalent to that ? 
 
 Witness, When the Attorney General threatened to put a shirt 
 
202 LECOMPTON COITSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 upon us from which we could not escape, he also stated that he sup- 
 posed I was going before the Covode committee 
 
 Judge Black. You are sure of that, are you? 
 
 Witness. Yes, sir ; and I replied that the people of Pennsylvania 
 would he the committee that I would appear before — that that letter 
 should be brought to light, and it would appear that ia President 
 Buchanan's special message in favor of the Lecompton constitution he 
 had abandoned the position he assumed in the letter of the 1 2th of 
 July, 1857; and the question would be asked, what reason could have 
 induced him to change front 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW remarked that he could not see that all this had any- 
 thing to do with the subject. 
 
 -Judge Black. On the whole, you are willing to reaffirm what you 
 said in your former examination? 
 
 Witness. Wonderful man ! That which I have sworn to here is 
 the truth, and I will take all chances upon it with a man like you. 
 
 Judge Black. Or with any man ? 
 
 Witness. Yes, sir ; with any man. 
 
 Judge Black. You said, as to the fifth interrogatory, that you did 
 not consider it relevant, and therefore declined to answer it ? 
 
 Witness. That is on oath there. 
 
 Judge Black. To-day you expressed yourself willing to answer it? 
 
 Witness. Yes, sir. 
 
 Judge Black. And you did answer it ? 
 
 Witness. No, sir ; the committee would not allow me to give my 
 answer. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON objected to the form of examination, considering it 
 improper that the Attorney General should cross-examine the witness. 
 If that privilege was granted in this instance, it ought to be in 
 others. 
 
 Thursday, May 17, 1860. 
 GEOKGE W. BOWMAN recalled. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. I do not know whether you stated before that you were 
 editor of the "Constitution?" 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I stated that. 
 
 'Question. Were you the author of two or three editorial articles 
 contained in these papers, dated April 21, April 28^ and May 5, 
 1860. 
 
 Answer. I am responsible for every article which appears in that 
 paper. 
 
 Question. I supposed you were responsible in law, as editor of the 
 paper ; but I want to know if you were the author of these articles ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. William M. Browne writes the leading editorials ia 
 the paper. 
 
 Question. Will you be good enough to look at these, and see whether 
 they are yours or his articles ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 203 
 
 Answer. The articles headed " A short lessen for the republicans," 
 in the "Constitution" of May 5 ; "Facts exposing calumnies," in 
 the paper of April 21 ; "Newspaper immoralities," in the paper of 
 April 28, and "A herculian labor," in the paper of April 28, were 
 all written by Mr. Ormstead, the news editor on the paper. 
 
 Question. How is he employed ? 
 
 Answer. He is the news editor on the paper, and makes the selec- 
 tions. He wrote those articles, for the reason that Mr. Browne was ■ 
 not at home. 
 
 Question. He is connected with the paper?' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, as news editor. 
 
 Question. Where does he live ? 
 
 Answer. He is a young man ; I do not think he has a family. He 
 has been with me for some months, but I do not know where he boards. 
 
 Question. Do you know his first name? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember it now. 
 ■ Question. Did you see these anticles before their publication ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, and I approved them. We do not flinch from 
 anything we do ; we acknowledge all we do on that paper. 
 
 QuesJtion. Did you refer to any one in particular in that paragraph 
 of the article beaded " Newspaper immoralities" in the paper of Sat- 
 urday evening, April 28, where it is stated that "such has become 
 the recklessness of truth displayed, particularly in political matters, 
 that even perjury before partisan congressional committees is a thing 
 not unheard of," &c.? 
 
 Answer No, sir ; it was a general inference drawn from general 
 matters that have occurred in connexion with this committee, from 
 publications made outside, from statements made in the streets, and 
 from newspaper correspondence. There was no personal allusion. 
 
 Question. On what authority did you make that statement ; what 
 is your evidence for it ? 
 
 Answer. That is predicated upon the general statement of facts 
 appearing in the public correspondence, and of testimony taken before 
 the committee, that have appeared, immediately after a witness was 
 before them, in the public papers of the country. It was takA from 
 the general impression that there could have been no time to have 
 gone into the facts of the case. If the committee examine a witness 
 to-day, for instance, by to-morrow evening his testimony appears in 
 the New York Herald or the New York Times, and is talked about in 
 the streets generally. There is no other ground for the article than 
 as predicated upon this well known state of facts, that the testimony 
 taken here gets out before the country apparently as soon as it is given 
 here, in part, at least ; and upon that general supposition that article 
 was written. 
 
 Question. Upon what authority did you base your statement in the 
 article in the paper of May 5, that " no cross-examination of witnesses 
 takes place before this most infamous of tribunals since the Star 
 Chamber was abolished ?" 
 
 Answer. Upon the general facts before the country as published in 
 the newspapers, which appear to have everything that this committee 
 is doing the day after its proceedings, and perhaps even the very day 
 they occur. That appears from some cause to be the case. We heai 
 
204 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 statements on the streets, and see them in the newspapers, as to what 
 the committee is doing. I do not say that they are true, however. 
 
 Question. Have you seen this statement in any other paper? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have seen it in letters to other papers. 
 
 Question. What paper have you seen it in ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state what particular paper I have seen it in. I 
 look over a great variety of papers, without paying any particular 
 attention to the headings, except the editorial articles. I have seen 
 such things stated in many papers in the country, to the hest of my 
 belief. 
 
 Question. Had you any particular idea of the source from whicli 
 you derived that impression ? 
 
 Answer. Not more than what I have stated — from the general 
 newspaper statements of letter-writers. 
 
 Question. From what other sources have you gained any informa- 
 tion in regard to this matter except the statements in the newspapers ? 
 
 Answer. T suppose it is known to every gentleman that it is com- 
 mon talk about the streets, in every bar-room, in the halls of Congress, 
 in the passages aboiit the Capitol, and everywhere, what are the doings 
 of this committee, and the criticisms made thereon. 
 
 Question. Was there any particular allusion made here to any man 
 when you say that " witnesses are allowed to take their own time to 
 prepare their stories, and if they stumble in the slippery path of per- 
 jury they are kindly placed on their feet again, instead of bein^j 
 pinned downed by cross-examination to the penalty of their guilt?" 
 Did you refer to any case in particular ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that was a inere general remark. 
 
 Question. Was it not intended as applicable to any particular wit- 
 ness? 
 
 Answer. It was not intended for any particular witness. It was 
 intended as a general remark, based upon general impressions, as fai: 
 as I have been able to get information connected with investigations 
 before this committee. 
 
 Question. Will you state a single fact, or name a single person from 
 whom^ou have got a tittle of information that such is the case? 
 
 Answer. I make no personal charge at all. 
 
 Question. I do not ask you what the character of the charge is. I 
 ask if you have got any information, a single fact, a single hint, from 
 a single individual, that goes to sustain that charge, or justifies the 
 making of that charge ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know as I am called upon to answer as to a gene- 
 ral fact. I have stated that these articles were drawn from general 
 facts going all over the country, and the statements of newspaper 
 writers. 
 
 Question. Now, sir, here is a most base and unfounded charge 
 against this whole committee 
 
 Answer. You have your remedy, sir. 
 
 Question. I know that we have our remedy ; hut I want to know, 
 under the solemnities of your oath, if you can state a single fact that 
 justifies such a charge against this conlmittee ? 
 
 Answer. I am making no personal allusion in those remarks. 
 
LECOMPTON COITSTITUTION, ETC. 205 
 
 Question. Do you not charge the committee here with aiding men 
 to commit perjury, and giving them facilities to commit perjury? 
 
 Answer. You cannot put statements in my mouth. 
 
 Question. But that is your own language — that if witnesses "stum- 
 hled in the slippery path of perjury they are kindly placed on their 
 feet again." 
 
 Answer. I have stated to you that that article is drawn from gene- 
 ral impressions, which grew out of conversations, letters in newspa- 
 pers, &c.; the general conversation that is going on in the city of 
 Washington upon the subject of this committee. That is all I know, 
 and that is all I can state upon the subject. 
 
 Question. I ask you to refer to a single newspaper article, or to refer 
 to a single conversation, naming the individual, which at all justifies 
 that article ? 
 
 Answer. It is a conclusion drawn from general impressions ; I have 
 no specific point to make upon the case, but it is a matter drawn solely 
 from general impressions. 
 
 Question. In other words, you are willing to publish here a charge 
 little short of charging this committee with perjury, and all the ex- 
 planation that you can give with reference to it is, that it is- derived 
 from general impressions that you have got in the streets ? 
 
 Answer. I disclaim making any charge against the committee ; any 
 personal charge against the committee I entirely disclaim. But I 
 must say that I think it looks a little like a star-chamber investiga- 
 tion, to see the manner in which a man is asked to testify respecting 
 a general article. 
 
 Question. You say you intend no personal reflection on the commit- 
 tee when you Ltite that " no cross-examination of witnesses takes 
 place before this most infamous of tribunals, since the star-chamber 
 was abolished ;" and when you further declare that " witnesses are 
 allowed to take their oion time to prepare their stories, and if they 
 stumble in the slippery path of perjury, they are kindly placed on their 
 feet again, instead of being pinned down by cross-examination to the 
 penalty of their guilt ?" 
 
 Answer. I drew that from what I believed to be the impression pre- 
 vailing among the community generally, that this is a star-chamber. 
 
 Question. And you think that a man, without any impeachment of 
 his character, can belong to an "infamous tribunal," and can co- 
 operate with witnesses to aid them in committing perjury ? 
 
 Answer. I am not answering you as a lawyer putting questions, 
 but simply state the fact, that I have made no personal allusions or 
 charges against gentlemen, but have based the article in question upon 
 what seems to be the general impression prevailing among the great 
 body of the community. * 
 
 Question And yet you state that you are not able to name a single 
 conversation, or a single fact, that justifies the conclusion to which 
 you have arrived, or even tends to show that such a conclusion is a 
 just one ? 
 
 Answer. It is a general matter, about which every person talks. 
 
 Question. It is quite too general. 
 
 Answer. That may be. 
 
206 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 
 
 Question. I want to get at the detail of some of these generalities? 
 
 Answer. You know, in all cases, there is proper redress for all arti- 
 cles that are not hased upon truth, and there is a tribunal — not a star- 
 chamber — before which these things may be tried. There is a tribunal 
 where justice is done, and where there are two sides to the interroga- 
 tories put to the witnesses. 
 
 By 3Ir. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Are you not able to state some individual that you have 
 heard make, in substance, this charge which appears in your paper ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard no individual make it personally against any 
 man. 
 
 Question. Or against the committee ? 
 
 Answer. I have disclaimed, from the beginning, any intention of 
 making any personal reflection upon the committee. 
 
 Question. Have you ever heard any single individual — and if you 
 have, state who it is — charge this committee with corruption, with 
 being infamous, and with assisting a witness when he is committing 
 perjury to get out of it ? 
 
 Answer. I know of no individual case in which the matter has been 
 specifically charged in that way. 
 
 Question. Now, sir, have you seen, and are you able to name a single 
 newspaper that has made that charge ? If so, name it ? 
 
 Answer. I think the democratic press nearly all through the coun- 
 try have done so. 
 
 Question. Will you name one paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think of any particular article now in any paper. 
 
 Question. Can you name one paper that has made inat charge ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot name any just now. 
 
 Question. Can you name any letter that has been written by any 
 single individual containing these charges ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know who write the letters. 
 
 Question. Have you seen any letter making such a charge pub- 
 lished in any paper ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen letters to that effect published in some of the 
 papers. 
 
 Question. What papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what papers. 
 
 Question. Do you know what date they appeared ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not. 
 
 Question. Then you are not able to state that you have seen in any 
 particular paper any of these charges made against the committee? 
 
 Answer. I think I have seen in nearly every democratic paper I 
 have exchangedffith the substance of what is stated there. 
 
 Question. Will you state one of them? 
 
 Answer. I cannot do it now. I pick up my exchanges, look over the 
 editorial articles, and throw them one side ; but as a general thing I 
 think nearly the entire democratic press of the country make the same 
 statements. 
 
 Question. Can you not name one of them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir^ I cannot. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 207 
 
 Question. It is most extraordinary, if so many make these state- 
 ments, that you cannot name some one paper. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I cannot. 
 
 Question. You spoke of street conversations ; do you go around the 
 streets talking with gentlemen about these things ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How do you get this information upon the streets ? 
 
 Answer. You cannot pass any corner, or talk with any gentlemen 
 upon the streets, that this subject is not brought up. 
 
 Question. Will you name some of these gentlemen ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot name them. 
 
 Question. Whom do you associate with? 
 
 Answer. I associate with gentlemen. 
 
 Question. I presume so, sir ; but I thought if I could get the names of 
 some of your political associates I could ascertain where these reports 
 came from. 
 
 Answer. I associate with gentlemen of all parties ; and I have heard 
 these conversations as a general thing in the hotels and about the 
 Capitol. 
 
 Question. Just state some of these gentlemen who make these state- 
 ments — give us their names. 
 
 Answer, I' cannot give you their names. I do not bring any par- 
 ticular charge against any one ; but j^hese articles were written upon 
 the general principles involved in a star-chamber inq[uisition, as it is 
 called by the democratic press of the whole country. 
 
 Question. What tribunal is it that you refer to ? 
 
 Answer. I am not referring to any particular tribunal ; but that 
 word is frequently used. 
 
 Question. Do you know what it refers to ? 
 
 Answer. It refers to a one-sided committee, taking testimony upon 
 only one side of a question. 
 
 Question. You think the word star-chamber means a one-sided com- 
 mittee, do you ? 
 
 Answer. It means about that and not much else. 
 
 Question. A man writing about a thing ought to know what it 
 means, ought he not ? 
 
 Answer. I think it means what I have stated, as connected with 
 the investigations before this committee. 
 
 Question. Then you have made these charges, as I understand it, 
 upon the statements that you have heard . upon the streets, in bar 
 rooms, and from what you have seen in your exchanges ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Those articles were written from what seemed to 
 be public opinion upon this subject generally. 
 
 Question. You are not able to give us any particular item which 
 makes up this public opinion? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it is at all necessary. 
 
 Question. ^I am asking you a question, and not arguing the case 
 with you. 
 
 Answer. I am disposed to answer every question you may ask. 
 
 Question. I ask you if you have written this article upon general 
 
208 LECOMFTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 statements, without being able to give one single item of information 
 to sustain them ? 
 
 Answer. I presume if I had time to make an examination I could 
 find these newspaper articles to which I refer. 
 
 Question. Can you not give any information now on the matter? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but if I had time to take up the testimony and 
 refer to it, I could point you to a number of cases in which that incon- 
 sistency appears. I cannot do it now. 
 
 Question. That is upon the general supposition that everybody is 
 corrupt, whereas the reverse of that has always been held to be the 
 case. 
 
 Answer. I presume that this committee act upon the supposition that 
 everybody connected with the administration is corrupt, at any rate. 
 
 Question. Whom have the committee attacked ? 
 
 Answer. I think the head of the nation has been attacked in every 
 way that a man could be attacked, as a corrupt man. 
 
 Question. By this committee ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Just state how the. head of this government has been at- 
 tacked by this committee. State one fact, or one instance in which it 
 has been attacked ? 
 
 Answer. I think this question has been so fully argued by gentle- 
 men before your own body, that it is unnecessary for me to answer the 
 question. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Upon your own statements and admissions here, you are 
 willing to charge upon this committee what you think a very grievous 
 offence that other papers should charge the administration with upon 
 abundance of rumors in this city, abundance of letter writing, and 
 abundance of newspaper editorials ; you think that a serious inconve- 
 nience, while at the same time you are writing down here in this 
 scurrilous sheet the grossest of all libels on this committee and the 
 witnesses who testify before it. 
 
 Answer. I take what I deem to be the substantial facts of the case, 
 without making any personal allusions. 
 
 Question. That is ridiculous nonsense, that you can assail a man's 
 character and accuse him of doing the most infamous acts, and then 
 say that there is nothing personal in it. 
 
 Answer. I submit to the chairman of the committee whether this is a 
 proper way to conduct the investigation. Instead of asking questions 
 the committee are undertaking to argue the case. 
 
 The Chairman. There are serious charges there, and it is due to the 
 committee that we should have some explanation of them. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Can you name one living man who is under the impres- 
 sion that witnesses haVe not been cross-examined here, and that they 
 have been prompted to perjure themselves ; can you state any facts 
 or circumstances from which you derived that information ? 
 
 Answer. I have not got the testimony before me, and I certainly 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 209 
 
 cannot go back and remember what has been said during this long 
 sitting ; but if I only had the testimony before me, I could point out, 
 as I believe, evidence of what I have said, and if I had the testimony 
 before me, it is equally probable that I could answer you very expli- 
 citly, and tell you exactly upon what I have founded that opinion. 
 But I cannot do this unless I have the testimony to refer to, and I 
 cannot refer to the facts that have made that impression on my mind 
 now. • 
 
 Question. Would it necessarily appear, on leading the testimony, 
 whether the witnesses were cross-examined or gave their evidence on 
 a direct examination ? Do you know whether it would or not ? 
 
 Answer. So far as that is concerned, it is a question that I could 
 answer by looking at the testimony, so as to know whether it had been 
 a one-sided case or not ; whether, if there had been other testimony 
 brought in, it might not have rebutted that which was introduced, 
 and whether testimony going to implicate a man in high position is 
 given to the world without rebutting evidence or not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you not know that the administration has one of the 
 sharpest of all its friends in Congress to cross-examine witnesses here? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know the fact. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Grovernpr Winslow is a member 
 of this committee ? 
 
 Answer.' I know he is, but he is not here this morning. It seems 
 singular that a one-sided committee should interrogate witnesses, and 
 no man here to ask questions upon the other side- 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. What do you mean by a one-sided committee? 
 
 Answer. I simply mean this : that it seems to be customary, in 
 the formation of investigating committees, no matter which party is 
 assailed, that one of the opposite party ought to be present to ask 
 questions, and thus elicit facts that are forbidden to the witness to 
 volunteer ; his hands are tied upj when there is no political friend on 
 the other side to ask questions. There may be things that his com- 
 mittee man might wish to ask that might prevent a great deal of out- 
 side inquiry that appears to be altogether foreign to the investigation 
 before the committee, which is to ascertain whether the government 
 has corruptly used money for corrupt purposes, and not what a man's 
 opinion is with reference to an article that he writes for a public 
 newspaper. 
 ' Question. How long have you been a democrat? 
 
 Answer. As long as I can remember. 
 
 Question. So have I, and I suppose I am about as good a democrat 
 as you are. Although I have never got anything from the public 
 crib, yet I think I would defend democratic principles about as quick 
 as you would. 
 
 [Some discussion followed respecting northern and southern demo- 
 crSits 1 
 
 ' ;B. Eep. Com. 648 U 
 
210 LECOMPTOK CONSTITOTION, ETC. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In those articles in your paper with reference to some of 
 the testimony that has been taken here, was it not to Mr, Schnabel 
 that you alluded when you spoke of perjury ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it not with regard to his testimony ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was no personal application. The article 
 was written by a gentleman who is almost a stranger in the city. 
 After he wrote it I took it up and read it. It certainly was not writ- 
 ten with the intention to apply to any particular individual, hut as a 
 general remark. 
 
 Question. This article was written about the time or just after Mr. 
 Schnabel and Governor Walker had given testimony here. Now, 
 had it not special reference to their testimony ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Q,uestion. You did not mean to discredit it — the testimony of either 
 of those gentlemen ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was a general newspaper article, and I paid no 
 more attention to it than merely to read it over and lay it down, and 
 it was put in type. It was a general article, upon a general subject. 
 
 Question. You say, then, that you did not mean it to apply to either 
 of these witnesses ? 
 
 Answer. I did not mean it to apply to any individual. That article 
 was written, and I did not even give it consideration about any indi- 
 vidual at all, but looked upon it as relating to a general subject. 
 
 Question. Is it not singular that such severe articles should be 
 written immediately after testimony had been given here by those two 
 indi /iduals, if no reference was made to them in particular ? Is it not 
 your impression that it was intended to apply to them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; my impression is that there was no intention to 
 apply it to either of them. 
 
 No. 61. 
 
 Tuesday, May 22, 1860. 
 
 EDWIN G. DILL called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Washington city. 
 
 Question. Where were you residing during the sprins, summer, 
 andfallofl85t? 
 
 Answer. That was immediately after the Presidential campaign ; I 
 was residing in Washington city at that time. 
 
 Question. In what were you engaged during the summer and fall 
 of 1857? 
 
 Answer. I was connected with the Washington Union ; I held a 
 subordinate position upon that paper. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 211 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about where the Lecompton con- 
 stitution was prepared ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Do you know Henry L. Martin? 
 
 Answer. I have met him ; I am not very well acc[uainted with him . 
 
 Question. Do you recollect of his going to Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, Have you any means .of knowing what his business out 
 there was — what he went out there for ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; 1 have not. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have a conversation with him about what 
 he went there for ? 
 
 Answer. I had no conversation with him as to what he went there 
 for ; I had a conversation with him after he returned from Kansas ; 
 but he did not allude to the action of the convention any more than to 
 state what the constitution was that it had adopted. 
 
 Question. As I understand you to say, you know nothing about 
 where that constitution was got up ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Ton do not know from observation, or from what you 
 have heard any party say who was connected with it ? 
 
 Answer. Observation would, of course, be what I know myself. 
 
 Question. I mean what you have seen ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen nothing myself. 
 
 Question. Have you ever heard any person say ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is a pretty general question. 
 
 By Mr Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Have you heard any person say that they were connected 
 with getting up that constitution here ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have never heard any person say they were con- 
 nected with the getting up of that constitution. 
 
 Question, Do you know anything, of your own knowledge, about 
 the constitution, or the manner of its submission being got up here ? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing of my own knowledge whatever in regard 
 to its getting up. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything of the plan of submission ; the 
 manner of submission originating here ? 
 
 Answer. All I do know is from conversation. 
 
 Question. With whom was that conversation? 
 
 Answer. Perhaps I ought not to state that. 
 
 Question. I want you to state that very thing. 
 
 Answer. 1 regarded it as a private conversation at the time. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. I do not think a witness has a right to decline to 
 answer a question for the reason that it relates to private conversa- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Train. I think the witness is bound to give the name of the 
 party with whom he had the conversation, as well as the conversa- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman. I think the question is a proper one. 
 
212 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. I will waive that question for the present. 
 
 Question (to witness.) What was that conversation, and where 
 was it held, and under what circumstances ? State all about it. 
 
 Answer. The conversation was substantially this — it is a long time 
 since I had it : it was to the effect that the Lecompton constitution, 
 not the constitution itself, but the slavery clause, would be submitted 
 to the people of Kansas for their action ? 
 
 Question. Where was that conversation held ? 
 
 Answer. Even that is in some manner confidential and private. 
 
 (Question. State the place where it was held ? 
 
 Answer. It was not held in any house or building ; I was on my 
 way at the time to the Navy Department, and I met the gentleman 
 with whom I held that conversation just at the gate, passing from the 
 Treasury Department, going on through by the White House. 
 
 Question. What time was that ? 
 
 Answer, I could not state the time, but it was after the Lecompton 
 convention had adjourned to meet at another period. 
 
 Question. After the first meeting and before the second meeting of 
 the convention ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the information was given to me that I might 
 make use of it in a newspaper correspondence. 
 
 Question. Now, I will ask you with whom that conversation vas 
 held? 
 
 Answer. Well, I consider that a very private matter. 
 
 Question. That is true ; and you might feel yourself disgraced if 
 you told it in ordinary conversation ; but when you are called upon 
 to testify under oath you have no right to keep that to yourself. 
 
 Answer. I do not feel that I have any right to give the name of a 
 gentleman who gives me a piece of information ; that was merely the 
 extent of the matter. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Will you report what he said ? 
 
 Answer. He merely told me that the slavery clause of the constitu- 
 tion would be submitted to the people of Kansas ; that was the thing 
 I wished to know ; I wished to know in regard to the action of that 
 convention, what it would be. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. He said that the whole constitution would not be sub- 
 mitted ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that a majority of the convention had agreed to 
 •that. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. That they had agreed to that ? 
 
 Answer. Well, that it had been talked over there with a number 
 . of gentlemen. 
 
 [Mr. Olin here entered the committee room. J 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 Question. Who was the conversation with? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 213 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think the witness is bound to answer that 
 question. 
 
 The Witness. I prefer not to give his name ; not without confer- 
 ring with the gentleman. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW held. that there was nothing in the resolutions author- 
 izing the appointment of the committee which justified an examina- 
 tion of this subject. 
 
 The other members of the committee held that the investigation 
 was legitimate, and the particular inTjuiry a proper one. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSON said he was willing to allow the witness until to-mor- 
 row morning before pressing the question. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you want time to reflect upon it, or consider upon it? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not at all ; for my mind is made up fully upon 
 that point. But I will see the gentleman in the meantime, and if he 
 has no objection to my making public his name I will do so. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Was the manner of submitting the constitution stated to 
 you then, just as it was finally submitted — the particulars gone into 
 in that conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I believe that in the main it was the same. 
 
 The witness was here directed to leave the committee room for a few 
 moments. 
 
 The committee then had a consultation in regard to insisting upon 
 an answer from the witness as to the name of the person with whom 
 he had held the conversation referred to in his testimony. 
 
 The witness was then recalled and directed to appear again before 
 the committee to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock, prepared to give an 
 answer to the question. 
 
 Wednesday, May 23, 1860. 
 
 EDWIN G. DILL recalled. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. I suppose that we liave nothing more to ask you than 
 whether you are ready to answer the question we asked you yesterday, 
 as to the name of the person with whom you had the conversation 
 about the course to be pursued by the convention at Lecompton. 
 
 Answer. [The witness here read the following :] "In reply to the 
 question put to me yesterday, having the consent of the gentleman 
 referred to, I will now answer it satisfactorily. Learning that Sena- 
 tor Bigler had returned from a visit to Kansas, and having been 
 requested by the editors of the Pennsylvanian, whose correspondent I 
 then was^ to see him, I did so, when he told me, as nearly as I can 
 now recollect, that the slavery clause, alone, pf the Lecompton con- 
 stitution would, in all probability, be submitted to the people of 
 Kansas for their action. He also said that he thought it was the best 
 the convention could do, as the slavery question was the only one upon 
 
214 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 which the people were divided. This information I made use of in a 
 letter which was published in the Pennsylvanian the next morning," 
 
 Question. Do you recollect at what particular time you had that 
 conversation with Senator Bigler ? 
 
 Answer. Indeed, I cannot fix the time exactly. It was after his 
 return from Kansas ; after his visit there. 
 
 Question. Between the time of the adjournment of the conventioa 
 and its next meeting ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was during hot weather, I know. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. You said yesterday that it was during the recess of the 
 convention. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was during the recess. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question, If you come across the article in the Pennsylvanian that 
 you wrote at that time you will please give it to some one of this com- 
 mittee, or let our clerk have it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes^ sir ; I will do so. 
 
 No.l. 
 Wednesday, May 23, 1860, 
 
 COKNELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. I believe that you stated in your former testimony that 
 during the pendency of the Lecompton or English bill, you had very 
 frequent conversations with the President and the members of the 
 cabinet, and that they did not give you any express or positive direc- 
 tions relative to using money to carry that bill ; was not the impression 
 made on your mind in those interviews, from all that took place be- 
 tween you and them, that if you did use your money you would be 
 cared for and reimbursed in government patronage ; was not that 
 impression made upon your mind from all the interviews between the 
 President, members of the cabinet, and yourself ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. The general idea left on my mind from those 
 conversations was, that if I exerted myself i» favor, of the passage of 
 that bill I would be justified and sustained in anything I did and 
 would be cared for. I was under the impression that I would be 
 properly considered thenceforward during the term of the administra- 
 tion. 
 
 Question, Would you have used any considerable amount of money 
 in that way on your own account without any expectation of reim- 
 bursement ? 
 
 Answer, Well, sir, after I had got into it I would not have hesi- 
 tated at any expenditure I could have commanded to have carried it. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 215 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I -will read to you fsome q^uestions I put to you on a former 
 occasion with your answers to them, and then ask you if you stand 
 by those answers now ? 
 
 "Question. I see that your bank account runs up to $929,000 in 
 about two years. Now, the money that you speak of, was it money 
 of your own or money of the government ? 
 
 " Answer. It was my own. 
 
 " Question. I ask you if this money was paid at the instance or re- 
 quest of the government or any member of it ? • 
 
 " Answer. No, sir. 
 
 " Question. So far as you know they were totally ignorant of that 
 fact? 
 
 "Answer. Totally so. 
 
 " Question. I understand you to say that you never had a conver- 
 sation with the President advising you to pay money for the passage 
 of bills? 
 
 " Answer. No, sir ; never. 
 
 " Question. You never approached any member of Congress directly 
 to secure his vote ? 
 
 " Answer. No, sir. 
 
 " Question. And you merely placed money in the hands of those 
 people to be used as they might choose to use it ? 
 
 " Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 " Question. I wish to know if you were to be reimbursed by gov- 
 ernment in any manner, shape, or form, by contracts or otherwise ? 
 
 " Answer. No, sir ; I had no understanding of that sort." 
 
 Question. Do you stand by those answers now. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. On the same day the chairman asked you some questions 
 and you returned answers as follows : 
 
 " Question. How did you expect to be reimbursed for this enormous 
 expenditure of money ? 
 
 "Answer. Well, sir, I may have expected it from a continuation 
 of the work from government ; 1 had an idea that in going in for it I 
 would be entitled to the favorable consideration of government, in 
 m.atters pertaining to my business ; I was, as I said before, heaviljr 
 concerned in doing work for the government. 
 
 " Question. And you thought this would be calculated to continue 
 you in that business ? 
 
 " Answer. Yes, sir ; I did have such an idea. 
 
 "Question. I suppose, of course, that without government patronage 
 you would never have felt interested enough in the passage of the 
 bill to expend that large amount of money on it ? 
 
 ' ' Answer. No, sir ; I do not think I should have done it, I probably 
 expected a continuance during this administration." * 
 
 On a former occasion I asked you the following questions to which 
 you returned the following answers : 
 
 " Question. Was there any understanding, directly or indirectly, 
 secret or otherwise, between you and the administration that you 
 
216 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 should be rewarded in any way, shape, or form for what you were 
 doing for the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 " Answer. No, sir. 
 
 " Question. I understand that your only expectation was what 
 every partisan expects for fidelity to his party ? 
 
 "Answer, That was all. I was an active and enthusiastic man, 
 and went further, perhaps, than I ought. I will state here that this 
 was not in reference to the Lecompton bill proper that was defeated." 
 
 Question. Do you still hold to the answers there given ? 
 
 Ai*wer. I do. The committee will understand that I do not admit 
 that there is any contradiction there. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. You say that impressions were made upon your mind 
 that induced you to make these expenditures, you expecting to be 
 rewarded. And upon former occasions you have said that you could 
 understand without being told directly what was meant. Now what 
 we want is that you should put yourself correctly upon the record, 
 and state what was said to justify you in these expectations. 
 
 Answer. I do not know as I can do so more than I have. There 
 was a deep solicitude evinced to have the bill passed. In the conver- 
 sations that I held the subject was thoroughly discussed; and every 
 measure that it was supposed could have any effect upon it, upon the 
 procuring of votes, was considered. Although there was no direct 
 positive understanding about it, no one said, "Wendell, you spend 
 a thousand or ten thousand dollars and we will reimburse you" — 
 nothing of that kind, yet the impression conveyed to my mind was 
 that the measure was one in which the administration was very much 
 interested, and if I assisted in its passage 1 would be considered. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. That is, that you would be in a good position in the 
 party? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Not that the administration would reimburse you for 
 money expended ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 ^ Question. But that you would occupy a good position in the party, 
 and would be entitled to consideration from the party? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Mr. Buchanan did not know that I was raising 
 money — that is, he did not know I gave A. B. $500, and C. D. 
 $5,000 for the bill. 
 
 Question. You was to aid the administration to carry a bill that 
 you thought would be beneficial to the party ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question; And you acted as a partisan in regard to that measure ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 ;' * s^uestion. Did none of the administration know that you were using 
 inMey for that purpose ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 217 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that they did. 
 
 Question. Was nothing said ahout its being expensive — about its 
 taking a great deal of money? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that there was. 
 
 Question. Have you told the committee all that you know in con- 
 nexion with this matter that it is important for them to know ? 
 
 Answer. I think I have. I do not know anything more ; nothing 
 more occurs to me now. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Did you give F. W. Walker $2,500 for any purpose in 
 the spring of 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I have no record showing the exact amount I gave him. 
 It is only from his own testimony, that I know that is the amount. I 
 gave him money and acceptances or notes, but the exact amount I 
 could not swear to. 
 
 Question. For what purpose was that given to him ? 
 
 Answer. The impression that I had when I gave it to him was that 
 it was for services about the Lecompton bill. 
 
 Question. What sort of services ? Specify the kind of service. 
 
 Answer. I cannot say ; arguments, perhaps. I think I gave it to 
 him at the instigation of Mr. Hay, if my memory serves me right. 
 If I am clear about it, I paid it to him at the instigation of Mr. Hay — 
 whether to be appropriated to his own use, or to be given to some one 
 else, I could not say. 
 
 Question. Were there any particular parties you knew of who were 
 to be reached by Walker? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean any particular members of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know of any particular parties. 
 
 Question. Do you know what influences he was to bring to bear in 
 consideration of that amount of money ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. As I said before, it was at the instigation and 
 request of Mr. Hay that I paid him the money. I had not much con- 
 versation with him in relation to it. 
 
 Question. Mr. Alexander Hay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was this payment made before or after the passage of 
 the bill? 
 
 Answer. After, I think. 
 
 Question. Without the knowledge of some service performed on his 
 part would you have paid him $2,500 ? 
 
 Answer. At the instigation of Mr, Hay, yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Then you relied upon Mr. Hay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You have testified to having given Mr. Bean $5,000 and 
 Mr. Walker $2,500 ; did the residue of the $30,000 you spent upon 
 that bill go into the hands of Mr. Hay ? 
 
 Answer. I think it did. I am not clear but there might have been 
 a little paid to other parties ; but I think the rest went into his hands, 
 or through his hands, almost entirely. 
 
218 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Before or after the passage of the bill ? 
 
 Answer. That I cannot say. I recollect, in settling up expenses, 
 of giving him some notes, the memorandum of which notes 1 have • 
 but it is so intentionally mystified upon my books that T could not 
 pick out the items ; but the impression is clear upon my mind that I 
 spent some $30,000 for that specific purpose. A portion of these notes 
 I think I gave to Walker at Hay's instigation, but whether both Hay 
 and Walker were present at the time or not I do not remember. 
 Whether I put the notes directly into Walker's hands or gave them 
 to Hay, and he handed them to Walker in my presence, I do not re- 
 member. The notes were met at maturity, I know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. I noticed the other day on the book you had here a great 
 many erasures and alterations ; I want to inquire whether those were 
 made intentionally, for the purpose of suppressing evidence ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Why were they made ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I did not make them ; they were made 
 by my bookkeeper. 
 
 Q uestion . I noticed in one case that there was paid to S . " Union' ' 
 
 so many dollars ; whatever had been written after " Union" was care- 
 fully scratched out ; do you know what that was done for ? 
 
 Answer, I do not. After I noticed them here I asked my hook- 
 keeper, and he said it was not matters pertaining to political expenses 
 at all ; they were alterations made by him ; I was not cognisant of 
 them at all until I saw them in the book here. 
 
 No. 11. 
 Friday, May 25, 1860. 
 DAVID WEBSTER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer.' In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What have you been engaged in for the last few years? 
 
 Answer. I am a praticing attorney, and latterly have been engaged 
 as one of the commissioners of the State of Pennsylvania to revise the 
 penal code of the State. 
 
 Question. Have you not received a letter from Judge Black holding 
 out some inducement to Colonel Forney if he would change his course 
 and support the administration ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never received any such letter. 
 
 Question. Had you conversations with Judge Black on the subject 
 of Colonel Forney's course ? 
 
 Answer. In consequence of a letter I received from Judge Black I 
 came to Washington in December, 1857, and had an interview with 
 him here in reference to Colonel Forney . 
 
 Question. What took place at that interview, and what was the 
 result of it ? 
 
 Answer. A conversation took place between us, but I regard it ia, 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 219 
 
 the light of a confidential communication, and would not like volun- 
 tarily to speak of it. I understand that Judge Black is absent from 
 the city ; otherwise I should have called upon him and endeavored to 
 obtain his consent to my disclosing fully what passed. And I may 
 remark that I do not think there was anything in that conversation 
 that he would object to have stated. 
 
 Question. To what did the letter refer that you received from Judge 
 Black before you had that interview with him ? 
 
 Answer. I wrote to Judge Black making inquiries as to whether 
 there had been any arrangement made for giving out the printing of 
 the post office blanks, and suggested that it was highly desirable that 
 Colonel Forney should receive that patronage from the government. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. When did you write that letter to the Attorney Gen- 
 eral ? 
 
 Answer. I can only tell ^rom the date of his reply, which was in 
 December, 1857 ; it was about that time. His letter, in reply to mine, 
 invited me to come to Washington, saying that no arrangement di- 
 rectly or indirectly had been made upon that subject. I have his letter 
 in my pocket, and have no objection to reading that at all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Kead the letter for our information. 
 The letter was then read, as follows : 
 
 "December 18, 1857. 
 " Mt Dear Sir : There is no definite (nor indefinite) arrangement 
 made of the affair to which you refer. If you desire to do oUr highly 
 valued and gifted friend a great service you should come here imme- 
 diately. I have long desired to see you. Please to come. If you 
 won't come, say so by telegraph. Yours ever, 
 
 "J. S. BLACK. 
 " D, Webster, Esq., Philadelphia." 
 
 Question. Tou came on after receiving that letter. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I did. 
 
 Question. What conversation had you with Judge Black in regard 
 to that matter of printing patronage ? 
 
 Answer. I was a mutual friend of both parties, and I regarded that 
 interview as confidential, and would not like voluntarily to disclose 
 that conversation. I have reflected upon it, and thought that I would 
 appeal to the committee not to press the matter. I understand that 
 Judge Black is absent now in the interior of Pennsylvania. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know when he will be here? 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Were you authorized to make the proposition to Colonel 
 Forney that he should have the printing upon the condition that his 
 paper should support the policy of the administration ? 
 
2^0 LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 Answer. To answer that question would involve the disclosure of a 
 conversation which I have said I regard as confidential. 
 
 Question. I ask you that question to aid my judgment in coming to 
 a conclusion as to whether we should insist upon your giving the con- 
 versation. 
 
 Answer. My answer to that question would, prohahly, involve my 
 stating the whole conversation with Judge Black, which I have said 
 I regard as confidential. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW : I move that the witness have the further time that 
 he asks to enable him to see Judge Black. 
 
 The witness was requested to leave the committee room for a few 
 moments, which he did. 
 
 The committee had some conversation in regard to insisting upon 
 an answer from the witness, hut without coming to a conclusion. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSON suggested that it might he as well to allow the wit- 
 ness until to-morrow morning to reflect further upon whether he would 
 answer the question before seeing Judge Black. 
 
 The witness was then recalled, and his examination resumed, as 
 follows : 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you as ready to answer now as you would be to- 
 morrow morning, in the event of Judge Black not being back here 
 then? 
 
 Answer. I should have the same opinion of the matter then as 
 now. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you not leave Judge Black in a worse position from 
 your testimony as it now stands than you would to give the conver- 
 sation fully ? 
 
 Answer. I think not. 
 
 Question. Did you carry any communication to Mr. Forney after 
 this interview with Judge Black ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. What was that communication ? 
 
 Answer. I must respectfully decline to state what it was, for the 
 reasons I have already given. If the precedent had been set here of 
 compelling witnesses to disclose private and confidential communica- 
 tions I would not insist upon my refusal. But, so far as I am informed, 
 every witness who has based his refusal upon these grounds has been 
 excused. 
 
 The Chairman. There has been nothing of that kind here. 
 
 Mr. Train. We have excused no one on those grounds. 
 
 The Witness. That is the impression I have received from what I 
 have seen in the papers. 
 By Mr. RoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. You say you did carry a communication to Colonel Forney 
 from Judge Black ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Was that in accordance with the request of Judge Black? 
 Answer. Distinctly so. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 221 
 
 Question. And you made known to Colonel Forney the wishes of 
 Judge Black ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What did Colonel Forney say in reply to this proposition 
 of Judge Black ? 
 
 Answer, To answer that question would ohlige me, in justice to 
 both parties, to state all that passed between us, which would fall 
 within the category of my former objection. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. I suppose that, with Colonel F rney's consent, you would 
 have no objection to state it ? 
 
 Answer. With Judge Black's consent. 
 
 Question, I refer now to your interview with Colonel Forney, not 
 your interview with Judge Black. 
 
 Answer, I would not like to give this matter piecemeal. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Tou say that you could not state your interview with 
 Colonel Forney without giving in substance your interview with 
 Judge Black ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr, Olin. I would say, then, that we ought to have this testimony; 
 I do not see why we should not ; the witness is certainly misled as to 
 the course this committee has pursued about private conversations. 
 We do not intend, as a general rule, to inquire into people's private 
 affairs so long as they keep them unmixed with the administration of 
 public affairs ; but, . when they are mixed up with public affairs, we 
 hold that private affairs must give way. 
 
 The Witness. That I confess is the general rule. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSON. The witness, as a lawyer, is aware that his objection 
 would not hold good in a court of justice. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think the witness ought to have time to see Judge 
 Black. 
 
 Mr. Train. I think the witness ought to be required to answer now. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I think the inquiry is pertinent. 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOW. The witness will certainly have time to see Judge 
 Black before this committee conclude their labors. 
 
 Mr. Olin, There is no propriety at all where witnesses are called 
 upon such subjects in allowing them to be together and consult. The 
 policy of the law is generally to keep them apart. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is by special rule, I believe ; the general rule 
 is the other way. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I do not put it upon the ground that there would be-any 
 impropriety in this witness conversing with Judge Black if he was 
 here ; but I put it upon the ground that the inquiry is pertinent, that 
 the witness can tell the truth, and that we should require him to 
 answer now. 
 
 The Chairman. The question before the committee is upon the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Winslow to allow the witness time to see Judge Black. 
 
222 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOlSr, ETC. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I ask the yeas and nays upon my motion. 
 
 The yeas and nays being taken resulted as follows : 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Winslow and Robinson — 2. 
 
 Nays — The Chairman, Messrs. Olin and Train — 3. 
 
 Accordingly the motion to allow the witness fiirther time was not 
 agreed to. , 
 
 The Chairman. [To witness.] The committee, as you perceive, in- 
 sist upon your giving an answer to the question now. 
 
 The Witness, The committee insist upon the question being an- 
 swered ? 
 
 Mr. Olin. In the event of your refusing to answer tbe only couiBe 
 left to the committee will be to take the matter to the House. 
 
 Tbe question was repeated to the witness as follows : 
 
 Question. What was the result of your interview with Judge Black? 
 What was your conversation with him ? 
 
 Answer. As the committee insists upon it I will answer. Colonel 
 Forney started his paper in August, 1857, and sustained the policy 
 of this administration down to the time the difficulties arose in 
 Kansas about the Oxford and McGee frauds, when he took sides with 
 Grovernor Walker upon that subject. That was the occasion of the 
 first difference between him and the administration and its supporters 
 in Philadelphia. His paper was very decided and emphatic upon 
 that subject, and it occasioned a great deal of alarm as to the result 
 it would produce if persevered in ; that it was likely to create a dif- 
 ficulty between him and the administration, and lead him into the 
 support of opposition measures. Down to that period Colonel Forney 
 had received no patronage irom the government, except occasional 
 advertising from some of the departments, but myself and others, 
 being warm personal friends of Colonel Forney, exerted ourselves to 
 the utmost to put his paper upon a solid and prosperous footing. Of 
 my own accord I wrote to Judge Black, making inquiry respecting 
 the distribution of the printing of the post office blanks, and asked 
 that it might be given to Colonel Forney. As I before stated, his 
 letter in reply to mine invited me to Washington to hold an inter- 
 view with him. I came on here and we had a long conversation 
 upon the subjeet. He stated to me that it was evident that Colonel 
 Forney's course would ultimately land him with the opposition unless 
 it was stopped, and predicted that his bones would whiten on the 
 shore of black republicanism along with the bones of Wilmot. He 
 was very desirous, indeed, that Colonel Forney should give some 
 pledge in his newspaper that he meant to remain with the democratic 
 party. He said he wanted a paragraph no larger than the palm of 
 my hand, in which Colonel Forney should simply say that while this 
 question had arisen, and was a serious one, it was one, nevertheless, 
 to be settled within the democratic organization; that it was a fair 
 subject for difference, but not for opposition ; and he would abide by 
 the decision of the democratic party upon that subject as soon as that 
 decision might become known. I asked him, " What then?" Well, 
 he said, he was disposed then to do whatever was in his powfer in aid 
 of Colonel Forney's paper. I asked, what about the post office 
 blanks ? He said that Colonel Forney, with this assurance, could 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOJSr, ETC. 223 
 
 have the printing of them. This contract was valued by Colonel 
 Forney's friends at about $80,000. I asked Judge Black what portion 
 of the printing of the post office blanks would be given to him. He 
 said the whole of it. I then remarked, " Well, now, are you able, in 
 case this thing is accomplished, to fulfill what you promise? Will 
 there he no disappointment about it?" He gave .me to understand 
 that he, of course, would not hold such a conversation with me without 
 it was in his power to fulfill all he did promise. 
 
 His views and mine upon the subject agreed exactly. I agreed that 
 it was just such a question as he described it to be, a difference within 
 the party. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. That a man could hold either side of the question and 
 still be a democrat ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I telegraphed from Washington to Colonel 
 Forney in Philadelphia that I had a proposition that I thought he 
 could honestly accept. I returned to Philadelphia and communicated 
 to Colonel Forney the result of my interview with Judge Black, and 
 advised him to came out with such a pledge. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State where you and Colonel Forney met. 
 
 Answer. He met me at the depot in Philadelphia, and I communi- 
 cated this to him first on my way up to my liouse in my carriage, and 
 afterwards more fully at my residence. Mr. Henry .S. Magraw was 
 present at our interview. Colonel Forney indignantly refused to com- 
 ply with Judge Black's wishes, and was very emphatic in expressing 
 his refusal ; I cannot remember his precise language now, but I know 
 this, that he directed me to write to Judge Black that if a life spent 
 in the service of the democratic party, and in the advocacy of Mr. Bu- 
 chanan to public office, was not a suffi-cient pledge of his continued ad- 
 herence to the democratic organization and its principles, then he had 
 lived in vain ; and that was the only answer he had to make to him. 
 I wrote to Judge Black accordingly ; but added, oh my own respon- 
 sibility, that I would advise, notwithstanding Colonel Forney's re- 
 fusal, that the administration should give him the printing of the 
 post office blanks, believing that the possession of such a prize would 
 lead to the very result that the administration was desirous of accom- 
 plishing ; that it was a thing that would work out its own good. I 
 never received any answer to my letter. Colonel Forney persevered 
 in his opposition to the Lecompton policy of the administration, until 
 finally the friends of the administration in Philadelphia withdrew 
 their support from his paper. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other proposition made to Colonel 
 Forney ? 
 
 Answer. Colonel Forney once read to me a correspondence between 
 himself and Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Question. What proposition was contained in that? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Buchanan offered him for the last time the Liverpool 
 coDfiulate ; I mentioned what the salary would be, and that it would 
 
224 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 afford him a handsome support ; and_ if my memory serves me right 
 added that other means of remuneration would likewise be obtained ; 
 but what the character of those means was to have been I have now- 
 forgotten. 
 
 Question. Did it say that it would be raised up to a certain 
 amount ? 
 
 Answer. My impression now is that there was an estimate made of 
 what his income would be if he went out there. 
 
 Question. Did he not say he would make it ec[ual to $25,000 a 
 year ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not recollect. 
 
 Question. It stated that there would be other sources of income be- 
 sides the consulate alone ? 
 
 Answer. Tes^ sir. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 Question. What was the date of this letter ? 
 Answer. It was just before Colonel Forney started his newspaper. 
 Question. Before he had any difference with the administration? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I regarded it as a very affectionate letter from 
 Mr. Buchanan to Colonel Forney. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Can you not recollect if there was not something said 
 about his correspondence with newspapers, and that in that way his 
 income could be made up to a large amount ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; you are right. 
 
 Question. Have you ever communicated this interview between 
 Judge Black and yourself to anybody but Mr. Forney, or otherwise 
 than in confidence ? 
 
 Answer. I communicated it to Mr. Forney on my return to Phila- 
 delphia, in the presence of Mr. Henry S. Magraw, and latterly, having 
 seen a statement in the papers that Mr. Baker, the collector of our 
 port, had testified before the Senate committee that Colonel Forney's 
 opposition to the administration was because of his not getting the 
 printing of the post office blanks, I said that I knew that was not so, 
 but that his opposition was in despite of that. 
 
 Question. I mean this interview with Judge Black. 
 
 Answer. I did speak of it to Colonel Forney's friends, and I sup- 
 pose he has spoken of it himself. 
 
 No. 78. 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 HENRY WILSON called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. General, where do yon reside? 
 Answer. I reside at Boston ; that is my present place of residence, 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 225 
 
 Question. Were you a clerk under Mr. Allen, Clerk of the last 
 House of Kepresentatives ? 
 
 Answer. I was reader to the House of the last Congress. 
 _ Question. Have you any knowledge of any money or moneys being 
 distributed among the clerks of the last House, for -the purpose of get- 
 ting the votes of members in the House, on the Lecompton or English 
 bill, or any other legislation ? 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge of anything of that kind. 
 I have the knowledge that your committee has brought forth, but no 
 knowledge of my own, sir. 
 
 Question. Did any one approach you upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. They did not, sir. 
 
 Question. With money, I mean ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they left me out of their calculations. 
 
 Question. Was it you that was sent to Mobile by the administra- 
 tion, in reference to the expedition said to be fitting out there, by 
 Walker and others, against Nicaragua? 
 
 Answer. I was the person. 
 
 Question. Have you your commission with you, or the credentials 
 und.er which you acted ? 
 
 Answer. I have it in my possession, but it is not in this city ; it is 
 at home. 
 
 Question. What course did you pursue, and with whom did you 
 communicate, upon your arrival at Mobile ? 
 
 Answer. I communicated with the collector of the port, the district 
 attorney, and his assistant. 
 
 Question. Was the administration in earnest in trying to stop the 
 proceedings of the expedition to Nicaragua ? 
 
 Answer. They so told me before I left the city. 
 
 Question. Were your instruccions secret and confidential? 
 
 Answer. They were. 
 
 ■Question, Did you make a report of your mission to government 
 upon your return ? 
 
 Answer. I made a report to the Attorney General. 
 
 Question. Have you a copy of that report ? 
 
 Answer. I have a copy of it, but not with me. There is a copy on 
 file. 
 
 Question. What department paid your expenses ? 
 
 Answer. The Attorney General's department. In this connexion, 
 if the committee will permit me, I will state one or two other facts in 
 order to set myself right before the people. It was stated in the 
 " Mobile Register " that I was an abolitionist. I desire to deny that 
 " soft impeachment." They also stated in the south that I was there 
 under an assumed name, which is also false. The register on the 
 books of the Battle House will show that I was there under my own 
 name, prosecuting this business for the government. It was also 
 stated that I was mobbed by the people of Mobile, and was compelled 
 to leave the city. Such is not the fact. I left at noonday on Saturday; 
 and that evening, at six o'clock, many gentlemen came to the Battle 
 House to request me to leave the city. 
 Question. General, did any person, connected ofHcially with the 
 
 H. Ren. Com. 648 15 
 
226 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 administration, approacli yon upon the subject of the votes of any 
 member of Congress, in connexion with the Lecompton or Englisk 
 bill ? 
 
 Answer. I was approached by a very high officer of the government. 
 I acknowledge that fact, but 1 object to answering as to the persons, 
 
 [The question being pressed, the witness continued :] 
 
 It was a confidential communication by the Postmaster General, 
 through me, to a member of Congress. The Postmaster General is 
 now deceased. 
 
 Question . Is the member of Congress deceased ? 
 
 Answer. He is not, sir. 
 
 The Chaikman. I think myself that the committee will be entitled 
 to have the communication. It comes within the scope of our inquiry, 
 clearly. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. You say this was a communication to a member of Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and from the Postmaster General. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Please to state what that communication was? 
 The Witness. Do you insist upon an answer to the question ? 
 The Chairman. I certainly would, lor my part. I have no know- 
 ledge of what it is. 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Nor I either. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it a written or a verbal communication? 
 
 Answer. It was verbal, sir. 
 
 Question. Please to state what it, was ? 
 
 Answer. On the Tuesday or Wednesday — I am not certain which 
 day — previous to the vote upon the English bill, which I think was 
 on Friday, I was in this city on business connected with the post office 
 at Columbus, Ohio. Colonel Medary was the postmaster there, and 
 I was the chief clerk ; indeed, I had the sole charge of the business 
 of the office. Governor Brown wished me to call upon the member 
 of Congress from my district, Mr. Cox, and say to him that he would 
 be very glad if he would vote for the English bill ; he told me to press 
 it upon him, and desired me to say further to him, that if he did 
 vote for the English bill he would be received into high favor with the 
 Post Office Department, and by-gones would be by-gones. 
 
 Question. Proceed, if you please. What else occurred? 
 
 Answer. He desired me further to say to him, if I could not get any 
 positive answer from him, that it was the request of the Postmaster 
 General that he should call upon him. 
 
 Question. How did you communicate this to Mr. Cox? 
 
 Answer. I called upon Mr Cos at his place of residence — I think 
 it was at the Washicgton House, on the Avenue — and told him what 
 had been said by the Postmaster General, That is the sum and sub- 
 stance of the conversation. 
 
 Question. What was his reply to it ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 227 
 
 Answer. Mr. Cox said that lie had not then made up his mind upon 
 the subject, but he would make up his mind, and no doubt it would 
 be all right. That was all he said. I got no satisfaction from Mr. 
 Cox. Mr. Cox and myself were not on the best of terms, growing 
 out of the removal of Mr. Cox's friend, Mr. Miller, from the post 
 office, and the putting in as postmaster of my father-in-law. 
 
 Question. Mr. Cox did not give you any promise or positive assur- 
 ance how he would vote ? 
 
 Answer. He gave me no satisfaction upon the subject. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Had you any further communication with' the Postmaster 
 General after seeing Mr. Cox ? 
 
 Answer. I reported the conversation to the Postmaster General. 
 
 By the Chaiemakt: 
 
 Question. How did Mr. Cox stand in his district with the adminis- 
 tration ; was his election depending on his support of the English bill? 
 
 Answer. It was, most clearly ; there were a large number of ad- 
 ministration democrats in that district, and there are a great many 
 there yet — administration democrats. 
 
 Question. Were you in any other position under government after 
 you resigned your position as reader, except that commission to Mobile?. 
 
 Answer. I was chief clerk of the post office at Columbus, Ohio, 
 having charge of the post office because Colonel Medary was not there. 
 
 Question. Were you in the confidence of the administration wholly 
 at that time? 
 
 Answer. I presume so ; I know nothing to the contrary. 
 
 Question. Have you ever spoken of this message of the Postmaster 
 General through you to Mr. Cox ? 
 
 Answer. I spoke of it to some of Mr. Cox's friends, in Columbus, 
 during the lifetime of Governor Brown. 
 
 Question. Did the administration advise its friends in Mr. Cox's 
 district to vote for him in consequence of his support of the English 
 bill? 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. Before answering that question, let me ask you, do you 
 know whether the administration gave any advice at all upon the 
 subject ? 
 
 Answer. After the vote upon the English bill. Governor Brown was 
 very anxious that Mr. Cox should be returned, and made a very special 
 point with me to settle all our differences and go in for it. _ I told him 
 that I was a good- enough democrat to vote tor the nominee of the 
 party at all times. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 Question: Is there anything more in connexion with this subject 
 that you know that would be proper for this committee to have ? 
 Answer. I am ready to answer any questions you have to ask. 
 The Chairman. You will bear in mind that when that question is 
 
228 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOBT, ETC. 
 
 put it covers the whole ground, and we do not need to ask every ques- 
 tion in detail . We want all that you know upon the subject. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any proposition being made by any 
 member of the administration to any other member of Congress in 
 reference to this matter ? 
 
 Answer. I do. not, sir. 
 
 Question. Is there any other circumstance connected with this 
 member that would be proper for this committee to know that you 
 have a personal knowledge of? 
 
 Answer. Nothing that I have a personal knowledge of. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What did you say was the occasion of the misunderstand- 
 ing between you and Mr. Cox ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Cox was very much chagrined at the administration, 
 and everybody connected with the Post Office Department, in conse- 
 quence of the removal of his friend, Thomas Miller, from the post- 
 office at Columbus. Thomas Miller was removed by the President, 
 to my personal knowledge, because of Mr. Cox's course towards this 
 administration, and Colonel Medary was appointed. 
 
 Question. When was that ; can you fix the time ? 
 
 Answer. I think it has been over a year. It was just after you 
 went into your new room. I do not remember the time exactly ; but 
 it was during the last Congress ; and when Colonel Medary was nomi- 
 nated as governor of Kansas Mr. Miller was reinstated. 
 
 Question. Is Colonel Medary your father-in-law ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt use of money by the admin- 
 istration to carry the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Answer. In any shape or form ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Directly or indirectly. 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything of the kind, except as you have 
 elicited things here. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the Postmaster General and Mr. 
 Cox ever had a meeting after you communicated with Mr. Cox by the 
 request of the Postmaster Greneral in relation to this vote? 
 
 The Witness. Well, sir, what space of time does that take up? 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. Before the casting of the vote? 
 
 Answer. That I do not know. I know that he was very intimate, 
 after that vote, with the Post Office Department. 
 
LEJOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 229 
 
 Thursday, May 31, 1860. 
 
 SAMUEL S. OOX called and sworn at his own request. 
 
 The testimony of Henry "Wilson, taken on yesterday, was shown to 
 Mr. Cox, after which he submitted to the committee the following 
 statement in writing : 
 
 " In order to repel the groundless insinuation contained in certain 
 questions and answers in the testimony of Henry Wilson and M. P. 
 Bean, I state, first, that I never had any communication or conversa,- 
 tion with Mr. Bean or anybody for him, or for Mr. Wendell, or any- 
 body for him, in relation to the English bill or my vote for it. No 
 one ever dared to approach me with any monetary or other corrupti 
 appliance to secure my support for either the Lecorapton or English 
 bill, unless the conversation with Mr. Wilson and Judge Jackson, 
 member of Congress from Georgia, hereinafter referred to, may be 
 tortured into such an approach. I never had any knowledge of any 
 money being used for the passage of those bills until it was revealed 
 by recent publications. As to Mr. Wilson's statement, it is true I was 
 not on very good terms with him, as he says, when he. called on me, 
 stating that Governor Brown was anxious to have me vote for the bill^ 
 and that I should be reinstated in favor at that department. I was 
 nettled and indignant, first at his presumption in interfering in such 
 a business, which I regarded as in my own proper sphere. I did tell Mr. 
 Wilson I had not fully made up my mind, but my inclination was to 
 vote for the conference bill. I had when he called had a conference 
 with Governor Walker, and was inclined to think as the bill then was 
 that I could sustain it. I believe I gave Governor Walker to under- 
 stand that and Judge Douglas also, with whom I conferred daily. I 
 had, just before Mr. Wilson called, been examining the bill carefully 
 and with my first speech against Lecompton before me to see if I 
 could not justify my vote for it by the reasons of my first speech. I 
 was satisfied I could. But I treated Mr. Wilson without much cour- 
 tesy, I fear, as I was vexed at his interference. The only other ap- 
 proach to me was by Judge Jackson, of Georgia, who wished me to 
 have a talk with Governor Cobb. I do not think it was at Governor 
 Cobb's request. Judge Jackson and myself were very intimate, on 
 the same committee in the House, and he thought Governor Cobb 
 could show me that I could act with the rest of my party and justify 
 my action. I said to the judge that I was personally friendly with 
 Governor Cobb, but that I would prefer not to see or talk with any 
 member of the administration, (as I did not,) as I wanted not only to 
 be clear in my conduct, but to be above any suspicion. Judge Jack- 
 son said I acted right. I said to him that it was from no personal dis- 
 courtesy to his brother in-law. Governor Cobb, that I refused to see 
 him, but I had my own course here to pursue and I must protect my- 
 self against any seeming influences from the administration. Judge 
 Jackson will confirm this statement. I never had any such influence 
 brought to bear upon me in any of these votes. I had a talk with the 
 President long after the English bill was passed. It was the only talk 
 
230 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 I had had with him him since his special message — to the effect that 
 I wanted to be in the position of neither asking for nor receiving any 
 favors. Such a position was necessary to my self-protection at home. 
 The President cordially concurred in my view of the matter. The re- 
 appointment of my friend, Mr. Miller, to the Columbus post office was 
 in the fall, I think, of November, 1858, some eight months after the 
 English hill, and after my election. It was never understood, or 
 agreed, or implied in any way conceivable, that I should receive any 
 such or any other appointment when I voted for the English bill. I 
 did not ask for the removal of Governor Medary from the post office. 
 Governor Denver and Mr. Craig, of Missouri, spoke to me about it, 
 and wished to know whether I would not urge it. I said " I did not 
 know whether my interference would be grateful to Governor Medary. 
 He might think I was inimical to him and wanted him out of the post 
 office. When Governor Medary was appointed to Kansas there was a 
 vacancy. I had been endorsed by the democracy of my district and 
 claimed the right to name my friend, who was removed, as I believed, 
 on my account. The President was not disposed to object. Mr. Wilson, 
 the witness, was a candidate for it, and I think was vexed at my per- 
 tinacity for my friend, Mr. Miller. He was the acting postmaster at 
 Columbus during my campaign. I do not think he aided me any ; I 
 am not aware that he opposed me. My campaign was made on the 
 ground that the English bill killed Lecompton, which it did, in my 
 opinion." 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know the date of Governor Medary's appointment 
 as governor of Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. It was the last of November, 1858, I think. It was just 
 before Congress met, and I was here ready to take my seat. I think 
 I came on here the week before Congress met. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt influences used by the admin- 
 istration to secure the passage of the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did the admistration aid you in your election after your 
 vote for the English bill ? That is, had you the influence of the ad- 
 ministration during that canvass ? 
 
 Answer. I am not aware of any influence being exerted for my elec- 
 tion by the administration. I believe I had the good will of Governor 
 Brown, and I think of the President. But I do not think they ever 
 aided me in any way at all. I know that some of their supporters 
 voted against me. 
 
 _ Question. Do you know of any proposition being made by any par- 
 ties relative to the " Ohio Statesman " getting a portion of the print- 
 ing of the post office blanks, so called? 
 
 Answer. When was that ? 
 
 Question. During the pendency of the Lecompton or English bill, 
 or afterwards ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never heard of these post office blanks until some 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 231 
 
 time in the fall of 1858, after iny election. I did hear something of 
 it then, but I understood that the contract was disposed of to some 
 Philadelphia people. The "Statesman" never got any of it. I do 
 not think that the proprietors of the ' ' Statesman ' ' ever asked for or 
 expected any. 
 
 No. '78. 
 Thubsdat, May 31, 1860. 
 
 HENRY WILSON recalled. 
 
 By the Cqairman : 
 
 Question. Was there any other request that Postmaster General 
 Brown made for you to attend to, in connexion with the English hill? 
 
 Answer. I was not requested to see any other member of Congress. 
 I do not know whether I stated in my testimony that Governor Brown 
 desired me to ask Mr. Cox to see Mr. Lawrence, a member of Congress 
 from Ohio, and state to him the purport of my message. Whether 
 Mr. Cox saw Mr. Lawrence or not I do not know. 
 
 Question. Did you make the request known to Mr. Cox ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 No. 84. 
 Friday, June 1, 1860. 
 
 BENJAMIN ANDREWS called and examined. 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Question. Was you a candidate for the post office at Cleveland, in 
 1858? 
 
 Answer. I was, sir. 
 
 Question. What time did you come here with your papers upon that 
 occasion ? 
 
 Answer. I was here in the first place at the inauguration, in 185T, 
 with other candidates. 
 
 Question. What time did you come on with your endorsements and 
 papers ? 
 
 Answer. I came on at that time. 
 
 Question . I mean when you came on to remain here ? 
 
 Answer. I remained some length of time — probably a month — at 
 that time. 
 
 Question. What time did you come back in the spring of 1858? 
 
 Answer. It strikes me that it was about the middle of March. 
 
232 LECOMPTOK OONSTITUTIOX, ETC. 
 
 Question. How long did you remain that time ? ,r 
 
 Answer. I remained until about the close of the session of Congresg. 
 
 Question. Had you frequent conversations with Gov. Brown, or he 
 with you, relative to the passage of the Lecompton or English bill ? 
 
 Answer. I should like to go on and make a statement of the facts 
 as they exist ; perhaps it would be better to elucidate the truth. 
 
 Question. Just take your own way,. and state it in as condensed a 
 form as you can. 
 
 Answer. I came here and found an indisposition upon the part of 
 the government here to make any appointments at all in Ohio, during 
 the pendency of this question belore Congress. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. How do you know that, sir ? 
 
 Answer. I learned that from Mr. Brown himself. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Brown so state to you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Go on and state your interviews with him, and anything 
 that was said. 
 
 Answer. I had been one of the applicants for that office, and I was 
 desirous of advancing my own interest in getting the appointment, and 
 also securing the appointment of several other individuals from that 
 neighborhood. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Have you stated when that was ? 
 
 Answer. This was the second .time I came here. I was anxious 
 myself that the matter should be disposed of in Congress, finding that 
 to be the case, that the appointments would not be made until that 
 was done. I was not only in favor of the passage of the English bill 
 myself but I was desirous of returning to Cleveland as soon as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Had you not also been in favor of the passage of the Le- 
 compton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I was, sir. I was not only in favor of the original bill, 
 but the English bill. The Postmaster General asked me if I was ac- 
 quainted with the members from Ohio. I told him that I was ac- 
 quainted with a few of them. He remarked to me that the public 
 business was very much delayed, and nothing would be done, and if 
 I had any influence with the members of the Ohio delegation he hoped 
 I would use it to secure the passage of the English bill. I think I hai 
 had some conversation with two or three members from Ohio previous 
 to that time. I believe I remarked to Mr. Hall — who had voted 
 against the Lecompton bill, I believe — that I hoped, if he could con- 
 sistently with his view of propriety, he would vote for the English bill. 
 I mentioned to him that he was aware of the fact that I was an appli- 
 cant for the office of postmaster at Cleveland, that there was nothing 
 to be done in the way of appointments in Ohio until after that ques- 
 tion was settled, and I was anxious on my own account, from personal 
 reasons as well as public considerations, that the matter should be dis- 
 posed of as soon as possible. I had been here some length of time, and 
 
LECOMPTON -CONSTITUTION, ETC. 233 
 
 was' anxious to return to Cleveland. When I mentioned the subject 
 of the'post office to him, with a view of obtaining his influence, he 
 remarked to me that he wished to be very civil to all the applicants 
 from Cleveland, but preferred not to say anything upon the subject 
 until this question was disposed of. That is the substance of my con- 
 versation with Mr. Hall. I also spoke with Mr. Lawrence upon the 
 subject. Mr. Lawrence, I believe, had also opposed the passage of 
 the Lecompton bill, and 1 said I hoped he would vote for the English 
 bill. He said he would take the subject into consideration. There 
 were two or three applicants for the office of physician to the Marine 
 Hospital, at Cleveland — Dr. Kobert S. Strong, Dr. Mathivet, and Dr. 
 Hall. Dr. Strong was my first choice for the office of physician to the 
 hospital. I called upon the Secretary of the Treasury two or three 
 times, but he seemed to be so engrossed with business that I was una- 
 ble to have an interview with him. Not being able to obtain an inter- 
 view with Secretary Cobb, I sought to effect the object by securing 
 the influence of other individuals ; and in the course of conversation 
 one day at the Post Office Department, I asked Gov. Brown if he 
 would aid me in procuring the appointment of Dr. Strong, and if he 
 could not get Dr. Strong appointeji, Dr. Hall would be acceptable to 
 the national democrats of the city. The Postmaster General remarked 
 to me that he presumed there would be no difficulty at the proper 
 time. Nothing was done further about it. Dr. Todd, who was then 
 in office, (a brother of Gov. Todd, of Ohio,) who had been out of 
 practice some thirty years, probably, and gave a great deal of dissat- 
 isfaction to the inmates of the hospital and the citizens there 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is not pertinent to the inquiry. I wish you 
 would make your statement as condensed as you can, for our time is 
 very limited. 
 
 The Witness. I would remark that there was no change made. Dr. 
 Todd died some time afterwards, and Dr. Strong was appointed. 
 That is about the sum and substance of all that I know respecting 
 that matter. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Had you very frequent interviews with Governor Brown 
 upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. I had frequent interviews in relation to my appointment as 
 postmaster ; but that was the only interview that I had in relation to 
 any other appointment. 
 
 Question. Relative to these other friends whom you wanted to get 
 appointed ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that is the only time I spoke with him upon the 
 subject. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any reason being assigned why Judge 
 Hall did not get his brother appointed ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir ; I think it necessary to state here that the 
 conversation which I had with Governor Brown I did not communi- 
 cate to Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall was not appointed ; I believe I stated 
 that before ; I do not know that Governor Brown ever called upon 
 Mr. Cobb to use any influence ; and I should not have called upon 
 
254 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Governor Brown to have an interview with Mr, Oobb had I had an op- 
 portunity of seeing him myself. 
 
 Question. "When this committee was appointed did you inquire of 
 any of your friends whether you would have to give any cabinet se- 
 crets that you had in your possession ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I did 
 
 Question. Did you not state to a friend at that time that if sum- 
 moned before this committee you would be obliged to tell what Gov- 
 ernor Brown said to you ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW remarked that the question was an improper one un- 
 less the name of the person was given ; it was the right of the witness 
 to have the name stated. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a certain member of Con- 
 gress in Ohio having judgments against his property that were paid 
 off about this time, or very soon after it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Has not some person stated this to you very lately? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I object to that question. 
 
 The Chairman. I will put the question in a different form. Were 
 you not informed from Judge Hall's neighborhood very lately that 
 there were judgments against his property that were paid off at this 
 particular time ? 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOw. I make the same objection to that. 
 
 The Chairman. I will not press the question. 
 
 The Witness. There were two democratic members of Congress from 
 northern Ohio ; the others were of the opposition. I believe Mr. 
 Burns did vote for the Lecompton bill. Mr, Hall voted against the 
 Lecompton bill, but finally voted for the English bill, I was anxious 
 to get the influence of those gentlemen for my own purposes, and I 
 should like to have them stand fair with the administration. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Have you stated all that Governor Brown said to you in 
 reference to using your influence with these members ? 
 
 Answer. I believe so ; I do not recollect anything else. 
 
 Question. The amount of it was, if I understand it, that Governor 
 Brown wanted you to exert what influence you had upon those gen- 
 tlemen to induce them to vote for the English bill, and said the ap- 
 pointments would be withheld until after that matter was disposed of? 
 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
 Question, How was it then ? 
 
 Answer, On the first interview which I had with Governor Brown 
 he stated that there would be no appointments made in Ohio at that 
 time^ or until these matters were disposed of. 
 
 Question. And he afterwards wanted your aid ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing was said upon that occasion ; at a subsequent in- 
 terview he spoke to me about using what influence I could. 
 
 Question, Do you know anything about money being used to pro- 
 cure the passage of the English bill? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 235 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you afterwards appointed postmaster ? 
 
 Answer. I was not? 
 
 Question. Who was? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Harrington. I had a petition signed by 2,300 people 
 recommending me for the appointment. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Harrington here at the same time ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Harrington was here a very short time previous to my 
 coming on ; I think I must have passed him on the way coming. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know a man by the name of George Quimby, a 
 banker, in Bucyrus, Ohio ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, 1 am not acquainted with him ; the name is fa- 
 miliar to me. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Is there any such man in Bucyrus ? 
 Answer. I cannot say, sir. 
 Question. Are you acquainted there ? 
 Answer. Very little. 
 
 By Mr. "NVinslow : 
 
 Question. Is the Postmaster General dead ? 
 
 Answer. I believe he is. 
 
 Question. Do you know how you came to be summoned as a witness 
 here? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir, indeed. 
 
 Question. You did not volunteer to come? 
 
 Answer. I did not, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt influence at all being brought 
 to bear by government upon anybody to pass the Lecompton bill or the 
 English bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not^ sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Tou are a warm and decided friend of Mr. Buchanan's? 
 
 Answer. I have been friendly to the administration, but I have not 
 approved of all his policy. 
 
 Question. You approved the Lecompton bill? 
 
 Answer. Yes sir ; and the English bill, and the measures of the 
 administration generally. I am not in favor of some of his appoint- 
 ments, however ; he has kept in too many Douglas men. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. That is the first time I have ever heard that objec- 
 tion made. 
 
236 LECOMPTON CONSTITOTION, ETC. 
 
 No. 86. 
 Saturday, June 2, 1860. 
 
 CHARLES B. FLOOD called and examined. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Where do yoa reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Question. What are you engaged in ? 
 
 Answer. I am editor of the " Daily National Democrat" at Cleve- 
 land. 
 
 Question. Who are the principal owners of that paper ? 
 
 Answer. It is owned by an association of gentlemen in Cleveland. 
 
 Question. Give the names of the principal owners ? 
 
 Answer. The principal names, as I understand them, are Benjamin 
 Harrington, 
 
 The Chairman. Give them, if you know them ; you say you "un- 
 derstand them" — we want what you know, and not what you under- 
 stand. 
 
 The Witness. I could not say that I positively know any of them 
 to he owners of the paper ; but the understanding at the office is that 
 the paper is owned by an association, composed of certain persons. 
 
 Question. Well, proceed and give their names. 
 
 Answer. Benjamin Harrington, Harvey Rice, Matthew Johnson, 
 and others, of whom I am not certain. 
 
 Question. What is Mr. Harrington engaged in ? 
 
 Answer. He is the postmaster at Cleveland. 
 
 Question. What is Mr. Rice engaged in ? 
 
 Answer. He is a private citizen. 
 
 Question. And the other one you mentioned, Mr. Johnson, who is 
 he? 
 
 Answer. He is the marshal of the northern district of Ohio. 
 
 Question. When was that paper established ? 
 
 Answer. The first number was issued on the third day of January, 
 1859. 
 
 Question. What was that paper established for, to your knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. At the commencement of the session of Congress, the first 
 under this administration, attacks were made upon the administration 
 and those who defended them, by the friends of Mr. Douglas. The 
 postmaster, J. W. Gray, editor of the " Cleveland Plain Dealer," was 
 removed from the office of postmaster for cause 
 
 Question. Do you know what cause? 
 
 Answer. The cause, as I understood it 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. Do not state it unless you know, sir. 
 
 The Witness, It was for causes involving his moral honesty ; and 
 immediately commenced an attack upon the friends of the administra- 
 tion, and all who would not go for Mr. Douglas. To defend the ad- 
 ministration and the democrats of that region, I was invited to take 
 charge of a new paper to be established there, and did so. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 237 
 
 Question. Had you any subscription list there to justify you in 
 starting a new paper there? 
 
 Answer. The weekly subscription list of that paper last fall was 
 larger than that of any other paper in Ohio. 
 
 Question. Can you tell where the money came from to start that 
 paper and keep it going ? 
 
 Answer. The money comes from the advertisements and the sub- 
 scription list ; and during the first year the deficiency was made up 
 by the owners. 
 
 Question. Do you know where the money came from which was 
 originally invested in starting the paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know certainly ; it came, as! understood, from 
 the gentlemen who composed the association. , 
 
 Question. Do you not know that a portion of that money came indi- 
 rectly from the government ? 
 
 Answer. I know that it did not, neither indirectly nor directly. The 
 only money received from the government for that paper was for ad- 
 vertising. 
 
 Question. What did that amount to ? 
 
 Answer. It amounted, for seventeen months, to the sum of |382 61. 
 The paper, as I stated, was started on the 3d of January, 1859 ; and 
 this account runs up from the 12th of February, 1859, to tho 9th of 
 May, 1860, taking each particular item for advertising ; and that was 
 at reduced rates. 
 
 Question. Did you not indirectly receive your pay, as editor of that 
 paper, from the government ; or a portion of it ? 
 
 Answer, Neither directly nor indirectly have I ever received one 
 cent from this administration. I get my pay from the counting-room 
 of the office. 
 
 Question. Have you any position as clerk in one of the departments ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never held any such position. 
 
 Question. Is not one of your youngest children holding such a posi- 
 tion, in the name of a clerk ? 
 
 Answer. My daughter has a position as clerk in the Cleveland post 
 office, which she has held for some five months, at a salary of five hun- 
 dred dollars a year. 
 
 Question. What service does she render ; or does she render any ? 
 
 Answer. She renders very hard service, so much so that each al- 
 ternate month her sister has to help her with it. It is a distributing 
 office ; and her duty is to make out, each alternate month, the ab- 
 stracts of the way bills — I am not certain that I know the right name, 
 but if you are acquainted with the post office, you can set me right — 
 these abstracts of the way bills which are sent to Washington ; and 
 columns of figures have to be added up. 
 
 Question. Where is that done ; at the post office? 
 
 Answer. It is done at my house. 
 
 Question. Does she ever do any business in the post office ? 
 
 Answer. No, six ; there are two ladies who periorm the duty. It 
 was heretofore performed by one, but it was found utterly impossible 
 for one clerk to get through with it, and some five months ago an ap- 
 plication was made for an assistant clerk, and the reason was specified. 
 
238 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 The work was looked over, and I understand that the department au- 
 thorized them to appoint another clerk ; and my daughter received 
 the appointment, without my knowing anything about it. 
 
 Question. Is there any probability that your daughter would have 
 got that appointment had it not been in consequence of your connexion 
 with that paper ? 
 
 Answer. My daughter would not have been at Cleveland had it not 
 been for my connexion with that paper. 
 
 Question. Was it not understood that it was to be a sinecure for you ? 
 
 Answer. It was not, sir ; she performs hard service for the salary 
 which she gets. 
 
 Question. That is ten dollars a week, is it not ? 
 
 Answer. It is five hundred dollars a year. She performs harder 
 service than nine-tenths of the clerks in Washington perform for four- 
 teen, sixteen, or eighteen hundred dollars a year. 
 
 The Chairman. That has nothing to do with it. 
 
 The Witness. I think it has ; I was mentioning that to show a com- 
 parison between the service she performs and that performed by other 
 clerks under the government. 
 
 The Chairman. We cannot very well make a comparison between 
 the salaries here in Washington and those in Cleveland. Do you know 
 any girls in Cleveland who get one-fifth the same amount that is paid 
 to clerks in Washington? 
 
 Answer. The other lady who performs service there gets six hundred 
 dollars a year for the same service for which my daughter gets five 
 hundred. 
 
 Question. What is her connexion with you ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing whatever ; she is a widow lady. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you wish to say anything more in vindication of 
 yourself ? 
 
 Answer. I should like very much to state the nature of my connex- 
 ion with the paper. 
 
 Question. Just state your connexion, generally, with the paper. 
 
 Answer. The connexion I have with the paper is as its political 
 editor, untrammelled by any one. I have the sole charge of its politi- 
 cal character, and all that goes into it. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that the paper has received no 
 support from the government, either directly or indirectly, except ad- 
 vertisements ? 
 
 Answer. The only money paid is this amount, which I have men- 
 tioned. There is one advertisement which has not been paid for in 
 addition to that amount of $382 61. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any support being brought to the paper, 
 by forced loans or contributions from route agents, clerks, or others ? 
 
 Answer. That charge has been frequently made ; but that charge 
 is utterly and wholly destitute of foundation in truth. 
 
 Question. Either directly or indirectly ? 
 
 Answer. Either directly or indirectly, to the best of my knowledge 
 and belief. 
 
 Question. Have you not in vour testimonv stated that the marshal 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 239 
 
 of the northern district of Ohio and the postmaster of Cleveland had 
 to make up the deficiency, if there was any deficiency, ia the first 
 year? 
 
 Answer. They had, out of their private fortune. They are owners 
 of the paper, and expect to make money hy it. I would like to add, 
 that, although an administration paper, it has not on all occasions 
 supported the administration, hut has two or three times attacked it 
 on account of the retention of Douglas democrats in a large majority 
 of the offices in Ohio. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know how you came to he summoned here? 
 
 Answer. I was summoned on Monday evening last by a gentleman 
 who was introduced to me as Mr. Wells, one of the Sergeanfcs-at-arms 
 of the House of Kepresentatives. 
 
 Question. Who introduced you to Mr, Wells? 
 
 Answer. Kobert Paine. 
 
 Question. Who is Kobert Paine ? 
 
 Answer. He is a delegate to the Chicago convention from the Cleve- 
 land district. 
 
 Question. Did Eobert Paine tell you that he would get your ex- 
 penses paid to Washington, or something of that kind? 
 
 Answer. I never had a word with Robert Paine upon the subject; of 
 coming here. 
 
 Question. Did you volunteer any statement to the man who sub- 
 poenaed you, or tell him you had some important information, or any- 
 thing of the kind, that induced him to subpoBna you ? 
 
 Answer. Probably the second word that the man said to me was 
 that he had a subpoena for me. I was suprised, and asked him "what 
 for?" He said it was to appear and testify before this committee. 
 My reply was that I was devilish glad of it, for I wanted to put right 
 some things that have been said. 
 
 Question. Did you not get Mr. Paine to tell him something that 
 induced him to subpoena you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Mr. Paine, from the manner in which he acted, 
 seemed to euppose that I would put myself out of the way of a 
 subpoena. 
 
 Question. I ask you the plain question, did not you get Mr. Paine in 
 some way to have you subpoenaed ? 
 
 Answer. I did not, nor did I get any other gentleman nor man ; in 
 no shape, form, or manner, directly or indirectly, did I procure my- 
 self to be summoned. There was no conversation that could have led 
 to my being brought here. The chairman of this committee yesterday 
 told me that he had information about my testimony. 
 
 The Chairman. Tes, sir, I had ; but it was since you came here. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Mr. Covode, you say you did not summon him. 
 
 The Chairman. Tes, sir ; I never heard of him. There is some man- 
 agement or trick being played off in Cleveland, which will all be ex- 
 plained in a few days when the messenger comes back. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It is due to myself to state that I never heard of a 
 subpoena for Mr. Flood ; never knew him before he was summoned ; did 
 
240 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 
 
 not know there was such a man living ; and I am never consulted, as 
 a general rule, about the issuing of any subpoenas to witnesses before 
 this committee. On the contrary, they are summoned without my 
 knowledge and without the authority to do it. 
 
 Mr. Train and Mr. Kobinson both stated that they knew nothing 
 about this witness being summoned. 
 
 No. 87. 
 Saturday, June 2, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM W. SHORE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. My residence is in New York city. 
 
 Question. Where have you been engaged latterly? 
 
 Answer. In Washington. 
 
 Question. In what capacity. 
 
 Answer. As correspondent of the "Rhode Island Evening Press." 
 
 Question. Did you know of a subpoena being issued for you to ap- 
 pear before this committee before you left Washington lately ? 
 
 Answer. I had an intimation to that effect, but no direct knowledge 
 ofit. 
 
 Question. Why was it that you kept away from the reporter's gal- 
 lery here for several days before you left Washington ? 
 
 Answer. I desire to make an explanation in reference to that. The 
 reason of my being subpoenaed, I suppose, was a remark that I made 
 to Captain Darling a week ago last Friday evening. It was a mere 
 matter of joke on my part. Several gentlemen were on the steps of 
 the Washington House as I was passing out, having visited a friend 
 there. The conversation turned in some way (I do not now remem- 
 ber how the conversation came up) upon Mr. Walker, and his being 
 expelled by order of the House from the reporter's gallery ; Captain 
 Darling made the remark that he wanted to find out what Walker 
 did with that $2,500. Says I, " I know what he did with it ;" hav- 
 ing no idea of being subpoenaed here, but expecting that he would ask 
 what he did do with it, when my reply would have been that he put 
 it in his pocket. I merely intended it as a joke, as Captain Darhng 
 was very fond of joking. Instead of that he said, " We will have you 
 before the committee." I immediately said, " Don't do that ; Idon't 
 know anything about the matter at all." I earnestly requested that 
 he would not have me subpoenaed. On Saturday and on the Monday 
 following I was in my place in the reporter's gallery, as usual, up to 
 my dinner hour. On Tuesday morning I received a letter from home 
 urging me to come home on matters of business. I have a daughter 
 about to be married, and my wife urged me to come home directly. 
 
 Question. Had you not notice of this subpoena ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; no direct notice. I responded to the letter of my 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 241 
 
 ■wife. My desire was to go, because my Providence correspondence 
 has not sustained me since I- have been here, and the letter coritained 
 an intimation tha,t the young man who is to be my son-in-law designed 
 to extend his business, and would have me go into the store to take 
 charge of his business as extended. I was very anxious to go into 
 that, and the earnest solicitations of my wife induced me to leave ; 
 and our annual election was to take place in Providence on Tuesday, 
 and I thought I would have an opportunity to attend that before I 
 got into business. I did not design to be out of the way of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 Question. When were you summoned ? 
 Answer. On Tuesday morning of this week, in Providence. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were there not a few days, after you got knowledge that 
 a subpoena was issued for you, that you kept out of the way of the com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Answer.. No, sir ; I was in the way all ihe time, though I have not 
 been in the reporter's gallery all the time ; I have some business with 
 a Mr. Bradley here in regard to some fire-arms of his, and on Tuesday 
 I went with him to make trial of them. I was at the Washington 
 House on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Wednesday I wrote an ar- 
 ticle to the " Press " descriptive of this fire-arm, and also a notice of 
 Mr. Bradley, which was in my regular line of business, and for which 
 he paid me. I had no desire to be brought before this committees it 
 is true ; but it was simply from the fact that I knew nothing, or at 
 least nothing that the committee would want to know. 
 
 Question. You say that it was because you did not know anything 
 about the matter that you did not want to be brought before this com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Answer. It was partly that. I gave notice to Captain Darling on 
 two or three occasions that I did not want to be brought before- the 
 committee, and explained to him that I did not know anything about 
 this matter. 
 
 Question. Have you not 'had some conversation with Mr. Walker 
 since that time about this matter ; and if so, what was the nature of 
 that conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I think I had a conversation with Mr. Walker on Wed- 
 nesday ; I met him in the reporter's gallery, and I think the sub- 
 stance of the conversation was this : Says I, " I have been summooed 
 before the Oovode committee ;" and, says I, "what do you suppose thjey 
 want to know?" Says he, "I don't know; what do you know?" 
 Says I, " they expect me to tell what you have done with that $2,500." 
 Says he, "what do you know ?" I replied, "■ I know nothing of that 
 point." He then said to me that he had made the remark to the com- 
 mittee that his bank account would show exactly what was done with 
 it. I do not think the whole conversation occupied more than two 
 minutes, 
 
 Question. Did you not, at the time these negotiations were going 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 16 
 
242 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 on, know something about Mr. Walker's business in connexion with 
 the passage of the English bill ? 
 
 Answer,' I should have to say that of direct knowledge, I have none. 
 
 Question. What was the character of your knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. The same that most correspondents would have, and per- 
 haps a little more, although of that particular matter I have no direct 
 knowledge, I have known Mr. Walker for some three or four years, 
 and have had business relations with him in the way of Correspondence, 
 and in the matter of the India-rubber patent that he was engaged 
 upon. Do you desire me to tell what knowledge I had of Mr. Walker 
 previous to this matter ? 
 
 Question, Before you go into that, I will ask you : Did Mr, 
 Walker give you the knowledge you have, or did you get it from other 
 persons ? 
 
 Answer. I got it from my connexion with hitn, and being in the, 
 same business. He came here three years ago as the agent of Horace 
 H. Day, to advance the interest of the Chaffee India-rubber patent. I 
 was correspondent of the " Philadelphia Ledger" four years ago, and 
 at that time became acquainted with Mr. Day, and through Mr. Day 
 with Mr. Walker. They were both in the same matter,- advancing 
 the same interest ; and as far as I could I aided them to secure the 
 passage of the bill for the relief of Edwin N. Chaffee. 
 
 Question. Did you know of these two bills being connected by any 
 arrangement to which Mr. Walker was a party — the Chaffee pateu 
 bill and the English Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. Not directly. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you of some arrangement by which the 
 two bills made friends for each other ? 
 
 Answer. I have merely my suspicions about that ; no direct know- 
 ledge. Mr. Walker never made any such statement to me. But I 
 think I can venture the assertion that they were connected, from my 
 knowledge of Mr. Hay and Mr. Wendell. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that Mr. Walker was the go-between 
 of Mr. Hay and Mr. Wendell with members for passing both of those 
 bills? 
 
 Answer. That would be suppositious. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you so himself? 
 
 Answer. From my knowledge of Mr. Walker's business about the 
 House, I should say it was so, that I have no direct knowledge to that 
 effect. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that while Walker himself was not in 
 favor of the passage of the English bill at first, yet by putting the 
 two bills together he became differently interested, and he then went 
 for the English bill? 
 
 Answer. That I should say was direct knowledge on my part that 
 it was so. 
 
 Question. You knew that? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think I knew that. The Chaffee patent was 
 one of the largest interests in the country, and I know that the in- 
 terests of those two bills were blended together, through Mr. Hay. 
 Mr. Hay was the real agent, and Mr. Walker was regularly emj' 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 243 
 
 by Day, and I know that Mr. Walker lias exerted political influence 
 to aid in the passage of the patent. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I believe much of this testimony to be illegal, hear- 
 say testimony, merely the declarations of Mr. Walker ; but I am not 
 going to throw any obstacles in the way. I have never done so when 
 there is any corruption involved. I only want it to appear that I am 
 not sitting here silently acc[uiescing in qijestions that are illegal ; that 
 is all. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSON, I am inclined to that opinion myself with regard to 
 most of the questions ; but I think it best that the witness should go 
 on and state what he does know. 
 
 ^ By the Chairmast: 
 
 xQuestion. Go on and makeyour statement with regard to your means 
 <x knowledge of the blending of the interests of the two bills, and 
 the money influence that was thought to bear after those interests 
 were blended ? 
 
 Answer. I hardly know where to begin. 
 
 Question. What I want to find out is your knowledge of the money 
 influence in connexion with this matter ? 
 
 Answer. In regard to that I knew that there was an immense deal 
 of money expended here upon the Chaffee patent ; that every means 
 were used to advance that interest ; that some men were paid for saying 
 nothing, and some were paid for what they did. My connexion with 
 the bill was the saying nothing. I was then writing occasional letters, 
 and I received from Mr. Hay a certain amount of money for doing 
 nothing, neither to advance the interests of the patent nor to oppose 
 it. I was paid not to oppose the interest of the Chaffee patent. I was 
 with Mr. Hay and Mr. Walker, and was knowing to all these facts ; 
 that influences were used in one way to advance political measures, 
 with the view of making friends of the Chaffee patent. The one 
 seemed to turn upon the other. Of course every means they could 
 devise was made use of to carry out that particular end. 
 
 Question. What amount of money was paid by you for doing 
 nothing ? 
 
 Answer. I received from Captain Hay $10 a week. 
 
 Question. For what length of time? 
 
 Answer. I received that during the last Congress. 
 
 Question. Was that after the two bills were blended together in 
 interest ? 
 
 Answer. The English bill was passed two years ago this spring. 
 
 Question. Was this money received by you after the blending of the 
 two bills ? 
 
 Answer. My interest in the matter closed with the closing of the 
 .last Congress ; I have received nothing since then. 
 
 Question. Then you received this pay while these two bills were 
 pending ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Walker received the $2,500 that 
 he got in the same way, or for any other purpose than to get him to 
 use his influence for the bills as they were blended? 
 
244 XECOMPTON CON8TITDTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. My impression was that Walker received the money in 
 «hout the same way that I did mine, except that he had a different 
 interest — an active interest. I considered that my position with regard 
 to the Chaffee patent was a negative one. 
 
 Question. Did you get altogether as much money as Walker did? 
 
 Answer. No', sir ; I think I may have received $200. 
 
 Question. Do you know of other reporters in the House gallery that 
 were employed in the same way, either to say something, or to refrain 
 from saying, in connexion with these bills as they were blended? 
 
 Answer. There was a Colonel Chester ; he is not in the country 
 now. He was the correspondent for the " Philadelphia Inquirer." I 
 introduced him to Mr. Day. I was anxious, of course, to aid Mr. 
 Day as much as I could, and would introduce to him such reporters as 
 I thought would be able to help the measure. 
 
 Question. Where is Colonel Chester now ? 
 
 Answer. I think he is in Europe ; he has not been in this country 
 for some two years. 
 
 Question, Do you know at what time the friends of these two mea- 
 sures made the arrangement to blend the two interests together and 
 to unite their efforts ? 
 
 Answer. My knowledge runs back for four years, and I know that 
 Mr. Hay and Mr. Wendell 
 
 Question. I do not think that you understand my question. I mean 
 when were the interests of the English bill and the Chaffee till 
 blended ; do you know when that took place ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I should suppose it was one of those gradual ar- 
 rangements where one thing leads to another;' as the English bill 
 came forward, if the Chaffee bill could aid it in any way ife would ad- 
 vance the Chaffee bill. I suppose that the one was the consequence 
 of the other. 
 
 Question. Do you know who were the representatives of each of 
 these measures that blended these interests ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think L have any direct knowledge with 
 regard to that. 
 
 Question. You do not know who they were who held the conferences 
 to blend together the interests of the English and the Chaffee bills? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was not in the confidence of those parties in 
 their political movements. My knowledge is only that which any 
 man in my business would be likely to have as a looker-on, and, of 
 course, a hunter up of those little matters for the papers with which 
 I was connected. 
 
 Question. When these moneys were paid over for writing or refrain- 
 ing from writing, these interests were blended and mutual, were they 
 not? 
 
 Answer. I have no direct knowledge of that fact ; it is but mere 
 presumption. As I have just remarked, I was not in their political 
 secrets. 
 
 Question. You were not in the confidence of the men who made the 
 arrangements? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 245 
 
 By Mr. Tbain : 
 
 Question. Was the consideration yon received in payment of your 
 keeping quiet upon both measures, or only upon one ? 
 
 Answer. In regard to the Chaffee patent. 
 
 Question. Did you state how Walker's money was received, whether 
 it was for one or both interests ? 
 
 Answer. I have not the direct knowledge. As I have before re- 
 marked, it is merely suppositious. My direct knowledge is the activity 
 of what we term the lobby upon the Chaffee patent, and the material 
 of it, and the great interests at stake. I know that every possible 
 means was made use of to serve that end. There was an abundance 
 of money in it. 
 
 Question. Did they pay this large amount of money without getting 
 their bills passed ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Where does Mr. Chaffee live? 
 
 Answer. He lives in Providence, Khode Island. 
 
 Question, Were you here when the vote was taken on the suspen- 
 sion of the rules to take up the Chaffee bill ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir ; I was not here the last session, 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOW. I wish to state here that, upon an examination of 
 the Globe of the last session, it appears that the vote on the suspen- 
 sion of the rules to enable the Chaffee patent bill to be taken up was 
 on the 31st day of January, 1859. The motion was defeated, two- 
 thirds not voting for it, yeas 86, nays 85. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Then your compensation was $10 a week up to the expi- 
 ration of the 35th Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was engaged in it for two Congresses — for four 
 years, I desire to state that my connexion with Mr. Hay and Mr. 
 Day was a mixed one ; professionally I was doing copying. I would 
 state also that Mr. Hay had an interest in a canal company at Niagara 
 Falls. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Day? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where is he from ? 
 
 Answer. He was originally from Providence. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Hay? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where is he from ? 
 
 Answer. I think he is from York, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question, Where does he now reside ? 
 
 Answer. I think he resides in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. You say that Walker received $2,500? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How much did Mr. Chester receive ? 
 
246 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Mr. Chester had a contingent interest in the passage of 
 the hill, and I think he received a small amount of money. 
 
 Question. Did you know any other persons who had any contingent 
 interest in the hill, or who received any money ? If you did, you will 
 please name them. 
 
 Answer. There were quite a number of parties, but I cannot recol- 
 lect their names at this moment ; I have a poor recollection of names. 
 
 Question. Endeavor to recollect, if you please. 
 
 Answer, [after a pause.] I cannot recollect at this moment. I 
 might refresh my memory, but I cannot call to mind any other names 
 now, although there are persons in my mind. 
 
 Question. Do you know any member of Congress who received 
 money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any member of Congress who had an 
 interest ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any member of Congress having an 
 interest indirectly in the passage of that bill, or who received any 
 money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Mr. Wendell was to receive any 
 money from the passage of the bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. I know that he received a great many 
 pecuniary favors from Captain Hay ; probably those matters were 
 mutual. I think he had an interest in the Chaffee patent. 
 
 Question, What interest had Mr. Hay in it ? 
 
 Answer. I think he was part owner of the patent. He was in com- 
 pany with Mr. Day. 
 
 No. 35. 
 
 Saturday, June 2, 1860. 
 
 J. S. BLACK recalled. 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. You have been furnished with a copy 6f Mr. David Web- 
 ster's testimony? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 [Mr. Webster's testimony was also read to the witness.] 
 
 Question. I will thank you to state to the committee, if you please, 
 all you recollect of that matter ? 
 
 Answer. The printing of the post office blanks was brought to my 
 attention soon after I came into office, as a part of the patronage of 
 the government that might be bestowed as other patronage was 
 bestowed. There were several, I do not know how many, applicants 
 for it ; and among others Mr. Forney, not then the proprietor of any 
 newspaper, was also an applicant. But he intended at the time, I 
 think, to establish a press. Mr. Forney's friends and he himself 
 
LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 247 
 
 urged his claims very strongly. I do not know whether or not he 
 wrote or spoke to the President or Postmaster General upon the suh- 
 ject, hut he did write and speak to me very often. He enlisted my 
 efforts and those of Mr. Cohb very earnestly in his favor. Mr. Baker 
 also exerted himself. He had other friends who were urgent about it ; 
 Mr. Webster was one of them. But I think that it was upon Mr. 
 Cobb and myself that his chief reliance seemed to be placed, and we 
 literally did our best to secure the success of his application. , 
 
 During the summer Mr. Forney often spoke impatiently and bitterly 
 about the delay. Mr. Forney's appeals to me to get this printing for 
 him were coupled with strong assertions that he was then true to the 
 President, that he had always been true to him, and he asseverated 
 strongly that he meant to be true in the future. 
 
 The President did not reply to Mr. Cobb's solicitations and mine 
 by saying whether he would or would not assent. I recollect now 
 only two reasons that he gave for postponing a decision upon it. One 
 was that Mr. Forney ought for his own interest to go abroad ; another 
 was that he (the President) would leave the public printing in the 
 <!ondition he found it until after the meeting of Congress. He did 
 not, in fact, change it during the recess. 
 
 Towards the winter Mr. Forney, having established a newspaper, 
 was understood to be conducting it in puch a manner as to expose him 
 io the suspicion of personal hostility to the President, and an intention 
 of going over to the other side. I began to be told constantly that 
 Mr. Forney had become a bitter personal enemy of the President ; 
 that he was in his heart against the democratic party, and would be 
 openly on the opposition side very soon. 
 
 Things were in just that condition when Mr. Webster wrote me the 
 following letter : 
 
 Philadelphia, December 18, 1857. 
 My Dear Judge : There is some little stir in town to-day, created 
 by a report that the Pennsylvanian has received the job of printing 
 the post office blanks to the exclusion of Forney's paper. Now, not 
 to folloio such a marked and invidious discrimination "to its logical 
 consequences," to quote language which is growing to be immensely 
 popular with us, I am induced to bring this subject to your view, and 
 to recur to a conversation which passed between us when you were last 
 in our city. Your explanation of certain matters and conversations 
 concerning this subject were coupled with an assurance that, when the 
 time and opportunity arrived, our good friend Forney should be taken 
 care of. I am unwilling to believe that the administration has 
 allowed that opportunity to pass by with such a promise unredeemed, 
 and I shall be rejoiced to get a line from you saying that the report 
 which we have heard is unfounded. 
 Tour friend most truly, 
 
 DAYID WEBSTER, 
 Hon. J. S. Black, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
248 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Not having time to discuss the subject with him in writing, I sent 
 him a note requesting him to come over here ; and he came. We had 
 been for several years upon terms of confidential intimacy. He had 
 behaved very well to me, and at my hands he had received nothing 
 but good deeds and tind words. I spoke to him as freely as I would 
 have spoken to anybody in the world. The conversation lasted, I 
 should think, for three or four hours ; a part of it in my house, and 
 a part of it on the street. We ispoke with little reserve of men and 
 measures, public and private, past and future. 
 
 Among other things we talked about the printing of the postoflSce 
 blanks. Mr. Webster knew that Mr. Cobb and I had been very 
 earnest in our efforts to get that printing for Mr. Forney ; that we 
 opposed everybody else but him ; and that we had never, down to 
 that time, ceased to make the effort in good faith. He said the ad- 
 ministration ought not to make a distinction between democrats on 
 account of a difference of opinion upon the Kansas question. I told 
 him that we made no war upon anybody for a mere difference of 
 opinion ; but a fierce and unfair war had been made upon us for our 
 opinion. I added, that what stood in the way of Mr. Forney's ap- 
 plication for patronage was, not his difference of opinion upon Kansas 
 affairs, but he was believed to be personally hostile to the President, 
 on account of not getting what he expected ; that in addition to that, 
 it was suspected by many that he intended to take the first opportunity 
 that presented itself of going over to the other side. It was mani- 
 festly impossible, I said, for the Post Office Department to bestow 
 iavor and patronage upon a man who was engaged in defaming the 
 President's personal character, or who was ready to join his political 
 enemies. I told him that I would not ask anybody to humiliate him- 
 self by unsaying what he had said upon a public subject ; and that 
 Mr. Forney had committed himself upon the Kansas question to an 
 extent that rendered it impossible for him to get back. 
 
 Mr. Webster said he thought as I did, that a mere difference 
 of opinion upon a public question was a thing which ought to be 
 tolerated, and settled inside of the party. As to the other two points, 
 (malice against the President, and sympathy with the opposition,) he 
 denied that they were true in point of fact. He admitted that Mr. 
 Forney, in private conversation — never in his paper — had said harsh 
 things about the President ; but he was an impulsive man, and often 
 expressed feelings that were transient ; at the bottom of his heart he 
 was really friendly to the President. He derided the allegation that 
 Forney would turn his political coat as perfectly ridiculous. Forney, 
 he said, had been belied ; he had no such intention. 
 
 I then expressed the opinion that, if the facts were as Mr. Webster 
 said, Mr. Forney might very readily place himself rectiis in curia, by 
 taking some occasion, in his newspaper, of expressing what his real 
 sentiments were. He might say that the President, though not enter- 
 taining the same sentiments as he did upon certain public questions, 
 was yet governed by honest motives ; and in the same article, if he 
 chose, or in another, he might abjure all sympathy with the political 
 enemies of the democratic party. That would place him in what Mr. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 219 
 
 Webster said was his true attitude ; and that was all I thought ought 
 to be asked of anybody under such circumstances. 
 
 I do not know whether Mr. Webster expressed the opinion that Mr. 
 Eorney would or would not act upon this suggestion. But he said 
 that he thought he ought to do so, for it was perfectly proper and 
 right. He agreed with, me that a man who is an applicant for patron- 
 age irom an administration could not expect to succeed, if he allowed 
 a Suspicion of malice and treachery to stand without contradiction. 
 
 He asked me the question, " do you think he could succeed then?" 
 I told him that I thought he could ; that I knew no reason why he 
 should not, any more than if these suspicions had never existed. He 
 asked me what portion of that printing he could get ? I answered 
 that if he got any he would be bound to get the whole of it, inas- 
 much as it had been settled, after full consideration, that there could 
 be no division of it ; that the job could not be divided up and given 
 to different persons ; that the order would have to be given (as it was 
 subsequently given) to a single individual who would be responsible 
 for the whole work, and who might make out of it whatever profit he 
 could, according to law. 
 
 When I told him this I distinctly said that I was speaking for no 
 one but myself ; that he knew very well the patronage was not in my 
 gift; that I had no right to bestow it ; that it belonged to the Post- 
 master Greneral who, I took it for granted, would act under the advice 
 of the President. I cautioned him to remember that what I said was 
 simply an expression of my opinion about the success of the applica- 
 tion, and I had no power nor authority to make any promise. But I 
 thought that if he acted on my suggestion he would have a claim upon 
 the work and miglit expect success. I directed him to make Mr. For- 
 ney understand, before he did anything, that if he should fail I was not 
 to be held responsible for the advice I had given, otherwise than for 
 my error of judgment as to what he ought to do. 
 
 Mr, Webster went home, and some days afterwards, on the 24th of 
 December, 1857, he addressed to me this letter : 
 
 Philadelphia, December 24, 185Y. 
 My Dear Judge : Forney's reply to your propositio.n is, " that if 
 twenty years' active service in the democratic party, and in the inter- 
 ests of Mr. Buchanan, is no guarantee of his continued devotion to the 
 great principles of our organization, then he has lived in vain ; that 
 he would consider himself humiliated if he had to make such a decla- 
 ration in his paper at the present time and on mere expectation." This 
 is, as you know, what I feared would be the character of his reply. If 
 the pursuit of an object is a greater pleasure than its possession, I 
 think the maxim must have one exception at least, and that is the 
 public printing, for undoubtedly the possession of that insures a greater 
 amount of happiness and prosperity than an wncertain claim upon it is 
 likely to confer. 
 
 Very truly, your friend, 
 
 DAVID WEBSTER. 
 Hon. J. S. Blace, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
250 LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 P. S. — Things grow worse and worse. You cannot be too prompt 
 in your remedial measures. 
 
 D. W. 
 
 It will be seen that Mr. Webster is entirely mistaken about every 
 part of the letter except the first sentence. He thinks he has given 
 the whole of Mr. Forney's answer ; he has left out a most important 
 part of what you perceive to be in quotation marks. He says that he 
 added of his own accord certain expressions ; those expressions are not 
 in the letter at all, and in place of them are others totally different. 
 The underscoring of the words, " at the present time," "mere expecta- 
 tion," "possession," "insures," and " uncertain," is his own and waa 
 manifestly intended to call my attention to the fact that Mr. Forney 
 had no promise or pledge, and that he wanted to have one before he 
 would express friendship for the President or the party. I understood 
 these words very well^ but as Mr. Webster says truly, I never replied. 
 
 Mr. Webster also says that Mr. Forney's friends valued the job he 
 was applying for at |80,000. I never heard of any such valuation 
 before. I think Mr. Forney himself knew the value of it as well as any 
 other person ; I know he was willing in the early part of the summer to 
 take a portion of it amounting to $8,000, but he was not willing to 
 wait for it until the meeting of Congress. 
 
 Mr. Webster is utterly mistaken in saying that I gave him a prom- 
 ise. I gave him none, nor did I utter a word on the subject as coming 
 from the President or the Postmaster General ; moreover, I did not 
 mention the article which I thought Mr. Forney ought to publish as 
 a condition upon which he would receive the printing, but as a thing 
 which he ought to do for the sake of the truth, and for the purpose of 
 putting him right as an applicant for patronage. 
 
 I have no right to suppose that Mr. Webster would wilfully mis- 
 take a fact ; our relations have been those of close friendship and great 
 confidence, and have never been disturbed by differences of opinion. 
 I feel very sure that if he could have had an apportunity to compare 
 his recollection with mine, or if he had seen his own letters before he 
 testified, he never would have made such a statement as he did. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It is due to Mr. Webster to say that he desired to 
 see you before he communicated this matter, but the committee over- 
 ruled him upon that, and compelled him to testify then. 
 
 The Witness. He is not the kind of a man from whom I would 
 fear foul play. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. He certainly had not that appearance here. 
 
 The Witness. It is easy to see that a man might misrecoUect a 
 private conversation which lasted for hours, when he is called to give 
 it after the lapse of two or three years. 
 
 Mr. Webster says that Colonel Forney indignantly refused to pub- 
 lish such an article as I suggested. I think this is also a mistake, 
 because Mr. Webster told me when I met him some months afterward, 
 that Mr. Forney was entirely willing at first to do it, and would have 
 done it but i'or the interference of Mr. McGraw who prevented it. 
 
 I have not undertaken to give the words of this conversation, but 
 
LHCOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 251 
 
 I have stated the substance (I believe with precision) upon every point 
 referred to in Mr. Webster's testimony. , 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. You have said that you did not promise to Mr. 
 Webster that Mr. Forney should have this printing upon the doing 
 of this thing. 
 
 Answer. I have said that I not only did not make such a promise, 
 but I distinctly cautioned Mr. Webster not to understand me in that 
 way. 
 
 Question, It seems unnecessary to ask the question, but you will 
 pardon me for asking it, whether you had any authority from the 
 President of the United States to make any promise or contract with 
 Mr. Forney? 
 
 Answer. I had not, and I did not make any promise or contract 
 with him either on the President's account or my own. 
 
 Question. Up to what period were you in correspondence with Mr. 
 Webster ? 
 
 Answer. I think I never received a letter from him after December, 
 185t. 
 
 Question, Do you know anything about a letter from the President 
 of the United States to Colonel Forney offering him the consulate to 
 Liverpool ? 
 
 Answer. I saw such a letter, but in whose hands I know not. I 
 will not undertake to give its contents. 
 
 Question. Mr. Webster speaks of that letter as a kind and affec- 
 tionate one ; is that your recollection of its general tenor ? 
 
 Answer. Kind, certainly ; but whether it would warrant the term 
 affectionatel can't say. 
 
 Question. Was there any offer in that letter inconsistent with the 
 character of a gentleman or the duties of the President and good 
 government in any degree ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly not in any letter that I ever saw from Mr. 
 Buchanan. 
 
 Question. Were there any offers of money in that letter incon- 
 sistent with the station of the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Forney's willingness 
 to accept that place or not ? 
 
 Answer. He told me once that he would accept it if Mrs. Forney 
 was willing. She did not consent, and he declined it. 
 
 J. 8. BLACK. 
 
252 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 No, 87. 
 Monday, June 4, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM W. SHORE recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When you were here on Saturday you did not get through 
 with your testimony. Have you any further explanation or statement 
 to make? 
 
 Answer. I have refreshed my memory somewhat. I could not fore- 
 see where I would he led in my testimony ; I did not know what the 
 order of the examination would he, and I was led in my testimony 
 into speaking of matters which I would like to explain a little more 
 fully. ' 
 
 Question. Anything of that kind you desire to state you can state 
 now, and we can examine you further at some other time. 
 
 Answer. I find that I made a statement on Saturday in regard to 
 Mr. which was merely suppositious. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It will not be published unless there is further testi- 
 mony taken which may justify its publication. 
 
 The Witness. I answered the question that was asked me honestly, 
 but my statement was of course merely suppositious. I have refreshed 
 my memory, so that when the committee are ready I should like to 
 give them a succinct history of this affair all through, and possess the 
 committee fully of my means of obtaining the knowledge which I 
 have. I think now, that having refreshed my memory, I can give it 
 in a short time. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Have you refreshed your memory so as to give the com- 
 mittee the names of the reporters engaged in this matter ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Mr. A. H. Evans, then connected with the New 
 York Herald, I believe had an interest in it ; and there was a Mr. 
 Elliot, a correspondent of the New York Observer, also had an in- 
 terest in it. I introduced Mr. Elliot to Mr. Day, with a view to help 
 him as much as anything else. I do not know whether there was 
 anything done or not. I think he was promised a contingent interest. 
 And there was a Mrs. Stone, now of New York, who was interested. 
 I am merely giving you the names of those I knew had contingents 
 in this matter. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSIITUTION, ETC, 253 
 
 No. 87. 
 
 Tuesday, Juw 5, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM W. SHORE recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Qaestion. Have you any further statement that you desire to make 
 this morning ? 
 
 Answer. I have just been reading over my former testimony. I do 
 not think it appears sufficiently how I am in possession of the know- 
 ledge I gave the committee, and of my connexion with the Chaffee 
 patent. What I desire now to state will not differ in spirit at all from 
 what I have already stated. 
 
 About four years ago, four years the end of this month, I was in- 
 troduced to Mr. Day. I was then corresponding for the "Philadel- 
 phia Ledger," as I stated in my former testimony. I then had a 
 promise of a contingent in this Chaffee patent of |500. That arrange- 
 ment went on until the session closed in August There was an extra 
 session after that in regard to the appropriation-bills, but I considered 
 that my interest had closed with the closing of the regular session, for 
 my contingent of |500 was on condition that the Chaffee patent bill was 
 passed at that session. The session closed without any action being 
 iaken upon the bill, I think, and my relations with Mr. Day also 
 ■closed. I went on to New York, and in September I met Mr. Day on 
 Broadway. He remarked to me: "You are just the man I want to 
 see." He engaged me then for the approaching campaign, to serve 
 ■as telegraph agent wherever he might desire to use me. He entered 
 into the Fillmore movement in 1856 very largely. I was merely to 
 act by his direction at any point where he might send me to send tele- 
 graphic despatches. I had some considerable experience in that line, 
 which led him to engage me ; I had been the agent of the associated 
 press a year here, and also in Philadelphia. I went first to Syracuse, 
 where they held their State convention. After that I was sent to 
 Philadelphia, to remain until after the election. I was in Philadel- 
 phia I think about six weeks, sending despatches to New York and to 
 the south. 
 
 I came back here to Washington at the opening of Congress that 
 jear. A misunderstanding between Mr. Day and myself, and no ar- 
 rangement was made between us for a continuation of my services. 
 He supposed that as I was not engaged I would oppose the patent, 
 and a little personal feeling sprang up between us. He made the 
 aggression, as I considered it, and. I used my pen in exposing the 
 Chaffee patent. During that winter I received nothing from Mr. Day, 
 •and had no interest at all in the Chaffee patent. 
 
 The next year, which was two years ago, I came down to Washing- 
 ton. The matter was arranged through Mr, Hay, and I was concili- 
 ated by the payment of the ten dollars a week which I have already 
 mentioned. After that I was not so much in the confidence of those 
 parties as I had been before. Though conciliated, I was not a confi- 
 'dant in the matter. Of course, my position here as a letter-writer gave 
 
254 LECOMPTON CONSTITDTION, ETC. 
 
 me the means of knowing most of the measures used for the advance- 
 ment of the Chaffee patent. The fact that Mr. Day had entered 
 largely into the political movements of 1856;, when I was engaged 
 with him, gave me the assurance that political matters in Congress 
 were mixed with it ; that one thing was made to turn upon the other 
 80 as to advance the interests of this Chaffee patent. That, I suppose, 
 is ahout as plain and connected a statement as I can give of my sources 
 of knowledge. 
 
 Now, in regard to any direct knowledge of any member of Congress 
 being interested in this matter, I have nothing more than my sus- 
 picions, "from the movements that were going on. And I will here say 
 that while I had the promise of this five hundred dollars contingent, 
 I introduced Mr. Elliott and Colonel Chester to Mr. Day. That is 
 all I have to add to what I have already said, unless some questions 
 are asked me. I have shown my means of obtaining the information 
 I have given. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any compensation being received by Mr. 
 Elliott, or any promised to him? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. None at all ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. When I introduced him to Mr. Day, I knew 
 that an arrangement satisfactory to him was made, that he should do 
 what he could legitimately to aid the matter. 
 
 Question. How came you to introduce him to Mr. Day? 
 
 Answer. I had this contingent interest, and was anxious to furnish 
 what means I could to assist Mr. Day, and consequently myself. 
 
 Question. It was on the mere motion of your own? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you introduced him that he might be got to do what 
 he could ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and the same with regard to Colonel Chester, 
 who had a contingent as I had. 
 
 Question. Colonel Chesf;er, you say, has gone to Europe ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other person at all, connected with 
 the House, or out of the House, that was to receive any consideration 
 for the passage of the Chaffee bill ? 
 
 Answer. There was a Mrs. Branch, who had a contingent interest 
 of $1,500 ; she was Mrs. Branch then ; she has married since, and 
 her name now is Mrs. Crosby. 
 
 Question. Upon what was that contingent based? 
 
 Answer. Merely upon the passage of the bill. 
 
 Question. Upon what services? 
 
 Answer. Mrs. Branch was at one time a spiritualist and a medium, 
 and Mr. Day employed everything that he could " in the heavens, on 
 the earth, and in the waters under the earth," to help him. 
 
 Question. Was she here ? 
 
 Answer. She was not the one who was here ; Mr. Day had two 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITOTION, ETC. 255 
 
 others; I do not think th^t Mrs. Branch had anything, to do with 
 lobbying ; her duty was merely to give Mr. Day the advice that she 
 got from the other world to aid the Chaffee patent. 
 
 Question. Any one else ? 
 
 Answer. There was a Mrs. Gould ; she was one of the spiritualists ;, 
 and there was a Mrs. Sarah J. Whitman, of Providence, an authoress 
 of some considerable celebrity ; she was a spiritualist ; I know nothing 
 directly of her contingent in the matter ; Miss Gould and Mrs. Whit- 
 man were both- here with Mr. Day when I commenced with the matter ; 
 I knew of their being here, and that that was the object of their mission* 
 here. 
 
 Question. Were there any other individuals Concerned in it, ^at 
 you know ? 
 
 ' Answer. I think that is the extent of my knowledge of those who- 
 had an interest in that patent. There were others outside, but these-' 
 are all that were within my knowledge. 
 
 Question. You have given the names of several reporters ; do you 
 know the amounts of their interest ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. You spoke of a Mrs. Stone yesterday; what was the 
 amount of her interest ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. She was very active during that winter,. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. "Active!" What was she doing ? 
 
 Answer. She was moving with members, and I suppose that amounts, 
 to activity. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Was she a spiritualist ? 
 
 Answer. I think not; I think she was more material. Mrs. Stone 'S' 
 husband was clerk for Mr. Day, and she was brought here by Mr. 
 Hay ; I do not know as I should know her by sight now ; I only 
 know her name, and the fact that she was here ; that was two years* 
 ago this last winter. She was here actively engaged all through that, 
 winter, but how actively I do not know. 
 
 Question. Do you know any member of Congress who received any 
 money or any other consideration for the passage of the Chaffee patent. 
 bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. In your previous examination you said that you think 
 you can venture the assertion that the Chaffee patent bill and the 
 Lecompton bill were connected, from your knowledge of Mr. Hay and 
 Mr. Wendell. Will you please to explain yourself fully upon that point ? 
 
 Answer. Of course, I cannot detail what I do not understand, how 
 they were blended. My suspicions were caused by my knowledge of 
 Mr. Wendell and Mr. Hay. Mr. Hay, two years ago, had the sole 
 charge of the Chaffee patent ; he was very intimate with Mr. Wendell,, 
 and Mr. Wendell has ^ready testified, I understood, that he furnished. 
 a large sum of money to Mr. Hay, and, as I have already said, I 
 know that everything that possibly could be brought to bear upon the- 
 Chaffee patent was resorted to ; and if it became necessary to make a. 
 
256 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 vote or two for the Chaffee patent by m,aking a vote or two for some 
 other measure it was undoubtedly done. 
 
 Quention. Your idea, then, is that Mr. "Wendell and Mr. Hay, to 
 pass the Chaffee patent bill, were willing to let the Lecompton bill 
 pass? 
 
 Answer. Tea, sir. 
 
 Question. What is Mr. Hay's politics? 
 
 Answer. I do not think he has any politics at all ; I never heard 
 him express any political opinions. I know the fact that the whole 
 policy of Mr. Day in 1856 was to create a political influence 
 for himself, by the expenditure of a large sum of money, to he 
 brought to bear when his measure came into the House again. If it 
 ■was well understood that he was the owner of the Chaffee patent, and 
 had expended $60,000 or $70,000 in one election, he would be a 
 dangerous man to oppose. 
 
 Question. Is this all you know about this matter that is material? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think it is. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Wendell 
 about the Chaffee patent ? 
 
 Answer. Well, yes, sir ; incidentally some conversations came up 
 in regard to it. While that bill was under consideration there was a 
 regular list of members kept and checked, of members who were known 
 to be favorable to the bill. The conversation I had with Mr. Wendell 
 arose in this way : We were speaking about Mr. Walker's influence 
 and his operations. I made the remark to Mr. Wendell that I con- 
 sidered Mr. Walker to be a very unreliable man to have a large 
 interest at stake ; that he was injudicious as an operator. And Mr. 
 Wendell then spoke of some interviews that he had with Mr. Day. 
 Mr. Day had shown him a list of men who were certain for the Chaffee 
 patent, and asked him for his list for his bill. He told him that he 
 had no list, and remarked to Mr. Day that a great many of the men 
 •who had promised to support the Chaffee patent would not support it 
 when the time came, but that his own men would be found all right, 
 although he had no list. That conversation took place the fore part 
 of this winter ; I think some time in January. 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Tuesday, June 5, 1860. 
 
 A. H. EVANS recalled. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 •Question. Are you a correspondent for any newspaper ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 Question. What paper? 
 Answer. The New York Times. • 
 
 Question. Do j'ou know anything about a bill in this House of 
 Bepreseatatives generally called the Chaffee patent bill? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 257 
 
 Answer. Nothing at all, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Day, the agent of the Chaffee patent? 
 Answer. I know Horace H. Day ; I do not know that he has any- 
 thing to do with the Chaffee patent. I knew him here some years ago. 
 Question. Do you recollect of Mr. Day being here during the last 
 Congress ? 
 
 Answer. -I do not think I have seen Mr. Day for some three or four 
 years. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Alexander Hay ? 
 Answer. I do not know anybody of that name, unless you locate him 
 somewhere ? 
 
 Question. Do you know a Mr. Hay who was here as agent of the 
 Chaffee patent ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Day and Mr. 
 Hay, or anybody else, in connexion with the Chaffee patent? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I have heard Chaffee's patent mentioned 
 for three or four years. I think that during the session of Congress, 
 when Mr. Banks was Speaker, there was a contest between Mr. Day 
 and somebody — I cannot say who the other party was, but Mr. Day 
 had a conflict with somebody at that time — and that is the last time 
 that I have heard the subject of Chaffee's patenj; spoken of. I think 
 it was Goodyear' s patent that Mr. Day opposed ; at any rate, he had 
 a contest during that Congress with somebody ; I do not know who it 
 was with ; and that is the last knowledge I have of it. Mr. Hay I 
 never heard of. 
 
 Question. Did you eter receive any consideration for your services 
 connected with that bill ? 
 
 Answer. In the thirty-fourth Congress Mr. Day gave me an amount 
 of paoney for tryip'g to get up a bill which I think was counter to the 
 Groodyear patent.' It has been so long ago that I do not remember 
 now exactly what it was. 
 
 Question. How much did you receive ? 
 Answer. I think it was six hundred dollars. 
 Question. What were the services which you were to render? 
 Answer. Trying to get his bill up. 
 Question. How — in what manner ? 
 
 Answer. By urging the propriety or necessity of getting it up ; 
 getting members to try and call it up. I cannot say whether it was 
 to get up his bill or to get a vote upon his bill ; at any rate, it was 
 trying to get action upon his bill. 
 
 Question. That was in the thirty-fourth Congress ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was you not concerned in this matter during the thirty- 
 fifth Congress? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it was there. 
 Mr. WmsLOW. Yes, it was. 
 The Witness. I had no knowledge of it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. You never had any conversation with Mr, Day or 
 Mr, Hay on this subject during the thirty-fifth Congress ? 
 Answer, No^ sir. 
 
 H, Eep. Com, 648 17 
 
258 LECIOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Was thfe compensation that you received in the thirty- 
 fourth Congress for that Congress alone, or for you to continue your 
 services ? 
 
 Answer. It was for that Congress alone ; I have never heard of it 
 since that period. 
 
 Question. Was you a reporter in the gallery then? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or clerk to the Committee of Claims ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You had no connexion with the House at all during the 
 thirty-fourth Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I had for a while. 
 
 Question. What connexion was it ? 
 
 Answer. I was a correspondent for some papers. 
 
 Question. Was you admitted on the floor of the House ? 
 
 Answer. A part of the time I was. 
 
 Question. Do you know any memher of Cotigress who received a 
 money consideration for the passage of the Chaffee patent bill, or for 
 giving it any support whatever ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; nor do I believe that members of Congress could 
 be approached in that way. I have no confidence in those rumors and 
 statements. I certainly do not recognize any member of Congress that 
 I would be willing to approach in such a manner. 
 
 Question. Do you remember having a conversation with Mr. 
 Wendell with regard to the passage of the Chaffee patent bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never heard him mention it. 
 
 Question. Do you know any member who received money for the 
 passage of the Lecompton bill ? 
 
 Answer. I repeat that I do not know any member who I believe 
 could be approached upon the subject. I regard these stories outside 
 as slanders upon members of Congress. 
 
 No. 89. 
 
 Wednesday, June 6, 1860. 
 
 JAKED L. ELLIOTT, called and examined. ' 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you reside here, Mr. Elliott? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you a seat in the reporter's gallery? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What paper do you represent? 
 
 Answer. I have been writing, until quite recently, for the NeW 
 York Observer, for two years and a half, or more. 
 Question. Do you know Horace H. Day ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 259 
 
 Answer. I think I was introduced to that gentleman some time 
 daring the session of 1855. 
 
 Question. During the 34th Congress? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; during the time when Mr. Banks was Speaker. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he was here during the last Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Answer. I have not seen him for three or four years. 
 
 Question. Do you know Alexander Hay? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know that I have ever met him, or have 
 ever been introduced to him. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Walker, the reporter? 
 
 Answer. I knew him as a gentleman who was one of the reporters 
 in the gallery. I never was at his house, and never had anything 
 more than a speaking acquaintance with him. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Walker, with 
 regard to the passage of any bills in the House ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the receipt of money by 
 Mr. Walker, in this connexion ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it took me entirely by surprise when I happened 
 to be in the House that day, and' heard of the action that had been 
 taken by the House with regard to him. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a bill that was generally 
 called the Chaffee patent bill ? 
 
 Answer. I remember, sir, that in the first session of Mr. Banks' 
 term, I think it was in the winter of 1855, there was such a bill 
 pending before Congress, and it was a good deal talked about by 
 different persons on the floor and in the hearing of the reporters; and 
 I think there was some gentleman by the name of' Shore introduced 
 me to this Mr. Day. I then occupied one of those seats in the south- 
 east corner of the old hall ; and I think that Mr. Day said something 
 in my hearing, either addressed to me or to the other gentlemen, (for 
 there were several reporters and other gentlemen standing around,) 
 to the effect that he seemed to consider it necessary, proper, and just 
 that if this Chaffee patent bill should receive the favorable action of 
 the House, the patent which he had should also receive the favorable 
 action of the House, because they were so connected, the one with the 
 other, he having been, as I understood, the proprietor or inventor of 
 some solvent or something that would prepare the material better for 
 being worked advantageously; so that the impression made upon my 
 mind was that he thought the one case could not be justly and favor- 
 ably considered by the House without his being favorably considered 
 also. That is the extent of my knowledge with regard to that bill. 
 
 Question. Did he make any application to you to aid in the passage 
 of that bill ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or any other bill before the House? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; none at all. 
 
 Question. Did any one ever employ you to aid in the passage of 
 any bill before the 34th Congress? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
260 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Fkidat, June 8, 1860. 
 
 JAMES H. SMITH called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : ! 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. In Columbus, Ohio. 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am at present clerk of the courts of the county in which 
 I live. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a paper being drawn up, 
 or some arrangement made, in regard to the " Ohio Statesman," by 
 which the conduct of that paper was to be affected on certain con- 
 ditions ? 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was it a written paper ? because, as at present advised, 
 I must object to parole testimony in regard to a written document. 
 Answer. It was a written paper. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Miller a party to that paper ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What other names were to the paper ? 
 Answer. The other names were those of Samuel Medary and S. S. 
 Cox. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What was the date of that paper ? 
 
 Answer. It was about the 1st of June, 1858. 
 
 Question. Do you know where that paper is ? 
 
 Answer. It was in the hands of Mr. Miller, who is now here under 
 a subpoena of this committee. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I think he is the proper witness to be examined in 
 regard to that paper. 
 
 Friday, June 8, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS MILLEK called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. I live in Columbus, Ohio. 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 2 SI 
 
 Answer. I am postmaster of ColumTDUs, and one of the publisliers of 
 the "Ohio Statesman." 
 
 Question. In the spring or summer of 1858, was there any arrange- 
 ment entered into between you, Mr. Cox, of the House of Represent- 
 atives, and Grovernor Medary, in reference to the manner in which 
 that paper should be conducted ? Was there any written agreement 
 between you and those other gentlemen ? 
 
 Answer. As to how that paper should be conducted? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was not. 
 
 Question. Was there any written agreement at all between you and 
 those gentlemen? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where is that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know now where it is, or anything about it ; I 
 had forgotten, until Mr. Smith was subpoenaed, and said to me he 
 understood he was to be asked about it by the committee, that there 
 was any such paper in existence. But I can state the object and the 
 agreement. 
 
 Question. When did you take an interest in the " Ohio States- 
 man?" 
 
 Answer. The first of June, 1858. 
 
 Question. Was this paper drawn up in reference to your going into 
 the paper at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I understand the rule of law to be, that no parole 
 evidence can be given in reference to the contents of a written instru- 
 ment. 
 
 The Witness. I am very willing to give it. 
 
 Mr. Tkain. I understand that the paper is lost or destroyed. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That alters the matter, then. 
 
 The Witness. I cannot tell whether it is destroyed or not, for I gave 
 it no attention after it performed the duty I intended it should. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you produce that paper ? 
 Answer. I do not know that I can. 
 
 By HLv. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Where is the paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Is it in your custody? 
 
 Answer. That I am not able to tell. I do not know whether I pre- 
 served it, or handed it over to Mr. Smith for the object for which it 
 was intended. In fact, I tell you honestly that I had forgotten that 
 I ever had such a paper until the subpoena was served on Mr. Smith, 
 as before stated. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. What names were on that paper when you had it? 
 Answer. Colonel Medary's, S. S. Cox's, and mine. 
 
2G2 LECOMPTON CONSTIlUTIOIir, ETC. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON, [to Mr. "Winslow.j Do you otject to the witness 
 stating what was the purport of that paper? 
 
 The Witness. I would much rather give it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think that Mr. Cox should be consulted about it. 
 
 [Mr. Cox was then invited to come into the committee room, which 
 he did.] 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW then said to Mr. Cox : Mr. Smith and Mr. Miller 
 have been examined in regard to a written paper, said to be dated in 
 June, 1858, relating to the conduct of the " Ohio Statesman," to 
 which it is said you and Colonel Medary and Mr. Miller were parties. 
 The paper is proved to he in writing. I know nothing about it. I 
 have objected to any statements in relation to the contents of that 
 written paper. 
 
 Mr. Cox. I have no objection in the world to Mr. Miller's stating 
 the contents of that paper. At the same time permit me to say that 
 it is my impression it had no reference to the conducting of the 
 "Statesman." 
 
 The Witness. That I have already said, and also that I am willing 
 to make the statement. 
 
 Mr. Wdjslow. Then I withdraw my objection. 
 
 Mr. Cox. It was intended to smooth matters between Grovernor 
 Medary and Mr. Smith, and had nothing to do with the manner of 
 conducting the paper, for it previously had advocated the English 
 bill. 
 
 [Mr. Cox then withdrew.] 
 
 The Witness proceeded as follows : I held a mortgage upon the 
 "Ohio Statesman" from Colonel Medary. After he went to Minne- 
 sota as governor of the Territory, (ir^JlSST,) he sold the Statesman to 
 Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith assuming to pay off this mortgage. Some 
 time before the expiration of the mortgage, Mr. Smith, not being 
 prepared to pay the money, proposed, in order to lift the mortgage, 
 that I should purchase one-half of the Statesman. I remarked that 
 there was a personal difficulty between Colonel Medary and myself; 
 that I was fearful if I took the paper it would widen the breach, and 
 that I would not take it if he continued to oppose it. This misunder- 
 standing between Colonel Medary and myself was, perhaps, increased 
 when I was turned out of the post office and Mr. Medary appointed 
 in my stead. When Mr. Smith proposed to sell one-half the paper, 
 I said to him I did not wish to take the half of the paper with Colonel 
 Medary warring it, and lose money by it. 
 
 In the meantime I found there was a discrepancy in my post office 
 accounts by some difficulty about arranging my matter with Columbus, 
 Ohio, with that of Columbus, G-eorgia, and I came on here to settle 
 this up. While here I met with Colonel Medary at the National 
 Hotel. I told him that this Statesman matter must be settled up, 
 and told him at the same time that Mr. Smith had proposed that I 
 should buy one-half of the "Ohio Statesman." Says he, "Well, why 
 not buy it?" To that I replied, "Smith says — and I think I know 
 you pretty well — that you, having started the paper, and having 
 friends, will continue the war upon it all the time, and I will not buy 
 it." He then said that he was perfectly willing that I should buy it; 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 263 
 
 that if Mr. Smith was not prepared to lift the mortgage, he had no 
 objections to my taking an interest in the paper. "Well," says I, 
 " I will take the paper, cancel the mortgage upon it, with the under- 
 standing that you shall not make any war upon me." To that he 
 agreed. Says I, " Now the best way for us to settle this matter, so 
 that Mr. Smith may know when I go home that you are satisfied that 
 I shall go into the paper, is that we should put it into writing." He 
 agreed to that, and it was put into writing, and that was the object 
 of it. 1 took that writing home to Mr. Smith to satisfy Mr. Smith 
 that Colonel Medary had no objection to me ; and although he was 
 not perfectly satisfied — he and Colonel Medary having differed very 
 widely upon the Lecompton question — 1 still bought into the paper. 
 This paper I took home was signed by Colonel Medary and signed by 
 Mr. Cox, to show that we had arranged our home difficulties, and had 
 an amicable feeling. But there was no arrangement as to the course 
 of the " Statesman," or anything of the sort. 
 
 1 think, however, that it is proper to state, that Colonel Med- 
 ary claimed that Mr. Smith should be the sole editor of the paper, 
 fie had an antipathy against an assistant editor that Mr. Smith had 
 employed named Foster, and made some objections to Mr. Foster. 
 Whether that was in the written paper or not I am not able to say. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Did he not make the requirement that Mr. Foster should 
 be removed from the office ? 
 
 Answer. He had strong objections to Mr. Foster for some political 
 trouble he and Foster had had. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question . Can you state the contents of that written agreement ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I can repeat the words ; but I can give 
 the substance of it. It was to the effect that an adjustment of our 
 difficulties had been made, and that Colonel Medary was perfectly 
 satisfied that I should buy the paper and he a joint owner of the 
 " Ohio Statesman" with Mr. Smith, and that he would use his influence 
 to aid in procuring patronage for the paper ; that is about the sub- 
 stance of it. 
 
 Question. Was the amount of that patronage stated? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did he not make a distinct proposition in regard to the 
 post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Not in that written paper. I will state in regard to that 
 whenever you require it. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You considered that written paper as a memorandum of 
 an agreement between you gentlemen, touching the settlement of 
 home difficulties ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; settling the difficulty between Mr. Smith and 
 
2C4 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 Colonel Medary, and between Colonel Medary and myself. Mr. Cox's 
 signing it was merely an evidence that we had settled our troubles. 
 
 < By the Chairman : 
 
 Answer. Was not some reference made in that written paper in re- 
 lation to the course the "Ohio Statesman" should pursue— that it 
 should support the adminstration ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think there was anything of that sort in the 
 paper, for the object of that paper was merely to settle the quarrel 
 between Colonel Medary and myself and Mr. Smith. But I said I 
 was willing, if I took the paper to give the administration a fair and 
 honest support. That we were supporting the English bill now and 
 were satisfied with it. 
 
 Question. The paper had been supporting the administration ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; on the Lecompton question only. 
 
 Question. State at what time this post office blank matter came up? 
 
 Answer. The conversation about it ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. It took place at the same time, but not in regard to the 
 written paper. 
 
 Question. What about that ? 
 
 Answer. After we had settled our difficulties and shaken hands 
 upon it, and felt pretty good, Colonel Medary said that Fason and 
 McLean were here trying to get some of the post office printing to do. 
 He said that he thought the " Statesman," being the central organ, 
 ought to have that. I thought the same thing, of course, as I was 
 going into the " Statesman," and I said I wanted him to aid us in 
 getting it, I remarked, then, that I was willing to give the adminis- 
 tration a fair and honest support. "Then," said lie, "the central 
 organ ought to have a share of patronage, it is the central organ of 
 the State, the leading democratic paper of the State, and if the post 
 office blanks are to be let out, I think the Statesman ought to have a 
 portion, and will try to get it for you." That was the last of it, for 
 we did not get any of it. 
 
 Question. Will you state whether at the approaching election you 
 did not receive some pecuniary consideration in some way from the 
 government? 
 
 Answer. Not a dollar directly or indirectly, or in any way, except 
 it might have been some advertisements. We got probably $50 or 
 |100 worth of advertising. I think we got one advertisement from the 
 Interior Department, and I think we got one from the Department of 
 the Navy, probably |20 or 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was any member of the administration a party to that 
 writing? 
 
 Answer. Not a man of them. 
 Question. Were they consulted about it? 
 Answer. Not a man of them. 
 Question. Did they advise it ? 
 Answer. Not a man of them. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 2G5 
 
 'Question. Did they have any knowledge of it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not to my knowledge ; I did not know that there 
 was any one but us four that had' any knowledge of it. 
 ^ Question. Did you wilfully destroy that paper? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know what hecame of it ; I only wished 
 to accomplish the object I have stated with it, and I know nothing of 
 it now ? 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that you got no printing of the 
 post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Not a dollar. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. You think there was no stipulation in the written paper 
 that you should support the administration ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think there was ; though that one expression as 
 to giving it a fair and honest support may have been in it ; I will not 
 say it was or was not. 
 
 Question. Let me ask you this question, by way of reviving your 
 recollection and refreshing it : Did not Mr. Smith refuse to sign that 
 paper because he would be boiund to support the administration if he 
 did sign it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he had nothing to do with signing it ; when I 
 talked of taking the paper and closing this thing up, Mr. Smith 
 frankly and honestly told me that Colonel Medary might make war 
 upon me ; and he was afraid that for a time I might lose money by 
 the " Statesman," if I did take it ; he was honest in telling me that 
 there was this feeling, and that if he sold me the one-half of the paper, 
 which he was anxious to do, he said honestly that it might make the 
 breech wider between Colonel Medary and him, and between Colonel 
 Medary and me ; I told him that I would not take the paper upon 
 that condition ; I would not have a war upon my hands, but I would 
 close the matter up ; Mr. Smith was bound for the mortgage, and 
 could not pay it when due ; the object of the paper between Colonel 
 Medary and me was to satisfy Mr. Smith that Medary had no objec- 
 tion to my going into the paper ; it was merely a home matter entirely, 
 to heal up a quarrel. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Did you not get an intimation that Mr. Wells was in Co- 
 lumbus with a subpoena for you ? 
 
 Answer. Not directly or indirectly ; fortunately, or unfortunately 
 as the case may be, the morning of the day that the gentleman was 
 there, I happened to go to Licking county, and came back the next 
 evening ; but I had no knowledge of any man being there to subpoena 
 me, and then no thought of this instrument of writing. 
 
 Question. Were you not out, the morning the gentleman called 
 there at 9 o'clock, three miles from the city, to be back in a short 
 time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not a bit of it ; for I hired a livery buggy to go 
 to Licking county, not to be back until the next evening. 
 
2G8 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. Was that the first start you made that day to go to Lick- 
 ing county? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you not aware that some person of your household 
 told the officer that you had gone 'off three miles and would be back 
 in a little time ? 
 
 Answer. Not a bit of it. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that he was in town hunting for you? 
 
 Answer. Not a bit of it. I never heard a word in the world about 
 it until I came back to the office and heard that Mr. Smith had been 
 subpoenaed, and then he told me that my name was in the subpoena. 
 
 Question. Had you no telegraphic despatch that there was some- 
 body going to subpoena you. 
 
 Answer. Not a word in any shape. Mr. G-alloway came to me and 
 told me that he had heard that I left town. This was after I had got 
 back. Henry Wilson said it had been reported here in Washington 
 that I had dodged the officer, but he had not believed it. I told Mr. 
 Galloway that he would do me a favor to say to this committee that 
 they could find me at home, and I would endeavor to be at home, as 
 I was willing to come before this committee, for I had nothing to con- 
 ceal. 
 
 Question. Was there any particular amount of the post office print- 
 ing named to you for the paper ? 
 
 Answer. By Colonel Medary ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. He said some $5,000 or $6,000. 
 By Mr. WmsLOW ; 
 
 Question. That was in conversation ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. He said he thought the "Statesman" was as 
 much entitled to it as the "Enquirer," and if it was to go west he 
 thought the "Statesman " was entitled to it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you not aware that Governor Medary was subpoe- 
 naed latterly and declined to come ? 
 
 Answer. I was aware that he was subpoenaed, for he told me so. 
 Question. Did he give any reason why he would not come ? 
 Answer. No, sir ; he told me he would come. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You say you did not endeavor to avoid the service of the 
 subpoena? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not at all. On the contrary, when I heard this 
 I was anxious to get before this committee. 
 
 Question. You are the postmaster at Columbus? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed the latter part of November, 1858. I 
 was put out in March, and took possession of the office again on the 
 1st day of the next December. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 267 
 
 Answer. I was appointed first and put ont on Mr. Cox's account, 
 and I was out from the otli of March until the 1st day of December. 
 
 Question. Was there any understanding or agreement between you 
 and Mr. Cox in regard to your re-appointment to office ? 
 
 Answer. None directlv, indirectly^ or in any way ; not a particle 
 of it. 
 
 Question. You know nothing of any bias upon Mr. Cox's mind by 
 reason of your appointment ? 
 
 Answer. None in the world. 
 
 Question. And you have no reason to suppose thai tliere was ? 
 
 Answer. None in the world. I was here in November, and it was 
 understood that I was to be appointed. I wrote to Postmaster General 
 Brown and said I would not take the office. Mr. Cox said I better 
 take it ; but I had no more knowledge until then of being appointed 
 than you had. 
 
 Question. When did you get the first intimation of the intention to 
 appoint you ? 
 
 Answer. The first intimation I got was that Gfovernor Denver, of 
 Kansas, had resigned, and Colonel Medary was going to Kansas ; 
 that there would be a vacancy, and Mr. Buchanan had said he would 
 appoint me if I would accept it. I sat down and wrote a note to Post- 
 master General Brown that I would not take it, but Mr. Cox insisted 
 very hard that I. should take it, and I tore the note up which I had 
 written to Mr. Brown. 
 
 No. 91. 
 » Friday, June 8, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM B. MANN called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Philadelphia, sir. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am district attorney now of the city and county of Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 Question. Were you a candidate for that office in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I was a candidate in 1856. 
 
 Question. Were you elected ? 
 
 Answer. At that time I was nominated by the American conven- 
 tion and by the republican convention ; nominated by each, and there 
 was a union of the two parties upon me in the city, although there 
 was not upon many other candidates. The ticket generally was de- 
 feated by upwards of three thousand — that is, my party ticket ; but I 
 myself ran ahead of the ticket, and had a return against me of five 
 hundred and fifty-one votes, I believe. 
 
 Question. Who had the certificate ? 
 
 Answer. Lewis 0. Oassidy had the certificate, the democratic can- 
 didate. 
 
26 ':5 LECOMPTOH CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. What followed ? 
 
 Answer. I examined the election returns very carefully, and em- 
 ployed a large number of clerks ; and from the information which I 
 obtained, I was induced to contest the election. 
 
 Question. In how many districts did you contest it ? 
 
 Answer. I think I stated seventeen districts in my petition, but I 
 examined only eight or nine of them ; and having gone that far, I 
 did not think it worth while to continue the investigation. I went a 
 certain distance and then stopped ; but the court, upon the testimony 
 which 1 submitted, declared me elected by over five hundred majority. 
 Mr. Cassidy, a few days before I closed my case, filed his answer. 
 This was several months, I think — I do not remember the exact time — 
 after I had filed my petition, and several months after the investigation 
 had been going on. He had all that time to find frauds and mistakes, 
 but he did not prove a single case of fraud against me. There was a 
 fraud proven 
 
 Question. What was the nature of that fraud? 
 
 Answer. There was a man by the name of James 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW : 
 
 Question. Is that a fraud that you know of yourself? 
 
 Answer. I know it from the fact of having seen it proven. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is not evidence. This gentleman, being 
 district attQrney, is a legal gentleman, and he must know that he 
 cannot prove what is proved before the court. 
 
 The Chairman. Then we must have the record brought here, or 
 abandonithis branch of the subject altogether. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a large numbenof fraudu- 
 lent naturalization papers being used as a part of that fraud ? 
 
 Answer. I know this : that in a certain locality in Philadelphia, 
 comprising a portion of the fourth ward — the sixth, seventh, and 
 eighth precincts — the court threw out a large number of votes as 
 fraudulent. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is not evidence. 
 
 The Witness. I know that there was an allegation that these 
 districts 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. How was the allegation made ? 
 
 The witness made a statement which the committee ordered to be 
 struck out as irrelevant. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 269 
 
 No. 98. 
 
 Fkiday, June 8, 1860. 
 
 IRA PEEEMAN, Jr., called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question ._ "Were you sent by the sergeant-at-arms to Reading, 
 Pennsylvania, to subpoena witnesses there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When? 
 
 Answer. I was sent on Monday. 
 
 Question. Did you subpoena William Kearns ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I found him in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What did he say about coming? 
 
 Answer. He said he had to go to Reading, and would send on to a 
 friend here to get him off, as he did not want to come before the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 [The remainder of the answer of the witness was not taken.] 
 
 Friday, June 2, 1860. 
 HORACE F. CLARK called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you in the last Congress at the time the Englisii 
 and Lecompron bills were before it ? 
 
 Answer. I was a member of the 35th Congress. 
 Question. During the pendency of those bills had you not frequent 
 conversations with Grovernor Brown, the late Postmaster General, and 
 he with you, relative to the passage of one of those bills ? 
 
 Answer. I was on terms of personal friendship with Governor 
 Brown. We had frequent interviews in which the general subject of 
 the Kansas question was mentioned. 
 
 Question. Did Governor Brown state to you that the President 
 wished to see you on that subject ; and, if so, did you, in accordance 
 with that wish, see the President? 
 
 Answer. I had two interviews, I think, with the President with 
 reference to the Kansas question ; one before the vote on the Critten- 
 den bill, and the other at a later period of the session. One if not 
 both of these interviews was brought about through the suggestion 
 of Governor Brown. He. said to me that he thought that a conversa- 
 tion with the President would be appropriate ; and I called upon the 
 President upon two occasions and had interviews with him. I do not 
 say that' Governor Brown said that the President wished to see me ; 
 my impression is otherwise. 
 
 Question. Did you attend the meetings or conferences held on the 
 subject of the passage of that bill ? 
 
27 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the conferences of the anti-Lecompton demo- 
 crats ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I attended occasionally. 
 
 Question. Are you on intimate terms with Mr. Schell, the collector 
 of the port of New York ? 
 
 Answer. I have been for many years on terms of personal friend- 
 ship with Mr Schell. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Schell urge or request you to vote for the Le- 
 compton or English bill ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Schell, upon various occasions during the pendency 
 of those measures, incidentally expressed the hope that I could see 
 my way clear to vote upon the administration side of the question. 
 
 Question. Did he not express his fears if you voted otherwise? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that he did. There may have heen appre- 
 hension on the part of some of Mr. Schell's friends that my course 
 would he prejudicial to him. I was one of his friends, and had united 
 in the recommendation for his appointment. I was gratified that he 
 was appointed. I told Mr. Schell and some of his friends that I 
 should not vote for those measures. It was a source of gratification 
 to me that Mr. Schell's means were sufficient to enable him to bear 
 the loss of his office if that event had resulted from any political 
 action of mine. I regarded the Kansas measures as exceedingly 
 impolitic. 
 
 Question. Both of them ? 
 
 Answer. Both of them. Indeed, I have given no vote in Congress 
 with more reluctance than that for the admission of Kansas under the 
 Crittenden bill. I do not think that Kansas was entitled to admis- 
 sion at that time upon any grounds. And as for the English bill, I 
 regarded that as quite indefensible. As to the Lecomptoifconstitution, 
 entertaining the opinion that that constitution was a fraud upon the 
 people of Kansas, I was unable to give my assent to the admission of 
 Kansas under it. It was with very great regret that I felt myself 
 compelled to differ from many personal friends and from my party 
 associates upon that question. I wish to be understood that Mr, 
 Schell never said a word to me that was not altogether proper, and 
 that our relations did not justify. I am not aware that he pressed 
 me as strongly as very many other men did. For instance, my friend 
 from North Carolina here (Mr. Winslow) importuned me to vote for 
 that bill. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir ; and in company with Mr. Schell. 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; I think yoii did. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You stated, in reply to a question of Mr. Covode^ that 
 you did have two interviews with the President. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I wish to add hero one other word. I must be 
 understood as in no way reflecting upon Mr. Schell. Mr. Schell said 
 nothing to me that, with his views of the question, I would not have 
 said to him under the same circumstances. Mr. Schell is a most high- 
 minded and honorable man. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 271 
 
 Question. I will ask you if, within your knowledge, any corrupt 
 influences were brought to bear by the administration to secure the 
 passage of that bill? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any. 
 
 Question. I will ask you if any improper influences were sought to 
 be brought to bear upon you ? 
 
 Answer. By whom ? 
 
 Question. By the President ? 
 
 Answer. There was not. 
 
 Question. Or by any officer of the government? 
 
 Answer. I should say not. 
 
 Question. Will you state the substance of the conversations with 
 the President ? Tou have stated that you had two interviews with 
 him. 
 
 Answer. Such conversations are in their nature confidential, and I 
 would not refer to them, except to guard against misconstruction. 
 
 Question. Such is the very view I take. But as they have been 
 mentioned in this connexion 1 think that in justice the whole should 
 come out. 
 
 Answer. The President 'argued with me in favor of the admission 
 of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, upon the ground that 
 her admission would quiet the slavery agitation and give repose to 
 the country. And in answer to the suggestion that the Lecompton 
 constitution was a fraud, his reply was that if so it would be a harm- 
 less one, because in his judgment the people of Kansas could change 
 their constitution, if obnoxious to them, whenever they saw fit. It 
 impressed me that this was a dangerous doctrine. I was not ready 
 to concede the right of the people of a State to change their constitu- 
 tion, except in the mode pointed out by the constitution itself, and I 
 could not acquiesce in the doctrine. He also pressed upon my atten- 
 tion the additional ground that the rejection of the application of 
 Kansas for admission under the Lecompton constitution might lead 
 to dissolution of the Union. I became perfectly impressed with the 
 sincerity of Mr. Buchanan's belief that the existence of the Union 
 would be endangered unless Kansas was admitted under the Lecompton 
 constitution. At one of the interviews I had with the President a 
 distinguished senator of one of the southern States was present, and 
 he made remarks calculated to impress upon my mind the belief that 
 one southern State at least would secede from the Union unless Kan- 
 sas was admitted unqualifiedly under the Lecompton constitution ; 
 without expressing myself very decidedly upon the subject, I made up 
 my mind to take the hazard and not vote for the bill. I thought the 
 President had reached an incorrect conclusion upon insufficient 
 grounds. Among other facts stated by the President was this, that 
 that one southern State, Alabama, had passed a law imperatively re- 
 quiring the assembling of a State convention, with a view to secession, 
 in the event of the rejection of the application of Kansas for admis- 
 sion under the Lecompton constitution. And the appeal was, I 
 thought very properly, made to me as the representative of a district 
 containing a very large amount of capital, that repose to the country 
 ought to be obtained even at a very considerable sacrifice of ini- 
 
272 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC, 
 
 vidual opinion. T could not accede to the arguments which were 
 addressed to me. But yet I will say that no efforts were made by the 
 President improperly to influence my action ; nor was a single word 
 said to me by him which I think it was not his privilege and his duty 
 to have said to me under the circumstances. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Governor Winslow asked you a question with regard to 
 any officer of the government seeking to influence you to vote for this 
 bill. Did you not discover something of that character at one time, 
 and at once meet it promptly by letting them know that you were 
 completely beyond the reach of improper influences ? 
 
 Answer. I will not deny that there were many persons who felt 
 that their interests might possibly be affected by my departure from 
 the strict party line. Now, I do not intend to arrogate anything to 
 myself when I say that I think I was entirely beyond the reach of 
 such influences. 
 
 Question. You settled that matter at once, so that everybody under- 
 stood that they could not approach you in that way ? 
 
 Answer. I think that matter was very well understood ; I hope it 
 was. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say now that there were persons holding 
 office under the government who did attempt to approach you im- 
 properly to influence your vote ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. There were persons sustaining various relations 
 to the government who were apprehensive that the course which I 
 saw fit to pursue might tend to their prejudice, and they sought, 
 very naturally, to prevent any departure on my part from the policy 
 of the administration. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Your idea was, I take it, that they supposed that thereby 
 your political influence with the administration would be weakened, 
 and, therefore, it could not be exerted for your friends ? 
 
 Answer. And their position be impaired. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know that men lost their places in consequence 
 of your vote on that bill ? 
 
 Answer. My influence with the administration was unquestionably 
 affected by my course upon the Kansas question. I took my course 
 with a full consideration of that result, and with great regret, because 
 of its influence upon other parties. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. That does not fully answer the question. 
 Answer. I will answer it. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 273 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. State wlietlier any of your friends lost tlieir position in 
 oonsequence of your vote. 
 
 Answer. A gentleman in my district held, by appointment of the 
 Secretary of the Navy, a mastership in the Brooklyn navy yardj upoa 
 my recommendation. When I had determined upon my course upon 
 the Kansas question I toM him of it, and, at his own suggestion, he 
 resigned, to avoid being turned out, as he stated. Notwithstanding 
 my course upon the Kansas question, and rather for the purpose of 
 ascertaining the disposition of that gentleman towards those who had 
 dissented from the Kansas policy of the administration, I did, at the 
 suggestion of my coUeagu-^, the Hon. John Kelley, apply to the 
 Secretary of the Navy to nominate another gentleman to that place, 
 and I had an interview with the Secretary of the Navy upon the sub- 
 ject. My application was unsuccessful. It was to me a matter of 
 almost entire indifference whether it was or was not successful. I 
 made the experiment, and it was unsuccessful. These are the exact 
 facts. I do not mean to be understood as reflecting against the 
 Secretary of the Navy for the distribution of his patronage among the 
 more reliable adherents of the administration ; that is, I think, in 
 accordance with the party usages of the day. 
 
 No. 100. 
 
 Saturday, June, 9, 1860. 
 
 CHAKLES BROWN called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In the city of Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Were you formerly collector of the port of Philadelphia. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; from 1853 to 1857. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Buchanan in 
 relation to propositions made to Colonel Forney in certain contin- 
 gencies, relative to his supporting the administration by his paper ? 
 
 Answer. That is rather indefinite, and would open up a very wide 
 field. I was intimate with both the President and Colonel Forney, 
 and I have had private conversations with both in regard to that 
 matter. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of distinct propositions being made by 
 the Pre*dent to Colonel Forney, through you ? 
 
 Answer. There were some difficulties between Colonel Forney and 
 Mr. Buchanan after his election with regard to the position that Col- 
 onel Forney was to occupy. Finding that there was some trouble be- 
 tween them, and being friendly to both, and desirous that there should 
 be harmony among us all, I came down myself to Washington to see 
 Mr. Buchanan and find out what was the state of affairs, and what 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 18 
 
274 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 could be done ; and I had a conversation with Mr. Buchanan with 
 regard to Colonel Forney. 
 
 Question. Please state what that conversation was. . 
 
 Answer. The President was very desirous to do what he could for 
 Colonel Forney, and place him, I presume, in the position he desired. 
 As I understood from Colonel Forney, (and I was very intimate with 
 him,) the position he wanted under the government was the one he 
 occupied under Greneral Pierce's administration — to edit the national 
 democratic organ here, and, I presume, to he, under the auspices of' 
 the administration, the public printer. He was averse to having any 
 office whatever. A number of those around Mr. Buchanan, it was 
 supposed, were adverse to Colonel Forney coming to Washington and 
 being connected with the administration here. Mr. Buchanan in- 
 formed me that he did not wish, and did not intend, if it was possihlcj 
 to have any connexion with the public printing or the public press in 
 this place. He did not intend to have anything to do with the public 
 organ here, the democratic paper, or with the public printing. But 
 I understood from him that after things were settled down, (not that 
 he intended to interfere with it in any way,) he had no doubt that in 
 the course of a few months or a year — a few months, I think — an 
 arrangement could be made by which Colonel Forney could become 
 the editor of the paper here, to which Mr. Buchanan was friendly. 
 
 Question. What proposition did the President make to you to 
 reconcile Colonel Forney ? 
 
 Answer. The President was very desirous that Colonel Forney 
 .should be consul to Liverpool. Colonel Forney had declined all 
 offices at Philadelphia, such as collector, and all those. Indeed, I 
 may say that Colonel Forney never desired any office ; his whole am- 
 bition was to be here as editor and public printer. I had urged 
 Colonel Forney to accept the consulate to Liverpool ; but Mrs. Forney, 
 like a noble woman, declared she would never take her children 
 abroad, but educate them at home, in her own country, and I at once 
 said that I would cease urging the matter ; and I told Mr. Buchanan 
 that that was out of the question, as Mrs. Forney was averse to it, 
 and it could not be done. I sought the interview with Mr Buchanan; 
 he did not seek it with me, and it was suggested by myself, I think, 
 that Colonel Forney should go at some business until this public 
 printing matter was settled, and all these disputes among them done 
 away with. It was suggested by one or the other of us, which of 
 us I do not recollect, that Colonel Forney should become interested 
 in some paper, and I think Mr. Buchanan suggested that it better be 
 in some paper in Philadelphia, which I thought myself, for I knew 
 he did not want him here in any shape at that time. It ^s sug- 
 gested by Mr. Buchanan, therefore, that Colonel Forney should go 
 with some paper in Philadelphia, until all these things could be ar- 
 ranged. I mentioned then that a paper could not sustain itself 
 without some aid from the government in some shape or another. I 
 do not know that I had ever heard of the post office blank printing, 
 or whether I suggested it to the President or he to me ; perhaps I 
 had heard of it and suggested it to him. Mr. Buchanan said that he 
 had understood that there was such patronage in the gift of the Presi- 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 275 
 
 dent, and fhat if Colonel Forney went into a paper, Tie saw no reason 
 why he should not have it if it was in bis gift. I put the question to 
 him whether he thought it better for Colonel Forney to purchase the 
 " Peiinsylvanian," or establish a new paper in Philadelphia. He 
 said he thought it was better not to have two democratic papers in 
 Philadelphia. I state those things because we were both friends of 
 Colonel Forney, and I do not think there is any harm in stating 
 those private conversations, as they will tend to explain matters 
 which seem to have been misunderstood. As I was saying, the 
 President said that if Colonel Forney went into a paper, and this 
 post office printing was patronage within his gift, he saw no reason 
 why Colonel Forney should not have it to do ; as to the value of it, or 
 the amount of it, the President had no knowledge, but he was dis- 
 posed in every way he could legitimately to assist Colonel Forney ; and 
 as I understood him, when the public printing and other matters 
 then in dispute were settled by Congress, he would be desirous for 
 Colonel Forney to come here and edit the party organ and take his 
 proper position again. I told Colonel Forney of the President's ex- 
 pressions of good feeling, which I believe were sincere, and that I 
 thought time and patience would bring everything all right. This 
 I think was very near the latter part of April or beginning of May, 
 1857 — somewhere along about that time. That is all the conversa- 
 tion I believe I ever had with the President upon that subject. Col- 
 onel Forney started his paper in August, I think, of that year, and sup- 
 ported the administration, and everything went on well and friendly 
 until some time in November, when Colonel Forney came out in the 
 support of Governor Walker and that side of the Kansas question. 
 He continued to do so until — that was in November, I think, as near 
 as I can recollect — along in December. In December I was down 
 here in Washington on my own private business, not on that busi- 
 ness at all ; although Colonel Forney seemed to be adverse to the 
 administration, we were still on friendly terms, and we were all 
 anxious that there should be harmony among us. I saw some of the 
 officers of the government here, Judge Black, Mr. Cobb, and others. 
 I have no distinct recollection about all our conversations ; if I had, I 
 would not object to repeat them. They were complaining of Colonel 
 Forney's course. At that time I thought Colonel Forney had no 
 wish to make a war upon the administration, but was merely vindi- 
 cating a principle which I myself theught was correct ; that was 
 before Mr. Buchanan's special message on the Lecompton constitu- 
 tion. I did not apprehend any difficulty, though I was opposed to 
 the President's course in regard to Kansas at the time, but thought 
 it wouM all come right and the question be settled satisfactorily in 
 some way. I found a great deal of feeling here in regard to Colonel 
 Forney's course, and when I returned to Philadelphia, without^ 
 making any distinct proposition to him upon the subject, I reported 
 to him what I had heard here, and said that I thought if he con- 
 tinued to pursue the course he was then pursuing, there would be an 
 alienation— that is, he could not expect any favors fromthe adminis- 
 tration, as they were disposed to make it a test question — he must 
 take his own course, and sustain himself as he best could. Colonel 
 
276 LECOMPTON CONSTIIUTION, ETC. 
 
 Forney replied immediately that he had taken his course, and would 
 not change it. He said that when he had taken the ground in favor 
 of submitting the constitution to the people of Kansas, he had taken 
 it, as he understood that it was with the consent of the administra- 
 tion, with their knowledge and approval. He mentioned some cir- 
 cumstances to show that such was the case, but I do not remember 
 now particularly what they were ; but he said that whether they ap^ 
 proved it or not, it was a matter of principle with him, and he would 
 Hot change his course for all the patronage that the government had 
 to bestow. I remember also speaking to Colonel Forney upon the 
 subject at a time before it was known whether Judge Douglas differed 
 with the President or not. He said he did not care whether Judge 
 Douglas agreed with him or not, but with him it was a matter of 
 principle. I will say here that in our conversations — those between 
 the President and myself — I understood the President merely to refer 
 to this patronage of the post office printing, but as to the amount of 
 it he had no knowledge. He spoke as being willing to give it to 
 Colonel Forney if it was in his gift, and then, if things were settled 
 here satisfactorily, he was desirous to have Colonel Forney come on 
 here and edit the paper, and partake of the advantages that position 
 would give him. I know nothing at all in those transactions that 
 was not alike honorable to the President and to Colonel Forney. I 
 saw no disposition on the part of Colonel Forney to yield to corrupt 
 influences, or on the part of the administration to bring any such in- 
 fluences to bear upon him. It was a conference among friends, and 
 in a friendly way. I do not think the President had the most re- 
 mote idea of the value of that printing, or of using it in any way to 
 purchase Colonel Forney's support ; it was referred to merely as an 
 act of kindness he was willing to do for Colonel Forney. 
 
 Question. Did not the President state to you in these conversations 
 that he had already oifered to Colonel Forney what would be a large 
 amount — what would be equal to his own salary, $25,000, or some- 
 thing of that sort ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I must object to that question as being a leading 
 question. It may be proper to ask the witness what the President said, 
 However, as I do not wish to throw the slightest obstacle in the way 
 of this investigation, I will withdraw my objection. 
 
 The Witness. I have no recollection of the President stating to me 
 any distinct sum ; his own salary, or anything of the kind. I under- 
 stood the President to say that the consulship at Liverpool was the 
 best thing for Colonel Forney, for he would then be out of the way of 
 all the quarrelling and wrangling going on. I do not pretend to give 
 the President's words, but this was the idea. He thought that the 
 office of consul to Liverpool would be a very lucrative one, and one 
 ^perhaps that would be better than any other in his gift. But no par- 
 ticular reference was made to the amount of his own salary, or any- 
 thing of that kind. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not state to Colonel Forney, on your return to 
 Philadelphia, that what had been offered to him would be equal to 
 ^2f^,OP0 a year, or e^i'ial to the salary of the President? 
 
LECOMPI'ON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 277 
 
 Answer. Not as coming from the President ; I understood from 
 others that that was the value of the offers made. 
 
 Question. Did you not induce Colonel Forney to believe that that 
 was within his reach ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I did ; I think Colonel Forney got that from 
 other sources. That was very generally understood and talked about, 
 but I did not get it from the President at all. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell Colonel Forney that by pursuing the 
 course he did he was throwing away $25,000 a year, and cutting him- 
 self off from all support from the administration ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think that I did I will not say but 
 what I may have said so. 
 
 Question. If not in that language, was not that the substance of 
 what you told him ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to that question. I do not want any " sub- 
 stance" about it. Let the witness state what he said. 
 
 The Chairman. I am not particular about it. 
 
 No. 103. 
 
 Saturday, June 9, 1860. 
 
 JOSEPH H. GEIGER called and examined. 
 By t'le Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer, I am a lawyer. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a correspondence between 
 Mr. Cox, member of Congress, and any of his constituents during the 
 pendency of the English bill ; if so please to state what it was ? 
 
 Mr. WnsrsLOW. I object to that question. There can be no corres- 
 pondence spoken of unless it is produced. A man connot give parol 
 evidence of correspondence. 
 
 The Chairman. He is one of the parties. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. No matter for that ; the writing must be produced. 
 
 The Chairman. I will ask you, then, were you not one of the lead- 
 ing men of that section who conferred together relative to the policy 
 of the party at that time ; and if so, had you any correspondence, 
 either by writing or verbally, with Mr. Cox. 
 
 Answer. I corresponded some with Mr. Cox during the Lecompton 
 controversy ; but I wish to say that the communications between Mr, 
 Cox and myself were private communications, so far as this matter 
 was concerned. 
 
 Question. Was there not a correspondence which was not private, 
 that a number of people conferred together relative to ? 
 
 Answer. There was a letter that was written to a number of friends 
 there by Mr, Cox. It was brought there by a Mr. Evans, 
 
 Question. Who is Mr, Evans ? 
 
278 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC, 
 
 Answer. Me was a clerk in one of the departments here. lie is a 
 gentleman whose residence was in Newark, Ohio, but he was employed 
 in one of the departments here ; and during the controversy upon the 
 English bill branch of the Lecompton issue, he brought a letter there 
 from Mr. Cox, and we were all convened to deliberate upon it. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, what was the result of your deliberation? 
 
 Answer. The result of our deliberation was that we telegraphed to» 
 Mr. Cox to oppose the English bill. 
 
 Question. Have you not had some conversation with Mr. Cox since 
 the passage of the English bill ? If so, what led to it, and when and 
 where did it take place ? 
 
 Answer. I had several conversations with Mr. Cox after the passage 
 of the English bill. In the first place, I had a conversation with him 
 at Columbus ; Mr. Cox came on there, and we, of course, felt very 
 sore about his having deserted Mr. Douglas ; we were all friends of 
 Mr. Douglas there, and held our county meetings and State conven- 
 tion, and took very distinct and decided grounds in favor of Douglas ; 
 and Mr. Cox had been our mouth-piece, and so I complained to him 
 that we had been left with our fingers in our mouths^ and our cham- 
 pion of the walls, and I did not know why, in defiance of our in- 
 structions he had himself sought, he had voted as he had- upon the 
 English bill ; Mr. Cox thought it was the best thing he could do ;'he 
 said that the party had united upon it and agreed to carry it, and he 
 did not like to stand out himself in opposition to it ; that was about 
 the substance of the conversation which we had at Columbus ; Mr. 
 James H. Smith was along with us ; we were walking down Broad 
 street to Mr. Smith's house ; I told Mr. Cox that he had left us in a 
 very unpleasant condition. 
 
 Question. Be pleased to detail more fully what that conversation 
 was. 
 
 Answer. I have already stated the substance of all the conversation 
 which we had at that time ; I saw Mr. Cox afterwards in Washington 
 city, and had a conversation with him here upon the matter. 
 
 Question. Had Mr. Cox ever told you that, in consequence of his 
 support of the administration upon the English bill, that gave him 
 power with the President and cabinet officers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, he did not tell me that it gave him power with 
 tjhe President and cabinet ofiBcers. 
 
 Question. With the President alone, then ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, he did not say that. , 
 
 Question. Just state what it was that he did say. 
 
 Answer. We were talking in Washington about it 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. What time was that conversation ? 
 
 Answer. It was pretty soon after the English bill passed ; I do not 
 recollect how soon ; I had seen Mr. Cox before in Columbus, and this 
 was the second interview ;, Mr. Cox was speaking about the occur- 
 rences that took place prior to his voting, and in the course of that 
 conversation I think he said that Mr. Cobb had sent for him before he 
 had given his vote, and wanted to see him, and Mr. Cox had sent him 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 279 
 
 word in reply that tie did not wish to have any conference with any 
 perspn on the matter, because he wanted to determine for himself as 
 to his course ; after he had voted Mr. Oobb had sent for him again ; 
 he went to see Mr, Cobb, and I think he went with Mr. Cobb up to 
 see Mr. Buchanan, and they spoke to him as having done rightly and 
 acted properly in his vote, and congratulated him upon having voted 
 in that way, saying they thought it had saved the country and the 
 party ; then Mr. Buchanan said there were probably some vacancies 
 in the Interior Department, and if he had any friends there might be 
 some places for them ; Mr. Cox told me that he went down some time 
 afterwards to see Mr. Thompson, the Secretary of the Interior, but I 
 do not know whether he ever got anything from him or not ; I think 
 not ; I do not know that he ever applied to him for that purpose. 
 
 Question. This was after that vote was given ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, it was after the vote was given. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of Mr. Cox saying that he had offices to 
 dispense ? 
 
 Answer. I never heard him say that, at all. 
 
 Question. State any particular conversation with regard to Mr. Cox 
 having^any influence with the administration to dispense patronage, 
 if any such took place. 
 
 Answer. In our conversation in Washington city Mr. Cox asked me 
 whether I should like to have an appointment to go to New Mexico, 
 to adjust some two hundred and fifty or three hundred thousand dol- 
 lars worth of government claims ; he said he thought that place could 
 be got for me from the Secretary of the Interior ; I replied to him 
 that 1 would look rather scaly in going back home after taking this 
 office Uiider James Buchanan, after the manner in which I had spoken 
 of him publicly, and the opinion that I had of him ; I told Mr. Cox 
 that I was very much obliged to him for his kindness in offering me 
 the place, and as he had been so courteous I wanted to give him a 
 little advice, that whatever patronage he might have to dispense he 
 should hold in his own fist until after the election in the fall, and not 
 have any appointments made until after he had gone through the 
 contest, because he would in all probability be the nominee of the 
 party, and it would weaken his standing very much — he would be 
 charged with being bought, if he had dny appointments made pre- 
 vious to the election. 
 
 Question. Did he act upon your suggestion ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir, of any appointments that he had made. 
 
 Question. Will you explain with regard to the appointment of the 
 postmaster at Columbus ; why the change was not made until after 
 Mr. Cox's election? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about that. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. What answer did Mr. Cox make to your suggestion? 
 
 Answer. He seemed to coincide with it. 
 
 Question. If you and Mr. Cox at that time talked anything about 
 
280 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 the post office at Columbus and the reappointment of Mr. Miller, go 
 on and state what you said about it. 
 
 Answer. We talked about it, and I said that Mr. Miller had been 
 removed becajise of his adhesion to Judge Douglas ; he had been per- 
 secuted on that account, and he ought to be restored to the office if 
 Mr. Cox had the power to restore him. That is the substance of what 
 I said to him. Mr. Miller was the best and firmest friend that Mr. 
 Cos had, and consequently it was personally his duty to take care of 
 him. I told him, however, that he ought not to have Mr. Miller 
 reappointed until after the election, because the cry of " bargain and 
 sale" would be raised and howled through the district against him. 
 
 Question. Now give Mr. Cox's reply. 
 
 Answer. I do not know what Mr. Cox said. He seemed to think 
 that my view of the case was correct. I wish further to say, in con- 
 nexion with that matter, that Mr. Cox did not tell me he would have 
 Mr. Miller reappointed. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. What time was the reappointment made ? 
 Answer. It was made after the election. 
 Question. Was it soon after the election? 
 Answer. I believe it was soon after. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 Question. What time is your election? 
 Answer. On the second Tuesday in October. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you not had conversations with Mr. Cox at other 
 times, and sometimes in company with other persons, relative to his 
 influence with the administration after the passage of that bill ? If 
 so, please to state what those conversations were. 
 
 Ansver. I may have often talked with Mr. Cox, because we con- 
 versed a great deal together ; but I do not remember any distinct 
 conversation to which I could testify that had anything in it in con- 
 nexion with this matter. 
 
 No. 104; 
 
 Saturday, June 9, 1860. 
 
 JOHN B. HASKIN called and examined. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Did you ever have any correspondence with Mr. Browne, 
 of the " Constitution," in reference to supporting the Lecompton 
 policy of the President? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have any correspondence with Mr. Butterworth, 
 superintendent of the assay office in New York, in reference to that 
 matter ? 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 281 
 
 Answer. I corresponded with Mr. Butterworth from the time I was 
 elected memher of Congress, in 1856, down to the ITth of April, 1858, 
 when I wrote him a letter closing our correspondence and terminating 
 our acquaintance. 
 
 Question. Have you any objection to leaving that correspondence 
 with the committee ? 
 
 Answer. As to this letter of my own, closing our correspondence, I 
 have no objection to leaving that, and having it incorporated as a 
 part of my testimony. I had not intended to have made any use of 
 Mr. Butterworth's letters to me before this committee, but having 
 read in the "New York Times," of the date of the 5th of April last, 
 a statement which was designed to insinuate or charge me with having, 
 at one time,, been in favor of the Lecompton constitution, which state- 
 ment I have reason to know was superinduced to be published by 
 information given by Mr. Butterworth ; and reference having been 
 made in that statement to some of my private letters to Mr. Butter- 
 worth, with what purported to be a quotation from one of my letters, 
 I now propose, therefore, as Mr. Butterworth, in a letter to me, con- 
 sented to the publication of his letters provided I would consent to 
 the publication of my letters, to leave these letters of Mr. Butterworth 
 to me with Mr. Covode, the chairman of this committee, the letters 
 to beiin a sealed envelope, with the understanding that if Mr. Butter- 
 wortn agiees to the publication of the whole of my letters, these shall 
 he publisbed also. I do this because I desire that the onus of publish- 
 ng these letters shall, be put upon Mr. Butterworth, he haviag, in 
 his examination here, consented to the publication of his letters to me 
 provided that I would consent to the publication of my letters to him. 
 
 The statement contained in the "New York Times," of the 5th of 
 April last, more than any other consideration, has induced me to tes- 
 tify before this committee. That statement sought to charge me with 
 having acted at least with duplicity upon the Kansas question. Hence 
 it is that I am willing to leave with this coi^mittee Mr. Butterworth's 
 letters to me, many of which were written in friendly confidence, just 
 as mine were written to him. There are expressions upon both sides 
 of a very friendly character. 
 
 Question. Without stating the contents of Mr. Butterworth's let- 
 ters, can you state of your knowledge what ,his views were upon the 
 Lecompton question after the 19th of December, 1857? 
 
 Answer. After the 19th of December, 1857, Mr. Butterworth did 
 not endorse the President's course upon the Lecompton question. 
 They accorded, as I understood them, with my views, fully ; and I 
 desire here to state, as you have mentioned the 19th of December, that 
 Mr. Butterworth has said, as I am informed, that I favored the Le- 
 compton policy of the President up to the 19th of December, and he 
 has also said that the Lecompton message of the President had been 
 transmitted to Congress before that period. Now for the truth of 
 history, and to vindicate myself, I desire to state here that the annual 
 message of the President of the United States was sent to Congress on 
 the 8th of December, 1857 ; I approved of that annual message, and 
 on the 2l8t of December, 1857, I wrote a letter to a meeting called at 
 Tammany Hall in New York to approve of the message, which was then 
 
282 LECOMPTON CONiSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 published, in which I vindicated Judge Douglas's course in the Senate. 
 There was nothing in the annual message upon the subject of Kansas 
 which I did not approve, because the elections in Kansas under Le- 
 compton had not then taken place ; Lecompton had not then been 
 made an issue. The first election in Kansas took place on the 2l8t of 
 December, 1857, and the second election on the 4th of January fol- 
 lowing. The special message relating to Lecompton itself, was not 
 transmitted to Congress until the 2d of February, 1858. 
 
 Question. How many democratic members of Congress opposed the 
 Lecompton policy? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, as a suspicion has been sought to be thrown 
 upon my course upon the Lecompton question, perhaps it would be 
 well for me to state that the anti-Lecompton democrats always met 
 at my house. At the first meeting of the anti-Lecompton democrats, 
 (members of the 35th Congress) which was about the Ist of January, 
 1858, there were some 24 or 25 present, I was appointed the secretary. 
 Those who met there were Mr. McKibben, of California; John Gr. Davis, 
 Mr. English, Mr. Niblack, (he only met with us once,) and Mr. Foley', 
 of Indiana; Thomas L. Harris. Mr. Shaw, Mr. Smith, Mr. Marshall, 
 and Mr. Morris of Illinois ; Wilson Keilly, Mr. Montgomery, Mri 
 Hickman, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Dewart, and Owen Jones, of Pennsyl. 
 vania ; Mr. Cox, Mr. Grrosbeck, Mr. Cockrell, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. 
 Burns, and Judge Hall, of Ohio ; Mr. Adrain, of New Jersey, and 
 Mr. Clark and myself of New York ; 24 or 25 altogether. 
 
 Question. How many adhered to that position upon the passage of 
 the English bill ? 
 
 Answer. There were only twelve — the apostolic number — who voted 
 against the English bill, and one was away, Mr. Montgomery, who 
 was paired with Mr. Warren, of Arkansas. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have an interview with the President in re- 
 lation to the Lecompton question ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it v^s an official interview. 
 
 Question. If there is no impropriety in telling us about it, will you 
 please to do so ? 
 
 Answer. I had an interview with the President after the first or 
 second meeting of the anti-Lecompton democrats, whom I have named 
 as meeting at my house. As I had a great deal of solicitude at the 
 time to have Mr. Buchanan's administration a successful one, especially 
 upon this Kansas subject, I called upon him ; my little daughtei was 
 with me. This was long before he sent in his special message upon 
 Kansas. I told him that there was this number of northern democrats 
 who would not and could not honorably support what was understood 
 to be the Kansas programme, the admission of Kansas under the Le- 
 compton constitution. We had a general talk upon the subject at 
 that time. He asked me what I proposed should be done about it. I 
 told him very frankly that I trusted he would not make any adminis- 
 tration test of Lecompton, but would let the Lecompton constitution 
 go to Congress from the hands of John Calhoun, who had been directed 
 by the convention which was alleged to have framed it, to transmit it 
 to Congress ; and, as in the case of Minnesota, the President should 
 send no special message to the House ; and Congress would dispose of 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 283 
 
 " Lecompton," we trusted, without his making it an administration 
 measure. The President replied that he had determined upon his 
 policy upon that question ; and as there were indications that Ala- 
 hama, Mississippi and Georgia were about seceding unless Kansas 
 was admitted under that constitution, he had determined to send a 
 special message to Congress, and make it an administration measure. 
 
 Subsequently to that, a committee was appointed at a meeting of 
 the anti- Lecompton democrats, at my house, consisting of Messrs, 
 James B. Clay, of Kentucky, Dewart, of Pennsylvania, and myself, 
 to wait upon the President^ and beg him not to make this an admin- 
 istration measure and test. Mr. Dewart did not go, on account of his 
 peculiar relations theretofore with the President, and Mr. Cox went 
 in his place. That interview was a short time before the President 
 sent in his Lecompton message. Mr. Clay was the chairman of the 
 committee, but each of us made our argument in as forcible a manner 
 as possible, to avoid the President making it an administration meas- 
 ure, and the diflSculty which subsequently grew out of this subject of 
 " Lecompton" in the House. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other matter or thing pertinent to 
 this investigation, or useful to the country ? If so, you will please 
 state it. 
 
 Answer. All I can say in reply is, that I felt anxious, as it had 
 been insinuated that I was at one time crooked upon the subject of 
 Lecompton^ to put myself right here ; I supposed that if there was 
 any representative in the 35th Congress who had been particularly 
 active in opposition to " Lecompton" it was myself; I took ground in 
 the House early against it ; I think I made a speech against it early 
 in March, 1858. And when I read in the New York papers what pur- 
 ported to be the evidence of Mr. Butterworth before this committee, 
 which insinuated, if it did not expressly charge, that I had been in 
 favor of the Lecompton policy of the President, I felt very indignant 
 at this unjust charge, and desired to vindicate myself, and to make 
 the statement upon the whole subject which I have made here, upon 
 the invitation, and at the request of your chairman, I do it with an 
 assurance to the committee that the letters which I wrote to Mr. But- 
 terworth, and which he said with my consent he would publish, will 
 prove that I was always against Lecompton, and his letters to me 
 will, in my opinion, pr6ve that he coincided with me. 
 
 Question. There is one question which I omitted to ask you, and 
 that is, whether in these interviews with the President, or with any 
 officer of the government, there were any inducements held out to 
 you to get you to change your course upon the Lecompton question ? 
 
 Answer. None by the President, except in the way of argument. 
 The President expressed a great deal of regret that I should take 
 ground against him, saying that, from forty years' political experi- 
 ence, he was satisfied that any man who went against the administra- 
 tion of his party would be without the pale of his party, and that 
 would be an end of him politically. He said that he appreciated my 
 frankness ; but no inducements were held out by the President, ex- 
 cept those of friendly argument. 
 
284 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Questioa, You have stated in your testimoay fhat the interview you 
 had with the President was before the sending in of his special mes- 
 sage ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I had two interviews with him, and both of 
 them were before that time. One was early in January, and the 
 other, I think, was about the latter part of January, 1858. His spe- 
 cial message on Lecompton came in to Congress on the 2d of Febru- 
 ary, 1858. The second interview was a short time before the message. 
 
 Question. Do you mean those letters which you have left here with 
 the chairman of this committee to be published any how, or only in 
 case the others are published ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Butterworth having said in his testimony that he 
 would consent to the publication of his letters, if I would consent to 
 the publication of mine, I leave these with the chairman of the com- 
 mittee to meet the challenge of Mr. Butterworth, to be published if 
 he furnishes the others for publication. 
 
 Question. You express your willingness to have yours published? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. But you do not want that done unless the others are pub- 
 lished ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I mean this to meet the challenge of Mr. Butter- 
 worth. In the first part of his testimony he says he is willing to 
 have his letters published, in which case I am willing to have these 
 published. 
 
 The following is the letter produced by Mr. Haskin, and referred to 
 in his testimony: 
 
 Washington, April 17, 1858. 
 My Dear Sir: A multiplicity of engagements here, attendant upon 
 my participation in the defeat of " Lecompton," (with which defeat, 
 from your statements made to me, at our interview when I last met 
 you in the assay of&ce, " that but for your holding the office of super- 
 intendent under the administration, you would have been battling 
 with your friends, E. J. Walker, Judge Douglas, and myself, in 
 favor of popular sovereignty, and against the admission of Kansas 
 under the Lecompton constitution," [1] I suppose you are well pleaded,) 
 have prevented me from answering your extraordinary letter of the 
 31st ultimo before this date. I now propose answering this petulant 
 letter as its peculiar contents, its misapprehended statements, and 
 unfair coloring would seem to demand at my hands. You say in it 
 that my courteous note of the 27th ultimo "was unworthy of you, 
 marked as it was by inuendoes and evidences of suppressed rage." 
 You quote a part of it for your purpose, but omit the material part, in 
 which I disclaimed believing that you had joined hands with Schell, 
 Jesse Lyon, John Murphy, and John Lindsay, and asserted that I 
 would not so believe until I heard from you ; and in your letter you 
 exclaim "bah !" an exclamation suitable perhaps to a ten-acre lot on 
 Fordham ridge, or on a southern plantation, but, considering my dis- 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 285 
 
 interested friendship for years exhibited for you, not exactly courteous 
 or kind, and certainly not euphonious in the President's ears, at your 
 recent audience with him at the White Mouse. You then propose to 
 inform me where I stand, and give me statements purporting to have 
 been made to you "by one of your subordinates." It is due to truth 
 and my own vindication to assert that the statement of "your subor- 
 dinate" is a sheer fabrication. I never said anything like what you 
 allege he stated. Let me narrate : I called at the assay office to meet 
 you on Saturday morning, the 27th ultimo, pursuant to an appoint- 
 ment made in a telegraphic despatch sent from here by your friends, 
 Gwin and Sickles. You were not in the office when I called, having 
 left the previous evening for Washington. I sent for ' ' your subor- 
 dinate," Peter Buckout; he came to the front office, and I inquired 
 of him what was doing in West Farms about the town election. He 
 replied that you had stopped in your wagon (on the way to or from 
 the depot) at his house a short time before the nominating meeting 
 was to be held, and requested him to attend it, and to urge the nomi- 
 nation of your friend, L. Gr. Morris, as the administration candidate ; 
 that he had done so at your solicitation ; that although Morris was 
 fairly beaten in the nomination, still, as you desired it, he should 
 support him against the regular candidate ; that his interest compelled 
 it, as you requested it ; and although he was my friend, and would 
 support my renomination and re-election, yet his " bread and butter" 
 was involved, and he should, at your express desire, go against my 
 friendSj &c. [2] I replied to him that I regretted you had gone to 
 Washington, inasmuch as if I had seen you, I believed a perfectly 
 fair understanding could have been had between us ; that I supposed, 
 in consequence of your holding, office under the administration, you 
 merely desired to make a formal show in favor of the election of Morris 
 as an administration candidate, and to prove to the President that 
 there was an administration organization in the town in which you 
 resided, and that I did not have it all ray own way there ; but that I did 
 not and could not then believe, considering my friendly relations with 
 you, socially and politically, and the political sacrifices I had made to 
 further your political fortunes, [3] that you seriously desired to have 
 me beaten and repudiated at my own home, particularly when you 
 knew I had been unsuspecting any opposition from such a source, in 
 attending to my congressional duties here. I furthermore said that I 
 had given you as zealous, as pure, and disinterested a political sup- 
 port and friendship in going for you for collector against Mr. Schell, 
 with whom, previously, I had been on the most intimate friendly 
 terms ; in compassing your going. to the last democratic State conven- 
 tion against the combined opposition of Mr. Schell, the custom-house, 
 Mayor Wood, and Dr. Brandreth's money, not then to refer to other 
 acts of mine in your behalf, that would, in the event of your open, 
 active, and bonafide hostility to my friends in West Farms, render it 
 necessary for me, in preserving my self-respect, to cut an acquaintance 
 which would, under such circumstances, have proven to have been the 
 most Hugenerous and ungrateful of any it had ever been my misfor- 
 tune to have made. It is an invention, and 7U)t true, that I boasted 
 to "your subordinate" that you would have been hurled out of office 
 
286 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 but for me, or that I made any threats in reference to your opposing 
 Bussing. [4] 
 
 You say you " fully appreciate all your efforts to serve me," but it 
 is not true " that I obtained this office by your aid, nor am I retained 
 by your interposition." I have never insinuated or said you obtained 
 your office by my aid, and I will not insult your intelligence by assert^ 
 ing that you believe I have ever said so, as our acquaintance com- 
 menced after your appointment. I did and do say, however^, that 
 when the Herald and Mayor Wood and his friends were endeavoring 
 to oust you, immediately after the defeat of Wood, I exerted all of my 
 power and influence (trifling as you may now deem it since your last 
 satisfactory interview with the President) to prevent your removal. 
 
 Tou say " I have served you and your frietids more effectually than 
 you have me, so it does not become you to talk of unrequited service;" 
 to this gratuitous assertion, boastingly and unnecessarily made, I shall 
 interpose a positive denial, and refer in proof to a few facts known to 
 a great many worthy people. I do this reluctantly, upon your own 
 demand for " particulars ;" and, in affording them, I do it with the 
 debtor and creditor purpose of closing accounts. The first business 
 you desired me in writing to look after, for your pecuniary benefit and 
 gain, was the drawing of a long special act of incorporation for the 
 Harlem Eiver Suspension Bridge Company, which I drew, and, by 
 zealous efforts, obtained to be passed by the legislature. The passage 
 of this act, and the editorial notices of it, written and published by 
 me, calling public attention to the Harlem river and the beauties of 
 the Fordham Eidge property, were al] designed to, and did, call 
 attention to Morris's and your property, to advance its value, and in 
 assisting the sale of Butler's and Archer's property, inuring to your 
 benefit. [5] Tou were next, through my efforts and by my friends, 
 made a presidential elector in 1856, on the national democratic ticket, 
 to represent the district I have the honor to represent in Congress, though 
 at the time you were not personally known to fifty of the democratic 
 politicians of the district. Subsequently I remember proceeding to Al- 
 bany in the winter of 1857, and there remaining up until near three 
 o'clock one morning at the DelavauHouse, arguing with and endeavoring 
 to persuade "your friend," Mr. Sickles, to support you for the col- 
 lectorship, and to go against his friend, Mr. Schell ; how well I suc- 
 ceeded in this the generous support given by him and myself, to say 
 nothing of the support of five other democratic representatives from 
 New York, to make you the collector, immediately after the inaugura- 
 tion of Mr. Buchanan, our acts and the newspapers of the day attest. 
 You then proclaimed yourself " my candidate for collector." Tou 
 wrote me, when detained in Baltimore by the unfortunate shot from 
 Fowler's pistol, leaving your application for the collectorship and 
 your whole case in my hands ; and how zealously, efficiently, and 
 honestlyl supported you "your friend," Mr. Sickles, well knows. [6] 
 After this, and last summer, though I would liked to have gone as a 
 delegate to the democraitic State convention myself, I stepped aside to 
 vindicate your candidacy for collector, and to give you a StaJte promi- 
 nence in the party, and worked and achieved, single-handed, a vic- 
 tory for you. That in labor and money expended in triumphing over 
 
LECOMPTON COKSTITUTION, ETC. 2 7 
 
 the combined influence and opposition of Schell, and the custom-house. 
 Mayor Wood, and Dr. Brandreth's money, for the time, I confess, 
 gratified my pride in success, but m^de me more political enemies 
 than you could make me friends during a presidential term. [7] 
 
 I have been constrained to refer to these things by your boasting 
 reference to having done more for my friends and myself than I have 
 done for you; and in making these references I have omitted to refer 
 to the favorable notices of the performance of your official duties, 
 puffs, &c., I have superinduced to be published "of and concerning 
 you' ' in the New York Times and other newspapers for your especial 
 gratification and benefit. [8] Now, let us examine the other sheet 
 of the leger per contra, and see what you have done for me that has 
 induced you to claim to have more than balanced my account. You 
 appointed for me, as a politician and a member of Congress, Lawrence 
 Cohane on the night watch in the assay office. He remained there 
 until I obtained for him a better place, and during the whole time he 
 was in the government employ he gave you officially and personally 
 the greatest satisfaction. You appointed old Mr. Blauvelt for me as 
 a doorkeeper or day watchman at two dollars per day. After my 
 election you employed for a short time for me three honest, hard- 
 wofl'king democrats — Messrs. Varian, Schouler, and Fitzgerald. [9] 
 You must not charge Sharkey's appointment to my account, though I 
 was pleased you made it, because you appointed him, as you informed 
 me, of your own accord, and to receive back $25 you had loaned him ; 
 nor must you charge me with the appointment of "your subordinate," 
 Peter Buckout. But last and not least, you appointed my brother, 
 William E., to a clerkship, worth $1,250 per annum, made vacant by 
 the appointment of Charles K. Graham to a better place upon my 
 original suggestion, and by the efforts of " your friend" Sickles and 
 myself. Well, I had supposed, until my attention was called to facts 
 by your letter, that I had been quite modest in the small number of 
 appointments I had asked at your hands. My brother's appointment 
 I desired as a set-off to the appointment of the brother of the Hon. 
 W. B. Maclay, who, if I mistake not, has been in the assay office 
 since its establishment ; and I knew that my brother had been an 
 active and zealous democrat all his life, and had worked hard for the 
 election of this administration, and supposed that, as "a member of 
 Congress," I of right wasentitled to receive from you, at least, the 
 few appointments made, not more, I venture to assert, than other 
 members of Congress have received from you, without, perhaps, 
 having had them charged in your debtor and creditor account at so 
 large an amount as you have claimed against me Still I will not in 
 this letter harshly complain of your estimate of services rendered and 
 friendship received, because I had never supposed for a moment, in al- 
 ways heretofore yielding to you as generous, as devoted, and as influen- 
 tial a friendship, in my way, as I have ever given to any man living or 
 dead, that you would call forth the rendering of mutual accounts. [10] 
 Having evidence to satisfy me that you made L. Gr. Morris a vice 
 president of the administration "Lecompton meeting;" that you 
 made him the administration stump candidate, in connexion with 
 Lyon and Murphy, for supervisor, from the statements of Buckout 
 
288 LECOMProN constitution, etc. ^ 
 
 and others, and articles and communications in the "Union ;" and 
 considering the tone and character of your letter, to which this is a 
 reply, I respectfully suggest that my honor and self-respect induce 
 me to close with you all further relations and communications. [11] 
 Tours, truly, ^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ 
 
 S. F. BUTXBRWOKTH, EsC[. 
 
 The following are the annotations upon this letter when returned 
 to Mr. Haskin by Mr. Butterworth : 
 
 [l.J This is an error. I made no such statement. 
 
 [2.1 Error No. 2. — Mr. Buckout pronounces this statement of a con- 
 versation with him untrue. He says that when Mr. Tappen made the 
 change he was acting under my direction. He pronounced him a 
 damned liar. 
 
 [3. J No sacrifices have ever been made to further my political for- 
 tunes. 
 
 [4.] Mr. Buckout states distinctly that you did so boast and so 
 threatened, and I have been so informed from various other quarters. 
 
 [5. J Item No. 1.— All this would be very plausible if Mr. Haskin 
 was not an owner of real estate in Westchestpr, near this bridge. 
 Too disinterested. 
 
 [6.] Item No. 3. — Support as collector. I acknowledge the effort 
 to serve me, and though unsuccessful, have always expressed my 
 gratitude. 
 
 [Y.] Item No. 4. — Delegate to Syracuse. I did not seek or desire 
 this position, and Mr. Haskin knows very well that I accepted it at 
 his earnest solicitation. 1 feel no obligation for this service ; never 
 did. 
 
 [8. J Item No. 5. — Newspaper notices accepted as evidences of disin- 
 terested friendship. So considered and valued. 
 
 [9.] Varian and Schouler still here. Tlie latter employed after the 
 supervisor's election at the request of Mr. Haskin. 
 
 [10. J I distinctly stated in my former letter that my friendship for 
 Mr. H. was not based on services received or rendered. 
 
 [11.] I did make L. G-. Morris vice president ; it is not true that I 
 made him a stump candidate. I know nothing of the Union articles, 
 I approve the tone and temper of my former letters, and since the re- 
 ceipt of this I am quite content to end an association which I regret 
 ever existed. 
 
 S. F. B. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 289 
 
 No. 83. 
 
 Saturday, Jvme 9, 1860. 
 
 SAMUEL S. COX recalled. 
 
 The testimony of Joseph H. Geiger had heen read over to Mr. Cox, 
 and he desired to make a statement in regard to it ; which he did, as 
 follows : 
 
 I desire to say that Mr. Geiger is mistaken in saying that I ever 
 had any meeting or communication with Governor Cohb or the Presi- 
 dent, such as he relates. I had no communication either before or 
 after the passage of .the English bill, that I remember, with Governor 
 Cobb. I had but one interview with the President, and in that inter- 
 view I asked but one favor of him, and that was that he should do 
 me no favor at all, as I could not receive any nor ask for any. I 
 made no remarks to Mr. Geiger about prospective favors from the 
 President. I ask, in justice to myself, that Governor Cobb may be 
 sent for. I have not talked with him about this matter, but I have 
 no doubt he will confirm my statement in this regard. If the com- 
 mittee will not do that, I will then see Governor Cobb myself and re- 
 port what he may say. 
 
 I remember having a conversation with Mr. Geiger about an ap- 
 pointment to New Mexico. But preliminary to stating that conver- 
 sation, let me say that there was a gentleman in my district who was 
 a route agent, if [ remember aright, and wanted to resign and go west 
 with his family, and he wanted an appointment as Indian agent. I 
 told him I could ask no favors of the department at all. He asked 
 me to find out if there was any vacancy, if I would do that much for 
 him. I told him I would see the Secretary of the Interior. I saw 
 the Secretary of the Interior, and he told me that there was no vacancy 
 at that time. During my conversation with Secretary Thompson, he 
 said that if the appropriation was made there might be an appoint- 
 ment to New Mexico of a judge to settle the title of lands there. I 
 told him that would not suit my friend, as he did not understand 
 Spanish, and I supposed that a knowledge'of that language would be 
 necessary. I had no further conversation with him upon the subject. 
 I might have mentioned this vacancy to Mr. Geiger in the conversa- 
 tion I had with him, and may have said that he might have a chance 
 for it ; and I might have said that I had no doubt in my own mind 
 that I could procure the appointment at that time if it had been ad- 
 visable or proper to do so. But I had a settled policy in my own 
 mind not to ask any favors of the administration. Mr. Geiger is cor- 
 rect when he says that I coincided with him in regard to my conduct 
 in that respect. 
 
 Mr. Geiger is mistaken in saying that Mr. Miller was appointed 
 postmaster at Columbus soon after the election. The appointment 
 was made nearly two months afterwards. The vacancy was not made 
 by my procurement, nor had I any anticipation that there would be 
 any vacancy in that office. I had told Governor Medary that I had 
 no wish to have him removed from the office. My friend, Mr. Miller, 
 
290 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 had no idea of being reappointed to that oflSce until the vacancy was 
 created The records of the post oilBce will show this statement about 
 the date of his appointment to he correct. 
 
 Mr. Geiger is also mistaken in relation to Mr. Evans, who went to the 
 west to see my friends about my vote on the English bill. Mr.Evans 
 had no connexion at all with the administration. He was a friend of 
 mine, residing in my district, and was going home on a visit to his 
 iamily. I was solicitous to know how ray friends at home would regard 
 this English bill. When the English bill was first shown to me, I set 
 down at once that I was in favor of it. I mean now the first draught 
 of it, which will be found in the "New York Tribune," but I cannot 
 give the particular date without looking over the files. It was a 
 direct submission, without any qualification, of, the constitution to 
 the people of Kansas. The " Tribune" at that time said that all the 
 Douglas men were for it. That was just after the conference commit- 
 tee was raised. 
 
 [Mr. Haskin, who was present, corroborated the statement of Mr. 
 Cox.] 
 
 The bill was afterwards modified to suit some northern men, who 
 would not go for the first draught. I hesitated about going for it as 
 modified, as I think was the case with Mr. Groesbeck and the rest of 
 the Ohio members. My inclination was against it, as I stated in my 
 remarks in the House upon the English bill. Subsequently the bill 
 was again modified to suit the views of some northern members, as I 
 understood. If. I had the bill here I could show the words that were 
 thus inserted, which implied that the vote on the proposition should 
 be a vote on the constitution. To that bill, so modified, I gave my 
 assent, after a full conference with Governor Walker, who wrote me 
 a letter approving my course. 
 
 Meanwhile, different versions of the bill had gone to the west, and 
 difi'erent opinions prevailed among my iriends in regard to it. At the 
 time Mr. Geiger speaks of, when Mr. Evans went west, I was under 
 the impression that I could not sustain the bill as I then understoq^ 
 it. But I finally concluded, notwitiistanding the opinions of others, 
 here and at home, to vote for the bill, believing that the people would 
 justify it. The democracy of my district iiad sustained Judge Douglas, 
 as Mr. Geiger states ; but they subsequently sustained -the English 
 bill, and the democracy of the State did the same thing in their con- 
 vention. I was re-elected on a resolution sustaining the bill, and I 
 doubled my former majority. 
 
 I voted for the bill for the reason that it submitted the Lecompton 
 constitution substantially to the people, giving them the chance to kill 
 it if they did not like it. But at no time did I ever give in my adhe- 
 sion to the Lecompton constitution. In voting for the English bill 
 I had no other motive or inducement except, in the face of all opposi- 
 tion, to satisfy my own judgment and conscience. I received no favors 
 from the administration of any kind until after my re-election ; and 
 then the only favor worth mentioning, that I know of, was the reap- 
 pointment of my friend, Mr. Miller, to the post office at Columbus, 
 whom, being in the same category with myself in the whole business, 
 I would not desert, notwithstanding his wish not to be reappointed. 
 
LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 291 
 
 No. 106. 
 
 Monday, June 11, 1860. 
 
 JOHN W. FOBNEY, called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Colonel, it is unnecessary to ask you where you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in the city of Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am editor of "The Press/' Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Your position here ? 
 
 Answer. Clerk of the House of Kepresentatives. 
 
 Question. What was your position during the canvass in Pennsyl- 
 vania in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I was chairman of the democratic State central commit- 
 tee. 
 
 Question. Have you any remarks to make which would be prelim- 
 inary or explanatory of your connexion with political affairs in that 
 year ? 
 
 Answer. I would like to say, if you would permit me, that my ap- 
 pearance before this committee, though not entirely unexpected, on 
 account of discussions in the public journals, puts me in the attitude 
 almost of desiring to know what I am to say. I know you will do 
 me the justice to admit that I have not taken any part whatever in 
 the investigations of the committee outside of my journal, in which I 
 have very freely discussed its doings, as any other journal can do. My 
 relations with Mr. Buchanan have been a subject of newspaper com- 
 ment ; and I presume I have been summoned by you on that account 
 to be here this morning. I have carefully abstained from making any 
 exposure of those relations. My connexion with him has been long, 
 intimate, and of a confidential character, and the separation has been 
 of the most painful nature ; but as most of it concerned myself, I have 
 not forced the matter upon the attention of the public, unless in self- 
 defence ; and therefore, in reference to the witnesses that have been 
 examined here, 1 have been cautious to let them take their course. 
 The testimony of Mr. Webster, given here, had been fully known to 
 me, and, indeed, after he had volunteered once before to give the evi- 
 dence which he did give. 
 
 The Chairman. It is due here that I should say that you never did 
 give me any information with regard to Mr. Webster or anybody else 
 to subpoena. I had to get all my information from others, and not from 
 you, so that that will not need any further explanation. 
 
 The Witness. Only this, if the committee will permit me: I did 
 not feel that I needed vindication against the charge made against me 
 by Mr. Baker, the collector of the port of Philadelphia, before the 
 special committee in the Senate, of which Mr. King was chairman. I 
 felt that in the course I had taken against the administration, I had 
 the approval of my own judgment ; and although I am deeply grate- 
 ful to Mr. Webster for what he said, and also for what the Hon. 
 
292 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTIOK, ETC. 
 
 Charles Brown said the otlfer day, inasmucli as it has done a good 
 deal to dispel unjust prejudices in the public mind, yet, if I had had 
 my own course to take, I certainly should not have solicited either of 
 those gentlemen to come here. I would also say that my coming be- 
 fore this committee was not of my own seeking. I had hoped that I 
 might be spared, I will not say the trouble, of coming here at all ; 
 but as I am here now, inasmuch as my name has been used before 
 
 another committee 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think any reference to what has been done 
 in the other committee is proper here, unless we take their records. 
 
 The Witness. I understood that you allowed Mr. Baker to appear 
 here and repeat his testimony before the other committee. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW read to the witness so much of the testimony of Colonel 
 Baker as referred to him. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNfcON thought it was due to Colonel Forney that he should 
 be allowed to go on and state his connexion with the President, inas- 
 much as the testimony of Colonel Baker says that the cause of their 
 difference was on account of his failure to get the post office blank 
 printing. 
 
 Mr. WiKSLOW requested the witness to retire while the committee 
 consulted upon that subject. 
 
 The Witness. If the committee will permit me, I desire to say that 
 the testimony of Colonel Baker was so unjust, and, I must add, so 
 untrue, that for my own vindication I must go back and state my 
 relations with the President from the time that I was elected chair- 
 man of the democratic State central committee of Pennsylvania down 
 to the time when our difference took place. 
 
 [The witness then retired. After some time he was recalled, and 
 informed that it had been agreed that his statement on that point 
 might be taken, subject to the striking out of everything which the 
 committee might deem irrelevant.] 
 
 The Chairman. Just commence at the commencement, and go on 
 and state the history of the whole matter, as explaining your relations 
 with the President. 
 
 Answer. After the nomination of Mr, Buchanan, (I was at Cincin- 
 nati helping, with others, to secure that result,) I was taken very ill, 
 and resided at Lancaster with my mother, my wife being with me at 
 the time. It was some time before I recovered sufficiently to go to 
 Philadelphia and resume my connexion with the campaign. One 
 afternoon I drove up to Wheatland, and found Mr. Buchanan sitting 
 in front of his house, on the lawn, in company with my wife, who had 
 preceded me, and he said to me in his usual kind manner, (for we 
 had formed very close and intimate relations one to the other,) " I am 
 very grateful to you for what you have done at Cincinnati and during 
 all your life for me. I shall be elected easily." It was then believed 
 that he would be elected easily ; he was regarded as a conservative 
 man, and he was confident himself of his election, "And now," said 
 he, " in order to make your mind easy upon the subject, I want to tell 
 you what my purposes are in reference to yourself. I design that you 
 should go to Washington to take charge of the organ of my adminis- 
 tration, should I be elected, and to take possession of the public print- 
 
LECOMPTON "CONSTITUTION. ETC. 293 
 
 jng. This offer is voluntarily made, in the fulness of my heart, and 
 I intend to stand by it." I was, of course, gratified and suprised. I 
 did not expect that he would make such an offer, at least at that time ; 
 and we parted. We frequently met afterwards. The campaign began 
 with a good deal of excitement, and in a short time the contest assumed 
 an aspect which made it exceedingly doubtful whether he would be 
 elected. But the election passed over. We carried by a close vote 
 the democratic ticket in October ; and after the November election he 
 sent for me to Wheatland, and said, " I am sorry to inform you that 
 I cannot call you to Washington." I ought to say in this place that 
 I was for some time the assistant editor of the organ of the adminis- 
 tration of General Pierce, and had a large interest in the public 
 printing, which was just about becoming valuable to me when Mr. 
 Buchanan became a candidate for the presidency. I could not sustain 
 a double position to these two candidates — General Pierce and himself 
 being in the field — and I threw up not only the partial control of the 
 newspaper, but whatever interest I had in the public printing under 
 him, and came back to Pennsylvania, at Mr. Buchanan's request, to 
 assume the direction of the campaign. " I am sorry," said Mr. 
 Buchanan, " that I cannot fulfil my promise to call you to Washing- 
 ton." I had my house here furnished — the house now occupied by 
 Senator Trumbull, and owned by my wife, of whom Mr. Buchanan is 
 still the trustee — and I of course felt very much shocked at this state- 
 ment, and demanded to know the reason. Said he, "there are serious 
 objections to you upon the part of a number of southern men." I 
 said, " you have surrendered me." Said he, " I have been compelled 
 to do so ; a great trouble would take place in my administration if 
 you came there, and I should be compelled to make another arrange- 
 ment." I said that, however disagreeable the intelligence might bf, 
 it was conclusive ; and he might rely upon it that he would hear 
 nothing from me in opposition to his administration if he continued 
 to stand by the principles upon which he was elected. He said, "there 
 are many places which you can take under me." I said, " no! it is 
 utterly impossible that I can bear any oflScial relation to your adminis- 
 tration hereafter ; but I intend to give your administration a hearty 
 and sincere support" — for I believed then that if there was a man on 
 earth who would be true to his pledges, it was himself. 
 
 Subsequently I became the candidate of the democratic party for 
 United States senator. He recommended me to the legislature through 
 a friend, for that position, which I thought was an ample contradic- 
 tion to the objection that he had allowed to be successfully made 
 against me; because if he was willing to put me into the Senate, he 
 certainly ought not to have objected to having me here as his news- 
 paper representative, so to speak. I was defeated for that place ; and 
 then a very stormy demonstration was made in many quarters to put 
 me before him for the cabinet. I took occasion at once to_ tell him 
 that, acting on the determination which I had started out with, I was 
 not a candidate for that place. Indeed, I went so far as to assure 
 many kind friends that their persistent support of me for the cabinet 
 was disagreeable to me and would produce trouble ; that Mr. Buchanan 
 had other objects in view, and my course was marked out. Shortly 
 
294 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 before his inauguration, Mr. Buchanan wrote me a letter tendering 
 me one of two places — the place of ccinsul to Liverpool, and the place 
 of naval officer at Philadelphia. I confess that I was surprised at 
 the offer, and- was somewhat indignant, and I declined it unhesitat- 
 ingly. Either before that or directly after (certainly about that 
 time) I was called upon by Mr. Wendell, at the Merchants' Hotel, in 
 Philadelphia, first, and subsequently at Marshal Hoover's, in this 
 city_, when he renewed the proposition that the President had made 
 to me in his letter, adding that anything else which I might wish I 
 could have. He stated, further, that he was authorized to say that if 
 I would go to Liverpool, or accept a foreign mission, I should receivft 
 ten thousand dollars in addition to the salary of consul or of a ilamed 
 foreign mission. Mr. Wendell had always before been identified with 
 the opponents of Mr. Buchanan. During my intercourse with the 
 administration of General Pierce — not because I had any hostility to 
 Mr. Wendell, for we were always good friends, but because our rela- 
 tions were not of the most confidential character — I looked upon his 
 proposition to me as a most extraordinary one. I thought Mr. 
 Buchanan had, I will not say. made a mistake, but I thought he had 
 selected a somewhat singular friend to make that proposition to me. 
 I knew then, as subsequent events have proved, that that money out- 
 side of the salary could only come from the profits of the public 
 printing. In a subsequent conversation with Mr. Buchanan and 
 with gentlemen connected with the cabinet, (for I was on the best of 
 terms with them then,) 1 said to them that I was not entitled to that 
 much money, that an inquiry would be raised, and that, although, 
 as Mr. Buchanan suggested, I might correspond with newspapers, I 
 never could make that much money by correspondence. Well, during 
 the interim between that time and the establishment of my newspaper 
 in Philadelphia, this offer was repeatedly made to me and repeatedly 
 declined. At last, a number of gentlemen, with whom I was then 
 and still continue to be intimately associated, thought it would be 
 best that I should go abroad. I was at New York, where I received, 
 another letter from Mr. Buchanan ; and in reply to that I proposed 
 to submit it to Mrs. Forney, who was then here in Washington — that 
 might have been in May, or thereabouts ; and she was here, in ill 
 health. I said "I do not want to make any trouble ; I have no quar- 
 rel with Mr. Buchanan ; I know he will do right as to his pledges 
 made during the campaign and in his inaugural address, and I do not 
 intend to make the mistake of warring upon him for personal consids 
 erations. He has chosen to violate his voluntary promise to me ; but 
 if Mrs Forney agrees to it, I will go abroad and get rid of this 
 thing." I wish to say here that at that time I had no purpose, in 
 case I went abroad, of accepting the ten thousand dollars offere^to 
 me previously by Mr. Wendell. The matter was referred to her, and, 
 as I expected it would be, it was unhesitatingly and indignantly de- 
 clined. I then prepared to establish my newspaper. All the money 
 which I had saved under the administration ot General Pierce was 
 spent ; I exhausted all my resources in the campaign, and I was com- 
 pelled to call upon a few friends that I had to assist me in raising the 
 means to establish, my paper. Mr. Buchanan himself, when he saw 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 295 
 
 that I was resolved to do it, said: "You cannot establish a democratic 
 paper in Philadelphia and sustain it." I told him I thought I could ; 
 if I had any ability in the world it was for that. Up to that period 
 we had had many good papers, but we had not had a progressive 
 democratic paper there ; and never anticipating any difficulty with him, 
 I had hopes that I might so conduct the paper myself as to be enabled 
 to secure tbe patronage of the administration and the confidence of the 
 ^arty. The money that was subscribed for that paper was raised by 
 gentlemen outside of the administration. Mr. Buchanan himself 
 offered, through Judge Black, one or two thousand dollars, which I 
 declined, not desiring to be under any obligations to him. Now, that I 
 was an applicant for public printing in the departments is wholly un- 
 founded. That I would have taken the post office blanks at that time 
 is true. I was at that time a practical printer. I was reared in a 
 printing office ; and I thought if that were offered to me, as it was 
 constantly offered, it would be perfectly consistent with my trade and 
 my paper to take it ; but as to my ever asking for it, or taking any 
 steps to secure it, with my present recollection the charge is most 
 unfounded. Before starting my paper I prepared my introductory 
 address, in which I asserted the principle of popular sovereignty fully ; 
 and so cautious was I not to get into difficulty with, the administration 
 &nd the party that I submitted that address to Judge Black in proof- 
 sheets, telling him that if my allusions to Mr. Buchanan were not 
 strong enough he should make them stronger ; and he did amend that 
 opening article ; so I started my paper. Previous to the establish- 
 ment of the paper, which was started on the 1st of August, 1857, 
 Judge Black wrote me a letter, in which he said that I should con- 
 tinue to adhere to the principle of popular sovereignty, and that the 
 administration would adhere to it. The paper was started, and its 
 columns show how little I was affected by patronage or by disappoint- 
 ment, because I stood by every measure of the administration as fast 
 as they were evolved, continuing to make a strong point upon the 
 popular side of the Kansas question all the time. We had a governor's 
 election going on. Governor Packer was the democratic candidate, 
 and David Wilmot was the republican candidate. Governor Packer 
 planted himself firmly on the principle of popular sovereignty, and 
 by that more than any other means succeeded in completely defeating 
 Mr. Wilmot. I may say that "The Press" was his most efficient 
 advocate of that campaign. Shortly before the election — I do not 
 recollect the date, but everybody knows the time — the Oxford and 
 McGee frauds in the Territory of Kansas were exposed. I took strong 
 grounds for Governor Walker and Frederick P. Stanton in my paper, 
 and continued steadily to sustain them. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. And oppose those frauds? 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; I opposed the frauds. I had at that time 
 a correspondent in Washington, Mr. McElhone, who was collecting 
 information for my paper, and he gave me the very first intimation 
 that my course met the disapprobation of the aduiinistration in that 
 respect by writing me a letter ; but I had become so fully committed 
 to that line of policy that to abandon it would be to disgrace myself. 
 This was a source to me of very great, pain, because I then saw that, 
 
293 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 lanless I was tolerated in standing by that which I believed to be right, 
 a difficulty with Mr. Buchanan's administration was inevitable. In 
 the subsequent affair of Lecompton, which I regarded as a somewhat 
 logical result of the rejection of these frauds— that is. the opposition of 
 Governor Walker and Mr. Stanton to the Lecompton policy of -the 
 administration — I was on their side; and I think I may say that before 
 Judge Douglas had taken his position publicly my paper had announced 
 its course, and maintained it steadily to the end. I came to Wash* 
 ington very anxious to be on good terms with Mr. Buchanan. This 
 was, I think, after the post office blanks had been disposed of; and I 
 told him that I had been committed to this policy, and that it was 
 impossible for me to change. He said he had changed his course be- 
 cause certain southern States had threatened that if he did not abandon 
 Walker and Stanton they would be compelled either to secede from the 
 Union or take up arms against him. I told him that toleration was 
 all that we required ; he could maintain himself in changing his course, 
 but I, asingle individual, could not. I wanted to be permitted to differ 
 on this, sustaining every other part of the policy of his administration, 
 to which he responded. No ; that he intended to make his policy a test 
 in the democratic party. I said : " Mr. Buchanan, if that is the case, 
 we shall have to defend ourselves in the best way we can." Subse- 
 quent to that we had what I conceive to be a series of proscriptions, 
 such as no civilized country has ever seen exercised upon independe^ 
 men ; and I took up arms in my State against those proscriptionii 
 That is about all that I think pertinent to my relations with, Mr. 
 Buchanan. The rest is public. Any other questions which you have 
 to ask I am ready to answer. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. I will state that there is a discrepancy between the testi- 
 mony of Judge Black and that of Mr. Webster-^Mr. Webster stating 
 that he held a conversation with Judge Black, who promised that if 
 you would take a certain course in your paper you should have the 
 printing of the post office blanks. Now, Judge Black says he did not 
 make a promise of that kind, but told Mr. Webster that he and you 
 must rely upon your own influence to obtain them. I want you to 
 state what Mr. Webster communicated to you as being the language 
 of Judge Black when he returned to Philadelphia. 
 
 Answer. Mr. Webster telegraphed to me to meet him at the Broad 
 and Prime Street depot ; I went up there and took my friend, Mr. 
 McGraw, with me in the carriage, and when we got out there and Mr. 
 Webster arrived, he said, " I want you to listen to what I have got 
 to say." I was extremely sensitive about my position; I felt that I 
 was right, and I did not want to be put in an attitude of abandoning 
 that position. Said he,. " you can get all that post office printing if 
 you will write an editorial article as long as your hand expressing your 
 determination never to become a republican." SaidI to him, instantly, 
 " Webster, for the seas' worth I could make no such declaration ; I 
 have done nothing that is wrong, and if having spent nearly a life- 
 time in the democratic party is not a sufficient assurance of my in- 
 tegrity I can give no pledges." McGraw said to me, " you are right ; 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 297 
 
 you have answered just as your friends expected you to answer." 
 And I understood Mr. Webster to say that he was authorized by 
 Judge Black to make that proposition, and I always regarded Judge 
 Black as having exclusive control of that post office printing. That 
 it was done with the knowledge of Mr. Buchanan all through I have 
 no manner of doubt. 
 
 [Mr. WmsLOW objected to the receipt of the affirmation of the wit- 
 ness that he had no doubt of the knowledge by the President of this 
 proposition.] 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that you understood Mr. Webster 
 to state to you that this was a promise from Judge Black? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question Not that he would use his influence, but a promise ? 
 . Answer. I so understood it. I wish to remark that I do not know 
 what my friend Charles Brown has testified to here, except in a gene- 
 ral way ; but 1 certainly regarded Mr. Brown, in his interview with 
 the President upon that subject, as understanding the President as 
 having treated on this matter of the post ofifice blanks. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. I wish to ask you some questions with regard to money 
 matters in Pennsylvania during the canvass of 1856, Had you, during 
 the canvass of 1856, frequent interviews with Mr. Buchanan relative 
 to the use of money in that canvass ? 
 
 Answer. We had interviews. 
 
 'Question. Can you refer to any of them? 
 
 Answer. I can refer to no particular one ; there were many of them. 
 We used money in that canvass, as all parties do, as parties are using 
 money nuw. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Buchanan make any objections to using money 
 in the election ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had you any letters or despatches on that subject? 
 
 Answer. Never ; not one. 
 
 Question. Then it was only conversations? 
 
 Answer. Conversations of a general character and wholly unobjec- 
 tionable. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. When was the senatoiial election in Pennsylvania? 
 
 Answer. In January, 1857. 
 
 Question. I think you said that you had the assistance of the Pres- 
 ident so far as he could give it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I so said. 
 
 Question. Who was your opponent? 
 
 Answer. General Cameron. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about any corrupt means being 
 used to defeat you in that election ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. When was it that Mr. Wendell made the pfoposition to 
 you of which you speak? * 
 
298 LECOMPTON CONSTITUrlON, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I mentioned that in the testimony I have already given. 
 
 Question. You mentioned in the first place that the President wrote 
 a letter to you, and that after that Mr. Wendell came to Philadelphia 
 and there he made the same proposition to you ? 
 
 Answer. I did not say that it was after the letter of the President ; 
 it was just about that time. The President wrote me a letter just 
 after the senatorial election, and he wrote me another letter in the 
 spring or summer following, which I received while I was in New 
 York. 
 
 Question. Can you tell me the time that Wendell came to you? 
 
 Answer. I saw Mr. Wendell at the Merchants' Hotel, in Philadel- 
 phia, before the inauguration ; I cannot tell the exact time ; and I saw 
 him during the spring or summer at Marshal Hoover's, here. 
 
 Question. I speak of this first proposition that he made to you? , 
 
 Answer. I cannot fix the date exactly. 
 
 Question. Was it subsequent or previous to the President's letter 
 to you ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was previous. 
 
 Question. Do you know the date of the President's letter to you? 
 
 Answer. I received the letter in Harrisburg, on the day that the 
 State democratic convention met and nominated Mr. Packer for gov- 
 ernor. I got it at Buehler's old hotel. 
 
 Question. You say that you were surprised at Wendell's bringing 
 the proposition to you, and you refused it? 
 
 Answer. I refused it, yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you look upon it as at all a dishonorable propositioa? 
 
 Answer, (after a pause.) Well, it excited resentment. 
 
 Question. For what reason ? 
 
 Answer. Because it came from Mr. Wendell, with whom I had not 
 been on terms of close intimacy, and who had been Mr. Buchanan's 
 steady opponent before. 
 
 Question. This was the ground of your objection at the time? 
 
 Answer. That was the ground of my objection at the time. But I 
 ought to add that I could see no reason why so much money should 
 be ofiered to get me out of the country. 
 
 Question. What I want to get at is whether you regarded the propo- 
 sition as an improper one, a dishonorable one, such as one gentleman 
 ought , not to make to another ? Or whether your resentment was 
 founded upon the fact that it was such an offer as you ought not to 
 receive ? 
 
 Answer. I regarded Mr. Buchanan's proposition in the light of an 
 insult in itself, and of course I could not regard its repetition by Mr. 
 Wendell in any other light ; much more so if coupled with the offer 
 of money. 
 
 Question. Why did you regard the offer of the President as an 
 insult? 
 
 Answer. For the reason that I had borne to him a relation of con- 
 fidence ; I had sacrificed years of time in his service ; I had stood 
 steadily by him, not only in the campaign which was concluded, but 
 all before. And I looked upon his proposition to send me out of the 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 299 
 
 country, away from the frienris who had served him and me, as in 
 some sort a degradation, and it was so regarded by all my friends. 
 
 Question. That is not a reply to my question, whether you con- 
 sidered the proposition a dishonorable one. 
 
 Answer. I desire to say that in the spring or summer of 1857 I 
 said that I was willing, in order to show to my friends that I was not 
 desirous of making trouble, to go to Liverpool ; that place having 
 been held by a number of distinguished gentlemen, it could not have 
 been a dishonorable proposition, because of the place ; but it was a 
 dishonorable one — it was a degradation to me, as I have just stated — 
 inasmuch as it was made for the purpose mentioned. 
 
 Question. You do not apprehend me, I think ; I speak of the offer 
 of the place in connexion with this |10,000 ; did you consider that a 
 dishonorable proposition ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I did think that dishonorable. 
 
 Question. Did you know the value of the post office blank printing? 
 
 Answer. By common rumor only. 
 
 Question. Were you not aware of the value of that printing during 
 Mr. Pierce's administration ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I was generally aware of it, but only from 
 rumor. 
 
 Question. You never had any connexion with that printing then? 
 
 Answer. I received a portion of it, but I did not know how much it 
 was worth. 
 
 Question. How much did you receive ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that. 
 
 Question. Who did the printing during Mr. Pierce's administra- 
 tion ? 
 
 Answer. Judge Nicholson had it, I believe. 
 
 Question. How did you come to get a portion of the post office 
 printing ? 
 
 Answer. I think I received one-third or one-fifth of the proceeds, of 
 the post office blanks. 
 
 Question. Do I understand you that you cannot recollect the amount 
 of your portion ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot. 
 
 Question. How came you to get a part of the payment for it ? 
 
 Answer. I was an editor of the Union, and I was a partner with 
 Judge Nicholson. 
 
 Question. Were you Clerk of the House of Representatives during 
 the whole term of Mr. Pierce's administration ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What portion of that time were you editor of the Union? 
 
 Answer. Pretty nearly all the time. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the precise time when you went into the 
 Union ? 
 
 Answer I was a salaried editor of the Union during a portion of 
 Mr. Fillmore's term ; I think I was salaried for say three years ; I 
 cannot remember dates exactly ; and I was interested in the public 
 printing for some months before I left the paper and went to Penn- 
 sylvania, 
 
300 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Question. I think you said that you got one-third or one-fifth of 
 this printing ? 
 
 Answer. One-third or on'e-fifth, 1 do not rememher which. 
 
 Question. Who got the rest ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Nicholson got one- third, I believe, and I do not recol- 
 lect who got the other. 
 
 Question. Mr. Nicholson was then public printer ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I think he was. 
 
 Question. And had the printing of the post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. I think so ; I am not sure as to these facts, for I am some- 
 what careless about my own business relations. 
 
 Question. Do I understand you to say that you never applied to the 
 administration for the printing of those post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. To my recollection, never. 
 
 Question. Did you ever make any intimation to any of your friends 
 that you would accept that printing? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; prior to the offer by the administration, as a 
 means of settling the differences between us. 
 
 Question. State when that was, as near as you can recollect. 
 
 Answer. That was before the difficulties about Lecompton. 
 
 Question. Do you mean the difficulties with the administration or 
 inside of the party upon that question ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, of course ; I could have no offers of that kind 
 alter I had refused to support Lecompton candidates. 
 
 Question. At the meeting of Congress in December you say you had 
 taken your course in the " Press" in regard to that matter after the 
 Oxford frauds? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. The President's general message at the commencement 
 of the session was a public announcement of his course ; was it before 
 or after that general message ? 
 
 Answer. It was before the general message, as near as I can recol- 
 lect ; Mr. Brown's visit to Washington, whenever made, was made on 
 his own responsibility entirely. 
 
 Question. Which Mr. Brown ? 
 
 Answer. Charles Brown. 
 
 Question. Then I understand you to say that this intimation to 
 your friends was after the Oxford frauds were developed and before 
 the general message of the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I desire to say distinctly that at no period of 
 time did I ever agree to accept any patronage or office from the ad- 
 ministration when offered as a boon or condition to change my position 
 on the Kansas question after I differed with them upon the Kansas 
 question generally. 
 
 Question. That is the time that I want to fix ; when did that dif- 
 ference commence? 
 
 Answer. The difference took place somewhere about September or 
 October. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Before the meeting of Congress? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITDTION. EIC. 301 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was tbe visit of Mr. Webster here with your consent ? 
 
 Answer. I knew he was coming, and told him that he had my 
 honor in his hands. 
 
 Question. The visit, then, was made with your consent and appro- 
 bation, you confiding in Mr. Webster as your friend having the charge 
 of your honor ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you state the exact words that Mr. Webster repeated 
 to you when you saw him at the depot, as near as you can — the con- 
 versation he had with you ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot, except as I have already stated. 
 
 Question. You cannot state the words ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; no further than I have already done. 
 
 Question. When were you elected clerk of the present House of 
 Eepresentatives ? 
 
 Answer. Some time in February last. 
 
 Question. Were you in the city of Washington at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect addressing a public meeting here then? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Was that on the night of your election? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. [Handing witness a paper.] Will you look at this paper 
 and see if it contains a correct report of your remarks ? 
 
 Answer. [Examining the paper.] Yes, sir ; this is copied into the 
 "New York Herald," from the "Press." 
 
 The speech was then read as follows : 
 
 Speech of Mr. Forney. 
 
 Colonel Forney, upon his appearance, was greeted with enthusiastic 
 cheering from those in the street and in the house. He spoke as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Citizens op Washington : I have but few words to say to you upon 
 the events of this day. I desire to address them — to those inside as 
 well as those outside of the hospitable home of my friend Coyle — in 
 reference to what has transpired in the House of Eepresentatives this 
 afternoon. For this sentiment, demonstrated in my own person, I am 
 most sincerely thankful to you, and I regard it as a testimony of ap- 
 proval of the result of the day's proceedings. I say, gentlemen, there 
 is something peculiar in this demonstration ; and, first, let me say, 
 peculiar to myself. Gentlemen, four years ago this very evening, the 
 House of Eepresentatives of the United. States, after a long and most 
 harrassing session, was at last organized by the election of Nathaniel 
 P. Banks, of Massachusetts, as Speaker. In the discharge of the du- 
 ties of Clerk of that body — the same as performed by Mr. Allen, who 
 retires to-day — I had the honor to receive, at the hands of the repre- 
 sentatives of the people, a significantly unanimous endorsement ; and 
 now, by ihe expression of the representatives of the people, I am again 
 
302 LECOMPTON CONSTITOTION, ETC, 
 
 returned to the same position from which I then voluntarily retired, 
 clothed with the confidence of the whole people of the United States. 
 In these tour years, gentlemen, many changes have taken place. I 
 retired from the Clerk's chair in the year 1856 with my heart ardently 
 beating to see the man whom I then conceived to be the favorite son 
 of Pennsylvania elected to the presidential chair. Gentlemen, I had 
 no higher hope in life beyond that — no aim or object. Then all was 
 concentrated in the one absorbing feeling to see that man's aspirations 
 carried out to a successful issue. I assisted in his triumph. I came 
 back to the State where I was born, and there, with whatever selfish- 
 ness was in me (if any) I gave it all to that man and to his cause ; and 
 the result was that he was elected President of the United States — to 
 the high office of presiding, for a time, over the destinies of this great 
 country. 
 
 We, in our part of the country, believe, gentlemen, that the District 
 of Columbia is common ground — that it is mine, as it is your home. 
 (Cheers, and cries of "That's so.") I believe, audi know, that I have 
 a right to speak here, as I have a right to speak in Philadelphia — at 
 least, that there can here be no ostracism and no proscription of senti- 
 ment ; and that freedom of speech is here wisely and widely tolerated. 
 When that is proscribed, when free men., from whatever State of the 
 Union they may come, are denied freedom of speech in the splendid 
 metropolis bearing the name of Washington, then your Union is vir- 
 tually dissolved. (Cheers.) And therefore it is that in this place,, 
 and in this presence, I desire to say, that in electing James Buchanan 
 we thought we acted in accordance with the spirit of the democratic 
 party, which is to the effect that the people of the Territories shall 
 control.all their domestic institutions, slavery inclusive. (Loud cheers.) 
 There had been no going back of the bond, but after his (Mr. Buch- 
 anan's) election, when his elevation to the chair of office was secured, 
 he disregarded his pledges, and we discovered that a new reading bad 
 been suggested, a new gospel presented to our faith, and thus we who 
 at first acted with him, never believing that we who had adhered to 
 his taith should be excluded from the democratic party, were sought to 
 be excluded. Consequently, the result has been as you foresaw. That 
 result is, that the general government of the country has turned all 
 its power against the men standing in my relation to it, and James 
 Buchanan, elevated to be President of the United States, has become 
 a despot. (Cries of "That he has," " Give it to him.") A despot 
 more intolerant than any ever before known in the history of this 
 country, who has performed acts of tyranny which, if attempted in 
 despotic B^'rance, would create a revolution. (Loud cheers, and cries 
 of " Good.") I say it with pain for Pennsylvania, that never in the 
 history of the country, never in the annals of any President has there 
 been such a proscription of men — never such a proscription of individual 
 opinions. (Cheers.) Whfen he was raised to that high position which 
 he has disgraced — raised by the votes of the people of the North— he 
 pledged himself upon bended knees to sustain the policy of self-gov- 
 ernment in the Territories. But now what do we see ? Why, we see 
 him turning against his own people and crouching once more upon his 
 knees— this time before the South, that despises him for his cowardice^ 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITOTION, ETC. 303 
 
 (Cheers.) When I see all this, and when I see, also, that the great 
 democratic party have not risen in arms to protest against it, I have 
 only to say for myself that I, for one, will not submit to it. (Tremen-- 
 dous applause from inside and out.) I will not, I say, submit to it, 
 hut I will join hands with any party — with Americans, with republi- 
 cans, with any party of men — tO| rebuke such proscription as this is. 
 If you tell me from this, that therefore I am opposed to the institutions 
 of the South, I say no. (Cheers.) And I reply, that on the contrary 
 I feel the same devotion to the South that I have ^ever felt. (Con- 
 tinued cheers.) Now, let me say, without protracting these remarks, 
 let me say with regard to the republican members, that they have been 
 most atrociously slandered ; that the whole republican party of the 
 North have been slandered, in having been held responsible for the 
 unfortunate outrage at Harper's Ferry. There have been expres- 
 sions, and opinions, and sentiments uttered by the leaders of the 
 republican party, against which my honest instincts and party pre- 
 judices revolt. But while this is so, let me say that the very 
 moment that the news of that invasion reached the North they 
 were struck with horror, and there was not a man who did not de- 
 nounce and who did not deplore it. (Cheers.) We have in these days 
 some singular statesmanship, particularly among those who are allied 
 to the administration party, and amongst those who aspire to be can- 
 didates for the presidency. I say this business of holding a whole 
 party responsible for the acts of a few individuals haa gone oat of 
 fashion. Are the democratic party, who support the rights of the 
 adopted citizens of the country, to be held responsible for the votes of 
 their representatives in Congress here who voted for an American for 
 Speaker ? Certainly not. Hence I protest against the assumption that 
 aiiy part of the people in my region are in favor or would support any 
 set of men who approve of the doctrines of the Helper book, or who 
 put themselves forward as the champions of those who would attempt 
 to invade the State of Virginia and crimson her soil with the blood of 
 her people. (Loud cheers.) But we are told that while all other men 
 are to be forgiven for their peculiar doctrines ; that while the American 
 party are to be forgiven, the republican party are to receive no absolu- 
 tion. If you allow me to say — but I think I will say it whether you 
 allow me or not — (cheers) — the democratic party, as Mr Buchanan 
 would make it, is devoted solely to the perpetuation and extension of 
 slavery. (Cries of " That so," and cheers.) But I, as one man who 
 is resolved to stand by the rights of the South, who is resolved to see the 
 fugitive slave law executed in the letter and the spirit, I am resolved, 
 for one, to protest against such an act. (Loud cheers.) This country 
 has a higher, a nobler, and loftier destiny before it than the extension 
 or perpetuation of slavery. (Loud cheers.) I say it frankly, that I re- 
 gret it is in existence. I speak as I feel, and when I see all the power 
 of this government exercised for the protection and perpetuation of 
 that institution, I must protest against it. (Cheers.) I have seen, for 
 the last eight weeks, men, northern men, and I was ashamed to see 
 them, lending themselves to the depravity, if I may be pertnitted to 
 use the term, but certainly to the degradation, of indorsing such 
 principles as these. But, gentlemen, to bring, as I said before, these 
 
304 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 desultory remarks to a close, let me, in conclusion, repeat my thanks 
 for this demonstration. You may remember this passage in " Ma- 
 zeppa "— my friend, Mr. Jackson, of Kentucky, will also remembers 
 ■when Mazeppa (I cannot repeat the exact words) is bound to a wild 
 steed, which is turned off, and which flew with him over mountains, 
 through valleys and forests and across rivers, pursued by wolves, 
 shouts back to his tyrant and persecutor, that some day he would re- 
 turn to repay him. (Loud cheers.) " Some day I will return," said 
 Mazeppa, "to thank you, Count, for this uncourteous ride." Gen- 
 tlemen, I have had the ride for the last two or three years (loud 
 cheers,) but I have also, Mazeppa-like, come back, to settle with 
 the respectable and venerable gentleman at the other end of the 
 avenue for that ride. I am returned to pay my respects. (Cheetp 
 A voice — " Grive him h — 1 ; he has no friends.") I have returned to 
 settle accounts with him. (A voice — " Don't spare him ; he shot us 
 down, like dogs, with marines.") If he is now sitting in his easy 
 chair at home, to-night, he must hear our loud and hearty cheers, and 
 they will remind him that his old friend, Forney, has come back to 
 settle the old debt with hims. (Loud cheers and laughter.) 
 
 [Mr. Forney, once more thanking the assemblage, retired from the 
 window, loudly cheered.] 
 
 Question. You spoke of letters from Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you those letters ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir, I have. 
 
 No. 103. 
 Monday, June 11, i860. 
 
 JOSEPH H. GEIGER recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you seen your testimony and read it, and have*you 
 any further statement to make to the committee in regard to it ? 
 
 Answer. I have read my testimony ; I understand that Mr. Cox 
 has testified since I was here, and with the consent of the committee 
 I would like to be permitted to read his testimony ; after having done 
 so, I may ask leave to make some further statements to the committee. 
 
 [The testimony of Mr. Cox, as given on Saturday last, was then 
 handed to the witness ; after reading it, the witness then proceeded as 
 follows :] 
 
 Mr. Cox says that I am mistaken in saying that he ever had any 
 meeting or communication with Governor Cobb or the President. I 
 did not say that he had any meeting with them , I only said that he 
 told me so ; I cannot swear to the truth of Mr. Cox's statements, but 
 I positively swear as to the conversation that took place between us, 
 and to his having communicated those things to me, which may or 
 may not have been facts. In regard to the appointment to New Mex- 
 ico, Mr. Cox spoke to Mr. Jardes H. Smith, prior to making his ap- 
 
LKCOMPTQN CONSTITnTION, ETC. 305 
 
 plication to me, asking him whetlier he thought it would be proper to 
 ask me to accept the appointment, and Mr. Smith advised him to be 
 very cautious in applying tome. Mr. Smith is now here, and I would 
 like to have him examined upon that subject ; and since my exami- 
 nation here, Mr. Cox has admitted to Mr. Smith that he had such 
 conversation with me in reference to that appointment ; after I had 
 been examined here I saw Mr. Cox out on the steps, and he asked me 
 what I had testified to. I told him that I had had to cripple him 
 considerably, and I told him what my testimony was. He said that 
 he recollected all about what I had testified to, except that he had for- 
 gotten about the New Mexico appointment. "But," says he, "I re- 
 collect that now." He did tell me that he believed he could get the 
 appointment for me, without any particular ifs or huts about it, if I 
 wanted it. In regard to this Evans's matter : Mr. Evans lived in 
 Newark, Ohio, but was employed in Washington city ; he came to 
 Columbus at the time I mentioned, from Washington city, and had a 
 letter of two sheets, written full, from Mr. Cox to his friends in our 
 district. Mr. James H. Smith and Charles Foster, the two editors 
 of the "Statesman," Thomas Miller, Jacob Eeinhart, editor of the 
 German paper, Wayne Griswold, Colonel Anderson, of Licking 
 county, and myself met together ; we had a conversation of what was 
 considered the Douglas democracy, or a small portion of them rather, 
 in the district. This letter of Mr. Cox was written against the English 
 bill. But, supposing that the majority of the Ohio delegation were 
 in favor of it, he desired to ascertain whether, if he breasted the cur- 
 rent, we would stand by him. We consulted a great while about the 
 matter, but finally telegraphed to Mr. Cox to vote against the English 
 bill, and go no further than to take Mr. Quitman's amendment. That 
 telegraphic despatch was signed by the whole of us ; Mr. 'Cox tele- 
 graphed in reply, that night, "I breath easier ; Douglas will break 
 ground against it to-morrow ;" "break ground," or, "come out 
 against it rough-shod," or something of that kind. Well, the mor- 
 row came, and Mr. Cox voted for the English bill on its passage. 
 
 With regard to the post office at Columbus I have notning to say, 
 except that the quarter commences on the 1st day of December, and 
 no matter how soon Mr. Miller was appointed after the election, he 
 csjuld not take possession of the office till the beginning of the next 
 quarter, which was the beginning of the December after the election, 
 and Mr. Miller got possession of the office as soon as he regularly 
 could after Mr. Cox was re-elected. 
 
 No. 96. 
 Monday, June 11, 1860. 
 
 JAMES H. SMITH recalled. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Cox dn regard 
 to his offering to procure a place for Mr. Geiger ? If so, state*srhen 
 it was, and all that you know about it. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 20 
 
306 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I wislito state, as preliminary to answering that question, 
 that I did have a conversation with Mr. Cox in regard to procuring a 
 place for Mr. Geiger. The conversation was not designated as private 
 at the time it was held, hut I shall feel hound to treat it as private; 
 I do not say that because I consider anything that transpired then tb 
 have been of an odious nature at all. I simply feel some hesitancy 
 in speaking of private conversations. 
 
 Question. Do you yourself say that there would he a violation of 
 any privacy in stating the conversation ? 
 
 [Here a member of the committee suggested that the matter could 
 not he considered private, as testimony had already been given about 
 it.] 
 
 Answer. Well, I will state about it. In the month of June, peri- 
 haps — ^^I will not be positive as to the time, hut it was before the close 
 of Congress in 1858, Mr. Cox returned from Washington to Co- 
 lumbus ; Mr. Geiger and myself met him very shortly after his return, 
 of an evening, and we took a walk together in the direction of my 
 house ; I talked about the political difficulties the party had been in, 
 and especially about Mr. Cox's vote for the English bill, and its effect 
 upon his anti-Lecompti n friends out there ; we got to my house and 
 conversed a few moments in front of the house, Mr. Cox and I stepped 
 into the house and Mr. Geiger went on home. In the course of a long .; 
 conversation, I think, on that evening, Mr. Cox spoke to me of an' 
 appointment of commissioner to New Mexico to settle some disputed 
 claims there between the government and other parties, specifying the 
 amount to be, I think, from $200,000 to $300,000, or in that neigh- 
 borhood. As I gathered from Mr. Cox, it was considered rather a 
 desirable place. He asked me whether or not it would be a good 
 thing to appoint General Geiger to go out there as commissioner. 
 Perhaps he mentioned other names, hut I remember that of General 
 Geiger distinctly ; I replied to him, that I should he very glad if he 
 could get General Geiger a good appointment, that nothing would 
 gratify me more, but that he would have to he very particulal, and 
 treat the matter with some delicacy in suggesting it to Mr. Geiger, 
 i'oT I thought he would take it, perhaps, as offensive, if he was re- 
 quired to abate his hostility to the President in accepting anything 
 of the kind ; that is all I remember about it now, 1 believe. ' 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Cox state anything about having it in his power 
 to get that place ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot be positive about the terms heused, I can only speak 
 of the substantial impression the whole thing made upon my mind. 
 I understood that Mr. Cox considered that he might control the ap- 
 pointment, though I cannot say that he spoke with positive certainty 
 about it. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson: 
 
 Question. Will you state what you know about Mr. Evans bringing 
 a letter from Mr. Cox to your district ? 
 
 Answer. I think that on the 26th or 27th of April, 1858, Mr. 
 Evans arrived in Columbus, hearing from Mr. Cox a writteii' memo- 
 randum of the views entertained of the English bill by the democrats 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 307 
 
 in Congress, giving the arguments that were made use of by both. 
 Lecompton and anti-Lecompton men — the anti-Lecompton men espe- 
 cially, and, according to my recollection, dwelling at length upon the 
 arguments urged against the bill by Judge Douglas. This paper was 
 submitted to leading democrats from the three counties composing 
 Mr. Cox's district, who, as I understood, were called together for the 
 purpose of hearing it read, and of advising Mr. Cox upon the subject 
 of his vote upon the English bill ; we met at the American Hotel, and 
 considered the matter with all the care we could, and finally united 
 in a despatch to Mr. Cox, which was written by Mr. Charles J. Fos- 
 ter, advising Mr. Cox to vote against the English bill, and, perhaps, 
 giving one or two reasons for it; and advising him further to work 
 for General Quitman's resolution in regard to the necessary popula- 
 tion for the admission af new States. On the 27th of April, Mr. 
 Cox telegraphed in reply, to some person of that meeting, to the 
 effect that he breathed freer, that it was all right, and that Douglas 
 would denounce the English bill the next day ; that is as far as I re- 
 member now about the matter. 
 
 Question. In this letter that Evans brought to you there, did Mr. 
 Cox give any intimation whether he thought he ought to go for the 
 bill, or ought not ; or was it merely a letter asking your advice ? 
 
 Answer. This paper was considered by us all, at least I know I 
 thought so, to evince a strong inclination on the part of Mr. Cox to 
 oppose the bill. It was not a letter, however ; it was a paper, or 
 memorandum, simply, addressed to no one in particular. 
 
 Question. And from it you gathered that his inclination was against 
 the Engish bill ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. , 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. There has been something said here about some $6,000 
 of post office blank printing to he given to the Ohio Statesman. Will 
 you state what was said about it at the time this written paper was 
 gotten up by Mr. Miller and Mr. Medary ? Was it mentioned in that 
 written paper, or was it an outside arrangement ? State your own 
 recollections, and not the impressions that,have been made upon your 
 mind by others since that time ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I can do that precisely. When I was 
 subpoenaed to attend before this committee, or within two or three 
 days afterwards, various persons asked me if I had any idea what I 
 was to be examined about. When I was first asked, I did not have 
 any definite idea about what was to be asked me ; but I learned in 
 conversation with some persons that I was to be asked in reference to 
 a written paper which I had seen, and concerning which Mr. Miller 
 has already given testimony here. Within a day or two I met Mr. 
 Miller and Mr. Medary, who both had learned of my being subpoenaed 
 here, and I told them I had been informed I was expected to testify 
 in regard to that paper. 
 
 Question. What I want to, know is, what were your recollections 
 about that paper ? 
 
 .^nswer. My i;ecollection then was that the subject of the post 
 office blanks was mentioned in that paper. 
 
308 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 
 
 Question. And the amount ? 
 
 Answer. I did think the amount was. But after conversing with 
 Mr. Medary and Mr. Miller in regard to the general contents of the 
 paper, and especially as to that point about the post office blanks, I 
 became perfectly convinced that my recollection had. been at fault on 
 that point. I will explain how I must have obtained the impression. 
 When Mr. Miller returned from Washington with that paper he 
 showed it to me. 
 
 Question. Were the three names to it then ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, they were ; I read it over once rather hastily, 
 but sufficiently to understand it at the time, and immediately handed 
 it back to him, stating certain objections to it that I entertained on 
 my own behalf. Mr. Miller and I had some conversation about it at 
 his house where I first saw it, and in that" conversation Mr. Miller 
 told me that it was understood that there were about f 6,000 worth of 
 post office blank printing to be given to some paper in the west ; that 
 he had been informed that Faron & McLean of the Cincinnati 
 Enquirer were endeavoring to get it, but that as Mr. Faron had been 
 or was about to be appointed postmaster at Cincinnati, the States- 
 man might legitimately apply for it. I now think that I might very 
 easily have supposed, from the conversation and only the one reading 
 of the paper, having seen the paper but once, that this subject of the 
 post office blank printing was specified in the paper. But, as I have 
 before stated,'! am now convinced that it was not. 
 
 Question. Convinced from these late conversations with Mr. Miller 
 and Governor Medary? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I am satisfied that their recollection about it is 
 correct. 
 
 Question. But until quite lately it was always your impression that 
 that subject was mentioned in that written paper ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; until within two or three weeks ; but I am sat- 
 isfied now that it was not so. I never saw the paper but for the single 
 reading I gave it, and then I handed it back to Mr. Miller. 
 
 Question. What was said, at the time this post office blank printing 
 was talked of, about the "Statesman" giving the administration its 
 support ? 
 
 Answer. In the written paper? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. There was something said about the course of the " States- 
 man" towards the administration — whether the post office blank print- 
 ing was mentioned in that paper or not. 
 
 Question. Was that in the written paper ? 
 
 Answer. There was something said in the paper about the course 
 of the "Statesman" towards the administration. It appeared to me 
 that it stipulated— -I can think of no better word than that now— that 
 the paper should give an acceptable support to the administration, or 
 something of that kind. The phrase might have been "a fair and 
 honest support to the administration." 
 
 Question. Who was to be the judge of whether that support was 
 acceptable or not ? 
 
 Answer. It did not say. 
 
LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 309 
 
 Question. When this proposition — no matter how made, whether 
 verbally or in writing — was made about the post office blank printing, 
 was it not expected, according to your recollection, to have some 
 influence upon your course in supporting the administration ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that it was expected to have any influence 
 upon the course of the "Statesman," because I cannot swear what 
 was expected by others. 
 
 Question. What would you have expected if you had turned round 
 and supported the administration heartily ? 
 
 Answer. I expected nothing, because I never intended to turn round 
 and support the administration heartily. 
 
 Question. By that arrangement you were not required to remove 
 Mr. Foster from the editorial department of the "Statesman?" 
 
 Answer. All that was .said in that written paper about the editorial 
 department of the paper was, that Mr. Smith (myself) should be the 
 sole editor of the paper. Mr. Foster had been acting before that as 
 my assistant editor, and so continued to act after that until I left the 
 paper myself. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. That stipulation was for the purpose of removing Foster ? 
 Answer. I cannot, of course, swear to the purpose of others. I 
 give you the facts. 
 
 Question. Do yon know any other purpose than that? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Mr. Foster was a decided Douglas man, was he not? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and so was Mr, Smith. 
 
 Question. It appears, then, that you did not give a hearty support 
 to the administration, and that you did not get the post office blank 
 printing? 
 
 Answer. It certainly does so appear ; but whether as cause and 
 eff'ect, I cannot say under oath. 
 
 Question. I understood you to say a little while ago that you had 
 not given it a hearty support. 
 
 Answer. I did not give it a hearty support on the question upon 
 which we difiiered from it ; so far from it, I opposed it very strenu- 
 ously upon that question. 
 
 Question. Did you or not get the post office blank printing ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; we did not get it, and I never believed we would 
 get it. 
 
 Question. Do you know any other reason why you did not get the 
 post office blanks than that you declined to give the administration a 
 hearty support ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that to be the reason ; but I did not expect 
 tp get it. 
 
 Question. That is going away from the question. Do you know 
 any other reason ? 
 
 Answer. I do iiot know any other reason and I do not swear that to 
 be the reason. 
 
310 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 !By Mr. Olin : > 
 
 Question. And, upon the whole, you do not know the reason why 
 you did not get it ? 
 , Answer. No, sir ; upon the whole I do not swear why we did not 
 get it. And I wish to, say here, in addition, that I never believed 
 that while I held possession of the "Statesman" and controlled it 
 editorially, it could he placed in such a position as to be recognized as 
 an administration paper. I was an ardent Douglas man ; an ardent 
 anti-Lecompton man ; and, though giving a qualified support to the 
 English bill, I never wished my paper to be considered as an organ of 
 the administration, as it is termed. A,nd I wish to add further, that 
 the " Statesman," to my knowledge, never received any patronage 
 from the administration, except some $100 or $140 worth of advertis- 
 ing, a portion of which came to it during the Lecompton controversy. 
 And no one in connexion with the paper, with my knowledge or con- 
 sent, ever made any contract or had any understanding by which 
 patronage was to be received from the administration. 
 
 No. 83. 
 Monday, June 11, 1860. 
 
 SAMUEL S. COX recalled. 
 
 [The testimony of Mr. Geiger, given to-day, was read to Mr. Cox, 
 at his request, and he then proceeded to make the following state- 
 ment :] 
 
 It was not my intention to impeach Mr. Geiger's statements as to 
 what he understood me to say. As to the name of the cabinet officer, 
 I suppose he misunderstood Mr. Cobb for Mr. Thompson. It was a 
 desultory conversation, and such a misunderstanding would be very 
 natural ; or I might myself, in the looseness of conversation, have 
 mentioned the wrong name. At any rate, it is a matter of very little 
 consequence. I am assured by Governor Cobb that he will state here 
 that I had no such communication with him, either before or after the 
 passage of the English bill? 
 
 As to Mr. Evans and the meeting of my friends in Columbup, I 
 wish to say that when Mr. Evans went home, which was on a Sunday, 
 I gave him a letter containing the points for and against the English 
 bill ; the points against it, as made by Judge Douglas, and the 
 points for it, as I understood them. As the bill then was I stated my 
 inclination to be against it. It will be understood that the bill was 
 changed afterwards before I asked for it. Mr. Evans went home on 
 Sunday ; the bill was not passed till the next Friday. I think I got 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 311 
 
 the telegraphic despatch from my friends on Tuesday morning ; and 
 in the form which the bill was when I received that despatch I was 
 opposed to it. Subsequently it was changed to suit the views of my- 
 self, Mr. Grosbeck, and others. 
 
 Tuesday, June. 12, 1860. 
 
 OORNELIOS WENDELL recalled. 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Will you state to the committee whether at any time you 
 were authorized to make any propositions to Colonel Forney with re- 
 gard to his going abroad ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I may eay I was. 
 
 Question. What proposition did you make to him ? 
 
 Answer. I would not like to put it so broad as to say that I was 
 authorized to make the proposition to him to go abroad ; but I was 
 induced to urge him to accept the Liverpool consulship. 
 
 Question. And what other place, if any ? 
 
 Answer. If my memory serves me, he had his option of the Liver- 
 pool consulship or the Berlin or Vienna mission, I forget which. 
 
 Question. Was it the place that J. Grlancy Jones now has ? 
 
 Answer. I am not positive as to which of the two places it was. 
 
 Question. Did you not carry a large sum of money for a considerable 
 Igigth of time to give to Colonel Forney, in the event of his accepting 
 the place abroad ? If so, state how much, and for what length of time 
 you carried it. 
 
 Answer. I carried $10,000, for the purpose of giving it to him, for 
 some three weeks — nineteen days, if my memory serves me, I think 
 it was. 
 
 Question. By whose authority or instructions? 
 
 Answer Well, sir ; it might be said to be by the President's ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOTV. Give us facts, now. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. You will state the facts, if you please. 
 
 Answer. The President was desirous to have Mr. Forney go abroad, 
 and tendered him, as I understood from him, either the Liverpool 
 consulate, or the Berlin or Vienna mission, one of the two. In a con- 
 versation as to amount of compensation he would receive if he went 
 abroad, the suggestion was made that he might participate in the 
 public printing. And, after several conversations, it was agreed that 
 he should have a certain amount of the printing, which should make 
 
312 LECOMPTON COKSTITUTION. ETC. 
 
 tis salary equal to |20,000 or |25,000 per annum. Thi8_ difference, 
 over what his salary would be, was to he paid from the puhlic printing. 
 Mr. Forney declined at first, and, among other reasons, stated his 
 inability, in a financial point of view, to leave. _ I finally agreed to 
 raise $10,000 in advance for him, and did raise it ; and, as I stated 
 before, I carried the money for nineteen daySj until he at last totally 
 refused to go. 
 
 Have you stated the connexion Mr. Buchanan had with that matter, 
 or his relation to it ? 
 
 Ans-n er. I have stated the results growing out of the conversations 
 with him, as to Mr. Forney's going abroad. 
 
 Question. Had you any direct conversation with Mr. Buchanan 
 relative to giving Mr. Forney that money ? . > 
 
 Answer. The advance ? 1 do not remember whether that fact was 
 stated or not. 
 
 Question. Were you authorized to guarantee, or did you do it on 
 your own responsibility, that the amount of his pay should be $20,000 
 or $25,000? 
 
 Answer. I was in a measure aiithorized to make an arrangemenfto 
 pay him some sum out of the proceeds of the public printing. c 
 
 Question. Authorized by whom ? .j . 
 
 Answer. By the President, i 
 
 . [ The witness and the stenographer of the committee were requested || 
 by Mr. Winslow to leave the room, which they did. After some tirae * 
 they were recalled, and the examination of the witness was resuined 
 as follows :] 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : , ^ 
 
 Question. Are you confident that this excess of money to Colonel 
 Forney, over and above his salary, was to be raised from the public 
 printing, or was something said about his corresponding with, the 
 " Union " and other newspapers? 
 
 Answer. There was. 
 
 Question. Were you the proprietor of the " Union " at that time? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think so. 
 
 Question. And that was the way the excess was to made up to him? 
 
 Answer. He was to be engaged as the correspondent of the "Union;" 
 I remember it now distinctly. 
 
 Question. You made that proposition to Mr. Forney, you said, in a 
 measure authorized by the President. Will you say in what measure 
 you were authorized by the President ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot give you the exact words. The business negotia- 
 tions with Mr. Forney were based upon conversations with the Presi- 
 dent. But the exact details of those conversations I could not give. 
 
 Question. That was the result of those conversations ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you say that Mr. Forney, among other reasons, de- 
 clined on account of his financial difficulties, which would prevent his 
 leaving the country ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
LECOMPTON OONSTITOTIOIT. ETC. 313 
 
 -•Question. Did Mr. Torney ever make any objection to this offer of 
 money as a dishonorable proposition ? Did he treat your proposal as 
 a dishonorable one ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he get indignant, and say "I consider your proposi- 
 tion a dishonorable one ?" 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he treated it as a business negotiation. 
 
 Question. He said he could not go on account of his financial affairs? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I agreed voluntarily to advance |10,000 to 
 meet that objection. 
 
 Question. What did he say then ? 
 
 Answer. He in a measure agreed ; and for some ten or twelve days I 
 Utought he would go. 
 
 Question. But at the end of the nineteen days you say he declined 
 going? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was the money you raised furnished by the President, 
 or any government officer ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; on my own credit ; but I intended to be reim-r 
 bursed from the profits of the public printing, which was to be con- 
 tittued to me. 
 
 Question. You were a friend of Mr. Forney? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And a friend of the administration? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Qiaestion. And your anxiety was to benefit both? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir^ the President was desirous for that to be done, 
 aind I fell in with it. 
 
 Question. And you thought it for the good of Mr. Forney and of 
 the party to have him go ? 
 
 Answer. I would say that I was really solicitous, outside of this, to 
 have Mr. Forney go, and thought it better ftr him that he should go. 
 
 And I wish to state now that my testimony may, in some respects, 
 look a little contradictory ; so much has been said here, so many 
 questions asked by the one side and the other, that it may make what 
 X said look a little confused. I have been abused in the Senate for my 
 testimony before that committee, and I expect to be here, but I am 
 ready for it. I have endeavored to state nothing but the truth; and 
 what I have stated I believe to be the truth. 
 
314 , LEGOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 No. 92. 
 Feidat, June 8, 1860. 
 Hon. JACOB THOMPSON called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you Secretary of the Interior ? 
 
 Answer. I am. 
 
 Question. During the year 1857 Mr, Martin was sent from your 
 department to Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. He was. 
 
 Question. Will you state what conversation you had with /.he 
 President previous to his going, relative to the submission of the 
 slavery clause in the constitution of Kansas? 
 
 Answer. I must except to that question. I am the President's 
 constitutional adviser, and when you ask the question in that form 
 you imply something which I might be unwilling to admit. So far 
 as any conversation has taken place between me and the President, 
 I could not admit your right or any man's right to demand that it 
 should be made public. 
 
 Question. Will you tell us out of what fund Mr. Martin was paid 
 for that service in Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Martin was at that time a clerk in the General 
 Land Office. When the public service requires an agent to be sent 
 from the department, and a clerk is selected for that purpose', the 
 uniform practice of the office is to allow his salary to continue, and 
 to allow him, in addition, his expenses, or a commutation therefor. 
 In this case Mr. Martin acted as the agent of the bureau of Indian 
 affairs and the General Land Office ; and the expenses of the trip 
 were divided between thes^ two bureaus, in what proportion the recorls 
 of the office will show. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. He was paid by the Interior Department? 
 Answer. Yes, sir, of course. What is done by the bureaus is con" 
 sidered as done by the department. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. Did he get pay for more than one service? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. If he had claimed and received double pay for 
 the same service he would have been dismissed from office without 
 hesitation. 
 
 Question. Can you explain why it was he got a friend to make 
 application to General Cass, at the State Department, andiuse Ms 
 influence to get pay from that quarter? 
 
 Answer. I think I can explain that matter. In October or Novem- 
 ber, 1857, probably in October, he went to Kansas as the agent of 
 my office. He returned about the first of December, having com- 
 pleted his duties as agent. Soon after his return, I was informed 
 that the State Department desired to send despatches to Kansas,.and 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 315 
 
 was called upon to name a proper person to be assigned to that duty. 
 I designated Mr, Martin, who was then charged by the State Depart- 
 ment with the delivery of those despatchesj On this trip he was the 
 employe of the State Department, and not of the Interior Depart- 
 ment. Of course, his pay, or allowance for expenses, for this second 
 trip was chargeable to the State and not the Interior Department. 
 But how much he was paid by that department I do not know, and 
 have never inquired into. 
 
 Question. Did you make it a particular point to send him at the 
 time the constitutional convention was to meet in Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. Public business required an agent to be sent from the office 
 about that time, and I was very willing to avail myself of the occasion 
 to select an agent — who would necessarily be thrown in contact with 
 the members of the convention — whose views would harmonize with 
 my own. Of course, then, I desired him to go at that time. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Tou have read the testimony of Mr. Martin, have you 
 not? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have read it as published. 
 
 Question. So far as that testimony has stated circumstances mutually 
 connected with both of you, is it correct ? 
 
 Answer. As fiar as my knowledge extends, it is correct ; I would 
 take no exception to anything he has said ; it is substantially true. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Now, will you state whether or not you had anything 
 to do with drawing or preparing the slavery clause for submission, or 
 whether you made suggestions to him to induce him to do so. 
 
 Answer. Tour question raises two points. The first is, the manner 
 in which the slavery clause should be drawn up ; the second, the form 
 of submitting that clause to the people. I had much discussion about 
 that time with various individuals as to the manner in which the 
 slavery clause should be drawn. There were private conversations in 
 which great difference of opinion existed. My object was to secure the 
 question of slavery, and yet secure the cooperation of the free State 
 and pro-slavery democrats. On this subject I expressed my opinions 
 freely with Mr. Martin, so much as to the form and manner in 
 which the clause should be drawn. I drew nothing, hnt expressed 
 myself as willing to accept anything which would harmonize the 
 democratic party in Kansas. As to the question of the submission of 
 the constitution, I never had, or expressed, but one opinion. I uni- 
 formly opposed the submission of the slavery clause as an isolated 
 proposition, because I believed it the weakest form in which the qjaes- 
 tion could be presented. At the time Mr, Martin started for Kansas 
 there was impending over this country the most threatening question 
 ever presented to the American people. Several of the southern States 
 had held public me^etings, in which they had urged the constitutional 
 convention of Kansas, which was known to be pro-slavery, to adopt a 
 pro-slavery constitution, send it to Congress, and demand admission. 
 I had taken the ground that the convention possessed the power to 
 make a complete and valid constitution without submitting it to the 
 
316 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 people, yet that it would be most unwise and impolitic, under the 
 circumstances, for the convention thus to act. Had the issue been 
 presented in that shape, this Union would have been in peril, 
 and that I knew full well. Every effort of mine, therefore, every ad- 
 vice I gave, was directed to but one end — so to arrange the slavery 
 clause in the constitution that the free State and pro-slavery demo- 
 crats who, united, were, in my opinion, in a majority in Kansas, 
 could harmonize and sustain the constitution, when made, by a pop- 
 ular vote. These were my views, and I urged and enjoined upon Mr. 
 Martin that whatever influence he could exert should be directed to 
 carry them out. 
 
 Question. If I am right, the instructions of Mr. Martin were to at- 
 tend to some business for the Interior Department. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was any of that at Lecompton, where the convention met? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Grave charges were pending against the land 
 officers at Lecompton, which he was instructed to investigate and re- 
 port upon. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Mr. Martin represented that your wishes to him were to 
 exercise his influence, if possible, for the purpose of the out-and-out 
 submission of the constitution. Is he correct in that? 
 
 Answer. He is correct in that. ■_ ^ 
 
 Question. You state that you prepared no programme? 
 
 Answer. I neither prepared a programme, or saw one prepared, or 
 in any way drawn up by any member of the administration. 
 
 Question. Did you see any prepared by any other person? 
 
 Answer: In the spring of 1857 Mr. Isaacks showed me a plan which 
 you might possibly consider a programme. 
 
 Question. Is he in this city ? 
 
 Answer. He was in this city a few days since. 
 
 Question. Was it similar to this plan which was adopted? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was very unlike it. That looked more to the 
 form in which the phrase respecting slavery should be inserted in the 
 constitution, in which I dissented from him and from other friends, 
 who he informed me approved it. 
 
 Question. Did you give your views to Mr, Martin about the sub- 
 mission of the slavery clause ? 
 
 Answer. I freely gave to Mr. Martin my views how the slavery 
 clause should be drawn ; but all my conversations were based upon the 
 distinct and well-understood idea of submission. Every variatioii^of 
 the clause was considered with a view to submission. The perplexing 
 question was, how it could be done, so as to meet, as far as might he, 
 the dissenting and conflicting opinions of those supposed to be aimitfg 
 at the same end, and at the same time protect the rights of property 
 to the owners of slaves then there. This was the great point to be 
 gained. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson: 
 
 Question. You desired to harnaonize the democracy ? 
 Answer, That's the purpose I had iu view. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 317 
 
 Question. And so to. frame the constitution as to harmonize the con- 
 flicting opinions of democrats in the Territory? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. WiNStow : 
 
 Question. Do you know of the use of any money hy the President 
 of the United States, or any member of the cabinet, towards the pas- 
 sage of the Lecompton bill? 
 
 Answer. That question, which I will answer, implies, I think, a 
 reflection upon my honor. If I knew such a thing to be done by any 
 man in authority I should feel myself degraded if I concealed it. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOw. So I should suppose. 
 
 The Witness. If I knew that money was corruptly used to effect 
 amy legislation by Congress, or to secure any action by the executive 
 ofi&cerSj by apy man — even the best friend I had on earth — I would 
 expose it ; and to imply that I^had some knowledge of such a transac- 
 tion, and that it was necessary to put me- on my oath and a direct 
 examination to extract the exposure, is an insinuation upon my char- 
 acter — a reflection that I am not guided by those high punctilions 
 principles of honor and honesty which I have ever professed from my 
 boyhood. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Tou understand me as asking the question merely 
 as a matter of form. 
 
 The Witness. I know the motive that actuates you, and am satisfied. 
 
 J. THOMPSON. 
 
 No. 109. 
 Tuesday, Junel'i, 1860. 
 
 Hon. HOWEIiL COBB called and examined : 
 
 [The testimony of Hon. S. S. Cox, given on the 9th and 11th in- 
 stant, was read to the witness, and the substance of Mr. Geiger' s tes- 
 timony vs^as stated, so far as the witness was referred to.] 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Did you ever have an interview with Mr. Cox upon the 
 subject of the Lecompton bill? Did you ever invite him to an inter- 
 view with you upon that subject; and if" so, did you havesuth an 
 interview? 
 
 Answer. Pending the question of the Lecompton bill, my friend 
 Mr. Jackson, member of the House from Georgia, stated to me that 
 he believed Mr. Cox had great respect for my opinions, and he 
 thought I might have some influetice with htm by having an inter- 
 view with him in reference to the Lecompton bill ; which I very 
 readily assented to. But Mr. Jackson afterwards infornied me that Mr. 
 Gox declined to have any interview with any member of the adminis- 
 tration pending that question, and therefore I have no recollection of 
 having seen him or spoken to him at all about this or any other ques- 
 
318 LECOMPrON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 tion during that time — certainly not upon that question. The state- 
 ment that he called to see me afterwards, and in company with my. 
 self called upon the President, is a misapprehension somewliere- 
 I cannot say where. Mr. Cox may have called upon me, and we may 
 have had a conversation after that time. I do not recollect distinctly 
 what conversation I had with him. Certainly I never went with 
 him to see the President, nor did I ever have a conversation with. 
 him and the President about that or any bill, as far as I can re- 
 collect. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any fact or circumstance afFecting,the 
 political integrity of Mr. Cox. touching the Lecompton bill or English 
 bill ? 
 
 Answer. I do not,- sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know that touching, any member of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir; not the slightest. 
 
 Question. It is necessarj- for me to«ask you the question, whether 
 you know of the use of money by the government corruptly or in 
 any way to secure the passage of the English bill ? 
 
 Answer. T do not, sir; nor do I believe that such an idea ever 
 entered the mind of the President, or any member of the administrai 
 tion, until the charge was made. My knowledge of the high and 
 pure character of the President utterly precludes such an idea. , 
 
 Question. Havts you read the testimony of Governor Walker? ' Do 
 you know the substance of it ? 
 
 Answer. I read it at the time it was published; I think I saw the 
 most of it at any rate. 
 
 Question. Have you read the testimony of Mr. Martin, taken before 
 this committee? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I have read that too. . 
 
 Question. Mr. Martin states in his testimony that he bore froBi 
 you a letter to a gentleman by the name of Hugh M, Moore^L'in 
 Kansas? '■*' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; Hugh M. Moore was a member of the Lecomp- 
 ton convention, and I think vice-president of that convention. He 
 was an acquaintance of mine, who had moved from Georgia there. 
 
 Question. "Where does he now reside ? 
 
 Answer. He now resides in Georgia. 
 
 Question, Would you have any objections to stating to the com- 
 mittee the general tenor of that letter to Mr. Moore? Mr. Martin 
 says that the letter was read to him, or that he was suffered to read it. 
 
 Answer. I can only state the object of the letter ; I recollect dis- 
 tinctly why I wrote the letter. It was, perhaps, a letter of some 
 length, and I have not seen it since that time; I do not know that I 
 have a copy of it: it is doubtful whether I have. The object of the 
 letter was to urge upon Mr. Moore the submission of the Lecomfton 
 constitution to the people for ratification. That was the point of the 
 letter; I endeavored to argue it with him. I did not know what his 
 views upon the subject were; but that was to be a subject of discus- 
 sion, and I entertained the opinion myself that it ought to be sub- 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. ETC. 319 
 
 mitted, and that it -would relieve a great many of the difficulties and 
 embarrassments of that convention to have it submitted; and. this 
 letter was, as I now recollect it, as urgent and strong an argument as 
 I was capable of making in favor of the submission of the constitu- 
 tion to the people. , / 
 
 Question. Do you mean what we call out-and-out submission ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; the submission of the entire constitution. The 
 manner in which it was submitted to the people I never had heard 
 suggested until I saw that it had been adopted there. 
 
 Question. "Was Mr. Martin charged with any errand or message 
 frain you, or any paper or writing purporting to be a draught of a con- 
 stitution, which he was directed to press upon the people of Kansas, 
 instead of out-and-out submission? 
 
 Answer. I never saw any draught, or heard of any draught of a cons 
 titutiou. The only question that I discussed in conversation with Mr. 
 Martin was the one which I discussed in that letter; and that was, 
 to press upon the convention the propriety of the submission of the 
 constitution. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any programme or writing of that kind 
 having been sent out by the President or any member of the cabinet? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Have you any reason to believe that it was done ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question. Had there been any change of the views of the President 
 and the cabinet upon this subject, it is probable that you would have 
 known it ? 
 
 AnsAver. It is probable that I would. I was looking with great 
 earnestness to see what would be the action of that convention, and 
 when the news was received it was considered that, as the only ques- 
 tion at issue — the slavery question — had been submitted, the material 
 point had been attained; and it was regarded as virtually carrying 
 out the policy of submission. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with John W. Forney, Clerk of the 
 House of Representatives ? s 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Colonel Forney, at any time after 
 the inauguration of the President, was an applicant for an office under 
 the President, or within the gift of the administration ? 
 
 Answer. I was on terms of very great intimacy with Colonel For- 
 ney, and was sincerely anxious to serve him in any way I could. I 
 met him on a good many occasions, I cannot say how often, between 
 the time of the inauguration of the President and the time when he 
 finally became a violent opponent of the President, personallj'-, and of 
 the administration; and during that time I had interviews with him, 
 with a view to serve him in any manner I could. My memory is not 
 very good about dates, but according to my recollection, both before 
 and after Colonel Forney established his paper, "The Press," he was 
 extremely anxious to get the post office blanks printing, and I was 
 equally anxious to obtain it for him. He frequently pressed upon me 
 this application, and I pressed it upon the administration — upon the 
 
320 ' LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 President. I regretted very mucli at the time that it could not be 
 obtained, and I expressed to him during these interviews the hope 
 and belief that I would be able to obtainfor him that patronage or a 
 portion of it; I did not know how much it was worth; and that hope • 
 and belief was founded upon'expressions of strong personal friendship 
 and attachment upon the part of the President for Colonel Forney, 
 Colonel Forney had become distrustful of the President's friendship, 
 and I sought to relieve his mind by expressing that hope and confi- 
 dence, and told him that I knew the President to be, as he had always 
 been, his warm friend, and I thought this thing might be effected; , 
 and I continued my efforts to do this until he placed it out of my 
 power by the course which he adopted. The reason of the delay in 
 disposing of the question was the determination of the President not 
 to give this printing out until after Congress should meet and ha-ve 
 an opportunity of acting upon the subject. 
 
 Question. Colonel Forney's paper was established in August, I 
 think. Will that date assist you to fix the time in your mind whea 
 these conversations took place ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was before and after that time that I conversed 
 with Colonel Forney, when he was here, and he visited here upon 
 more than one occasion. Until that break took place between him 
 and the administration he was never here that I did not seem him, 
 and I never met him without having a conversation with him in 
 reference to his own future. After he determined to establish his 
 paper I said to him that I was anxious for his success, and anxioa* ' 
 that he might have this patronage which he so much desired, which 
 would enable him to put his paper upon a strong and firm basis. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that generally, in his interviews 
 with you. Colonel Forney expressed a desire to procure the printing 
 erf the post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. That, you say, was both before and after the establish- 
 inent of his paper? 
 
 Answer. That is my impression; it was talked of very frequently, 
 as frequently as we met; I cannot say how often he was here. We 
 talked over this thing and it was a subject of very earnest conversa- 
 tion between Colonel Forney and myself. He knew at the time my 
 earnest desire to do anything for him that I could do. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the paper called the letter of the forty 
 parsons to the President ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know when that letter reached the President 
 and became the subject of newspaper comment ? 
 
 Answer. I recollect the fact, but I do not remember the date. 
 
 Question. Can you state whether, after that, Colonel Forney still 
 continued his application for the post office blanks? 
 
 Answer. I think so, because I recollect distinctly, as you will see 
 by the files of his paper, that that letter was very boldly-indorsed by 
 Colonel Forney. It gave no cause of offence at that time. It received 
 his enthusiastic approval. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 321 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the offer to Colonel Forney 
 of the consulate at Liverpool ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I know the President tendered him the coHsulate 
 at Liverpool, and I think, from my conversation with the President at 
 the time, that he was anxious that Colonel Forney should take the 
 consulate at Liverpool. Colonel Forney had desired to come to 
 Washington as editor of the organ, as it was termed; but there was 
 very violent opposition upon the part of sonie southern friends of the 
 administration — opposition particularly from Virginia — to Colonel 
 Forney' s coming, and the President' s idea was that if he would go to 
 Liverpool, by the salary of that office, and also by the use of his pen 
 as correspondent of the "Union," he would be able to realize a very 
 handsome income, and he would write down the prejudice of the 
 south against him; and then he could return here in the course of 
 his administration, and be acceptable to all the friends of the adminis- 
 tration, and if he still desired to do so, he could become the editor of 
 the paper. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Judge Black pressed upon the 
 President equally with yourself the giving of the printing of the post 
 office blanks to Colonel Forney? 
 
 Answer. I know that he did. Judge Black and myself had repeated 
 interviews about it. We were perhaps on terms of greater personal 
 intimacy with Colonel Forney than any other members of the cabinet. 
 I know that Judge Black took a deep interest in this matter, and it 
 was th« subject of repeated conversations between Judge Black and 
 myself. He expressed to me the same anxiety that I expressed to" 
 him to obtain thia patronage for Colonel Forney. 
 
 Question. Did you ever have a conversation with Colonel Forney 
 touching the propriety of his acceptance of the Liverpool consulate ? 
 
 Answer. I have had conversations with him in reference to that 
 matter. Colonel Forney was at one time inclined, and perhaps had 
 determined, to accept that appointment; but Mrs. Forney, as he said 
 to me, was very much opposed to it. The final decision was dependent 
 on what Mrs. Forney would determine — whether she would agree to 
 it or not; and some of his friends were invited to talk with Mrs. 
 Forney, and see if she could be reconciled to it. Among others, 
 he spoke to me upon the subject. Mrs. Forney was at the time at 
 Mr. Hoover' s, in this city. I did not have an interview with Mrs. 
 Forney upon the subject, for the reason that Colonel Forney said to 
 me that it was useless to mention the subject to her. Other friends 
 had spoken to her, and she was opposed to it; and being in very deli- 
 cate health, he did not wish to have her disturbed by any further 
 reference to the matter. 
 
 Question. Can you fix the time when that was ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot fix the time. It might be ascertained from the 
 fact that Mrs. Forney was here sick, at Mr. Hoover' s. It was previous 
 to the establishment of his paper. 
 
 Question. In your conversation with Colonel Forney touching the 
 Liverpool consulate it was discussed as to its advantages, in connexion 
 with his correspondence for the "Union?" 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 21 
 
322 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect that I had any discussion with him 
 respecting the advantages of accepting that office. Perhaps I did 
 speak of this idea, that the salary, in connexion with the additional 
 amount he could make as correspondent of the ' ' Union, " as I under* 
 stood it, would give him a handsome income ; but I have no distinct 
 recollection of discussing that point with him at all. 
 
 Question. What is your impression, whether that was mentioned or 
 not in the course of the conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. I have no recollection at all, except that I 
 wanted Colonel Forney to accept it. At first I wanted him to come 
 here as editor; that was my own feeling. With the strong personal 
 friendship that I had for Colonel Forney, I was not disposed to regard 
 so seriously the opposition that was made to him, as -others did; but 
 with the view of his getting this appointment, and being comfortably 
 provided for in that way, with a prospect of returning here and 
 resuming the position that I knew he desired, agreeably to his taste 
 and position in life, I think I pressed upon him and advised him to 
 accept that appointment, and in that conversation I may have dis- 
 cussed with him the details of it, but I have no distinct recoUeotion 
 upon that point. 
 
 Question. Did^^Colonel Forney ever, in any of those conversations, 
 object in your presence to the arrangement of the consulate at Liver- 
 pool, such as had been spoken of, as being dishonorable or improper? 
 
 Answer. I never heard any objection upon the part of Colonel 
 Forney to any portion of the arrangement, as being improper or 
 ■dishonorable. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. We understand that Mr. Martin was sent out as agent of 
 the Interior Department at the time he went to Kansas ? 
 
 Answer. That was my understanding. 
 
 Question. Was he also an agent of and did he receive pay from any 
 other department of the government ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I know of. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Did Colonel Forney ever ask you to exert your influence 
 to get him the "printing of the post office blanks, after he parted with 
 Mr. Buchanan upon his Kansas policy ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I ever saw Colonel Forney after the first 
 article appeared in his paper, which was regarded as an attack upon 
 the administration. I have no recollection of ever having a conver- 
 sation with him from that time to this. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. That is the point I would like to fix. What do you 
 mean by an attack upon the administration ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect what time Colonel Forney' s paper com- 
 menced an attack upon the administration. The first indication of 
 opposition commenced about the time of what were called the "Ox- 
 
LEOOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 323 
 
 ford frauds ' ' in Kansas. His paper at that time took ground sus- 
 taining Governor Walker' s course there. I did not regard that as so 
 exceptionable ; I did not regard the articles that appeared at that 
 time as any attack upon the administration ; but from that time the 
 paper commenced going that way. I do not think I ever met Colonel 
 Forney after those articles appeared. 
 
 Thursday, June, 14, 1860. 
 
 JAMES W. DAVIDSON called : He submitted the following writ- 
 ten statement : 
 
 I was appointed United States marshal for the northern district of 
 Illinois about the month of June, A. D. 1857, in recess of the Senate 
 about July, 1858, my name was sent to the Senate and confirmed 
 when I was again commissioned as such marshal by Mr. Buchanan 
 In the winter of 1857-58 I visited Washington and had a conver 
 sation with Mr. Buchanan, in which he showed much anxiety in re 
 gard to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution 
 stating to me that he considered it vital to his administration, and 
 that he had predicated the success of his administration upon the ad- 
 mission of Kansas under that constitution. This is the substance of 
 our conversation; it was all of political character. 
 
 I also about the same time had a conversation with Mr. Thompson, 
 Secretary of the Interior, in regard to the removal of office-holders. 
 I think there had been but two or three removals at the time. In 
 that conversation Mr. Thompson assured me that I might go home, 
 fix up my offices, and rest perfectly content for the time being at 
 least; for, he added, we have made these removals, and shall stop to 
 see the efi'ect before we make any further removals. 
 
 In another conversation that I had with him in May, 1858, in re- 
 gard to my own removal, he assured me that if I was removed it 
 would be strictly on political grounds, as they had no official charge 
 or objection to me. About the first of August, 1858, I received a 
 letter from Attorney General Black, of which the following is a copy. 
 The letter is without date on its face, but was received by me about 
 the 1st of August, 1858; and was in reply to a letter which I had 
 written him a short time previous in regard to a report which had 
 come to me that I was to be removed: 
 
 "MtDbaeSie: 1 don't believe you are in the slightest danger; 
 your case is now understood ; don' t give yourself any uneasiness. I 
 do not yet see that the Douglas men have given up their connexion 
 with the opposition. Their war upon the national democratic party 
 is of their own making; and I suppose that the peace must be of their 
 own seeking. 
 
 "They have made common cause with the black republicans 
 against us. Those of them who are willing to give a fair support to the 
 
324 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 administration, and to regard tlie English bill as a settlement, ought 
 to be conciliated, treated kindly, and supported. _ But if nothing else 
 will serve their turn but opposition to the party, it cannot be helped.' 
 They say here that Mr. Douglas is more violent and bitter in his hos- 
 tility to the administration and to all who who support it than to any 
 black republican in Congress. Now, what should be the difference 
 to us between such a man and an abolitionist, except such a man, 
 elected by democratic votes, would do more injury to the democratic 
 cause than an abolitionist would have it in his power to do ? 
 ' ' Most truly yours, &c. , 
 
 "J. S. BLACK." 
 
 To this letter I replied some ten days or two weeks from its receipt 
 by me; and on the third day of September, A. D. 1858, I received 
 notice by telegraph of my removal. 
 
 JAMES W. DAYIDSON. 
 
 • APPENDIX. 
 
 Beookltn, AprU 11, 1858. 
 
 Deab Haet : Your favor is at hand ; your determination to sail by 
 Fulton astonishes me. The step will excite suspicion; but better 
 endure that, I suppose, than "face the music." I will follow by the 
 26th proximo. Go to Morley's, Trafalgar Square. Bear my love to 
 Sanders and Cobbett. 
 
 Give yourself no uneasiness on account of the letters; they will 
 be taken care of. The part I have played has been seemingly so 
 humble and insignificant that no one would think of calliag me befoK 
 the reformers. Should there be any danger, Dan will post me in 
 time to enable me to take a short trip for my health. 
 
 A pleasant voyage to you, and confusion to Covode & Co., is the 
 wish of your Iriend, 
 
 CHARLES A. DUNHAM. 
 
 Dunham & Bishop, 
 
 Attorneys and coimseUors at law, No. 133 Nassau street. 
 
 Appendix to the testimony of Son. A. 0. P. Nicholson. 
 
 Washington, (7Mn« 13, 1860. 
 In answer to your oral inquiries of to-day I respectfully reply: 
 1. Colonel Forney withdrew from the Washington Union in the 
 summer of 1856. My understanding was, at the time, that he with- 
 drew for the purpose of engaging actively in the presidential can- 
 vass in Pennsylvania, and that such withdrawal was in accordance 
 with the wish of President Pierce that his connexion with the Union 
 and with the executive printing should cease. 
 
LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 325 
 
 2. When Colonel Forney' s Qonnexion with the Union and with the 
 public printing ceased, the terms of his withdrawal were left to be 
 determined by the honorables J. Glancy Jones and Samuel A. Smith* 
 They never made a report to me of the details of the settlement, 
 and as they are both absent I am unable to state any further than 
 that they settled the matters referred to them, and Colonel Forney's 
 connexion with the Union and the printing ceased. I have not been 
 able to ascertain the amount received by Colonel Forney for his share 
 of the printing as I have not had an opportunity to examine the books 
 
 ' kept by our employe, but my impression is that he received between 
 thirty-five and forty thousand dollars. As to this, however, I only 
 give my impression, nor can I say whether this amount embraced 
 only his share of the profits down to the time of his withdrawal, or 
 whether it embraced an estimate as to future profits. These matters 
 were submitted to the referees, and I am unable to state how they 
 •determined them. 
 
 3. After the Presidential election I visited Mr. Buchanan at Phila- 
 delphia, and then had an interview with him. My object was to 
 communicate to him my determination to withdraw from the Washing- 
 ton Union, and my willingness to transfer the establishment in a way 
 that would be satisfactory to him and to the democratic party. I had 
 heard the question of a transfer to Colonel Forney freely discussed 
 amongst democrats, especially those from the south, and I had ob- 
 served so decided an oposition to Colonel Forney as the editor of the 
 organ of the party, that I had made up my mind that I could not in 
 the face of such opposition feel justified in making the transfer to 
 him. I communicated to Mr. Buchanan the opposition of southern 
 •democrats to such a transfer. I am unable- to call to mind the con- 
 versation between Mr. Buchanan and myself so fully as to be pre- 
 pared to state whether I communicated to him my purpose not to 
 make the transfer . to Colonel Forney or not, but I think it not im- 
 probable that I did so inform him. My purpose grew out of no 
 unfriendly feeling for Colonel Forney, but entirely out of the opposi- 
 tion manifested by many southern democrats. I considered myself 
 as the owner of the paper for the benefit of the democratic party, 
 and in disposing of it I felt bound to have due regard to the wishes 
 •of democratic friends. 
 
 Yery respectfully, 
 
 A. 0. P. NICHOLSON. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC, 327 
 
 PHILADELPHIA MYY YARD, ETC. 
 
 No. 2. 
 Fribat, March 23, 1860. 
 
 J. B. GUTHRIE called. 
 
 [This witness appeared before the committee with certain papers 
 from the Treasury Department, comprising pay-rolls, &c., from the 
 custom-house in Philadelphia.] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you the pay-rolls of the custom-house in Philadel- 
 phia? 
 
 Answer. Not the pay-rolls properly speaking ; but I have the col- 
 lector's monthly accounts from July, 1859, to the Slat of December, 
 1859. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Are these accounts transmitted to the department monthly? 
 
 Answer. They were until the first of October last ; since that time 
 it has been changed to quarterly ; they are now submitted quarterly ; 
 that is the reason that the last account I have here is for the quarter 
 ending the 31st of December last. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Does it appear that George W. Baker was a clerk in the 
 custom-house at Philadelphia at $100 a month ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. For how many months have you the pay-roll accounta 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. For six months, commencing the 1st of July, 1859. 
 
 Question. Will you examine those accounts and see whether Mr. 
 Baker has received pay as clerk for those six months ? 
 
 Answer. [After examining the papers.] Tes, sir; he has received pay 
 as clerk, as appears from these papers here, from the 1st of July to the 
 31st of December, 1859. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he was a clerk and received pay 
 previous to that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I could not say. 
 
 [The examination of the witness was here closed, and the chairman 
 was authorized to communicate the following letter to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury : 
 
328 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 '•'HoiTSB OF Kepresentativbs, Friday, March 23, 1860. 
 
 "Sir : Will you have the kindness to inform the select committee, of 
 
 which I am the chairman, whether one George W. Baker is now, or 
 
 has heen, employed in the custom-house at Philadelphia, and if so 
 
 for what length of time, in what capacity, and at what compensation? 
 
 " I have the honor to be^ yours respectfully, 
 
 "JOHN COVODE, • 
 "Chairman, 
 " Hon. Howell Cobb, 
 
 ''Secretary of the Treasury." < 
 
 Subsequently the following letter was received in reply to the above: 
 
 "Tebasurt DEaPABTMBNT, March 2i, 1860. 
 " Sir : I have received your letter of the 23d instant requesting to 
 be informed whether ' G-eorge W. Baker is now employed in the 
 custom-house at Philadelphia, and if so, for what length of time, in 
 what capacity', and at what compensation ?' In reply I have to state 
 that it appears by records of this department that George W. Baker 
 was appointed a clerk to discharge the duties of assistant cashier at a 
 salary of $1^200 per annum on the 15th of November, 1858, vice John 
 Goodyear, promoted ; and that he has continued to, and does now, 
 occupy that position at the same rate of salary. 
 
 " I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 "HOWELL COBB, 
 "Secretary of the Treasury. 
 "Hon. JeHN OovoDB, 
 
 "Chairman of Select Committee, House of Bepresentatives."] 
 
 No. 10. 
 Friday, April 6, 1860. 
 
 , GEOKGE W. BAKER called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you reside in Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am editor of the " Pennsylvanian " as a part of my em- 
 ployment. 
 
 Question. How long have you been in charge of the "Pennsyl- 
 vanian?" 
 
 Answer. I think since last September or October. 
 
 Question. September or October, 1859 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you had any other occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVT YARD, ETC. 329 
 
 Question. What, sir ? 
 
 Answer. I hold a position under my brother in the custom-house. 
 
 Question. What duties have you performed in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. They have been of various kinds. 
 
 Question. Will you describe them ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed to fill the office of assistant disbursing 
 clerk. 
 
 Question. When was that? 
 
 Answer. In November, 1858. 
 
 Question. Have you been appointed to any other place there than 
 that? 
 
 Answer. I have never been appointed to any other. I was detailed 
 for other duties, but not appointed to any other position. 
 
 Question. Did that require your attendance at the custom-house 
 every day ? 
 
 ■ Answer. The position to which I was detailed does no't. 
 
 Question. What have you been detailed to do ? 
 
 Answer. It would be necessary to give somewhat of an explana- 
 tion to answer that question. 
 
 Question. Very well ; give it. 
 
 Answer, That position was vacant for some mo-nths after the death 
 of the chief clerk. I believe Mr Groodyear was then promoted to the 
 position he now occupies, leaving the position of disbursing clerk 
 vacant ; that vacancy existed for some months ; my brother desired, 
 or had a necessity, in fact, for the services of some confidential person. 
 He was not entitled, I believe, to the services of a clerk. Many other 
 collectors in the country are entitled to a clerk in their private office, 
 but it has not been the custom in Philadelphia. He desired such a 
 person for many purposes, and wrote to the department asking per- 
 mission to appoint me to the vacant office, with power to detail me 
 for the purpose he desired. Those duties consisted principally as a 
 sort of law adviser. I acted in a number of cases ; went out of the 
 city on public business for the purpose of hunting up testimony in 
 New York in regard to cases, and attended to cases in court. In re- 
 gard to the private matters, such as writing letters for my brother, 
 &c., his position has forced upon him a very large correspondence of 
 one kind or another. In a number of instances I have assisted him 
 in doing that. I need not go to the office every day. 
 
 Question. Have you an office of your own, or are your duties when 
 there discharged in his office ? 
 
 Answer. I have no desk of my own. I had a desk for a time ; for 
 some two or three months I occupied a desk ; but I found it was not 
 absolutely necessary to be there to perform my duties, as I could per- 
 form them at night elsewhere. 
 
 Question. Was your desk in his private office, or elsewhere in the 
 custem -house? 
 
 Answer. At that time, no, sir ; not in his private office : his office 
 was a very small one. 
 
 Question. What compensation did you receive ? 
 
 Answer. The compensation of disbursing clerk, |1,200 a year. 
 
 Question, Did you sign the pay-roll ? 
 
330 PHILADELPHU NAVY TABD, ETC, 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I signed the pay-roll ; I signed the 
 general certificate, whatever it may be, .in duplicate. I do not know 
 anything about the pay-roll. 
 
 Question. Do you mean the duplicate sent to the department? 
 
 Answer. 1 presume it is. 
 . Question. Do you make any affidavit of your services ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, as clerk. 
 
 Question. And sign the general certificate of the kind and amount 
 of services you render? 
 
 Answer. As clerk ; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you still retained in the same way ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and still go to the custom-house every day of my 
 life, when I am in town. 
 
 Question. I suppose ordinarily your duties are very light. 
 
 Answer. They are not burdensome. 
 
 Question. Nothing but you can do at home, or at your office, or 
 anywhere where you can have a consultation with your brother ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; J go to him every day to get any orders, or any- 
 thing he wants me to do. 
 
 Question. Have you ever done anything that pertains to the office 
 of disbursing clerk ? 
 
 Answer. It never has been necessary. If Mr. Goodyear had been 
 sick or absent, it would have been necessary for me to fill his place. 
 He is perfectly competent and willing to do all the duties there. But 
 should he be sick, or absent, or anything of that kind, it would be 
 necessary for me to perform the duties. 
 
 Question. Have you ever had occasion to perform the duties that 
 properly belong to Mr. Goodyear? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he has never been absent or sick a day. 
 
 Question. Are the affidavits made by the employes of their services, 
 w£ich they sign prior to drawing their pay, kept on file at Philadel- 
 phia, or here at the department ? 
 
 Answer. I presume so. They are signed in duplicate. 
 
 Question. Are you related to the President in any way ? 
 
 Answer. I have a family relation to him. 
 
 Question. What is it? 
 • Answer. I married a niece of the President. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How does it come that your name is not in the Blue 
 Book as filling that office? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing at all about it. 
 
 Question. Did you notice that your name was not down in the Bine 
 Book? 
 
 Answer. I never did, until I heard the question asked coming here. 
 I never looked at the Blue Book even ; never had the curiosity to do 
 it ; never knew anything about it. 
 
 Question. Do you know that it is one of the rules of the office that 
 every person who draws pay there has to enter the time he comes on 
 duty and the time he goes off every day ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never understood that there was any rule of 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVlT TAED, ETC. 331' 
 
 that kind. And if there had been, it would not apply to the position 
 which I in fact occupy. 
 
 Question. Has your brother not an attorney to attend to his legal 
 business ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he has had no attorney- And if he had had to 
 employ an attorney it would have cost the government much more 
 than I have received for the services I have performed. It may be as 
 well to state in this connexion, so that it may properly appear, that 
 the personal relations between the district attorney and my brother 
 have been of such a character that there could have been no commu- 
 nications of a confidential character between them. Because my bro- 
 ther would not appoint certain men that the district attorney required, 
 that caused unfriendly relations, which have continued since. That 
 created the necessity of having some one about him in whom he could 
 confide. 
 
 Question. Can you state now any of the cases that you attended to 
 in court for the government ? 
 
 Answer. There were no trials. There were two or three cases of 
 Boker and others against Charley Brown. 
 
 Question. They were not tried by you in court ? 
 
 Answer. I, of course, would not undertake to try them, with a dis- 
 trict attorney there. 
 
 Question. You stated that you went to New York to attend to some 
 cases. Give us the names of those cases. 
 
 Answer. I went there to endeavor to get testimony in the case of 
 Boker and others against Charley Brown, collector. Those are the 
 principal cases, and I went there to see what evidence could be ob- 
 tained in regard to certain points. 
 
 Question. Do you. know now many cases you have had of this kind ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. The cases that you attended to were these cases of Boker ? 
 
 Answer.- Yes, sir ; Boker and .others against Charley Brown, in 
 regard to some brandies and liquors that were siezed and forfeited. 
 
 Question. Did you get testimony that you made use of? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I could not get testimony of any avail at all. It 
 was in regard to the price of the brandies from whence they were im- 
 ported. I spent several days seeing liquor merchants, to get prices 
 current, &c. The cases were afterwards settled by Mr. Van Dyk« in 
 some way. 
 
 Question. Did you go to any other places ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; no other than New York. I spent two or three- 
 weeks in Philadelphia, looking around in these cases. 
 
 Question. How long have you been employed altogether on these- 
 cases during the time you have held office ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you spent^ week at it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; considerably more than a week ; not the entire 
 day by any means. But I was nearly a week in New York. 
 
 Question. Have you spent as much as a month attending to this 
 business all the time you have held office ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, possibly not. But, as an attorney, I should have 
 
332 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 charged considerable for that month if I had been employed simply as 
 an attorney, as you know any lawyer would. No lawyer would under- 
 take^ without a yery large fee, to employ his time in this way. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Were those services rendered after the suits had been 
 commenced ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the suits had been commenced under Charley 
 Brown. 
 
 Question. And it was the duty of the district attorney to look after 
 them ? 
 
 Answer. It was his duty to try the cases. But he himself desired 
 and requested the appointment of some one especially to go to New 
 York and perform these duties. 
 
 Question. Who? Mr. Van Dyke? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; his letters are on file in the custom-house, asking 
 that some one be appointed to go on, and I was sent on. 
 
 Question. Did you get any pay for this service other than your 
 salary ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; excepting my expenses. 
 
 Question. You got your expenses paid ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; my travelling expenses to and from New York, 
 and my board there. 
 
 G. W. BAKEE. 
 
 No. 18. 
 Thursday, April 12, 1860. 
 
 JAMES C. VAN DYKE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 ■Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. I live in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Are you the United States district attorney there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have been since 1854. 
 
 Question.. Do you still retain that office? 
 
 Answer. I have no official notice yet of my removal, although I 
 have heard that my successor has been nominated to the Senate. 
 
 Question, Do you know anything about the causes that contributed 
 to bring about your removal ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, it is very difficult to say what were the causes. 
 The President assigns one cause, and I charge upon him another ; and 
 I can maintain what I allege is the cause. ■ 
 
 Question. Do you know of any effort made on the part of federal 
 officers to control State politics ? If so, state in detail all the particu- 
 lars. , 
 
 Answer. In my opinion there has been in the city of Philadelphia 
 a general combination among all the federal officers, with very few 
 exceptions, to control the internal party politics of the city. 
 
 Question. Anything to do with the politics of the State outside ef 
 the city. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 333 
 
 Answer. I think that that influence has been attempted by the 
 federal officers to be extended beyond the city of Philadelphia. When 
 I say this I speak more from a general opinion I received from conver- 
 sations than from my personal knowledge. Haying always discounta- 
 nanced such combinations, of course I can have no absolute knowledge 
 personally of what has been done. I have myself, on all such occa- 
 sions, refused to follow the lead of other federal officers in Philadelphia, 
 principally controlled by the collector of the port, and have acted more 
 with those outside of the federal offices than with those in. This had 
 created a bad feeling between the President and myself. I refused to 
 submit to that dictation, and intend to continue to refuse. 
 
 Question. And that, you allege^ has had something to do with your 
 removal ? 
 
 Answer. I have no doubt of it, and I have so written to the Presi- 
 dent. I have made no objection to my removal, for I am satisfied to 
 be removed on the grounds that the people of my party in Philadelphia 
 and Pennsylvania understand I am removed. 
 
 Question. Your removal, then, appears to have been brought about 
 in consequence of your acting with the people, and against the dicta- 
 tion of the federal office-holders? 
 
 Answer. That is what I have said to the President, and what I know 
 to be the cause. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any effort on the part of Collector Baker 
 to use his official position to force federal employes to vote at his 
 dictation ? 
 
 Answer. It is generally understood with the mass of the party with ' 
 whom I have acted that he has done so from the time he came into- 
 office. Had I known that I was to be examined upon this subject, 
 I could have brought the names of many persons who say they have- 
 been removed for that cause. 
 
 Question. For not submiting to federal dictation? 
 
 Answer. For not submitting to the dictation of the collector. 
 
 Question. Did you ever bring these facts to the attention of the- 
 President ; and if so^ what was his response ? 
 
 Answer. I would prefer not to give any private and confidential 
 correspondence between the President and myself ; I think that as au 
 honorable man I ought not, and I think the committee, as honorable; 
 gentlemen, will not require it. ' I will answer any question that may 
 be put to me, but I do not think that I ought to give any direct- 
 facts as to any confidential and private correspondence. There ha» 
 been considerable correspondence between the President and myself, 
 all of which, up to March last, I think, has been marked ' ' confidential. ' ' 
 
 By Mr. Tbain : 
 
 Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether the 
 interference of the collector, or any other federal officer in Philadel- 
 phia, with, their employes for political purposes, was with the know- 
 ledge of the President — interference for the purposes of controllings 
 their conduct in reference to elections? 
 
 Answer. I have corttplained to the President about it, and m^ 
 opinion is, that other persons acting with me have done the same. 
 
.334 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 
 
 By the CHAIRMAN : 
 
 Question. Did you resist those efforts of Collector Baker and other 
 federal officers ; and if so, were you threatened with removal from 
 office unless you yielded to this combination ? 
 
 Answer. I have always resisted these efforts, from 1839 up to the 
 present time, whenever they have been attempted in the party. The 
 President never threatened me with removal ; but I have been in- 
 formed by the mutual friends of the collector, and other federal officers 
 and myself, that they had been making efforts for the last two years 
 to have me removed, and that the President would do so unless I 
 modified my hostility to the collector. I have disregarded such 
 "threats. 
 
 Question. Had your resistance, in your judgment, anything to do 
 with your removal ? 
 
 Answer. In my judgment it is the cause of my removal. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with George W. Baker ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he a brother of the collector ? 
 
 Answer. He is so reputed, sir. 
 
 Question. While holding the office of United States district attorney, 
 have you been familiar with the law business, on the part of the gen- 
 •eral government and the custom-house, that has been conducted for 
 years past ? 
 
 Answer. All the law business within the scope of my official duties 
 that has been transacted in Philadelphia since my appointment in 
 1854 has been conducted by myself, and I am familiar with it all. 
 
 Question. What services, to your knowledge, in reference to the 
 litigation that has been necessarily carried on, has this Greorge W. 
 ^aker rendered ? 
 
 Answer. As a professional man, none. Some time in the early 
 part of the year 1859, since the middle of February, I think, Mr. 
 Baker attempted to perform the service of an agent for the custom- 
 house in hunting up testimony in an important case about to be 
 •tried, under these circumstances : A suit had been instituted by the 
 Messrs. Boker, of New York, against Charles Brown, formerly collec- 
 tor of Philadelphia, to recover duties that they had paid under pro- 
 test on brandies imported into the port of Philadelphia. One of the 
 important questions which was likely to be involved in that litigation 
 was the value of the brandies imported, and it became important that 
 the custom-house should furnish me with testimony tending to sustain 
 the appraisement made of these brandies by the custom-house ap- 
 praisers. I addressed a communication to the proper department, 
 asking that a competent person should be detailed for that purpose, 
 according to the practice and usage of my office. I suggested that 
 inasmuch as P. Barry Hays was the former appraiser, who had valued 
 these identical brandies, he would be a proper person and the best to 
 •discharge that duty. After some time I received information from 
 -the custom-house that Mr. George W. Baker was detailed for that 
 purpose, with which appointment I was perfectly satisfied. He called 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 335 
 
 upon me once or twice to learn wliat he was to do, and I instructed 
 him. I saw and heard very little of him after that, except that he 
 reported to me that he had been to New York and could not find any 
 testimony there. The only result of his visit was my receiving some 
 invoices of brandies of the same character that had been imported 
 there, giving their valuations. I do not remember that he furnished 
 me with the names of any witnesses. I furnished him with the names 
 of several whom I desired him to see, and I have no recollection that 
 he ever reported what their testimony would be. I do remember that 
 I had subsequently to send for those witnesses and examine them my- 
 self. I do not think that he ever became familiar with the case, or 
 knew anything about it. The best evidence of that is contained in 
 what I understand he has sworn to, that this suit was a case of the 
 seizure and forfeiture of brandies. The Messrs. Boker never imported 
 any brandies into Philadelphia that, to my knowledge, were seized 
 and forfeited. A seizure and forfeiture would have to be on the 
 ground of some fraud in the valuation or importation in violation of 
 the revenue laws. This case was a mere dispute whether the brandies 
 had been valued too high and too much duties charged. The charac- 
 ter of the duty that Mr. Baker was to perform did not require a 
 professional gentleman ; on the contrary, I considered that a profes- 
 sional gentleman would be the worst person I could send for that pur- 
 pose, and for that reason I recommended that Mr. Hays perform the 
 duties, who is an able and accomplished business man, and who would, 
 no doubt, have discharged the whole duty for fifty dollars. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other service in respect to any other 
 matter that Mr. Baker rendered ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Baker never rendered any service, to my knowledge, 
 in any matter in court. On all occasions when it has been necessary 
 for the collector to be in court, I have sent for the collector himself ; 
 and it was only necessary for him to be there when his personal 
 presence was required, to do those things which cannot be done by 
 deputy, such as signing bonds on appeals of cases to the Supreme 
 Court and the like. Mr. Baker never has performed any services in 
 court in reference to any cases between the government and any 
 citizen, to my knowledge, except on one or two instances, when he 
 appeared before the United States commissioner on examinations of 
 persons charged with offences against the government. And in those 
 instances he appeared for the defendants and not for the government, 
 but against it. These were cases of persons charged with offences 
 against the revenue laws and occured while he held the office in the 
 custom-house. 
 
 Question. What do you know in respect to his discharging any 
 duties in the custom-house in the capacity of clerk or assistant cashier ? 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge upon that subject ; I have 
 been told, however, by merchants 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW objects to hearsay testimony. 
 
 By Mr. OiiN : 
 
 Questioi^ What is his business, and where is his place of employ- 
 ment ? Are y ^ 'i familiar with that ? 
 
336 PHILADELPHIA. NAVT YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer, I know by reputation what his businesB is ; I have never 
 been in the office where he is employed since he has been there. 
 
 Question. What is understood to be his business there ? 
 
 Answer. Editor of the " PennSylvanian," and I think he has a 
 law office somewhere in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question, Practicing in the courts to any considerable extent? 
 
 Answer. I never have seen him engaged in any case before the court; 
 he may have practiced professionally, however, notwithstanding that. 
 
 Question. What is this " Pennsylvanian," a daily paper or a 
 weekly paper ? 
 
 Answer. A daily paper. 
 
 Question, A democratic paper ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he considers it so ; or rather it profeses to be bo; 
 I do not know what he considers it. 
 
 Question. What office do you understand that he claims to fill and 
 discharge the duties of in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. Assistant cashier and disbursing clerk ; the office is called 
 technically. 
 
 Question, Is there any such office provided for by law ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that there is any such office provided for 
 directly by law. If not, however, I suppose the office has been created 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury under power given to him by law 
 for that purpose. There always has been, however, within my recol- 
 lection, such an office in Philadelphia. There is an office of cashier, 
 at $1,500 a year ; and there is an office of assistant cashier and dis- 
 bursing clerk, at $1,200 a year ; up to 1858, and some time in the year 
 1858, the office of cashier was filled by George W, Burr, I think ; the 
 office of assistant cashier, by John Goodyear. Mr. Barr died and Mr. 
 Goodyear was promoted to his place. Mr. Goodyear was always in 
 attendance in his office, so far as my knowledge goes ; at least when- 
 ever I went to the custom-house during the hours of office duty pro- 
 vided for by the regulations. 
 
 Question. Have you, during the last two years, been frequentlyin 
 the custom-house during hours of business ? 
 
 Answer. Very seldom, sir ; my duties do not call me there, and 
 since the winter of 1858 and 1859 I have never been there for social 
 or personal purposes. I have been there occasionally for the purpose 
 of obtaining papers necessary in litigations. I have gone there always 
 when public duties required, and then only. 
 
 Question. On any of those occasions did you ever see George W. 
 Baker there ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect anything of ever seeing George W. 
 Baker in the custom-house. 
 
 There is one statement I would like to make here. I understand 
 that Mr. George W. Baker has stated in his testimony that it was 
 necessary for him to be employed by the collector to. attend to matters 
 in court, on account of the personal relations between the collector 
 and myself. 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW. Who informed you of that? 
 
 The Chairman. I told him there was such testimony here. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVT YARD, ETC. 337 
 
 Mr. Olin. I will read the testimony to the witness now. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I have no objections to that. But I have serious 
 objections to any one talking to witnesses outside of the committee 
 about testimony. 
 
 The Chairman. I think it would he a very good thing to order that 
 no testimony go out of the possession of the committee, and^I shall 
 submit that motion at the proper time. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I have no complaint to make of this witness. 
 
 By Mr. Olin, [to witness :] 
 
 Question. What G. W. Baker stated is this, and we want to inquire 
 of you whether that is so or not, and that will probably give you an 
 opportunity to explain the matter. 
 
 " It may be as well to state in this connexion, so that it may 
 properly appear, that the personal relations between the district 
 attorney and my brother have been of such a character that there 
 could have been no communications of a confidential character between 
 them, because my brother would not appoint certain men that the 
 district attorney required ; that caused unfriendly relations, which 
 have continued since ;• that created the necessity of having some one 
 about him in whom he could confide." 
 
 Now you may answer in respect to that. 
 
 Answer. In relation to the allegation on the part of Mr. Baker, 
 that the personal relations between myself and the collector required 
 his appointment, I have to say that it is wholly false, and the best 
 proof that it is so is contained in the fact thf t the relations existing 
 between the collector and myself are about the same as they are 
 between myself and George W. Baker. I think George W. Baker 
 the worse of the two, and would much prefer friendly, political, per- 
 sonal, and social relations with the collector than with him. This, 
 however, was not the case at the time of his appointment, but became 
 so very shortly after — the change of relations between George W. 
 Baker and myself, I mean ; and one cause of that change, so far as 
 I am concerned, was the fact that I disapproved of his appointment, 
 and holding the ofJSce, under the circumstances under which he held it. 
 
 Question. Of George W. Baker holding the oflfice? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that he was not appointed to the office of 
 assistant cashier for the purpose of performing any duty in the case 
 of Boker vs. Brown is al'^o very clear from the fact that he was 
 appointed in November, 1858, and there was no request made upon 
 the collector to detail a person to hunt up testimony in the case of 
 Boker vs. Brown until February or March, 1859, or thereabouts. 
 
 Question. Was there more than one case between the government 
 and Boker and others ? 
 
 Answer. There were several importations and appraisements, I 
 think, made at different times ; whether they were all involved in one 
 suit I do not now remember, but they were all treated as one suit. 
 
 Question. There was the same question involved in all of them as to 
 the over- valuation in the appraisement ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there was another case in which I desired Mr. 
 Biaker to hunt up the testimony, which came on afterwards, and 
 
 H. EeD. Com. 648 22 
 
338 PHILADELPHIA NATY YARD, ETC. 
 
 ■whicli is now pending in one of its branches before the Supreme Court; 
 the case of Parrishvs. Brown, Parrish vs. Lewis, and Parrishus. Baker. 
 It involved the question of the character of corduroys, and under 
 what schedule of the tariff they were to be appraised ; I desired Mr. 
 Baker to get some scientific testimony upon the subject. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did he procure that testimony for you ? 
 
 Answer. He did not. 
 
 Question. "What reason did he give for not getting it ? 
 
 Answer. I met him upon the street ; he never came to my ofiSce in 
 reference to it, and I asked him whether he was going to attend to 
 the procuring of that testimony ; he said he was so much engaged in 
 a steamship line that was then being got up in Philadelphia, in which 
 he took a very active part, that he would not have time to do it ; I 
 then sent for an old merchant in Philadelphia, who had beea in the 
 appraiser's office, and had been removed I think a few days previous, 
 and asked him to take the matter in charge and get the testimony for 
 me ; he was a very competent man ; his name was Mr. Mayherry. 
 
 Question. In everything that Mr. Baker did in these cases in refer- 
 ence to looking up testimony, what time would it have required for. a 
 competent man to accomplish all he did so far as your knowledge of 
 the transactions extends ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know all he did ; in hunting up testimony, as. 
 every professional man knows, a man does a great deal very often, that 
 is of no use ; that produces no beneficial result ; I cannot tell all that 
 he did ; hut I should suppose that, with the exception of going to 
 New York, that case could be most thoroughly prepared, so far as 
 testimony is concerned, in two or three days, if the party having in 
 charge these preparations could meet the persons he went to see and 
 understood his business. I think Mr. Hays would have done it in that 
 time ; and I suppose the same period would be required in making a 
 visit to New York for that purpose ? 
 
 Question. Under ordinary circumstances one might have readily ac- 
 complished all that Mr. Baker did, I suppose, in a period of one 
 week ? . 
 
 Answer. As far as I know, all that he did, which was to go to New 
 York, could have been done in less than that period of time. 
 
 Question. He says that he looked around in Philadelphia some. 
 
 Answer. I do think that, under ordinary circumstances, a week 
 would have been a fair time for accomplishing all that he did ; tvfo 
 W€eks would have been more than ample. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Questran. As you are familiar with all the laws and regulations, I 
 will ask you if you know of any that authorizes the collector to have 
 a clerk to attend to his business, writing his letters, &c.? 
 
 Answer. Do you refer to his private business or to his official busi- 
 ness? 
 
 Question. Either ; had he any authority to employ his brother to 
 ^ansact this business and pay him out of the government funds ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY TARD, ETC. 339 
 
 , Answer. I do not know of any law or regulation authorizing the 
 collector to employ a private secretary ; there are clerks employed in 
 the custom-house, in the revenue department, provided for by law or 
 regulations ; they are all in the Blue Book, or ought to be ; I know of 
 no law that authorizes the collector to appoint an assistant cashier 
 and pay him the salary of an assistant cashier, and then employ his 
 time in doing those duties which particularly pertain to the collector 
 himself, and for which he receives a salary. 
 
 Question. Did you know that Mr. Baker's name was not in the Blue 
 Book? 
 
 Answer. I have been informed of that fact within a few days past ; 
 I did not know it before. 
 
 Question. Is it not irregular to employ a man in that capacity and 
 not have his name in the Blue Book at all ? 
 
 Answer. I think there is an act of Congress, passed on the 3d of 
 March, 1649, section 6 of which requires the Secretary of the Treasury 
 to report at each session of Congress the number of persons employed 
 and occupied, and the salary of each person employed, at each custom- 
 house in the United States. 
 
 Question. As you are familiar with all these laws and regulations, 
 if you have no objections I would like you to state whether, in your 
 opinion, it is a violation of any criminal law of the United States for 
 
 person to hold an office in the custom-house and draw his salary 
 when the duties of that office have not been performed? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to that question. It is totally irrelevant to 
 this inquiry and not at all pertinent. Mr. Van Dyke's opinion about 
 a law question is not proper testimony for us to take. 
 
 The Chairman. I asked the question because I was satisfied he 
 could give us a full answer to it. 
 
 Mr. Olin. It is not merely his opinion that we want, but informa- 
 tion as to what the law is; because, although a man is bound by law 
 to have a knowledge of the law, many have no knowledge of the law. 
 
 The Chairman. I expect to get from the witness a reference to a 
 law for our satisfaction. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I have no objection to that, but I do not think it is 
 light to ask his opinion. 
 
 The Chairman, (to witness.) Will you refer to the law as an answer 
 to the question ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer this last question in a professional and 
 legal way without answering the entire question put by the chairman 
 of this committee. 
 
 The Chairman. The reason I asked this question is that there is 
 criminality somewhere j and Mr. Van Dyke being very familiar with 
 the law, I thought he could give us information in a condensed form 
 which would be satisfactory to us. 
 
 Mr. WiNSiiOW. About Mr, Bakor's holding office? 
 
 The Chairman. About returns being made under oath of his having 
 performed the service, when he had not done it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is a fact, about the returns being wrong. The 
 witness can be asked if he knows that fact. 
 
340 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 JAMES C. VAN DYKE recalled : 
 By the Cuairman : 
 
 Question. On a former occasion you stated that if you had had any 
 correspondence with the President previous to a certain date it was of 
 a private and confidential character. Will you please state whether 
 you have had any correspondence with him since that time ; and if so, 
 whether that, also, is of a private and confidential character ? 
 
 Answer. I have had some correspondence with the President since 
 the 14th of March. His first letter was marked "private," but at 
 my request the injunction of secrecy was removed. 
 
 Question. Will you produce that correspondence that is not of a 
 private and confidential character ? Or, I will ask yon, does it relate 
 in any matter to your removal from office or the interference of federal 
 officers in the elections ? 
 
 Answer. It relates to my removal from office and to the combination 
 of the federal officers for the purpose of controlling the ward elections. 
 
 Question. Have you any objection to producing that correspondence ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think there is anything in it which could come 
 under the class of privileged communications. 
 
 Questions. Have you copies of those letters here ? 
 
 Answer. I have copies of them in one of the rooms up stairs. 
 
 Question. Can you get those copies ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you produce them ? 
 
 Answer. I have myself no objection to producing that correspond- 
 ence. 
 
 The Chairman. You will please procure those copies and submit 
 them to the committee. 
 
 [The witness here left the committee-room for the purpose of ob- 
 taining the correspondence, which he subsequently handed to the 
 chairman.] 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I wish to say that no letter from the President to 
 any officer of the United States, while in office, is competent testimony. 
 Nor can the removal of any officer by the President be a subject for 
 examination by Congress. The subject of removal is alone within the 
 power of the President. 
 
 The following are the papers handed by the witness to the commit- 
 tee: 
 
 [private.] 
 
 Washington, March 14, 1860. 
 My Dear Sir : The official duties of the collector of an important 
 port and those of the district attorney are in their nature so intimately 
 cftnnected that it is quite impossible foy them to conduct the public 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 341 
 
 business with due regard to the public interests while they are in a 
 state of such open and inveterate hostility as to forbid all personal 
 and official intercourse with each other. This being now, and having 
 been for some time past, the condition of affairs between yourself and 
 Mr. Baker, it has been finally resolved to make a change, and this in 
 accordance with the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior, and Attorney General, the members of the ad- 
 ministration exercising a supervision respectively over each of the two 
 officers. 
 
 I deem it due to our friendly relations to communicate this deter- 
 mination to you in advance. This is the more especially proper, as 
 in May, 1858, it was solely on my solicitation you would consent to 
 remain, and this only for a few months ; and I have reason to believe 
 the place has not since become more agreeable to you. 
 
 From your friend, very respectlully, 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 James 0. Van Dyke, Esquire. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 16, 1860. 
 
 My Dbah Sir : Tour letter to me under date of the 14th instant is 
 this morning received, in which you inform me that " the duties of 
 the collector of an important port and those of the district attorney 
 are in their nature so intimately connected that it is quite impossible 
 for them to conduct the public business with due regard to the public 
 interests whilst they are in a state of such open and inveterate hos- 
 tility as to forbid all personal and official intercourse with each other," 
 and that for this reason it has been finally resolved to make a change, 
 in accordance with the views of the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
 Secretary of the Interior, and the Attorney General. I regret that 
 your letter is marked "private/' since, coming from the President 
 with whose appointment I have been honored, and concerning as it 
 does my official conduct, I should not be expected to treat it as such. 
 
 I of course have no objection to offer to the determination on the 
 part of the administration to make the proposed change ; but you will, 
 I trust, excuse me in not allowing the impression to go abroad that this 
 change is required because the personal and political relations existing 
 between the collector of the port and myself have ever prevented on 
 my part the proper discharge of official duties, or that such relations 
 have in any way conflicted with the public interests. That such a 
 change is not controlled by these considerations is fairly inferabl-j 
 from the fact that the personal and political relations that at preserifc 
 exist between the collector of the port and myself are precisely the 
 same as they were at the time of my appointment, and when at your 
 
342 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 personal " solicitation" I accepted the office, and are the same as they 
 had been, with the full knowledge of the administration, for nearly 
 one year previous to that appointment. 
 
 My relations with the collector, as I have frequently informed you, 
 in conversation and by letter, are the result of my unwillingness to 
 approve the conduct of the collector in his tyrannical abuse of the 
 patronage of the federal government, with a view to control the wishes 
 of the people in their primary local elections. This, in conformity 
 with your own just views, as expressed in times past, when in 1839- 
 '40, 1843-'44, and 1847-'48, it was supposed the same power was 
 used to prevent your political advancement, I have always disap- 
 proved and discountenanced to the extent of my ability. The band- 
 ing together by a collector of customs of the entire force of subordinate 
 federal officers, the necessities of many of whom may compel them 
 to yield their own convictions to his threats of removal, and the con- 
 trolling of the political preferences of other persons under promises of 
 appointment, are infringements of the rights of the people, a violation 
 of the democratic spirit of our institutions, and at all times dangerous 
 to the purity and perpetuity of an elective government. And in jus- 
 tification of my course, I have to say, in a spirit of the utmost kind- 
 ness and good feeling to yourself personally, that no desire for office 
 nor fear of removal could induce me so far to forget my self-respect 
 or forego my rights as a citizen as to yield even a silent acquiescence 
 in the conduct of the gentleman who in this respect has so grossly ? 
 abused the federal patronage in this State. 
 
 This has been heretofore the cause of diversity of opinion between 
 the collector and myself. An additional cause has arisen within a 
 short time, which, being now fresh, appears to be the principal matter 
 of complaint. I refer to the fact that within a few weeks, when the 
 subject was brought to my notice by a citizen of Philadelphia, I ex- 
 pressed my disapprobation of the conduct of the collector of the port, 
 (if correctly reported to me,) in paying to persons professedly em- 
 ployed in the revenue service large salaries out of the public treasury, 
 when it is said such persons notoriously do not discbarge the duties 
 of their appointments, but either devote their time to other business 
 callings, or are engaged in the discharge of other public duties, prop- 
 erly compensated for at a lower rate of salary. This I have consid- 
 ered to be in direct violation of law and treasury regulations, and as 
 subjecting all who were knowingly concerned in it to censure. I have 
 condemned it, therefore, in compliance with my official obligation to 
 the government, and with the confident belief that my conduct in 
 such matter would meet the approval of the country and the govern^ 
 ment. 
 
 I have also to state that about October, 1859, I frankly informed 
 you that if my course in all matters of party issues, though hostile to 
 the dictaition of the collector of the port, was not approved by you, I 
 could not longer continue in office. You at that time informed me 
 that there was nothing which had occurred to lessen your confidence, 
 or to cause you to desire a change, but, on the contrary., that your 
 wish was, I would continue in my position, at the same time express- 
 ing a desire that I should be on friendly personal and political re* 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 343 
 
 lations-with the collector which I said was impossible. It is also for 
 this reason that the cause now given for my removal is to me the more 
 unaccountable, for since then nothing has occurred to change my 
 official relations with the officers at Philadelphia, except it be that 
 arising from my official notice of the report of the improper payment 
 of salaries by the collector to which I have alluded, and in regard to 
 which J have expressed my opinion that upon information properly 
 laid no district attorney could refuse to entertain a prosecution. I 
 have already written to the proper department for information ; but 
 whether the charge is sustained by all the facts, I have not been able 
 to say, the informant not having pressed a further investigation. 
 
 Having made this statement with the view of placing the cause of 
 my removal on what I conceive to be the true basis, I have only to 
 add, that all the papers and documents in my possession belonging to 
 the United States will be ready for delivery to my successor as soon 
 as he may be designated and duly qualified. 
 
 I am, sir, with sfcsurances of my personal regard, respectfully, your 
 friend, and obedient servant, 
 
 JAMES C. VAN DYKE, 
 Attorney far U. S., Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Pbesident. 
 
 Washington, March 19, 1860. 
 
 Mt Dbab Sir : I reply to your favor of the 16th instant received 
 yesterday, for the purpose of stating that you are quite at liberty to 
 use my letter of the 14th instant as though it had not been marked 
 "private." 
 
 I repeat emphatically that this letter presents my reasons for 
 making a change in the office of district attorney. My extreme re- 
 luctance to do what might be disagreeable to you, has prevented me 
 from addressing you at an earlier period, and this, although your 
 official superiors in the different departments were long since of opinion 
 that the public interests required such a change. 
 
 I had hoped, although almost against hope, wheni last solicited you 
 to remain in office, that your personal regard for myself, if nothing 
 else, would eventually induce you to modify your hostility against 
 tlie collector to such a degree as to induce you to hold personal and 
 official intercourse with him concerning your respective public duties. 
 Had this been the case it is all I should ever have required. In this 
 hope, I am sorry to say, 1 have been entirely disappointed. 
 
 I shall part with you with deep and sincere regret, and at the 
 present moment entertain no feelings towards you and yours, except 
 those of hearty good will. 
 
 From your friend, very respectfully, 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 James 0. Van Dyke, Esq. 
 
344 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC, 
 
 Philadelphia, March 24, 1860. 
 
 My Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the 
 2l8t instant, of your letter under date of the 19th instant. 
 
 Before receiving your communication of the 14th instant I had heen 
 furnished with no intimation from yourself personally, or from any 
 member of your administration, that the personal relations existing 
 between the collector of the port and myself were such as interfered 
 with the proper discharge of my official duties. These relations, dis- 
 tasteful as they may have indeed been, have, however, upon no occa- 
 sion been allowed by myself to stand in the way of that official inter- 
 course which the public interests required. 
 
 Your conversations with me, as well as your letters to me on this 
 subject, have invariably referred to the subject in its political aspects, 
 and as affecting, the management of internal party politics, in which I 
 have always considered every citizen fully competent to judge of his 
 own course without the assistance of a collector of customs. This was 
 especially the case in our last conversation to which you have referred, 
 and in which you will no doubt, upon reflection, remember official 
 duties and relations were not mentioned Your only request of me at 
 that time was that I would not interfere with the collector in hie 
 management of the then approaching campaign to elect delegates to 
 our State convention, called for the purpose of nominating a governor 
 and sending delegates to the Charleston national convention. And 
 the only occasion in which I ever had any intercourse with any other 
 member of the administration touching this matter was in 1858, when 
 the Attorney General in conversation informed me that in his opinion 
 the good of the party required union and concert of action among all the 
 federal officers. This conversation referred only to unity in the man- 
 agement of internal party politics, and had special reference to the 
 judicial nominating convention. The tenor of his conversation was 
 to secure a complete combination ajiong the federal officers of a cha»- 
 acter that did not receive my approval, for I have always regarded 
 such combinations as in conflict with the doctrine of State rights as 
 interpreted by the democratic party, and have believed that to unite 
 in them would be derogatory to every feeling of self-respect. 
 
 I regret that the duty I owe to myself and to those friends with 
 whom I have acted requires me to say this much, and I do it with no 
 other desire than to place myself correctly before you and them. 
 
 With the assurance that I reciprocate your expressions of personal 
 good feeling, I am, sir, your friend, very respectfully, 
 
 JAMES G. VAN DYKE. 
 
 His excellency James Buchanan, 
 
 FresideiU. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAKD, ETC, 345 
 
 Before Commissioner Chas. 
 F. Heazlitt, at Philadel- 
 phia. 
 
 "BMUGGLtNG," 
 
 The United States oe America, 
 
 vs. 
 JoaiN Emory, James Eusk, and Valentine 
 
 Kerbaugh, 
 
 1859. — July 19. — Affidavit of Edward Eiley taken and process exe- 
 cuted. 
 
 Defendants present ; Edward Riley sworn, and con- 
 tinued till to-morrow, at 10 a. m. 
 
 Eecognizance of Eusk and Kerbaugh, in |500, taken, 
 and commitment executed for Emory. 
 
 Eecognizance of Emory filed. 
 20. — Defendants present, with counsel ; Mr. Baker for 
 Eusk and Kerbaugh, Mr. Barger for Emory. 
 
 Anthony Campbell sworn. 
 
 Benjamin Eedman sworn. 
 
 Mr. Stevens, for United States of America, asks for 
 continuance, on the ground of absence of material 
 witnesses ; continued till to-morrow, at 10 a. m. 
 21. — Defendants present, with counsel. 
 
 Edward Irvine sworn. 
 
 Morris Corl sworn. 
 
 A. Campbell recalled. 
 
 Wm. Harbeson sworn. 
 
 Jas. Pidgeon sworn. 
 
 Andrew Alexander sworn. 
 
 After hearing district attorney for United States, 
 (who asks that defendants be held for larceny, 
 &c., and landing goods without permit,) and Mr. 
 Baker and Mr. Barger for defendants, defendants 
 required to enter bail in $800, conditioned for 
 appearance to answer for landing, and aiding and 
 assisting to land, without permit, &c. , under 50th 
 section of act of Congress of March 2, 1799. — (1 
 St. L., 665.) 
 
 Eecognizance of Jas. Eusk and David McOlain taken 
 and filed. 
 
 Eecognizance of V. Kerbaugh and David McClain 
 taken and filed. 
 
 UiiSiTED States, Eastern Dislrict of Pennsylvania : 
 
 I certify the within to be a true and faithful transcript of the docket 
 entries in the within case. 
 
 I , Witness my hand and seal, at Philadelphia, April 16, 1860. 
 l^- S-J CHAS. F. HEAZLITT, 
 
 U. S. Commissioner. 
 
346 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 No. 46. 
 
 Fridat, May 4, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS Mcdonough called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Qupstion. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I live in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am master blacksmith in the United States navy yard. 
 
 Question. Were you employed in the custom-house at Philadelphia 
 in] 856? 
 
 Answer. I was, as an inspector of customs. 
 
 Question. Can you give the committee any information relativo o 
 the distribution of naturalization papers at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Before I answer that question I would, if it is respectful to 
 you and the committee, simply ask you what you base your question 
 upon ; whether you have any information before the committee to lead 
 you to suppose that I should have any knowledge of that kind ? 
 
 Question. I have a memorandum somewhere, but I cannot now find 
 it ; and in addition to that I think your name was mentioned in some 
 testimony given here, either as having had something to do with that 
 matter, or knowing something about it. 
 
 Mr. Train. I do not think you should inform the witness about 
 these matters ? 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State whether you know anything about the distribution 
 of any naturalization papers at that time ? 
 
 Answer. I will tell you all that I knew about it at that time, and 
 every other election time we have in Pennsylvania. When there is a 
 political contest, both parties have what we call an executive com- 
 mittee ; they appoint a sub-committee, who see to the naturalization 
 of foreigners who live in the different localities of the city, and wl» 
 would be likely to vote their ticket ; the republican and democratic 
 party both have naturalization committees ; they hunt up and find 
 out persons who are legally entitled to their papers, and if they have 
 not money enough to get them they very often pay for them, and ^t 
 them out in that way ; that is all 1 know about that matter. 
 
 Question. Did you attend to distributing any papers yourself? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I do not think 
 
 The Witness. With the greatest respect to you and everybody else, 
 I desire to make a statement which I do not wish to go down on the 
 testimony. 
 
 [The witness then referred to his hitherto good character, &c., and 
 denied the right to be asked such questions.] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You are already charged with having distributed fraudJii- 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 347 
 
 ent naturalization papers ; it is for you to explain whether you did 
 ?o or not? 
 
 Answer. Who charges me ? It is customary for a man to know who 
 makes the charges, who his accuser is. 
 
 Question. If you come here to argue the point that is another 
 matter ; we ask you whether you did or did not distribute any fraudu- 
 lent naturalization papers in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. When a man goes into a court of justice is he made to say 
 whether he committed a crime or not ? 
 
 Question. We will take your answer whatever you choose to give. 
 
 Answer. I decline answering any question of the kind. 
 
 The Chairman [to witness.] Then we do not want you any further, 
 I suppose ; it may be proper to state that by the statute of the United 
 States a man's evidence cannot be used to criminate hijn. 
 
 Mr. Train. The law ia that his evidence cannot be used against 
 him. 
 
 The Witness. I have no desire whatever to conceal anything from 
 the committee. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think the witness may criminate himself under the 
 laws of Pennsylvania, if they have no laws there like the United 
 States statute upon this subject. 
 
 The Witness. If there is anything that has been said here calculated 
 to impeach my standing in the community, should I not have an op- 
 portunity to defend myself? While it may not make me amenable to 
 the laws, it may injure my character. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW requested the witness to leave the committee-room for 
 a few moments. 
 
 After the witness had retired the testimony of Mr. West was read 
 over to the committee, and some conversation ens«ed thereon. 
 
 The witness was then recalled to the room — 
 
 And Mr. Winslow said to him : We have looked over the testi- 
 mony, and your name is not mentioned there, though the party refers 
 to some individual. 
 
 Mr. Train. The committee are acting upon some information that 
 they received outside, not in committee, and if you desire to say any- 
 thing further you can do so. 
 
 The Witness. Since I left the room I have been considering in rela- 
 tion to ray testimony that it might lead to the supposition that I had 
 some knowledge that I wanted to conceal from you, and in order to 
 make myself perfectly understood I have no hesitancy in swearing 
 positively that I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Mr. Winslow, You protest against the right to ask you the question, 
 and you answer it in that way. 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir. ^ 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you mean to deny ever having distributed any fraudu- 
 lent naturalization papers yourself, or having any personal knowledge 
 of its being done by others in Philadelphia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I do ; I deny doing it myself or having any 
 knowledge of anybody else doing it. 
 
348 PHILADELPHIA NAVT YARD, ETC. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know a man by the name of Chris, a messenger 
 to the appraiser ? 
 
 Answer. There was a man by the name of Christopher or Krish ; 
 they called him Dutch Chris ; he was a messenger of some kind in 
 the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Was he, in 1856, a messenger to the appraiser ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I know him, but cannot think of his name. 
 
 Question. Were you aware of his being out of the office any at that 
 time attending to anything other than his duties ? 
 
 Answer. I was in the inspector's ofBce, and the appraiser's office 
 was right over us ; he might have been out for weeks and I not know 
 anything about it. 
 
 Question. DM you hear anything said about his being engaged out 
 of the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had. very little acquaintance with him. 
 
 No. 4Y. 
 Friday, May 4, 1860. 
 
 JOHN H. BRYANT called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Where do you live, and what is your occupation ? 
 Answer. I am chief clerk in the storekeeper's office in the Phila- 
 delphia navy yard. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you know Theophilus Fiske, now or formerly editor 
 of the Argus, in Philadelphia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Had he an appointment in the custom-house, do you 
 know ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he had. 
 
 Question. How long have you known him? 
 
 Answer. I have known him intimately for two or three years. 
 
 Question. How long have you been in the custom-house yourself? 
 
 Answer. I have not been in the custom-house ; I am in the navy 
 yard. 
 
 Question. Had Mr. Fiske any position under the naval storekeeper? 
 
 Answer. He held the position of second clerk. 
 
 Question. When was he appointed ? 
 
 Answer. During the late administration of Mr. Pierce. 
 
 Question. How long did he hold the appointment ? 
 
 Answer, I should think he held it about a year. 
 
 Question. Did he go out with Mr. Pierce's administration ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he was removed by the present storekeeper. 
 
 Question. During the time he held the appointment, did he to your 
 knowledge perform any duty there ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 349 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 Question. Nothing? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What salary did he receive ? 
 
 Answer. I think the salary of the second clerk is $750 a year. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he drew his pay ? 
 
 Answer. I know that he drew it sometimes ; I presume he did all 
 the time ; I do not know. 
 
 Question. Do you know Charles Cammings ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen him ; I have had no acquaintance with him ; 
 I have seen him only three or four times. 
 
 Question. What is his business ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that. 
 
 Question. Had he any position in the naval store in 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. When Mr. Cummiogs removed Mr. Fiske, he appointed 
 Charles Cummings. 
 
 Question. Is he there still ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How long did he remain there ? 
 
 Answer. He held that position five or six months, perhaps. 
 
 Question. Did he perform any duty ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not that I know of. 
 
 Question. Did he draw his pay ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that ? 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Charles Clement ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did be succeed Cummings as second clerk ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Does he still hold the position? 
 
 Answer. I believe he does. 
 
 Question. Does he perform any duties in the storekeeper's office? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he is down to the place every day ; there is not 
 much doing there now ; he has not held the position long. 
 
 Question. He was appointed last year, some time, was he not ? 
 
 Answer. I presume he has been there in the neighborhood of six 
 months. 
 
 Question. Has this Mr. Clement any other business than that of 
 second clerk ? 
 
 Answer. He is a bricklayer. 
 
 Question. Has he any capacity as a bookkeeper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether he has or not. 
 
 Question. You say he performs no duty there? 
 
 Answer. He does not ; he has performed none in our department. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he continues his business as a 
 bricklayer ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, he does. 
 
 Question. How does he get his pay as second clerk ? 
 
350 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; we all draw from the purser. 
 
 Question. Does he give you a blank receipt to get kis money from 
 the purser ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Is that done by any of the employes in the storekeeper's 
 office? 
 
 Answer. Sometimes they give blank receipts, but they have to sign 
 the purser's roll. Perhaps if they wanted some money the purser 
 would give it to them on their receipt. 
 
 Question. Then, if I understand you, this man Clement has been 
 there some six months, drawing his pay regularly, performing no duty 
 there, and attending to his own business outside of the yard ? 
 , Answer. I presume he draws his pay ; he is on the roll, but I never 
 saw him receive the money. 
 
 Question. Do you know a man by the name of Frederic Walker ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Does he hold a position in the navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. He is nothing but a messenger in our office. 
 
 Question. What are his duties ? 
 
 Answer. Well ; he makes the fires, sweeps and cleans up, and runs 
 of errands. 
 
 Question. Is he there every day? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw : 
 
 Question. What pay does he get ? 
 
 Answer. I think he gets $1 25 a day ; he is paid only for the time 
 he is attending to his duties. 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. Is he employed at the Argus office also ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not that I know of. 
 
 Question. You do not know of his having any other business than 
 that of messenger in your office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether, at any time, stationery, which is 
 furnished to the yard by the contractor, has been sent to the Argus office, 
 or persons connected with the Argus, for the benefit of that paper ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you ever sent it yourself? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Has it ever been sent, with your knowledge? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of navy yard stationery having been sent to 
 Colonel Florence ? 
 
 Answer. Not navy yard stationery ; no, sir. 
 
 Question. What stationery ? 
 
 Answer. I have sent him some stationery that I have got in Phila- 
 delphia, when he has told me to get it, but not from the navy yard, 
 though. 
 
 Question. Stationery that you bought ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that he gave me an order to get from Mr. Mau- 
 
PniLADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 351 
 
 rice, .on Chestnut street ; I might have been sent up there to get it, 
 and I might have sent it to him in that way, but it was not navy yard 
 stationery. 
 
 Question. Have you ever sent other articles belonging to the United 
 States stores to persons outside ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you ever sent any by one William Severns, an em- 
 ploye in the yard ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Nothing of any bind? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; nothing belonging to the government. He has 
 been up with this stationery that I speak of, that I got from Mr. 
 Maurice, under Colonel Florence's order. 
 
 Question. Have you not sent away furniture made in the yard to 
 persons outside? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that is not in our department at all. 
 
 Question. I suppose not ; but I do not know what you are about in 
 the Philadelphia navy yard. The allegation is, that you have sent 
 away tables, and bureaus, and chairs, &c. — some of them made in the 
 yard, and all of them belonging to the government — to parties out- 
 side. 
 
 Answer. That allegation is not true. 
 
 Question. Have you a son, a clerk, under you in the office? 
 
 Answer. My step-son is there as a writer. 
 
 Question. Do you ever collect money from the employes of the 
 government in the yard for political purposes ? 
 
 Answer. I have had money given to me (not from the employes) 
 from some of the men in the yard ; that is, the bosses. 
 
 Question. How is it done, by voluntary contribution or assessment, 
 or how is it ? 
 
 Answer. Well, they generally look for the yard to raise a certain 
 amount ; and sometimes moneys have been paid to me, which I have 
 handed over -to the executive committee for the city. I have done so 
 in one or two instances — two instances, I think. 
 
 Question. Is this compulsory to any extent ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Entirely voluntary? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you make out a memorandum of the names of parties 
 employed in the yard with their salaries, and then ask them fbr a 
 .percentage upon their salaries ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or do you ask them to subscribe what they choose? _ 
 
 Answer. It is generally the master workmen who collect it; it is 
 voluntary on their part. The city ^.ecutive committee would say 
 that they wanted so much money, and the bosses and the master 
 workmen, in one or two instances, have handed the money to me ; 
 sometimes they attend to it themselves. I have paid my portion ; 
 no particular amount. 
 
 Question. Is this done at every election, or only at the congressional 
 or presidential election ? 
 
352 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Well, it is generally done at every election. 
 
 Question. What amount of money is raised at the navy yard 
 generally? 
 
 Answer. It varies. We get sometimes $100, sometimes |200 or 
 $300 ; hardly ever over $300. 
 
 Question. What amount did you raise for the last city election ? 
 
 Answer. I understood there was about $150. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect how much was raised for the congres- 
 sional election of 1858? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. What do you suppose could have led any one to tlimk 
 that you had shipped iurniture belonging to the government away 
 from the yard to other parties ? 
 
 Answer. In two instances a vessel going between>here and Phila- 
 delphia, which was called the Colonel Florence, lay outside of the 
 yard ; and Colonel Florence asked me to get the consent of Captain 
 Lee to allow his furniture to be carried through the yard and put on 
 board that schooner. 
 
 Question. At the time Mr. Fiske was second clerk he was one of 
 the editors of the Argus, was he not? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is the Argus owned in whole or in part by Colonel 
 Florence? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. It is owned by Severns & Co. 
 
 Question. Had this Cummings anything to do with the Argus 
 office? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or Charles Clement? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. You have stated that Clement was there every day? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. That there was very little to do ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there has been very little to do since he has 
 been there. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other editor of the Argus being paid 
 from your department while rendering no services ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Fiske was the editor of the Argus. 
 
 Question. I asked about any other editor. 
 
 Answer. That was previous to Mr. Fiske. Harris N. Martin was 
 the first second clerk we had there. He was then ah editor. 
 
 Question. Did he receive ]^af from the government while rendering 
 no services? 
 
 Answer. He was there sometimeK, and rendered some service. 
 
 Question. Has it not been customary for the editors of that paper, 
 or parties in interest, to get pay from the government, directly or in- 
 directly, without rendering any services? 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Yon should ask tbe witness to state the facts. 
 
priiLAD^tPHr:^ NiVY YA:^ti, Etc. 353 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of other cases where parties have received 
 pay without rendering services ? 
 
 Answer. Those were the only two we have had there — Mr. Fiske 
 and Mr. _ Martin — that were connected in any way with the Argus. 
 
 Question. What I asked was, whether you know of any other per- 
 sons who received pay without rendering service ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 No. 54. 
 
 Wednesday, May 9, 1860. 
 
 FEANOIS GEIOE called and examined. 
 By the Chaikman: 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside at present at Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a naval constructor. 
 
 Question. Where are you emplbyed at present ? 
 
 Answer. I am now on leave of absence. 
 
 Question. Where have you been employed? 
 
 Answer. At Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 
 
 Question. You have given testimony before the other investigating 
 committee, I believe ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; I left the yard soon aftier that testimony. 
 
 Question. All that we want now is your knowledge of what has 
 ttahSpired since the closiiig of that testimony, with regard to the 
 Navy Department? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of anything very remarkable. 
 
 Question. Were you not applied to to endorse a certain Patrick 
 Lafferty as master carpenter ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. State what you know about it then ? 
 
 Answer. All that I know about Mr. Pat. Lafferty is that he was 
 sent to the yard and appointed, provided he could pass an examina- 
 tion. 
 
 Question. Whose duty was it to examine him ? 
 
 Answer, The duty was assigned to the commandant of the yard, 
 engineer of the navy, and myself, and the duty devolved upon me, 
 being ship- carpenter, and the other gentlemen not knowing mubh 
 about the subject ; so I examined him^that is, I put such simple 
 questions to him as any carpenter could answer, but he did not answer 
 them satisfactorily, and I could not conscientiously pass him. 
 
 Question. Were you not told by another Mr. Grice who had charge 
 of that department that it was the wish of Mr. Buchanan that he 
 should be put into that place ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Samuel Grice did tell me that the collector had been 
 H. Eep^ Com. 648—23 
 
354 PHILABELPHIA NAVY YAED. ETC. 
 
 up to the navy yard to see me, and I told him that I was not aware 
 of it. He said I was introduced to him in the blacksmiths' shop. I 
 told -him that I then recollected that there was a gentleman in the 
 blacksmiths' shop with the master blacksmith. I was introduced to 
 him and spoke to him in the usual way ; as I was passing around into 
 the different workshops, as is my daily habit, I saw this gentleman 
 with the master blacksmith, and he did not say anything to me at all 
 about wishing to speak to me. Mr. Grice then told me that this 
 gentleman had been there, and he supposed I had treated him rather 
 coolly ; I said that I was not aware of it. That gentleman was Colonel 
 Baker, and I went afterwards to see Colonel Baker, because I did not 
 wish any gentleman to suppose that 1 would intentionally treat him 
 with disrespect. I explained the reason why I did not stop and speak 
 with him, as I did not know that he had any business with me, and 
 my business was urgent, in passing through the different shops. I 
 told him that I was sorry if I had done anything to cause him to 
 suppose that I intended to treat him with disrespect. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Grice tell you what Colonel Baker's business 
 there was ? ' 
 
 Answer. When the news came by telegraph that I was to be ordered 
 to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, he observed to me that if I had seen 
 that gentleman perhaps the thing would have been different. 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. Grice tell you exactly what Colonel Baker 
 wanted you to do, and that it was Mr. Buchanan's request that it 
 should be done ; and were you not removed on account of its not being 
 done? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he did not refer to that. It is my recollection 
 now that Mr. Grice informed me that Mr. Baker remarked that it was 
 the President's wish that Mr. Lafferty should be received into the 
 yard. 
 
 Question. Did you not object to putting in a man who was totally 
 incompetent ? 
 
 Answer. Of course I did ; that is a matter of record. 
 
 Question. Were you not told that that was the reason why you were 
 removed from there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know that that was the reason. They 
 make changes, and we have no right to ask any reasons for them. 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. All you have to do is to obey orders? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, that's all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of Mr. Swift's continuing to deliver timber 
 up to this spring ? 
 
 Answer. I know no more about Mr. Swift than what has been 
 .reported to the department. 
 
PHILABELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETP 355 
 
 No. 60. 
 
 Friday, May 18, 1860. 
 
 SAMUEL B. GRIOE called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What business are you engaged in? 
 
 Answer, In the lumber and timber trade. I have been a con- 
 tractor with government for timber. 
 
 Quelstion. Are you a brother and partner of Joseph Grice ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I am a brother of his, and I am a nephew of 
 Francis Grice, naval constructor. 
 
 Question. Had you a conversation with Colonel Baker, the collector 
 at Philadelphia, relative to the detachment of Francis Grice to the 
 Kittery yard ? 
 
 Answer. I had, sir. 
 
 Question. Please to state what that conversation was, and what 
 gave rise to it. 
 
 Answer. About the 1st of July last, or the former part of July, I 
 saw a telegraphic despatch announcing the detachment of Mr. Grice 
 from the Philadelphia yard. I called upon several gentlemen who 
 were political friends and acquaintances, and subsequently, the same 
 day, called upon Colonel Baker, at the instance of those gentlemen. 
 I stated to him my surprise at the announcement of Mr. Grice being 
 detached so unexpectedly to himself and his friends, and suggested 
 some reasons which occurred to me as a probable cause for his detach- 
 ment. Colonel Baker, having heard me, stated that he had, a few 
 days previous to that, called at the navy yard for the purpose of seeing 
 Mr. Grice and consulting with him upon the matter of an appoint-, 
 ment that was then pending, subject to an examination, of which Mr. 
 Grice was one of the examining board. The subject of that examina- 
 tion was the appointment of Patrick Lafferty for master builder at the 
 navy yard. Mr. Baker told me his object in calling upon Mr. Grice, 
 and going to the yard to see him, was for the purpose of saying to 
 him that it was the wish of the President that Mr. Lafferty might be 
 appointed to the position. Mr. Baker stated to me that he had seen 
 Captain Engle, who was chairman of that examining board, and stated 
 to him what the wish of the President was. He, not knowing Mr. 
 Grice, had thought it necessary first to ascertain whether he might 
 call upon him upon the business, and before seeing him he had stopped 
 to see one or more of the master workmen, and see what kind of a man 
 Mr. Grice was, to use Mr. Baker's language. When on this business 
 with the master blacksmith of the yard, I think, and in the black- 
 smiths' shop, Mr. Grice, in his daily routine, passed through the 
 blacksmiths' shop, and was introduced by the master blacksmith to 
 Mr. Baker. 
 
356 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. WlNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Were you there at that interview? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Mr. Baker told me this in my interview with 
 him, sir. I know nothing of it myself^ 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Proceed with your narrative. 
 
 Answer. I wish the committee to understand that this is a conver- 
 sation with Mr. Baker to me, which I am repeating. Mr. Baker told 
 me that he thought Mr. Grice did not receive him with the considera- 
 tion that was due to him ; whether he meant as collector of the port 
 or individually I am not ahle to say. He seemed to evince some 
 feeling as to the treatment he had received from Mr. Grice upon that 
 occasion ; but he left the yard without accomplishing his purpose, 
 which I understood him to say was to inform Mr. Grice of the desire 
 of the President relative to the appointment of Mr. Lafferty, That 
 was about the amount of my conversation with Mr. Baker. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Was that all the conversation you ever had with Colonel 
 Baker with regard to this matter? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I subsequently called upon Mr. Baker with Mr. 
 Grice, in order that Mr. Grice might make an explanation to him. 
 As I repeated to Mr. Grice (my uncle) this conversation, he desired 
 to call upon him and explain that he treated all men as gentlemen 
 who were gentlemen, and that he did not mean to treat Colonel Baker 
 more cavalierly than any other gentleman. 
 
 Question. Did Colonel Baker inform you that Mr. Grice was to be 
 detached because of his action in reference to the examination of Mr. 
 Lafferty ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, he did not tell me that. Mr. Grice was detached 
 shortly after that report was made. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What do you know about Patrick Lafferty? Was he put 
 into that place? 
 
 Answer. I have no official connexion with the yard. I do not know 
 that I can answer that of my own knowledge. 
 
 No. 63. 
 Thursday, May 24, 1860. 
 
 JOSEPH B. BAKER called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. In the examination of Mr. Samuel B, Grice before this 
 committee on the 18th of May the witness stated that he had had a 
 conversation with you, in which you said that the object of your calling 
 upon him, the witness, and going to the navy yard to see him, was 
 for the purpose of saying to him that it was the wish of the President 
 
ETC. 357 
 
 that Mr. Lafferty might be appointed to the position in the navy yard 
 of which you were speaking. Is that so ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that is an entire misrepresentation. Mr. Grice, 
 if my recollection serves me right, called upon me to intercede for the 
 continuance of his uncle at the Philadelphia navy yard. In the con- 
 versation with him I said I had been in the navy yard and desired to 
 see his uncle in reference to this Lafferty matter, as it had come up, 
 but I did not have the opportunity. 
 
 Question. I understand you, then, to deny that you ever told him 
 that it was the wish of the President that Mr. Lafferty might be ap- 
 pointed to that position ? 
 
 Answer. Of course I did not ; for Mr. Lafferty had been appointed 
 the week before, and it was unnecessary to say anything of the kind. 
 
 Question. Had the President ever said to you that it was his desire 
 that Lafferty should be appointed ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he merely said, when I saw him two weeks be- 
 fore, that he was going to appoint him. 
 
 Question. The witness, Grice, further says, that you had stated to 
 Engle that it was the wish of the President that Lafferty might be 
 appointed. Did you say so ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing of the kind. Mr. Lafferty himself waited upon 
 me ; he was exceedingly anxious to be approved in his examination, 
 and was fearful that he would not be ; that Mr. Grice was opposed to 
 him. At the repeated solicitations of Mr. Lafferty, I went down to 
 the navy yard ; I savs Captain Engle, who said that while Lafferty 
 had not promptly answered all the questions put to him, yet he thought 
 that with a little experience he would make a very good master car- 
 penter. I then saw Captain Carr, who said the same thing ; and 
 after that, happening to see Mr. Grice, I mentioned to him that if he 
 was of the opinion that Lafferty would make a good master carpenter, 
 with a little experience, he better write to that effect to the Secretary 
 of the Navy, as the examination had been sent on. 
 
 Question. At the time you had this conversation Lafferty had re- 
 ceived this appointment, I understand you to say ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; conditionally, upon the approval of the board. 
 Lafferty had come to me before and asked me to see about the matter. 
 But as it was rather a delicate matter I did not do it until after re- 
 peated solicitations, and then I was told that they thought he would 
 make a very good master carpenter after a little experience. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. The appointment was made, as I understand you, subject 
 to thecontingency of his passing the requisite examination ? 
 
 Answer. I believe that was the custom. 
 
 Question. It was so in this instance, was it? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And before the examination had been completed and ap- 
 proved you went, at the solicitation of this man, and bad these con- 
 versations with the persons you have named ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the examination had been forwarded to Wash- 
 
358 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 ington before I saw them at all ; had been sent on a day or two pre- 
 viously to the Secretary of the Navy. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the conversation you had with Mr. 
 Samuel Grice ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Samuel Grice came to me upon two or three different 
 occasions to get me to interfere or intercede for the continuance of his 
 uncle at the Philadelphia navy yard. 
 
 Question. That is all immaterial ; what I want to know is, if you 
 had any conversation with Mr. Grice in reference to this appointment 
 of Lafferty ? 
 
 Answer. That matter might have come up, but generally the con- 
 versation was solely in reference to the continuance of his uncle in the 
 navy yard. 
 
 Question. And you have no recollection whatever of any conversa- 
 tion in reference to this Lafferty ? 
 
 Answer. It may have come up in those conversations. 
 
 Question. I do not ask if it may have come up, but if you have any 
 present recollection of the fact that there was any conversation in refer- 
 ence to that individual ? 
 
 Answer. I may have had. 
 
 Question. It is a very easy matter to tell whether you have any 
 present recollection of it. 
 
 Answer. It is very difficult for me to tell. 
 
 Question. I cannot conceive of such difficulty. You understand my 
 inquiry, of course. It is not whether, in fact, you did have a conver- 
 sation with Mr. Grice about Lafferty, for it is very possible you may 
 have had such a conversation and it now has escaped your memory. 
 But the inquiry is, whether or not you have at present any recollec- 
 tion of having such a conversation. And that is a very easy matter 
 for you to tell. I only ask you to speak of your present recollection 
 of it. This witness (Grice) details a conversation that he alleges to 
 have taken place between him and yourselfj which you promptly deny. 
 But you do not seem to recollect whether you had any conversation at 
 all with this .man in reference to this Lafferty. 
 
 Answer. You will understand that I deny positively ever stating to 
 Mr. Grice that the President wished Lafferty to be continued there. 
 
 Question. You see at once that the inference is quite natural that if 
 you do not recollect whether you had any conversation at all with Mr. 
 Grice about this Lafferty, it is difficult to telj what the conversa- 
 tion was. 
 
 Answer. I do not say that I had no conversation with him about 
 Mr. Lafferty. Doubtless the name of Mr. Lafferty was mentioned in 
 this conversation. But Mr. Grice came to me especially about 
 his uncle. 
 
 Question. In what connexion was the name of Lafferty mentioned ? 
 I do not see any necessary connexion. 
 
 Answer. If it was mentioned, it was in this way, I presume : there was 
 some report about Mr. Grice ; Mr. Lafferty himself, I think, mentioned 
 it to me ; that this Mr. Grice was very much opposed to Lafferty's ap- 
 pointment there ; that he was in favor of another person, and would 
 do all that he could to prevent Lafferty passing an examination by put- 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 359 
 
 ting perplexing questions to him, and thus prevent his appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Grice one of the examiners ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he puts the questions. Mr. Lafferty mentioned 
 this maHer to me once or twice : that he was fearful that Mr. Grice 
 would he very severe in his examination. 
 
 Question. You mix up the interviews. In the one case you say 
 that the examination was already had and sent on to Washington ; 
 and then you speak of Lafferty's fear about his examination. 
 
 Answer. I suppose when Lafferty came to me the examination had 
 not gone on. 
 
 Question. I am inquiring as to a particular conversation between 
 yourself and Samuel Grice, in which he says you gave him the in- 
 formation that the President desired this man appointed to the 
 place. Now, if you recollect to have had any conversation at all with 
 Grice upon the subject of Lafferty, I should like you to state what it 
 was. If you do not recollect to have had any conversation with 
 Grice in reference to Lafferty, I want you to answer that ? 
 
 Answer., I will most cheerfully answer anything that I can get in 
 the proper connexion. As I said before, Mr, Grice called upon me for 
 a specific object, that is for the retention of his uncle at the Philadel- 
 phia navy yard. He supposed there would be some difficulty as there 
 was a report in circulation that Grice would be removed from the navy 
 yard on account of some difficulty between him and Lafferty. When 
 Mr. Samuel Grice came to me the name of Lafferty was mentioned I 
 recollect, but in what connexion I do not remember. It came in inci- 
 dentally — entirely . 
 
 Question. Can you say now, that you did not in that conversation 
 express to Mr. Grice the idea, in some form, that the President 
 desired Laferty to be continued in his place ? 
 
 Answer. Never in the world. I could not have done so, because 
 the man had been already appointed. 
 
 Question. Only conditionally, you said, and it was very natural for 
 you to say to those men who were the examining committee that the 
 President was anxious to have that man there ? 
 
 Answer. I had no right to say it. 
 
 Question. You had no business there at all, I suppose. 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You had as much right to say that as anything upon the 
 subject? 
 
 Answer. It was a very delicate matter, and it was not until after 
 Lafferty's repeated solicitations, and the result Qf the examination had 
 been sent on, that I went down to see them. 
 
 Question. As I understand you, you have a recollection that 
 Lafferty's name was mentioned ; that it was somehow mixed up in 
 this conversation with Mr. Grice ; but the particulars you cannot now 
 distinctly remember ? 
 
 Answer. As I said before, Mr. Grice came upon another subject en- 
 tirely. He was not interested about Lafferty, but he was interested 
 about his uncle. I was myself interested in his uncle's case. I had a 
 very high respect for the old gentleman, and did all I could to have 
 him retained in the Philadelphia navy yard, although I had never 
 
360 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TARD, ETC. 
 
 njet him before, and knew his character only from reputation. I have 
 met him since. It is very difficult for me to recollect all the details of 
 the matter. 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW : 
 
 Question. I understand you to deny absolutely that you ever told 
 Mr. Grice that the President desired Mr. LaflFerty's appointment? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; I deny that most absolutely. 
 
 Question. Did the President ever tell you that he desired his ap- 
 pointment ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 . Question. I understand you to say that you endeavored to prevent 
 Mr. Grrice being detached from the Philadelphia navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. I wrote to the President at this gentleman's solicitation ; 
 spoke of the age of the old gentleman, of the effect the climate of New 
 Hampshire would have upon him, and urged that if he could not be 
 retained in Philadelphia, that he be stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, or 
 in Brooklyn. I do not remember which now. I called twice to see 
 the Secretary of the Navy, to urge upon him to do something for this 
 old man as I considered him a very deserving man. 
 
 Question. What did the Secretary say ? 
 
 Answer. He said he would take it into consideration ; that it was 
 customary to change those officers, and he did not know what he 
 could do. This conversation I reported to Mr. Grrice, who called on 
 me several times. 
 
 No. 68. 
 Friday, May 25, 1860. 
 
 FKANOIS McCOKMICK called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Were you at one time in the custom-house there? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was appointed on the first day of May, 1853, 
 and continued there until the Ist of May, 1858. 
 
 Question. By whom were you removed ? 
 
 Answer. By Mr. Joseph B. Baker, the present collector. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Baker as to the 
 cause of your removal ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. State what that conversation was. 
 
 Answer. Well, possibly I better preface it a little with a history of 
 the causes of my meeting him and having the conversation. 
 
 Question. Very well, make your statement. 
 
 Answer. During the election of the delegate? to the convention for 
 nominating candidates for the supreme court of our State I had a 
 conversation with Mr, Baker, and he requested me to use my influen(^ 
 
PHILADELEHIA NAVY YARD, ETC, 361 
 
 to elect a delegate from my precinct to support a certain gentleman 
 that he named for judge. I told him that our friends were all com- 
 mitted the other way, and it would be impoij^ible for me to do' any- 
 thing if I hE|,d the disposition ; and I understood from his conversa- 
 tion very distinctly that that would not suit him ; that Judge Porter, 
 the one our friends were for, was opposed to the administration, and 
 for that reason he did not wish him nominated. I had another in- 
 terview with him on the day of election, and he was very niuch op- 
 posed to the election of my friend as one of the delegates, as he was 
 a friend of Judge Porter. My friend was elected, weat into the con- 
 vention, and voted for Judge Porter and Sigainst Mr. Sharswood, the 
 one Mr. Baker was in favor of. The convention adjourned on Tiiurs- 
 day or Friday, and on Saturday evening of the same week I was in- 
 formed by a clerk occupying the same position in the department th^t 
 I did, that, politically speaking, my head was off. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. Did you find your head off? 
 
 Answer. I found it off politically. I saw Mr. Baker the next week 
 and told him that I understood that I had been prejudiced by the 
 action of my friend in the convention. He said " yes." After some 
 further conversation, he told me that he had not yet said he would 
 remove me. 1 asked him if any charges had been brought against 
 me as an officer. He said no ; that I had been represented to him 
 as one of the first officers in the department. I then asked him if 
 any charge had been made against me as a man and a democrat. He 
 said no ; that all that he had ever heard of me any man might be 
 proud of. I said I supposed he y^anted a victim. He said that be- 
 fore he did anything he would see me again. He said I had made £i 
 great mistake ; that if he had been in my place he would have voted 
 for a Sharswood delegate. I replied that I had not been in the habit 
 of running against my friends. 
 
 Question. Do you know of anybody else who vas removed ? 
 
 Answer. John F. Schell was removed. But I can hardly say that 
 he was a friend of Judge Porter, but he was a friend of Judge Porter's 
 friends ;. and after my removal it was very currently reported that he 
 would have to go also. But he being in another department, in the 
 appraiser's department, it appears he could not be reached until the 
 appraiser, Mr. Berrell, was reached. The appraiser was from my 
 district, and after his removal Mr. Schell went. 
 
 Question. Berrell and Schell both went? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was there any charge of inattention or incompetency 
 against the men who were removed? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. From my knowledge of Mr. Schell I can say 
 that he was a very efficient man, and he had that reputation under 
 the former collector. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question, flow with Mr. Berrell ? 
 
362 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I suppose the same, from his having been promoted from 
 a lower position. 
 
 Question. You do not know so well about Berrell? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was not in his department. I know that he 
 was an attentive man — always at his post. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Baker in rela- 
 tion to the support of Mr. Forney, and the propriety of Mr. Buchanan's 
 Lecompton doctrines ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I had a conversation with him just after the inau- 
 guration of Mr. Buchanan's Lecompton policy — after a debate in the 
 Senate between Douglas and Bigler. I had expressed myself very 
 freely amongst my friends in favor of Douglas's position. I heard 
 that my name had been canvassed in connexion with the matter be- 
 fore the collector, and I took occasion to call upon him. I was a 
 stranger to him at that time, and I introduced myself to him. I told 
 him what I had heard. He said, yes, that my name had been men- 
 tioned to him. I told him that I supposed that Mr. Forney was a 
 good enough democrat ; that we all swore by him there ; that is, we 
 had subscribed for his paper under the auspices of the administra- 
 tion, as we supposed, and we supposed that he preached good demo- 
 cratic doctrine. Mr. Baker remarked, "yes, we all entertained those 
 views, that Forney was correct ; but the President has settled upon 
 another view of the case, and as government officers we are all bound 
 to support the President." I told him that, from the information I 
 had received from the papers, I supposed that Mr. Buchanan was go- 
 ing to make a test of it, and while I was holding a position under the 
 government I had made up my mind that I would keep my views 
 to myself. He seemed to think that was prudent, and seemed to 
 speak as if his own private views were the same as those of democrats 
 generally. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. Do you believe in rotation in office ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I cannot say that I do. I was just going to re- 
 mark that Mr. Baker suggested that rotation in office was a principle 
 of the democratic party, and that a man who had been in office tor 
 four years should not object to a change in favor of others. But I 
 thought he was beginning at the wrong end, as some men had been 
 in office twenty-five years, while I had been in office only five years. 
 
 No. 69. 
 
 Fkiday, May 25, 1860. 
 
 JOHN F. SOHELL called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
PHILABELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 363 
 
 Question. Were you at any time engaged in the custom-liouse 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was engaged there about five years, up to the 
 latofMay, 1859. 
 
 Question. Were you removed from office, and if so, by whom ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was removed by Dr. Morrison, the surveyor. 
 
 Question. For what were you removed from office ? 
 
 Answer. The morning I received my notice of removal I asked him 
 if there was any charge against me ; he said there was none, and that 
 I could leave with a perfectly clear conscience ; that I had been a per- 
 fectly faithful officer ; but he remarked at the same time that there 
 were some little political matters that caused my removal that he 
 could not mention just at that time. 
 
 Question. Did you take measures to ascertain what those causes 
 were? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. State what they were. 
 
 Answer. I was told 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Who told you? 
 
 Answer. Not Dr. Morrison, but some friends who went to see him. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is not evidence. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. I suppose you went for Judge Porter and not for Judge 
 Sharswood ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I supported Sharswood, and helped to elect a 
 delegate in my precinct for Sharswood. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Baker want you to go for Lippincott ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no conversation with Mr. Baker about that 
 matter ; I was in the employ of Mr. Berrell, who was appointed ap- 
 praiser by Mr. Buchanan. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. When were you appointed ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed by Charles Brown when he was collector, 
 and was removed on the Ist of May, 1859. 
 
 Question. Do you believe in rotation in office ? 
 
 Answer. I believe that is democratic doctrine ; I was rotated out of 
 one into a better one. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Does not the rotation generally take place in your de- 
 partment at the time you vote wrong, vote against the will of the 
 leaders ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; about the time of the election of delegates most 
 rotations take place. 
 
364 PHILADELPHU NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 No. TO. 
 Fkiday, May 25, 1860. 
 
 ANDKEW BRUMAKER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer, In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Were you ever engaged in the custom-house there? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What position did you hold there ? 
 
 Answer.. I was first appointed as what is termed there a revenue 
 officer, and then I was promoted to inspector, of customs. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed ? 
 
 An'swer. To the hest of my knowledge T was appointed on the 13th 
 of May, 1853. 
 
 Question. When were you removed ? 
 
 Answer. On the last day of November, 1859. 
 
 Question. For what were you removed ? 
 
 Answer. To the best of my knowledge and belief it was for 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. How do you know ? 
 
 Answer. By the proceedings of the convention and the election. 
 Mr. Winslow. That could hardly afford you information why you 
 were removed from office. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State your connexion with it. 
 
 Answer. We had an election for senatorial and representative dele- 
 gates to a convention. I was a candidate for representative delegate, 
 and John G. Brenner was a candidate for senatorial delegate. I was 
 certainly always friendly to the administration, and I knew Brenner 
 to be friendly to the administration and to Mr. Buchanan, and I did 
 not know why they opposed Mr. John G. Brenner. I was sent for to 
 go to the custom-house, and I went there. Mr. Hamilton , the surveyor 
 of the port of Philadelphia, asked me who were going to be the candi- 
 dates in my ward for the convention. I told him as near as I could, 
 and told him that all the precincts had not settled upon that. He 
 asked me in relation to my own, and I told him that we had not 
 settled upon our delegates ; but I said he might depend upon it 
 that we would send men favorable to the administration ; I left him 
 then. In two or three days I was sent for to go to the custom-house 
 again. I went there, and was before Mr. Baker, the collector of the 
 port of Philadelphia ; and when 1 got there I found that every man 
 that held position from our whole representative and senatorial dis- 
 trict was there. Mr. Baker began to speak about my being a candi- 
 date for the convention, and spoke about my backing down and not 
 being a candidate, as there were so many office holders candidates that 
 he did not want me to go. I said to him, " Mr. Baker, if you make 
 
PHILADBIiPHIA NAVY YAHD, ETC. 3G5 
 
 a general rule of it, I will certainly back down, but not otherwise." 
 Said I, "I do not know the cause of it, but ever since I have been here, 
 every convention that I want to go to I am asked to back down and give 
 way to others." I asked, " Who do you want to go? " Hesaid, "Mr. 
 George Reese is a very nice man." I said, "He can't be elected in my 
 district." He wanted to know why. I said that we had a hard dis- 
 trict, and if Mr. Eeese was a candidate, I thought he would be beaten. 
 He then named Mr. A. L. Snowden. I told him that Mr. Snowden 
 could not carry a delegate in our precinct. 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW : 
 
 Question. You did not think Mr. Snowden a popular man? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. He then named another man, Mr. Johnson. As 
 he named Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson's particular friend, who was 
 sitting in the room, got up and said that Mr. Johnson had requested 
 him to say that he was not a candidate. I said I was a candidate, and 
 could be elected. There was not much more said at that time in rela- 
 tion to it. I told Mr. Baker that I was determined to go to that con- 
 vention ; that I had been backed down several times, and now I had a 
 particular reason for going. He wanted to know what it was. I said 
 I wanted to serve a friend there, the Hon. Wm. H. Witte, for governor. 
 He said there were reasons to be considered. I said, "Yes, I know 
 that, but I shall try to serve my friend first." 
 
 Question. You were a friend of Witte? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. . There was not much more said about it at that 
 time, and we left on those terms — that I would not back down for any 
 one there. In the meantime, Mr. Snowden and others came to my 
 house, and said that Mr. Baker sent them there. However, I believe 
 I am getting a little ahead of my story. I went to work, doing all I 
 could to be elected. I found the whole force concentrated in my ward — 
 in my representative district we have something like twenty-five or 
 thirty ofiice holders. I knew the administration was mighty powerful, 
 and it was not worth while to work against them all. They defeated 
 me; After that I went down to the other convention, knowing that 
 Mr. Brenner had a majority of that convention; On my road there I 
 met some gentlemen, who told me that the convention had adjourned', 
 and that they had defeated Brenner. I went down the next morning 
 to Mr. Brenner's store, and told him I was going to resign. He wanted 
 to know why. I told him I was going to do it because I knew I would 
 be removed, and I would resign with' a long letter, stating my whole 
 opinion about it. He said they would not dare to remove me, and if 
 they did it would be better for me, and that I better not resign. I 
 told him I would take his advice. But sure enough, at the end of the 
 month, I had to go. There was another man discharged',' too. I was 
 talking with Mr. Hamilton, the surveyor, in relation to this matter, 
 and he called me up and said, " I do not see what use th'e^e isin 
 having such men as John Clark here." I asked him why. Said he, 
 "he has been here six or seven years, and he has never carried his 
 precinct." I then went and told John Clark that he had better try 
 to be elected. He asked why, and I told him plainly that if he did 
 not get elected, or get some friend of the administratibn elected, he 
 
366 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD. ETC. 
 
 would he discharged. He said he did not believe they could elect an 
 ad ministration man there. I told him what would be the consequence ; 
 and he was discharged. 
 
 No. 73. 
 
 Saturday, May 26, 1860. 
 
 G-EOEGE DOWNEY called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Ansv/ei . In Fifteenth street, No. 409, north, Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Were you engaged in the custom-house there, and if so, 
 in what capacity ? 
 
 Answer. I was engaged as a night watchman, or night inspector 
 there. 
 
 Question. When were you removed, and by whom? 
 
 Answer. I was removed on the last day of Novemberj, 1859. 
 
 Question. By whom ? 
 
 Answer. I got my papers/ from the custom-house, from my captain. 
 
 Question. Did you know what you were removed for? 
 
 Answer. I did not, sir ; not directly. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the collector, Colonel 
 Baker, upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I had afterwards. 
 
 Question. Please state what that conversation was? 
 
 Answer. One of my friends told me that Colonel Baker wanted to 
 see me, and I went down there. We had some little talk; and after 
 we had talked a while, I asked Colonel Baker to tell me what I had 
 been dismissed for, so that I could tell my friends outside. 1 asked 
 him if it was in consequence of any misdemeanor or neglect of duty. 
 He said no, there was not a scratch against me, and he also said that 
 he was sorry it had happened. I asked him if it had anything to do 
 with our delegation ; he said not exactly; and then he said our dele- 
 gate that we elected, Thomas Mercer, did not elect John G. Brenner; 
 and said he, if he had, your friend Brumaker's neck would have went 
 off forthwith. Both their necks were off then. It was for this, after 
 I was dismissed, that he sent for me to see me. 
 
 Question. What did Colonel Baker say with regard to the vote de- 
 feating Brenner ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing at all ; he did tell me the principal part of it was 
 that I had been so long in office, and there was so much outside pres- 
 sure, and that removed me. That is pretty much the essence of all 
 that I can tell you. I left him then, and. have seen him since, but 
 had no conversation upon this subject. 
 
 Question. Do you know others to have been removed from the same 
 cause ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; G-eorge Horn and John Clark were removed 
 forthwith. We remained the month out before we were removed. I 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 367 
 
 think the election was in the former part of November, and tMs was 
 in the latter part of the month. 
 
 Question. These candidates were all democrats ? 
 
 Answer. Every one of them, sir. 
 
 Question. It was merely because you would not vote for a particular 
 candidate that Colonel Baker wanted, that you were removed ? 
 
 Answer. I guess that was it. He did not tell me so, but it looks 
 very probable that was it. 
 
 Question. I want you to explain the mode of making collections for 
 political purposes, whether it is by contributions, with the amount 
 designated, and the purpose, or whether it is an assessment, with the 
 amount each individual is required to contribute. How do you do 
 these things there, what is your custom ? 
 
 Answer. Our captain comes there and tells us that we are assessed 
 so much ; that comes from headquarters. The amount that we have 
 to pay is put down; it is seven dollars and a half at a presidential 
 election, that is the highest; for a State election it is about five dollars. 
 
 Question. That is the assessment in your own oflSce ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; that is the amount in our night department. Our 
 captain collects it ; he has the list there, and our names are all put 
 down, each one taxed so much. 
 
 Question. You are taxed in proportion to the salary you get? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I think that is the way. 
 
 Question. What is your salary ? 
 
 Answer, Our salary is about $540 a year. I know that we were 
 taxed seven dollars and a half in the presidential election, and the 
 day laborers were taxed fifteen dollars. 
 
 Question. Was it obligatory on you to pay this ? 
 
 Answer. We need not pay it that I know of; but T never saw it 
 refused. 
 
 Question, What did you understand would be the consequence of 
 refusing ? 
 
 Answer, That I cannot tell you. It might be that the man would 
 have his head cut off ; but I have never seen any refusal to pay the 
 assessment. 
 
 Question. It was so understood, then, that it was necessary to pay 
 them in order to retain your place ? 
 
 Answer, I did not take it as such ; I took it that it was to support 
 our party. 
 
 Question. Did Colonel Baker tell you that if one vote had been ne- 
 cessary to defeat Brenner, Mr. Brumaker would have been removed 
 immediately ? 
 
 Answer. He said, "George, your delegate's vote did not elect 
 Brenner ; but if it had, your friend Brumaker's neck would have 
 been cut off forthwith." His vote did not elect him. 
 
 Question. He was' removed when you was? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we went together, on the last of the month. 
 
368 PHILADELPHIS NAVY YAKD, ETC. 
 
 Saturday, May 26, 1860. 
 ANDREW BRUMAKER recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you required to contribute anything out of your salary 
 for political purposes ? 
 
 Answer. We are assessed so much per cent, on our salary at every 
 election. 
 
 Question. In what way is that done; is the amount definitely fixed 
 by sorne other party than yourself ? 
 
 Answer. It is done by some other party ; by whom we do not know. 
 It is done in the depai'tments. I think, to the best of my knowledge, 
 that in the last fall election we were assessed one per cent, on our 
 entire salary. 
 
 Question. How was it in the year of the presidential election ? 
 
 Answer. We were assessed then, to the best of my knowledge and 
 belief, thirty- two dollars. 
 
 Question. What is your salary ? 
 
 Answer. My salary is $1,095 a year. 
 
 Question. That class would pay about three pier cent, on their saMry? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. We are assessed at every election ; we do not 
 know who puts it on. We get togiether and want to know whstt we 
 have got to pay ; we have a good deal of talk about it, but it- is of no 
 use at all to talk ;_ there is the assessment and we are required to pay 
 it. In fact, I never knew one to refuse to pay it to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. You do not pay it voluntarily? 
 
 Answer. They do not like it, hut they do it. 
 
 Question. What would be the consequence if any one should refuse 
 to pay his assessment ? 
 
 Answer. The consequence would be that I do not think he would 
 remain there much longer.. I know many men who did not like to 
 make these payments. I hated to pay them myself, because I am 
 assessed so much in my own ward. We all kicked up against it, but 
 it was of no use. We knew the consequences of refusing to pay, and 
 did not wish to lose our situations. 
 
 Question. Is there any requirement as to whom you shall vote for ? 
 Are you required to vote for whoever the head of your departmSiit 
 wishes to have elected at primary elections as delegates ? 
 
 Answer. That is very much a general thing among us. They all 
 look for us to vote for their candidates, let them be who they' may. 
 
 Question. How is it at primary electiotis in contests between you in 
 the party ? 
 
 Answer. With few exceptions every man is sent for to the custom- 
 house, and when they come there this matter is talked over. 
 
 Question. The custom-house appears to be the head of the machine ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it is the head of the machine. 
 
 Question. Do you know any person refusing to vote in accordance 
 with the dictates of the collector that was not removed for some cause 
 or other ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 369 
 
 Answer. I have known instances of the kind, and the men were re- 
 moved ; hut there was no satisfaction given to them as to what they 
 were removed for. 
 
 Question. I ask you whether you knew of any single instance where 
 a man refused to vote as he was directed, that he was not removed for 
 some cause or other very soon ? 
 
 Answer. I have known several cases where men were removed 
 because they did not vote for the same ticket that the collector was in 
 favor of. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Queslion. Do you know of men being retained in office who went 
 against the wishes of the collector? Did you ever know an instance 
 of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know one that was retained there under those 
 circumstances. 
 
 Question. Were you in the employment of the custom-house when 
 Mr. Brown was collector, during the administration of President 
 Pierce ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was appointed revenue agent ; I was in a month 
 or two. I never held the position before and was not familiar with 
 the duties of the place. I was an applicant for the office of inspector. 
 When I was in there a month or two I wrote a resignation and took 
 it up to Mr. Brown, but he refused to accept my resignation. He 
 thought I was .competent to discharge the duties and deserved the 
 place, and he promoted me at the beginning of the month. 
 
 Question. While in the employment of the custom-house there were 
 you required to conform to the wishes of the collector in your politicaL 
 conduct ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Questioa. Go oa and state whether you did conform to his wishes- 
 in all matters ? 
 
 Answer. In several instances the inspectors quarreled among them- 
 selves in relation to the candidates, delegates, &c., and I recolleet 
 that Mr. Brown at one time sent for me in relation to delegates to 
 the State convention to send delegates to the national convention. He- 
 wanted me to go for certain men and spoke to me about it. I told* 
 him that I had my preference. At that time John Q. Brenner was;a 
 candidate. He mentioned William Eice to me ; he also spoke of 
 George Williams and Joseph Lippincott, and said that they were good' 
 men, &c. I said yes, they were good men, but Mr. Brenn^had 
 always been a good friend to me, and I went for my friends. y I was 
 well aware that Mr. Brown did not want Mr. Brenner to gf to that 
 convention ; but I went there and did all in my power for.fiim, and 
 Mr. Brown never said a word to me about it. ^ 
 
 Question. Have you known others to act in the same way? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I don't know how it happened, butj I have often 
 spoken of it, that we never agreed. We have had instances that I 
 happened to hear of his wanting to see me in relation/ to some other 
 matters during this administration, and when I was sent for 1 did not 
 go ; I staid away for I thought what would be the consequence. I had 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 24 
 
370 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 my preference and they had theirs, and for that reason I kept away 
 until after the election was over, and then 1 would go and see them. 
 
 Question. So far as your experience goes, the power of the office was 
 not wielded to control local affairs during Mr. Brown's administration ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was not. 
 
 [Mr. Winslow here appeared in the committee room and the suh- 
 stance of the above testimony was stated to him.] 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any one ever being turned out for 
 refusing to pay his contribution ? 
 
 Answer. I will state that there have been several of us who talked 
 about the matter when we were assessed. 
 
 Question. . You never knew of any one being turned out for not pay- 
 ing, did you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 No. 74. 
 Satubdat, May 26, 1860. 
 PATEICK LAFFEKTY called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do yoii reside? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Have you ever had an appointment in the navy yard there? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was it? 
 
 Answer. Master carpenter. 
 
 Question. How came you to get that appointment, through whose 
 influence, and for what purpose ? 
 
 Answer. I got it through Mr. Baker and Mr. Florence, and I think 
 by an order of Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Toucey. 
 
 Question. What was the reason given you by any person why you 
 were selected for that place ? 
 
 Answer. Well, in the first place, I suppose for party services, and 
 in the next place because I was competent. 
 
 Question. What was said to you in regard to your selection on 
 account of party services ? 
 
 Answer. They thought I could manage the place better than most 
 anybody else. But then there is another qualification required there 
 also ; when you get an appointment you must pass an examination as 
 being competent. 
 
 Question. Was there any difliculty about your passing an examina- 
 tion ? ' 
 
 Answer. There was a. little difficulty between Mr. Grice and me. 
 At least he and I never had any words about it, but I knew he had 
 shown his preference for another man. I had reported- myself ready 
 for examination, \and he had put it back for one thing and another. 
 .Finally I got him to examine me, and he kept me two hours and a 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD. ETC. 371 
 
 half the first day, and was not satisfied with that and brought me 
 back the second day following and kept me an hour and a half that 
 day. 
 
 Question. Was not the main cause of your getting that place in 
 consequence of your being able to render more political service than 
 others ? 
 
 Answer. I think that had something to do with it. 
 
 Question. How long did you hold that place ? 
 
 Answer. Four months, all but a few days. 
 
 Question. Did you resign, or were you removied? 
 
 Answer. I was removed. 
 
 Question. For what were you removed? State everything con- 
 nected with your removal ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything that I was removed for, unless it 
 was on account of Mr, Baker and me disagreeing about the local 
 elections. 
 
 Question. Had Mr. Baker anything to do with the navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing ; he was in the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Did Baker interfere with persons belonging to other 
 departments in their right of choice in voting ? 
 
 Answer. He did down there, as far as that is concerned. 
 
 Question. State what took place in connexion with your removal ;, 
 give a history of it ? 
 
 Answer. Well, the first thing I knew about there being any fuss 
 was a little while after the October election. I understood that there 
 was trouble with the bosses in the navy yard from a friend of mine 
 down here, and I wrote to him one day to know if my name was men- 
 tioned among the rest. He telegraphed up to me: "See Baker, or 
 fear removal." That is the first I knew of it. 
 
 Question. Who was this friend of yours ? 
 
 Answer. Colonel Florence. 
 
 Question. Did you see Mr. Baker ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. State the interview that you had with Mr. Baker.. 
 
 Answer. He said I had cheated him in relation to electing a member 
 of the city executive committee ; I told him that could not be so ; he 
 said I had cheated him and tricked him, and that I had got to be re- 
 moved for it ; I told him if that was the case I did not care, and would 
 have to take the consequences. 
 
 Question. What followed ? 
 
 Answer. That evening I came down to Washington and met Mr. 
 Tyler here, and was informed that he was here waiting for my re- 
 moval at the time ; I went over to see Mr. Buchanan and had a talk 
 with him, but he did not tell me whether he would remove me or not. 
 Question. Had you a long conversation with Mr. Buchanan ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think I was there about an hour and a half. 
 Question. State what he said and did. 
 
 Answer. He told me that he was very sorry for the trouble we had 
 in Philadelphia ; that us people up there kept him in hot water all the 
 time ; he was sorry Baker and me had any difficulty ; he told nle he 
 did not know whether he would remove me or not. 
 
372 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YABD. ETC. 
 
 Question. Did he not profess great friendship for you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, he did. 
 
 Question. In what way did he show it ? 
 
 Answer. He told me that if he did not remove me the papers would 
 come out and say that he had no confidence in Mr. Baker ; I told him 
 I could not help that. 
 
 Question. Well, what followed that ? 
 
 Answer. I went home, and everything was quiet ; I wrote down to 
 the department to see if there were any charges made against me. 
 
 Question. To whom did you write ? 
 
 Answer. To Governor Toucey. 
 
 Question. Did he reply? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was that reply ? 
 
 Answer. He wrote back that there were no charges against me, hut 
 that I was removed ; and that ended my ofiicial capacity in the navy 
 yard. 
 
 Question. What has been the mode of making assessments or col- 
 lections of persons connected with the department ? State how it was 
 done. 
 
 Answtir. The way we make assessments in Philadelphia is this : 
 The city executive committee make the assessment ; they assess the 
 men so much according to the salary they get. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow: 
 Question, According to their ability to pay ? 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Were you assessed while you were there ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you contribute voluntarily ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; if I had the money I gave it to the party, and if 
 I did not have it I borrowed it. 
 
 Question, What per cent, of their salaries were persons assessed? 
 
 Answer. Some were assessed $100, and so on down, according to the 
 positions they held. 
 
 Question, Was it obligatory on them to pay what they were assessed, 
 or was it considered so ? 
 
 Answer. 1 well, you know party usages require people to pay that; 
 when you were assessed as candidate you paid it. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You paid it cheerfully, did you ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir, and I wished I had more to give the party ; that 
 is all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Did you not know others who growled at being obliged 
 to pay this ? 
 
 Answer, Certainly ; there is always plenty of that kind of people, 
 and we only wish you had them all ; the only trouble with me is that 
 I have not enough to give the party. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 373 
 
 Question. Do you know whether this custom of removing men for 
 voting for the candidate of their preference is not altogether a new 
 custom in Philadelphia? 
 
 Mr, WiNSLOW. I object to that question. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know Charles Clement ? 
 
 Answer. I know one man by that hame. 
 
 Question. Do you know that Charles Clement whose name is on the 
 pay-roll of the navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. There is a Charles Clement appointed second clerk to the 
 storekeeper of the Philadelphia navy yard. 
 
 Question. What is his salary ? 
 
 Answer. I think about ITOQ a year ; I do not know exactly. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he ever does any work in the store 
 as clerk ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw him doing any. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he can write at all or not ? 
 
 Answer, I never saw him write. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that he cannot write a bit ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Did' you ever hear the man himself say that he could not 
 write ? 
 
 Answer. No^ sir ; any man who could not write would very seldom 
 tell it to other people. 
 
 By Mr. Olin: 
 
 Question. Who did you ever hear say it of him ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw him write myself. 
 
 Question. What do you know about his ability to write, or about 
 his not being able to write at all ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think he has any ability to write. 
 
 Question. From what do you judge that ? 
 
 Answer. From the fact that he never does any of it that I see ; that 
 is the only knowledge I have of it. 
 
 Question. You say you never saw him do anything in that place ; 
 where is he employed ? 
 
 Answer, He is a bricklayer by profession, and generally does the 
 job work about the navy yard of bricklaying ; that is^ repairing when 
 it is necessai'y. 
 
 Question. Is he acting under the appointment of clerk and doing 
 brick work ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I guess that by going to the Bureau of 
 Yards and Docks you could find out whether he gets pay for bricklay- 
 ing or not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. Cummings get him appointed so that he 
 (Cummings) might draw his salary ? 
 
374 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAKD. ETC. 
 
 Answer. The storekeeper is required to have a first and second 
 clerk ; and, as far as I understand, they never had but one clerk until 
 the board came around in 1857 and compelled them to appoint the 
 second one. 
 
 Question. Was not Mr. Cummings pocketing the pay for the second 
 clerkship before the board came around ? 
 
 Answer. Somebody got the p^y. 
 
 Question. And they required him to make the appointment so that 
 the pay might be got legally ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Cummings is hirnself drawing the 
 pay for the place to which this man Clement is appointed ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; but I know that if I was in his place I 
 would get it myself. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. What means of knowledge have you as to who does draw 
 the pay of this clerk ? 
 
 Answer. The way you get your pay in the navy yard is this : you 
 have to sign a receipt, and you give it to tjie purser and he J)aysyou ; 
 Clement draws the pay, I think ; I am certain of that. 
 
 Question. What does he do with it afterwards ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you not know that he hands it over to Cummings ? 
 
 Answer. It is generally Supposed so. 
 
 Question. Do you not know it ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw him hand it over to him. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Did you ever hear either of the parties say that that was 
 done? 
 
 Answer. I never did, for it would not do for them to say so. 
 
 Question. What makes you suspect that that is done ?' 
 
 Answer. Almost anybody would think so. 
 
 Question. Why should they think so ; because this Clements cannot 
 write ? 
 
 Answer. Tou do not suppose they would pay anybody for nothing, 
 and somebody must cover this second clerkship or the pay could not 
 be got. 
 
 Question. Is he only put there to be called a clerk ? 
 
 Answer. That is all. 
 
 Question. Are you and the President on good terms yet ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, and expect to remain so. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD. ETC. 375 
 
 No. 16. 
 
 Saturday, May 26, 1860. 
 
 JOHN DUNN called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you refiide ? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Have you been employed in the post office there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. For what length of time ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed in the winter of 1853, and discharged on 
 the 15 th day of October last 
 
 Question. For what were you discharged ? 
 
 Answer. The only thing I know of was this : I was sent for in 
 reference to the executive committee of our precinct, and was told that 
 it was required of me to carry the precinct against a particular friend 
 of mine, which I thought I ought not to do, and whicti I did not do. 
 
 By Mr. OuN : 
 
 Question. Carry the precinct how ? 
 
 Answer. In the election of delegates. 
 
 Question. Tou were sent for and told you must carry the precinct ? 
 ' Answer. Tes, sir ; I was to carry the precinct for a delegate who 
 would vote for Mr. Hocktor in the convention instead of for Mr. 
 Edwards, who was considered an anti-administration candidate. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. And you roted for the anti-administration candidate? 
 Answer. My friend did. 
 
 Question. And because you did not control your friends you were 
 discharged ? 
 
 Answer. Because I did not control the precinct against my friend. 
 
 By Mr. Olin: 
 
 Question. Do you mean by " anti-administration candidate " the 
 "people's candidate?" 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was a division in the democratic party, and 
 I was threatened that if I did not go for a delegate for Hocktor I would 
 lose my place. 
 
 Question. You did not go for him ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the postmaster about it ? 
 
 Answer. He stated to me that this precinct should be carried for 
 Mr. Hocktor's friends — for the administration. 
 
 Question. Did he state to you what you were removed for after it 
 was done ? 
 
376 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. He gave me to understand by his agent that if my friend 
 did not go for Hocktor the consequence would be that I would lose my 
 place ; and the consequence was that I did lose my place ; I got notice 
 of dismissal on the 15th day of October. . 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the postmaster afterwards 
 about it ? 
 
 Answer. I never did ; one of my friends did. 
 
 Question. Was that custom of removing for such causes ever intrc 
 duced before ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to that question. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State what is the practice in the post office department in 
 Philadelphia for raising money for political purposes ; is it by assess- 
 ment or by contribution ? 
 
 Answer. It is by assessment. 
 
 Question. What is the rate per cent, generally ? 
 
 Answer. It is according to what the election is to be ; at presiden- 
 tial elections we are taxed more than at other elections ; and at gov- 
 ernor's election more than at municipal elections ; sometimes one per 
 cent., and sometimes one and a half per cent, on our salaries. 
 
 Question. Is that made out and fixed before you see the paper ? 
 
 Answer. They send to us and say they want us to give so much 
 money. 
 
 Question, Did you ever know any one to refuse to pay ? 
 
 Answer. I knew one who refused, but I believe the postmaster paid 
 for him and said that he would expect him to pay it. I do not know 
 whether he did pay it or not. That was Mr. Westcott, and I believe 
 he was removed by Mr. Brown. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any one being removed who refused 
 to pay ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Was there any such practice before th's present adminis- 
 tration ? 
 
 Answer. It was so under Pierce's administration. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. To remove men for voting for their friends ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not under Pierce's administration. A man was 
 never called in then and told that he must do so and so, as he is under 
 this administration. It continually takes place now that he is called 
 in and threatened, if he does not vote so and so, even for ward con- 
 stable. There is never any election at all now without that. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. That was not the custom under Pierce's administration ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was in three years under Pierce, and I do not 
 think I ever was waited upon in that way. Mr. Miller, who was 
 postmaster then, would bring his friend to me, he did not ask me to 
 go for him, but introduced him to me, and then left him and went 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 377 
 
 away. But under this administration you are sent for and told that 
 you must go for this man, that they want him elected. 
 
 Question. There has heen some division in the democratic party, 
 and they require you to go for those who favor the administration ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; but there was also division under Pierce's ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Did you ever complain about this ? 
 Answer. No, 'sir ; I might, in talking to my friends. 
 Question . You never publicly complained about it ? 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
 Question. How long were you in office ? 
 Answer. I was appointed in 1853. 
 Question. Do you believe in rotation in office ? 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 No. 79. 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 FREDERICK ENGLE called and sworn. 
 
 , By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you in command of the navy yard in Philadelphia 
 in June and July, 1859 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything of a vacancy occurring in the office 
 of master carpenter of that yard about that time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there was a vacancy. 
 
 Question, Do you know Patrick LaiSerty ? 
 
 Answer, I never knew him until I saw him there. 
 
 Question. Were you directed at the time to form a board to examine 
 Mr. Lafferty, to ascertain his qualifications for the place of master 
 carpenter ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was president of the board. 
 
 Question. Is the office of master carpenter a responsible one ? 
 
 Answer. Very. 
 
 Question. What are his duties ? 
 
 Answer. He is at the head of the department of carpenters ; it 
 takes in all laborers ; he attends to all the duties, building, &c., 
 under the direction of the constructor. 
 
 Question. In the absence of the naval constructor, what duties does 
 the master carpenter perform ? 
 
 Answer. He would assume that of constructor ; the whole control 
 of the carpenters would be under his direction ; in the absence of the 
 constructor, I think the commandant would take the charge in a greater 
 degree. 
 
378 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. , 
 
 Question. Was the examining board formed ; and if so, of whom 
 was it composed ? 
 
 Answer. Of Mr. Francis Grice, one of the engineers, John P. 
 Whipple, and myself, as president of the board. 
 
 Question. Was Lafferty examined ? 
 
 Answer. He was examined. 
 
 Question. Did he pass an examination ? If not, why not ? 
 
 Answer. He did not pass an examination entirely ; I think the re- 
 port said he was a man of capacity, that his answers were smart, but 
 the board did not consider him entirely competent for the office ; he 
 was not recommended in full for the office. 
 
 Question. Was the report of that examining board sent to the Sec- 
 retary of the Navy ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Lafferty appointed master carpenter ; and if so, 
 by whom ? 
 
 Answer. He was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, but I 
 think it was a provisional appointment ; that is my impression. 
 
 Question. How long did Mr. Lafferty remain in office? 
 
 Answer. I think about three or four months ; until after I left. 
 
 Question. Why was he removed ? 
 
 Answer. I was not there at the time ; I do not know. 
 
 Question. Did you know that Mr. Lafferty's appointment was a 
 political one ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know about that ; I believe he had been serving 
 in some railroad, as some officer, for some time before that ; Mr. 
 Florence brought him in. 
 
 Question. Did you favor his appointment? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not ; I favored his trial. 
 
 Question. Were you solicited to favor him in his examination ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You say you "favored his trial ;" What do you mean 
 by "trial?" 
 
 Answer. To have him appointed provisicnally, ; I thought he had 
 some smart points, and would be useful after a while ; but he was not 
 competent at the time. 
 
 Question. You were in favor of putting him on probation ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was he qualified for the position ? 
 
 Answer. For a provisional commission ;' he was not qualified for 
 constructor at all. 
 
 Question. Did Collector Baker call on you and solicit your influence 
 in favor of Mr. Lafferty ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I would not let him do it, or anybody else, in 
 a case of that kind. 
 
 Question. Did any person telj, you that the President desired his 
 appointment ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 379 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or that the Secretary of the Navy had sent him to you ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think that the President or the Secretary of the 
 Navy* ever attempted while I was in that yard — nine months — to in- 
 fluence me in any way whatever as regards appointments or discharges. 
 
 Question. You say that no person told you that it was the wish of 
 the President that he should be appointed to that place ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; nobody told me that. I do not think anybody 
 told me that. I have no recollectioii of it at all. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. G-rice naval constructor at that time ? 
 
 Answer. He was ; he was naval constructor at the time, and was 
 at the examination. I wrote the report myself. 
 
 Question. How much time elapsed between the examination of Mr. 
 Lafferty and the transfer of Mr. Grice from that yard ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say exactly. 
 
 Question. Was it within a week? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think so. It was within a very short time, 
 though ; I cannot tell exactly. I have a little book in which I note 
 everything down, but I left it at home, or I could give you name and 
 date for everything. 
 
 Question. Do you remember hearing any reason assigned why Mr. 
 Grice was removed ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never heard any reason whatever. I always 
 thought myself that Mr. Grice would do better at a yard where there 
 was not so much to do. I think he was not able to attend to the du- 
 ties of that yard. 
 
 Question. Can you not give the committee some information relative 
 to the appoinment and removal of clerks in the naval storekeeper's 
 office? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the clerks there are appointed 
 
 Question. Who they were, and what they were; and the reasons for 
 the changes ? State what know ahout those things. 
 
 Answer. I will say first that the clerks there are appointed by the 
 storekeeper, through the Secretary of the Navy ; he confirms them. 
 They do not pass through the commandant, except merely their names 
 pass through him to the Secretary of the Navy. But we have nothing 
 to do with the appointments there. There were some clerks there, 
 but I never saw any of them. 
 
 Question. Do you not know about clerks having places in that de- 
 partment who had business outside, and rendered no service what- 
 ever in the yard ? 
 
 Answer. I think there was one named Cummings, who was second 
 clerk in the storekeeper's office. I never saw him there. 
 
 Question. Is he a son of the naval storekeeper ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; he is a relative ; I do know what. I think you 
 will find all that in his own observations before the naval committee 
 of lieutenants who examined that matter. You will find everything 
 there, I think, as regards that. In talking to. him about his not 
 coming to the yard, he said that that thing had always been done so ; 
 that it was understood so. I told him that he must either come or 
 resign. Either do his duty or resign. 
 
380 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did he do either ? 
 
 Answer. He resigned. 
 
 Question. This was Cummings ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know what salary he drew ? 
 
 Answer, I think something like $700 or $750 ; not over that. 
 
 Question. Did he render any service whatever in that office ? 
 
 Answer, None whatever, I think. He might have been in the yard 
 once or twice while I was there, hut I never saw him. 
 
 Question, Do you know of -other persons who got pay without ren- 
 dering any service whatever ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, Please state what you know about them. 
 
 Answer. There was the second clerk of the commandant. 
 
 Question . What about that ? 
 
 Answer. He is in the office of the commandant ; that is my office ; 
 I never saw him there. 
 
 Question. What pay did he draw ? 
 
 Answer. About $750, 
 
 Question. What was his name ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect his name positively. I think it was El- 
 dridge ; I am not certain, though. In running over my papers and 
 books I came to his name, and sent for the chief clerk at once, and 
 asked him who that person was, saying that I had never seen him, 
 and did not know anything about him. He told me that he had been 
 in the service a great while, and hadnot really saved anything, and 
 Commodore Stewart gave him permission to have that place, and be 
 absent. I said nothing more about it. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about men connected with'news- 
 papers in Philadelphia being paid by the government — a man con- 
 nected with the " Argus" being employed as clerk? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about his name ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect his name. 
 
 Question, Do you know of any other clerks receiving pay without 
 rendering any services ? 
 
 Answer, I remember a person named Colonel something or other 
 being there ; I called the attention of the.storekeeper to the tact; after 
 a little while he informed me that he had no use for him, and I 
 ordered his discharge ; and they abused me a little in" the newspapers, 
 but I did not care about that. 
 
 Question. Was he discharged ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was not there another person put on in his place ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not that I know of. I will say here that I came 
 into the yard at a time when discharges had to take place, which was 
 a most unfortunate time for me; taking them on was very comfortable, 
 but discharging them was another matter ; I think there were four- 
 teen hundred or fifteen hundred in the yard when I came in, and I 
 left it with four hundred and ninety-four there. 
 
 Question. Were you not in a considerable quarrel with the heads of 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. S81 
 
 the department in Philadelphia in discharging so many — you disposing 
 of them and they trying to keep them on? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the oflScers of the yard ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I got along with them very well ; it was a very disagree- 
 able duty, but it had to be performed, and I did it ; I never had a 
 word with the Secretary of the Navy in regard to the matter ; on the 
 contrary, he approved my course altogether. 
 
 Question. I did not mean the Secretary of the Navy, but the 
 authorities of the navy yard at Philadelphia. 
 
 Answer. I had no trouble with them, except a slight difficulty with 
 the master laborer , but with no one else, though they threatened to 
 have me turned out. 
 
 Question. Do you know of laborers being crowded in there who 
 were decidedly unfit for their places and rendered no service ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I know of no laborers of that kind ; I examined 
 that list very shortly after I got there, and trimmed it down ; I got it 
 down to a certain number and would not have it exceeded ; they had 
 the authority, and rightly had it, to appoint the men. 
 
 Question, Do you know Mr. Gummings? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Does he render any service to the government there ? 
 
 Answer. He is there once in a while. 
 
 Question. Does he render any service to the government for the pay 
 he receives? 
 
 Answer. I suppose he renders as much as any of the rest of them 
 do ; none of them render much ; he has a very competent clerk ; I do 
 not like him, but he is very competent ; every move I made was known 
 through him here six hours after it was made. 
 
 Question, Is not Mr. Cummings's a political appointment, and his 
 place a sinecure ? 
 
 Answer. It is a political appointment ; there is no doubt about that. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. What do you mean by a political appointment ? 
 Answer. His being one of the party — a party appointment. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Is he not paid for political services, and not for services 
 rendered in the yard ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that he does not render any service, or 
 very little service ? 
 
 Answer, I do not think that he does render much service ; be is not 
 there often enough to do it ; he is absent sometimes for a month at a 
 time. 
 
 Question. Do you know of his getting pay beyond his own salary — 
 getting the pay of other parties, clerks, &c. ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I cannot say anything about that ; he told 
 me himself that the simple pay of storekeeper could not be much of an 
 object, and I did not think it was myself. 
 
 Question. What is the pay of storekeeper ? 
 
382 PHILADELPHIA NAVT YARD, ETC, 
 
 Answer. It is $1,700 a year. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Clement, whose name is given as hia 
 second clerk ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. He lays brick sometimes about the yard ? 
 
 Answer. There is a man of that name there ; but I have not very 
 much to do with that establishment. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he is the Clement whose name is 
 down as the assistant clerk ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; I think it very probable it is ; I do not know 
 though. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he has ever rendered any service 
 in the office ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he can write any at all? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about that man at all. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that the store Mr. Cummings draws 
 the pay of Mr. Clement in addition to his own ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about that. 
 
 By Mr. 'WrNSLO-vv : 
 
 Question. In asking you a question, Mr. Covode used the words 
 "head of the department;" I wish distinctly to understand, if we 
 are to understand from you that the Secretary of the Navy — whom 
 we usually call the "head of the department" — ever interfered with 
 your arrangements there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the Secretary of the Navy never did. On the 
 contrary, he wrote me a very handsome private letter approving my 
 course. 
 
 The Chairman. I distinctly stated that what I meant by "head ot 
 the department," was the officers of the yard, the head men in the yard 
 at Philadelphia. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I think you know Mr. Grice, the constructor ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, very well. 
 
 Question. What is his age ? 
 
 Answer. I should think he is something like seventy-five or seventy- 
 six years of age, perhaps older. 
 
 Question. Were you doing much work in the navy yard at Phila- 
 delphia ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we were doing considerable work. 
 
 Question. Do you consider, from his age, that Mr. Grice was com- 
 petent to perform the duties of his place there ? 
 
 Answer. He is a very excellent constructor, but not active enough 
 for the office there. If I had been asked, I would have favored his 
 removal. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of others who have got pay there without 
 rendering service, or who were totally incompetent for the places they 
 held? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 383 
 
 Answer. I know of a man who was at tlie head of the sawyers ; I 
 think he was a foreman. 
 
 Question. Who is he ? 
 
 Answer. His name is Doy. He is an old man, and has been in the 
 service for a long time. He is an uncle of Mr. Florence. 
 
 Question. What pay does he get? 
 
 Answer. I think $3 or $3^ a day. 
 
 Question. Did he render any service ? 
 
 Answer. He is there every day, hut is not able to render much 
 service. 
 
 No. 81. 
 WednesdaYj May 30, 1860. 
 
 EDWARD W. POWER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In the first ward, Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Had you a situation under the government at any time 
 in the custom house or the navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was in the post office for two days ; that is, I 
 entered security, but when I found out what the situation was, I re- 
 signed. 
 
 Question. Were you in the city democratic committee during the 
 election of 1856, or 1858? Were you connected with that ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was that a public office ? 
 Answer. No, sir ; certainly not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What do you know about those fraudulent naturaliza- 
 tion papers that so much has been said about ? 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Do you think it is competent to examine this witness? 
 
 The Chaieman. Certainly, I do ; he has been an officer of the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. When were you in the post office for two days ? 
 
 Answer. It was in the February after Mr. Westcott's appointment. 
 I think it was on the 15th of February that I was appointed, and on 
 the 17th I resigned. 
 
 Question. In what year ? 
 
 Answer. In 1858. 
 
 By the Chairman . ' 
 
 Question. That was during Mr. Buchanan's administration ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
384 PHILADELPHIA NAVT TAKD, ETC. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about some papers being taken 
 from the Merchants' Hotel, in Philadelphia, to the railroad depot ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. When was this ? 
 
 The Chairman. In 1856. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Do you think this is competent ? 
 
 The Chairman. I think it is. 
 
 Question, ^to witness.) Do you know Colonel Baker ? 
 
 Answer. I know him when I see him. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question, At any time did he employ you to carry some naturaliza- 
 tion papers from the Merchants' Hotel to the railroad depot for distri- 
 bution ? 
 
 Answer. Did he employ me to carry papers ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he did not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you help carry a trunk for him from the hotel to the 
 station in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, never ; I am not a porter. 
 
 Question. Did you not carry some papers, or a trunk or package 
 containing any papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; all I know of papers is that there were some 
 2,000 copies taken out of the republican headquarters in Chestnut 
 street, during the fall of 1856, with which Mr. Butler and Mr. Plum- 
 ley were connected ; that I do not know of my own knowledge, only 
 as the report goes. 
 
 Question. Tou better only give your own knowledge in either case. 
 
 Answer. As for having any connexion with fraudulent naturaliza- 
 tion papers, carrying them anywhere, or knowing anything about 
 them of my own knowledge, so far as Mr. Baker or Mr. anybody else 
 is concerned, I know nothing. 
 
 By Mr. Train: 
 
 Question. Tou mean to negative any knowledge in any way of 
 fraudulent naturalization papers used in that election or in any elec- 
 tion, of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. All that I know was the evidence produced in court in 
 the case of Cassidy and Mann — the papers produced in court. 
 
 Question. Tou had nothing to do with getting them up, or dis- 
 tributing them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Either on your own account, on the account of Col. 
 Baker, or on the account of any particular person ? 
 
 Answer. There was a package sent to me. I did not know exactly 
 what was in it. I supposed what it was, and threw it into the stove. 
 I did not open the package, or see what it was. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Do you know who brought them to you ? 
 Answer. I do not. They came by Adams's express. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 385 
 
 Question. Do you know where they came from? 
 
 Answer. I supposed it was a trap used by the Fremont party to 
 detect the men of the democratic party engaged in the campaign of 
 1856, 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a red trunk being carried 
 up to the railroad station at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Not of my own knowledge. I was not in Philadelphia at 
 that time. I left Philadelphia in August, and during the month of 
 August I was in Dauphin, Perry county. In September, until the 
 Sunday previous to the October election, I was in Schuylkill and 
 Northumberland counties. The Thursday, I think, after the October 
 election — I am not exactly certain now as to the date — I went back to 
 Schuylkill county. 
 
 Question. Have you not had some conversation with Patrick Lafferty 
 on this subject ? 
 
 Answer. I never spoke to him about this subject in my life. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about who filled up these papers 
 that you, heard of being used ? ^ 
 
 Answer. What ? Fraudulent papers ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have answered that qiuestion before. I know 
 nothing of that. I have filled up papers myself for the naturalization 
 committee. The papers were taken into court and sworn to^ and 
 signed by the prothonotary and the seal of the clerk attached to them. 
 
 Question. Do you know that in all cases these papers were used in 
 court, or were not some of them made use of without going into court? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; they were always used in court. The only 
 fraudulent papers I saw were the papers said to come from the Fre- 
 mont headquarters, papers with a red seal ; they were exhibited and 
 shown by men who got possession of them. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Were they filled up ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they had the seal and the signature. 
 
 Question. The seal of one of the courts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And the signature of the cldrk? 
 
 Answer. Yes, ^r. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 Question. Do you know John M. Butler? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know B. Eush Plumley ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know William S. Kelly? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know Eobert Dora ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the latter two were inspectors of 
 election in the fall of 1856? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know that. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648—25 
 
386 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Question, Please to state what you know atout the charge against 
 Butler and Plumley. 
 
 Answer. I was at the office of the clerk of the quarter sessions. 
 There were a number of men there talking at the time, and amongst 
 them were William McMullen, now alderman, and I think William 
 B. Eeed. A rush was made, and I inquired what it was, and they 
 said they had the rdoney of the Fremont men, and they were there to 
 arrest them. 
 
 Question. Did you see Butler and Plumley there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; this was about the time they were entering the 
 proceedings ? 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know this of your own knowledge? 
 
 Answer. This is what occurred upon the pavement, and the conver- 
 sation was that these parties had the money and they were going tO' 
 arrest them ; they were collecting a number of men for the purpose 
 of making the arrest, and it caused considerable excitement at the' 
 ' time. 
 
 Question. What money was this? I never heard of it before. 
 
 Answer. I think it was something between |300 and |400, given 
 to certain parties for the purpose of electioneering and voting the 
 Fremont ticket ; it was a bribe extended to certain men living in the 
 fourth ward — the lower section of the city. 
 
 Question. Was that ever established in court? You say they were 
 arrested. 
 
 Answer. They were arrested. 
 
 Question, Was that ever proved in court ? 
 
 Answer, Not that I know of ; I do not know what became of the 
 case afterwards. 
 
 Question. Can you give the name of the party who made the stat&- 
 ment to you ? 
 
 Answer. The statement was made by the papers on the petition. 
 
 Question. Can you give the name of any one of them? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Dorn was one of them, and there were one or 
 two others that I should know when I saw them, but I do not remem- 
 ber their names now. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. All that you know was what you heard upon the pave- 
 ment? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir ; and this matter about Mr. Eeed — he was going 
 into court, and the people followed him. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What official position did Mr. Eeed hold ? Was he dis- 
 trict attorney ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, he was district attorney then ; Mr. Eeed passed 
 from Chestnut street towards the court of quarter sessions, and these 
 people made a rush, or rather they went towards him. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAEB, ETC. 387 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of some of these papers that were filled up 
 outside of the court being furnished to parties who had not been in 
 the country for five years ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know of my own knowledge ; I have 
 heard a great deal of talk about it, but I never knew of one person 
 who voted illegally upon false papers. 
 
 Question. You say you never had a conversation withLafferty, and 
 never told him about carrying a trunk for Mr. Baker to the railroad 
 depot ? 
 
 Answer. I never told Mr. Lafferty or anybody else so. 
 
 No. 46. 
 Wbdnbsdat, May 30, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS Mcdonough recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question . In your testimony before, you stated that you were for- 
 merly employed in the custom-house at Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. There were some questions put to you relative to sonae 
 fraudulent naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. At first you declined to answer, and afterwards stateci 
 that you did not know anything about it. 
 
 Answer. I did not decline to answer, but denied your right to ask 
 me questions of the kind ; that was it. 
 
 Question. Since you were here we have information that you were 
 seen with bundles of fraudulent naturalization papers in your hands. 
 Please explain what they were. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. I think you should give the witness the informatioQ 
 that you rely upon. 
 
 The Witness. It would be a source of satisfaction to me if yoa 
 would do so. 
 
 The Chairman. It is from one of the men who says he was engaged 
 with him in the business. It is proper for us to put the question. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Put the question directly to the witness. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not have some of these papers in your hands at 
 some period ? 
 
 Answer. I had blank certificates of naturalization, but no fraudu- 
 lent naturalization papers, to my knowledge, in my life. 
 
 Question. What did you have them in your possession for ? 
 
 Answer. We got them out for the purpose of facilitating the getting 
 men naturalized. We would fill them up, and after that was done 
 the parties would be taken up and sworn, and the name of the pro^ 
 thonotary would be put on and the seal of the clerk attached. 
 
■388 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Question. Were not these papers that you refer to filled up hy par- 
 •ties outside of the court ? ' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we sometimes filled them up outside of the 
 'court. In order to explain this matter, I will say that we have com- 
 mittees of naturalization in the difierent wards, and if I knew of an 
 Irishman or Dutchman who was entitled to his papers I would get a 
 blaiik "Certificate of naturalization and have it filled up for him, so 
 ithat he would have hut little time to lose before the court. 
 
 Question. When you were here before you said you knew nothing 
 about these fraudulent naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. I say so now ; and the man who gave the . testimony that 
 I did know is a perjured liar. 
 
 , Question. Did you not attend to furnishing some papers to parties, 
 and only charge them a dollar apiece for it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I have frequently got them for nothing ; we 
 got them for nothing at the last election. 
 
 Question. Do you know where these papers were filled up ? 
 
 Answer. I know where two or three of them were filled up. 
 
 Question. Who filled them up ? 
 
 Answer. A young man by the name of Henry A. Gildea filled up 
 some of them. They were expert penmen who did it. 
 
 Question. How came these parties to be able to get their papers 
 cheaper of you than of the court ? . 
 
 Answer. Because I was connected with the committee ; and you 
 will find that five hundred men of both parties got them for nothing. 
 We make an arrangement with the prothonotary to furnish the papers 
 for so much apiece ; fifty cents or a dollar apiece, as the case may be. 
 We charge some persons a dollar, if they are able to pay it ; if they 
 cannot afford that we charge them less, and sometimes we let them 
 have them for nothing, where they are not able to pay anything. 
 What we lose upon one we make up on another. 
 
 Question. Did you not make considerable money yourself in this 
 matter ? 
 
 Answer. I consider it unfair to ask me such a question, and I— 
 
 Question. You are on the stand, not the committee. 
 
 Answer. I know that. 
 
 Question. You were not brought back here for nothing. 
 
 Answer. I am from a State where I bear a good character, as gen- 
 tlenjen of all parties will testify. 
 
 Question. That is not answering the question. 
 
 Answer. I have not the slightest objection to answer the question. 
 
 Question. Answer it then. 
 
 Answer. I have not made a cent by that, nor by any other unlaw- 
 ful purpose, any more than you have done. 
 
 Question. Where did you get the papers that you handled ? 
 
 Answer. From the democratic executive committee. 
 
 Question. Were any of those papers so filled up testified to in 
 court ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; any paper that I had was signed by the protho- 
 notary. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 389 
 
 Question. In filling up tliese papers was any heed given to the time 
 the parties had been in this country ? 
 
 Answer. You are asking a most foolish question. 
 
 Question. We ask suoh questions as we choose ; it is your business 
 to answer them. 
 
 Answer. If I was the prothonotary I would have something to do 
 with that. 
 
 Question. Did you not say the prothonotary had nothing to do with 
 filling up these papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I stated that the papers are filled up and handed 
 to a person who had been five years in this country, and he takes 
 them with his witnesses to the prothonotary, where they are signed 
 and sealed. 
 
 Question. Did it make any difference in the papers issued by yoii 
 or the committee about the time the parties had been in this country? 
 
 Answer. I never filled any of the papers. 
 
 Question. Did you not say you had received fifty cents or a dollar 
 apiece for those papers you were engaged in distributing ? 
 
 Answer. Did I not say I had never received one cent for that or 
 any other unlawful purpose ? I have never committed theft, or rob- 
 bery, or murder. 
 
 Mr. Train. I think the witness is very impertinent. 
 
 The Witness. I think you are very impertinent, and I will hold 
 some of you responsible when I get out of this committee-room. 
 
 Mr. Train. I think we should report this witness, to the House. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON (to witness.) Let us have no more such language 
 as this ; you are the witness, and the committee ask you such ques- 
 tions as they think proper. 
 
 The Chairman. I am willing to suspend the examination of this . 
 witness until we have examined some other witnesses. 
 
 The Witness (to the Chairman.) Are you willing to give me the 
 name of the witness who told you this ? 
 
 The Chairman. No, sir, I am not. 
 
 The Witness. I.am still under oath, I suppose. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 The Witness. Then I say this charge is a lie from beginning to 
 end. 
 
 Mr. Train. I think I understand this matter. 
 
 Question (to witness.) As I understand you, these papers are simply 
 blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And they are prepared out of court as a matter of con- 
 venience ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And the parties take them into court with their wit- 
 aesses? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Train. I do not see any occasion, then, for any such remarks 
 as you have made here. 
 
 The Witness. Mr. Covode asked me if I had made any money out- 
 
390 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 of this ; I am willing to answer any of your questions as you ask 
 them, respectfully. 
 
 Mr. Tbain. You will recollect that you should answer all the mem- 
 bers of the committee respectfully. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You said when you wore here before that you knew 
 nothing about those fraudulent naturalization papers ? 
 Answer. They are not' fraudulent. 
 
 By Mr. Wihslow : 
 
 iQuestion. You deny in the most positive and peremptory manner 
 that you had anything to do with fraudulent naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 <2uestion. You say that the custom in Philadelphia with both 
 parties, so far as you understand it, was to save time by having these 
 blank naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 <^uestion. You do not mean that they are procured already signed 
 by die prothonotary, sealed by the clerk, and everything prepared ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. But they are obtained ready to be filled up ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Like a blank summons? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. And when you meet a man who is entitled to be natural- 
 ized the paper is filled up, the proof is got up, and he goes into court 
 with it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And when they are able to pay they are charged a dol- 
 lar, and when they are not able to pay they are not charged any- 
 thing ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; they give us a dollar or fifty cents if they are 
 able to pay it, and we give them a check on the prothonotary. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Q»estion. And the prothonotary charges his fees to the committee? 
 
 Aaswer. Yes, sir ; we give the party a little check to the protho- 
 notary, and when he goes there he is taken up stairs, and the wit- 
 Btesses swear that he has been in the country for five years, and in 
 Pennsylvania for one year, and is well disposed towards the Constitu- 
 tion of the country, &c. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. And the committee pay all the fees in the lump ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Mr. Covode asked you if you had received any money for 
 ihese papers ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 391 
 
 Question. And you said you had not received money for that or any 
 •other improper purpose ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and no man in Philadelphia who knows m© 
 would say that I had. 
 
 No. 74. 
 Thuksdat, May 31, 1860. 
 
 PATEIOK LAFFERTY recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know a man by the name of Myers, in the smith's 
 ishop? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Does he do anything ? 
 
 Answer. He is kind of foreman there, I think. 
 
 Question. Does he attend to any business ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I know of, at present ; he has been attending to 
 business. i 
 
 Question. Do you know a foreman in the spar-making department, 
 by the name of Hoffman ? 
 
 Answer. I know a spar-maker by that name. 
 
 Question. Whom does he boss ? 
 
 Answer. He bosses the spar-makers. 
 
 Question. Does he have any ? 
 
 Answer. Of course he must have some, some of the time, or there 
 would not be any spars for the ships. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he has had many latterly ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think there is anything doing in that department 
 mow. 
 
 Question, Did you use your influence to have Captain Engle re- 
 moved ; and if so, what for ? 
 
 Answer. We had some trouble ; he was interfering with the men 
 in the yard, and we did not think it was right. 
 
 Question. In what way was he interfering ? 
 
 Answer. He was fetching people and putting them in there who 
 did not belong in our neighborhood ; and we did not think they ought 
 to be there. 
 
 Question. I believe, when we were examining you before, we did not 
 -question you with regard to fraudulent naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you please to state what knowledge you have of the 
 issuing and distributing of fraudulent naturalization papers in Phila- 
 delphia, previous to the election in 1856? 
 
 The Witness. How do you mean? Do you mean to ask me if I 
 ever saw any' such papers ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
392 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED,* ETC. 
 
 The Witness. Well, sir, I saw some few, but I do not know 
 whether they were fraudulent or not, I saw some that I supposed 
 were fraudulent, hut I could not swear that they were. 
 
 Question. Where did you see them ? 
 
 Answer. With different people. 
 
 Question. Inside of the court-room or outside ? 
 
 Answer. Outside. 
 
 Question. Can you state in whose hands you saw them, and wha 
 was engaged in distributing them? 
 
 Answer. I do not think that is a fair question. 
 
 Question. Do you know where they came from, and what use they 
 were for ? 
 
 Answer. They were got for election purposes, I suppose. 
 
 Question. For whom? for persons who were legally entitled to 
 them, or for those who were not ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, it was not for those who were legally entitled to- 
 them ; if it had been for them they could have got their own papers, 
 of course. 
 
 By Mr. WmSLOW : 
 
 Question. Do you know that they were got for fraudulent purposes ? 
 Answer. I suppose they were. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Where were those papers got ? 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 Question. In what place, or from whom? 
 
 Answer. They would have to be got out of some of the offices ; they 
 would not be got in any other way. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. If you know, will you state where those papers were ob- 
 tained ; from whom, and by wham? 
 
 Answer. I suppose the blanks were first obtained ; it is the easiest 
 to procure blank papers. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. If you know all about it, just go on and state what you- 
 know about the matter ; what offices these papers were got out of,, 
 and all you know on the subject. 
 
 Answer, I could not tell whose office they were got out of. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Do you know how many there were of them — how many 
 thousand ? what is your knowledge on that point ? 
 
 Answer, I guess there were five or six thousand, any how. 
 
 Question. Did you not distribute as many as five thousand, and, 
 run out, and have to make application for more blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I believe we did. 
 
 Question. What course did ^ou take in getting the names of par- 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 393 
 
 ties to give these papers to when they were not legally entitled to 
 them? 
 
 Answer. We generally canvassed the wards, the same as any party 
 would do, to see that all the people were fixed for voting. 
 ' Question. Did you assist in that business ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I did. 
 
 Question. You was one of the executive committee at the time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you, in doing so, ever undertake to ascertain what 
 time the parties had been in the country, and whether it was neces- 
 sary that they should he in the country any given time before being 
 entitled to vote ? 
 
 Answer. We knew it was necessary for them to be here five years 
 before they could vote. 
 
 Question. In your operations was it necessary that they should be 
 here any given time — a year, a month, or a week, or any time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we did not want to give everybody papers. Some 
 people were entitled to papers, but could not get them at the time. 
 They must procure their papers at least ten days previous to the 
 election. 
 
 Question. Did you know any of these papers ever to be taken into 
 court with the parties who got them, and to be sworn to ? 
 
 Answer. Some, I suppose, have been, and others have not. 
 
 Question, Did you know of any persons getting these papers who 
 had been but a very short time in the country? 
 
 Answer. I knew of some. I suppose there is plenty of the German 
 vote given in the same way. 
 
 Question. In canvassing the city to get the names of parties to issue 
 papers to did you give any attention to that subject, of how long they 
 had been in the country? 
 
 Answer. We did not pay any attention to that particular point. 
 
 Question. Do you know any party who was engaged in filling up 
 these papers ? 
 
 Answer. Xo, sir, I do not ; that was done priva^ly, I think. 
 
 Question. Have you not been told by some other party that they 
 did fill up such papers ? ' 
 
 Answer. I was never told so by any one. 
 
 Question. By what vote did you carry Pennsylvania at that elec- 
 tion ? 
 
 Answer. We carried the State election by 2,200, 
 
 Question. From the number of papers that you distributed, if it 
 had not been for them you would have lost the State ? 
 
 Answer. That is beyond my knowledge. I guess there was just as 
 much done on the other side. 
 
 Question. Did you know of any person being engaged in this busi- 
 ness on the other side ? 
 
 Answer. The Germans got all their papers in that way — all they 
 could get. 
 
 Mr. TRAnf. I wish you to answer everything that you know, with- 
 out reference to the party that these people belong to. I am just aa 
 
394 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 anxious to investigate these things among republicans as among 
 democrats. 
 
 By the Ohaieman : 
 
 Question. Do you know any particular person who was engaged in 
 that business on the republican side ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or any person on that side who got papers who was not 
 entitled to them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a large quantity of papers 
 being sent out of the city to be used in the country? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything of my own knowledge. 
 
 Question. Do you not kiiow any party that told you that it had 
 been done? 
 
 [Mr. WrssLow objected to this question.] 
 
 Question. Do you know Edward Power ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did not Edward Power tell you that he helped to carry 
 a trunk full of these papers to the railroad station for Colonel Baker 
 to take up the road ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think what he told me makes it so. 
 
 Question. You will please answer the question. 
 
 Answer. I have heard it said that he did. 
 
 Question. That is not what I asked you. Did he not tell you he 
 helped to carry a trunk of these papers to the railroad station ? 
 
 Answer. I did not see him with a trunk. 
 
 Question. That is not the inquiry. Did he not tell you he had 
 helped to carry to the station a trunk of those papers ? 
 
 Answer. He told me that he knew about the trunk. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you that he had helped to carry the trunk 
 to the railroad station? That is a plain question. 
 
 Answer, (after a pause.) I decline answering the question. 
 
 Question. Have you not had a conversation with some person in 
 high position sincfe you came here, in which conversation you were 
 counselled not to answer that question ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. I will ask you again, did not Edward Power tell you 
 that he had helped to carry a trunk full of these naturalization papers 
 to the railroad station for Colonel Baker to take up the road ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that question. 
 
 Question. What is the reason ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think it is a fair question — that is the reason. I 
 will answer anything that is fair. 
 
 Question. Do you know Bill MuUin, or McMullen, who gave infor- 
 mation with regard to some money in the hands of some republicans 
 in Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. I know a man by the name of William McMullin. 
 
 Question. Is he the person who gave that information?* 
 
 Answer. He is the person who got the money, I believe. 
 
 Question. Have you confidence in Mr. McMullin' s statements? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 395 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I would take his word as quick as that of any- 
 body else ? 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. What money was this that you say he got? 
 
 Answer. It was money that a man by the name of Butler gave him 
 in 1856 to influence people in favor of Fremont ; and he gave the 
 money to a man by the name of Eeed, 
 
 Question. Who was this Butler ? 
 
 Answer. He was a prominent man in his district. 
 
 Question. How much money was paid to him ? 
 
 Answer. Somthing like twelve hundred dollars. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Did you not say that you would not believe him on oath? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you give the names of some of the persons that filled 
 up these naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know as I could ; they were done privately. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of some persons selling these papers 
 and getting one dollar apiece for them ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard it said that such was the case. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of your own knowledge that this was 
 done ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw any sold and the money given for them my- 
 self. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of Mr. McDonough selling a large 
 nuiflber of these papers and getting a good deal of money, with which 
 he built a house afterwards ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you so ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw him sell any ; and he never told me so, either. 
 
 Question. Did anybody else tell you that that was the case? 
 
 Answer. I have heard it spoken of. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : i 
 
 Question. I understand you to say, Mr, Lafferty, that these papers 
 were prepared in some private place. Do you not know where this 
 was done? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you ever present when they were being made? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had they any seal upon them? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What seal was it ? 
 
 Answer. The seal of some of the courts. 
 
 Question. What court? 
 
 Answer. We have three courts issuing these papers. 
 
 •Question. Did they bear any seal purporting to be the seal of the 
 court ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
396 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did you know where the seal was prepared and put upon 
 these papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I did not. 
 
 Question. Do you know the signature of the parties that these 
 papers bore ? 
 
 Answer. We have three courts issuing naturalization papers, as I 
 told you ; and I suppose there were the signatures of the officers of 
 each one on some of them. 
 
 Question. You saw some of these papers. State whose names they 
 tore. 
 
 Answer. All three of these courts issued papers, and they were 
 distributed. 
 
 Question, I know that the courts issued genuine papers, but I am 
 not asking you about them. Those that you saw were fraudulent 
 papers, and I want to know whose names were forged ? 
 
 Answer. The prothonotary's name, for one. 
 
 Question. What was his name ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Howell. 
 
 Question. Did you know that his name was not genuine where it 
 appeared upon those papers ? 
 
 Answer. From my knowledge I did not think it was. 
 
 Question. Now give the name of the clerk or other officer of the 
 courts whose name appeared upon those papers ? 
 
 Answer. I could not give the name of the clerk at present ; I could 
 to-morrow. 
 
 Question. You say, from your knowledge .of the prothonotary's 
 signature, you think these papers were fraudulent. Now, what leads 
 you to believe that they were fraudulent ? 
 
 Answer. From their not going before the court and the judges, and 
 being sworn to. 
 
 Question. Do you know that they were not sworn to ? 
 
 Answer. I know, of course, that a man could not go before the 
 court and swear that he had been in this country five years when he 
 had not. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that you gave papers to parties who 
 subsequently used them in elections without ever going before the 
 court to make the necessary proof? 
 
 Answer. I have given a few. 
 
 Question. Did I understand you to say that you yourself had dis- 
 tributed as many as five thousand ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he asked me how many I had heard of being 
 distributed. 
 
 Question. Well, how many did you distribute yourself? 
 
 Answer. Two or three thousand. 
 
 Question. Did you go out of Philadelphia to make distribution of 
 them? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. If I understand you, the duty which you performed in 
 reference to it was to go about the city and find out the names of indi- 
 viduals to be inserted in these papers ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC, 397 
 
 Answer. That was almost everybody's duty who took part in the 
 campaign. 
 
 Question. Did you do it? 
 
 Answer. I have done some of it. 
 
 Question. Where you found such parties, did you afterwards take 
 naturalization papers to them ? 
 
 Answer. I had them sent by some one. 
 
 Question. Was the labor of preparing these papers done in your 
 committee-room ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where was it done ? 
 
 Answer. We generally did it on the street ;' we got the papers and 
 distributed them on the street. 
 
 Question. Did you put the seal on in the street ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the seal was on when they were handed to us. 
 
 Question. And the signature was on, too? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know where the papers were prepared with seal 
 and signature ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know who prepared them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Who gave them to you? 
 
 Answer. Different persons. 
 
 Question. Name one who gave you any of them ? 
 
 Answer. I got some from a gentleman by the name of Walters. 
 
 Question. What was his Christian name? 
 
 Answer. Jacob. 
 
 Question. Is he in Philadelphia now ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where does he live ? 
 
 Answer. In 20th street, between Lombard and Pine. 
 
 Question. What is his business ? 
 
 Answer. He is in the employ of government. 
 
 Question. What is he ? 
 
 Answer. He is in the custom-hoi;se. 
 
 Question. In what position ? 
 
 Answer. As lieutenant of the night-watch. 
 
 Question. Was he at that time holding a position in the custom- 
 house ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that the seal on these papers was a 
 forged seal ? 
 
 Answer. That is more than I could say, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you ever see these naturalization papers with the 
 seal of the court ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was there anything on them that led you to believe that 
 the seal was forged ? 
 
398 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that the signature of Mr. Howell, 
 the prothonotary, was forged? 
 
 Answer. My knowledge of their heing forged was this : the papers 
 never went up before the judges of the court. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that many of these papers never 
 went up to the court ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Now, I want to know whether Mr. Howell's and the 
 clerk's names were forged, or whether they were their genuine signa- 
 tures ? 
 
 Answer. That I could not tell ; I never saw any of them filled up. 
 
 Question. Did they diifer from any other naturalization papers? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Were these papers procured at the clerk's office in ad- 
 vance to give them to parties who had not actually sworn to them in 
 eourt ; is that what you mean by their being fraudulent ? 
 
 Answer. That is the only fraudulent thing that I know of about 
 them. 
 
 Question. You say that by your law they must be taken out ten 
 days previous to the election, and these papers were, many of them, 
 taken out in less than ten days previous to the election, in violation 
 of law? 
 
 Answer. There were some of them taken out before and some after 
 that time. 
 
 Question. I am speaking of some parties who were not able to get 
 their papers, owing to this limitation, until after the legal time had 
 expired, and it was necessary that they should have their papers in 
 order to be able to vote ; that is what you call fraudulent papers, 
 is it? ' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You do not mean to say that either the seal or the sig- 
 nature were forged, do you ? 
 
 Answer. All that I mean to say is this, that some of the papers 
 were given to men who had not been before the court and sworn to 
 them. After you go to the office and get your papers, they have to 
 be taken before the judge of the court and sworn to. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiisfSON : 
 
 Question. That is, the parties who are getting out papers have to 
 go before the court and swear that they have been here five years ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; some of the clerks will|take half a dozen of them 
 up at a time. 
 
 Question. And they swear to their intention of becoming citizens ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You say that if they had been entitled to vote they could 
 have got their papers in the regular way, without your furnishing 
 them, and would have had to swear to them? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
. PHILABELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. B29 
 
 Question. And when you spoke of their being fraudulent papers 
 you meant to allude to persons who had not actually gone before the 
 court, in. consequence of its being less than ten days before the elec- 
 tion? 
 
 'Answer. The law specifies that a voter shall have his papers ten 
 days previous to the election in order to entitle him to vote. It does 
 not make any difference if you get your papers out nine days before 
 the election, and they are legal papers — you cannot vote with them. 
 
 Question. Did you not distribute them long before that to persons 
 who were not entitled to them ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 Question. Tou did not know where these papers were procured — 
 whether in the clerk's office or anywhere else? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you not know of these papers all running out, and. 
 having to send to New England for more? 
 
 Answer. Not to my own knowledge. 
 
 Question. Do you not know some party that had to send to New 
 England for them ? 
 
 Answer. If I knew that I would know where the papers were filled- 
 up at. 
 
 [The chairman requested the witness to leave the committee room' 
 while the committee consulted. After some time the witness was re- 
 called, and was informed that the committee had unanimously decided 
 that he must answer the following question :] 
 
 Question. Did not Edward Power tell you that he helped to carry 
 a trunk full of these naturalization papers to the railroad station fos- 
 Colonel Baker to take up the road ? . \ 
 
 The Witness. I decline answering that question. 
 
 No. 46. 
 
 Thuksdat, May 31, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS Mcdonough recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know John Cummings. the naval storekeeper m 
 Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, Does he do anything whatever at the navy yard ? 
 
 Answer. All the requisitions for material that I have to use in my 
 department I have to make to him, and he comes there and signs his^ 
 name to the bills and requisitions. That is all the duty that he per- 
 forms that I know. 
 
400 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC.^ 
 
 Question. Do you know Charles Clement ? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Do you know that his name is on the pay-roll, and he 
 receives pay as a clerk to the storekeeper ? 
 
 Answer. That is the understanding we have in the yard ; that he 
 is second clerk in the naval storekeeper's office. 
 
 Question. Does he do anything there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. , . i^. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he gets his pay himself, or who 
 
 does get it ? i ■ • i. 
 
 Answer. The purser pays the men. I never saw him get it, but 
 the presumption is that he does get it ; he told me himself that he 
 got it. 
 
 Question. Do you know Henry S. Crahbe — a clerk in the com- 
 mandant's department? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Mr. Crabhe gets any salary but 
 one? 
 
 Answer. He performs the duty of clerk to the commandant — to 
 Commodore Stewart ; does all the correspondence of the office, and is 
 immediately under the military control of the yard. Commodore 
 Stewart has all to do with him. 
 
 Question. Do you know how much he gets as commandant's clerk? 
 
 Answer. I think it is $1,200 a year. 
 
 .Question. Do you know of his getting the pay of one or two other 
 ■clerkships ? 
 
 Answer. There is another clerkship in the yard — it is the muster 
 <;lerk of the yard, or the second clerk of the commandant. There is 
 a son of his that is rated as the other clerk. 
 
 Question. Who gets the pay ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir ; the purser could tell that. I do not 
 see any of the clerks paid. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of Mr. Crabbe getting the pay of two 
 ■or three clerkships ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard it charged ©n him. 
 
 Question. Do you not know from the parties themselves that he 
 gets the pay from three different clerkships ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Crabbe explained to me that his son was appointed 
 ^Dy Commodore Stewart. These appointments are immediately under 
 the military control of the yard ; the civilians have nothing to do' 
 ■with them . Mr. Crabbe told me that he took the papers home at 
 might, and his son assisted him. 
 
 Question. Do you know the names of persons being used to draw 
 -money out of the treasury while they render the government no 
 service ? 
 
 Answer. Well, this Clements is one. AllIknowaboutMr. Crabbe's 
 son is the explanation that Mr. Crabbe made to me. 
 
 Question, Do you not also know that the name of the nephew of 
 Mr. Cummings is used while he does nothing there ? 
 „. Answer. There was a person of the name of Cummings on the roll 
 <)f the stocekeeper's office, when Mr, Cummings was first appointed. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 401 
 
 * 
 
 He was rated as second clerk under the storekeeper. Captain Engle 
 told me that he p;ave an order to Mr. Cummings, the storekeeper, that 
 if his nephew did not attend to the duties of his office he would 
 dismiss him. His name then disappeared from the roll ; he was dis- 
 charged from the storekeeper's office, and Mr. Clement was appointed 
 in his place ; but neither Clement nor Cummings ever attended to 
 any duty as second clerk, to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Did you not give testimony before the naval investigating 
 board of a great many abuses that you have not mentioned here ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I answered the questions that the naval board 
 put to me, and the military authority of the yard have full power to 
 correct the abuses to which that investigation related. The testimony 
 is in print. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. If it is in any book then we can use it. 
 
 The Witness. It was never sworn to at all, and there is a great 
 deal of it that the naval board themselves say is wrong. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Go on, and make a statement about it, and state what 
 testimony you gave there which it is proper for this committee to have ; 
 give us your knowledge of those abuses in as condensed a form as you 
 can. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to that question. 
 
 The Chairman. Then, I will not press it. 
 
 No. 74. 
 
 Friday, June 1, 1860. 
 
 PATEICK LAFFERTY recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Mr. Lafferty, you declined answering a question put to 
 you by the committee yesterday, and I will now ask it in a different 
 form. What did Edward Power tell you about those naturalization 
 papers ? 
 
 Answer. In a conversation with Mr. Power, some two years ago, 
 we got to talking about fraudulent naturalization papers 
 
 Question. Where did that conversation occur ? 
 
 Answer. In Chestnut street, between 5th and 6th. 
 
 By Mr, Train : 
 
 Question. Were there any others present, besides you and Mr. 
 Power ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Well, what did he say to you ? 
 
 Answer. He remarked to me about Col. Baker's carrying a trunk 
 full of papers up the State road. 
 Question. Did he say he knew it ? 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648-— -26 
 
402 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, he said he knew it. That remark was the first 
 that I ever heard ahout the trunk full of papers. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. How did he know it ; did he tell you ? 
 
 Answer. I did not ask him ; I am just giving the conversation ; I 
 did not ask him anything ahout it. 
 
 Question. Then, if I understand you, all that he said was that he 
 knew Col. Baker carried a ttunk full of these fraudulent naturaliza- 
 tion papers up the road ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you how he knew it? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, he did not. 
 
 Question. Did he tell you what else he knew about the trunk ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he tell you anything ahout his having carried it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What began this conversation? 
 
 Answer. I do not know exactly what began it. He was an appli- 
 cant to Colonel Baker, and got disappointed. I do not know what 
 drew Colonel Baker's name into the conversation. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. An applicant for what? 
 Answer. For a position under Colonel Baker. 
 Question. In the custom-house ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 Question. Did he succeed ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know John G. Ringland ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he was a clerk in Mr. Plitt's office, 
 or connected with Mr. Plitt's office? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he was ; he was under government. 
 
 Question. In what position? 
 
 Answer. He was in the custom-house. 
 
 Question. _ Did you know anything about his using any person's 
 name in filling up papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know Reuben Brown ? 
 
 Answer. I know him when I see him; I have very slight acquaint- 
 ance with him. 
 
 Question, What position is he occupying ; what is his business ? 
 
 Answer. He is deputy naval officer, I think, under Mr. McKibben. 
 
 Question. Did you know anything about his taking papers up to 
 Reading ? 
 
 ^Answer. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Question. Do you know Frank McG-uire? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What is his position? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 403 
 
 Answer. I think he held a position in 1856 ; I will not he certain. 
 
 Question. Has he held one since under government ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my own knowledge. 
 
 Question. Do you know what position John Zeigler of Iowa held? 
 
 Answer. We had a Zeigler there in Philadelphi, John Zeigler. 
 
 Question. Was it John Zeigler, route agent on the mail ? 
 
 Answer. Tefs, sir. 
 
 No. 88. 
 
 Monday, June 4, 1860. 
 
 CHAELES W. CLEMENT called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside, Mr. Clement? 
 
 Answer. In Tenth street, above Spruce, Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What business are you engaged in? 
 
 Answer. In brick-laying. 
 
 Question. Did you get an appointment as assistant clerk to the 
 naval storekeeper ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. How came you to get that appointment ; were you an ap- 
 plicant for that place? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know why you came to get the place ? 
 
 Answer. No sir, I do not, unless it was through good feeling and 
 ifriendship. 
 
 Question. Upon the-part of whom ? 
 
 Answer. On the part of Mr. Cummings, the storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Had you been long acquainted with him ? 
 
 Answer. Only since he was in the yard. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with business of that kind — with 
 bookkeeping ? 
 
 Answer. Not much. 
 
 The Chairman. Give me a specimen of your handwriting. 
 
 [The witness did so.] 
 
 Question. Did you fill the duties of that office ? 
 
 Answer. I filled all the duties that were put before me to fill ; I was 
 down there regularly. 
 
 Question. You was at work laying brick ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I had a number of contracts for materials, and 
 some brick work, not much. 
 
 Question. Were you down there attending to that business, or the 
 clerkship ? 
 
 Answer. I was down there for the clerkship and any services which 
 might be wanted. 
 
 Question. Did you go there to sign your pay-rolls ? 
 
 Answer. I signed them while I was there ; I did not go there for 
 that purpose. 
 
404 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Question. When you signed them, did they hand you over any 
 money at the time you signed them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you ever get any pay until after this committee was 
 appointed, and there came to be a stir about it ? 
 
 Answer. 1 do no.t know exactly what time the committee was ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Question. It was the 5th of March ; did you get any pay before that 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say whether I got the first payment before that 
 time or after it. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Cummings's nephew 
 being clerk there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you in the office enough to know who were the clerks 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. No sir ; at any rate, I did not know who he was. 
 
 Question. Do you know of one of the editors of the Argus being a 
 clerk there ? 
 
 The Witness. What is his name ? 
 
 The Chairman. I do not remember the name now. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question (showing witness the paper he had written.) Is that the 
 specimen of your handwriting which you wrote for the chairman of 
 the committee? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you spell "^ crucifix " ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I have not spelled it very lately. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Try it. 
 
 The Witness. My memory is poor, and it is a longtime since I went 
 to school. I do not suppose I could spell it. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Well, just try it—" crucifix." I will help you ; the 
 first letter is "c." 
 
 The Witness. Of course. Let me see — c-r-o — (pausing) 
 
 Mr. Winslow. Go on. 
 
 The Witness (continuing) — u-c-/-i-x. I do not suppose I have 
 spelled it for thirty years before. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. That is doing pretty well. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC, 405 
 
 No. 100. 
 
 Saturday, Junt 9, 1860. 
 
 CHAKLES BROWN called aud sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In the city of Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Were you collector of customs there in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; from 1853 to 1857. 
 
 Question. Were you aware of Mr. Westcott's absence from his 
 official duties during the months from June to November, 1856? 
 
 Answer. Not particularly ; he was not under my immediate control, 
 but in an independent branch ; he was an appraiser, and an appraiser 
 is an independent branch, not connected with the collector's depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Question. What was the position Mr. Wesfcott held at that time ? 
 
 Answer. One of the local appraisers for the port of Philadelphia ; 
 there were two of them ; Mr. P. Barry Hays was one of them, and Mr. 
 Westcott was the other. 
 
 Question. Had you any advice or knowledge that he was absent from 
 his duties during that period, or the most part of the time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have no recollection of the fact ; my impression 
 is that he was absent, but I have no knowledge of the time or the 
 circumstances. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that he was acting as secretary, or 
 something of the kind, of the State democratic organization during 
 that lime ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I know that he was secretary to the State exec- 
 utive committee ; but, as it sat in Philadelphia, he might have per- 
 formed his duties as appraiser. I had no knowledge of what I was 
 called here for, or I could have refreshed my recollection by refer- 
 ence to my papers. 
 
 Question. Do you know of Mr. Westcott's receiving pay during 
 that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I know nothing of it at all ; I might say that I 
 have now no recollection of any particulars about these matters, and 
 cannot have unless by reference to the books and accounts. 
 
 Question. Of course you would not know anything about his signing 
 vouchers for his pay during that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had those vouchers to pass through your hands? 
 . Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you know of his being released from duty during 
 that canvass for a period ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he would not come to me for that ; he would ap- 
 ply to the Secretary of the Treasury for that ; I have no knowledge of 
 that matter. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any advances being made to him during 
 
406 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC, 
 
 that time from the department that were not in accordance with the 
 customs of the office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not, and should think that no such thing 
 could h^ve taken place. 
 
 Question. As collector of the port of Philadelphia, was it not your 
 duty to control and regulate the appraisers' department ? 
 
 Answer. Under Secretary G-uthrie's administration it was placed 
 considerably under my control, but by law it is not ; it is an inde- 
 pendent branch ; but the collector has nothing to do with the appoint- 
 ments in that department — no control over them ; it is a branch en- 
 tirelj' independent of the collector. 
 
 Question. Did you ever hear or know of any arrangement between 
 Mr. Westcott and Colonel Patterson as regards any benefit the former 
 would derive from the renting of Mr. Patterson's store to the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I can answer very clearly that I never did, and 
 do not for a moment suppose that there was anything of the kind. 
 
 Question. In causing the removal of the appraisers' store from Wal- 
 nut street to Front andXombard streets, were you not aware that Mr. 
 Godley offered the store in Walnut street at reduced rates, and to 
 make the store fire-proof, according to law ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but the contrary was the fact ; I had the control 
 of that matter, and was very anxious to continue the appraisers' store 
 in Mr. Godley's building. But it became the policy of Mr. Gruthrie, 
 in which I coincided entirely, to establish private bonded warehouses. 
 When I first took possession there I found the whole business in utter 
 confusion. The bonded warehouses were nearly all in merchant's own 
 stores ; some in garrets, some in rooms, partly partitioned ofl^ by pale 
 fences, small portions of a floor being fenced off" in that way ; and 
 upon making an examination I did not find all the goods that were 
 called for in those warehouses. Some of the first merchants in Phil- 
 adelphia had surreptitiously taken goods out of these warehouses, or 
 stopped them before they got in, and paid no duties. I immediately 
 reported the facts to the department and steps were taken to change 
 the system. The next step proposed to me was that we should try to 
 get a warehouse in which to place the bonded goods ; I went to Mr. 
 Godley, who had the stores rented then by the government. Those 
 stores were an immense expense to the government, which was losing 
 thousands of dollars yearly by them ; 1 went to Mr. Godley and re- 
 quested and urged him to have his store made a private bonded ware- 
 house. He declined, refused to do it. I then told him that we would 
 be obliged to look elsewhere, for it had become the policy of the gov- 
 ernment to try to get rid of the expense of these stores ; Colonel Pat- 
 terson had put up a number of fine stores on Front street near the 
 wharf, near the centre of the commerce of the port. I then proposed 
 to him that if he would purchase a lot, which he had before declined 
 on account of the extravagant price asked for it, and put up a store 
 there, and fit it for a private bonded warehouse, we would make ar- 
 rangements to take it. After some negotiations he agreed to do it. He 
 bought the lot and put up a store and offered to rent it to the govern- 
 ment for ten years ; but Mr. Guthrie said that under the law he could 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 407 
 
 not rent it for ten years, but he would rent it for three years, with the 
 privilege of retaining it at the termination of that period. It was so 
 arranged and so agree,d upon, with entire and exclusive reference to 
 the public good, and with no particular connexion with any individual 
 whatever. 
 
 Question. How much did you pay Colonel Patterson for one store 
 used as the appraisers' office ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell you now, for I do not remember ; if I had 
 known of this in time I could have ascertained all the facts and dates; 
 everything of that sort, however, is a matter of record. 
 
 Question. Wa-s it not $9,000 ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was something like $9,000 a year. 
 
 Question. Do you know the whole value of that property ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think I was pretty well acquaiLted with the 
 value of it. 
 
 Question. How much was its value? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember now. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that that property was valued at 
 $18,500? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the appraisers' store ? 
 
 Question. I mean this store which the government paid $9,000 a 
 year rent for ; do you not know that it was appraised at $18,500 ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have no knowledge what it was appraised at ; 
 but I do not think it was that sum. 
 
 Question. Do you know the cost of the building ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not ; it was a very costly building, some four 
 or five stories high ; I do not remember the width of it ; Colonel Pat- 
 terson put in a steam engine and a hoisting apparatus ; and the $9,000 
 not only covered the rent, but the steam engine, hoisting apparatus, 
 and the lighting the store. 
 
 Question. Did you not pay, besides the $9,000, for lighting the 
 store. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but I think we paid extra for heating it. Colonel 
 Patterson went to several thousand dollars expense in putting in an 
 additional boiler, with pipes from the steam engine for heating the 
 rooms in the store. 
 
 No. 101. 
 
 Satuedat, June 9, 1860, 
 
 WILLIAM C, PATTERSON called and examined. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside, sir ? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Do you hold any office under the administration? 
 
 Answer. None, sir. 
 
408 
 
 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 Question. Does the government rent of you any building for a ware- 
 house ? 
 
 Answer. The government rents a large building, occupied by the 
 appraisers and other officers. 
 
 Question. Where is that building ? 
 
 Answer. On Lombard street, extending from Front to Penn. 
 
 Question. When was that building erected ? 
 
 Answer. In 1855, sir. 
 
 Question. When did you rent it to the government ? 
 
 Answer. In that year, sir. 
 
 Question. Through Mr. Charles Brown? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir, through Mr. Brown to Mr. Guthrie, Secretary of 
 the Treasury. 
 
 Question. What was the cost of that building ? 
 
 Answer. Between sixty and seventy thousand dollars, for the build- 
 ing and ground. 
 
 Question. Is it fire-proof? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I believe so. 
 
 Question. What does the government pay you for it ? 
 
 Answer. Nine thousand dollars a year for tlie building and the use 
 of the hoisting apparatus, and the services of the .engineer and as- 
 sistant engineer on that apparatus, which is in use on that building 
 and the adjoining warehouse, which is not rented to the government. 
 
 Question. Is nine thousand dollars the extent of the income which 
 yon derive from the government, or do you receive other moneys ? 
 
 Answer. I have no other transaction of any kind with the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Question. I do not know but I misunderstand you ; do you mean 
 to say that you receive that for the building alone, or does that include 
 the other ? 
 
 Answer. That is simply for the building ; but the motive power for 
 the hoisting apparatus is a steam engine, and that is furnished by the 
 owner of the building, and the engineer and his assistant are paid by 
 the owner of the building. Nine thousand dollars is the outside 
 price, which covers the rent and the operation of the engine. 
 
 Question. Who pays the taxes on it? 
 
 Answer. I do, sir. ' 
 
 Question. What do they amount to ? 
 
 Answer. I think upon that building the taxes and water rent are 
 about five or six hundred dollars. I cannot speak with accuracy about 
 that, because I pay them in connexion with the adjoining building. 
 
 Question Do you know what the valuation of that property is ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think our valuation is twenty thousand dol- 
 lars. I ought to say, for the purpose of making it intelligible to 
 people who live out of Pennsylvania, that the valuations of property 
 in that State are very far below their actual value. The actual cash 
 cost to me was over sixty thousand dollars ; the ground alone cost 
 twenty-five thousand dollars. Perhaps I ought to add that I did not 
 seek this contract ; the application came to me from an officer of the 
 government. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 409 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Did you consider the rent an unfair one ? 
 
 Answer. I did not, sir ; I refused Mr. Guthrie's offer at first ; my 
 original price was ten thousand dollars, and Mr. Guthrie offered nine 
 thousand. I refused to put up a building to he rented for that amount ; 
 but Mr. Guthrie wished to establish a system of private bonded ware- 
 houses, and in order to do that he thought this building was neces- 
 sary, for the accommodations were not very good elsewhere. The 
 warehouses were scattered ; and it was a less rent, I believe, than the 
 government was then paying. I agreed to his terms, but I certainly 
 would not erect such a building for the same rent again. 
 
 No. 102. 
 
 Saturday, June 9, 1860. 
 
 ANDREW M. SALLADE called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Reading, Berks county, Pennsylvania, 
 
 Question. Did you reside there in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What knowledge have you of fraudulent naturalization 
 papers being sent up there, during that summer or fall, from Phila- 
 delphia ? 
 
 Answer. Some time during the fall prior to the election — I cannot 
 now state whether it was prior to the State or presidential election, 
 but it was very shortly before one of those elections — I was present at 
 a meeting held in Reading 
 
 Question. What kind of meeting ? 
 
 Answer. It was a democratic meeting. 
 
 Question. Well, go on with your statement. 
 
 Answer. Some gentleman came to me at the meeting, who had evi- 
 dently been hunting for me, and he asked me if I had any objection — 
 I am not certain whether he did not ask me to give him the key of my 
 office, and he asked me if I had any objection to allow my back office 
 to be used for a short time. I wanted to know what for ; and this 
 person told me that they had some naturalization papers that they 
 wanted to fix up. I said, " Sir, my office cannot be used for any such 
 purpose ; it must not be done, either at my office or anywhere else." 
 I think I also said that I hoped we should be strong enough to carry 
 the election honestly ; and if we could not, no such means should be 
 resorted to, with my consent ; and I advised the party, as he valued 
 his reputation and his liberty, not to attempt anything of the sort. I 
 do not now recollect what he said ; but he left me, and that is all that 
 I heard of it. 
 
 Question. What did parties gay to you as to where these papers 
 were to be used ? 
 
410 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Answer. There was more said than I have detailed here, hut it is 
 impossihle for me at this time to tell every thing that was said. If you 
 should put the question directly to me, perhaps I could remember 
 better — that is, if you have other information what the conversation 
 was. 
 
 Question. Was there anything said about these papers being pro- 
 cured for the Irish who were at work on the Union canal ? 
 
 Answer. There was something said about the Irish, who were then 
 at work, if I mistake not, enlarging the Union canal. 
 
 Question. Go on and state all you remember about that. 
 
 Answer. When the remark was made about the Irish, I at once put 
 my foot down upon this thing ; and I must say, in justice to this man 
 who spoke to me about it, that when he found I talked in this way, 
 he said he agreed with me, and it would be better not to do it. I do 
 not know whether I did not say that the offence was a very serious 
 one for any person to engage in. That is the substance of what I 
 know about these things, for I was never spoken to again upon the 
 subject after that night, that I remember of, although there was a 
 good deal said about it. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Did you ever see any of these papers ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw one of them ; I never desired to see them. 
 
 No. 105. 
 
 Satukday, June, 9, 1860. 
 
 P. BARRY HAYES called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What is your occupation at the present time ? 
 
 Answer. I am at present chief clerk of the House of Representa- 
 tives. 
 
 Question. Were you an appraiser in the custom-house at Philadel- 
 phia in 1856? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was therefrom 1853 to 1857. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Gideon G. Westcott an appraiser during the 
 same period ? 
 
 Answer. He was my colleague and an appraiser of tlie port of 
 Philadelphia during that period. 
 
 Question. Was he absent from duties during the year 1856, or any 
 portion of it? 
 
 Answer. He was absent from the office from the beginning of the 
 month of June until the beginning of the month of November, 1856. 
 
 Question. Do you know in what he was engaged during his absence 
 from the office ? 
 
 Answer. He was employed at the democratic committee in Walnut 
 street below Fifth street — something of that kind. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 411 
 
 Question. Were the officials in the custom-house obliged to swear 
 to their monthly receipts to draw their pay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; before they can draw their salaries there is a 
 regular form of oath prescribed by law ; I have a copy of the form in 
 rny pocket, if you desire to have it. 
 
 By Mr. Train: 
 
 Question. Will you let the committee have it? 
 
 Answer. Here is the form of the oath ; before we received our pay 
 we were obliged to fill this up ai^^ swear to it before a notary public 
 or alderman. 
 
 [The following is the blank form.j 
 
 l^Name of the naval officer or collector,] naval officer of the customs for 
 the district of Philadelphia , To Dr. 
 
 For my services as ^ , at the rate of $ 
 
 per annum .,'. f 
 
 Eeceived from , naval officer [or collector] of the 
 
 customs for the district of Philadelphia, on the day of , 
 
 185 , the sum of dollars, being in full of my compensation 
 
 for the period above stated. 
 
 I, , naval officer [or collector] for the district of Philadel- 
 phia, do hereby certify on that I have performed the services stated 
 
 in the above account ; that I have received the full sum therein 
 charged, to my own use and benefit, and that I have not paid, de- 
 posited, or assigned, nor contracted to pay, deposit, or assign, any 
 part of such compensation, to the use of any other person ; nor in any 
 way, directly or indirectly, paid, or given, nor contracted to pay or 
 give, any reward or compensation for my office or employment, or the 
 emoluments thereof. 
 
 and subscribed before me, this day of , . 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything relative to the value of the pro- 
 perty owned by Colonel Patterson, used for the appraisers' store, and 
 fronting on Lombard and Front streets ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that property is assessed in the county com- 
 missioner's office for the sum of $18,540. 
 
 Question. What rent does the government pay for it? 
 
 Answer. The rent paid by the government when I was in office — 
 and I suppose it is the same now — was |9,000 a year, and $800 a year 
 additional for heating. 
 
 Question. Do you consider that an enormous rent? 
 
 Answer. 1 think it is a very high rent. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Do you consider it an enormous rent ? That is the ques- 
 tion. 
 Answer. Well, yes, I do. 
 
412 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 No. 107. 
 ALBERT R. SCHOFIELD called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. I reside at No. 1515 Stiles street, twentieth ward, Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 Question. Were you employed in«the custom-house in Philadelphia 
 in the year 1856 or 1858, or both ? 
 
 Answer. I received a letter hearing date June 23, 1857, informing 
 me that I had been appointed an inspector of customs, and desiring 
 to see me on Tuesday, the 30th of June, 1857. 
 
 Question. From whom was that letter? 
 
 Answer. From J. B. Baker, collector. I went there on the day 
 named, was examined and sworn in, and went on duty on the follow- 
 ing day. 
 
 Question. Where were you engaged in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. From the 18th of July to the 6th of November I was with 
 Colonel J. W. Forney in the democratic State central committee room. 
 No. 140^ Walnut street. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any person taking into the interior of 
 Pennsylvania a large number of naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Have you not stated within a few weeks to some person 
 that you did know that ? 
 
 Answer. In a conversation with Mr. Yearsley I was repeating what 
 I had often heard upon the streets, common rumor. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell him that you knew of eleven hundred 
 of these papers being taken at one time into the interior of the State ? 
 
 Answer. I said that I had heard that Mr, Baker had taken eleven 
 hundred up. 
 
 Question. Have you not had a conversation with Marshal Yost 
 about the subject within a few weeks ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard the subject spoken of in the marshal's office ; 
 thero is where I first received the information in regard to it. 
 
 Question. What did the marshal request of you during that con- 
 versation relative to these papers ; what did he say to you? 
 
 Answer. The marshal said to me that I must be careful about my 
 testimony. I told him that I certainly should be careful ; that I 
 would not testify anything but what I know. 
 
 Question. Did he not advise you how to give your testimony ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he never did ; never. 
 
 Question. How came you to have that interview with Marshal Yost. 
 Did you go to him, or did he come to you? 
 
 Answer. We were sitting in the marshal's office talking about 
 these things. The conversation was predicated upon some statements 
 of Mr. Lafferty, published in the "Press." , 
 
 Question. Did Marshal Yost know that you were subpoenaed to 
 come here ? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 413 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he did. 
 
 Question. How long has it heen since you were first subpoenaed to 
 come here ? 
 
 Answer. I was subpoenaed by Mr. Wells on the 23d of May. 
 
 Question. Was that the first time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I had then gone on the United States jury 
 for the eastern district of Pennsylvania on the 2l8t of May. 
 
 Question. Who told you that these papers were taken up into the 
 country ? 
 
 Answer. I heard Colonel William B. Kankin speak of them. 
 
 Question. Where is Mr. Kankin now ? 
 
 Answer. The last I heard of him he was in New York making a 
 speech at a Sam Houston meeting there. 
 
 Question. What means had Mr. Kankin of knowing about these 
 papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; he was president of the Keystone club, 
 and pretty active in the campaign. 
 
 Question. Have you had any interview with Mr. Rankin since the 
 organization of this committee relative to this subject ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir : it has been two years since I heard Mr. Kankin 
 speak of it. 
 
 Question. Do you know Keuben Brown ? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Do you know of his being subpoenaed before this com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Answer. I saw his name upon the subpoena that Mr. Bassett had, 
 the third gentleman who called upon me. There were three who 
 called upon me ; the first was Mr. Wells, the second Mr. Freeman, 
 and the third Mr. Bassett. 
 
 Question. Do you know why Mr. Brown has not come here? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 1 never spoke to him upon the subject. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Mr. Brown was connected with 
 these naturalization papers ? 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of that fact. 
 
 Question. Did you not know of his taking a large quantity of them 
 up to Reading ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard that he took them up, but I have no know- 
 ledge of the fact myself. 
 
 Question. Who told you that he took them up there? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection of any one ever telling me ; I am 
 satisfied that no one ever did. 
 ' Question. Then did you hear some one tell others in your hearing? 
 
 Answer. I heard a gentleman say that he received a letter request- 
 ing him to send some money on, or he would expose him for sending 
 up papers? 
 
 Question. From whom was that letter ? 
 
 Answer. From some person up in Berk's county. 
 
 Question. How much did he demand to avoid exposure ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was $100. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he paid that money? 
 
 Answer. That I do not know. 
 
414 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 
 
 Question. Are you not at the present time a candidate for the legis- 
 lature in the State of Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I am a candidate for nomination in my district. 
 
 Question. Have you not been cautioned not to give the information 
 you possess as it would damage you in the canvass ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I am independent of anything of that kind. 
 
 Question. Can you not tell us something more with regard to what 
 Marshal Tost said in that interview that it would be proper for us 
 to know? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Try and refresh your memory? 
 
 Answer. My memory is perfectly fresh in regard to it now. 
 
 Question. Can you not tell of some particular point he made in 
 regard to it? 
 
 Answer. Not at all ; Marshal Yost is a high-toned gentleman, who 
 would not ask me to do anything wrong. 
 
 Question. What was the remark he made to you about your testi- 
 mony? 
 
 Answer. He said I should be cautious in regard to giving testimony; 
 I told him that I should, and should testify to nothing but what I 
 knew and what was true. 
 
 Question. Do you know how many of these papers were made use 
 of that year in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Have you not stated to persons that you knew of a cer- 
 tain number ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard of a great number of them being printed 
 and used. 
 
 No. 108. 
 Monday, June 11, 1860. 
 
 GIDEON G. WESTCOTT called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. "Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. My family reside in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a merchant. 
 
 Question. Were you an appraiser in the custom-house at Philadel- 
 phia during the time from 1853 to 1857? 
 
 Answer. I was an appraiser during General Pierce's term, which, 
 I believe, extended over that period. 
 ■ Question. Were you the postmaster of Philadelphia after that time? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. During the time you were appraiser were you absent from 
 your official duties from June to November, 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I asked leave of absence from the department, which was 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 415 
 
 the only leave of absence I had during the term of my office as ap- 
 praiser, and I think that in July it was granted me. During all the 
 period of my leave of absence I was in Philadelphia, and reported 
 myself daily to the collector. 
 
 Question. Who obtained the authority for your leave of absence ? 
 
 Answer. I did, myself. 
 
 Question. Did not Senator Bigjler aid you in getting it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I think not. 
 
 Question. Or Mr. Brown, the collector? 
 
 Ans,wer. No, sir, I think not. I have no recollection of anybody 
 aiding me. I made the application myself, and the leave was granted. 
 
 Question. What was your occupation during the time of your ab- 
 sence ? 
 
 Answer. I was serving upon the State Democratic Central Commit- 
 tee during part of the day. 
 
 Question. Did you receive your regular salary during that period ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I do not think it was more than three months 
 that I was absent. 
 
 Question. How and from whom did you receive it? 
 
 Auswer. It was paid at the custom-house. 
 
 Question. In the regular way ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it by signing the regular receipt? 
 
 Answer. The regular form that is always signed ; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was this done with the knowledge and consent of Mr. 
 Brown, the collector ? 
 
 Answer. Well, Mr. Brown certainly had the knowledge that I had 
 leave of absence, because he knew that I was prepared at all times, in 
 case of any press of business, to come there. 
 
 Question. Did he know that you were not rendering any services in 
 the custom-house during that time ? 
 
 Answer. That I cannot say. I took it for granted that he knew it, 
 because I saw Mr. Brown every day. He was in the State Central 
 Committee room himself, more or less, every day. 
 
 Question. Who was the officer that paid you ? 
 
 Answer. I disremember who was the pay-clerk or cashier during 
 all that period. Perhaps it was Mr. Harbeson ; I cannot say. Mr. 
 Shunk, 1 think, was pay-clerk part of that period, but I am not cer- 
 tain. 
 
 Question. Who is it that grants the leave of absence? 
 
 Answer. The Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Question. You had written to the Secretary of the Treasury ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; had made a formal application to him for leave 
 of absence. 
 
 Question. And had got the leave from him? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 Question. What ground or reason did you allege for the leave of 
 absence ? 
 Answer. Nothing, except that I had had none, and desired it. 
 
416 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 
 
 Question. You did not state to him what you wanted to do ? 
 Answer. Certainly not. 
 
 By Mr, Olin : 
 Question. You wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 requesting leave of absence ? , ^ , j • 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and that was the only leave ot absence during 
 
 my term of office ? 
 
 Question. Did you send it to him by mail ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think so. I have his answer to it ; I saw it 
 
 not long ago among my papers. . j .i, q , f *v 
 
 Question. So iar as your knowledge extends, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury did not know the occasion of your absence ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I think not. 
 
 Question. Is it customary to give leave of absence without any 
 reason for it ? 
 
 Answer. My leave of absence was for a month, at first, and then 
 
 renewed. 
 
 Question. And neither at the time of renewal nor at any other 
 time did you communicate to the department the occasion of your 
 leave of absence? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, What salary did you get? 
 
 Answer, $2,500 a year. 
 
 Question. Were you not qualified or sworn to make a return once 
 a month that you had rendered service? 
 
 Answer. Once in three months, I think. I considered mysfelf on 
 service all the time, for I reported myself every day to the collector. 
 
 Question. Did you do anything in the office during that whole 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I was in the office, ^ 
 
 Question. Did you ever do anything in the office during all that 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I am certain I did some service, and was ready at all 
 times to perform service, if there had been any to perform. It was a 
 dull season of the year, and there was too large a iorce there at any 
 rate. 
 
 Question, By that, then, it would appear that there was no need of 
 a person to fill your office ? 
 
 Answer, There is but one appraiser now. I think there are a 
 great many too many officers there, and always have thought so. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question, You say that you considered yourself on service? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I considered myself ready for service, if there 
 was any occasion for it. 
 
 Question, What did you ask for leave of absence for, then? 
 
 Answer. It was because 
 
 Question, Because you knew you would not do any service? 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY TAED, ETC. 417 
 
 • 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but that my colleague should understand that he 
 must be promptly on hand. 
 
 Question. It was, then, that you should not he obliged to attend 
 there ? . You did not consider yourself on service during your leave 
 of absence, did you ? 
 
 Answer. I considered myself ready for service. 
 
 Question. Why did you ask for leave of absence ? To be absent, 
 was it not, and not be under obligation to be there on duty ? 
 
 Answer. I asked for leave of absence and obtained it. 
 
 Question. And while absent you did not consider yourself employed 
 in the custom-house, did you ? 
 
 Answer. I have stated what is strictly true, that during all that 
 period I was always ready for service when there was a press of busi- 
 ness. 
 
 Question. But the collector had no right to call upon you during 
 your leave of absence ? 
 
 Answer. He knew I was ready for business at any moment. 
 
 Question. You communicated to him that you had leave of absence ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Hobinson i 
 
 Question. And if he had called upon you for service, you could have 
 refused : that is, you had the right to refuse ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What was the occasion or necessity of reporting yourself 
 at the office every day if you had leave of absence ? 
 Answer. Well, I was in the city, and reported myself. 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 27 
 
418 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 24, 1860. 
 Sir : I have received your letter of the 23d instant, requesting to 
 l)e informed whether " George W. Baker is now employed at the cus- 
 tom-house at Philadelphia ; and if so, for what length of time, in 
 what capacity, and at what compensation." In reply, I have to state 
 that it appears, by records of this department, that George W. Baker 
 was appointed a clerk to discharge the duties of assistant cashier, at a 
 salary of $1,200 per annum, on the 15th November, 1858, vice John 
 Goodyear, promoted, and that he has continued to, and does now, 
 • occupy that position at the same rate of salary. 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
 
 HOWELL COBB, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. John Covode, 
 
 Chairman of Select Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Treasury Department, April 14, 1860. 
 .Sir: As requested in your letter of the 14th instant, I have the 
 honor to transmit, herewith, for the information of your committee, 
 copies of the nomination of George W. Baker, as clerk in the Phila- 
 delphia custom-house, and of the approval of the appointment by the 
 department, and of the oaths and receipts for his salary from the date 
 .of his appointment to the 31st ultimo. 
 >I am, very respectfully, 
 
 HOWELL COBB, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. John Covode, 
 
 Chairman Special Committee, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 CusTOM-HousB, Philadelphia, November 11, 1858. 
 
 ?-^^ ■ V°^^^^^ respectfully to submit for your approval the nomi- 
 nation ol G. W. Baker to be my assistant cashier, vice John Good- 
 year, promoted in March last, to take effect from the 15th instant 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 Hon. HowEi. COBB, '^ ^^ ^^^^^' ^^^^-^-- 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 419 
 
 Treasury Department, November 15, 1858. 
 Sir : The nomination, submitted in your letter of the 11th instant, 
 of G. W. Baker as clerk No. 5, at a salary of $1,200 per annum, in 
 the place of George Goodyear, promoted, is approved. 
 I am, very respectfully, 
 
 HOWELL COBB, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 J. B. Baker, Esq., 
 
 Collector of Uustoma, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Joseph B. Baker, Esq., collector of customs for the district of Philadel- 
 phia, to George W. Baker, 
 
 Dr. 
 
 For my services as clerk from Novemher 15, 1858, to Novem- 
 
 30, inclusive, at the rate of $1,200 per annum $53 26 
 
 Eeceived from Joseph B. Baker, collector of the customs for the 
 district of Philadelphia, on the 30th day of November, 1858, the sum 
 of fifty-three dollars and twenty-six cents, being in full of my com- 
 pensation for the period above stated. 
 
 G. W. BAKER. 
 
 I, George W. Baker, clerk in the office of the collector of the cus- 
 toms for the district of Philadelphia, do hereby certify on ^that 
 
 I have performed my services stated in the above account ; that I have 
 received the full sum therein charged to my own use and benefit, and 
 that I have not paid, deposited, or assigned, nor contracted to pay, 
 deposilf'or assign any part of such compensation to the use of any 
 other person, nor in any way, directly or indirectly, paid or given, nor 
 contracted to pay or give, any reward or compensation for my office or 
 employment, or the emoluments theteof. , 
 
 G. W. BAKER. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me, this 30th day of November, 1858. 
 
 HUGH CLARK, 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Joseph B. Baker, Esq., coUector of the customs for the district of Phila- 
 delphia, to George W. Baker. 
 
 Dr. 
 
 For my services as clerk in the collector's office from Decem- 
 ber 1, 1858, to December 31, inclusive, at the rate of $1,200 
 per annum 
 
420 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 
 
 Eeceived from Joseph B. Bater, collector of tlie customs for the 
 district of Philadelphia, on the Slst day of Decemher, 1858, the sum 
 of one hundred dollars, heing in full of my compensation for the 
 period ahove stated. 
 
 • G. W. BAKEE. 
 
 I, George W. Baker, clerk in the office of the collector of the cus- 
 toms for the district of Philadelphia, do hereby certify on oath that 
 I have performed my services stated in the above account ; that I have 
 received the full sum therein charged to my own use and benefit, and 
 that I have not paid, deposited, or assigned, nor contracted to pay, 
 deposit, or assign any part of such compensation to the use of any 
 other person ; nor in any way, directly or indirectly, paid or given, 
 nor contracted to pay or give, any reward or compensation for my office 
 or employment, or the emoluments thereof. 
 
 G. W. BAKER. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me, this Slst day of December, 1858, 
 
 HUGH CLARK. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 The same, for |100, for month ending January 31, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Hugh Clark, alderman. 
 
 The same, for f 100, for month ending February 28, 1859 ; sworn 
 to and subscribed before Joseph Enen,- recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending March 31, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen^ recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending April 30, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending May 31, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending June 30, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. H 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending July 31, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending August 31, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. 
 
 The same, for $100, for month ending September, 1859 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Endn, recorder. 
 
 The same, for $300, for quarter ending December 31, 1859 ; sworn 
 to and subscribed before Charles F. Helfricht, alderman. 
 
 The same, for $300, for quarter ending March 31, 1860 ; sworn to 
 and subscribed before Joseph Enen, recorder. 
 
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD, ETC. 421 
 
 Treasury Department, June 12, 1860. 
 
 Sir : In compliance with your request of the 11th instant, I here- 
 with transmit copies of the correspondence between James C. Van 
 Dyke, esq., and the Commissioner of Customs. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOWELL COBB, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 Hon. John Covode, 
 
 Chairman, <&c., House of Eepresentatives, United States. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 Office of Commissioner of Customs, June 12, 1860. 
 
 Sir : In compliance with your request of this morning, I have the 
 honor to herewith enclose to you copies of two letters, dated the 15th 
 and 27th of February^ 1860, from James 0. Van Dyke, esq., addressed 
 to this office, and also copies of replies thereto of the dates of 27th and 
 29th of February, 1860, which embraces, I believe, all the corres- 
 pondence of Mr. Van Dyke with this oflSce in relation to the employ- 
 ment of George W. Baker and others in the custom-house at Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ' SAMUEL INGHAM, 
 
 Commissioner of Customs. 
 Hon. Howell Cobb, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Philadelphia, February 15, 1860. 
 
 Sir : Will you do me the favor to say whelher the name of George 
 W. Baker is now, or has, within the years 185T, 1858, or 1859, been 
 on the pay-rol lof the custom-house at this port ; and if so, for what 
 length of time, in what capacity, and at what salary. 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JAMES C. VAN DYKE. 
 Hon. Sam'l Inhgam, 
 
 Commissioner of Customs. 
 
 Treasury Department^ 
 Office of Commissioner of Customs, February 17, 1860. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your letter of the 15th instant, in relation to 
 George W. Baker, I would state that Mr. Baker was appointed a clerk 
 
422 PHILADELPHIA NAVY TARD, ETC. 
 
 in the Philadelphia custom-house, at the salary of |1,200 per annum, 
 on the 13th of November, 1858, and still continues to hold the place. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ■^ ^ SAM'L INGHAM, 
 
 Commissioner of Customs. 
 James 0. Van Dyke, Esq., 
 Philadelphia, Fennasylvania. 
 
 United States Attorney's Office, 
 518 Walnut street, Philadelphia, February 27, 1860. 
 SiK : Will you do me the favor to inform me whether there is any 
 provision in the law, or regulation of the Treasury Department, au- 
 thorizing the appointment, by the collector of the customs, of a private 
 secretary ; and if there is such a provision, will you please refer me 
 to it. Of course when I speak of a private secretary I mean an officer 
 exclusive of that of deputy collector, for whose appointment I find 
 authority. 
 
 I have also to ask of you the favor to state whether, in the appoint- 
 ment of George W. Baker, as clerk in the custom-house at this port, 
 there was made to the department a statement of the duties he was 
 to perform and the name of the person in whose place he was ap- 
 pointed, as provided in section 576 of the printed General Kegulations 
 under the United States revenue laws, (edition of 1857.) If such 
 statement was not made, was there any statement as to the particular 
 duties he was appointed to discharge ; and if so, I should like to have 
 a copy of such statement. 
 
 An early answer will oblige your obedient servant, 
 
 JAMES 0. VAN DYKE, 
 
 Attorney for United States. 
 Hon. Samuel Ingham, 
 
 Comniissioner of Customs. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 Office of Commissioner of Customs, February 29, 1860. 
 Sir : In reply to the inquiries contained in your letter of the 27th 
 instant, I have to state that the only information I have in relation to 
 the appointment of George W. Baker, is derived from the accounts of 
 the collector and the record of the department. From these it appears 
 that Mr. Baker was appointed, with the approbation of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, on the 13th November, 1858, assistant cashier, in 
 the place of and at the same salary as Mr. John Goodyear, previously 
 promoted. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 SAMUEL INGHAM, 
 Commissioner of Customs. 
 James 0. Van Dyke, Esq., 
 
 U. 8. District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING; ETC. 423 
 
 EXEUCTIVE BINDING. ETC. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Tuesday, March 27, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM PETTIBONB was called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Washington city. 
 
 Question. What is your business ? 
 
 Answer. Bookbinder. 
 
 Question. State to the committee whether, at any time, you have 
 executed any portion of the ruling and binding for the executive de- 
 partments of the government ; and if so, during what time ? 
 
 Answer. I have executed binding and ruling for some of the execu- 
 tive departments during the latter part of Mr. Pierce's administration ; 
 work for the State Department, under Governor Marcy ; and a portion 
 for the Treasury Department, under Mr. Gruthrie ? 
 
 Question. When did you cease to be employed by the executive de- 
 partments ? 
 
 Answer. When the present administration came in. 
 
 Question. Do you know who has been doing that work since ? 
 . Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who? 
 
 Answer. Cornelius Wendell ? 
 
 Question. For what period of time ? 
 
 Answer. Since the advent of Mr. Buchanan, up to within some two 
 weeks since. Two months since, in the Treasury Department, there 
 was an order issued by the Secretary suspending the binding for the 
 present, and that order has not yet been revived. 
 
 Question. Is Mr. Wendell a practical bookbinder? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you familiar with the law of Congress providing that 
 all the ruling and binding for the several executive departments 
 should be executed by practical and competent bookbinders ? 
 
 Answer. I am so familiar with it that I prepared the law myself. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of the reasons which induced 
 Congress to pass that act ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What were they ? 
 
 Answer. To break up the monopoly that existed. All the work of 
 
424 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 the executive departments was concentrated in the hands of men who 
 had no practical knowledge of the hudness they undertook to perform, 
 and that kept out practical men from the business that belonged to 
 them properly. t . • n 
 
 Question. After that hecame a law did you make application tor 
 any portion of the ruling and binding ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. To whom did you apply ? 
 
 Answer. To all the Secretaries. 
 
 Question. When ? 
 
 Answer. After that law passed ; after it became a law. 
 
 Question. How soon after ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose some ten days after ; I cannot say the exact 
 time ; it might have been a week or ten days ; sufficient time for the 
 law to become printed and known. 
 
 Question. To whom did you make your application ? 
 
 Answer. I went to Mr. Thompson, to Mr. Cobb, to Mr. Brown, to 
 Mr. Toucey, and to Mr. Floyd — each of them. 
 
 Question. Can you state any conversation which you had with Mr. 
 Cobb upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. Not particularly with Mr. Cobb ; I could state more with 
 Mr. Brown and Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Question. Very well ; state what conversation you had with Mr. 
 Brown and Mr. Thompson. 
 
 Answer. I called their attention to the law, and showed ib to them. 
 
 Question. Was the conversation with them together or separately? 
 
 Answer. Separately. 
 
 Question. Take up the first conversation, in time, that you had 
 with either of them, and state that. 
 
 Answer. I called upon Mr. Thompson and requested him to give 
 me a portion of the work under that law, as I was a practical book- 
 binder, had an establishment, was a democrat, and had been in the 
 city for some twenty years. He replied to me that they had made a 
 decision, and all the work had been given to Mr. Wendell. I told 
 him that the law required that practical men should have that work ; 
 that Mr. Wendell was not a bookbinder. He replied to me that Mr. 
 Wendell had made the application as a bookbinder, and upon that 
 application they had given him the work. He then said : " Suppose 
 a man was carrying on a tannery for twenty years, would he not be a 
 tanner?" I replied "no, he would not, necessarily, but tanning and 
 bookbinding are different ; you might carry on a tannery for twenty 
 years and then not be able to tan a skin of leather yourself." I then 
 drew a parallel in this way : " Suppose you appointed a man as a 
 clerk and gave him a desk, and you then found that he could not 
 write, but employed a proxy to write for him, would you continue 
 him in his place ?" He said " no ;" but the thing was decided, and 
 there was an end of it. I then left him and called upon Mr. Brown, 
 the Postmaster General at that time. I told him that this law required 
 practical men should have that work. He also informed me that they 
 had decided to give the work to Mr. Wendell. He asked me a similar 
 question about the tannery : ' ' Suppose a man had carried on tanning 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 425 
 
 for ten years, would he not be a tanner?" I told him I did not 
 know anything about tanning ; I gave him the same answer that I 
 gave to Mr. Thompson ; but they concluded that Mr. Wendell was a 
 practical bookbinder because he had an establishment for binding. I 
 then called upon the President and laid the matter before him. 
 
 Question. State what conversation you had with him ? 
 
 Answer. I called the President's attention to this law, and told 
 him that this work ought to be given to practical men. He said that 
 the cabinet had had this matter under consideration, and as they had 
 acted upon it he did not wish to interfere. I told him that, in my 
 opinion, the cabinet had acted wrong ; that the law required them to 
 give this work to practical men, and they had given it to a man who 
 had no practical knowledge of the business ; I differed from their de- 
 cision of the law, and asked him if I could have the opinion of the 
 Attorney General upon that law, as he was the proper one to give me 
 an opinion. He said I could. I asked him how I could get it. He 
 said, " Address me a communication in writing giving your views, 
 and I will refer it to the Attorney General for his opinion ; is that 
 what you want ?" I said " yes, sir." He said " you shall have it." 
 I prepared a letter and addressed it to the President, and this I did 
 at his own suggestion. 
 
 Question. Did you preserve a copy of that communication ? 
 
 Answer. It is oh file in the Attorney General's office. 
 
 Question. Do you mean the original? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Look at this (handing witness a paper) and see if it is a 
 correct copy of that communication ? 
 
 Answer. (Looking at the paper.) It may not be an exact copy ; 
 there may be a word or so changed, but this is the sum q,ud substance 
 of it ; the original is on file in the Attorney General's office ; I pre- 
 sume this is a correct copy, for it is in the handwriting of the gentle- 
 man who prepared the original for me ? 
 
 Question. What is his name ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. A. E. Quartrelle. 
 
 Question. Will you read the communication, or this copy of it ? 
 
 The Witness then read the paper, as follows : 
 
 " Washington, D. C, July 22, 1858. 
 
 "Sir : On the occasion of my interview with you some days since 
 in relation to the ruling and binding of the several executive depart- 
 ments at Washington, as directed by a recent provision of Congress, 
 I took the view, as you will remember, that the orders or contracts 
 since awarded are not within, but in violation of, the express letter of 
 the law ; and that you answered me you would lay before the Attorney 
 General such views of the subject as I might present, in order to 
 draw from that officer his opinion as to the intent and meaning of 
 said provision ; I now, very briefly, avail myself of the privilege, as 
 follows : 
 
 "By the 14th section of the ' Act to provide for sundry civil expenses 
 of the government' for the year 1859, it is provided : ' That all the 
 ruling and binding for the several executive departments shall be 
 
426 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 executed by practical and competent bookbinders, to be appointed by 
 the head of the department. ' 
 
 " The language of this provision is too plain for construction. The 
 terms ' practical and competent bookbinders ' are descriptive of the 
 person or persons who shall be appointed to execute the ruling and 
 binding of the several departments ; that to come within the descrip- 
 tion of the law he or they must he learned in the art of bookbinding and 
 ruling, able and capable of doing with his own or their own hands the 
 work. 
 
 "I will take the liberty, in support of my views, to refer your Excel- 
 lency to the act of (Jongress authorizing the appointment of a Super- 
 intendent of the Public Printing. That act employs similar descriptive 
 terms — he shall be a 'practical printer.' The appointment has, I 
 understand, been made, and that your Excellency held, expressed, and 
 acted upon the opinion that none but a practical printer, one learned 
 in the art, could receive the appointment. The terms and objects of 
 the two acts being, to the extent in question, identical, they should be 
 interpreted to intend and mean the same that the person or persons 
 appointed must come within the description — learned in the art. Such 
 I know to have been the intention of Congress in making the provision 
 in relation to the ruling and binding for the executive departments, 
 and to give it to the practical bookbinders of Washington, who estab- 
 lished themselves here originally with that encouragement alone. Tour 
 humble servant is one of the number, and feels himself aggrieved by 
 the action of the departments above referred to ; and hence be appeals 
 to your Excellency as the ofEcer designated by the Constitution of the 
 United States to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully 
 executed. All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 "W. PETTIBONE. 
 
 " His Excellency James Buchanan, 
 
 " President of the United States." 
 
 By Mr. Train: 
 
 Question. Did you hand that letter to the President in person, or 
 did you send it to him ? 
 
 Answer. I sent it to him. 
 
 Question. Did you see him afterwards in relation to it ? 
 
 Answer. I did ; after I sent it to the President it remained some 
 three weeks before I heard anything from it. I then caused a note to 
 be addressed respectfully to him, requesting him to refer my communi- 
 cation to the Attorney General. A few days after that note had been 
 sent I called at the Attorney General's office, and found my original 
 letter to the President there ; I asked the clerk to show it to me, and 
 he did so ; it had this indorsement on it : " Referred to the Attorney 
 General, but not for his opinion." I called Judge Black's attention 
 to the indorsement, and he said to me " this is a strange indorsement ; 
 it means nothing ; I cannot give an opinion ; the President might as 
 well have kept the paper himself; I will take the paper back to the 
 President and have that indorsement changed." He did so and a 
 few weeks after I called again and saw the paper with this second in- 
 dorsement, as near as I can remember the words : 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 427 
 
 "As the cabinet have had this matter under consideration, and have 
 acted upon it, I decline interfering." This was signed "J. B.," the 
 President's own signature, as I was informed. 
 
 I will say here that I called upon the President after Judge Black 
 informed me of the first indorsement. He replied to' me : " Why, I 
 have sent your communication to the Attorney General ; I said, "I am 
 aware of that, Mr. President, hut the paper is indorsed in such a way 
 that the Attorney G-eneral cannot give an opinion." "Why, how is 
 that?" said he. 1 told him that it was indorsed: "Eeferred to the 
 Attorney General, but not for his opinion;" says he, "Is that so?" 
 "Yes, sir," I replied; "How do you know?" "Because I have seen 
 the paper myself;" he seemed to express surprise ; I then asked him 
 if I could still have the opinion of the Attorney General ; "Yes," he 
 replied ; I then said "How shall I get it? shall I go to Judge Black 
 and say, as coming from you, that he can give me his opinion ?" He 
 said "Yes, tell him T say so; tell him to give you his opinion in ref- 
 erence to that law. " I called upon Judge Black and informed him of 
 what the President had told me ; he replied, "You know, Mr. Petti- 
 bone, I cannot give you the opinion except the request is in writing;" 
 he also said, " I will see the President to-day and ask him about it, 
 and, if he authorizes me to give you an opinion, I will do so with 
 pleasure." I called upon Judge Black the next day, and he told me 
 that he had seen the President, and the President declined interfering ; 
 he said that as the cabinet had had this matter under consideration and 
 had decided it, he declined interfering with it. After Judge Black 
 informed me what he had said, I called upon the President and said 
 to him : "Mr. President, did I understand you aright ? You assured 
 me I should have the opinion of the Attorney General upon a certain 
 law; now Judge Black informs me that you decline allowing him to 
 
 five me such an opinion." He says : " He informed you correctly ; 
 do decline." 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When Mr. Buchanan asked you to furnish him that state- 
 ment, did he say Tie would ask the opinion of the Attorney General 
 upon it ? 
 
 Answer. When I called upon the President in relation to this mat- 
 ter he asked me what I wanted, and if there was any law requiring 
 this work to be done in the city of Washington. I told him then that 
 I was not aware of such a law. But since then I have ascertained 
 that there is a law requiring the work to be done in the city of Wash- 
 ington ; the act of 1842. The President replied to me: "Sir, if I 
 have my way, I shall send this work to Philadelphia ; Philadelphia is 
 my city ; there is a gentleman there who is well posted apid strongly 
 recommended to me, and I would give it to him." That was repeated 
 several times. I replied to the President in this way: " Why, Mr. 
 President, if it is any honor to have come from Pennsylvauia, I hap- 
 pen to have been born there, and the gentleman you speak of I do hot 
 think is stronger posted up than myself. I am a democrat ; I have 
 a letter here indorsed by two democratic ex-governors, now senators." 
 To that the President paid no attention whatever, but still repeated : 
 
428 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC' 
 
 " If I have my way, I shall send this work to Philadelphia ; Philadel- 
 phia is my city ; there is a gentleman there who is well posted and 
 strongly recommended to me, and I would give it to him." J replied 
 to that : " Mr. President, all I ask in this matter is simple justice. 
 I bid him " good morning," and retired. I found I could get no re- 
 dress or satisfaction in reference to the law, and I concluded to pre- 
 pare a memorial to the Senate ; which I did. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Before you go any further, there was something in regard 
 to the indorsement upon your communication being changed which 
 it is proper should be stated here. 
 
 Answer. The indorsement was changed, as I have already stated. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Had the first indorsement been erased and the second 
 indorsement put in its place ? _ _ • 
 
 Answer. Yes^ sir, and in the President's own handwriting. The 
 original document is on file in the Attorney General's office. 
 
 1 was going on to state that I prepared a memorial to Congress, 
 •which I handed to Mr. Hale, of the Senate, and he presented it to the 
 Senate, and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
 object I had in view in presenting this memorial, and having it referred 
 to the judiciary committee, was this : as that law had had a legislative 
 construction, I was anxious that the judiciary should give a construc- 
 tion to it, as the members of the cabinet had interpreted it differently 
 from what I thought it meant. After this memorial had been referred 
 to the judiciary committee, and had remained there some weeks, they 
 reported it back to the Senate, and asked to be discharged from its 
 further consideration, and moved its reference to the Committee on 
 Printing. It remained with the printing committee until about a 
 week before the close of the last session, when the chairman of the 
 committee reported it back to the Senate, and asked to be discharged 
 from its further consideration, but stated that it was well worth the 
 examination and legislation of Congress ; but for want of time they 
 begged to be excused from its further consideration. That was the 
 end of it, for it is now in a pigeon-hole in the Secretary's office. 
 
 Question. Have you had any further interviews with the President 
 and cabinet, in relation to this matter, than those you have stated? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, frei^uently. I called upon the President several 
 times, and upon one occasion asked him if he would not speak to 
 Secretary Thompson, that I might have a portion of the work. He 
 said he would. I called upon Mr. Thompson some days afterwards, 
 and asked him if the President had said anything to him about the 
 matter. He said " Yes, but he did not request me to give you any 
 work." Of course he did not give me any. I then said to Mr. 
 Thompson, " Suppose I should bring you a line from the President ; 
 would you give me some work to do?" He said he would. I then 
 called upon the President and asked him to give me a line to Mr. 
 Thompson, as I was sure he v^ould give me some work to do if I would 
 bring a line from him. The President said, "Yes, sir, a line from 
 me "would not only give you a portion of the work, but it would give 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 429 
 
 you the whole of the work, if I choose to give you that line, but I do 
 not choose to give it." That was an end of it, and I did not trouble 
 him any more. 
 
 Question. What law of Congress did yau claim had been violated 
 by the cabinet in giving this work to Mr. Wendell ? 
 
 Answer. Section 14, civil and miscellaneous bill, of the Statutes at 
 Large, volume 11, page 32T. 
 
 [At the request of the witness, the clerk of the committee was 
 directed to have it appear in the minutes of the testimony that the 
 witness had not appeared voluntarily before the committee, but had 
 come only in obedience to a summons served on him at his residence 
 the day before.] 
 
 Monday, April 23, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM PETTIBONE recalled. 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. I understand that you desire to make some explanation 
 relative to the testimony you gave some days ago. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Go on and state your explanation. 
 
 Answer. It is this : my attention has been called to my letter to 
 the President relative to the executive binding, and I find there is no 
 erasure upon it. The first indorsement I spoke of, therefore, must 
 have been on the envelope or wrapper, and that envelope or wrapper 
 being gone, the second indorsement appears on the letter itself. The 
 first indorsement was, " Eeferred to the Attorney General, but not 
 for an opinion." That was on the wrapper. The second indorse- 
 ment, on the letter itself, as near as I can remember it, was, " As the 
 cabinet have had this matter under consideration, and have acted upon 
 it, I decline to interfere, — J. B." That is the substance of it. That 
 is all I wish to say upon this matter. 
 
 No. 4. 
 Tuesday, March 27, I860. 
 
 COLUMBUS ALEXANDER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What is your occupation, and where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Washington city, and I am a printer by pro- 
 fession ; I also carry on a bookbindery. 
 
 Question. Have you at any time done any printing and binding for 
 the executive departments in Washington ? 
 
 Answer. I have, sir ; a very considerable quantity. 
 
 Question. State at what period. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, from 1840 up to the 26th of August, 1852, 
 when the printing act came into operation. I have also done binding 
 
430 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 since then, but very little, if any, printing— yes, sir, I did some for 
 General Armstrong, under his contract. 
 
 Question. Have you, within the last three years, made bids or pro- 
 posals to do binding for the executive departments ; and if so, to which 
 department did you make them ? 
 
 Answer. In July, 1857, I made a proposition in writing to the De- 
 partment of the Interior, proposing to do the binding for that depart- 
 ment at thirty-three per cent, less than they were then paying for it. 
 In the month of September following I renewed my offer, thinking, 
 as I had not heard from it, that the department, in the multiplicity 
 of its business, might have overlooked it ; and I made tlie further 
 proposition that, if they did not think proper to accede to my former 
 proposition, I would pay into the treasury, for the use of the govern- 
 ment, the sum of ten thousand dollars, provided they would give me 
 the contract, at the prices then paid, for the binding of that one de- 
 partment alone from September, 185T, to the 4th of March, 1861 ; that 
 upon the signing and sealing of the contract I would pay that amount 
 over to the government for the government's use. My object was to 
 show to the Secretary — to strike him forcibly at once — that it was a 
 matter of some importance, of some interest to the government. I 
 thought, perhaps, that the proposition of a reduction of the price 
 thirty-three per cent, did not strike him as being a matter of much 
 importance ; but I thought the sum of ten thousand dollars would cer- 
 tainly open his eyes to some extent. 
 
 Question. Were either of those propositions accepted ? 
 
 Answer. They were not accepted ; that is, the Secretary never con- 
 descended to notice them. 
 
 Question. What reasons, if any, were given for such refusal? 
 
 Answer. I perhaps had better read an extract from a letter of the 
 Secretary to a former committee, which I have here. This is a report 
 of a committee of the House of Representatives, [referring to a printed 
 document which he held in his hand.] 
 
 By Mr, WiNSLOw: 
 
 Question. Was that letter directed to you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but it refers to those propositions I have men- 
 tioned as having made to the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow objected to the reading by the witness of any docu- 
 ment that the committee themselves could obtain. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is there any reason you know of yourself, independent 
 of that, why the Secretary refused to accept your proposition ? 
 
 Answer. No, six ; he never made any communication to me upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with him after this law was 
 passed compelling the departments to give this work to practical 
 persons ? 
 
 Answer. I never approached him upon the subject ; I saw that 
 there was an indisposition to pay any attention to it, as I had formerly 
 seen in the Superintendent of the Public Printing, when he had control 
 of the executive binding. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 431 
 
 Mr. WmsLow. I object to that. 
 The Witness. I know that fact. 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW : 
 
 Question. How do you know it ? 
 
 Answer. For the best reason in the world : I made the proposition 
 myself to the Superintendent of the Public Planting, and he declined 
 it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you any estimate of the profits to be derived from 
 doing all the work for all the departments ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I could safely say that it would be from 30 to 
 50 per cent. I should be very glad now to take it at 50 per cent, less 
 than they are paying for it, even at the present time. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Are you speaking now of the printing for the executive 
 departments ? 
 
 Answer. The printing and binding also. I made a proposition in 
 writing through the post ofSce to General Bowman, I think in Janu- 
 ary last, to do all the printing at 50 per cent, less than allowed under 
 the printing act of 1852.' The printing being for the executive de- 
 partments^ and the binding for 33 per cent, less ; I never go-t any 
 answer from him, for some reason or other. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know the probable amount of the printing and 
 binding for the departments for a year ? 
 
 Answer. They can make it almost any amount they choose ; it 
 depends entirely upon the department. They can cut out an order at 
 any time they think proper, and say that the exigencies of the depart- 
 ment, or the good of the public interest requires that certain binding 
 or printing should be done, and it is ordered to be done. 
 
 Question. The question was, whether you know what the printing 
 and binding of the diflferent departments have amounted to a year 
 since the commencement of Mr. Buchanan's administration ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I have examined critically to ascertain 
 the amount, but T should think the binding, to the best of my knowl- 
 edge, would amount to |100,000 any how ; I speak of all the depart- 
 ments. 
 
 Question. Do you include the printing ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How much would the printing amount to ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ; I have not examined that subject very 
 closely, not so closely as I have the binding, because that is under the 
 control of the Superintendent of Public Printing. 
 
 Question. Is the printing as large an item as the binding? 
 
 Answer. I the printing is a much larger item. I offered to do 
 the whole of the executive printing at 50 per cent, less than the law 
 of the 26th of August, 1852, allowed. I offered that to Mr. Bowman 
 since his election as public printer ; and independent of doing it for 
 
432 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 50 per cent, less, I expected to make my profit out of that. And I 
 proposed to do the binding of all the executive departments at S^ 
 per cent, less than he receives for it now. In other words, I proposed 
 to take 66f per cent, for my part, giving him 33J per cent., he ex- 
 pending no capital at all, being at no expense whatsoever. 
 
 Question. And you say you expected to make a fair profit after that? 
 
 Answer. I expected to make my profit after that, of course. I 
 have considerable experience in this matter, and have long been a 
 contractor with the government for its executive printing previous to 
 the printing act coming into operation. I did it for some 8 or 10 
 years— from 1841 or 1842 to 1852. Under the contract system I had 
 the principal part of the executive printing — pretty much all. 
 
 By Mr. EoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. The law fixes the prices for all this work — the binding 
 and printing for the executive departments — does it not ? 
 
 Answer. No,, sir ; just what the department chooses to pay for the 
 executive binding ; whatever they choose to make out the bills for, if 
 they approve them, they pay. flPhe law fixes the price for the print- 
 ing, but not for the executive binding. The price is fixed for the 
 congressional binding, the binding of the congressional documents. 
 When I refer to the executive printing, I refer to all the printing of 
 the executive departments, including the post office blanks. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Including the fat and lean, as it is called ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the fat and the lean, everything together. The 
 printing is a, much larger item than the binding, and the departments 
 can make it almost as profitable as they please. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you account why it was that you never were able to 
 get any of this printing and binding? Are you opposed in politics ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I consider myself a democrat. 
 
 Question. Where can we get the amount of this printing ? 
 
 Answer. You can, perhaps, get it from the report of the Superin- 
 tendent of the Public Printing. But there is one striking fact that 
 does not always appear in the reports. Suppose that the report shows 
 a certain amount of work for this year ; there may be an order for 
 work at the end of the year, just before the Superintendent is about 
 to make up his report, and that work is not paid for until the work 
 is done, and does not appear in that report. It is only by taking 
 several years together that you can get at the amount. I found that 
 in Seaman's report, when he had covered it up so as to blind the 
 public. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. It would come out in the next year's report, would it not? 
 Answer. Sometimes it would ; I guess there is some of it that was 
 ordered during Seaman's time has not come out yet. 
 
433 
 
 No. 29. 
 
 Thubsday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 S. B. BLANCHAKD called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. What is your residence, and what is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a practicing physician here in the District. 
 
 Question. In this city ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Wia. Pettibone, of this city ? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. How long have you known him? 
 
 Answer. I have known him about ten years. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with his reputation for truth and 
 veracity ? 
 
 Answer. Intimately. 
 
 Question. What do you say in regard to it ? 
 
 Answer. That I never knew a man in my life whose reputation 
 stands fairer in the community in which he lives than Wm. Petti- 
 bone's. 
 
 Question. And you would believe him under oath, would you? 
 
 Answer. I would not only believe him under oath, but I would say 
 that I never knew him, even in cotversation with his friends, to state 
 a thing that was not true. He is not in the habit of even joking 
 upon trivial subjects. Whatever he says is always truthful and to be 
 relied upon. 
 
 No. 30. . 
 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM F. BAYLY called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 Answer. In Washington city. 
 Question. What is your occupation or profession ? 
 Answer. My business is that of a stationer. 
 Question. How long have you been a resident of this city? 
 Answer. About twenty-one years. 
 Question. Do you know Mr. William Pettibone ? 
 Answer. I have known him for about twenty years. 
 Question. Do you know his reputation for truth and veracity? 
 Answer. It has always been unquestionable as far as I have ever 
 heard. I have known him very intimately, and never had any reason 
 H. Eep. Com, 648 28 
 
434 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC, 
 
 to doubt his character, his integrity, or his veracity. He has always 
 been a straightforward man. 
 
 Question. And you would always believe him under oath without 
 
 hesitancy? ■ 
 
 Answer. Without the least hesitation in the world ; as soon as I 
 would believe any other man that I know. 
 
 No. 31. 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 VALENTINE BLANCHAKD called and sworn. 
 By Mr. OuN : 
 
 Question. Do you reside in this city? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation or profession ? 
 
 Answer. Bookseller and stationer. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. William Pettibone, of this city? 
 
 Answer. Yes, eir ; I have known him a great many years. 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with him sufficiently to say what ia 
 his reputation for truth and veracity? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. ■ 
 
 Question. What is his reputation— good or bad ? 
 
 Answer. His reputation for truth and veracity stands as high as 
 that of any one in the city that I know. 
 
 Question. You would believe him under oath ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 No. 32. 
 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 W. E. KENNAUGH called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. In this city. 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 Answer. I am an agent for claims. 
 Question. Do you know Mr. William Pettibone ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long have you been acquainted with him? 
 Answer. I suppose about twenty years. 
 _ Question. Have you had the means of knowing his general reputa- 
 tion for truth and veracity? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING. ETC. 4S5 
 
 Question. What do you say as to his character for truth and 
 veracity? 
 
 Answer. Unexceptionable, as far as I ever knew or heard. 
 Question. And you would believe him under oath ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; undoubtedly. 
 
 No. 33, 
 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 JOHN WAGNER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In this city. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a gilder. 
 
 Question. Do you know William Pettibone ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long have you been acquainted with him? 
 
 Answer. Between twelve and fifteen years. I got acquainted with 
 him sometime about 1846. 
 
 Question. What is his reputation for truth and veracity? 
 
 Answer. Very good. I can say, without exception, that I do not 
 know another man whose word I would sooner take than his. 
 
 Question. Have you had opportunities of knowing his reputation in 
 that respect ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I guess that in that period of time I have been 
 more intimate with him than almost any other man. 
 
 No. 34. 
 Thursday, Ajaril 19, 1860. 
 
 A. ROANE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you a clerk in the Attorney General's office? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of a communication being re- 
 ceived at the office from the President, signed William Pettibone ; 
 and if so, at what time ? 
 
 Answer. About three weeks, I suppose, after the date of the letter 
 Mr. Pettibone called at the Attorney General's office, and asked me 
 if the communication had been received from the President. I told 
 him that it had. He asked to see it, and I went to the files and took 
 it off. He desired to see the indorsement upon it, which I at first 
 
436 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 hesitated about doing, as I did not know that I had any right to let 
 him see any indorsement by the President upon a paper. However, 
 upon consideration I allowed him to see it. He called several times 
 after that to see about that paper, and asked if the Attorney General 
 had given an opinion upon the subject, I told him that I did not 
 consider that an opinion was called for by the indorsement. He then 
 desired to see the Attorney General. When he first called, and 
 several times afterwards, the Attorney General was busy, and could 
 not see him. Finally — I do not recollect now after what interval — 
 he brought a letter or a note from the President to the Attorney 
 General. I did not know the contents of the note, and do not know 
 even that it referred to the subject of the letter ; and I think, accord- 
 ing to my recollection at present, the Attorney General on that occa- 
 sion called for the letter of Mr. Pettibone to the President, and I took 
 it to him in his room. I did not see anything more of the letter for 
 some time afterwards, when it came back to me, and I have had it in 
 my custody ever since. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Have you that letter here ? 
 Answer. I have. 
 Question. Will you produce it ? 
 
 Answer. Here it is, [producing the letter, indorsed in the hand- 
 writing of the President.] 
 
 The indorsement was then read as follows : 
 
 At the top of the paper as folded were these words : 
 
 " July 22, 1858. 
 " Wm. Pettibone, bookbinder." 
 
 The middle of the paper had upon it the following : 
 "Keferred to the Attorney General, though the President does not 
 intend to interfere with the decision or action o'' the different heads of 
 department in the selection of bookbinder, the law having expressly 
 conferred this power upun them. 
 
 "J. B." 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you say that when you handed the paper to him it 
 was away for some weeks ? 
 
 Answer. When I handed it to the Attorney General, not to Mr. 
 Pettibone ; I am certain about its being away for some time ; it was 
 some time before I got it again. 
 
 Question. Was the communication under cover — in an envelope? 
 
 Answer. That I do not remember particularly, because we are in 
 the habit of receiving from the President some letters every day — 
 sometimes 20 or 30 letters — sometimes they come in special covers, 
 and sometimes without covers. The President has envelopes with the 
 addresses of the different heads of departments printed upon them, 
 among others some for the Attorney General, and the papers are fre- 
 quently sent over to the ofiSce in them. I nearly always open them. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 437 
 
 I have no particular recollection about this paper,' whether it came 
 with a cover or not. 
 
 Question. What is the custom — is the endorsement on the envelope 
 sometimes, or is it always on the paper ? 
 
 Answer. If there is an indorsement upon an envelope calling for 
 any action of the Attorney General, the envelope is always preserved; 
 if it is a simple indorsement referring it to the Attorney. General, 
 being merely a reference to file, the envelope is not preserved ; but it 
 is, not usual for a letter to be indorsed, and the envelope to be also 
 indorsed. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of any indorsement being 
 upon the envelope wh^n the paper first came into your office ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection about it at all, whether it came in 
 an envelope or not, or if it did come in an envelope whether there was 
 any indorsement upon the envelope or not. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge that the paper was taken out 
 of the office and returned to it again ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I only know that I gave it to Judge Bl^ick, and 
 I presume — although I do not know — that it was taken to the Presi- 
 dent by him. It was out of my hands for some time, and afterwards 
 came back to my hands again in the regular way. 
 
 Question. Tou say that sometimes there is an indorsement on the 
 envelope and sometimes on the paper. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; but if there is an indorsement on the envelope 
 that requires any action of the office, the envelope is preserved arid 
 filed with the paper. For instance, if there is an indorsement upon 
 the envelope "referred to the Attorney General for his opinion," 
 the envelope is preserved as the foundation for the action of the office. 
 
 Question. Suppose that paper had gone back with the envelope to 
 the President, -is it not possible that that envelope had an indorse- 
 ment upon it, and was not returned to your office ? 
 
 Answer. That is very possible, but I haye no recollection as to that 
 at all ; I think it unlikely that there should be an indorsement on the 
 paper and on the envelope also, if there was an envelope ; I do not 
 know about that. 
 
 Question. Was the paper in the office all the time Mr. Pettibone 
 was there pressing for a decision, or was he there occasionally before 
 the paper came to the office at all ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect particularly about that ; I know that he 
 came very frequently and inquired about it. 
 
 Question. , Did he ever make any complaint about the indorsement 
 not being satisfactory ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not to me. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Have you had the custody of this paper ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, ever since. 
 
 Question. I understand you that if ever, upon any occasion^ there was 
 any direction upon the envelope giving authority to the Attorney 
 General to look into papers, the envelope is as carefully preserved as 
 the original paper. 
 
438 EXECUTIVE BnroiNG, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of any such, indorsement in 
 this case ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I have not ; I have no recollection whether it came 
 in an envelope or not. 
 
 Question. You say that the practice of the office is_, and that your 
 duty would have been, to keep carefully the envelope if there was any 
 indorsement upon it. . \ 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you look at this paper [the one prepared by the 
 witness] and see if there is any erasure ? 
 
 Answer. I have examined it with a magnifying glass ; there is no 
 erasure upon it. 
 
 Question. If the envelope had had an indorsement upon it, and had 
 come back to you with an erasure and another indorsement, would it not 
 have been your duty to preserve that envelope ? Is it probable that 
 you would have destroyed it? 
 
 Answer. It would have been preserved if it contained any authority 
 for action. 
 
 Question. The witness Pettibone, in his examiiation in chief, says: 
 
 "I called at the Attorney General's office and found my original 
 letter to the President there ; I asked the clerk to show it to me, and 
 he did so ; it had this indorsement on it : ' Referred to the Attorney 
 General, but not for his opinion.' " • 
 
 Is it probable that if this paper had come with this indorsement 
 upon it, and it had been sent back to the President and this indorse- 
 ment erased, that the envelope would have been destroyed in the 
 office? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of any indorsement of that 
 kind? 
 
 Answer. Not the slightest. 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of any erasure upon the paper 
 that came to you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you ever, in any conversation with the Attorney 
 General, heard any intimation from him that there had been any such 
 erasure ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question. This I understand is the paper you first received and 
 filed. 
 
 Answer. That is the only paper on the files of the office relating to 
 that subject. 
 
 Question. And it now is as it was presented originally, without any 
 alteration ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You say that you do not know whether it came originally 
 with an envelope or without it ? 
 
 Answer. I have not any recollection about that whatever. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 439 
 
 Question. Was not Mr, Pettibone at tlie Attorney General's office, 
 asking for his decision before the cabinet had acted upon the matter ? 
 
 Answer. He asked if the Attorney General had given a decision, 
 and I told him — such at least, is my recollection — that the indorse- 
 ment was such as required no opinion from the Attorney General ; it 
 was not a, reference for an opinion, and the Attorney General only 
 gave an opinion when there was a special reference for an opinion. 
 
 Question. Is this indorsement on the paper the same that you 
 showed to him the first time you showed him any indorsement, or 
 might there not have been an indorsement on the envelope ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection of the paper except with the indorse- 
 ment ; my recollection of the paper and the indorsement is all blended 
 together, and the only recollection I have of the paper is as it is 
 indorsed. 
 
 Question. You do not say distinctly that there was no envelope 
 upon it and no indorsement upon the envelope ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not say that ; we receive so many letters that 
 I could not recollect particularly about this one. 
 
 Question. Was that paper out of your hands long enough to have 
 been taken to the President and returned without the envelope ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long do you suppose it was out of your hands ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say as to that ; it may have been a week or 
 two weeks, or less than that. 
 
 Question. Might not this letter have come to you the first time in 
 an envelope, and during the time that envelope was out of your hands 
 for two or three weeks have/been in the hands of the President, and 
 then come back to you with this indorsement ? 
 
 Answer. It is possible that that might have been so, although I 
 have no recollection distinct from the indorsement upon it. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. This is the paper I understand you to say that was filed 
 in the office ? 
 
 Answer. This is the paper. 
 
 Question. And you say this paper is now as it was when it was filed 
 in the office ? 
 
 Answer. I did not say that ; I say that I have no recollection of the 
 indorsement separate from the paper^ or the paper separate from the 
 indorsement. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you mean to swear or to be understood to swear that 
 the first time this paper came into the office it had this indorsement 
 upon it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You have no recollection of the paper distinct from the 
 indorsement, or the indorsement distinct from the paper ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
440 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Tou cannot speak witli certainty as to the particular 
 time that indorsement was put on, then ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I know that when Mr. Pettihone called to 
 inquire about the paper and I showed it to him, it had its indorsement 
 upon it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did it have this indorsement ? 
 
 Answer. If there was an envelope it might have been upon that. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. If the paper had been sent to the President the envelope 
 would unquestionably have gone with it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And if he had made up his mind to change his indorse- 
 ment upon it he would either substitute another envelope and indorse 
 that, or indorse it on the letter itself, and retain the first envelope 
 with its indorsement ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Withdrawing his first instruction or indorsement ? 
 
 Answer. It is not probable that he would have made an erasure 
 upon an envelope ; the President would have no object, nor could 
 anybody else in making an erasure upon an envelope ; he would have 
 substituted another envelope. 
 
 [Subsequently, while Attorney General Black was being examined, 
 Mr. Eoane being present in the committee room, Mr. Eoane said : 
 As Mr. Pettihone has stated that he brought this matter of erasure to 
 my attention, and has introduced witnesses here as to his character 
 for veracity, I would like, if it is at all necessary, to have Judge 
 Black questioned as to my veracity. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I do not know that there would be any objection to that; 
 I will say that I have rarely seen in court, where two gentlemen 
 happen to disagree as to their recollection of a particular fact, the 
 practice of calling witnesses to support the character of either ; and I 
 do not think there is any necessity for that here. 
 
 Mr. Eoane. I do not intend to call any witnesses, but I thought 
 that as Judge Black was here the question might be incidentally 
 asked him. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I think it is to be presumed, from the fact that you are 
 in the Attorney General's office, that you are a gentleman, and entitled 
 to credit. It might be supposed, if the question was asked, that there 
 was some cause for impugning your veracity. 
 
 Mr. Eoane. I have no particular desire for it, and perhaps it may 
 as well not be done.] 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 441 
 
 No. 35. 
 
 Thursday, April 19, 1860. 
 
 J. S. BLACK called and qualified. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Please state such facts as have come within your own 
 knowledge in reference to the letter of William Pettibone to the Presi- 
 dent, and any indorsement upon it, connected with the testimony of 
 Mr. Pettibone, as you have heard it read here this morning. 
 
 Answer. I am unable to speak with any great confidence about 
 words or minute facts concerning a matter that occurred so long since. 
 I have a very distinct recollection that Mr. Pettibone was at my 
 office. I recollect also that he wanted to get my opinion about the 
 construction of that law, and that I explained to him how impossible 
 it was for me, consistently with the official duty that I owed under 
 the law^ to give any opinion unless required by the President, or re- 
 quested by one of the heads of department in regard to some matter 
 which concerned the current business of their departments ; that it 
 must be a practical case, and it must come from them, and no other 
 authority could demand any opinion from me, except such opinions 
 as were given in the current business of my own office. I know of no 
 letter hut this one produced here by Mr. Eoane this morning. I know 
 of no indorsement upon that letter, except what is on it now. I know 
 nothing about any envelope, and have no reason to believe that there 
 was an envelope on this letter ; and have no reason to suppose that if 
 there was any envelope on it there was any indorsement upon it. 
 These are the general facts, so far as I know them. If one of the 
 committee will call my attention to any particular subject, I will 
 answer. 
 
 Question. I do not know but what that covers the whole ground of 
 inquiry. Was there any other indorsement on any paper separate 
 from the letter that came to your knowledge, according to your present 
 recollection ? 
 
 Answer. I know of no paper referring in any way to the subject of 
 book-binding, in connexion with Mr. Pettibone and his application to 
 the President, except the letter produced here. That is the only 
 paper of any kind that he could have anything to do with in the 
 matter, so far as I know ; and I know of no indorsement upon that, 
 except what appears upon it now. 
 
 Question. Or upon any envelope accompanying it? 
 
 Answer. Or upon any envelope accompanying it. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection of any erasure upon any en- 
 velope by the President ? 
 
 Answer. JTo, sir. I think that would be wholly impossible from 
 the appearance of the paper ; but any other man is as good a judge as 
 I am upon that point. 
 
442 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. OiiN : 
 Question. From the very nature of the transaction there would be 
 no erasure upon it, unless it would be found upon this letter ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. If there had been an indorsement upon the envelope, and 
 that indorsement had been subsequently erased, would not your atten- 
 tion have been naturally excited to that fact, and would you not now 
 have a recollection of any erasure upon the envelope ? 
 
 Answer. I think if the paper had been altered or changed in any 
 manner whatever I would have recollected about the circumstance. 
 I do not think it would have passed without my knowledge, or that 
 I could have seen even a sign or trace of such a thing without its 
 heing regarded by me as a very remarkable fact. I would not con- 
 sider it at all remarkable for Mr. Buchanan to change an indorsement 
 upon a suggestion made to him that there was something wrong 
 about it ; but he would do it by adding something below expressing 
 the fact that it was altered. He would not take the trouble of having 
 it nicely erased for the purpose of having another indorsement put 
 upon it. 
 
 Question. The intention of the question was to ascertain from you 
 whether that fact would not have brought the matter so distinctly to 
 your recollection that you could now speak of it ? 
 
 Answer. I think so ; I think I should have been very much struck 
 with a fact like that. 
 
 Question. I would ask you, (if you feel at liberty to answer the 
 question — I do not know that the question is entirely proper,) did 
 you ever hear anything from the President, in any conversation with 
 him, leading you to believe that there was such an erasure ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; not a word. Everything that was said upon this 
 direct subject was of a contrary tendency altogether. I ought to say, 
 in justice to Mr. Pettibone, that when he says I talked with him, and 
 used the words read to me concerning the indorsement upon that 
 paper, I might have used some language very much like that ; that 
 is, that I would get the President to change it. I do not remember 
 now anything of that kind was said between us. Perhaps I said to 
 him that this indorsement did not authorize me to give him an 
 opinion, but if the President wanted me to give him an opinion^ let 
 him say so : " You say that he does want an opinion of me ; he has 
 mistaken the way to call upon me for it, and I will take it to him 
 and ask him whether he intends to have an opinion or not." And it 
 is also true that I might then have taken it to the President ; but I 
 remember nothing of the kind. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When Mr. Koane handed you the paper on one occasion, 
 and you kept it from him for some time, have you any recollection of 
 its going back to him in the same envelope ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember that fact at all. It is altogether 
 probable that the paper was in some special custody of my own— 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 443 
 
 about my own table, perhaps, and in my own room, instead of being 
 filed away in the office. 
 
 Monday, April 23, 1860. 
 
 ARCHIBALD A. QUANTRILLE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you reside in this city ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you state what you know about the papers of Mr, 
 Pettibone to the President, in relation to the executive binding — all 
 you know about the matter ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was about the close of the last session, or, per- 
 haps, immediately after the close of the last Congress, Mr. Pettibone 
 came to me and showed me a rough draft of a paper in relation to the 
 executive binding. In that he had quoted a provision of Congress 
 directing the binding to be done by practical and competent book- 
 binders. He then went on to tell me that he had had interviews with 
 some of the Secretaries, I think, perhaps, with Mr. Thompson, and 
 others ; all of which I do not now remember. He then asked me 
 whether I would not draw up for him a letter. He said that he had 
 seen the President, and the President had requested him to submit his 
 views in writing, and he would then refer them to the Attorney Gen- 
 eral for his opinion. I told him that I would do it for him. I took 
 this little memorandum of his to my room and drew up the letter for 
 him, which letter I understand has been produced here to the com- 
 mittee. I do not now remember whether I sent it to the President for 
 him, or whether he sent it himself or handed it to him. However, he 
 came to me subsequently, in a very few days after that, and told me — 
 I now remember that it was only a few days before the President went 
 to Bedford Springs. Mr. Pettibone came to me in a few days and 
 stated that he was going to visit the north, going to Niagara Falls, 
 and that, in the meantime, I would oblige him if I would address a 
 letter to the President, if he should arrive first, calling his attention 
 to this communication, that he believed it had not been sent to the 
 Attorney General, I did address a letter, in his name, to the Presi- 
 dent ; and after Mr. Pettibone returned he called at the Attorney 
 General's' office and he said he had found the letter there, and it had 
 just reached there, with an indorsement upon it. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What was the indorsement ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Pettibone has told me that he found the communica- 
 tion indorsed: "Referred to the j^ttorney General, but not for au 
 opinion." 
 
 Mr. Robinson. Mr. Pettibone has told all this himself. 
 
444 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Make your statement as short as possible. 
 
 Answer. The matter went on, and Mr. Pettibone told me that he 
 had various interviews. I suppose, however, that is not testimony. 
 He then came to me some time after that, I do not remember how 
 long, but a very short time, and showed me a letter written and signed 
 by Judge Black. My recollection of its contents is that he had seen 
 the President in relation to the binding, and that he thought the Pre- 
 sident had expressed his determination not to further interfere in the 
 matter, and added that he could not undertake to decide, or give an 
 opinion which would go to change the direction of orders, unless the 
 papers were officially referred to him for an opinion. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to this secondary evidence. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Pettibone has stated that he could not find 
 the letter. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Has he so stated in his testimony ? 
 
 The Chairman. He stated so to me. 
 
 The Witness. Mr. Pettibone came to me a few days since, suppos- 
 ing that I had the letter, as he could not find it in his possession. I 
 do not know whether I have it or not, I have not been able to find it ; 
 but I read it. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Did you know Judge Black's handwriting ? 
 Answer. I had seen it. I had no doubt of it at the time. It had 
 the appearance of being a genuine letter. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 445 
 
 No. 50. 
 
 Tuesday, May 8, 1860. 
 
 W. 0. N. SWIFT called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Yoit reside at New Bedford, Massacliusetts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you were examined at the last session of Congress 
 before a special committee of Congress in reference to certain timber 
 contracts tbat you entered into with the Secretary of the Navy ? 
 
 Answer. I was.* 
 
 Question. I do not now recollect the name of the contractor who 
 failed to perform the contract which was subsequently awarded 
 to you. What was his name ? 
 
 Answer. There were several parties 
 
 Question. Several parties to the contract ? 
 
 Answer. There were two or three contracts. 
 
 Question. Was there more than one contract executed on the part 
 of the government ? 
 
 Answer. There were three distinct contracts. 
 
 Question. All of which were cancelled by reason of non-per- 
 formance ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And subsequently awarded to you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And were you the sole contractor ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. Was the contract which you executed with the govern- 
 ment in writing ? 
 
 Answer. It was. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether you produced a copy of that 
 contract before " Sherman's committee," as it is called? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; I suppose they got a copy from the department. 
 
 Question. Have you a copy of that contract with you ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question, Was it executed in duplicate ? 
 
 Answer. I think not. Contracts with the department are signed, 
 and then returned to the, department. I had a copy taken of the con- 
 tract, probably, as I have always done so in such cases. 
 
 Question. But you say it was not executed in duplicate, you taking 
 the one copy and the department the other ? 
 
 Answer. The contracts which I have made with the departm,^nt 
 have never been in duplicate. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the time provided by the terms of the 
 contract you entered into for the delivery of the lumber ? 
 
 Answer. As near as I can recollect, a certain portion was to be de- 
 livered ' ' immediately' ' — I think that was the term — and the remainder 
 by February following. 
 
446 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 Question. The February following the execution of the contract ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You say a portion of the lumber was required to be de- 
 livered immediately. That portion was already in the lumber yard, 
 was it not ? 
 
 Answer. All of the lumber the immediate delivery of which was 
 required was already on hand in the lumber yard, I think, except in 
 the navy yard at Pensacola, 
 
 Question. You, of course, complied with that part of the contract, 
 except so far as Pensacola was concerned. When did you comply 
 with the contract at Pensacola ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember the precise dates ; I would say that 
 there is testimony in relation to this matter before l^ie other commit- 
 tee. In consequence of the season being unfavorable — the yellow 
 fever prevailing in Louisiana, where I had timber — there was delay 
 in the shipment. The timber, after the first delivery at Pensacola, 
 was lying in Louisiana ready for shipment at the time I made the 
 contract. 
 
 Question. But you were unable to deliver it immediately in conse- 
 quence of the yellow fever ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and as soon as I could ship it, it was done. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect about what time that was ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. I remember that the contract was annulled in 
 consequence of no delivery having been made ; or, rather, I received 
 a letter from the bureau that the contract would be suspended or an- 
 nulled, and I think it was annulled. But the commodore of the yard 
 wrote to the bureau that he had heard of a vessel or vessels on the 
 way with this timber, and in consequence of that it was received. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect when you supplied the balance at the 
 other navy yards that was to be subsequently delivered ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember distinctly the dates. The timber was 
 all procured and already shipped, or in process of shipment (vessels 
 had gone for it) before the expiration of the time. 
 
 Question. Has it all been delivered at the present time ? 
 
 Answer. I think it has. 
 
 Question. Are you unable to make a definite statement upon that 
 subject ? 
 
 Answer. I really do not remember particularly about it. I shipped 
 to the navy yard at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, I thought, more 
 than timber enough to comply with the requirements of the contract. 
 And it proved to be more than enough in quantity, but certain quali- 
 ties were deficient in consequence of the rejection of a portion of it, 
 from short measurement, as I thought. There was a deficiency of 
 2,000 feet at that yard, which has since been made up. 
 
 Question. When was the balance made up ? 
 
 Answer. It was made up the following season. But the contract 
 was virtually complied with, as I regarded it. All the contracts were 
 complied with, but there was a deficiency of this particular kind of 
 timber which the department considered it desirable to have. 
 
 Question. You do not mean to say that the contract was complied 
 with according to the terms of it ? 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 447 
 
 Answer. I think I sent timber enougli to the yard to fulfill the 
 contract literally. 
 
 Question. But you did not send it in season. 
 
 Answer. I sent it in season — that is, it was sent last year. 
 
 Question. Did you deliver a stick of timber but what was supposed 
 to be on hand at the time you executed the contract — on hand in the 
 different navy yards ? Did you forward a stick of timber in perform- 
 ance of the contract by the time specified in the contract ? Of all the 
 timber contemplated to be delivered to the navy yards, was there a 
 stick of timber furnished by the time required by the terms of the 
 contract ? 
 
 Answer. I think so, except in the yard at Pensacola, as I have 
 before stated. . 
 
 Question. Do I understand you that you are unable to answer that 
 definitely, positively? 
 
 Answef. The first delivery, I think, of timber was in the yards, or 
 in places from which it could be at once shipped Do you refer to the 
 second delivery ? 
 
 Question. Did the contract provide for more than two periods of 
 delivery ? 
 
 Answer. I think two periods. 
 
 Question. One was immediately, as I understood you. One condi- 
 tion of the contract was that certain timber should be delivered imme- 
 diately, and that you supposed you could comply with, from the fact 
 that timber was already in the yards suitable to be delivered on that 
 contract ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; in the yards, and at New Bedford and other 
 places, from which it could at once be shipped. 
 
 Question. And, so far as the timber in the yards was suitable, that 
 portion of the contract was complied with, according to the terms 
 of it? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Now, certain other timber that you contemplated de- 
 livering, and for which purpose time was given by the terms of the 
 contract ; do you say that you delivered one stick of the timber re- 
 quired by that last provision by the time required by that contract? 
 
 Answer. I said that at the time of the expiration of the contract 
 the timber was already shipped, or in process of shipment ; it had 
 been procured. 
 
 Question. Do you refer to the timber designed for Pensacola? 
 
 Answer. The other yards I refer to. In consequence of failing to 
 deliver the timber at Pensacola immediately, from the causes I have 
 stated, the contract was suspended. But when it was found that it 
 was shipped and on the way it was received. 
 
 Question. Can you state the period when the second delivery was 
 to take place ? 
 
 Answer. In the February following the contract. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect on what day of February ? 
 
 Answer. I think the first day, but I am not positive. 
 
 Question. Did you deliver any timber in February ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember. 
 
448 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 Question. Do you remember whether you delivered any as early as 
 March ? 
 
 Answer. I really cannot recollect. 
 
 Question. Can you tell within two or three months when you did 
 deliver any ? 
 
 Answer. It was all delivered in the spring, however, of that year. 
 
 Question. It was not all delivered at the time you were examined 
 before Mr. Sherman's committee? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You do not recollect the, month when it was delivered? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember the precise time ; no, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you tell within three months ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I say it was all delivered in the spring of the 
 year 1859. Possibly the delivery of some of it may have been pro- 
 tracted to June or July. I found it an impossibility to get vessels' to 
 go and get the timber. 
 
 Question. Nobody finds any fault with your vigilance in the matter. 
 
 Answer. The timber was all procured and ready for shipment, and 
 would have been delivered earlier but for the impossibility of getting 
 vessels. There had been one or two vessels lost at the place at which 
 it was shipped, and the captains became frightened and would not go 
 there. Finally, in April, I think, I succeeded in getting five or six 
 vessels. 
 
 Question. Has the account between the department and yourself 
 with reference to this contract, been closed and adjusted yet? 
 
 Answer. I think it has. 
 
 Question. Why are you not able to state positively ? 
 
 Answer. The committee may consider it singular that I do not 
 remember definitely about this matter ; but I have a great deal of 
 other business that requires my attention. 
 
 Question. This iS a pretty important matter. I trust you have not. 
 a great many as important contracts as this on hand at the same time. 
 
 Answer. I have business that requires more of my time and more 
 of my thoughts than this. This is not the principal portion of my 
 business. 
 
 Question. You cannot, then, as I understand you, speak definitely 
 and positively as to whether your accounts with the department in 
 reference to this contract have been settled and adjusted ? 
 
 Answer. I think it has been closed. ' '. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect when ? 
 
 Answer. There is one that has been closed recently ; the one. at 
 Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where there was a deficiency. , 
 
 Question. When was that account adjusted and settled? 
 
 Answer. Within a month, I think. 
 
 Question. When you were on your way to Charleston, passing 
 through this city ? 
 
 Answer. I think I received the reservation money at that time. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question, Can you recollect whether you received it then or not ? 
 Answer. I think I received it then ; yes, sir. 
 
EXECUTIVE BISDING, ETC. 449 
 
 Question. Had you been in this city recently before that time ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I had been here several times within two or 
 three months. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Were there several contracts executed by you ; for in- 
 stance, a contract to deliver a certain amount at Portsmouth ; was 
 that a separate contract from the contract to deliver at certain other 
 places, or was it all one contract ? ' 
 
 Answer. There were three contracts, I think. 
 
 Question. Three separate contracts entered into by you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect when the other two were adjusted ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; it was some time last spring or summer ; in the 
 summer, maybe, that they were finally concluded. There was some 
 delay in concluding the delivery of the timber. It takes a long time 
 to inspect it, and in many of these instances it has been quite a long 
 time after the delivery of the timber before the accounts have been 
 settled. 
 
 Question. About what proportion did the timber you subsequently 
 delivered bear to all the contract ? Do you understand the inquiry ? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the proportion between the first and second 
 deliveries ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. You had a certain amount of timber already 
 delivered at the various navy yards at the time of the execution of the 
 contract. The question I desire you to answer is, what proportion of 
 the timber was on hand at the time of the execution of the contract, 
 compared with that portion you subsequently delivered ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember the exact amount ; but, except at 
 Pensacola, it was, I think, in the aggregate equal to the amount re- 
 quired in the contract. In the Norfolk yard there was a larger amount 
 than in some of the other yards. 
 
 Question. And if all on hand had been received there was sufficient 
 to comply with all the contracts in all the yards except at Pensacola ? 
 
 Answer. I think there was. 
 
 Question, Was it all, or nearly all, received? 
 
 Answer. There was a considerable portion of it rejected. 
 
 Question. About what proportion was rejected compared with the 
 portion that was received ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state exactly. 
 
 Question. Give a general statement, as near as you can. 
 
 Answer. I do not know. There was a large amount of it. But 
 notwithstanding the rejections, my impression is that I had enough 
 in the aggregate in all the yards to make the quantity required. 
 
 Question, So that actually very little was taken to the yards except 
 at Pensacola ? 
 
 Answer. On the first delivery ? 
 
 Question. On the second delivery. 
 
 Answer. On the subsequent delivery it was delivered at all the 
 yards except at Norfolk. 
 
 Question. You misapprehend the inquiry that I wish to put to you.' 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 29 
 
450 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 My inquiry is, what proportion of the timber required under the con- 
 tract — you had some on hand, and some you expected to deliver in 
 February — what proportion did the timber on hand bear to what wag 
 subsequently to be delivered in February ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I understand you now. Do you mean, 
 when I took the contract did I have on hand all the timber to complete 
 the whole contract ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had not. 
 
 Question. Well ; what proportion had you on hand at the navy 
 yards ? 
 
 Answer. I thought at the time that I had more than it proved to 
 be. The inspection cut it down, and it dwindled very much. But it 
 proved that I had about half the amount, that being the amount 
 required for the first delivery. 
 
 Question. About half of the amount required under the contract 
 when it was all completed ? 
 
 Answer. I think so. 
 
 Question. One-half of the whole amount of timber to be delivered 
 under the contract ? 
 
 Answer. It may have been more than that. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what amount you delivered after Feb- 
 ruary in Norfolk ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember. I had another contract at the same 
 time. On this contract to which you refor I do not remember dis- 
 tinctly. I think there was a deficiency of about 2,000 feet on that 
 contract. 
 
 Question. You had another contract for the delivery of timber? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Executed subsequently to this one ? 
 
 Answer. Prior to this ; but the delivery had not been completed ; 
 the time of delivery had not run out. 
 
 Question. Have you any existing contracts with the government at 
 the present time ? 
 
 Answer. I have some contracts that are not quite completed. 
 
 Question. Not yet completed ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Question. When were they executed ? 
 
 Answer. In 1857, I think. 
 
 Question. For what navy yards ? 
 
 Answer. The navy yards at New York, Philadelphia, and Norfolk, 
 and a contract that I had at Boston, which was taken by another 
 party and transferred to me. 
 
 Question. For the delivery of about what amount of timber in all ? 
 
 Answer. I think the whole amount of these contracts are |300,000. 
 I do not remember the exact amount. By referring to the testimony 
 before the other committee you will find it stated there. 
 
 By the Chairman : ' 
 
 Question. Who were the lowest bidders for the contracts for live 
 oak in. 1857? 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 451 
 
 Answer. I was myself, for three contracts. There were four con- 
 tracts, and the fourth contract was transferred to me by the lowest 
 bidder. 
 
 Question. "Who was that? 
 
 Answer., It was Brown & Mcllvary, of Maine. 
 
 Question. Why was the contract not awarded to them ? 
 
 Answer. It was awarded to them, and they transferred it to me 
 subsequently. 
 
 Question. Did you or not request Mr. Toucey to give you a contract 
 without advertising for bids ? and if so, why was it not done ? 
 
 Answer. I had an amount of timber to dispose of, this was in 1858, 
 that I believed was required by the government, and which I thought 
 should have been taken by the department ; I urged the Secretary to 
 take it, but he declined to do it, saying that he had no authority to do 
 it. My own opinion is that he did have authority, and that he ought 
 to have taken it. 
 
 Question, Did not the Secretary say to you that he would have the 
 advertisements framed in such a way as to prevent competition, or 
 words to that effect ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the time fixed in the advertisement for fur- 
 nishing the live-oak timber at the different navy yards ? 
 
 Answer. In the contracts of 1857? 
 
 Question. Tes, sir. 
 
 Answer. That was two years. 
 
 Question. In the contracts of 1858, then? 
 
 Answer. One half of the timber was to be delivered immediately, 
 and the other half in the February following. 
 
 Question. Have you ever before known live-oak to be furnished for the 
 navy to be required to be delivered at the navy yards within so short 
 a time from the acceptance .of the bids ? 
 
 Answer. I'have not. 
 
 Question. What was the usual time specified in former advertise- 
 ments for the delivery of live oak ? 
 
 Answer. A year generally ; sometimes two years. All this testi- 
 mony was taken before the other committee. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. If we go on in this way I shall be compelled to have 
 all those witnesses over again who were examined before the other 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. I desire to ask but a few questions, to make this 
 testimony fit the other. 
 
 Question. [To witness.] After the contract was awarded to you, did 
 you deliver the timber according to the terms of the contract at the 
 different yards ? 
 
 Answer. I did virtually, I think ; the timber was not delivered by 
 the time specified in February, but it was all procured and ready for 
 shipment, and in process of shipment. 
 
 [Mr. Winslow here requested that the witness leave the committee 
 room for a few minutes, which he did. After some consultation in 
 committee the witness was re-called and his examination resumed.] 
 
452 EXECUTIVE BIMDING, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Omn : 
 
 Question. Do you know Buxton and Lawrence, of Maine ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are they lumber dealers ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have been so informed ? 
 
 ■Question. Did you have some conversation with these gentlemen, 
 t)r either of them, prior to the time of the execution of the contracts 
 for the delivery of this lumber at the different navy yards ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I had. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect of saying to them in substance that Mr. 
 Toucey had told you that the law prevented his giving you this con- 
 tract Without advertising ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember telling them so. 
 
 Question. You do not remember telling them that in effect and sub- 
 stance ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. Can you swear that you did not tell them so ? 
 
 Answer. Will you be good enough. to repeat the question. 
 
 Question. The question is whether you in substance said that Mr. 
 Toucey had told you that the law forbade his giving the contract to 
 you without advertising ? 
 
 Answer. I may have told them that the secretary said the timber 
 was required, but that he considered that he had no authority to take 
 it on open purchase, that it would be necessary to advertise for pro- 
 posals. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect of saying to them in the following lan- 
 guage, or in language to this effect, that you would have the contracts 
 or advertisements so worded as to prevent any one else from furnish- 
 ing the timber ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Question. You swear you did not say s'o? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with them upon the sub- 
 ject of what the terms of the contract would be ? 
 
 Answer. [After a pause.] I conversed with them in Boston in refer- 
 ence to these contracts. 
 
 Question. Be precise, if you please. 
 
 Answer. I do not know as I understand the question exactly. 
 
 Question. I will repeat it again. Do you recollect having any con- 
 versation with Buxton and Lawrence, or either of them, as to what 
 the terms of the contract would be in reference to the time of delivery? 
 
 Answer. When I saw them in Boston, the time of delivery was 
 definitely fixed by the terms of the advertisement, so that there could 
 have been no argument or dispute about it. 
 
 Question. Did you say to them or either of them that they were in- 
 truders, that the contract ought to be given to you, or should be given 
 to you on account of the money you had advanced ? 
 
 Answer. I think not ; I could not have said so. 
 
 Question. You say you think not ; can you not speak positively 
 upon that subject? 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 453 
 
 Answer. I never have said that in my life to any man. Perhaps 
 I ought not to go into explanations of those matters. 
 
 Question. Did you mention to them the fact that you had advanced 
 large sums of money to aid in the election of Mr. Buchanan ? 
 
 Answer. I wish to say now that I have never made any claim upon 
 any officer of the government or any individual. 
 
 Question. Confine yourself directly to the question put to you, if 
 you please. 
 
 Answer. If I might he allowed to say this, I have never made any 
 claim upon any officer of the government j or stated to anybody 
 that I made a claim upon the government, in consequence of having 
 contributed to the cause ; I never could have said that ; I may have- 
 said to gentlemen that I thought the party were under oblgation to, 
 me ; but as for ever making any claim in any way or manner whatever 
 to any body, I never did. 
 
 Question. I do not care about your answering what I do not ask 
 you. This is the idea : whether you did not state to those gentlemen, 
 by way of complaint of their interfering to get this contract, and as- 
 sign as a reason that you had expended large amounts of money to aid 
 Mr. Buchanan's election, and that you were entitled to some consid- 
 eration on that account? Did you not, in substance,'use that language 
 to them ? 
 
 Answer. I would say that Mr. Lawrence, with whom I talked in 
 Boston, said to me that he considered I was entitled to contracts, and 
 perhaps I may have said that I thought I was, too ; but as for ever 
 making any such complaints, I never did, that I remember. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Lawrence say that he was an intruder, or did 
 you say that he was intruding ? 
 
 Answer. I never, to my knowledge, made a complaint that he was 
 an intruder ; I do not remember anything of the kind ; I remember 
 we had a long conversation, and a great many things were said. 
 
 Question. Have you, directly or indirectly, by yourself or agent^ 
 paid or caused to be paid to any person attached to the Navy Depart- 
 ment, or to the navy yard, any money or presents since the date of 
 that contract ? • 
 
 Answer. I do not think that is a question I ought to answer, but 
 I will answer that I have not, or, I do not know ; I may have given 
 some books to some gentlemen, some Congressional documents. 
 • Question. Nothing else? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, nothing else ; except some articles of small pecu- 
 niary value, not worth mentioning. 
 
 Mr. Olin. (To witness.) That is all. 
 
 [The committee, after some conversation in regard to the amount of 
 testimony taken by them upon the subject of contracts for live-oak', 
 agreed, on motion of Mr. Wikslow : 
 
 That this committee will use so much of the testimony taken by 
 the Special Committee upon Naval Contracts and Expenditures, of the 
 last Congress, as maybe adapted to the purposes of this investigation.] 
 
 By Mr. Winslow; : 
 
 Question. Did you ever have any conversation with the President of 
 the United States with re ga rd to this contract of yours ? 
 
454 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I do not remember it ; I may have mentioned the subject 
 to him after the examination before the committee of the last Oongress. 
 
 Question. Did you do so before obtaining the contract ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Was there any promise to or understanding with any of- 
 ficer of the government, that a gratuity, or reward, or benefit in any 
 shape or form, directly or indirectly, should be givem to him for the 
 obtaining of this contract? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chaibman : 
 
 Question. Did you not have an agent, whose services you paid a 
 larger amount for, to attend to this matter with the department of ob- 
 l^ining contracts ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I did not ; I woi^ld like to say here, in explana- 
 tion of the testimony of Mr. Plitt 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is all down in the testimony taken before the 
 other committee ; if there is any allusion to Plitt here, I shall have to 
 go over this whole matter again. 
 
 No. 51. 
 Wednesday, May 9, 1860. 
 JOSEPH GEICE called and examined. 
 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In New York. 
 
 Question. Have you been a bidder for the delivery of live oak timber 
 to the various navy yards in the United States ? 
 
 Answer. I have, sir. 
 
 Question. How long have you been engaged in that business? 
 
 Answer. I can date as f§r back as 1840, on my own account. 
 
 Question. Have you ever received any contracts ? 
 
 Answer. I have, sir. 
 
 Question. What is the usual time allowed by the department for 
 delivery of timber under such contracts ? 
 
 Answer. The time varies, according to the quantities of timber that 
 are required to be delivered, from one year to three years. 
 
 Question. What is the reason for allowing so much time ? 
 
 Answer. Under the old reign of the commissioners who had charge 
 of the department, it was required that the timber should be cut 
 during the winter season, or during the months of November, Decem- 
 ber, January, February, and March, when the sap was down. They 
 considered that better timber than if it was cut while the sap was up ; 
 and then we could ship the timber in the spring. Their object was 
 to get that material which would be the most durable. 
 
 Question. Was you a bidder for the contracts in 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I was, sir. 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 455 
 
 Question. What were tte terms of your bid, as regards prices and 
 the time of delivery ? 
 
 Answer. The terms with regard to the time of delivery were accord- 
 ing to the advertisement ; and the prices, I think, would average 
 about |1 16 or $1 lY per cubic foot ; I cannot remember exactly. 
 
 Question. Do you know how your prices compared with those of 
 other bidders ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I learned subsequently from the documents that 
 I saw. I bid for the New York, Boston, and Portsmouth (N. H.) 
 navy yards ; and I was next to the lowest bidder for those three yards. 
 
 Question. Do you know what were the prices proposed by Mr. 
 Swift? 
 
 Answer. I saw from the documents which were published after 
 that time, that Mr. Swift's bids were higher than our bids were. 
 
 Question. Were they much higher ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; considerably higher. I was also interested in 
 the bids of Samuel B. Grice for other yards. He bid for the Phila- 
 delphia, Norfork, and Pensacola yards^ and I bid for the three eastern 
 yards. We were interested jointly in these things. 
 
 Question. Upon what were the terms of your bid predicated ? 
 
 Answer. We regulated our prices according to the shortness of the 
 time allowed for the delivery of the timber, and the season of the year 
 when it was required that one half of the timber should be delivered. 
 We charged a higher rate in order to cover the increased expense of 
 the excessive prices for freight during the winter season, over what 
 they would be if the timber was shipped in the spring. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the delivery of live oak 
 timber by Mr. Swift, under the contract of 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I know that he had some timber in the yard, and he con- 
 tinued delivering timber all along during the spring, summer, and 
 fall of 1859. 
 
 Question. Under these same contracts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the contracts were annulled, and given to Mr. 
 Swift. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that your bid was higher than it 
 would have been if you had had the usual time allowed for the deliv- 
 ery of the timber ? ' » 
 
 Answer. I do, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you not know other parties yfho would have bid, and 
 have taken the contracts much lower, if the usual time had been 
 -allowed ? 
 
 Answer. I have been informed that some parties declined bidding 
 on account of the shortness of the time allowed for the delivery of the 
 timber. They, as well as ourselves, thought it was impossible to de- 
 liver the timber in the time required, as there were only about sixteen 
 days allowed before half of the timber was required to be delivered. 
 It was a matter of utter impossibility to deliver it in that time. 
 
 Question. Did you not know when you put in that bid that it was 
 utterly impossible for anybody to deliver it in the time required ? 
 
 Answer. I knew it would be impossible for any one except those 
 ■vfho had the timber on hand. No man could cut and bring timber in 
 that short time. 
 
^56 EXECUTIVE BINDING,ETC;^ 
 
 Question. Did yon go to work to deliver that timber as fast as you 
 possibly could, after taking the contracts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we delivered one cargo, and had a second one 
 ready to deliver when these contracts were annulled. 
 
 Question. Please to state your knowledge with regard to the deliv- 
 ery of this timber ; how much time did Mr. Swift have allowed to 
 him for delivering it, after the contract with you was annulled ? Do. 
 you know whether he delivered it in a reasonable time ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Swift's contracts required one half of the timber to be 
 delivered immediately, and the balance was to be delivered on the 1st 
 of February, 1859. We had made arrangements to deliver our tim- 
 ber by the 1st of February, although we did not expect to get the first 
 half of it there by the 1st of September ; but we expected to have it 
 there at the date of the last delivery under those contracts. I cannot 
 state the exact time when Mr. Swift delivered this timber, although 
 I know that he was delivering it along during the summer and fall. 
 If the same time had been allowed to us we could have done it, and 
 for less money than was paid for it. 
 
 Question. How much money would you have saved to the govern- 
 ment, if you had had time and had had the knowledge that you would 
 have time to deliver this timber, on the whole contract ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose the saving would amount to some ten or twelve 
 cents on the cubic foot. 
 
 Question. How much would that be on the whole contract ? 
 
 Answer. The whole contract was something like one hundred and 
 fifty thousand cubic feet, which would make the saving about $15,000. 
 . Question. On what you would have delivered ? 
 
 Answer. I am speaking of all the contracts. The contract with 
 Mr. Swift was dated on the 23d of September, 1858. My brother was 
 advised about this contract on the 6th of August by the bureau, and 
 on the 8th or 9th of August, I think, the navy agent advised him that 
 the contracts were ready to be executed. He executed them imme- 
 diately, and they were returned to the bureau about the 14th of the 
 month, leaving only sixteen days in which to deliver half of the: 
 timber. 
 
 Question. "Was there not timber delivered under the contract with- 
 Mr. Swift that the government had no use for ? 
 
 Answer. There was a description of timber called for in that con- 
 tract that was rather unusual. 
 
 Question, Was that not made, in your judgment, to fit the qualities 
 and descriptions of timber that Mr. Swift had on hand ? 
 
 Answer. It was, in my judgment. I thought the description of 
 timber in the yard corresponded with the advertisement, both as to 
 shape and size. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. -Was that quality unusual ? 
 
 Answer. The quality was not unusual, but the description was un- 
 usual. I never saw in my experience an advertisement of that kind 
 before. It was peculiar in several respects. 
 
 Question. What was there about the timber that made it unusual? 
 
EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 457 
 
 Answer, In the first place, a large portion was required to be 
 straight, and no ship can be built of straight timber. Perhaps the 
 committee are not aware of it, but the fact is, that in the formation of 
 a ship thdre are no two timbers in the ship alike ; each timber varies 
 as you go fore and aft the ship, and of course it would require crooked 
 timber to make the bend ; but this advertisement required mostly- 
 straight timber, and Mr. Swift's timber was most of it straight. 
 
 Question. Was it unfit for building ships ? 
 
 Answer. I will not say that ; it might be suitable for some parts of 
 a ship ; but the quantity was greater than that usually required. 
 
 Question. And the advertisement corresponded with the class of 
 timber that Mr. Swift had in the yard? 
 
 Answer, It did, sir. 
 
 Question. You saw Mr. Swift's timber? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do not you know of a large quantity of that timber being 
 passed over to the government without being inspected or measured ? 
 
 Answer, I understood that one part of it had never been measured 
 after the contract had been received. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 Question, You do not know anything about it of your own know- 
 ledge, then? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I only say what I heard about it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Is there not a great deal of that timber remaining on 
 hand that the government has no use for ? 
 
 Answer. There seems to be a, large pile in the yard. 
 
 Question. I mean of the same timber. 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir, ' 
 
 Question, When you put in your bid for that timber did you hope 
 to deliver what the contract called for in that sixteen days, or did you 
 think you might have some indulgence ? 
 
 Answer. We did not expect to deliver it in the sixteen days, but 
 we thought the same indulgence would be extended to us as had been 
 in former years, and as had been extended to contractors generally, 
 not only for live oak, but for other kinds of timber and building 
 materials. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. How many years did you say you had been engaged in 
 that business ? 
 
 Answer, My experience goes back to the year 1840 ? 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Do you know, of your own personal knowledge, of other 
 timber than that specified that Mr, Swift had on hand being delivered 
 to the government under this contract? 
 
 Answer, I cannot state of my own personal knowledge. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 459 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Washington, D. C, March 22, 1860. 
 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL, called and sworu. 
 By tlie Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Washington city. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Printer. 
 
 Question. Have you been engaged in doing printing for the gov- 
 ernment ? 
 
 Answer. I have, for the past six years. 
 
 Question. Have you been called upon to contribute largely for 
 political purposes ? 
 
 Answer, I have been asked to contribute, and have voluntarily 
 contributed whenever, in my judgment, it would be beneficial to the 
 party. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of what amount you have con- 
 tributed annually, or for the time you have been engaged in doing 
 government work ? 
 
 Answer. During the past four years I have, perhaps, contributed 
 over one hundred thousand dollars to what might be considered party 
 purposes. 
 
 Question. In what States was that money generally made use of? 
 
 Answer. Well, the larger part of it in Pennsylvania, I think. 
 
 Question. That is, more than half the amount ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say that. 
 
 Question. To what other States than Pennsylvania have you con- 
 tributed to aid the party ? 
 
 Answer. I have contributed for party purposes in New York, New 
 Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, and Maine, I think. There may be others, 
 but they do not occur to my mind now. 
 
 Question. Have all your contributions been in northern States ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I do not remember spending a dollar politically 
 in southern States. I have tendered contributions there, but they 
 allowed that they did not use money as we did in the free States. 
 
 Question. You allege, then, that Pennsylvania has got half or more 
 than half of the whole amount ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say that ; I think not quite half. 
 
 Question. But much more than any other State ? 
 
460 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. 0, much more, by far. We thought Pennsylvania more 
 important in 1856 thanany other State, and we were desirous in 1858 
 of securing the State. 
 
 Question. Did you furnish money to the different districts in Penn- 
 sylvania, or to one man for all the districts ? 
 
 Answer. Not entirely to one man for the different districts. I took 
 the advice of a friend of mine, in whose judgment I confided, and 
 sometimes gave him the money^ __ 
 
 Question. Who was the principal agent in whom you had the most 
 confidence in these matters ? 
 
 Answer. I had no particular agent. I conversed with the leading 
 men of the party in the State, and acted upon such information as I 
 got from them as to where money would he most useful in producing 
 good results. 
 
 Question. Can you give the names of the different parties to whom 
 you have furnished money ? 
 
 Answer. I would rather decline answering that question, if the 
 committee would excuse me. 
 
 Question. It is embraced in our inquiry. 
 
 Answer. I would state that the same question has been asked me 
 by other committees, and I have declined answering, any further than 
 stating that I have given money to different districts. I have declined 
 for the reason, as all gentlemen conversant with party affairs know, 
 that there are certain things done by partisans that they do not par- 
 ticularly care to have their opponents know. I have said that I 
 furnished money to A, B, and C's districts, and I certainly cannot 
 have any objection to go as far as that now ; but to detail persons, 
 times, and amounts, I would respectfully decline. I do not wish to he 
 considered captious at all, and if the committee insist peremptorily 
 upon it, I am bound upon my oath to answer the question. 
 
 Question. We would fail to get a full answer to our inquiry with- 
 out knowing to whom the money was paid. The resolution is care- 
 fully worded, to cover the inquiry I wish to make, 
 
 [The chairman here read to the witness the second resolution, as 
 follows : 
 
 '^Besolved, further, That, as the President in his letter to the Pitts- 
 burg centennary celebration of the 25th November, 1858, speaks of 
 'the employment of money to carry elections,' said committee shall 
 inquire into and ascertain the amount so used in Pennsylvania, and 
 any other State or States, in what districts it was expended, and by 
 whom, and by whose authority it was done, and from what sources the 
 money was derived, and report the names of the parties implicated."] 
 
 Answer. As to the sources from which the money was derivec^. 
 
 Question. We do not want to enquire as to the sources now ; but it is 
 necessary, to enable us to get at testimony, that we should know to 
 whom the money went from you. 
 
 Mr. Train. I would suggest that it would be well to systematiae 
 the investigation by questioning the witness in relation to one district 
 at a time. 
 
 The Chairman (to witness :) 
 
 Question. Can you tell what amount you expended in the first dis- 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 461 
 
 trict, Colonel Florence's district, during the time you were doing 
 government work ? 
 
 Answer. I could not tell exactly ; my judgment is that it was rising 
 $3,000. 
 
 Question. In whose hands was that money put for the first district? 
 Was it all put in the hands of one person ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; if my memcJry serves me^ I gave Mr. Horwitz — 
 
 Question. What is his first name ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know; he was the editor of a German paper; I 
 made a little arrangement with him to bring out our German citizens ; 
 I think he is now the editor of the Pennsylvanian ; I also put some 
 money into the hands of Mr. Megargee. 
 
 Question. Which Megargee ? 
 
 Answer. Sylvester J. Megargee ; and I think some to Mr. Severns. 
 
 Question. What is his first name ? 
 
 Answer. Joseph. My impression is that I put some in his hands. 
 
 Question. Did you furnish any directly to the member from that 
 district ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say positively that I did furnish any to Colonel 
 Florence ; I may have given him some, but it does not occur to me 
 now; I was paying him, as the agent or friend of the Argus, a certain 
 stipend out of the printing; but, whether I gave to him directly for 
 election expenses, or whether it was to him as the agent of Mr. Severns 
 of the Argus, in whom he took a warm interest, I cannot say. 
 
 Question. Do you think of any other person in that district to whom 
 you furnished money ? 
 
 Answer. I do not now. 
 
 Question. In what year was the most of that furnished ? 
 
 Answer. The great bulk of it was furnished in 1858, at the last con- 
 gressional election. 
 
 Question. Do your books show the amount you furnished in 1858 
 in that district ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; the charges are generally against Mr. Severns, of 
 the Argus ; he was to have a certain percentage on certain govern- 
 ment printing to sustain his paper ; in the amount I mentioned I in- 
 clude what I have paid to sustain papers to promulgate the word ; 
 what I have given individually for expenditures in different districts 
 for printing, bringing up voters, bands of music, and general election 
 expenses^ I could not tell where the money went to ; I could say, for 
 instance, that I put $500 in such a district ; I could not follow it 
 further. 
 
 Question. Did you not pay more than that amount to the Argus 
 alone ? 
 
 Answer. ! I paid the Argus some seven thousand and odd dollars, 
 including what might have been used for election expenses ; how 
 much that was I could not tell exactly ; my idea is that about $2,000 
 of the money was expended in the district, and the balance for the 
 paper ; but I could not say positively about that. 
 
 Question. Was this in 1858? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; about $7,000 during that summer; the aggregate 
 
462 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 given to Mr. Severns was over $7,000, if my memory serves me ; I 
 liave the figures. 
 
 Question. Wbo was it that made the arrangement by which he was 
 to get that money ? 
 
 Answer. Well^ sir, my knowledge has heen that it was thpugh 
 the President ; I was doing all the printing here, and Mr. Kice,_ of 
 the Pennsylvanian, claimed a portion of it, and then Mr. Severns did, 
 and through friends, Mr. Bigler, Colonel Florence, and other friends ; 
 it was arranged that they should have such a percentage of the work; 
 that I should pay them so much. The reason given was that the 
 patronage of the city was lost, owing to the triumph of the opposition, 
 and the papers must he sustained in some way, and, therefore, they 
 must have a portion of this work. I paid during the year, I think, 
 to Mr. Eice, between $11,000 and $12^000; and to Mr. Severns, 
 including what I suppose was used for electioneering purposes, about 
 $7,000. 
 
 Question. Two thousand dollars of which, you say^ was for elec- 
 tioneering purposes ? 
 
 Answer. I have it on my memory that it was about that ; I speak 
 now of 1858 ; I have said that that district has cost me $3,000, directly 
 or indirectly, these past four years. 
 
 Question. By whom was the arrangement made to take care of these 
 papers ? 
 
 Answer. It was done by authority of the President. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with -the President himself 
 upon the subject? 
 
 Answer. I had, several times ; I was opposed to being thus levied 
 on ; I thought I was liberal enough to spend all the money I pould 
 make out of the work, and I did not care to pay for papers ; I never 
 approved of it ; it was through the instigation of partizan friends 
 from Pennsylvania that the arrangement was finally made, by which 
 I was to pay such a percentage to Mr. Eice, which percentage was 
 afterwards reduced in order that Mr. Severns might have some ; but 
 the amount never was definitely settled ; there was a continual struggle 
 to get more, and I was continually resisting it ; the contest waged 
 a year, I think. 
 
 Question. Was this money paid directly to the parties, or to others 
 for them ? 
 
 Answer. It was paid on their drafts, generally ; the principal mode 
 was this : they would draw on me for thirty or sixty days, and I 
 would accept and pay the drafts when they matured ; they anticipated 
 their payments ; it was considered that it was to be paid out of the 
 monthly bills ; I rendered a bill monthly to the department. 
 
 Question. You mentioned that you might have paid Mr. Florence 
 some money for his district in settling these matter ; that was for 
 Mr. Severns, was it? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Mr. Florence was a great friend and advocate of 
 Mr. Severns, as were Mr. Bigler and Mr. Baker for Mr. Eice ; each 
 was desirous, I presume, to keep up his own special organ. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 465 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Who was this Baker that you speak of? 
 
 Answer. Collector of the port of Philadelphia ; he was very im- 
 portunate for more ; like Oliver Twist, he was always crying for 
 more. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Why was it that they made such a pressure upon yoa 
 for money ? Was it because you were favored with this government 
 work ? 
 
 Answer. I presume so. 
 
 Question. Had you refused to pay this money liberally, what, iu' 
 your opinion, would have been the consequence? 
 
 Answer. A portion of the time Mr. Eice had the work ; it was 
 issued in his name some four or five months. I took it from him ; I 
 was the sub-agent, or contractor, if you please. The balance of the 
 time, when it was taken from him and referred to me as the attorney 
 of Mr. Harris, the Senate printer, I agreed to continue the payments 
 to him, and did continue them up to, I think, October, when, in my 
 judgment, the money could be better applied, and then I stopped. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. This was in 1858, was it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I applied it, as my judgment dictated, to- 
 different districts. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Tou stated, in substance, that the President dictated that 
 arrangement. Did he require you to pay a certain amount each year 
 out of your business ? 
 
 Answer. He required, as I understood, that the post office blanks 
 should be given to Mr. Rice ; that I should continue the printing of 
 them. An order was made by the Postmaster General to give the- 
 work to Mr. Rice, and I sub-contracted with him. That state of 
 things existed, if my memory serves me, about four months. Then 
 the order was revoked by Postmaster General Brown, and it came to- 
 me. This was in April, I think. I continued doing the work up to- 
 the time of the election of General Bowman. I sub-contracted the- 
 work, also — that portion of the work to which he looked for his pay. 
 
 Question. The question I asked you was whether the President 
 required you to pay a definite amount out of your work each year. 
 
 Answer. He gave the work, and I contracted with Mr. Rice. He- 
 had nothing to do with the particular percentage, that I am aware of. 
 It was a running percentage upon the work ; forty-three per cent, I 
 think, I was to pay him. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you mean forty-three per cent, of the profit? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; forty-three per cent, of the gross amount. We 
 go by gross amounts entirely when we speak of percentage. I have 
 been in the habit of doing the work for everybody who needs it, having; 
 the materials here, receiving or paying a percentage, as the case may- 
 be. Sometimes I am the attorney or substitute for the original party. 
 
464 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Question. The President was a party to that arrangement, was he ? 
 
 Answer. The President was desirous that Mr. Eice and Mr. Severns 
 should hoth participate in it. 
 
 Question. He was a party to the arrangement, was he? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; but I cannot say that he ever designated the 
 particular amount to be paid. 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSON. I think it would be well to let the witness explain 
 the whole transaction — give all the particulars and details of it. 
 
 By the Chairman, (to witness :) 
 
 Question. Will you give a history of the position that you occupied 
 up to the time that you sold the Union, the amounts of money you 
 bad to pay after you sold the Union, where that money came from, 
 by whose directions the arrangement was made — whether by the 
 President and the Cabinet, or the President, or any member of the 
 Cabinet ; who made the arrangement that made it obligatory upon 
 you to do this ? 
 
 Answer. If the committee will allow me, I will furnish them with 
 a copy of a written detailed statement which I laid before the special 
 committee of the Senate — Preston King's committee, it is called^ — 
 which I think will be a reply to the question. 
 
 The Chairman. You will please do so, that the committee may have 
 it at their next meeting, 
 
 Friday, March 23, 1860. 
 
 COENELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In your examination on yesterday you told the committee 
 ■-to whom, so far as you recollected, the amount of money, and to whom 
 it was paid, in the first congressional district of Pennsylvania. T© 
 what other district in Pennsylvania did you furnish money ? 
 
 Answer. I contributed some in Mr. Landy's district. 
 
 Question. To whom was that paid ? 
 
 Answer. I really could not say. 
 
 •Question. Will your books not show ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not think they will. 
 
 Question. Any other district? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Phillips's district. 
 
 Question. Can you give the names of any one in that district to 
 whom you paid money ? 
 
 Answer. I think I paid some to Mr. Sylvester J. Megargee, but I 
 will not be positive ; I really could not say, (for I was handling a great 
 «deal of money daily,) to whom I paid money. 
 
 Question. You paid some to Mr. Megargee, did you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I put some in his hands. 
 
 Question. To what other parties in Philadelphia did you pay money ? 
 
 Answer. Some, I think, to Mr. Wm. H. Witte. 
 
 ■Question. To anybody else ? 
 
4€5 
 
 Answer. No other names occur to me now. 
 
 Question. Did you furnish money to Mr. Baker? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the collector ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I gave him |2,000 at one time, hut I understood that was 
 for the support of the Pennsylvanian. I did that through Mr. Me- 
 gargee. 1 did a very heavy business with Mr. Megargee, in the way 
 of stock, paper, and money, all together. 
 
 Question. Did you furnish any to any other district in Pennsylvania? 
 
 Answer. I furnished some to Mr. White's district. 
 
 Question. To whom was that paid? 
 
 Answer. That I could not say. I think I authorized some one in 
 his district to draw on me. My impression is clear that I authorized 
 some one to draw on me, but who it was I could not now say. I 
 might, perhaps, find that draft. I think I could ascertain from look- 
 ing over the old drafts who drew on me in White's district. 
 
 Question. Did you furnish money to more than one man in White's 
 district ? ^ 
 
 Answer. I do not remember but one in that district. 
 
 Question. What other district ? 
 
 Answer. I think Mr. Reilly's district. 
 
 Question. Do you know to whom that was paid? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that I gave a man by the name of Bull l 
 some money for Reilly's district ; he was a clerk in one of the depart-- 
 ments at one time, but I have not seen him for a year or so. 
 
 Question. What is his first name ? 
 
 Answer. Indeed, I do not know. I remember his calling upon m©- 
 with a leave of absence to go up there electioneering, as he said, and Ti 
 gave him some money and, I think, authorized him to draw on me, , 
 or tell some one in the district to draw on me. 
 
 Question. In what other district ? 
 
 Answer. I think I gave $500 for Dimmick's district, in what we ■ 
 knew then as the Packer district. 
 
 Question, Did you use any in Scranton's district? 
 
 Answer. If that is the Luzerne district, I have the impression that , 
 I gave to Mr. Witte something to give to some prominent partizan of 
 that district. I have a faint recollection of giving some there. I 
 kept no memoranda of those things, and my memory is not distinct 
 as to details. 
 
 Question. How about my district? 
 
 Answer. What is known as the Foster district? I think I gave - 
 nothing there. My impression is that I was opposed to spending any 
 money in that district. I thought it was bad judgment to spend any 
 there. 
 
 Question. Was not there an effort made to have you spend some 
 money in that district ? 
 
 Answer. I think there was some talk ; I think Mr. Witte and my- 
 self held some conversation about it, but I forget the details of it ; my 
 memory is distinct that my judgment was opposed , to it ; I think I, 
 spent no money in that district, although I am not positive. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 30 
 
466 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 Question, Was not there a letter handed to you asking you to attend 
 to that district and furnish some money for it? 
 
 Answer. I have a faint recollection of reading a letter, but I could 
 not now bring it to mind sufficiently to speak of it. 
 
 Question. Probably by refreshing your memory you can do so. Do 
 you recollect that, before the Seaman Investigating Committee, you 
 spoke of a letter asking for a thousand dollars for that district, and 
 you declined to furnish it ? 
 
 Answer. I have a faint idea of something of that kind across my 
 brain, but I cannot call to mind the details now. 
 
 Question. You stated then that a letter had been handed to you 
 asking tor a thousand dollars for that district ; and you said that it 
 would not pay, or something of that kind ; that you could not beat 
 me? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that I thought there was no use throw- 
 ing money away in that district, and I declined giving any ; that is 
 my impression now, although some of the money I gave might have 
 gone there ; I can say that my mind is clear that if any of the money 
 I gave in the State went in\o that district it went against my judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Question. The question was, was not there a letter handed to you, 
 and you were asked to attend to it, saying a thousand dollars was wanted 
 in that district ? 
 
 Answer. I have a faint recollection that there was such a conversa- 
 tion ; but with whom it was held does not occur to me now. 
 
 Question. Do you not recollect the statement you made to the other 
 .committee as to who handed you that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember that testimony ; I remember some tes- 
 ttimony pertaining to it, but I do not remember the details sufficiently 
 to say now. 
 
 Question. Go on and state what you recollect about it. 
 Answer. I have an impression of a conversation with the President 
 upon the subject of the Foster district, in which I stated that it would, 
 be useless doing anything there; the conversation was general as to 
 the State, and, as to the different districts, I recollect giving my 
 opinion based upon information that I had picked up after a visit to 
 ^Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. Do you not recollect stating that he handed you a letter 
 asking for a thousand dollars for that district, and you replied that it 
 ■would not pay ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember that ; it might have been so ; I remem- 
 ber his reading different letters to me which he had in his hand, al- 
 luding to extracts from them as to probable results; but I do not 
 bring to mind that particular thing ; it might have been so ; I will 
 state in this connexion that I was very active then, and daily and 
 nightly talking and acting politics; not being a public speaker or 
 much of a writer, I did as much as I could in the way of giving sound 
 advice and what contributions I felt able to give to pay the necessary 
 ■expenses of elections, which are erormous in your State; it is the 
 most costly State in the Union to us ; but the details I could not. give; 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 467 
 
 I would not undertake to swear to anything with direct positiveness ; 
 though Ro^e of the amounts I could remember distinctly. 
 
 Question. Do you remember the President's handing you a letter 
 and calling your attention to it? 
 
 Answer. I remember several letters — one morning in particular; 
 but whether there was a letter from the Foster di^trict I cannot dis- 
 tinctly remember now, and yet it well might have been ; I do not say 
 it was not. 
 
 Question. As you do not recollect the amount distinctly, do you 
 recollect Mr. Buchanan giving you a letter asking for the money? 
 
 Answer. 1 do not; I remember conversations I had with him at 
 different times when he had letters; I recollect that one morning, if 
 my memory serves me, he said "here are seven letters;" I recollect 
 that ; 1 have a distinct recollection that we mentioned Dewart's and 
 Keilly's districts ; what other districts those letters were from I could 
 not say. 
 
 Question. In referring to this matter befot-e the Seaman committee 
 you said that if Mr. Witte had spent any of the money you gave him 
 in my district it was against your judgment, and he ought to lose it. 
 In his final settlement with you did he retain the money from you that 
 he spent in my district ? 
 
 Answer. That I cannot say. 
 
 Question. You then stated that you put money in Mr. Witte's hands 
 to be used in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 [After some consultation, the further examination of Mr. Wendell 
 was postponed till Monday next, and the chairman was authorized to 
 address a note to Hon. Preston King, requesting that the minutes of 
 Mr, Wendell's testimony before that committee be furnished to this 
 committee.] 
 
 Monday, March 26, 1860. 
 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 
 [The witness laid before the committee a few printed pages of his 
 testimony taken before the Senate committee, and stated that he had 
 been unable to obtain the whole of it, but would produce the remainder 
 as soon as he could get possession of it.] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is there any other district in Pennsylvania for which you 
 furnished money, that is not mentioned in your testimony of Friday 
 last? 
 
 Answer. If Mr. Jones's district is not mentioned there, his district 
 is one ; I did furnish money there. 
 
 Question. How much? 
 
 Answer. I could not say ; it was for two elections, the election of 
 1856, and also the election of 1858 ; I furnished money in that district 
 for both elections; I think as high as $1,500, at least, and perhaps 
 more ; if ray memory serves me it was more, that is, for the two elec- 
 tions of 1856 and 1858, 
 
468 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. To whom was that money paid? 
 
 Answer. I think a part of it was paid through a draft of the treasurer 
 of the local county committee on me, and I am not clear but I gave 
 Mr. Jones himself some directly ; but my mind is not_ clear on that 
 head. I remember that the district cost me pretty heavily ; my habit 
 was to distribute some in the congressional districts, instead of giving 
 all to the chairman of the State committee ; I gave some to the chair- 
 man of the State committee directly. 
 
 Question. What was his name? 
 
 Answer. Colonel Forney was the chairman of the State committee 
 in 1856. I recollect giving him a check for. general purposes ; I think 
 a portion of the money I gave for Mr. Jones's district — the Berks 
 county district — was paid to the money officer of the county committee, 
 and a portion to Mr. Jones in person ; but I could not distinguish the 
 amounts. 
 
 Question. Have you those drafts or accounts ? 
 
 Answer. I doubt whether I have them ; I would state, to show the 
 impossibility of distinguishing, that I would draw a check for a given 
 amount of money and take it with me when I went to Philadelphia, 
 or I would draw my check in Philadelphia and swap checks with some 
 friend in Philadelphia who would give me the money for my draft on 
 my banker here ; and I would divide the money up and give it out to 
 different parties ; I would, perhaps, make a bet of $500, and give 
 from $500 to $1,000 in different districts. But this was all mixed up 
 so that I really could not tell exactly how it was all done, as I did 
 not keep a minute of the details, although my books will show the 
 entire amount I spent for party purposes. For instance, there would 
 be an entry of a check for " $5,000 political," but I could not remem- 
 ber who got all that money, although I might remember $1,000 or 
 $2,000 of it. 
 
 Question. There is one remark in your testimony of a few days ago 
 that does not fit the others, and I want to have it explained. The 
 question was this : 
 
 "As you do not recollect the amount distinctly, do you recollect 
 Mr. Buchanan giving you a letter asking for the money ?" 
 
 Your answer to that was — 
 
 " I do not ; I remember conversations I had with him at different 
 times," &c. 
 
 I will now ask you — Do you not recollect after your return from 
 Philadelphia — 
 
 Mr. WiNsLOW. I must object to questions being put in that way. 
 Ask the witness what he recollects, but not in that way. 
 
 The Chaikman. Then I will get at it in this way. Mr. Wendell, 
 did you not mee*^. Mr. Foster in Philadelphia ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That form of the question is just as objectionable as 
 the other. 
 
 Mr. Olin, (to witness :) 
 Question. Do you recollect of having an interview with Mr. Foster 
 in Philadelphia^ in the summer or fall of 1858, in reference to the 
 congressional election in his district ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 469 
 
 Answer. I do recollect meeting him and having a conversation with 
 him on the subject. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. Will you give the particulars of the conversation? 
 Answer. It was general talk upon the subject of elections and our 
 prospects. 
 
 By Mr. OuN : 
 
 Question. And the probabilities of carrying the district? 
 
 Answer. The probabilities of carrying the district in which he was 
 a candidate. And from the conversation, I made up my mind that 
 that district was a gone case ; I put it down among the hopeless cases. 
 
 Question. On your return to Washington, subsequently, did you 
 see the President? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with him upon the subject 
 of the election in Foster's congressional district? 
 
 Answer. I did, and informed him what my views were upon the 
 subject. I recollect having a conversation of that kind. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with him upon the subject 
 of what, if any, money should be used in that district ? 
 
 Answer. If my memory serves me, I did. I had a conversation 
 with him, and, if my memory serves me, I told him that it would be 
 useless to do anything in that district; that we were beaten before we 
 commenced there. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether, on the occasion of that inter- 
 view, he handed you any letters in reference to the condition of things 
 in the various districts of Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do, sir; I have a recollection that he had several letters, 
 but I could not say positively that one of them was from that district, 
 although that among other districts was the subject of conversation. 
 The only distinct impression I have of districts were White's and 
 Dewart's districts. The conversation was on the subject of money for 
 the districts, but the details I cannot get in my mind clearly as to 
 each district. I know I had hopes of White's district at that time, 
 but no hopes of Foster's district. 
 
 Question. Were the letters thus handed to you retained by you or 
 handed back l^qhim? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not have one of them in my hand ; they 
 laid before him on the table, and he took them up and alluded to the 
 district they were from, and the political character of them. 
 
 Question. Were any suggestions made to you by the President upon 
 the subject of forwardmg money to either of those districts, and if so, 
 will you state what those suggestions were? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I cannot say that there were any ever made. 
 There' was no money to be forwarded, that I was aware of, save what 
 might be voluntarily given. An impression appeared to prevail 
 among a great many gentlemen that there was a sort of fund here 
 they could draw on to pay election expenses, which fund I knew 
 nothing of; but that was the tenor of some of the letters he alluded 
 to that morning. I remember my jeply distinctly, " that I knew no 
 
470 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 fund, unless it came out of the pockets of such fools as T was," I 
 remember that very distinctly, because I had been bleeding pretty 
 freely and was a litile short and crusty about it. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect, on the occasion of your goins; to see 
 the President, whether it was voluntary or were you sent for ? 
 
 Answer. I was not sent for. I was up almost daily, with letters. 
 I had a pretty extensive correspondence. I would read to him 
 extracts from my letters and what news I had from different parts of 
 the country. where elections were about coming off. The conversa- 
 tions would be of a friendly political character. 
 
 Question. You state you did not take these letters in your hand. 
 What was the occasion of these letters being alluded to and their 
 contents read to you ? 
 
 Answer. The idea was to show what the prospects were. They 
 were letters of a general political character, as I inferred from what 
 be told me after looking them over. He had apparently read them 
 all over before I came into the room. They gave an idea of how the 
 cause was progressing. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether, in answer or reply to any of 
 these letters, you did send off money ? 
 
 Answer. If my memory serves me, I returned to Philadelphia that 
 evening or the next evening, with munitions. I think I returned that 
 evening. I had returned home the evening before, and had looked 
 after my business during the day, and went back the same evening to 
 Philadelphia. I was backwards and forwards, pretty actively engaged 
 in preaching the good doctrine. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. By " munitions" you mean money, do you? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. , 
 
 Question. And you left the evening of the conversation with the. 
 President? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. You do not wish it to be supposed that the President 
 furnished any of the money? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not a red ; he did not bleed as I thought he ought 
 to. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did not the President make some promise of patronage 
 to you in the event of your bleeding freely ? 
 
 Answer. Well, no, sir ; I cannot say that he did. He had nothing 
 to give in our line. I was then doing all the work. I think I was 
 doing everything that the Executive had the control of at that time. 
 I was making money pretty rapidly, and spending it about as fast. 
 
 Question. You spoke about making some expose if they did not 
 make you whole for losses sustained. What expose was it you pro- 
 posed to make ? 
 
 Answer. When did I say that? 
 
 Question. In Philadelphia. i 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 471 
 
 Answer. When did I propose that ? 
 
 Question. The latter part of the summer. 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect it. 
 
 Question. Just reflect a moment — in connexion with their damaging 
 you or breaking yon down. 
 
 Answer. I do not remember. 
 
 Question. You do not recollect ? 
 
 Answer. I do not — no, sir. I have been a little violent occasion- 
 ally in some things, and have indulged in the luxury of cursing them 
 up hill and down dale, and might, in my excitement, have said some 
 things rather rash. I considered that I was hardly treated, and may 
 have said some things a little rash sometimes. 
 
 Question. Did the^ not fail to give you the patronage they promised 
 you? 
 
 Answer. These promises were generally by implication ; not directly. 
 
 Question. Have you got any patronage or interest in any contracts 
 since then ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I believe they have taken away from me every 
 bit of patronage I formerly enjoyed. There may be one or two minor 
 departments, but not enough to make it any object. I am doing 
 nothing for government at all now, I believe, save indirectly. Mr. 
 Ford's work is being done on my materials, which are pretty well 
 covered up with liens and assignments to my creditors. I may have 
 made some remarks in regard to Bowman. He played the pious 
 dodge on me and then swindled me. I may have said I would get 
 after him, and I am after him pretty sharp every day. 
 
 Question. Who had the absolute control of this work ? 
 
 Question. The President, as we always considered. The law gives 
 it to the heads of the departments, but applications have been m ade 
 directly to the President for it. 
 
 Question. You stated that the President directed you to make cer- 
 tain payments, or something of that kind. What was the expression 
 you made use of? 
 
 Answer. " Certain arrangements ;" "to make satisfactory arrange- 
 ments." He never went into details and said " You shall give Rice 
 ten thousand dollars and Severns three thousand dollars," but we 
 were to make satisfactory arrangements, and not bother him about it. 
 
 By Mr. RoBiNSON : 
 Question. Arrangements with Eice and Severns? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. As I understand it, Rice got the work and you executed 
 it and gave hini forty-three per cent, of the amount, for a time ; then 
 you arranged it so that you got the work, and the forty-three per 
 cent, was continued to be spent by you. 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and of that Severns got some as well as Rice. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Who dictated that arrangement? 
 Answer. These gentlemen, Rice and Severns, who had their advi.- 
 
472" ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 cates, prominent men in the State of Pennsylvania, and they advo- 
 cated them, as they were identified with one party or the other. 
 There was a continual struggle going on for a year. Every two ot 
 three weeks there would he efforts made. I was annoyed and dis- 
 turbed by them, and I thought I would take the responsibility and 
 cut them all off, and I did so; and the old gentleman thought he 
 would take the responsibility and cut me off, and he did it. 
 
 Question. Do you mean that you lost the profits of the work because 
 you would not continue to make these contributions ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; this arrangement got to be so hot and heavy that 
 I wanted to get out of it ; I proposed to sell the Union newspaper^ or 
 give it away to somebody. 
 
 Question. To whom did you make that proposition ? 
 
 Answer. To the President, and also to Judge Nicholson. 
 
 Answer. Were any of the members of the cabinet consulted at that 
 time? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not at that time. 
 
 Question. Who were the parties in concluding the arrangement? 
 
 Answer. Judge Black was the only member of the cabinet that took 
 an active part ; I believe he drew up the papers between Bowman and 
 myself when Bowman went into the paper ; as I suggested to the hon- 
 orable committee the other day, they will understand this whole mat- 
 ter better if they will first get my testimony before the Senate com- 
 mittee and look it over. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Wednesday, March 28, 1860. 
 
 AUGUSTUS SCHELL called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Will you state your name, your place of residence, and 
 your official position ? 
 
 Answer. My name is Augustus Schell ; I reside in the city of New 
 York ; and I am collector of customs for the United States for the dis- 
 trict of New York. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed collector ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed collector — that is, I entered upon the du- 
 ties of my ofiSce on the first of July, 1857. 
 
 Question. Were you connected with what was known as the New 
 York Hotel fund prior to the election of 1856? 
 
 Answer. I was a member of the committee which met at the New 
 York Hotel. 
 
 Question. Was there a fund created by the efforts of that com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you the treasurer of that committee? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was not the treasurer. 
 
 Question. Can you state who was? 
 
 Answer. Mr. James T. Suter. 
 
 Question. Have you a list of the subscribers to that fund? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 473 
 
 Answer. I think I have it among my paners. 
 
 Question. Will yoia furnish it to the committee? 
 
 Answer. I will. . 
 
 Question. Is it here or in New York ? 
 
 Answer. It is in New York. 
 
 Question. What amount was raised hy suhscription ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot recollect distinctly ; some |30, 000 or $40,000. . 
 
 Question. Where was that money expended substantially'? 
 
 Answer. In different places ; part of it was sent to Pennsylvania 
 and part of it was expended in New York, both the city and State ; 
 at least I suppose so ; I did not expend it myself. 
 
 Question. As the list is not here, I will ask you concerning a few 
 names of the contributors to that fund. Was Kobert "J. Walker a 
 contributor to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that he was. 
 
 Question. Can you state the amount of his contributions? 
 
 Answer. I cannot. 
 
 Question. Was George N. Sanders a contributor to it ? 
 
 Answer. I am not sure whether he was a contributor or not. 
 
 Question. Was Isaac V. Fowler, the postmaster of New York city? 
 
 Answer. I think he was. 
 
 Question. Emanuel B, Hart, the surveyor ? 
 
 Answer. That I cannot say. 
 
 Question. Mr. Butterworth, the superintendent of the assay office ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that he did contribute. 
 
 Question. Did Senator Slidell contribute to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I think he did. 
 
 Question. Can you state to whom the money was paid in Pennsyl- 
 vania, and how? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that the money paid in Pennsylvania, or 
 the most of it, was paid to the treasurer of their State committee ? 
 
 Question. Do you recollect his name ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. George Plifct. ■ 
 
 Question. Do you know who took the money over there to him? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Question. Do you know how much was sent there ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state now ? 
 
 Question. Will you state whether you met Mr. Buchanan prior to 
 1856, and had any conversation with him in relation to carrying the 
 State of Pennsylvania, or any of the other States ? 
 
 Answer. I saw Mr. Buchanan twice during the presidential cam- 
 paign ; once in July, at his house at Wheatland, and once in the latter 
 part of September, or the early part of October. The conversation 
 was general, upon political subjects, but not specific as to carrying the 
 States. 
 
 Question, Was he made aware of what you were doing in this New 
 York Hotel committee ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I know of. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he knew of the fact ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge ; I had no conversation with him 
 upon the subject. 
 
474 KLECTIONS. ETC, 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Ward, of tlie Democratic National 
 committee ? 
 
 Answer. I do, very well. 
 
 Question. Had you and he any conversations with the President 
 ahout the use of money in carrying elections? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never met Mr. Buchanan with Mr. Ward hut 
 once, and that was in July, and no reference was made then about the 
 use of money. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that money was expended in 
 New York. In what districts did this committee expend money in 
 1858? 
 
 Answer. I-had nothing to do with the matter in 1858. 
 
 Question. Now about Pennsylvania : Had Mr. James Vandyke any- 
 thing to do with the distribution of this money contributed to Penn- 
 sylvania? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Had Mr. John W. Forney ? 
 
 Answer, I knew Mr. Forney as the chairman of the State Central 
 committee. What he had to do with the expenditure of money I 
 know not ; how the money was expended I do not know ; it was paid 
 to Mr. Plitt, the treasurer. 
 
 Question. Can you state nearly the amount of money sent into 
 Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was between $20,000 and $30,000 ; I cannot he 
 definite in regard to that. 
 
 Question. Now, sir, coming to the elections of 1858, in New York: 
 Was any money used by you in .the elections of members of Congress 
 of that State in 1858? 
 
 Answer. I gave money whenever I was asked to give. I- took no 
 personal interest in the election of members of Congress. I presume 
 I contributed to various committees who had in charge different cam- 
 paigns. 1 have no record of the amount I contributed, nor to whom 
 I contributed. 
 
 Question. Did you contribute money to elect Mr. Kemble^ in Mr. 
 Haskin's district ? 
 
 Answer. I think I gave some gentlemen $50 or $100, who asked 
 for money to use in that district. 
 
 Question. Was it contributed to some man to be used generally, 
 you did not know how, or was it to be used in some particular way? 
 
 Answer. I took it for granted that the person to whom 1 contributed 
 it would use it to pay the expenses of some public meeting in the lo- 
 cality, or the printing of documents, or for purposes of that kind. 
 
 Question. Were you in consultation with Mr. Kemble, advising 
 him as to the ways and means to defeat Mr. Haskin ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Mr. Kemble would occasionally call in my office 
 and state the prospects of the campaign ; but I had no consultation 
 with him. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Andrews, the American candidate in 
 that district ? 
 
 Answer. I may have seen him, but did not know him particularly. 
 
 Question. Did you contribute anything to aid his canvass ? 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 475 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no knowledge or acquaintance with him ; 
 I may have heen iatroduced to him ; I could not say I was not. 
 
 Question. Will you tell us if you know whether any money was 
 collected from employes under you to be used to defeat Mr. Haskin? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledjje. 
 , Question. Did Mr. Kichard Schell, with your approbation and ad- 
 vice, raise money to defeat Mr. Haskin ? . 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Was any money, to your knowledge, collected in Mas- 
 sachusetts to aid in the elections in New York and Pennsylvania in 
 1856. 
 
 Answer. I heard that there was, but I have no persona] knowledge 
 of it. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. W. C. N. Swift ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he furnished any money for elec- 
 tion purposes? 
 
 Answer. I do not. I will say here that part of this money may 
 have been paid to Mr, Ward ; as to the rest of the money, I think, 
 as I before stated, that it went to Mr. Plitt. 
 
 Question. What is his full name? 
 
 A.nswer. 0. L. Ward. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. In regard to contributing money for elections, I suppose 
 that is not confined to the democratic party, but all parties con- 
 tribute ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it would be much easier if it was confined to 
 one party. 
 
 Question. Did you ever use any of the funds of the government for 
 electioneering purposes? 
 
 Answer. I never have. 
 
 Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge in any way, that 
 the President of the United States ever used any of the funds of the 
 government, or advised it^ use, for electioneering purposes? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Tb,e mon«y you speak of was furnished by voluntary con- 
 tributions ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; by voluntary contributions of gentlemen in the 
 city of New York. 
 
 By M^. Train : 
 
 Question. As I understand you, you say that, so far as you know, 
 Mr. Buchanan did not know anytning about this New York Hotel 
 committee and its electioneering fund ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; not that I know of; I never had any conversa- 
 tion or correspondence with him in any way upon the subject. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When will you furnish this subscription list to the com- 
 mittee ? can you send for it ? 
 
476 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I fiannot well send for it ; I can get it when I return 
 home, and will send it on next week. 
 
 No. 5. ^ 
 
 TnuKSDAT, March 29, 1860. 
 
 AUGUSTUS SCHELL, recalled : 
 
 The witness stated that, upon reflection, he desired to withdraw his 
 answer to the question, if he would furnish the list of subscribers to 
 the New York Hotel fund, and substitute the following : 
 
 Answer. I have stated my knowledge of the fact that money was 
 contributed in the city of New York in the presidential campaign of 
 1856 for the purpose of aiding in the payment of the election ex- 
 penses of the democratic party in the State of Pennsylvania. I do not 
 know in very many instances the sources from whence the money was 
 derived ; individuals, who were active members of the committee, of 
 which I was also a member, procured contributions from outside 
 parties whose names were never reported to me ; with the exception 
 of the money contributed by myself, T am unable to state the names 
 of the real and actual contributors of the money. I have stated the 
 amount which was disposed of by that committee as near as I now 
 recollect it, and I decline to indulge in conjectures as to the real 
 sources of the contributions. The money was designed to be used in 
 the payment of the legitimate expenses of the election in Pennsylvania, 
 and not otherwise. I may have suspicions as to the sources of the 
 contributions in some instances,. but I decline to state such suspicions, 
 as not being pertinent testimony under the resolution of the House of 
 Eepresentatives, or material to this inquiry. I am not certain that 
 I have in my possession any list of the contributors of the moneys ; 
 but if I have such list, I must, on reflection, decline to produce it, 
 feeling that such production, without the authority of the persons 
 whohie names may be connected with it, would involve a breach of the 
 implied confidence recognized as existing in such cases. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You stated yesterday that you had no personal interest, 
 or something like that, in the congressional elections of 1858. I waut 
 to know whether you did not employ some persons to exert political 
 influence in that election ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect that I did. 
 
 Question. Did you not employ a certain James O'Keilly, 316 Eighth 
 Avenue, New York ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Question. Do you know of certain parties being employed before the 
 election, and paid ten dollars each the day after election, and then 
 discharged ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not pay or cause to be paid to Mr. O'Eeilly some 
 money the day after the congressional election of 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I recollect. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. ' 477 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. We have here fhe statement of Mr. O'Reilly that he and 
 others were employed three days before the election, and discharged 
 the day after the election. He states that he and others were employed 
 for the purpose of aiding in the election ; that their services were pro- 
 cured and paid for ; that they were paid at the custom-house. And 
 he states that he himself was employed hy you by reason of his ability 
 to exert some political influence. I understand you to say that you 
 have no recollection of such a transaction respecting him or any other 
 persons ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection of it. 
 
 Question. Was it a fact that a number of men were employed a few 
 days prior to the election, and discharged very soon after? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think there were a number of men employed 
 shortly before the election, and a number discharged afterwards. 
 
 Question. Were the same men employed shortly before the election 
 discharged shortly after ? 
 
 Answer. Some of them. 
 
 Question. About what length of time were they so employed? 
 
 Answer. I suppose some five to ten days. Persons were employed 
 at the request of persons in New York. 
 
 Question. What was the particular occasion or necessity for employ- 
 ing them at that time, and for that short t^me ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I do not know of any. 
 
 Question. Was there any occasion except to give them employment 
 at that particular time ? The object was to give them employment at 
 that particular time at the solicitation of some outside friends, was it ? 
 
 Answer. I was trying to bring the matter back to my recollection. 
 [After a pause.] I cannot recollect the particular circumstances con- 
 nected with it. 
 
 Question. Can you tell about the number of hands that were em- 
 ployed in the custom-house shortly before and discharged shortly after 
 the election ? 
 
 Answer, I think there were some eight or ten laborers who were in 
 the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Some eight or ten of that description ? 
 
 Answer. Some eight or ten ; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were those men excused from attendance at the custom- 
 house during the time they were so employed ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not know. 
 
 Question. You yourself did not excuse them? 
 
 Answer, No, sir ; at least I think not. It is usually the custom of 
 the storekeeper to excuse men a day at a time, reporting the fact 
 always to me. 
 
 Question. Did you understand at the time these men, or any of 
 them, were so employed, that they were to go into Mr, Haskin's dis- 
 trict, and attend to the business of the election during this short em- 
 ployment ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, 
 
 Qaestion, Whp employed the workmen that were ordinarily em- 
 
478 • ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 ployed for short intervals of time, and then dischargedfrom the custom- 
 house. 
 
 Answer. It was all done hy my direction. _ 
 
 Question. Either by you or by your direction ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who was the paymaster at this time? Who paid off 
 these hands? 
 
 Answer. Mr. S. P. Goldson, the storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Was he there in the fall of 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect this man James O'Reilly? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You have no recollection of his ever having been employed 
 in the custom-house ? i 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know the name. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the names of any of the persons who 
 you say were employed for a short period before the election, and 
 discharged shortly after ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. They were not acquaintances of yours? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect on whose recommendation you employed 
 them? 
 
 Answer. I think they were employed on the recommendation of 
 gentlemen who were candidates for Congress in the city of New York, 
 but I am not sure. Upon reflection, I think there were some seven or 
 eight or ten of these men employed withiu a week before the election, 
 and they were discharged a day or two after the election. I suppose I 
 have a list of the names. 1 presume they are, of course, in the office 
 where the payments were made. The money to pay them was con- 
 tributed by myself, individually, and not charged to the government. 
 
 Question. They were not paid by Mr. Gholson, then ? 
 
 Answer. They were paid by Mr. Grholson, but 1 paid him the 
 money myself. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow. 
 
 Question. They were not paid out of the government funds? 
 Answer. They were not paid out of the government funds. 
 
 By Mr. Olin. 
 
 Question. Why was the formality of employment at the custom- 
 house gone through with, if they were not paid from the funds of the 
 government? 
 
 Answer. I do not know,- sir. 
 
 Question. Do you mean that these men were employed upon the 
 recommendation of all the candidates for Congress, or ot someot them? 
 
 Answer. All were employed, 1 think, at the solicitation or request 
 of candidates ibr Congress. 
 
 Question. By some one or more of the candidates, or do you mean 
 all the candidates? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I cannot say all. 
 
 Question. Then you mean that they were employed by the solicita- 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 479 
 
 tion or request of some one or more of tlie candidates for Congress in 
 the city ot New York ? 
 • Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect particularly which of them, or who, if 
 any of them, recommended any of these men ? 
 
 Answer. I think they were principally, from Mr. Ward's district. 
 
 Question. Who ran against Mr. Ward? 
 
 Answer. He was defeated by Mr. Briggs. 
 
 Question. Are you quite sure that the return of the payments to 
 these men has not been made to the Secretary of the Treasury ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I am sure of that. 
 
 Question. You are sure their names were not returned as employed 
 and paid ? 
 
 Answer. By the government? No, sir. 
 
 Question. You say that you think you have a list of their names? 
 
 Answer*. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any ohjection to furnishing that list ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any now. 
 
 Question. If you will do so, I presume it would be satisfactory if 
 you would enclose the list or a schedule of it to the chairmaa of this 
 committee on your return home. 
 
 Did you give these men, who were employed in the manner you 
 have described, to understand that they were paid by the government, 
 or by yourself ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir; I had no communication with them. 
 
 Question. Then, so far as you know, they were under the impres- 
 sion that they were in the employment of or to be paid by the gov- 
 ernment ? 
 
 Answer. So far as I know ; I had no communication with them at all. 
 
 Question. You had no communication with them to hire them? 
 
 Answer. They were assigned to labor by my direction; I do not 
 know that I even personally saw them. 
 
 Question. You communicated with them through some agent? 
 
 Answer. I sent orders to the storekeeper to employ these men. 
 
 Question. And you directed him to make the payment to them? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You refunding the money to him, or advancing it to 
 him ? ' 
 
 Answer. I gave him the money to pay them, or refunded it, I do 
 not know now which, 
 
 Questiop. And so far as you know, no communication was made to 
 these men by yourself or any of your agents that they were employed 
 otherwise than by the government? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What I wanted to get at was that they might have been 
 honestly under the impression that they were employed by the gov- 
 ernment, instead of being paid from your own private funds. Were 
 there not quite a number of men employed there a few days before the 
 election who, it was thought, were to go into Mr. Haskin's district, 
 which men were discharged soon after the election? 
 Answer, Not to my knowledge, sir. 
 
480 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. It could not well have been done without your knowl- 
 edge? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. . 
 
 Question. Can you state confidently that no transaction ot that kind 
 
 took place ? -i t. i. • i 
 
 Answer. lam satisfied that no arrangement was made by which 
 persons were employed in the custom-house with a view to their going 
 into Mr. Haskin's district. 
 
 Question. And you state that within a week or ten days preceding 
 the election only some ten persons were taken into the employment 
 of the custom-house, and discharged within a few days after the elec- 
 tion ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I think about that number ; eight or ten. 
 
 Question. You speak with a fair degree of confidence that they did 
 not exceed twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty ? 
 
 Answer. I do, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Do you not recollect, or have you no knowledge of, an 
 unpleasant feeling among the men discharged the day after the elec- 
 tion and paid off, they complaining that they thought they had been 
 hired, and instead of that they were paid their $10 gold piece each 
 and discharged ; do you not know of a trouble of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. I heard of oae or two complaints, but I did not see the 
 persons ; no communication was made to me, except in one or two 
 instances. 
 
 Question. Have you no direct knowledge ot about one hundred 
 men being taken into Mr. Haskin's district under the control of four 
 leading men, and then brought back the day after election and paid 
 off at the store $10 each ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I have no knowledge of that ; I never heard of it 
 before. 
 
 Question. The reason that I put this question is, that I have the 
 names furnished me, and I thought if you returned to New York and 
 this testimony was brought in, it might be unfair to you to allow you 
 no opportunity to explain. 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of it ; I can only state, in reference 
 to those eight or ten who were employed, they were employed upon 
 the importunity or request of those gentlemen who were candidates, 
 and entered upon the discharge of their duties at the store ; but upon 
 examining the list, I observed that there were eight or ten or twelve 
 more than were necessary to properly discharge the duties. I was un- 
 willing that they should be a tax upon the government, and I paid 
 the money myself and discharged the men. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What is the laboring force of the custom-house ; a per- 
 manent force, or is it altered according to the exigencies and the wants 
 of the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. Previous to September last it was a floating force. 
 
 Question. You took on men when you wanted them, and discharged 
 them when you did not want them ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 481 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You say that a short time before the election, at the so- 
 licitation of certain gentlemen who were candidates for Congress, 
 particularly Mr. Ward, you recollect you employed eight or ten per- 
 sons as laborers in the storehouses, and that a day or two after the 
 election these men were discharged in the mode you say ; and that in 
 paying them you paid them out of your own private funds, not charg- 
 ing it to the government ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. 1 suppose you are continually annoyed by party friends 
 for appointments in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we were very much, previous to the change in 
 the mode of doing business in the public stores. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. You paid these laborers out of your own pocket, for the 
 reason that you discovered that there had been that many men em- 
 ployed unnecessarily ? 
 
 A"nswer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know Michael Reilly ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not ; at least I do not recollect him now. 
 
 Question. He was formerly a bookkeeper. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I do recollect him now ; he is a person I dis- 
 charged, I recollect ; but I would not know him now if I should see 
 him. 
 
 QuestioH. Do you know Hercules H. Jones, also a bookkeeper, who 
 WEis discharged ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen him, but I do not think I would know him now 
 if I should see him. 
 
 By Mr. Wi»si.ow : 
 
 Question. Was he discharged too? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Cbaieman : 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what he was discharged for ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect of its having any connexion with a bribe 
 being offered ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it had no connexion with that. 
 
 Question. Do you know Legrand Gr. Capers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I know him very well. 
 
 Question. He was deputy callector, was he not ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he now in office? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about his compelling some fraud- 
 ulent papers to be signed, alid the matter being investigated by .ur. 
 Gruthrie ? 
 * Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 H. Bep. Com. 648— —31 
 
482 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of any difficulty with regard to 
 him being investigated by Mr. Guthrie ? 
 
 Answer. Charges against Mr. Capers ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I think not ; I do not recollect of any ; I recollect that 
 there was an investigation of some matters connected with his depart- 
 ment — the warehouse department — on the complaint of this Mr. Jones; 
 an examination was had, under the direction of the Secretary, of the 
 Interior, and a report was made to him which was perfectly satisfac-' 
 tory. 
 
 Question. Is this Mr. Capers still retained in office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the black-mailing, as it is 
 called, of certain merchants in New York, by some parties in the em- 
 ployment of the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. Now in the employment ? 
 
 Question. Yes; sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not ; it is against the law and against, the 
 regulations of the office, and every person who is guilty of it, to my 
 knowledge, is removed. 
 
 Question. The reason I asked the question was that there is evi- 
 dence of the kind. 
 
 _ Answer. Whenever any case of the kind is brought to my atten- 
 tion every investigation is made that it is possible to make. 
 
 Question. Upon reflection, since your testimony of yesterday^ can 
 you think of any more than the $30,000 raised by the New York hotel 
 committee ? 
 
 Answer. The amount sent to Pennsylvania was |20,000 or |30,000. 
 
 Tuesday, April 3, 1860. 
 
 AUGUSTUS SCHELL, recalled. 
 By the OHAiEMAiN : 
 
 Question. Mr. Schell, have you any knowledge of having any editors 
 and others on the pay-roll, who receive pay from the government 
 through your department, who render no service in the department 
 while receiving their salary ? 
 
 Answer. No sir ; I know of none. 
 
 Question. Is there any editor whose name is on the pay-roll now 
 in the custom-house who performs no duty there ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Have you had any such at any time ? 
 
 Answer. No sir ; not since I have been in office. 
 
 Question. Did you, in 1856, draw a check yourself for a large 
 amount of money in connextion with that New York hotel fund collec- 
 tion ? 
 
 Answer. I think it very probable that I did.. 
 
 Question. Do you know for how much ? 
 
 Answer. I do not now. 
 
 Question. For as much as $10,000 ft 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 483 
 
 Answer.- I do not think I gave one ckeck for as large amount as 
 that. 
 
 Question. How came you to give so large a check as that ? Was it 
 in expectation of raising the money off others — off men in the employ 
 of the government ? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean in 1856 ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no expectation at that time of raising\ 
 money from tue government ; I had nothing to do with the government 
 at that time ; I based no calculations upon contributions from govern- 
 ment officers. 
 
 Question. Do you not recollect the amount of the largest check that 
 you drew, and to whom it was drawn? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir ; as I stated before, the money that I paid for 
 Pennsylvania went to Mr. Plitt, the treasurer. 
 
 Question. Was the largest check drawn in Mr. Plitt's favor ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was. 
 
 Question. How came you to do that? Were you acting in the ca- 
 pacity of treasurer at that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was a member of the committee ; the check was 
 drawn on the fund in the hands of the treasurer. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of money being collected from 
 your employes for specific purposes in relation to elections;- conven- 
 tions, or anything of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I suppose money has been collected ; I am -a?- 
 ways in the habit of contributing myself; but I never collect Miy 
 myself or direct or control the collection of money of the employes in 
 the custom-house ; I always decline to participate in it in any way. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of active politicians from dif- 
 ferent wards being employed a few days before the election in 1858, 
 and directed to go into the different congressional districts and woA 
 there, and not put on duty in the public stores, and paid off after the 
 election and discharged ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have no knowledge of it. 
 
 Question. Have there not been complaints made to you of persons 
 being thrown out of employment the day after election, stating that 
 they thought they were employed in good faith ; and have not those 
 same persons threatened you that if you did not put them on again 
 they would expose you in the papers ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir ; no person ever made any threats of that sort to me. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect some persons threatening to publish that 
 matter, and your telling them to let it be for a few days, and in the 
 meantime putting them in the employment of the government ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You have no recollection of it ? 
 
 Answer. I have no recollection of that sort. All that has trans- 
 pired in reference to the employment of persons before an election, and 
 their discharge afterwards, Was as I told you the other day when I 
 was before the committee. 
 
 Question. Now, with regard to the subscription list to the New 
 
484 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 York Hotel fund, have you done anything to get it since yoli were 
 
 here? .,„ . . c . 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have been in Washington since my trst ap- 
 pearance here. . • . j 
 
 Question. ToU are aware that this committee has been invested 
 by the House of Kepresentatives with authority to send not only for 
 persons but for papers. Shall I read you the resolution ? 
 
 Answer. I have read the resolution. 
 
 Question. The committee, on the first day of your examination, 
 asked you for a certain paper, and you agreed to furnish it. Had you 
 after that any conversation with cert-ain parties in this city that in- 
 duced you to change your determination in that particular? _ 
 
 Answer. I do not think I was controlled by any conversation! with 
 other parties in reference to it. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the President or any of 
 the cabinet officers after you gave your first testimony here ? 
 
 Answer. I had conversation with various gentlemen in the city of 
 "Washington. 
 
 Question. It is proper that you should answer that question directly. 
 Had you any conversation with the President or some of the cabinet 
 officers, after you gave your first testimony, in regard to that paper? 
 
 Answer. I had ; but it was after I had made up my mind what 
 course to pursue in regard to it. 
 
 Question. Had you not met with some of them before you drew up 
 that written statement which you submitted to us on the second day 
 of your examination ? 
 
 Answer. I think I had, sir ; but they knew nothing of. that state- 
 ment. 
 
 Question. What induced you to change your determination with 
 regard to furnishing the committee with that paper, as you had prom- 
 ised to do ? 
 
 Answer. For the reason stated in the statement itself, which I sub- 
 mitted to this committee. 
 
 Question. Are you going still to persist in refusing to furnish this 
 committee with that paper ? 
 
 Answer. Under the reasons which influenced me then I should still 
 be bound to be governed by them. 
 
 Question. Do you say that you will not furnish the committee with 
 that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not wish to use any offensive or disrespectful language 
 to the committee. I put it in the best terms that I was able in the 
 answer that I submitted to the committee. 
 
 Question. The committee have given you abundance of time to re- 
 flect on this subject. They think they have the power to compel the 
 .production of that paper. What we want to know now is whether you 
 are going to furnish it or not? 
 
 Answer. With all due respect to the committee, I have reflected 
 upon it since the time of my former examination ; and in my opinion 
 the power was not given to the committee to ask for the productioa ot 
 a paper entirely private in its character. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 485 
 
 Question. The committee differ with you in opinion. They desire 
 now to know whether you will or will not furnish that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I see lio reason to change my opinion in reference to it. 
 
 Question. You say, then, that you will not produce that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I decline to do so for the reasons I have stated, supposing 
 it to be in my possession. I do not know even that it is, as I stated 
 in my original examination. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Have you given any directions about that paper to any 
 persons since your former examination ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question. You have no knowledge that it has been taken from your 
 custody, if it was in your custody, at the time of your former exami- 
 nation ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question. You do not decline, as I understand you, to produce that 
 paper because you were not summoned to bring it, but because of the 
 alleged want of power in the House of Representatives to compel you 
 to produce a private paper ? 
 
 Answer. I decline to produce it because I think this committee 
 have no power to order the production of it, if it is in my possession. . 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Thursday, Aprtt 3, 1860. 
 
 SAM P. BUTTERWORTH called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Traik: 
 
 Question. What position do you now hold under the government ? 
 
 Answer. I am superintendent of the assay office of New York. 
 
 Question. How long have you been in that position ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed in June, 1854, I think. 
 
 Question. Prior to the election of Mr. Haskin to CongresSj did you 
 make any effort to defeat his election ? 
 
 Answer. In 1856 ? 
 
 Question. In 1858 ; after the passage of the Lecompton bill. 
 
 Answer. You mean this last election ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I was not in his district at all during the campaign, I 
 think. 
 
 Question. Did you send money or men there to defeat his election ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I can answer that question ; but I beg to state, 
 in the first place, very respectfully to the committee, that I do not 
 think they have any right to inquire as to any disposition of my 
 private means I may see fit to make. Having made that statement, 
 I will go on and say that I do not recollect what money I gave for 
 that congressional election. I am in the habit of giving money to 
 very nearly all the congressional districts in and about the city of 
 New York, and I do that because I think the success of the democratic 
 party is essential to the good government of the country. As to the 
 amount for Mr. Haskin's district, I have a recollection of handing to 
 
486 ELECTIONS, ETC, 
 
 some gentleman from Westchester county, I do not know how much 
 money, but some money, to secure the election of Mr. Kemble. 
 
 Question. Mr. Kemble was the democratic candidate for Congress 
 in that district ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was there an American candidate there? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think there was. 
 
 Question. Did you give any money to aid him in his canvass ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know how my money was used ; it may have been 
 applied to aid him. 
 
 Question. Will you state whether Jackson Post, George Kiley, and 
 Peter Burkhart were employed under you in the assay office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you give either of those gentlemen leave of absence 
 to go into that district and canvass the district against Mr. Haskin ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that question distinctly ; but my practice 
 at every election is this : to close up the assay office on the day of 
 election. 
 
 Question. I mean prior to the election ; whether you allowed them 
 to go into the district prior to the election and work against Mr. Has- 
 kin? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect. I have not any doubt that I did this : 
 that at the time of the primary elections I may have given one or two 
 men leave of absence. It is very often the case that men in the assay 
 office apply to me for leave of absence to attend primary elections, and 
 I give it ; but what particular leave of absence was given to men em- 
 ployed in the assay office who resided in that district I have no recol- 
 lection. 
 
 Question. Then you cannot state whether Burkhart, Kiley, or Post, 
 or any other parties in your office, had leave of absence for any con- 
 siderable length of time to go into that district ? 
 
 Answer. I think not for any considerable length of time. 
 
 Question. By that I mean several days. 
 
 The Chaibman. One, two, or three days. 
 
 By Mr. Train. Or more. 
 
 Answer. Men frequently apply for leave of absence without assigning 
 a particular reason for it ; and, if we have no particular use for ihem 
 at the time, I give them leave of absence, and sometimes dock their 
 wages for the time. The business of the assay office sometimes re- 
 quires a large force — requires all the men to be promptly at their 
 places ; and then there will be intervals of a fortnight at a time, some- 
 times, when there is comparatively nothing to do. During that time, 
 if any of the men apply lor leave of absence, I give it to them ); and I 
 consider it wise to do so, because it is always better to have the men 
 out of the assay office when there is nothing to do than it is to have 
 them there ; they are then beyond temptation. 
 
 Question. Then in that case, if it were better to have them away 
 than to have them there, you would not dock their wages. 
 Answer. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. 
 Question. Do you recollect whether any of these men who were al- 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 487 
 
 lowed to go into Haskin's district were kept upon the pay-roll, or were 
 their wages dooked ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say positively ; but I think it probable that at a 
 time when there was little to do in the office they were given leave of 
 absence, and their names still kept upon the pay roll. I think that is 
 very probable, but I cannot tell. It will not do for me to dismiss the 
 men permanently, for then when we want them again we may not be 
 able to find them. I have given leave of absence to half a dozen men 
 at a time for three or four days, simply because we had no business 
 for them in the office. But my recollection is not distinct as to any 
 oongressional districts, or the motives that induced me to grant them 
 leave of absence. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Browne, thei-present editor of the "Constitu- 
 tion," placed in charge of that paper at your suggestion? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you introduce him to the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have anything to do with his coming here to 
 take charge of that paper ? 
 
 (Answer. None in the world. 
 
 Question. Did you procure Mr, Browne to go into Mr. Haskin's 
 district to influence the election ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. You ask me whefrhier I had anything to do with 
 his being selected as editor of the " Constitution." 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; whether it was through your influence that he 
 oame here, and was placed in that position ? 
 
 Answer. I have frequently recommended Mr. Browne to various 
 gentlemen in Washington as a man of eminent ability, a ready 
 writer, and one whose capacity could be very well employed upon the 
 government organ, I had frequent conversations of that sort with 
 various gentlemen here ; but I do not think he was employed at all 
 in consequence of my recommendation. He was formerly the editor 
 of the " Journal of Commerce," and showed very great ability in that 
 capacity. I think he was employed simply on that account. 
 
 Question. Had you any such conversations with the President, for 
 the purpose of procuring Mr. Browne to be employed here? 
 
 Answer. Whatever conversations I may have had with the . Presi- 
 den, I regard them as private, and would not disclose them, whatever 
 they might be. But I have no recollection of ever having had any 
 conversations with the President upon the subject. 
 
 Question. Now, with reference to your eiForts to defeat Mr, Haskin, 
 Were they made upon any agreement between you and the President 
 that you should be continued in your office? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was never any such agreement. 
 
 Question. Was there any such understanding ? 
 
 Answer. None whatever ; that is a base calumny, whoever circu- 
 lates it. I do not hold my office by any such tenure. 
 
 Question. Pending the Kansas controversy, did you write to Mr. 
 Haskin urging him to support the Lecompton constitution, and the 
 policy of the President ? 
 
488 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Do you wish me to lay before the committee my corre- 
 spondence with Mr. Haskin, and his letters in reply ? 
 
 Question. I do not know about that. 
 
 Answer. I have his letters here, hut it is only at the request erf the 
 committee that I will exhibit them. I am perfectly willing to do that 
 with Mr. Haskin's consent. 
 
 Question. I had not intended to ask for it ; I have no objection, if 
 the committee desire it. 
 
 Answer. I have no objection to my corres|)ondence with Mr. Haskin. 
 in relation to Kansas, and his reply, being introduced into this testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Question. My impression is, that it would be a full answer to the 
 question if you gave us the whole of the correspondence. 
 
 Answer. The correspondence between myself and any other gentle- 
 man I regard as private, unless the gentleman himself consents to 
 have it made public. If Mr. Haskin consents, I have no objection to 
 have all my letters to him and his answer introduced into this testi- 
 mony in relation to Kansas. 
 
 Question. Were you a subscriber to the New York Hotel fund ? 
 
 Answer. In 1856 ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was. 
 
 Question. To what amount ? • 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any means of ascertaining ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I give money for every presidential election, as 
 I said before, believing that the success of the democratic party was 
 necessary for the good government of the country. I gave money in 
 1856 for that presidential election, because I believed the best interests 
 of the country required the election of a democrat and the defeat of 
 Mr. Fremont, whom I regarded as a mere adventurer. 
 
 Question. Do you know in what manner that money was expended? 
 
 Answer. I have not the slightest idea. 
 
 Question. To whom did you pay it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not now recollect. 
 
 .Question. Did you pay it to the treasurer of the fund ? 
 
 Answer. I think there was a treasurer of that association, and I 
 suppose my money was paid to him, but Itjannot recollect. I do not 
 know who the treasurer was. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Buchanan cognizant of the raising of this fund 
 to be expended in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about it. I never had any con- 
 versations with the President about it, and if I had I should not state 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Train. The fact that you had no conversation with the Presi- 
 dent upon the subject is in answer to the question. The rest is not. • 
 
 The Witness. I was speaking about private conversations. 
 
 Mr. OlIn. a witness is not exonerated from detailing private con- 
 versations, when it is necessary for justice that they should be given. 
 
 The Witness. I doubt the power of Congress to extort from me 
 private conversations unless I am willing to give them. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 489 
 
 Mr. Olin. Congress has the same power in sucli a case as a court ; 
 and it is never understood as a rule of law that a witness has a right 
 to withhold conversations, except in certain instances which the law 
 recognizes. 
 
 The Witness. I had no conversation with the President upon the 
 subject. I gave money at that election, as I would again. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Can you state anything near the amount you gave? 
 Was it $500, or more ? 
 
 Answer. I think certainly it was |500, probably more. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the President himself contributed 
 to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you, in 1855 or 1856, interested in certain stores 
 at the Atlantic docks in Brooklyn, which were sold to the govern- 
 ment? 
 
 Answer. I owned Certain property in Brooklyn in 1857, which I 
 sold to the government — some stores there. 
 
 Question. Was it while you were superintendent of the assay 
 cffice? 
 
 Answer. It was. 
 
 Question. Was Senator Gwin interested in that property? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Was Robert J. Walker interested in it? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether they owned property there at that 
 time, which was sold to the government ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know anything about it, whether they owned 
 property there or not. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the amount of property you sold to the 
 government at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was it ? 
 
 Answer. The government had leased three stores, and the lease had 
 a number of years unexpired to run. The sum of the rent for the 
 number of yeArs that the lease had to run amounted to very nearly 
 $100,000. Mr. Gruthrie, the Secretary of the Treasury, thdught it 
 wise to purchase these stores for |100,000 ; so that at the expiration 
 of the lease the government would own the stores^ and would have 
 paid no more money for them than the rent would amount to. He 
 did purchase them, as he was authorized by Congress to do. He 
 bought them upon that principle, and with that calculation. 
 
 I will state here, with regard to Mr. Browne, no doubt I did advise 
 him to go into Mr. Haskin's district. I advised every man who 
 ODuld make a good democratic speech to go there, and he was a good 
 ^eaker. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know what amount of money altogether was 
 caised for Pennsylvania? 
 
490 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I do not, indeed. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the names of any of the contributors — 
 any of the principal contributors ? 
 
 Answer. I think that nearly every prominent democrat in New 
 York contributed to that fund. I could not begin to name them. 
 
 Question. Do you know who the largest contributors to that fund 
 were ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. I know those who claimed the credit of being 
 the largest contributors ; but whether they gave the money or not, I 
 never knew. 
 
 Question. Who were they ? 
 
 Answer. I think that Augustus Sfthell and Eichard Schell claimed 
 to be the largest contributors. 
 
 Question. .Do you know whether the postmaster of New York con- 
 tributed to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge on the subject. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about money being raised from 
 the employes in any department of the government ? 
 
 Answer. Only by rumor. I can answer for my office : that I have 
 disbursed $333,000 to the employes of the assay office, and during 
 that time (which is now about six years) they have not contributed 
 one cent by compulsion. They have voluntarily contributed about 
 $390 — less than one-eighth of one per cent, of their salaries. I never 
 would permit any of the committees to assess any of the employes Of 
 the assay office. On the contrary, I said that if they were receiving 
 more compensation than they found necessary, I would diminish their 
 compensation. 
 
 Question. Do you know who took this money, or any portion of it, 
 to Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, indeed; I can only conjecture. Mr. Forney 
 came there at one time, and I think his object was to receive the 
 money raised by the committee. Whether it was paid to him or not 
 I do not know. 
 
 Question. I desire a more definite answer to the inquiry relative to 
 men going into Mr. Haskin's district. Did you not give leave of 
 absence to some men at that time particularly, for the specific purpose 
 of going into that district to work against Mr. Haskin ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect anything definite about it ; but I have 
 no doubt that the men employed in the assay office, who resided in 
 that district, had leave of absence previous to the election and during 
 the election, for reasons that I have .before stated. I have no doubt 
 of that ; but who they were, or for how many days they had leave of 
 absence, I cannot now tell. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect whether, on this particular occasion, 
 they continued to receive their pay ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; but I think it very probable that their pay was 
 continued. That is altogether optional with myself; I exercise my 
 discretion as to whether their pay shall be continued or not. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 491 
 
 Wednesday, April 4, 1860. 
 
 AUGUSTUS SOHELL recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. [Showing witness some manuscript.] Is this the paper 
 containing your first answer on the second day of your examination, 
 in which you announced your change of determination in regard to 
 furnishing to the committee the list of contributors to the New York 
 Hotel Fund, in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who prepared that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I drafted it. 
 
 Question. Is this paper in your own handwriting? 
 
 Answer. It is. I have the draft of the paper in my pocket. 
 
 Question. Did any person advise you in regard to how that paper 
 should be drafted ? 
 
 Answef . I conversed with a gentleman upon the subject. 
 
 Question. Who was that gentleman ? 
 
 Answer. I prefer not to answer. 
 
 Question. Was it the President, or any officer of the government? 
 
 Answer. It was not the President, nor any officer of the govern- 
 ment connected with the administration. 
 
 Question. That dictated that paper ? 
 
 Answer. That dictated or conferred with me about drafting that 
 paper. 
 
 Question. Was it a member of Congress? 
 
 Answer. It was a member of Congress. , 
 
 Question. Will you state who he is ? 
 
 Answer. As I stated before, I prefer not to do it. 
 
 Wednesday, April 4, 1860. 
 
 SAM F. BUTTEE WORTH recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In giving your testimony yesterday you had a great deal 
 to say with regard to the powers of this committee to elicit certain 
 testimony, have you had any conversation with the President, the 
 members of the cabinet, or other officers of the government since you 
 came here, with regard to the powers of this committee ? 
 
 Answer. I have had no conversation with the President in relation 
 to this matter, except that at one of his public receptions he asked me 
 if I had been examined by the Covode committee ; that was all. I 
 have not seen a member of the cabinet, I believe, except the Secretary 
 of the Treasury ; and in his house, and in the presence of three or 
 four persons, the powers of this committee were discussed. But he 
 gave me no advice ; none whatever. 
 
 Question. Did the President say anything about it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not one word, except the question he asked me. 
 
492 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC 
 
 He asted in a jocular manner : " Have you been examined by the 
 Covode committee?" I replied that I had not ; and that was all. 
 
 Question. Did he make any remarks in regard to it? 
 
 Answer. None whatever. I do not think the President would ven- 
 ture to advise me at all upon a subject of that sort. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. How many employes have you in your office? 
 
 Answer. I have at present thirty-eight ; thirteen permanent and 
 twenty-five variable. 
 
 Question. Explain what you mean by " variable?" ,; 
 
 Answer. The permanent force, consisting of watchmen, doorkeepers, 
 &c, , has to be maintained irrespective of the amount of business, I 
 can answer your question, probably, more completely by the following 
 tabular statement, showing the number of employes at the United 
 States assay office, New York, appointed by the superintendent'during 
 the successive quarters, from the commencement of operations tj? 1st 
 of April, 1860, compared with the amount of business as far as in- 
 dicated by the quarterly deposits*: 
 
 Perioda. 
 
 a "O 
 = §=. 
 
 a o- 
 
 ft 
 
 <D •41 
 
 )2 
 
 1854. — 4th quarter 
 1856. — 1st quarter 
 
 2ci quarter. 
 
 3d quarter. 
 
 4th quarter 
 1856. — 1st quarter 
 
 2d quarter. 
 
 3d quarter. 
 
 4th quarter 
 1857. — 1st quarter 
 
 2d quarter. 
 
 3d quarter., 
 
 4th quarter 
 1858. — 1st quarter 
 
 2d quarter. 
 
 3d quarter. 
 
 4th quarter 
 1859. — 1st quarter 
 
 2d quarter. 
 
 3d quarter. 
 
 4th quarter 
 
 570, 000 
 416,000 
 300,000 
 363,-000 
 506,000 
 292,000 
 277,000 
 274, 000 
 541,000 
 390, 000 
 592, 000 
 786,000 
 
 1,193,000 
 623, 000 
 626,000 
 
 1,129,000 
 688,000 
 227,000 
 161,000 
 150,000 
 225,000 
 
 10 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 13 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 12 
 13 
 13 
 14 
 14 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 
 50 
 
 4« 
 40 
 45 
 46 
 43 
 32 
 32 
 3S 
 35 
 85 
 38 
 42 
 31 
 33 
 33 
 37 
 3S 
 29 
 22 
 25 
 
 A permanent force of watchmen, doorkeepers, &c. , has to be main- 
 tained irrespective of the amount of business. The diminution of 
 business, when not temporary, has always been followed by a diminu- 
 tion of force. The number given for each quarter is the average 
 number employed. 
 
 Question. Are you able to say what are the politics of these men ? 
 
 Answer. I have in my employ members of all parties. They are 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 493 
 
 employed with reference to their integrity, ability, sagacity, and skill. 
 1 think a majority of the officers of the aasay office are opposed to the 
 democratic party. They are very skillful and scientific men. 
 
 Question. Do you ever give your employes leave of absence? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, frequently. ^ 
 
 Question. Do you keep up your force all the time at the maximum, 
 and if not, why not? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; our force is necessarily variable, as I stated on 
 yesterday. The system I pursue is to have as few men in the office 
 as possible ; never to have them there unless it is absolutely necessary. 
 That the system has worked well is shown by the wastage account of 
 the office. The per centage for wastage in mint operations is limited 
 by act of Congress in adjusting accounts to to-Vt of ^^^ amount worked. 
 At the assay office, up to January 1, 1860, the 
 
 whole amount of gold worked was $89,468,490 00 
 
 On this amount the legal limit of wastage (t^j^^^) is... $178,936 98 
 
 The actual wastage was, (xVo of twoj) ^^^ 13,650 67 
 
 Amount saved 165,286 31 
 
 Silver; whole amount worked $14,759,454 72 
 
 Legal limit of wastage (ttoo) 29,518 91 
 
 Actual wastage, (xVo of ttjVoj) ■'^iz 3,653 67 
 
 Amount saved 25,865 24 
 
 These two sums make $191,151 55, which was saved to the govern- 
 ment by the care, skill, and integrity of the officers and employes of 
 the institution, and the manner in which the men were employed and 
 disposed of. 
 
 Question. Have yon ever contributed at any time to aid in the elec- 
 tion of Mr. Haskin to Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I have ; I gave him money personally. 
 
 Question. At his request? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, at his request ; I gave as many men leave of 
 absence from the assay office in 1856, to aid his election, I have no 
 doubt, as I gave leave of absence in 1858. In neither instance, how- 
 ever, were those men sent by me for the purpose of electioneering for 
 or against him. They had my permission to leave the office at their 
 request. 
 
 Question. Is Westchester county, New York, in his (Jistriot? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Browne addressing the 
 people of Westchester county, in behalf of Mr. Haskin ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Brown was invited by the State central com- 
 mittee of New York to address the democracy of the State, and he did 
 make addressps in counties surrounding the city of New York with 
 ability and effect. 
 
494 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. I wish to know if, of your own knowledge, you know 
 that the President of the United States ever used any money of the 
 government, or any of his own money, for the purpose of influencing 
 elections ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I have no such knowledge. 
 
 Question. Are you aware of any corrupt use of patronage for the 
 purpose of influencing elections ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I am not. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. By your statements you seem to have done a great deal to 
 secure the election of Mr. Haskin in 1856. Why was it that all your 
 influence and energies were turned against him in 18.58 ? What was 
 it that he had done that induced you to oppose him so strongly in 
 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. He and I difiered in this respect : he abandoned his party 
 because the party was wrong in one instance ; I did not think it wise 
 to abandon the democratic party because it had been guilty of one 
 error and go over to another party that I thought was full of errors. 
 
 Question. Was it on the Ijeoompton question alone that you and 
 he differed ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what his views were ; he was hostile to the 
 administration and to the democratic party ; I was not; there is where 
 we differed ; but up to the 19th of December, 1857, we were perfectly 
 in accord in our views. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was that after the message of the President announcing 
 the Lecompton policy ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And up to that time his opinions had not changed ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Bobinson: 
 
 Question. You regarded that Mr. Haskin had gone over to the re- 
 publicans in 1858? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I did ; I opposed him as the republican candi- 
 date ; as the candidate who was sustained by the whole republican 
 party. 
 
 Monday, April 9, 1860. 
 
 SAM F. BUTTERWORTH recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Mr. Haskin, having seen portions of his letters published 
 in the New York papers, demands that the whole of the correspond- 
 ence shall be submitted to the committee, and says that he will go on 
 to New York and bring on the letters in his possession. In that case 
 it would be proper that you should put your letters in the hands of 
 the committee before you go away. Have you the letters with you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I have. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 495 
 
 Question. Do you choose to leave them with the committee ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. My own opinion is that those letters will only he used in 
 your own justification ; they will not be used for any other purpose. 
 
 Answer. I am not on triaL 
 . Question. I know that ; you say you will produce these letters if 
 Mr. Haskin will produce those he has ; Mr. Haskin says he will pro- 
 duce his. 
 
 Answer. No ; I will ask the privilege to give the committee his 
 responses in relation to Kansas ; I am entitled to that, I think; if Mr. 
 Haskin produces extracts from my letters to show what I wrote him in 
 relation to the Kansas policy, all I shall ask will he the opportunity 
 to bring forward so much of his letters as relates to the same matter. 
 
 Question. You decline to leave the letters with the committee. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have never contemplated that at all. 
 
 Question. Mr. Haskin complains that portions of his letters have 
 been published in the papers, and wants the letters produced that are 
 in your possession, 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not know that we have anything to do with the 
 complaints of Mr. Haskin. I do not think that we should put in the 
 testimony, Mr. Haskin's private quarrel with Mr. Butterworth. I do 
 not think Congress has anything to do with it. This committee is not 
 here to vindicate Mr. Haskin. That is my judgment about it. 
 
 The Witness. No portions of Mr. Haskin's letters have been pub- 
 lished by my consent, and no portion of any private letter addressed 
 to me has been given to the public by my authority, or with my con- 
 sent or my approbation. I want to add the further fact, to avoid any 
 seeming contradiction between my testimony and that of any other 
 gentleman, that, under an injunction of secrecy and a positive assur- 
 ance that they would not be made public at all, I read portions of 
 these letters to a gentleman, with the injunction that they should 
 not be made public ; that no use should be made of them unless they 
 were filed with this committee, and not until then: That injunction 
 of secrecy, I am sorry to say, has been violated. 
 
 No. 7. 
 Wednesday^ April 4, 1860. 
 JAMES O'REILEY called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. In New York city. 
 
 Question. Have you been employed at any time in tUe custom-house 
 id New York ? 
 
 Answer. I was in the public stores. 
 
 Question. By whom were you employed ? 
 
 Answer. There was a message sent to me that if I would go down 
 there I would get employment. 
 
 Question. At what time was that? 
 
496 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Three days before the election ; I mean three working 
 days, not including Sunday, at the time Gen. Ward ran for Congress. 
 
 Question. The election of 1858? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You say you were sent for to go down there ? 
 
 Answer; Yes, sir ; word was left for me to go down. I did not see 
 the messenger who brought it. 
 
 Question. Did you go to work? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I worked for a short time one day, and then I 
 got excused until the day after election, with pay. 
 
 Question. What were you excused to do ? 
 
 Answer. I believe for the purpose of going out to do what I possibly 
 could for Gen. Ward. 
 
 Question. Are you a working politician ; an active politician ? 
 
 Answer. They say I am middling smart in that way, and for the 
 last three or four years I have always been placed there to challenge 
 the republican party. 
 
 Question. Were there many others employed in the same way that 
 you were ? 
 
 Answer. I heard that there were a good number. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to the witness stating anything he has heard. 
 [To the witness :] You will state what you know of your own know- 
 ledge, not what you have heard. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you yourself know of any others having been so em- 
 ployed ? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. Do you know of others having been employed from several 
 wards in the city at that time ? 
 
 Answer. • I heard that there were. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow objected to anything hearsay. 
 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. What did you do when you got your leave of absence? 
 Did you go out and work for your party ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. And remained at that work until after the election ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What then did you do ? Did you go back to work in the 
 custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. The day after the election I went back. 
 
 Question. Did you go to work in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. I did a little, for that day. 
 
 Question. Did you continue at work there ? 
 
 Answer. That evening I was told that my services were no longer 
 required. 
 
 Question. Were you paid off that evening? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where were you paid off, and how? 
 
 Answer. I was paid off on the Satupday evening after. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 497 
 
 Question. By whom ? 
 
 Answer. By Mr. Groldson, who always paid all the men. 
 
 Question. With the employes there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, with the remainder of the men. I had to sign 
 the pay-roll, and I received ten dollars for five days. 
 
 Question. Did you complain of that treatment ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. To whom did you complain ? 
 
 Answer. I went to Mr. Schell in a few days after, and told him 
 that it was a very hard case to bring me and John Eeady, who lived ' 
 by the side of me, to the public stores to make fools of us. I men- 
 tioned that John Keady had had a situation at two dollars a day in 
 the navy yard, and had given it up to come to the public stores ; and 
 he and I both considered that we had been shamefully treated. He 
 was a man of family, and had lost a good situation to go there. 
 
 Question. Was this friend of yours an active politician ? 
 
 Answer. He was, sir. 
 
 Question. In the same ward with you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What did Mr. Schell then do ? 
 
 Answer. I asked him if it was for our political influences that we 
 had been taken in, or was it to make fools of us, or what was his 
 meaning. He appeared not to be in a very good humoir, and I told 
 him that I would publish the case. 
 
 Question. Publish it how ? 
 
 Answer. Publish it in the newspapers. It was a hard case, and 
 yre did not want to be made fools of in that way. He intimated to 
 me that in a few days "we would be restored again, and I was restored 
 in a month afterwards. He told me he would appoint me in a few 
 days again. 
 
 Question. That was when you threatened to publish him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he appoint you again ? 
 
 Answer. He did. 
 
 Question. Did he appoint this friend of yours from the same ward? 
 
 Answer. He did. 
 
 Question. I want to know whether you and the others who were 
 employed in this way were paid off in the regular way, with the em- 
 ployes ? 
 
 Answer. We were paid off in the regular way, along with the em- 
 ployes, and we signed the same book that I always signed afterwards . 
 We all had to sign in the book upon a Friday, for payment for our 
 week's wages, and I had to sign the same as I always did afterwards. 
 Question. The same book that the other government employes 
 signed ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I have no doubt that we were paid with the 
 government money. 
 
 Question. Had these other men of your acquaintances rendered 
 service in the custom-house, or did they only perform political service ? 
 Answer. I would say that Ready was sent out along with me ; we 
 H. Kep. Com. 648 ^32 
 
498 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 both went out together and came back together, and were discharged 
 together. 
 
 Question. Went out electioneerirrg together ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. , 
 
 Question. Were these who were employed for political purposes all 
 in General Ward's congressional district, or were they from different 
 congressional districts in the city ? 
 
 Answer. They were from different districts, so I understand. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You are to tell only what you know of your own know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Answer. I know nothing about any except General Ward's district. 
 I know there were three from his district that I happened to know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Three from that one district that you know ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did that third one get employment? 
 Answer. Yes^ sir ; he got in again. 
 
 Question. After your threatening to publish the matter ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of a large increase of force being taken 
 into the public stores a few days before the election ? 
 Answer. I heard that there was. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know of your own knowledge ? 
 Answer. I do not know of my own knowledge. I have no know- 
 ledge about that but what I have heard. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did it appear to be generally understood that there was 
 a large increase of force at that time ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Winslow objected to that line of inquiry. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Were there any others from General Ward's district, 
 except the three you have spoken of? 
 
 Answer. Those were all I knew. 
 
 Question. Were there any others in other districts that you your- 
 self knew of? 
 
 Answer. I was only a few hours there, only a short time. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Who sent you out to electioneer? Who directed yon to 
 go out for that purpose ? 
 
 Answer. I got notice to go down and I would be excused, and I 
 was excused by the storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Did anybody direct you to go out and electioneer for 
 General Ward? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 499 
 
 Answer. I was to go down and I would be excused to go out and 
 electioneer for General Ward. 
 
 Question. Who told you that ? 
 
 Answer. I could not tell you who told me at that time, because we 
 have a custom there to tell you you would be excused. I went out 
 on another occasion in the same way. 
 
 Question. Who excuses the hands ? 
 
 Answer. The general foreman or the storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Who was the general foreman ? 
 
 Answer. A man by the name of Murphy. He was charged with 
 robbery and discharged. 
 
 Question. Did he excuse you then, or did the storekeeper excuse 
 you? 
 
 Answer. The storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Did the storekeeper direct you to go out and electioneer 
 for General Ward ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether he made use of the words or not ; 
 when I was going down I was told that I would be excused for the 
 purpose of going out for General Ward. 
 
 Question. Told so by somebody else ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say who told me. 
 
 Question. Did you go to the storekeeper and ask to be excused ? 
 
 Answer. I was told to go there and I went there. 
 
 Question. Did he excuse you? 
 
 Answer. He did. 
 
 Question. And you went out to electioneer ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and he knew I was going to do so. 
 
 Question, And you were paid for five days' work? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long did you work in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. I was there the first day only a short time. I did not go 
 down early, and was there but a short time. I got word I was to go 
 out for General Ward, and I did go out. 
 
 Question. Then your labor did not amount to much ? 
 
 Answer. What I did there was nothing. 
 
 Question. You were paid for your political services ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 ' 'Question. Were you working then to try to defeat Mr. Briggs? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where is this foreman you were speaking of? 
 Answer. He is in New York. 
 Question. What is his name ? 
 Answer. Michael 0. Murphy. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. Where does he live ? 
 
 Answer. He lives in New York, in Greenwich street. 1 saw him 
 the day I came on here. 
 
500 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Is he the man that stole the $30,000 worth of jewelry? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are such men as that kept in office in New York ? 
 
 Answer. He was kept in ; and he says that he will he back again 
 very shortly. 
 
 Question. Was he kept in after he stole this property ? 
 
 Answer. He was taken up at night, and Mr. Mclntire and Mr. 
 Bixby hailed him out, as the newspapers said. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. When you were talking with Mr. Schell about this 
 matter^ did you tell him that you had spent your time in elec- 
 tioneering ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Did you tell him you had been paid ? 
 
 Answer. He knew it. I do not know as I said to him that I had 
 been paid. I made more of a point on Eeady's case than my own. 
 
 Question. What I want to know is this : Did Mr. Schell object to 
 the fact that you had spent your time in electioneering ? 
 
 Answer. He did not. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Had you been in the habit before of working in the 
 custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. I was never there until then. 
 
 Question. That was the first time you went there to work ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How came you to be summoned here to testify before this 
 committee ? 
 
 Answer. I thought the investigation of all the public stores would 
 come before the public, and I wrote to Mr. Covode for that purpose. 
 
 Question. Informing him of these facts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I thought all the public stores were to be inves- 
 tigated. I did not know anything about anything else ; but I thought 
 this whole matter would be ripped open. 
 
 Question. Are you now in the service of the government? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How long did you remain in the public stores ? 
 
 Answer. Until the contract was made ; say from about the middle 
 of December to the middle of September. 
 
 Question. And when the contract was made the labor system and 
 you went out ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I believe 200 or 300 went out by the same 
 operation. 
 
 Question. Are you a democrat now ? 
 
 Answer. We are not as strong democrats as we were at one time ; 
 we were all strong democrats at one time. 
 By Mr, Train : 
 
 Question. You are one of the Mozart Hall democrats now, I sup- 
 pose? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 501 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Are you voting the republican ticket now? 
 
 Answer. I am not yet awhile ; bu* if we have such a man as Mr. 
 Cobb put up some of us would vote against him. 
 
 Question. You did not like this contract system much ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that contract system killed Tammany Hall. I 
 believe that was what elected Mayor Wood. 
 
 Thursday, April 5, 1860. 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Mr. Rice, the proprietor of the 
 " Pennsylvanian," was appointed on the Slst day of December, 1857, 
 printer of the Post Office blanks, under the eleventh section of the 
 printing act of 1852 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, during that month ; as to the exact day I forget, 
 but I think it was during that month. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that under that act he was as much the 
 printer of the Post Office blanks as Mr. Harris was the printer of the 
 Senate, or Mr. Steadman the printer of the House, with the compen- 
 sation fixed by law ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I should say he was the same. 
 
 Question. Will you look at this paper, and say whether it is a cor- 
 rect copy of the authority that Mr. Rice ga,ve to you ? 
 
 Answer. [After examining the paper,] I should think it is ; I pre- 
 sume so. 
 
 The paper was then read, as follows : 
 
 ti\ 
 
 "Washington, D. C, December 31, 1857. 
 ■ Sir : I have appointed 0. Wendell, esq. , to act as my agent in 
 relation to Post Office blanks, «fec. The orders please transmit to him, 
 who will give them due attention. 
 
 " Very truly yours, &c., 
 
 "W. RICE. 
 "Hon. A. V. Brown." 
 
 Question. Had he not the same right to make the arrangement with 
 you to do the work as either of the two last named gentlemen I spoke 
 of? 
 
 Answer. The same right under the law ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; I mean to say this : did you make an arrange- 
 ment with Mr. Steadman to do the printing of the House for him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Question. Had not Mr. Rice the same right to make an arrangement 
 with you as Mr. Steadman had to make one? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I presume he had. 
 
 Question. I understand from the testimony that you have already 
 given that you had done the printing for Mr. Rice. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
502 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. And I understood from your testimony that you made an 
 arrangement with him for forty-three cents in the dollar. 
 
 Answer. Giving him forty-threfe cents in the dollar ; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And that you ceased, after a time, to pay him the money 
 under that contract, and afterwards paid a part of it to the " Argus." 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any written or verhal order from the 
 President of the United States, or the Postmaster Greneral, to divert 
 any portion of that money — that forty-three per cent. — from William 
 Kice, who you say was entitled to receive it under your agreement, 
 and pay it to the " Argus'' ? 
 
 Answer. No written order. 
 
 Question. Any written or verhal order ? 
 
 Answer. There was a verbal understanding that Mr. Severns should 
 participate in the forty-three per cent. In April or May, I think, 
 following the agreement with Mr, Kice, which was in December, 
 there was a verbal understanding that Mr. Severns, of the " Argus," 
 should participate in this forty-three per cent. The idea was that Mr. 
 Kice's forty-three per cent, should be reduced to twenty-one and a half 
 per cent. 
 
 Question. Let me stop you here for a moment. Was not all that 
 matter after you declined to go on with your arrangement with Mr. 
 Kice? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, it was before. The idea was that Mr. Rice's 
 share should be reduced to twenty-one and a half per cent. The 
 oth(ir twenty-one and a half per cent, was to be divided between Mr. 
 Severns and myself. If my memory serves me, that was the under- 
 ing. I was complaining that I got no profits from this work for sus- 
 taining the "Union," and I insisted upon having the Post OfiSce 
 blanks entire. It was an eternal struggle between Kice and myself 
 who should get the profits. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What do you mean by a "verbal understanding?" 
 With whom was that understanding ? 
 
 Answer. The Postmaster General ; the orders came through him; 
 but it was understood that it was by the direction of the President. 
 By Mr. WmsLow : 
 
 Question, Do you mean to say that the Postmaster General gave 
 you a verbal order to direct a portion of the money to Kice and pay it 
 to the "Argus"? 
 
 Answer. About the time of the revocation of this order, which you 
 have just read, which revocation, if my memory serves me, was in 
 April or May, then this new understanding was created, that the 
 money should be divided differently from what it formerly had been. 
 
 Question. You say that Mr. Rice had the printing of the Post Office 
 blanks, and he transferred it to you, you to pay him 43 per cent. ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. That was a contract between you and Mr. Kice? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you suppose then that the President or the Postmaster 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 503 
 
 General had the right to confiscate the money due to Mr. Rice, and 
 hand it over to Mr. Severns ? Was that a part of your contract with 
 Rice? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was a violation or alteration of the contract 
 with Rice ; I looked upon it as an alteration or violation of the con- 
 tract. 
 
 Question. It was not a part of the contract with Mr. Rice at the 
 time? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not a part of the original contract. 
 
 Question. Tou say that Rice claimed a portion of the proceeds of 
 the printing through his friends, Mr. Bigler and Colonel Florence? 
 
 Answer. Colonel Florence was acting for the " Argus." 
 
 Question. Asking that you should pay him so much ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you say that this new arrangement was made prior to 
 the appointment of Rice ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was subsequent, as far 'as I know ; I heard 
 nothing of it prior to his appointment. 
 
 Question. Do you say that the arrangement in the case of the 
 " Pennsylvanian " and the " Argus" was made by the President ? 
 
 Answer. I always understood it so, through the Postmaster General ; 
 that conversations had been held with the President, and he had 
 referred the matter to the Postmaster General. 
 
 Question. Did you hold any conversations with the President about 
 the matter ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you say that in those conversations the President 
 made the arrangement concerning the " Argus " ? 
 
 Answer. As to the details, I cannot say ; the President was desirous 
 that Rice should have something. It was a matter of frequent con- 
 versation as between the President, the Postmaster General and my- 
 self, and Mr. Rice and Governor Bigler ; frequent, often. 
 
 Question. To what period do you now refer ? 
 
 Answer. Anterior to the orders being issued to give the work to 
 Rice. 
 
 Question. Would there ever have been any difficulty in this matter, 
 do you think, if you had continued to pay Rice the 43 per cent. ? 
 Was not that the cause of the difficulties ? Did not difficulties arise 
 from the time you refused to pay Rice according to the contract? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I suppose they did ; he commenced a suit 
 against me, and has a suit pending against me now for his interest. 
 
 Question. You stated that the order in favor of Rice was revoked 
 about four months afterwards? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. And you think it was in April ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was in April or May ; I am not positive as to 
 the date. 
 
 Question. And then it came to you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. ^ 
 
 Question. Now, look at this paper — il^is a copy of the order of the 
 Postmaster General — and say if this is the order to which you refer ? 
 
504 BLECTIOMS, ETC. 
 
 ■Answer. [Looking at the paper.] Yes, sir; I presume this is the 
 order. 
 The paper was then read as follows : 
 
 "Post Office Department!. 
 
 "In the matter of printing blanks by William Rice : 
 
 "For the purpose of incurring a more perfect inspection of the blanks 
 printed by William Rice, under the order of the Postmaster General 
 of 31st of December, 1S5*1, and for the further purpose of facilitating 
 the adjustment of the accounts for paper and for printing, it is 
 
 "Ordered, That Mr. Rice be permitted to turn over all orders sent 
 him from the department since the 1st of January last to the Supe> 
 intendent of Public Printing, to be adjusted and certified by him ; and 
 that hereafter all orders for blanks, to be used out of the city of 
 Washington, be sent to said Superintendent, to be filled by him as 
 heretofore, but so as to carry out the intent and meaning of the order 
 of 31st December, 1857. 
 
 "AARON V. BROWN. 
 
 "Vide Postmaster General's office journal, vol. 41, p. 403. April 
 26, 1858." 
 
 Question. Do you not perceive from the face of that order that it 
 seems to have been issued merely for the purpose of convenience, and 
 it is expressly declared in it that the business shall be carried on "so 
 as to carry out the intent and meaning of the order of 31st December, 
 1857?" 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And if these orders were in full force, do you think you 
 had any right to stop payment under it, because, as you say, the 
 money could be better expended some other way ? 
 
 Answer. Perhaps I had no legal right on the face of the papers. 
 
 Question. Did you not consider that the 43 per cent, that you re- 
 tained to pay Rice, the printer of the blanks, belonged to him as dis- 
 tinctly as to you under that contract ? 
 
 Answer. Until this change — until the instant when this change, 
 this order, was made. 
 
 Question. That is a question of construction. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; the private understanding between the President, 
 the Postmaster General, and myself was that it should be .changed ; 
 that Mr. Rice should have but 21^ per cent, instead of 43 per cent, as 
 before; it was a private understanding. 
 
 Question. Did you claim the right to receive these orders of the 
 Postmaster General and pay the money for electioneering purposes as 
 your judgment dictated ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not claim that right. 
 
 Question. I wish you to answer this question distinctly. Much has 
 been'^said in this whole matter about the public money being used to 
 support partisan newspapers ; was there ever a dollar^ to your know- 
 ledge, applied to this purpoap, except a part of that which Rice was 
 entitled to receive under his contract with you to do the printing? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 605 
 
 Question. Do you know, or have you ever heard, and if so, from 
 what persons, that the President had ever interferred with the heads 
 of the executive departments in giving out the hinding or any other 
 contracts of any nature or kind whatever ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I could say that ; I could not say it. 
 
 Question. Did you, in any conversations with the President previous 
 to the congressional elections of 1858, state to him your intention to 
 send your money to the districts you have spoken of ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I did. 
 
 Question. And did he not advise you not to do it, stating that you 
 had better keep your money ? Or what did he say ? . 
 
 Answer. He stated that he thought I spent too much money in poli- 
 tics, and that I was a fool for my pains. A very sensible remark of 
 his, as I have found out since. Yes, sir, I can say that ; it was no- 
 torious that I was in the habit of bleeding pretty freely ; at least some 
 of my friends thought so ; he said I was foolish to give all my money 
 for party purposes. 
 
 Question. Are not these [handing witness some papers] correct 
 copies of the papers of which they purport to be copies ? 
 
 Answer. [Looking at the papers.] Yes, I think they are. 
 
 The following are the papers referred to : 
 
 "Post Office Department, 
 " December 31, 1857. 
 
 " Ordered, That the printing of blanks and such other printing as 
 may be required for the use of this department, out of the city of 
 Washington, be given to William Eice, of Philadelphia, to be executed 
 by him until further ordered, upon the terms and conditions of the 
 latter clause of the 11th section of the act of Congress entitled ' An 
 act to provide for executing the public printing and establishing the 
 prices thereof, and for other purposes,' approved August 26, 1852, and 
 of any other act or acts of Congress relating to the same. 
 
 "AAEON V. BEOWN." 
 
 (December 31, 1857, Journal, vol. 40, page 593.) 
 
 Philadelphia, November 3, 1858. 
 Sir : I hereby rescind the authority given by me to Cornelius 
 Wendell, esq., to collect of the Post Office Department the money due 
 for post office blanks. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, &c., 
 
 WM. EICE. 
 Hon. A. V. Brown. 
 
 Philadelphia, December 2, 1858. 
 
 Sir : I hereby rescind the agreement made by me with Cornelius 
 Wendell, to print the post office blanks under your order of 31st De- 
 cember, 1857. 
 
506 ELECTIONS, ETC 
 
 Tou will please hereafter transfer to me at Philadelpliia all orders 
 for post blanks, where I will promptly and faithfully execute the 
 same. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, 
 
 ' "^ WM. EIOE. 
 
 Hon. A. V. Brown, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. What was the occasion, or motive, as expressed, if any, 
 for this revocation of the contract with Mr. Kice ? 
 
 Answer. In order to answer your question fully, T will have to give 
 you a brief history of the matter. Mr. Kice was desirous of procuring 
 a portion of the printing, to sustain the " Pennsylvanian," and Mr. 
 Wendell was equally desirous of having it for the " Union," because 
 the " Union" had no sustenance from Congress. The editor or pro- 
 prietor of the organ generally had been the printer of one or the other 
 house of Congress, and also had all the Executive patronage. I 
 thought that, not being printer to either House, and having to pay 
 the editors put upon the " Union," I was entitled to what patronage 
 the President hg,.d, which would be about one-half of what the organ 
 had ; so that I strenuously objected to* its being diverted to Mr. Eice. 
 But I was not strong enough to sustain it. The influence of Mr. Eice, 
 and the fact of his being the editor of the home organ of Mr. Buchanan, 
 induced this order to give him the printing ; but it was understood 
 that I should do the work all the while. That was the understanding ; 
 although not expressed in the order, that was the verbal understand- 
 ing, I making such arrangements with Mr. Eice as I could. He 
 insisted upon fifty cents in the dollar ; I protested, and finally got him 
 down to forty-three cents in the dollar. That agreement ran along 
 through the winter ; I, chafing under it, and seeing that I was getting 
 behind in my business, and what was left me did not support the 
 "Union," tried to have it revoked. Mr. Severns, through his polit- 
 ical friends, tried also to get some of it ; and this order of April was 
 issued, revoking the other, with the understanding that I should pay 
 but thirty-three per cent., instead of forty-three per cent.; that is, pay 
 Mr. Eice twenty-one and a half per cent, and Severns eleven and a 
 quarter per cent. That ran along, each party still dissatisfied be- 
 cause he could not get it all, until just previous to the election, when 
 I suggested to stop paying it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Suggested that to whom ? 
 
 Answer. To the President ; and, without any dissent from him, I 
 took that responsibility, pending this order. There was a great deal 
 of feeling about Eice remaining in the "Pennsylvanian." 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. As the editor? 
 
 Answer. As the editor, yes, sir. There was a great deal of feeling 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC, 507 
 
 in the party generally in relation to that matter, and this impression 
 aided in getting the " Pennsylvanian" from him and placing it under 
 the control of Mr. Baker, of the custom-house there. So far as regards 
 the responsihility of doing this thing, I may be said to have gone in 
 the teeth of this order ; but when this revocation took place, in April, 
 tlL bills, instead of being made out "in Mr. Eice's name, as before, 
 were made out in my name ; at least not Mr. Eice's name. But I 
 acting as the attorney of Mr. Harris, the bills would be issued to "0. 
 Wendell, attorney of W. 0. Harris," I having purchased Mr. Harris 
 out in full. The law required that the printing should be done by 
 the printer of one or the other House of Congress, unless given to some 
 printer out of the District ; and as it had been given to Mr. Eice in 
 December and revoked in April, it reverted to me as printer de facto 
 of the Senate. 
 
 Question. Prior to making the order by which Mr. Eice was author- 
 ized to print these post office blanks, was the subject canvassed 
 whether he or you were expected to do the printing ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it was understood that I was to do it. 
 
 Question. It never was contemplated, then, that he should do the 
 printing ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not that I was aware of. I did not contemplate 
 it, nor did my friends. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that the subject was mentioned 
 that you were to do the printing and make such arrangements with 
 Eice as you could ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that was understood when the order was issued. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Understood by whom ? 
 
 Answer. By the parties in. interest; the controlling parties, from 
 the President down. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. You say "the controlling parties." By that you mean 
 those having control over Mr. Eice, making him submit to such terms 
 as were imposed upon him, which control consisted in the right to 
 take the contract away from him at any time ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; every one would like to keep upon fair terms 
 with those who had control over him — the President and the Post- 
 master G-eneral ; the Postmaster G-eneral, as in these orders, being 
 generally the one to issue them. 
 
 Question. He was the instrument through which it was done? 
 
 Answer. Of course, always assuming that it was with the approba- 
 tion of the President. I held several conversations with the President, 
 as well as with the Postmaster Qeneral, upon the subject. They were 
 both desirous to do something for Eice, as his importunities were in- 
 cessant, as mine were, perhaps. 
 
 Question. "Was it well understood by these officers of the govern- 
 ment, in these various discussions about the arrangement in reference 
 to the printing of the post office blanks, what the profits of the print- 
 ing of these blanks were ? 
 
508 ELECTIONS, ETC, 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I do not think that one of them knew ; I did not 
 tell them, certainly. 
 
 Question. You mean by that that they did not know precisely the 
 amount of the profits ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, they did not. 
 
 Question. But they must have known that the profits were equal 
 to at least forty or fifty per cent. ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I stated to them myself that I would he willing, 
 if it must go to Eice, to continue the printing and pay him $1,000 a 
 month. But Rice insisted, for his better security, I presume, to have 
 it go in his own name, and after a long struggle this was done. This 
 struggle had been going on for months previous to this order being 
 issued. I made the argument that until the term of Mr. Nicholson, 
 who was then the printer of the Senate, had expired, the President 
 had no right to take it away. I made as strong an argument as I 
 could and got the printing until Mr. Harris was elected printer of the 
 Senate, or about that time. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other motive or reason being sug- 
 gested for giving this contract to Mr. Rice, except to support him and 
 his party organ ? 
 
 Answer. None ; that was Mr. Rice's reason that he " had fought, 
 bled, and died" for the cause. I recollect that he made a strong 
 argument of his having been indefatigable in the party cause, and 
 that he had, therefore, as good a claim to this printing as I or any- 
 body else had. It was a subject of many and frequent discussions 
 between us. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it not after it was ascertained that the amount of 
 money going to Rice out of this printing amounted to more than was 
 originally contemplated that this order was revoked and a portion of 
 the profits diverted to Mr. Severns? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I remember there was a great deal of discussion 
 about that. The forty-three per cent, amounted to more than it was 
 contemplated to give Mr. Rice. 
 
 Question. And it was after that discovery was made .that a portion 
 of it was diverted to Mr. Severns ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and at the earnest solicitation of Mr. Severns. 
 
 Question. And that arrangement was dictated by whom? 
 
 Answer. By " the powers that be," sir. 
 
 Question. By what powers ? 
 
 Answer. By the President and the Postmaster General, one or the 
 other of them ; one acting at the instigation of the other, as we all 
 inferred. 
 
 Question. Did you not meet with some of the leading politicians 
 of Pennsylvania, previous to the election of 1858 — meet with them in 
 Philadelphia, and have a consultation with them relative to carrying 
 the elections in certain districts in that State ? 
 
 Answer. I met several gentleman upon whose opinions I had 
 great reliance, as politicians, and whose judgment I believed to. be 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC 509 
 
 depended upon — men whom I considered to be well posted in the 
 politics of the State. 
 
 Question. You have stated on another occasion that after that 
 interview with them you came home to Washington and had an inter- 
 view with the President. Do you recollect at what time you came 
 home and had that interview with the President ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect the precise date ; I was backwards and 
 forwards every few days. 
 
 Question. How long was it after you returned home that you had 
 this interview with the President ? 
 
 Answer. 1 think it was the very next day, I got home in the 
 evening, and it was the next morning, I think. I was in the habit 
 of seeing the President very frequently then. 
 
 Question. Was that the time that you proposed to him to divert the 
 money that you controlled — ^to stop the payment of it to the " Penn- 
 sylvanian " and the " Argus," and give it to other persons ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and my proposition was based on what I had 
 learned in Philadelphia of the necessity of material aid. 
 
 Question. You stated that matter to the President, did you ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Did the President, or did he not, object, to your giving 
 the money that direction ? 
 
 Answer. He put it off. I could not say whether be assented or 
 dissented to it. 
 
 Question. Did he object to it? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he did not. 
 
 Question. Was it that evening, the evening of the interview with 
 the President, that you returned with the money to Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. I think I returned the same evening, after the conversation 
 with him. It must have been some fortnight previous to the election. 
 
 Question. It was the evening of the conversation that you returned 
 to Philadelphia with the money ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I remember that I hurried up my business and 
 returned to Philadelphia imniediately. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what amount of money you took over 
 with you at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Mighty little, I remember ; I borrowed some as soon as I 
 got there. I rememl)er borrowing some money there. 
 
 Question. You did not take the money with you, but made arrange- 
 ments to get it ? 
 
 Answer. I made arrangements. I borrowed before 10 o'clookin 
 the morning the very day I got there. After I got, my breakfast, I 
 remember calling upon one gentleman. 
 
 Question. How were the payments mostly made, in money or in 
 drafts ? 
 
 Answer. Sometimes by drafts ; sometimes by ready money. If my 
 memory servesjj me, I borrowed $2,000 cash, in Philadelphia, that 
 morning. I remember paying out ready money. I had quite a large 
 amount with me, and I recollect of paying out, several times, money, 
 in $100 notes. The amount I do not call to mind ; but I think I must 
 have had some $2,000 or $3,000 ready money about me. Sometimes 
 
510 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 I paid in drafts or checks. I was handling a great deal of money at 
 that time. 
 
 Question. Did the President at any period after that time require 
 you to fill up the contract with Eice and Severns ? 
 
 Answer. Never, sir. 
 
 Question. Never required you to make whole the amount of money 
 you had heen paying to them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not meet General Foster, my opponent, on that 
 occasion, and have a conversation with him in reference to the chances 
 of saving that district ? 
 
 Answer. I met him ; hut whether on that occasion or not I could 
 not say. I was very frequently in Philadelphia. I presume I was 
 backwards and forwards five or six times during the month preceding 
 the election, during the canvass. I remember I was so deeply inte- 
 rested that I thought I would he in Philadelphia during the canvass. 
 
 Question. Did you or not state to the President your grounds for 
 believing that you could not carry that district after that interview? 
 
 Answer. I think I did ; I talked very freely with him about dif- 
 ferent districts ; from information I had picked up I was very strongly 
 impressed with the belief that we were going to get beaten in a great 
 many districts which he and others thought they might carry. 
 
 Question. Is your memory refreshed yet with regard to that thousand 
 dollar letter ? 
 
 Answer. It is not ; I have tried to call it to mind, but I cannot re- 
 call anything tangible ; there is a floating idea in my mind that there 
 was something said about it, but what I could not testify ; these con- 
 versations were about all the districts and about other States. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the correspondence with regard to money 
 in the districts ? 
 
 Answer. I recollect talking about money. 
 
 Question. For the different districts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; men desiring or writing here for aid; speciali- 
 ties I do not bring to mind ; every gentleman that runs, or almost 
 every gentleman, is desirous to have aid ; as to every one I cannot say. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Was there any of this fund that you speak of sent to any 
 other State except Pennsylvania to assist newpapers ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I am aware of; not a dollar to my knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything of the payment of any moneys by 
 persons towards the aid of the republican party ? 
 
 Answer. Not sufiSciently in detail to say. 
 
 Question. What do you know about it ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing hut mere hearsay. 
 
 Question, Do you know anything else about it. except by hearsay? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question, Did you ever hear any one say that he had contributed 
 money for that purpose ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 511 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I ever did ; my position as an active 
 democrat was such that I was not admitted to their secrets. 
 
 Question. Tou do not know from any person that he ever suhscribed 
 any money towards aiding the republican party ? 
 
 Answer. I do not call to mind a single instance. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Were you the editor of the "Union" in 1858? 
 Answer. Not the editor ; no, sir ; I was never a writing man. 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 Thubsdat, April 5, 1860. 
 
 EIOHAED SOHELL called ?ind sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In the city and county of New York. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answfer. Broker; more properly denominated " speculator. " 
 
 Question. Were you one of the party that raised the New York Hotel 
 fund in 1856 for the Pennsylvania election ? 
 
 Answer. Does that inquiry come under the resolutions authorizing 
 the appointment of this committee ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. [The second resolution was then read to the 
 witness.] 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, 1 was one of the party. 
 
 Question. What amount did you contribute to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I am willing to answer all these questions, Mr. Chairman ; 
 I only want to know whether it is right that I should. 
 
 Question, We think so, or 1 would not put the question to you. 
 
 Answer. I gave my own money. 
 
 Question. What amount did yoa contribute to that fund? 
 
 Answer. I contributed a thousand dollars at one time. 
 
 Question. I am speaking of the fall of 1856. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, the fall of- 1856. 
 
 Question. Do you know who was the treasurer of that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I have a general impression, but I could not swear posi- 
 tively. 
 
 Question. Did you forward any portion of that to Pennsylvania? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know who did take it over there, or send it over 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir ; I have a general impression, but I cannot 
 swear positively. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Faulkner, the chairman of the national demo- 
 cratic committee, call upon you and urge the necessity of raising that 
 fund for Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Faulkner, I think, had nothing to do with that fund ; 
 Mr. Faulkner called upon me probably one month before we com- 
 
512 ELECTIONS. ETC 
 
 menced raising money for Pennsylvania ; he left New York without 
 doing anything. 
 
 Question. He called upon you relative to raising it, and left with- 
 out doing anything ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that is my impression. 
 
 Question. He made the suggestion to you in regard to it, did he? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What did you then do, after that conversation with Mi. 
 Faulkner, in connexion with your brother, in raising that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I went, as any one else did, to meetings of the New York 
 Hotel committee. I am not under the control of my brother ; he does 
 not control me in anything. 
 
 Question. You state that you do not know how the money was sent 
 to Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did Senator Slidell call upon you relative to it? 
 
 Answer. I do not think he did, sir ; still he may have done so. 
 Senator Slidell was in my office once, or twice, or three times, I think. 
 
 Question. Did you contribute at any other time that year, except 
 the thousand dollars you have mentioned ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that I did ; but I could not say the 
 amount. 
 
 Question, How much was raised altogether for Pennsylvania ? . 
 
 Answer. I could not tell. 
 
 Question. Do you know how much you paid, if any, to defeat Mr. 
 Haskin for Congress in 1858, and to elect his opponent Gouverneur 
 Kemble ? 
 
 Answer. Is that a proper question for me to answer ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. That is for you to determine. 
 
 The Witness. If the committee decide that that is a proper question 
 for me to answer, I will answer it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I do not think it is, myself. But the majority of the 
 committee hold differently. 
 
 The Witness. If the committee so decide, I am willing to answer. 
 
 The Chairman. If the resolution under which this committee are 
 now acting is a proper one, then the question is a proper one, for the 
 resolution is as plain as I knew Kow to draw it for that specific 
 purpose. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. It is proper to say to you, Mr. Schelly that that ques- 
 tion is to be taken before the House to be there settled. 
 
 The Chairman then read to the witness the second resolution, 
 under which the committee were acting, relative to the employment 
 of money to influence elections, &c. 
 
 The Witness. In regard to this matter, I will leave it to the House 
 to determine ; I am willing to answer the question whenever the House 
 shall determine that it is proper that I should do so ; I say this in 
 good feeling, and with all respect to this committee. I have no feeling 
 at all about answering the questions, I want you to understand ; I just 
 as lief do it as not. 
 
 The Chairman. Shall the committee decide this matter, or shall it 
 he left to the House ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 513 
 
 . Mr. Olin. The majority of tWs committee have already decided_ that 
 these matters are proper subjects for their investigation, and within 
 the scope of the resolutions under which they are acting. I understood 
 Mr. Schell to say that he proposes not to answer the question, unless 
 on application to the House ; they shall decide that that is a proper 
 inquiry. 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you reflected, Mr. Schell, that this inquiry 
 is in relation to one of the congressional districts to which the resolu- 
 tion refers when it directs this committee to inquire into the raising 
 and using of money, and how much was so raised and used in the 
 congressional districts ? « 
 
 The Witness. Does not my answer, Mr. Chairman, that I am ready 
 to give an answer to that question whenever the House shall so de- 
 termine, cover all that ? I do not wish to come in coilflict with this 
 committee at all. 
 
 The Chairman. Very well ; we will not press the matter now. 
 
 Mr. Olin. Upon what ground do you hase your refusal to answer 
 this question ? 
 
 The Witness. Why,^sir, that whatever I did, I spent my own 
 money. 
 
 Mr. Olin. And you base your refusal upon the ground that what- 
 ever money you spent was your own, and 
 
 The Witness. And that I had the right to do with it what I pleased. 
 
 Mr. Olin. And Congress has no business to inquire about it ? 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; that is my reason. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Did you ever subscribe any money to be used cDrruptly 
 in elections ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt use of money by the Presi- 
 dent or any officer of the government ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never had any conversations with any of them 
 to that effect. ' 
 
 .Question. You say, in answer to the question, what money you 
 subscribed, that you decline to answer unless so ordered by the House. 
 These subscriptions were not used for any corrupt purpose, to your 
 knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Olin. It is proper to show what the use of the money waaj and' 
 then the committee or the House will determine that it was or was not 
 a corrupt use of money. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. I will ask you one or two questions. Did you nat raise' 
 money or contribute to the support of E. W. Andrews, the know- 
 nothing candidate in Mr, Haskin's district ? 
 Answer, I do not think I gave him a dollar. 
 Question. Towards his nomination and support, I say? 
 Answer. I do not think I gave him one dollar; that is. my im- 
 pression. 
 
 H, Een. Com. fi48 35? 
 
514 ELECTIONiS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did you not pay a bill for printing to Thomas Smith? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Connected with the Yonkers Herald? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what Herald or paper he was connected 
 with. I paid him a hill of some one hundred and sixty dollars, or 
 somewhere in that neighborhood. 
 
 Question. That was to defeat Haskin, was it not? 
 
 Answer. It was for printing. 
 
 Question. You said you had not raised or contributed money towards 
 the defeat of Mr. Haskin, and now you say you paid a bill of one 
 hundred and sixty dollars for printing. 
 
 Answer. I will withdraw my answer, and leave it for the House to 
 determine whether I shall answer that question. I do so in perfect 
 good faith. 
 
 Mr. Olin. if is too late to do so, now that the answer has been 
 given. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you know that this money was used against Mr. 
 Haskin ; that Mr. Smith was working against Mr. Haskin ? 
 
 Answer. I presume he was ; I do not know the fact. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about men being sent into Mr. 
 Haskin's district to defeat him and aid in the election of Gouverneur 
 Kemble ? 
 
 Auswer. No, sir ; I never sent any man there, and never had any- 
 thing to do with sending any man there. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. I believe you stated that you know nothing of the Presi- 
 dent or any officer of the government furnishing means for carrying 
 on elections? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the President in relation 
 to this New York Hotel lund ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. At no time? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; for the first four or five times that I came to this 
 city I was introduced to the President each time. I used to think he 
 did not know me. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Mr. Butterworth, the postmaster 
 of New York, and your brother, Mr. Schell, contributed to this New 
 York Hotel fund ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have not spoken to Mr. Butterworth for two 
 years, I guess. 
 
 Question. I mean at the time this New York Hotel fund was being 
 raised. 
 
 Answer. I know no fact connected with it. I generally do my own 
 business in everything. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 515 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 Saturday, April 7, 1860. 
 
 ALEX. H. EVANS called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Are you the correspondent of the New York Times ? 
 
 Anawer. I am, sir. 
 
 Question. Look at this copy of the New York Daily Times, of date 
 April 5, 1860, and say if you furnished that special despatch from this 
 city ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. I wish to inquire of you in relation to that portion of this 
 despatch which relates to Mr. Butterworth's testimony before the com- 
 mittee, and ask you of whom you obtained the information from which 
 you made up that despatch ? 
 
 The portion referred to is as follows : 
 
 " Mr. BuTTERwoRTH also appeared before the committee and was informed that Mr Haakin 
 declined furnishing copies of his (Butterworth's) letters, but that he bad no objection to his 
 own being exhibited. Mr. Butterworth said that he would prefer hie letters being produced 
 as explanatory of Mr. Hashin's replies ; but with the latter'a consent the replies would Te 
 forthcoming. They were then opened and read, to the great amusement of the committeia. 
 In these letters Mr. Haskin urges Mr. Butterworth to stand by the President's Lecompton 
 policy, and not to run after Bob Walker and Douglas. This was three weeks after the 
 Lecompton message was communicated. In the January following he speaks of the neces- 
 sity of the enabling act, and appeals to Mr. Butterworth in these words : ' Where shall I 
 go?' It is understood that all paragraphs touching Kansas will be extracted fronj this cor- 
 respondence and entered as part of the testimony, and Mr. Haskin may produce Mr. Butter- 
 worth's letter touching the same subject. He is to have another opportunity to do so. Some 
 (if the letters of Haskin are exceedingly rich in style, particularly one making reference to an 
 interview the writer had with Secretary Toucey. 
 "The following colloquy transpired during Mr. Butterworth's examination: 
 " Mr. CovoDB — You said yesterday you regarded some of the questions impertinent and such 
 as the committee had no right to ask. Have you had any conversation since with the Presi- 
 dent on this point ? 
 
 "Mr. Butterworth — No, sir; I have seen the President but once and thsit was at the 
 public levee. He inquired if the committee had gotten through with me ; that was all which 
 passed on the subject. 
 
 " Mr. CovoDB — Has the President not advised you, since you were last before the c«m- 
 mittee, that it had only certain powers and that you could refuse to answer ? 
 
 " Mr, Buttlrworth — The President would hardly venture to advise me on that subject, 
 after a practice of twenty years at the bar. I feel competent to determine such a question 
 for myself I have already stated the only conversation I had with the President since 1 wag 
 last before the committee. 
 
 " The witness is to appear before the committee again to-morrow to file the Kansas cor- 
 respondence alluded to above. " 
 
 Answer. I made up that despatch from a conversation which I had 
 with Mr. Butterworth himself. 
 
 Question. He stated to you all the facts there stated as transpiring 
 in the committee room ? 
 
 Answer He may not have stated the facts exactly as they are there 
 stated ; but what is there is made up from conversations I had with 
 him. I refer there to a letter, that letter I either read myself or 
 heard read. 
 
 Question. Eead to you by him ? 
 
516 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I think I read the letter myself. 
 
 Question. Did he show it to you ? 
 
 Answer. It strikes me that I read the letter. 
 
 Question. He either gave you the letter to read or read it in your 
 presence ? 
 
 Answer. Either the one or the other. 
 
 Question. Did he give you the questions and answers that follow 
 in that despatch ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not the forms of the questions and answers. He 
 gave me the substance of them and I threw them into questions and 
 answers by a little exercise of the imagination. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. The information was obtained from Mr. Butterworth ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; but the form of it there I am alone responsible, 
 for. In other words, I gave 'it that form to make it readable. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 Wednesday, April 11, 1860. 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you reside in the city of New York? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. You hold the office of postmaster of the city ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long have you held that office ? . 
 
 Answer. I was appointed in the spring of 1853. 
 
 Question. And reappointed to the office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, by Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Question. In the fall of 1856 were you one of several persons who 
 were instrumental in raising a fund of money for election purposes? 
 
 Answer. I subscribed ; I did not collect any money ; I suppose you 
 refer to what is called the New York Hotel fund. 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; you subscribed to that fund, did you ? 
 
 Answer. I subscribed money to a fund that was raised there at the 
 New York Hotel in the fall of 1856. 
 
 Question. Do you know about what amount was raised for that 
 purpose? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not ; my connexion with it was merely the 
 subscribing for myself; I do not know really what amount was 
 raised? 
 
 Question. Into whose hands was the money paid by those who sub- 
 scribed ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not know ; I gave a check for my subscription, 
 and my impression is that I gave it to Richard Schell : that is the best 
 of my recollection. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 517 
 
 Question. Do you recollect about tlie amount of your subscription? 
 
 Answer. I subscribed one thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. At that time was Hon. John Cochrane collector of the 
 port of New "York ? 
 
 Answer, He was surveyor of the port of New York at that time. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he contributed to that fund? 
 
 Answer. I do not. ^ 
 
 Question. Heman J. Eedfielawas the collector, was he? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I do not think I ever saw Mr. Cochrane attend- 
 ing a meeting at the New York Hotel ; we frequently met there, a 
 number of gentlemen, and I do not recollect ever seeing Mr. Cochrane 
 there. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Kedfield contribute to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether -Mr. Brodhead, the naval oflScex, 
 contributed to that fund ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything in reference to the subscription of 
 any other persons except your own ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, except from hearsay, and that of a very general 
 character ; I know nothing about it. 
 
 Question. Did you attend any of the meetings of this association 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. There were no meetings of a regular association ; thiEre 
 was no regular organization or association that I am aware of ; I did 
 attend meetings of gentlemen there. 
 
 Question. What was the pr-ofessed purpose for which this money 
 was raised, or sought to be raised ? 
 
 Answer. It was to I contributed, I do not know what other 
 
 gentlemen did, for the purpose of aiding in paying the necessary ex- 
 penses of conducting the campaign in Pennsylvania ; there was an 
 address prepared by Mr. Eobert J. Walker, which was largely pub- 
 lished and circulated ; that expense and various other expenses were 
 paid ; what other use was made of the money I do not know ; I did not 
 have any charge of it. 
 
 Question. Was anything said as to the amount it was desirable to 
 raise ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember anything of the kind ; all I know about 
 the money is what i have from hearsay, rumor^ talk ; I have no actual 
 knowledge of the amount raised. 
 
 Question. Did you learn from any source into whose hands this 
 money was paid ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or any understanding who was to take charge of it and 
 see to its expenditure ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Did any particular person call your attention to this 
 matter, or make application to you ? 
 
518 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Or solicit your subscription? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say ; this was a matter I talked of witb a number 
 of persons. I remember conversing with Mr. Walker upon the subject, 
 and he subscribed also to the fund. 
 
 Question. Had you frequent interviews with Mr. Buchanan about 
 that time ? 
 
 Answer. Prior to the election of 1^56 ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Answer. I will tell you how many times I saw Mr. Buchanan. 
 [After a pause.] I never spoke to Mr. Buchanan, prior to the election 
 of 1856, to the best of my recollection, but once in my life, and then 
 I was introduced to him in the State Department by Grovernor Marcy, 
 just before Mr. Buchanan went to Europe. I did not call upon him 
 when he returned to this country ; I had no interviews with him ; I 
 never saw him, or spoke to him, but once, and that was at a casual 
 meeting that I had with him in the State Department, just before he 
 went to Europe. My acquaintance with Mr. Buchanan was very 
 slight. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you contribute other sums of money that fall for 
 eleptions, in addition to this Pennsylvania contribution? 
 
 -Answer. No, sir ; I do not recollect of doing so ; I always con- 
 tribute something in our local elections, to defray expenses, &c. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you know whether Mr. Buchanan was made aware, 
 about the time of the appointment of the collector, postmaster, &c., 
 in New York, of the exertions of those men to aid his election ? 
 
 _ Answer. I do not know anything of that sort ; I had but one inter- 
 view with Mr. Buchanan prior to his reappointing me. 
 
 Question. Have there been in and about your post office in New 
 York certain persons employed about the period of elections, and dis- 
 charged soon after ? 
 
 Answer. There may hav^ been cases of that sort, but I have no 
 recollection of it now. Frequently there are persons appointed and 
 others discharged whenever there is occasion for it. 
 
 Question. Have persons been employed there who were chiefly 
 serviceable for their political services outside, about the period of- 
 election ? 
 
 Answer. Yery many of my appointments have been made as politi- 
 cal recommendations, taking into consideration, however, thequalifica- 
 tions of the persons for the offices they were to fill. 
 
 Question. Have any men been appointed there whose services were 
 chiefly and only serviceable as politicians to aid in elections, and dis- 
 charged subsequently to the election ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. No instance of that kind? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect any at all. 
 
 Question. Do you pay the men who were employed there? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 519 
 
 Question. All of them ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When I ask you that question, I mean to ask whether 
 you pay them yourself, or through the instrumentality of some other 
 person? 
 
 Answer. I do it through my officer, through the cashier. 
 
 Question. Has there not been a class of persons who have been paid 
 by yourself, as distinguished from your cashier ? 
 
 Answer. There have been a few instances of that kind, but not paid 
 as clerks. They are not paid by the post office ; there are persons 
 ■who have received money, but not through the post office. 
 
 Question. Paid out of your own private funds ? 
 
 Answer. Partly, and partly from a fund contributed by others. 
 
 Question. Was the formality of an employment gone through with ? 
 Were they ostensibly in the employment of the government ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember any such case. 
 
 Question. Were any persons employed at the post office, since you 
 have been postmaster, who have been sent around through the various 
 wards as politicians, to aid in elections ? 
 
 Answer. During an election, or about the time of an election, when 
 I could consistently do so, I have given leave of absence to some of 
 the clerks. 
 
 Question. Have any persons been nominally employed as clerks 
 about that period, and given leave of absence, and then discharged 
 soon afterwards ? 
 
 Answer. There have been no persons employed in that way, to my 
 recollection ; that is, who were appointed clerks, or who were ap- 
 pointed at all in the department. Theie are persons who have re- 
 ceived money through mo who have said, as I have been informed, 
 that they were appointed and were employed in the post office. 
 
 Question. The-idea I wish to get at is this : whether these persrns 
 so employed had any reason to suppose that they were under a private 
 arrangement with you, or were in the employ of the government? 
 Whether they had any reason, or, in other words, whether they knew 
 that they received their compensation from you instead of the govern- 
 ment? 
 
 Answer. I have been told that persons have said that they were 
 employed. They came to me for appointments, asked me for appoint- 
 ments, &c., but I did not appoint them. They said that they were 
 appointed, I did, however, give them money. 
 
 Question. You did give them money? 
 
 Answer. I did not give them money belonging to government at 
 all, but money from another source. 
 
 Question. In consideration of their discharging certain political 
 services ? 
 
 Answer. Yeg, sir ; I paid them for their time. 
 
 Question. Did you apptise these individuals that the money you 
 were paying them was not the money of the government, but your 
 own ? Did they, in fact, know that they were not in the employ of 
 the government, but in your employ ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what they thought. 
 
520 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 [Mr. WiNSLOW liere appeared and protested against the examination 
 of witnesses while he was obliged to be absent.] 
 - Mr. Olin stated that it was only at the urgent request of the witness 
 that his examination had been commenced ; but if Mr. W. felt any 
 great solicitation about it the examination would be suspended until 
 such time as he (Mr. W.) could be present. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW said the only solicitation he felt was about his own 
 reputation. 
 
 After some consultation, 
 
 The committee took a recess until 12 o'clock m. 
 
 At 12.40 p. m. the committee was again called to order, and the 
 examination of the witness was resumed, and continued as follows : 
 
 By Mr. Olin : , 
 
 Question. Can you t«ll me the number of persons ordinarily em- 
 ployed at the post ofBoe in New York ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot, without reference to the hooks of the office. 
 
 Question. I understand that there are a variety of persons employed 
 there whose names do not appear in this blue book. [Keferring to 
 one before him.] 
 
 Answer. That is not so. 
 
 Question. Have you looked at this blue book carefully ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but I do not see how that can he, if it gives, as 
 it professes, the names of the persons employed. This book [referring 
 to one on the table] only gives a list of the postmasters. 
 
 Question. Can you tell me about the number of persons employed 
 in your office, appointed by yourself? 
 
 Answer. Do you wish to include the carriers ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. You mean every person employed in the office? 
 
 Question. All connected with the department, appointed by your- 
 self. 
 
 Answer. I should think there must be about 300. I can tell you 
 exactly by the returns of the office. By my books at the office I can 
 give you the exact number to put in my testimony, if you wish. 
 
 Question. What limitation is there by law or the regulations of 
 the department, as to the number of persons -to be employed? 
 
 Answer. .1 am not aware that there is any by law. It is in the 
 discretion of the postmaster to employ what force is necessary to do 
 the work, subject to the Approval of the department. 
 
 jQuestion. Is there any limitation as to the salary to be given? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there is a gross amount allowed. The whole 
 amount of the pay-roll is not to exceed a certain sum ; there is an 
 order of the department to 4;hat effect. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what that sum is ? 
 
 Answer. About $16,000 a month. I can give you the exact figures 
 if you wish. 
 
 Question. Has it ordinarily gone up to that limitation? Has the 
 salaries of the number of persons paid about equalled the limitatioin ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 521 
 
 Question. What otiier source of revenue is there to the Post Office 
 Department in New York, except the postages on letters ? 
 
 Answer. There is the carriers' fund. Persons pay a compensation 
 for all letters delivered to them at their places of business, and the 
 carriers are paid by law two cents for the delivery of each letter. 
 
 Question. And is that paid out of the general fund ? 
 
 Answer. It is paid out of what they collect. 
 
 Question. Do they collect that of the persons to whom the letters 
 are delivered ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; then from that there are paid certain expenses 
 connected with the carriers' department. One cent is taken by each 
 carrier and the other penny is paid into a common fund, and from that 
 fund certain expenses incident to the carriers' system are paid ; after 
 they are paid the balance is divided equally among all the carriers. 
 The reason for that provision, which was made some ye^rs ago, is 
 that when we increased the number of deliveries in the city of New 
 York to four a day, the rounds of some of the carriers yielded them 
 a very small compensation, and it was made up to them in this way. 
 Instead of being paid a salary, or being paid equally, the law gives 
 to the carriers the money they collect for the delivery of letters. In 
 some parts of the city some of the rounds,, as they are called, or the 
 carriers' walks or districts, as it might be expressed, are much more 
 valuable than others ; that is, a carrier on one of the rounds would 
 deliver a great many more letters than a carrier on another round in 
 a different part of the city, and yet he will actually do no more real 
 work. 
 
 By Hr. WiKSLOW : 
 
 Question. They are paid upon the basis of actual labor and a 
 division of the profits ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Is there any other source of revenue? What about the 
 boxes? 
 
 Answer. The box revenue is about $25,000 or $26,000 a year ; 
 $25,000 a year I believe it is. 
 
 Question. Have you enumerated all the sources of revenue ? 
 
 Answer. There are several other little things that are accounted 
 for to the department. I think there is some item of waste paper, 
 things of that kind ; I do not remember exactly. 
 
 Question. Items of waste paper that is sold and the proceeds ac- 
 counted for to the department ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I have a communication here which I do not very well 
 understand, and I would like to make some enquiries of you to see it 
 you can explain it. 
 
 Mr. WiNSiiOW. I object to any communications going upon the 
 record. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I will read the communication to the witness, or so much 
 of it as may be necessary to enable me to frame my question properly, 
 but the reporter need not take it down. 
 
522 ELECTIONS, ETC, 
 
 [Mr. Olin thei^ read a portion of the letter to the witness, after 
 •which he proceeded with his examination as follows :] 
 
 Question. What is meant by the "foreign letter knock-down?" 
 
 Answer. I do not kno^V ; the foreigii letter department is under the 
 charge of a gentleman who has been there a great many years, and 
 who stands very high in the estimation of the business men of the 
 community. 
 
 Question. What is his name ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. George Gr. CofHn. 
 
 Question. What is the particular duty or province of that depart- 
 ment of the post office ? 
 
 Answer. It is the making up and distributing of the foreign mails; 
 there is what is called "the foreign room," where the foreign mails 
 are made up and distributed. 
 
 Question. That is not under your supervision at all, then? 
 
 Answefr. It is under my supervision ; that is, it is in the post ofSoe, 
 and I ani the 'postmaster ; but it is under the direction of this gentle- 
 man I mentioned ; he has assigned to him a certain number of clerks; 
 It is a bureau, if you may so term it ; it is not a matter to which I 
 give my personal attention at all. 
 
 Question. What moneyed transactions are connected with that de- 
 partment ? 
 
 Answer. Almost all the foreign letters, or on many of them, you 
 pay the postage ; on some you prepay the postage or not, as you 
 please ; the regulations ot that matter are being constantly changed 
 by postal conventions and treaties between other countries and th^, 
 and stamps are not entirely used there, but some of the. postages are 
 paid in money, which money is ruceived at the delivery windows. 
 
 Question. And then the mails are delivered to steamers for trans- 
 portation, of course ? 
 
 Answer. Foreign mails are all sent by steamers, of course. 
 
 Question. Are they sent under contract by the government with 
 particular lines, or is that matter under the direction of the post- 
 master ? 
 
 Answer. All our foreign mails are sent by steamers under direc- 
 tions from the departments. 
 
 Question. And the cost of transportation is defrayed by the post- 
 ages, is it not ? 
 
 Answer. In some instances they receive the postages; formerly 
 there was a contract ; government paid so much, but that was aban- 
 doned and other arrangements have been made. 
 
 Question. And are these steamers that take these mails now sueh 
 and such only as are designated by the department, or by some officer 
 of the department ? 
 
 Answer. Such only as are designated by the department ; we cor- 
 respond with the department and receive directions and send the 
 mails by such steamers as they direct. 
 
 Question. Are these directions given on the sailing of each steamer? 
 _ Answer. There are regular lines ; we send mails by the Cunard 
 line ; then there is a line of propellers running from New York, we 
 send mails by them ; and we send mails out by the Vanderbilt steamejrs 
 
ELECTIONS, ETO. 523 
 
 when he sends them ; all these are under the direction of the depart- 
 ment here. 
 
 Qneation. So in no instance do you or any officer under you desig- 
 nate the particular steamship that shall take the foreign mails ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know as we have ever had any power of that 
 kind, or ever exercised it, hut once, when discretionary power was 
 given us, and that was ahout the time of the breaking up of some mail 
 line two years ago ; but my memory is vei'y indistinct in regard to 
 that matter ; I will endeavor, if you wish, to obtain full and correct 
 information upon that subject. 
 
 Question. I confess myself entirely ignorant bf the manner of trans- 
 acting that business, and I wanted to learn from you the manner of 
 doing it, under what authority or direction it was done. 
 
 Answer. Under the authority of the department. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that formerly certain steamship 
 lines were subsidized. 
 
 Answer. Exactly. 
 
 Question. And since that was broken up, the department direct 
 certain steamers by which the mails are sent ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the mails are made up for such a steamer ; ad- 
 vertisements are prepared and put up in the post office that mails will 
 be made up and sent by such ateamers on such days. 
 
 Question-. That matter you say is under the direction of the General 
 Post Office Department ? 
 
 Answer. Entirely? 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. I questioned you, some time since, about a point to which 
 I will again call your attention. You said, as I understood you be- 
 fore, that in the interview you had with the President no allusion was 
 made to the services you had performed or the moneys you had ex- 
 pended while in office ; that at the time the subject of your reappoint- 
 ment was discussed with the President nothing of the kind was men- 
 tioned — no allusion was made to it whatever. 
 
 Answer. Your other question was a general question, including 
 other appointments. Now you want to know whether I made any 
 allusion to it in my interview with him in relation to my appoint- 
 ment? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I do not think I made any allusion to it, or any statement 
 about it whatever to him when I asked him to reappoint me. I am 
 confident I could not have said anything about my contributing 
 anything towards the election ; I am very confident I did not. 
 
 Question. The subject of the generous contributions you had made 
 was not spoken of? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was nothing said at that interview in refer- 
 ence to that, at all. The conversation was a very brief one, and the 
 talking was pretty much all on my side. I simply asked for my 
 
52 i ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 reappointment, as any other gentleman would have done under the 
 circumstances. 
 
 Question. Is there a pay-roll made up and certified to the depart- 
 ment from your office? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And sworn to? 
 
 Answer. Not sworn to, hut certified to ? 
 
 Question. How frequently is that done? 
 
 Answer. These pay-rolls are sent in quarterly. 
 
 Question. Evfery three months ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Does that pay-roll contain a list of all the persons em- 
 ployed in your office ? 
 
 Answer. All who are paid salaries. There is another roll which 
 goes from the carrier's department, which is signed hy the carriers ; 
 they are not salaried officers. All those who are paid salaries are 
 mentioned hy name on the roll. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You have chosen to answer voluntarily — for I do not 
 think you are compelled to do so — the question as to how much you 
 subscribed to the, New York Hotel fuad. You say you subscribed a 
 thousand dollars. I want to ask you whether thai was your own 
 money or the money of the government? 
 
 Answer. It was not the money of the government. 
 
 Question. I will ask you if you made that subscription at the re- 
 quest or the instance of tHe President of th-e United States ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; never. 
 
 Question. It was a voluntary contribution on your part? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any federal officer who subscribed money 
 at the request of the President of the United States ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or who Used any of the government funds at the request 
 or instance of the President of the United States ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You say that to the best of your knowledge you never 
 advised the President that you made that subscription ? 
 
 Answer. I am very confident that I never have. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the amount of money sub- 
 scribed by the republican party for the election of John 0. Fremont? 
 
 Answer. Only by general rumor. I suppose that money is always 
 contributed by individuals of all parties for elections. 
 
 Question. You have referred, in your testimony, to persons whom 
 you have paid for political services. I wish to ask you whether those 
 persons were paid by you at the instance or request or the knowledge 
 of the President of the United States ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they were not. 
 
 Question. Or of any member of the Cabinet, or any other officer of 
 the government? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they were not. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC, 525 
 
 Question. It was entirely by your own voluntary act ? 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of contributions being raised 
 off your employes for political purposes ? 
 
 By Mr. WissLOW : 
 
 Question. State what you know of your own knowledge. 
 Answer. Money has been contributed by the employes in the post 
 office for political purposes. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. As a general thing? As a general rule ? 
 
 Answer. It is a general -thing that they pay to the democratic or- 
 ganization something every year — once a year. 
 
 Question. Are there any editors of newspapers or other persons re- 
 ceiving pay from your department not rendering service in the office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, there is not. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Is this amount which your employes pay per annum a 
 pro rata or percentage on their salaries, or how is it arranged ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell you ; I do not collect it or assist at all, or 
 have anything to do with it; it is a matter between them and the or- 
 ganization of the party. 
 
 Question. Do you know who does collect it ? 
 
 Answer. Some one appointed by the general committee of the county 
 as it is termed ; they go around and collect moneys from different 
 persons ; they are appointed by the committee under the direction of 
 what is termed the finance committee ; that is all I know of the 
 matter. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Tou speak of the employes contributing as a general thing 
 for political purposes ; I wish to ask you if there is any order or regu- 
 lation of the post office in New York held in terrorura over these men 
 to make them contribute? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Is it in pursuance of any instruction of the President of 
 the United States or the Postmaster Greneral, or any officer of the gov- 
 ernment that these men are assessed in this way. 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER. 
 
 The witness subsequently made the following statement : 
 
 "I desire to make one or two explanations of part of my testimony 
 in order to prevent any misunderstanding. 
 
 "I stated the entire number of 'persons connected with the depart- 
 ment appointed by myself to be about three hundred. On reading 
 the testimony over I am led to believe that you wished to know the 
 
526 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 number of all persons employed in any capacity in and about the post 
 office. 
 
 "There are in all three hundred and sixty-four persons who are en- 
 gaged in the discharge of various duties connected with the post office. 
 Of these two hundred and forty-five are clerks, ninety-one are delivery 
 carriers, twenty-eight are collecting carriers, and are paid out of the 
 carriers' fund. ' ' , 
 
 "Of these three hundred and sixty-four persons three hundred and 
 one were appointed by me; the remaining sixty three were retained in 
 office by me. 
 
 "I stated the amount allowed per month for payment of clerks by 
 an order of the department to be $16,000, about; it is |16,686 37," 
 
 No. 13. 
 Wednesday, April 11, 1860. 
 
 JOHN EEA.DY called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you live ? 
 
 Answer. At 116 Seventh Avenue, New York city. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a constable of the 16th ward. 
 
 Question. Have you been employed in the public stores in New York 
 at any time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes^ sir. ' 
 
 Question. For what? 
 
 Answer. To do labor ; as a helper in the public stores. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect at what time you were employed there? 
 
 Answer. I was there in 1856 ; the year 1856, I think, was the first 
 time I went there, and latterly it was, I think, in the year 1858 that 
 I was reappomted to go to work there again ; but I only worked five 
 days, when I was discharged. 
 
 Question. Were you sent for on that occasion, or did you go there 
 yourself seeking employment ? 
 
 Answer. I was working in the Brooklyn navy vard ; I was sent for 
 and told that I was appointed to go to work in 'the public stores ; I 
 inquired how it would be, and told them that I did not want it if it was 
 not going to be permanent ; that I was then making $2 a day in the 
 navy yard, and did not want to give that place up, as winter, was 
 coming on, unless it was for a permanent place ; they told me that I 
 was to be there permanent ; that I was appointed steady ; I went down 
 to see the clerk of the custom-house and asked him about it. 
 
 Question. What was his name? 
 _ Answer. Wesley Baum. I ascertained from him that it was all 
 right, as far as he understood, as he said ; that I'was appointed per- 
 manently ; that he had my name put down upon the roll Under 
 those conditions I left the navy yard and went to work in the public 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 527 
 
 stores ; at least I went there to go to work. I went down there the 
 following morning to go to work, and they told me that I was excused 
 until the day after the election. That was three or four days previous 
 to the election. 
 
 ♦Question. Did they tell you what you were excused for ; what you 
 had to do ? 
 
 Answer. They did not mention it. . It was understood that I was 
 to do all I could in my district for electioneering purposes. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Who told you so ? Tell what you. know ; not what was 
 understood. Who said so, and what was said ? 
 
 Answer. I think I asked the congressman to excuse me until after 
 the election, and he told me that he thought that it could he done, 
 and went down there with me to the storekeeper, and the storekeeper 
 told me that I was at liberty to go until the morning after the election. 
 I went down the morning after the election, and worked that day, 
 and that evening I was told that my services were no longer required. 
 I asked what that was for, and told them that it was wrong to treat 
 me in that Tvay ; that I left a good job at the navy yard to go to work 
 there, and now I was chucked out of both. They said they knew 
 nothing about it ; they only had from the collector that my services 
 were not required any longer, and so I had to quit. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 I Question. Are you an active politician in your ward ? 
 Answer. Not of any great note ; I always took an active part, as 
 much as I could, for the party. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. In what were you engaged the four or five days you were 
 thus employed? What were you employed in during these four or 
 five days? 
 
 Answer. Well, I saw my friends, and told them to vote for my 
 friend.. I was talking around in the ward and district ? 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 Question. On what day did the election occur? 
 Answer. I disremember ; I think it was the 9th of November. It 
 was the time of the election of Mr. Manierre. 
 Question. Were you paid ior all your time? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was paid ten dollars. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Who paid you your money ? 
 
 Answer. The storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Had you to sign any books or papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes,' sir ; wc had to sign a book, which they said was to 
 come on here to Washington ; the pay-roll, as we used to call it. 
 
 Question. Did you sign along with the other employes of the gov- 
 ernment, or only with such as were hired on that occasion ? 
 
 Answer. I think we all signed the same roll, to the best of my 
 information. I disremember now, exactly, but I think we all signed 
 the same roll. 
 
528 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question, Do you know of others v?ho were treated the same way 
 as you were — employed just before and discharged just after tl;& elec- 
 tion, and paid ten dollars? 
 
 Ans\\;er. Yes, sir ; I know of several. 
 
 Qugstion. Who rendered the same services that you did ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I dci not know whether^ 
 
 Question. I mean'who wept out to see their friends and electioneer? 
 
 Answer.' About that I do not know! I 4now they were only en- 
 gaged the five days. As to their being exctised, J.be.li^ve that some 
 of them worked for the five days, but many of them did not. I only 
 worked one day out of five, but I got ten dollars, the full pay for five 
 days. Some of the 'others, I heard, only woiked three days ; some of 
 them were excused on election day, and some of, them were excused 
 for four days, as I was. 
 
 Question. Pid you complain to the officer there of being treated in 
 that way and discharged? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. In what way did you complain ? What did you say to 
 them? 
 
 Answer. I told them this: "Mr. Baum," said Ij " thi# is kind of 
 hard," said I ; "I am a man of family," said I ; "I have a family 
 to take care of," said I ; "I came to you when I first heard I was 
 appointed, and I told you that I did not want to leave my place in 
 the navy yard to come here, unless it was to be permanent ;" and 
 he said, " I understood that you were to be permanent, and as far as 
 I am concerned I thought you was." Said I, "this is too bad; I 
 gave up my job in the navy yard." I lost it for not attending, for if 
 you do not attend for three days, that discharges you, and I did not 
 go there for five days. I said " this is too bad ; for I lost, a job iu 
 the navy yard and in the custom-house both, for only five days'- pay." 
 
 Question. Did you threaten to make- any expose of it or publish it 
 in any way? . , . 
 
 Answer No, sir. • 
 
 Question. Did they take you back afterwards? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ^ I was reappointed, I think, on the ISt^of De- 
 cember—the month following, I think it was, that I was reappointed. 
 
 Question. Do you know how you came to be reappointed? ' , 
 
 Answer. Well, yes, sir ; I heard ■' 
 
 Bj Mr. WiKSLOW : 
 
 Question. State what you know ; I must object to your stating 
 anything hearsay. 
 
 Answer. I went to> see our congressman, and I forget, really, 
 whether I saw him or not. [After a pause.] No, I did not see him, 
 but I told a man, who used to be always in company with him,, how 
 I was served. He said that the congressman appointed me in the 
 first place in good faith.; and I heard that he was going on to Wash- 
 ington, and would write back after he got to Washington ; that he 
 would go to see the Secretary of the Treasury — I think it was Mr. 
 Guthrie. He went to see him personally about me, and told him 
 how I was treated, and that Mr. Guthrie wrote on to Mr.' Schell to 
 appoint me and Mr. O'Reilley. I got word of that fact, that Mr. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 529 
 
 Schell had a letter to appoint me. I went down to see Mr. Schell, 
 and lie told me " yes," tliat he had, and I was appointed to go to 
 work on the 15th, and on the 15th I went to work there, and worked 
 there until the Ist of January last, I think it was, when I was dis- 
 charged. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. What were you discharged for in January ? 
 Answer. I do not know, sir ; I suppose it was hecause of the con- 
 tract system ; they are putting men out every day. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. How came you to he suhpoenaed here ? 
 
 Answer. I did not know anything ahout it, until Monday morning, 
 when the Sergeant-at-Arms came on. I saw Mr. O'Reilley the Sun- 
 day night previous to the Sergeant-at-Arms coming, and he told me 
 he had oome down from Washington, and that maybe I might get a 
 subpcena to come on here. I told him I would not like it, as I was 
 not prepared to go. He said I would get a subpcena and would have 
 to go ; and I did get a subpcena Monday morning. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 Wednesday, April 11, 1860. 
 
 JOHN C. ELLEODT called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. At 215 West 38th street, New York city. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am on the police at present. 
 
 Question. Have you ever been in the employ of the government in 
 the public stores ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have been there. 
 
 Question. At what time did you go into the service of the govern- 
 ment there ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed there in November, 1858. 
 
 Question. Did you go there in search of employment, or were you 
 sent for ? 
 
 Answer. I was sent for; I got in there through General Ward. 
 General Ward went with me to the collector, and the collector then 
 told me to go to the store the next day. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. General Ward went with you to what collector ? 
 Answer. To Mr. Schell. 
 Question, Went with you to see Mr. Schell? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And Mr. Schell told you to go to the store the ne?t day ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, and report myself there ; I went over there and 
 
 was put to work that day ; it was on Friday, two or three days before 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 34 
 
530 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 the election ; I worked on Friday and Saturday, and on Monday, about 
 11 o'clock, I was told to go up to the ward where I live. 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Who told you? 
 
 Answer. The foreman came out from in the store and told me I was 
 excused, and to go up to the ward. 
 
 Question. Had you applied to be excused ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had you never expressed a wish to be permitted to go up 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I had never said a word to any one about it. 
 
 By Mr. Oun : 
 Question. Who was the foreman ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Gilbert Sherwood; he was foreman over the floor 
 where I was. 
 
 Question. He told you to go up in your ward, that you were ex- 
 cased ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Did he tell 'you what to do ? 
 
 Answer. He did not ; I supposed at the time — there were a good 
 many sent off at that time — that it was to electioneer. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. State just what you know, not what you supposed. 
 Answer. They did not tell me what to go for. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. You went up to the ward ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. What did you do when you had got up in your ward? 
 Answer. I went around to see some of my friends about election. 
 
 By Mr. OuN : 
 
 Question. You electioneered as well as you could? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Among your German friends ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 Question. When did you return to the custom-house ? 
 Answer. Not before Wednesday morning. 
 Question. The day after the election? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 Question. What did you then do ? 
 Answer. I worked that day. 
 Question. You worked Wednesday ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and at the evening roll-call my name was called 
 off, and I was told my services were no longer rec[uired. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 531 
 
 Question. When did you get your pay? 
 
 Answer. On tlie Saturday following. 
 
 Question. Tou were paid by wliom ? 
 
 Answer. By Mr. Groldson. 
 
 Question. Was he a custom-house officer ? 
 
 Answer. He was the storekeeper. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any others who were discharged at the 
 time you were ? 
 
 Answer. I do, sir. 
 
 Question. How many do you recollect being discharged at that 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I know four or five of them personally^ and there were 
 some who were discharged that I do not know. 
 
 Question. Who were those four or five that you know personally ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Eeady is one ; Mr. Wegman is another ; James Owens 
 is another ;' Jacob Irving is another ; Jacob Hoffman, who was on the 
 night watch, was another ; and Jacob Kreitzer is another. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether these men you have named as 
 having been discharged at that time had been employed a few days 
 before the election ? 
 
 Answer. All but Hoffman and Kreitzer ; they were on the night 
 watch, and got down there a few days previous to me ; they were dis- 
 diarged ; they got back again, but it took some time, a couple of 
 weeks ; they were sworn in then, but they had not been sworn in pre- 
 vious to the election. 
 
 Question. How much pay did you receive for your two days' work ? 
 
 Answer. I got $10 altogether ; I got |4 the first Saturday and|6 
 the next Saturday. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Were you ever employed there again ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I got down there again on the 22d of December. 
 
 Question. And went out when the contract system came in, I sup- 
 poee? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I worked under that about a month. 
 
 Question. Under the contract system ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You were not employed by the government? 
 
 Answer. I stayed there at the store and got paid at the same rate,, 
 until my name was read off that my services were no longer required. 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Had you made any complaint about being removed and 
 used in that way, that led you to be taken back again ? 
 
 Answer. I did ; there was a great deal of talk about it. 
 
 Question. Were there any threats made ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there were a good many oitizens that said it wa& 
 the meanest thing that ever was done. 
 
 Question. Did you yourself threaten to expose them ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not. I talked about the trick that was^ 
 played us, but I did not make any threats to expose them, or any- 
 thing that way. 
 
532 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 Wednesday, April 11, 1860. 
 
 ADAM WEGMANN called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 Question. Do you reside in the city of New York? 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you a citizen of tlie United States ? Have you been 
 naturalized ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; fifteen years ago. 
 
 By Mr. WinSlow : 
 Question. Where were you born ? 
 Answer. In Germany. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Have you been employed in the custom-house in New 
 York? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you so employed in the fall of 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. How long prior to the election ? 
 
 Answer. Three days before the S,tate election ; I worked three days 
 before the election. 
 
 Question. Did you make application for employment there your- 
 self? Did you apply for the place yourself? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did any one go with you there, or suggest your being 
 employed ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I got the appointment or the employment through 
 o'jr congressman ; he was the man who got it for me. 
 
 Question. Who was he? 
 
 Answer. Elijah Ward, our congressman. 
 
 Question. In what way did you get it through him? 
 
 Answer. I made application there, and through hie influence, I 
 expect, I got the job. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Ward in refer- 
 ence to it ? Why do you say you expect you got your place through 
 his influence ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I was not acquainted with Mr. Schell, and I went 
 to him. 
 
 Question. Went to whom? 
 
 Answer. Went to Mr. Ward, and requested him to get me that job. 
 That is the way I got it. 
 
 Question. You applied to Mr. Ward to intercede to get you the 
 place there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, as a laborer in the public stores. 
 
 Question. And you got the place subsequent to that application? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 533 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you went to work there three days before the elec- 
 tion? 
 
 Answer. I worked three days the week previous to the State election. 
 
 Question. Were you excused from working during any of the time 
 you were employed there ? 
 
 Answer. I was excused the first election day, the day of the State 
 election, for half a day, I think. I am not certain whether it was a 
 whole or a half a day ; I am sure it was half a day, but I cannot say 
 for sure whether it was a whole day or not. 
 
 Question. You were excused for a half a day at least, and you are 
 not sure whether it was a whole day ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. That was election day ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Qilestion. And you returned there and worked how many days ? 
 
 Answer. I worked just one day more after the election, and was 
 discharged the first day after the election. 
 
 Question. Did you make application to be excused? 
 
 Answer. Well, I believe I did. I had to ask the storekeeper to let 
 me go. 
 
 Question. How much were you paid ? 
 
 Answer. I was paid two dollars a day. I was paid for the time I 
 was excused. 
 
 Question. Were you employed there after that again ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who got you the place then ? 
 
 Answer. The same parties. Mr. Schell appointed me again after- 
 wards. That was three weeks afterwards ; about four or five days 
 before the charter election. 
 
 Question. How long did he keep you then ? 
 
 Answer. He kept me then about a year, till our last election in 
 1859 was over, and then I was discharged again. 
 
 Question. He kept you through the charter election in 1858, and 
 until after the election was over in 1859, and then discharged you 
 again? 
 
 Answer. I worked through the winter, after the December election 
 was over, until last summer or fall in 1859. 
 
 By Mr. WmsLOW : 
 
 Question. The contractors were in then? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When did the contractors go in? 
 Answer. I think it was in July ; I cannot say for sure. 
 Question. Last July ? 
 
 Answer. Last July or August ; somewhere about that time ; I forget 
 the month. 
 
 By Mr. Olist : 
 
 Question. And then you were discharged ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
534 ELECTIONS, ETa 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you directed what to do when you got leave of 
 absence ? Were you requested to exert your^f in your district ? 
 
 Answer. Well, not exactly, sir ; 1 was excused to go to give in my 
 vote and work, I expect, for the party. That is what men go for 
 generally. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any others who were employed and dis- 
 charged, as you were — employed just before the election and dis- 
 charged just after ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I know several more who were used the same 
 way as I was. 
 
 No. 16. 
 Wednesday, AprU 11, 1860. 
 
 JAMES OWENS called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In the 18th ward, in the city of New York. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am a stone cutter by trade. At present I am a constable 
 of the 18th ward. 
 
 Question. Are you a native or naturalized citizen ? 
 
 Answer. Naturalized. 
 
 Question. How long have you been naturalized? 
 
 Answer. About nineteen years. I came over when I was a little 
 boy ; I was about seven years old when I came over. 
 
 Question. Are you a native of Ireland ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you ever been employed in -the custom-house at 
 New York? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you so employed there in the fall of 1858, just prior 
 to the election ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you apply for employment there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, some time before that. 
 
 Question. Did any one assist you in obtaining the place ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who was it? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Herrick, who was a candidate for Congress at that 
 time. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. In what district was that ? 
 Answer. In Mr. Clarke's district. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 535 
 
 By Mr. OuN : 
 
 Question. How long before the election was it that you were so 
 employed ? 
 
 Answer. The Friday previous to the election, I think, I was ap- 
 pointed ; I think it was Friday. 
 
 Question. With whom did you negotiate the arrangement for em- 
 ployment ? Whom did you see ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Schell. 
 
 Question. Augustus Schell, the collector? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; Mr. Heirrick brought me there. Mr. Parsons, 
 editor of the "Daily News," also was one who went there with me. 
 
 Question. When did you go to work ? 
 
 Answer. I went to work, I think, about 9 o'clock in the morning. 
 I was there at roll call, but my name happened not to be on the roll. 
 I went to work about 9 o'clock on Friday. I was in Mr. Schell's 
 on a Thursday, I believe, and he told me to report myself the next 
 morning. 
 
 Question. Did you continue to work Friday and Saturday ? 
 
 Answer. I continued to work until Friday afternoon some time, I 
 think, when I was excused until after the election — until the Wed- 
 nesday after the election. I happened to be one of the inspectors of 
 the district in which I reside, and was up all night canvassing, and 
 was excused until the day after the election. 
 
 Question. At the time you were excused was anything said to you 
 about where you were to go, and about what you were to be em- 
 ployed ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir; there was nothing said to me, because they 
 thought, I suppose, that I would understand myself what was to be 
 done. I was told I would be excused to go into the ward and attend 
 to some business there in regard to the election. 
 
 Question. How long did you continue in the employment of the 
 government at that time? 
 
 Answer. When I went down there the day after election, on Wed- 
 nesday, I found I was discharged. 
 
 Question. Were you paid for your services ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. During the time you worked as well as during the time 
 you were excused ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you subsequently emplayed again? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I was put to work again immediately the day 
 afterward. I said when I was appointed that I would not take the 
 place unless it was promised to me that I was to be employed perma- 
 nently. I told Mr. Herrick that if they were going to put me there 
 for political services, I would not go there, for I could go on the 
 police again ; I had been on the old police before. They said I should 
 certainly be kept there all the time. 
 
 Question. That was the understanding before you went to work ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And on calling their attention to it after your dismissal 
 they replaced you ? 
 
536 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long did you then continue in the employment of 
 the goTernment ? 
 
 Answer. Until the week after the last Decemher election in New 
 York. 
 
 Question. Did the contract system commence at that time ? 
 
 Answer. Long hefore that. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question, You remained there until after the contract was made? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I remained there until the week after the elec- 
 tion in Decemher, when I was discharged ; I had then been elected 
 constable. 
 
 By Mr. OiJN : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other men who were employed and 
 discharged about that time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there was one young man from the ward with 
 me, a young man of the name of James Eeilly, who was appointed the 
 same day and discharged ; he was from the 18th ward, the same ward 
 as Inyself. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 _ Question. About what number do you know who were employed and 
 discharged as you were ? 
 
 Answer. I could not exactly say how many there were ; in looking 
 over the list to see if my name was on it, I saw, I should think, the 
 names of some twenty or twenty-five there. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where is this James Eeilly you speak of? 
 
 Answer. I think he is now in Baltimore ; he is a young man, and 
 was discharged about two months ago ; he was appointed the same 
 time I was, and also discharged ; we were both put on to work to- 
 gether a day or two afterwards again. 
 
 Questi6n. How much time did you work altogether the first time 
 you were employed ? 
 
 Answer. It might have been a half or three quarters of a day; I 
 suppose they put it down for three-fourths of a day ; I left in the after- 
 noon. 
 
 By Mr. Oun : 
 Question. You received pay for how rhany days' service ? 
 Answer. For Friday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How much pay did you receive ? 
 
 Answer. Ten dollars, I think. 
 _ Question. Were you employed for your political services at that 
 time, or were you directed to render political services ? 
 
 Answer. I was directed — not exactly directed, either ; but I suppose 
 it was understood that it was for that ; I did not understand at the 
 time I was appointed that it was for political services that I wa" o 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 637 
 
 perform ; I thought it was for something I had done before that ; I 
 considered that I was entitled to it. 
 
 No. IT. . . 
 
 Thursday, April 12, 1860. 
 
 W. B. SHAW called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Are you the correspondent of the New York Herald ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I wish to ask you in reference to a despatch contained in 
 last Saturday's Herald. Was that sent by you to the Herald ? 
 [The portiOQ of the despatch referred to is as follows :] 
 
 " The examination of Mr. Butterworth before the committee has been closed. The letters 
 referred to cannot be produced until Mr. Hashin receives some that are in New York. Before 
 the testimony was signed, Mr. Butterworth, addressing himself to Mr. Train, a member of 
 the committee, from Massachusetts, said : , 
 
 " Sir : In the course of this investigation you propounded to me questions personally offen- 
 rive. You, in effect, asked me to state if I had not bargained with the President and bartered 
 my principles to retain my place. In order that no unjust inferences might be drawn from a 
 refusal, I consented to answer the question. I regard this as a personal insult, and one to 
 which I do not intend quietly to submit. I now give you an opportunity to withdraw the 
 question. 
 
 " Mr. Train. I did not intend to insult you, sir. I was requested to ask the question, and 
 did so simply to ascertain if the President had used any improper influences in the matter. 
 
 " Mr. Butterworth. You had no right to propound an impertinent question to me to 
 gratify the malignancy of cowardly slanderers. If you had ventured such a query in the 
 streets I should have resented the insult on the spot ; and I do not intend to permit any 
 member of this committee to shield himself behind his official position to escape a just per- 
 sonal responsibility. 
 
 " Mr. Olin, (member of the committee.) I do not agree with you, sir, that you have any 
 right to hold any member personally responsible for the discharge of his official duties; and, 
 so far as I am concerned, I do not intend to be intimidated by,thieats. 
 
 "Mr. Butterworth. I make no threats. I state a fact, and I now submit the matter to 
 the action of the committee. My action will be determined by yours. 
 
 " Mr. CovoDE. I see no objection to the withdrawal of the question and answer also ; but 
 you had better let the testimony stand until the committee close tieir labor's, and iJhis can be 
 left out of the printed report. .. 
 
 "To this Mr. Butterworth assented, and the affair was thus amicably adjusted." 
 
 Answer. I sent that. 
 
 Question. From whom did you obtain a knowledge of the contents 
 of that despatch ? 
 
 ■ Answer. Mr. Butterworth told me about those matters three or four' 
 times ; he told me two days before that what had transpired in the 
 committee room. 
 
 Question. Were the statements conta,ined in the despatch derived 
 from Mr. Butterworth? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he told me the details of them, my wife, who 
 does all my writing when I am prevented by illness or other causes 
 from doing it, wrote it out ; he said it was correct. I made no further 
 inquiries about it. 
 
538 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 Question. Did Mr. Butterworth. give you the dialogue contained in 
 the despatch ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he gave me the details of it. 
 Question. And you put it in form ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he said it was correct. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where was this done ; at your room or his? 
 
 Answer. At my own room. I met him down stairs. He told me 
 ahout it. He had told me about it twice before. He said when he 
 had got through his examination that there were some facts he wanted 
 to have stated. He told it to me again, so that it was fresh on my 
 mind, and I sent it off to the paper. 
 
 Question. He appeared anxious that you should have this informa- 
 tion and use it? 
 
 Answer. Well, I asked him about it. I asked him if they had got 
 through with him^ and he said they had. I asked him to give me 
 the points, and he gave them. 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 Thuksday, Ajpril 12, 1860. 
 
 aEORGE W. BOWMAN called and sworn. 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside, and what is your occupation? 
 
 Answer. I reside in this city, on H street, between 10th and Uth 
 streets; my occupation is editor and proprietor of the "Constitution" 
 and printer to the Senate. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any money having been given by gov- 
 ernment officers for the purpose of influencing elections? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any money being paid for the support 
 of political newspapers ? 
 
 Answer. In what way, sir ? 
 
 Question. Paid from proceeds of printing or otherwise. 
 
 Answer. I know of no money paid to papers in any other way than 
 that designated in the testimony taken before the investigating com- 
 mittee of the Senate, and the Comnaitte on Expenditures of the House 
 of EepresentativeSj in which it is stated that certain moneys were 
 paid to the " Pennsylvanian," the " Philadelphia Argus," and to the 
 "Constitution," out of the moneys arising from printing the post 
 office blanks and executive binding, the profits of which have been 
 divided, as is stated in full in the reports of both those committees. _ 
 
 Question. How long have you been engaged in the printing busi- 
 ness ? 
 
 Answer. All together ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 539 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I have been engaged in the printing business about 30 
 years, 25 years of which time I conducted a paper in Bedford, Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 Question "^ere you not engaged in printing in Virginia at one 
 time? 
 
 Answer. I served my apprenticeship in Leesburg, Virginia ; I 
 afterwards worked as a journeyman printer in Duff Green's office, 
 when he printed the " Telegraph," I think. 
 
 Question. Were you ever engaged in book printing, or has your 
 knowledge of the business been confined to publishing newspapers ? • 
 
 Answer. I have a general knowledge of everything that pertains to 
 the printing business. 
 
 Question. Have you ever been engaged in book printing ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have not been engaged in book printing, except 
 since my election as printer to the Senate. Of course, I am now 
 engaged in what is called book printing — publishing documents of 
 Congress. 
 
 Question. How long have you been engaged in book printing, or in 
 publishing newspapers here in Washington ? 
 
 Answer. I have published the "Constitution" one year, on the 
 11th! of this month. 
 
 Question. How long were you Superintendent of Public Printing ? 
 
 Answer. I think I was Superintendent about eighteen months. 
 
 Question. When did you retire from that office ? 
 
 Answer. I retired from that office I think on the first day of May 
 last — the first day of May or the last day of April. 
 
 Question. Were you directly or indirectly interested in the public 
 printing while you held the ofl&ce of Superintendent ? 
 
 Answer. Neither directly or indirectly, to the amount of one-quarter 
 of a cent, in any contract, at any time or under any circumstances, 
 during jny superintendency. 
 
 Question. Did you not, while Superintendent, make an arrangement 
 to take the "Union " newspaper, and also to receive the sum of 
 $20,000 per annum towards its support, knowing that this sum was 
 to be paid out of the profits of the public printing and binding ? 
 Please state the facts of the case. 
 
 Answer. It was a matter of no consideration to me where the money 
 came from, or whether the printing amounted to $1 or $100,000. 
 Mr. Wendell simply agreed to pay me for the use of the " Union," 
 at the rate of $10,000 a year, so long as he was permitted to retain 
 the executive binding and the printing of the post office blanks, of 
 which he was then the printer by virtue of a power of attorney from 
 Mr, Harris, then printer to the Senate. That did not depend upon 
 any profits of that printing, or whether it amounted to$l or $100,000. 
 It was a simple matter of fact' that he was to pay me that amount of 
 money ; it did not matter where it came from. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that it was to come from that ? 
 
 Answer. I did not know where it was to come from. It was simply 
 a matter of fact that he was to pay me that as long as he was permitted 
 to retain that patronage. And the only money he ever did pay me 
 
540 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 was |3,000, and that lie told me he had borrowed. It did not depend 
 upon any contract, any certificate, or anything of the kind ooming 
 out of the Superintendent's office. , 
 
 Question. Was it not a consideration of such transfer of the "Union" 
 to you that the Wendell printing establishment should execute the 
 printing for you, in the event of jour election as Senate printer? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you employ Mr. Eives to do your work, and if so, 
 state the terms upon which he executes the printing for you ? 
 
 Answer. I employ Mr. Eives to do the work for me as a foreman, 
 for which I pay hito for the entire execution 66f on the dollar of all 
 the printing that comes under my control. 
 
 Question. Did you not know when you engaged Mr. EiVes to id 
 that work that he was not a practical printer, and that he had not 
 materials with which to execute it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I believe him to be perfectly competent to execute 
 the work of all the branches of the government, including both houses 
 of Congress, and to do it as well, if not better, than it has ever been 
 executed under the government. And I think it is executed as well 
 now, if not better, than it has ever before been executed. 
 
 Question. Why do you, a practical printer, as you say you are, 
 employ Mr. Eives, who is not a practical printer, as your foreman? 
 
 Answer. I do not say that Mr. Eives is riot a practical printer. I 
 never made inquiry into that part of the subject. I believe he under- 
 stands as much about printing as any man in the United States ; 
 everything that pertains to the printing business in all its branches. 
 
 Question. Was it not $20,000 a year, according to the arrange- 
 ment, that was to come to you ? And, if so, what amount of that were 
 you required to pay to the " Pennsylvanian ?" 
 
 Answer. |10,000. I was not required to pay it, but that was the 
 understanding. The former editor of the " Pennsylvanian " had been 
 contractor for printing the post office blanks, and it was the under- 
 standing that he was to continue to receive that amount of money. 
 He had been receiving that amount under an arrangement by which 
 he was executing the work for the Post Office Department, through 
 Mr. Wendell, I believe. Mr. Eice, who edited the "Pennsylvanian," 
 was the contractor, and $10,000 of that money was to continue to go 
 to the "Pennsylvanian." I simply agreed to pay it, if the money 
 was paid. I obligated myself to nothing, but simply agreed that if 
 the money was paid I would pay it to the " Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. Who required you to pay it to the " Pennsylvanian?" 
 
 Answer. No person. 
 
 Question. Who was it that requested it or dictated it ? 
 
 Answer. It was simply an understanding between Mr. Wendell 
 and myself. The proposition was made to me by Mr. Wendell. The 
 taking the paper was urged upon me by Mr. Wendell, through his 
 friends, and they made this suggestion as to what they would agree 
 to do, provided I would agree to take the paper off his hands. I had 
 no desire about the matter ; I, did not care about the paper. I took 
 it more at the instance of Mr. Wendell, through his friend, Jud^ 
 Nicholson, than any other man in the country. He urged me to take 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 541 
 
 it ; and Mr. Wendell made the proposition that he would pay that 
 amount of money, $10,000, to the " Constitution." 
 
 Question. Were there any other parties to that arrangement ? 
 
 Answer. No^ sir, no other parties. The fact is stated in the reports 
 of both of the committees I have referred to, that it was done in the 
 presence of Judge Black, who acted as my friend, I having known 
 him for twenty years, whom I consulted, and in whose advice I de- 
 sired to confide as a man of honor, and as a lawyer who would not 
 advise me to do anything that was not honorable and fair in the eyes 
 of the world. 
 
 Question. Why did Mr. Wendell give you the "Union" news- 
 paper ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, the paper was sinking him, according to his 
 oath, $19,000 a year. He was tired of the paper. He thought I was 
 the man to conduct the paper, and he agreed to pay me $10,000 a 
 year as long as he was permitted to retain the executive binding and 
 the post office printing, in part consideration of being relieved from 
 sinking $19,000. I was to take the paper and tun the risk of losing 
 $9,000, taking the office, material, &c., as a consideration for that 
 risk ; as a consideration for the $9,000 I would sinkj according to his 
 own declaration. 
 
 Question. Did this arrangement, in your judgment, make you a 
 party to the profits of that printing and binding while you were 
 Superintendent of Public Printing ? 
 
 Answer. In no way, either directly or indirectly ; the binding did 
 not come under the supervision of the Superintendent of Printing ; he 
 had nothing to do with it ; that is a matter with which the heads of 
 the departments have to do. 
 
 Question. And the printing ? 
 
 Answer. As to the printing of the post office blanks, as I said be- 
 fore, it did not matter to me what that amounted to; the arrangement 
 did not depend upon the profits of the printing of those blanks ; if 
 Mr. Wendell did not receive one dollar in the course of a year, his 
 obligation to me was just as strong as if he had received $100,000 ; 
 and therefore I could have no interest in it. 
 
 Question. You say that the contract to pay you the $10,000 was 
 while he had the patronage ? 
 
 Answer. He was to pay me $10,000, or in proportion, as long as he 
 was permitted to retain the patronage ; if the patronage was with- 
 drawn from him by the executive departments, then it was to be a 
 question with Judge Nicholson and Judge Black, to whom we made 
 mutual reference in the paper written and signed, and they were to 
 decide what amount he was to pay out of that $10,000 in the event of 
 the patronage having been removed by the executive departments, or 
 any portion of it. 
 
 Question. . Did you receive from Mr. Wendell at the rate of $20,000 
 per annum from the time you took possession of the "Union ' ' until the 
 December following ? 
 
 Answer. I received $3,000, 
 
 Question. I include in this $20,000 that which was to go to the dif- 
 ferent papers. 
 
542 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Mr. Wendell, under that arrangement, owee 
 nearly |6,000 to-day unsettled for, and I presume for whicli lie is not 
 accountable under the circumstances, he having declared himself 
 bankrupt ; under that arrangement, that understanding, nearly 
 $6,000 is due now •, and a portion, about |3,300 perhaps, something 
 like thatj that I got from him, I got an order on the Post Office 
 Department for, in order to get a settlement with him ; the whole 
 amount of that order was $6,003, or $6,300, perhaps ; I assumed a debt 
 on the "Union" establishment of |4,500 when I took it ; that debt 
 was to be paid to me as soon as the books were adjusted, which was in 
 two or three weeks ; I did not get the money ; I was uneasy about the 
 money which I became responsible for, and which I have since paid ; 
 he refused to pay me the $4,500; and through his friend, Mr. Apple- 
 ton, I reduced it one thousand dollars below what the debt was to get 
 him to settle it ; I added that $3,500 to the order on the Post Office 
 Department that he gave me on the understanding of $10,000. and 
 that made $6,000, and he did not allow that to be paid without serv- 
 ing notice on the Post Office Department that he would resist the 
 payment ; and I got that money by giving my individual bond with 
 security to indemnify the Post Office Department. 
 
 Question. Did you know at this time that Mr. Wendell was going 
 on making the full amount of payments to the " Pennsylvanian," and 
 more than the full amount ? 
 
 Answer. I did not know what he was doing ; during the summer he 
 paid me sonie $1,000, which he drew a draft for in my name, which I 
 immediately sent to the "Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. That was to be paid through you ? 
 
 Answer. That was the understanding, that I was to get at the rate 
 of $20,000 a year, and when the money was paid for the "Pennsyl- 
 yanian " I agreed simply to remit it, but to have nothing to do with it 
 in any other way. 
 
 Question. Why was it that you refused to employ Mr. Wendell's 
 establishment to execute your work after receiving so much money 
 from him ? 
 
 _ Answer. After receiving so much money from him ! I did not con- 
 sider that I had received near the amount of money he was to have 
 paid me, and that I was left in a situation to sink $9,000 on the paper 
 according to his own statement, even though he paid me all he agreed 
 to pay ; I was under no obligation to Mr. Wendell to give him the 
 work, or to give him anything ; he has failed to give me $6,000 of 
 what he agreed to pay me, while he had the benefit of that patronage 
 — the whole of it. 
 
 Question. Who directed this money to be paid to the "Pennsyl- 
 vanian " and "Argus," &c.? Did not the President himself do it. 
 
 Answer. No, sir, the President never did, either directly or indi- 
 rectly. 
 
 Question. Had you not frequent conversations with the President 
 r^tive to this matter, and was he not made aware of it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. Once, when I was about to take the " Union" 
 newspaper, I attempted to talk to the President about the subject of 
 my going into the newspaper, and he said, " I have no advice to give 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 543 
 
 yoUj" or "lean give you no advice upon that subject." That is 
 about the amount of all the conversation I had with Mr. Buchanan 
 upon the subject of that paper or that patronage. 
 
 Question. I believe I asked you if you knew of any money being 
 expended for election purposes. 
 
 Answer. I never knew of any money being expended for corrupting 
 the ballot-box — never, in all my twenty-five years' experience. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I understand that Mr. Wendell applied to you to get you 
 to purchase from him the " Union,*' in the situation he represented 
 to you, that it was sinking him at the rate of nineteen thousand dol- 
 lars per annum. 
 
 Answer. I think he said at that time eighteen thousand dollars per 
 annum, but in his testimony he says nineteen thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. And he proposed to let you have the Union for nothing, 
 and to pay you ten thousand dollars a year in addition, so long as he 
 was in possession of the printing ? 
 
 Answer. Of the executive binding and post office printing, which 
 is outside of the congressional printing. 
 
 Question. This was negotiated with him and his friend Judge 
 Nicholson^ acting for him ? 
 
 Answer. Judge Nicholson and Mr. Appleton acting for Mr. Wen- 
 ddl. 
 
 Question. And you took the advice of Judge Black, the Attorney 
 General, whom you knew to be a long and old confidential friend of 
 jBOurs, as your friend to advise you in the premises ? 
 
 Answer. Simply as a friend. 
 
 Question. And the arrangement was made somewhat upon that 
 basis? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And the ten thousand dollars was to be paid out of any 
 moneys he should choose to pay you from — to be connected with no 
 fund ; but with the condition that it was to continue so long as he 
 should have the executive binding and the printing of the post office 
 blanks? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And if that patronage was diminished in any way, then 
 it was to be a matter of consultation between your friend, Judge 
 Black, and his friend, Judge Nicholson ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you ever, at any time, had any knowledge of the 
 President of the United States using the public moneys for the pur- 
 pose of influencing elections or anything of that kind, or for any cor- 
 rupt use whatever ? 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of anything of the kind. 
 
 Question. Directly or indirectly ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; neither directly nor indirectly ? 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of the corrupt use of patronage 
 by the President ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
544 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Intended either directly or indirectly to influence elec- 
 tions or legislation ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Is there anything in any conversation that you ever had 
 with the President of the United States that would have led you to 
 any such conclusion ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; and I have talked with him a great deal. 
 
 Question. Can you say the same of the members of the Cabinet ; or 
 how is that ? 
 
 Answer. I can say the same thing of the members of the Cabinet? 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. I understand the witness to declare that he had no 
 pecuniary interest whatever in that contract, and yet he acknowledges 
 that in the event that the business of printing the post office blanks 
 was not continued in the possession of Mr. Wendell, then his compen- 
 sation might be diminished by the so taking away of that patronage. 
 (To witness) — This you say was the arrangement while you were yet 
 the Superintendent of Public Printing. Do you now state that you 
 were not interested in that arrangement, and that your compensation 
 would not depend upon whether that patronage was or was not con- 
 tinued to Mr. Wendell, when you say that it was to be left to the 
 mutual friends of yourself and Mr. Wendell to decide whether your 
 compensation should not be diminished in the event of this patronage 
 being taken away from Mr. Wendell? 
 
 Answer. No. act of mine while in the Superintendent's office could 
 have affected that in any way. The department might have taken 
 that patronage from Mr. Wendell entirely and given the whole of it 
 to the "Constitution," instead of allowing Mr. Wendell to enjoy, 
 perhaps, more than half the profits. 
 
 Question. And they could have given it to anybody else? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and then it was to be a question to be referred 
 to those gentleinen, and I was willing to submit it to their considera- 
 tion, and to abide by whatever they should say, taking a bill of sale 
 for the full property of the office for any contingency that might 
 arise. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What was your duty as Superintendent of the Public 
 Printing ? 
 
 Answer. The duties of Superintendent of the Public Printing are to 
 make contracts for paper ; to make contracts under the directions of 
 the respective committees of the two Houses of Congress for engraving 
 and lithographic printing ; to receive from the Clerk of the House and 
 Secretary of the Senate all the work to be executed, and to pass it to 
 the public printer ; to keep a record of all the printing done, and set 
 down the amount that the printing comes to, and to give certificates 
 upon the treasury for the payment of the money. These certificates 
 are closely scrutinized, not only in the way of examining the certifi- 
 cates, but by an examination of all the printing that is executed, 
 which is measured and examined in the Treasury Department in the 
 same way as it is in the Superintendent's office ; and the account 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 545 
 
 passes ander the examination of some two or three officers before it is 
 finally closed, so that the safeguards and checks are very strong in- 
 deed upon the Superintendent's accounts. 
 
 Question. The Saperintendent has no power to increase or diminish 
 the public printing ? ' 
 
 Answert No, sir. 
 
 QueStioH. And the prices paid for printing are fixed by law ? 
 
 Answer. The prices are fixed by law, and the authorities under the 
 law order the amount of printing to be done ; and the amount of 
 {trinting is set down upon the books, and nothing can be paid for be- 
 yond the orders filed away in the office. The prices are fixed by law 
 for all the public printing, and the Superintendent can neither in- 
 crease nor diminish the amount. 
 
 By the Chaiema'n : 
 
 Question. From your knowledge as Superintendent of the Public 
 Printing are you not aware that there is a law requiring the binding 
 and ruling to be given to practical workmen ? 
 
 Answer. That is given out by the committees. 
 
 Question. The executive binding and ruling, I mean ? 
 
 Answer. Having nothing to do with it, I never examined the law 
 to see what it was, because I had no control of it, and nothing to do 
 with it. f 
 
 By Mr. WiNSiiOW : 
 
 Question. Tour office has no such patronage? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; no power to do anything of that kind. 
 
 Question. But merely to superintend that which is ordered by per- 
 sons appointed by the proper authorities ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I would say here, that during the eighteen 
 months that I was Superintendent of Public Printing I think I intro- 
 duced and urged upon Congress reforms, as a practical man, amount- 
 ing to a saving to the government for all time to come, as wep as for 
 the time I was in office, of $200,000, as I can demonstrate, I think, 
 by a fair calculation of the reforms I suggested. 
 
 Question. Have you the means to furiUsh us with that information 
 now ? 
 
 Answer. That is all given in detail in the testimony of both the 
 other committees ; the committee of the Senate, and the committee of 
 the House, as will appear. 
 By Mr. Ohn : 
 
 Question. You did not very early suggest any reforms in the print- 
 ing of the post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, the world ^as not made in a day ; and if a 
 man curtails patronage that has been squandered to the extent of 
 $200,000 a year, he has done a pr,etty good eighteen months' work ; 
 it requires time to do everything. Mr. Oovode knows that I urged 
 these questions upon Congress very frequently, until perhaps he and 
 others felt my importunities to be excessive. 
 
 The Chairman. It is due to Mr. Bowman to say that he put us upon 
 
 H. Kep. Com. 648 35 
 
516 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 the track of detecting many felonies, sometimes to the amount ot 
 twenty per cent. ' 
 
 The WilCNESS. I went into that office for the purpose of honesfly 
 discharging my duty, and, to the best of my ability, I did it. 
 
 No. 20. 
 Friday, Apri^. 13, 1860. 
 
 GEOEGE PLITT called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do. you reside? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am at present not in any business. 
 
 Question. Were you the treasurer of the election fund in Pennsyl- 
 vania in 1856? 
 
 Answer. I was the treasurer of the democratic State central com- 
 mittee in 1856. 
 
 Question. Will you tell how much money you disbursed in Pennsyl- 
 vania on that occasion ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I object to that. [To witness.] You say you are 
 not in any official position now. 
 
 The WiTNiss. Not at present ; only a private citizen. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiisrpoN: 
 Question. Were you an officer of the government at that time in 
 1856? 
 
 Answer. I was then the clerk of the circuit court of the United 
 States, c 
 
 The Chairman, [to Mr. Winslow.] You will see that there are 
 some things connected with this matter that will lead you not to 
 object to this testimony. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow, [to witness :] 
 
 Question. Who appointed you to that office? 
 
 Answer. Judge Grier. 
 
 Question. It was one of the appointments that the judge has con- 
 trol of? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I do not think this comes within the rule. 
 
 The Chairman. He was an officer of the government. 
 
 Mr. Winslow;. In that respect only. 
 
 The Chairman. He had the control of the office in -which was the 
 seal of the court, where they manufactured the naturalization; papers.' 
 And it will appear that large quantities of fraudulent naturalizati 
 papers were got up and used. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. That is another matter. 
 
 The Chairman. While I am not going now to press that 
 
ELECTITOfS, ETC. 547 
 
 it is stated that from 5,000 to 7,000 forged naturalization papers ■were 
 made by that machinery. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLoW. The question you asked, and to which I ohjected, 
 was concerning the amount of money disbursed. 
 
 The Chairman. I asked about the amount of money he received and 
 disbursed in 1856. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. I do not think that is proper. I based my report 
 to the House upon the ground that we had no right to inquire into 
 these private matters, and I think this involves the same question. 
 
 The Chairman. The report of the committee was concerning a 
 paper which the committee asked for. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. The point with me about this whole matter is this : 
 admitting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Plitt was the treasurer 
 of that fund, and that it was used in bringing up votes, has Congress 
 any control over the matter ? Can we legislate upon the subject ? 
 Clearly not ; the laws of Pennsylvania must punish it. Hence, I 
 think, we have nothing to do with it. That is my view of the power 
 of Congress. Congress has no power to inquire about a subject unless 
 they can legislate in regard to it, or have the right to inflict a punish- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I do not think it would be decorous to the House, 
 as they have recommitted the report to this committee, and thereby 
 shown tliat they do not sustain the report of this committee, that we 
 should act now upon this matter. 
 
 The Chairman. That was not the ground upon which the report 
 was recommitted. It was to remove it from the House that they 
 might act upon another report first. 
 
 The Witness. I have no objection to answering the question, if it 
 is decided to be a proper one ; but I do not think it is. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow, [to witness :] 
 
 Question. What conversation did the Chairman of this committee 
 have with you just before we commenced examining you ? The Chair- 
 man took you out in the passage here. 
 
 Answer. He asked me where Mr. Vandyke was, and I told him 
 that I left Mr.. Vandyke up stairs. 
 
 Question. Is that all that occurred? 
 
 Answer. I think so. He asked me if I was willing to testify, and 
 I said I was willing to testify all that it was sight for me to answer. 
 I do not think any gentleman would ask me an improper question. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I do not think the Chairman or any member of the' 
 committee ought to talk to witnesses before they are examined by the 
 committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you ever know a case where an attorney or 
 the chairman of a committee did not examine the witnesses before- 
 hand? 
 
 Mr'.' Winslow. We are not here as attorneys, but as members of 
 Congress to elicit the truth fairly and justly. 
 
 The Chairman. I said the chairman of a committee. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I do not thipk any member of a committee has a 
 right to do that. I have no complaint to make of the witness. 
 
5i8 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 [The further examination of the witness, and the consideration of 
 the question concerning disbursing money in Pennsylvania for the 
 elections of 1856, was postponed for the present until Messrs. Olin 
 and Train should he present.] 
 
 The committee then took a recess, with the understanding that 
 they should meet again in the afternoon to examine witnesses. 
 
 At 2 o'clock p. m. the committee again met, Mr. Winslow absent. 
 
 The committee proceeded to consider the question whether the wit- 
 ness should be required to answer the question, to which Mr. Wins- 
 low objected this morning, concerning the disbursing of m^ney in 
 Pennsylvania for the elections of 1856. 
 
 By Mr. Train. [To witness :] 
 
 Question. How much money did you receive from the New York 
 Hotel fund? 
 
 Answer. I will tell you very frankly about that, because I see that 
 Mr. Schell has testified to that. I received $18,500 from Mr. Schell. 
 I understood that $20,000 had been appropriated. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. You received it from which Mr. Schell — Kichard or Au- 
 gustus ? 
 
 Answer. From Augustus Schell. I received his draft, payable to 
 my order. 
 
 The Chaieman. I think it would be as well to settle the question 
 now, whether the witness shall be required to answer the questions 
 as to how much money he, as treasurer of the State central demo- 
 cratic committee, disbursed in Pennsylvania to aid in carrying the 
 elections of 1856. 
 
 Mr. Olin. My own judgment in reference to this matter is that, 
 although the resolution in its terms instructs us specifically to inquire 
 into the use of money for election purposes, without designating 
 money used fraudulently as distinguished from that which might 
 have been used for legitimate purposes, as it may be — my own judg- 
 ment is that the House will recede from the position they have taken, 
 as indicated by the resolution, and say that they did not intend to 
 have us go into an inquiry concerning voluotary subscriptions raised 
 by private parties for purposes of election, where those purposes are 
 legitimate. I think they will put that construction upon it; 
 
 The Chairman. We have yielded that. 
 
 Mr. Olin. There is this difficulty in reference to this objection : it 
 is a mere objection to the order of proof. Suppose we were to inquire 
 concerning money used unlawfully and for illegitimate purposes, 
 undoubtedly the first inquiry is to ascertain whether any money was 
 raised. That is one step towards proving that money was raised for 
 improper purposes, although we may not succeed in proving that 
 when raised it was used for improper purposes. But one link in the 
 chain of proof that money was used at all for impro^r purposes, is to 
 prove that money was raised and used. We may first show that 
 moneys were raised for election purposes, and then trace those moneys 
 in their application to the purposes for which they were used. If i* 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 549 
 
 is ascertained tliat they were n6t used for improper purposes, then, of 
 course, the inquiry falls. That is the view I take of it, and I do not 
 see any legitimate objection to the inquiry. If it be considered that 
 it is perfectly proper to use money for lawful purposes in elections, 
 there is no harm in the inquiry as to the fact whether moneys were 
 used. If we fail to make out the proof that they were used for un- 
 lawful purposes, the proof amounts to nothing. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Buchanan did not designate between raising 
 money in elections properly and using it improperly. 
 
 Mr. Olin. What does that amount to ? If Mr. Buchanan condemned 
 the using money at all in elections, that is a private opinion of his 
 own. 
 
 The Witness. Which he seems to have publicly recorded. 
 
 Mr. Olin. But if there is any reasonable prospect of showing that 
 moneys thus raised to a very large amount — though it is possible they 
 may have been used for legitimate purposes to that amount — if there 
 is any prospect of proving that the moneys were used and raised with 
 the knowledge and approbation of the President, it may show him in 
 rather a ridiculous light, to say the least of it, as manifesting publicly 
 his disapprobation of the means used with his own approbation to se- 
 cure his own election. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I concur fully with Mr. Olin as to this point, that if it 
 is legitimate forus to inquire as to the raising and disbursing of money 
 in aid of elections, the objection as to the order of proof amounts ta 
 nothing. We can commence where we please, and perhaps it would 
 be as legitimate for us first to show that money was raised and then 
 trace it in that way as to show that it was improperly used, and then 
 trace it back. The point with me is this : I do not see that Congress 
 has the right to inquire into anything, any abuse, that does not look 
 to ultimate legislation. Now, admitting, for purposes of argument, 
 that money was raised for corrupt purposes and spent corruptly in 
 Pennsylvania, the laws of Pennsylvania punish it, and we have noth- 
 ing to do with it unless we can show that some officer of the govern- 
 ment was connected with it and used the funds of the government. I 
 think the resolution is broad enough to cover this inquiry, but I think 
 the resolution is broader than our power to act. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I know that it has been assumed that Congress has no 
 power to inquire into the mode and manner of elections ; but at this 
 election were elected members of Congress and electors who elected a 
 President of the United States, and I suppose that Congress has the 
 constitutional power to prescribe the mode and manner of that election. 
 I have no doubt that Congress has power to regulate the manner and 
 prescribe the regulations of elections of members of Congress, and 
 Congress may exercise authority upon all matters in reference to such 
 elections. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I have no doubt of that. 
 
 Mr. Olin. And in that view, wherever presidential electors and 
 future legislation. Now, in reference to the particular question pro- 
 members of Congress were chosen, such inquiries may be the basis of 
 pounded to the witness, if there was a remote possibility of connecting 
 this matter with the knowledge of the President, or if there was a re- 
 
550 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 mote possibility of proving even that naoneys wereimproperly used at 
 these elections, either in their origin or their application, I would in- 
 sist upon an answer to the question. If I was satisfied there was no 
 such possibility I would not make the inquiry at all. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. If I was satisfied myself that there was any way in 
 which we could connect the President with it, either directly or indi- 
 rectly, I would go for it ; but, unless we are pretty sure that we can 
 do that, my objection is that it would be a great waste of money to 
 pursue this along in the hands of private individuals. 
 
 The Chairman. I expect to show that the President knew of these 
 moneys being raised and used. 
 
 The Witness. There is one thing to be considered, and that is that 
 the members of Congress elected in 1856 are no longer members of 
 Congress. 
 
 The Chairman. This inquiry relates to the presidential election. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I vote in favor of going on and asking the question and 
 requiring the witness to answer it. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I vote in the negative. 
 
 Mr. Train. I vote for it. 
 
 The Chairman. And Mr. "Winslow this morning recorded himself 
 against it, which makes the vote three in favor and two against. 
 
 [It having been determined by a majority of the committee that the 
 witness should answer the question, his examination was then pro- 
 ceeded with as follows :] 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How much money, as the treasurer of the democratic 
 State central committee, did you disburse in Pennsylvania in 1856 for 
 election purposes ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was over |'rO,000 ; I have destroyed all my 
 records ; the whole amount of money that I paid out was under the 
 written order of John W. Forney, the chairman of our State central 
 committee — not one dollarof which, so far as my individual knowledge 
 and belief are concerned, was appropriated wrongfully ; it was honestly 
 intended to carry the election of Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Question. Was it after he was elected that you destroyed all these 
 records ? 
 
 Answer. After the election was over, and I had had my own ac- 
 count audited by our committee, I destroyed every record of every 
 kind. 
 
 Question. I cannot exactly see what object you had in destroying 
 those records. 
 
 Answer. Well, I might be paying too much of a compliment to 
 myself ; I did not want Mr. Buchanan to know who subscribed, or 
 whose money was paid for his election. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. He knew nothing about it? 
 Answer. Not at all. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 551 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 Question. As far as your knowledge is concerned ? 
 Answer. Of course, as far as I know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you know anything ahout a portion of this money 
 being raised off the employes of the government in Philadelphia in 
 the custom-house and elsewhere ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I think there was at that time, hut I am not certain ; 
 that is our general custom. 
 
 Question. If it should appear that fraudulent naturalization papers 
 were issued in Philadelphia, under the seal of the circuit court of the 
 United States, of which court you were the clerk, and of" which seal 
 you was the custodian, how could it happen that such seal was used 
 without your knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. I can only answer that if it was so used, I do not believe 
 it was, because they would have had also to forge my name to the 
 papers ; if it was so used it might have been used by those who had 
 the charge of the clerk's room ; there was access to the room con- 
 stantly ; the seal of my press I had always under lock and key, and 
 neither my clerk nor myself knew ainything about such use of it ; I 
 do not believe it was ever so used ; I do not think it possible that such 
 a thing could have been done. 
 
 Question. Was there any other way of manufacturing these papers 
 except with your seal ? 
 
 Answer. The State courts ; all courts of record have a right to issue 
 naturalization papers. 
 
 Question. Did you know that a large number of naturalization 
 papers were used ? 
 
 Answer. There were rumors of that kind ; I did not know anything 
 ahout it of my own knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. Did you receive any money from Massachusetts ? 
 
 Answer. I answered that in my testimony before Mr. Sherman's 
 committee a year ago ; I received, as I atated then, $10,000 from Mr. 
 W. 0. N. Swift, of New Bedford, Massachusetts. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you, any knowledge relative to any favoritism being 
 extended to Mr. Swift bjs the departments here in the way of pontracts 
 in consequence of his having advanced that $10,000 to aid in the 
 election of Mr. Buchanan ? 
 
 Answer. You have my testimony before you upon that point as I 
 gave it before the other committee ; I think I stated then that He was 
 put in a favorable position by my recommendation ; I do not believe 
 that the President or the Secretary of the Navy knew anything about 
 any agreement I had with Mr. Swift ; but I think that from my per- 
 sonal introduction of this gentleman to the President, the Secretary 
 of the Navy, and the Secretary of War, he was favored, kindly looked 
 upon; I conceived that were these things to be given out fairly, 
 
552 ' ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 rightly, and honestly, the administration was bound to prefer a poli- 
 tical friend to a political enemy. 
 
 Question. Do you mean to say that he was favored partly in conse- 
 quence of the advance he had made ; that that was considered through 
 your recommendation ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not say that it was on account of his ad- 
 vances, hut from my personal friendship to him at that time, and my 
 personal introduction of him to the President and Secretary. Swift 
 did not know one of them. He was at the Cincinnati convention, and 
 after we returned from there I took him to and introduced him to the 
 President. 
 
 Question. Of course, you made use of that as one argument why he 
 should he favored ? 
 
 Answer. I think I said so, that a gentleman who was willing to 
 give that amount of money, if he makes the proper sort of proposition, 
 ought to he recognized. I always encourage such men myself. 
 
 Question. Was that proposition made to Mr. Buchanan, as well as 
 to the Secretary of the Navy ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember. I do not think I ever said it to him, 
 because I thought the thing would be done anyhow. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. About what, in your judgment, will be the profits of the 
 contracts Mr. Swift has obtained of the government ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what the profits will be. The whole 
 amount of the contracts would be about $500,000. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Are you and the President on friendly terms at present? 
 Answer. Our relations are of the same friendly character, so far as 
 I knowj that they have been for the last thirty years. 
 
 No. 21. 
 Feddat, April 13, 1860. 
 
 ISAAC WEST called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Towsontown, Baltimore county, Maryland. 
 
 Question. Were you at one time engaged in the custom-house at 
 Philadelphia? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. In what capacity ? 
 
 Answer. I was appointed inspector. I had charge of the appraisers' 
 stores there. 
 
 Question. When were you appointed ? 
 
 Answer. The first of June, 1853, I think. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 553 
 
 Question. How long did you remain in office there? 
 
 Answer, About five years. 
 
 Question, Were you there at the time of the election of 1856, when 
 Mr. Buchanan was elected ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, What do you know about moneys being raised off the 
 employes of the custom-house on that occasion? 
 
 Answer. There was a certain tax levied upon the persons connected 
 with the custom-house. 
 
 Question, What amount on each person? 
 
 Answer, A certain percentage. On a person receiving $1,095 a 
 year, I think the tax for the presidential election was from |30 to |33. 
 
 Question. Do you mean for the presidential election alone, or for 
 both presidential and congressional elections ? 
 
 Answer. I mean the presidential election alone. 
 
 Question. What about the other election ? 
 
 Answer. The amount was not so great for the State election. 
 
 Question. How much was that ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not recollect. It strikes me that it was from |3 
 to $7, something like that. 
 
 Question. The two, then, would amount to in the neighborhood 
 of $40 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, in that neighborhood. 
 
 Question. Upon what salaried officers was that? 
 
 Answer. Those of $1,100, or, rather, $1,095 a year. 
 
 Question. Were the others assessed in proportion to their salaries ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. To whom was that money paid ? 
 
 Answer. It was generally deposited. That portion which I col- 
 lected in my department I gave to the deputy collector, Mr. Harbeson — 
 I believe he was the treasurer, so far as the custom-house was con- 
 cerned — and he paid it over to the executive committee, I believe. 
 
 Question. A polilical committee? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did all the employes pay ? 
 
 Answer, I never knew one to refuse. 
 
 Question. What was the impression — that it was rather obligatory 
 upon them to pay ? 
 
 Answer. That seemed to be the impression ; they all felt it their 
 duty to pay that more promptly than some of their debts ; that was 
 the impression, but I do not know about whether they would have 
 been removed, if they had not paid ; but it was considered obligatory, 
 I believe. 
 
 Question, Do you know of any person receiving pay during that 
 presidential contest who did not render services in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer, That is a pretty nice, question to answer. There were 
 parties absent during that canvass for some months ; but I could not, 
 on my oath, say whether they received their salaries or not ; they 
 were absent soine months. 
 
 Question. Attending to political matters ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
554 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 By Mr, Train : 
 
 Question. Who were those who were absent canvassing during that 
 election ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Gideon G. Westcott was in the State central com- 
 mittee room for some months ; from four to six months, probably, 
 more or less. 
 
 Question. Name all that you recollect ? . 
 
 Answer. Mr. Wbittaker was one ; I forget his, first name; John 
 Schell and Daniel Fry ; I think there were others ; I believe those 
 are all I can think of now. 
 
 Question. Can you state how long they were away? 
 
 Answer. I could not; somemore and some less ; some were on duty 
 occasionally ; Mr. Westcott was absent all the time ; the others were 
 on duty occasionally ; perhaps at the office half the time. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not see a letter authorizing Mr. Westcott to be 
 absent, or in some way referring to that matter ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Westcott read me a letter from Mr. Buchanan, ac- 
 cording to my recollection, saying that he had obtained leave of 
 absence for him for a certain time from the Secretary of the Treasury. . 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. When was that? 
 Answer. In 1856. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. Do you say he read you the letter? 
 
 Answer. He read me a letter, and that is the impression it left upon 
 my mind. 
 
 ■ Question. Do you know whether it was from Mr. Buchanan or not? 
 
 Answer. I saw Mr. Buchanan's name to it. 
 ■ Question. Do you know that Mr. Buchanan signed his name to that 
 letter ? 
 
 Answer. I saw the name, but do not know myself that he wrote it ; 
 he read the letter to me. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Buchanan's handwriting? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I did, and I do not know that I observed 
 it particularly. 
 
 Question. Have you any personal knowledge about the issuing of 
 fraudulent naturalization paper^ ? 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge of that. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any persons who were engaged in dis- 
 tributing them ? 
 
 Answer. I know parties, of course, who have been convicted there 
 and sent to the penitentiary for distributing them; at least, that came 
 out before the court. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any parties not yet in the penitentiary 
 who were engaged in distributing them ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 555 
 
 Answer. I would not know except from kearsay ; I liave no personal 
 knowledge of their distributing them. 
 
 Question. Did not a certain individual tell you that he had dis- 
 tributed a large number of them, and was going to distribute more, 
 or something of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I think the person who said so is the proper person 
 to testify to that here. 
 
 The Chairman. I did not intend to ask the name, but only the fact 
 that he was so told. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether they were distributed in the city 
 of Philadelphia or elsewhere ? 
 
 Answer. By that individual, in the county — that is, Chester county. 
 
 Question. What was he ? An American or German ? 
 
 Answer. He was himself an American, and held a position on th« 
 railroad. 
 
 Question. On the Columbia railroad? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; under Mr. Baker, the present collector of the 
 port of Philadelphia, who was superintendent of that road at that 
 time. 
 
 Question. Had you any knowledge of these papers .being manufac- 
 tured out of the city, in the country somewhere ? 
 
 Answer. I had no personal knowledge of that fact. 
 
 Question. Were those that this person stated to you he had dis- 
 tributed stated to have been manufactured in the country or in the 
 city ? 
 
 Answer. In the city. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. What court did they issue them from in the city ? 
 
 Answer. Indeed I could not tell ; althciligh I have been a democrat 
 all my life and never scratched a ticket, that is a kind of work I never 
 was engaged inland would not hear of at all. 
 
 Question. Did that man tell you these were fraudulent papers that 
 he had been distributing, or did he say they were genuine ? 
 
 Answer. He did not say they were genuine. 
 
 Question. Did he say they were fraudulent ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where does he live ? 
 
 Answer. He lives in Pennsylvania ; I have no personal knowledge 
 of any papers being issued. 
 
 Question. Have you not some knowledge about a number of these 
 papers being distributed among the German population that had 
 been in this country but a little while ? 
 
 Answer. I heard that in the same way; I know nothing personally 
 about it. 
 
 Question. Did not a man tell you that he had distributed a large 
 number of them in that way ? 
 
 Answer. Yes sir, a man told me that. 
 
556 ELECTION^, ETC, 
 
 Question. What title did he give those who had been in this country 
 but a little while ? 
 
 Answer. Well, you seem to have found out a good deal about tliese 
 things ; there was a German messenger in the office who had beeu 
 away for some days, and when he came in I took him to account for 
 being absent; "0!" said he, "I was doing good." "Doing gooi}!" 
 said I; "what good have you been doing, Chris? have you been sick?" 
 "No," he said, "I was putting out these papers!" I had never seen 
 three naturalization papers in my life, I suppose, unless I was at some 
 election. "W}iat are they?" I asked him; "0!" said he, "these 
 are sick!" "What do you mean by being sick?" I said ; " ! God,'!' 
 said he, "these fellows havn't been here more than six months," and 
 he had some others there that he said were good ; I told him he 
 had better look out for himself, or he would get into the penitentiary;? 
 he said, "I don't give these to them ; I leave them where they can get 
 them, and they don't know where they come from." 
 
 Question. Did he tell" you at one time how many he had issued of 
 those ' ' sick ' ' papers ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. The railroad man who attended to that business was not 
 in the employ qf the government at that time ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Whom did you say he was employed under then? 
 
 Answer. He was employed on the railroad under Mr. Baker*, the 
 present collector of the port, who was t1ien superintendent of the road. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. You say you were appointed in June, 1853, and remained i 
 there for five years ; you left there in June, 1858 ? ., 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, about that time ; I have been in Maryland) since 
 the 25th of October, 1858, When I came there. 
 
 Question. Why did you quit working in the custom-house? 
 
 Answer. _ I was dismissed because I did not chime in with the cours6| 
 of the administration entirely. I 
 
 No. 22. 
 Tuesday, April 17, 1860. 
 B. F. SLOCUMB called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you a clerk in the General Land Office? 
 
 Answer. I am, sir. 
 
 Questi6n. Do you know of any assessment of money upon the clerks 
 and other employes of the General Land Office for political purposes? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I remember myself to have contributed money 
 on one or two occasions, a small amount. 
 
 Question. Do you or not know that all the clerks were assessed.for 
 political purposes ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 557 
 
 Answer. I do not know whetlier you would call it an assessment or 
 not. There was a sort of subscription made by the clerks in the Land 
 Office for political purposes, I suppose. 
 
 Question. How and in what way were these assessments made — in 
 proportion to their salaries or otherwise ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW, [to witness.] Tell how it was done, how you came 
 to subscribe and how much ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether it was with regard to salaries or 
 not. I remember to have paid myself probably $2 60 when the list 
 was broup;ht around. I understood it was to meet some expenses 
 incurred by a democratic committee. Furthermore, I know nothing 
 about it particularly. 
 
 By the Chairman : %, 
 
 Question. Can you state what percentage on the salaries was 
 assessed ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. The witness has not said that it was an assessment. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Well, what amount of percentage was the contribution? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, exactly. I think I was receiving at the 
 time a $1,400 salary, and the amount I paid was $2 50. 
 
 Question. In what year was that ? 
 
 Answer. I believe it was in 1858. 
 . Question. Was that the only contribution made that year? 
 
 Answer. The only one that I know of, the only one I made myself, 
 the only list that was presented to me. 
 
 Question. Do you know where that money was to be expended ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Did the clerks generally respond to the call? 
 
 Answer. I believe they did. 
 
 Question. Were you one of the persons who visited the clerks and 
 presented the list containing the assessment? 
 
 Answer. 1 was not. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you wish us to understand that there was an assess- 
 ment ? 
 
 Answer. I did not myself consider that there was an assessment. 
 
 By the Chairman : , 
 
 Question. Was there not a list containing the names of the persons, 
 th[e amounts of their salaries and the amounts of their contributions? 
 
 Answer. There was a list brought around I believe, but I do not 
 'think the amounts of the salaries were on it. I do not remember the 
 particular circumstances about it. I remember to have subscribed, 
 but I do not remember whether I put down the figures myself or not. 
 I know that the amount I paid was |2 50 ; but I do not remember 
 whether I put down the figures myself or whether they were on the 
 list when presented. I think; however, I put them down. It has 
 been some time since then, and the matter was not of very great im- 
 portance to me at the time. It was a thing which I did very willingly. 
 
558 ELECTIOXS, ETC. 
 
 * 
 
 Question. Do you think the amount was not on the list when it 
 came to you ? 
 
 Answer. I could not state whether it was or not. My memory is 
 not sufficiently distinct on that point. _ I know the amount I paid, 
 but whether the amount was on the list or not at the time it was 
 handed to me I could not say. If I could see the list I could tell very 
 easily, knowing my/own handwriting, hut I do not know where it is. 
 
 Question. By whose direction was this done? 
 
 Answer. I could not say certainly. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Nothing will be evidence but what you know ; no beliefs 
 or understandings. ^ ... j 
 
 Answer. I do not know certainl;^j;>f^hose direction it was done." 1 
 
 By the Chairman : ^--^ 
 
 Question. Did you not accompany Mr. Cramer at one time in making 
 the collections ?,^ . 
 
 Answer. I 'dlCnot, sir. 
 
 Quegiioh. .Did you hear anything said relative to sending this 
 moBeyittto' Pennsylvania to liquidate debts contracted there? 
 
 ^Mr. 'Winslow. It would be better to ask the witness who said so. 
 It would be hearsay testimony to ask the witness if he heard such and 
 such things stated. 
 
 The Witness. I suppose what I heard would not be evidenced ■^1; 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I object to anything of the kind. 
 
 The Chairman. If I ask a leading question, that would involve the 
 name of a senator, which I do not want to do. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I would rather have it in that way. 
 
 Mr. Olin. I do not see any objection to the witness stating what 
 was said at the time this money was raised. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did the man who collected the money say anything about 
 what it was for ? 
 
 Answer. I knew that it was a contribution for political purposes, 
 to be used in some of the States, but where I did not know certainly.', 
 I had no definite information at all upon the subject, that I remember. 
 I do not remember that anything was said that I could now repeat in 
 reference to where the expenditure was to be made, or by whom any 
 such reihark was made, if any remark of that kind was made. 
 
 Question. Who was it that collected the money from you? 
 
 Answer. I think it probable that oae of the messengers of the oifioe 
 brought the list to my desk. , 
 
 Question. Do you remember his name? 
 
 Answer. I do not now remember which one it was. I believe, 
 however, it was a messenger whose name was Graham, but I am not 
 positive about it. It mny have been brought by one of the clerks, hut 
 whether that was so or not I am not positive. It was some time since, 
 and I will not make any statement about which I am not positive. 
 
 Question. Were you in the office in the fall of 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I was. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 559 
 
 Question. Have you any recollection about the amount raised that 
 fall? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I remember to have made some contributions in 
 1856, but they were entirely my voluntary contributions. There was 
 no list presented then, that I know of. 
 
 Question. Was it the fall of 1858 that this list with the names was 
 carried around ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was the summer or fall of 1858. It was during 
 the year 4858 ; that is my impression now. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of a contribution or assessment 
 being made to pay off a Pennsylvania political debt ? 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of the fact. 
 
 Question. Was it not understood among you that these contribu- 
 tions were authorized by the head of the department ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. I object to the witness stating any understanding 
 that he had. If he knows the fact, he can state what he knew about 
 it ; but what his understanding was is a very different thing, as he 
 may have had a wrong understanding. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Did you state that you did not accompany Mr. Cramer 
 with the list? 
 
 Answer. I have no remembrance of having accompanied Mr. Cramer 
 upon any such mission, at any time. If I had done so, I should have 
 no hesitancy in so stating. 
 
 Question. Have you a knowledge of what is the number of clerks 
 connected with all the departments here ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I have seen the names of the clerks in the Blue- 
 book very frequently, but I have never taken occasion to count them. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You say that you subscribed $2 50 at one time. Was 
 that a voluntary subscription on your part ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I did not consider it at all cdmpulsory ; it was 
 done very freely. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any order of the department requiring 
 the clerks to be assessed a portion of their salaries for political contri- 
 butions? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. , 
 
 Question. You gave what you did voluntarily ? 
 
 Answer. So far as I was individually concerned it was perfectly 
 voluntary. 
 
560 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 No. 23. 
 
 Tuesday, April 17, I860. 
 
 J, L. CRAMER called and sworn. ^ 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Are you a clerk in the General Land OflSce ? • 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any assessments made upon the clerks 
 or employes there for political purposes ? 
 
 Answer. I have asked the gentlemen — a portion of them — to con- 
 trihute for that purpose. 
 
 Question. You asked them yourself? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How was that contribution made? Was it a certain per- 
 centage on the salary? 
 
 Answer. In one instance it was ; a small per cent, was asked of the 
 gentlemen. 
 
 Question. In what year was that? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that it was in the year 1856. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what per cent, it was that was levied 
 that year ? 
 
 Answer. I can only tell from my own proportion. My recollection 
 is that I paid $3 20 on a salary of |1,600. 
 
 Question. Did you collect it that year ? 
 
 Answer. I called on some of the gentlemen. 
 
 Question. In what way was that list made ? Describe how it was 
 prepared, whether with the names and the salaries, and the per- 
 centage that was assessed, or how was it? 
 
 Answer. So far as my recollection serves me, I am not aware that 
 I had a list. I think I had a memorandum book, in which I put 
 down the names of such gentlemen as contributed, knowing their 
 salary and what proportion it would be. That is my recollection of 
 the matter. 
 
 Question. Did you collect in 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I collected on two occasions ; it strikes me that one was in 
 1856, and the other was in 1858. 
 
 Question. Do you know for what State or for what purpose that 
 money was collected either in 1856 or in 1858? 
 
 Answer. I think the money in 1856 was collected to be appro- 
 priated to pay some balance to be supplied in Pennsylvania. If I 
 remember right the democratic State committee had got into debt 
 quite a sum of money, and it was with a view of liquidating that debt 
 that the money was raised. It was just after the October election, I 
 think. There was another collection to pay for some documents that 
 had been printed, -to be distributed. 
 
 Question. Were not there two assessments made that year — one 
 before the election, and another afterwards, to make up a deficiency? 
 
 Answer. That is what I spoke of. I think one was before election, 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. " 561 
 
 and another to make up a deficiency. I was under the impression 
 that the deficiency was the only one I had anything to do with. 
 
 Question. That one you collected ? ' 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know at whose request that assessment was made 
 to make up the deficiency in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; I understood ■ 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. [To witness.] Don't state what you understood ; 
 state what you know, if you please. 
 
 The Witness. I do not know. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. By whose authority was it done ? Who was it that re- 
 quested or directed you to perform this duty ? 
 
 Answer. I took the paper around at the request of the Commis- 
 sioner of the General Land Office. 
 
 Question. Was it the assessment before, or after the election that 
 you collected ? ' 
 
 Answer. I think it was after the October election, but I may be 
 mistaken about that. I am not positive whether it was after that 
 election or after the presidential election. 
 
 Question. Do you know the total amount of that Pennsylvania de- 
 ficiency that had to be raised ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know only from what I heard ; I have no other 
 means of knowing. 
 
 Question. What was the amount you heard? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to the witness answering that question. 
 
 By the Chaikman : 
 
 Question. Who told you what amount was to be raised? 
 
 Answer. I think it was the Commissioner. 
 
 Question. Did he tell you what the amount was ? 
 
 Answer. I think so. 
 
 Question. How much was it ? 
 
 Answer. It strikes me that it was $2,500 or |3,000. 
 
 Question. That was to be raised in that one office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; that the Pennsylvania democratic State commit- 
 tee had incurred a debt to that amount. 
 
 Question. Did all the clerks pay their assessments ? 
 
 Answer. Nearly all that I called upon. I believe there were but 
 one or two exceptions. 
 
 Question. Who collected the first assessment of that year? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. Into whose hands was the money paid after you col- 
 lected it ? 
 
 Answer. The money that I procured, I think, I paid over to the 
 then Commissioner. 
 
 Question. Now, in regard to the assessment of 1858, how was that 
 done ? Was the assessment so much percentage on the salaries'— so 
 much on the $1,400 clerks, so much 'on the $1,600, and so on? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I think not. 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 36 
 
562 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did you collect that? 
 
 Answer. I collected some of some of the gentlemen in the office. 
 
 Question. Who assisted you in collecting it ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Vedder was one, and Mr. Heath, who is now in Iowa, 
 hut was then a clerk in the office, was another. 
 
 Question. Do you know how many of the clerks refused to pay? 
 
 Answer. There were two I recollect of now. 
 
 Question. And all the rest paid ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, What was the consequence of the refusal of those two 
 clerks to pay ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any consequences that resulted from it to 
 them. 
 
 Question. Do you know the names of the two who refused to pay? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I know them. 
 
 Question. Give us the names, if you please. 
 
 Answer. Mr. King was one. I do not know his given name ; he 
 is a clerk in the office. The other was an old gentleman ; I cannot 
 recall his name now, but I know him very well. 
 
 Question. Did not a Mr, Stansbury at first refuse ? 
 
 Answer. I did not call upon Mr. Stansbury, 
 
 Question, Did Mr, Slocumb assist you in collecting that assessment? 
 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
 Question. I believe you have already stated that the money was for 
 Pennsylvania, some before the election, and some after, to pay a defi- 
 ciency. 
 
 Answer, I understood it was for Pennsylvania ; I was told so. 1 
 stated that to the gentlemen I called upon as the object. 
 
 Question, Was it not generally understood by you that this assess- 
 ment was authorized by the department ? , 
 
 Mr, WmsLOW, I object to any understanding. Whatever was said 
 by the Commissioner, who put the list in the hands of the witness, is 
 competent. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did not the Commissioner state to you that the President 
 authorized this collection to be made ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr, WiNSLOw : 
 Question, What became of Mr. King ? 
 Answer. He is in the office now. 
 
 Question, And the other one, the old gentleman you spoke of? 
 Answer. He is there now. 
 Question. How much did you subscribe ? 
 Answer, I subscribed |3 20. 
 
 Question, Was that given voluntarily on your part? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. " 
 
 Question. Was there any order of the Land Office making it com- 
 pulsory upon the clerks to pay anything ? 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 563 
 
 By tte Chairman : 
 
 Question. You say you gave $3 20 at one time. How much was it 
 you gave at the other time ? 
 
 Answer. There was a voluntary contribution at one time and I 
 think I gave |5 or |10. 
 
 Question. The one was voluntary, and the other was a direct assess- 
 ment. 
 
 Answer. It was no assessment, but we were requested to give that 
 amount, if we were willing. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You say this subscription was voluntary ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And in ascertaining the amounts you took what you sup- 
 posed the persons were able to pay ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And there was no order making an assessment upon the 
 clerks ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. The Commissioner directed me expressly to state 
 to the gentlemen that there was no compulsion whatever in the mat- 
 ter ; that if they were perfectly willing to pay this amount for the 
 object stated he would be pleased to have them do it. 
 
 No. 24. 
 
 Tuesday, April IT, 1860. 
 
 NICHOLAS TEDDER called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question-i Are you a clerk in the General Land Office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long have you been there? 
 
 Answer. Since May, 1847. 
 
 Question. Do you know of an assessment made for political pur- 
 poses upon the clerks in 1856? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any assessment. 
 
 Question. Well, contribution, then. 
 
 Answer. I contributed. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect the amount ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect now the amount I contributed : |2 or 
 $3, somewhere in that neighborhood. 
 
 Question. In 1856? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think it was. 
 
 Question. Was there more than one contribution that fall? 
 
 Answer. Not that I recollect of. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of an assessment made to make 
 up a deficiency ? 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I object to the word "assessment." I understand 
 the witness to say that he knew of no assessment. 
 
564 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 The Witness. I know of no assessment at all, as far as my know- 
 ledge extends ; I gave of my own free will. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it once or twice that fall ? 
 
 Answer. The fall of 1856. 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. Not but once, to my recollection. 
 
 Question. Did you assist in collecting ? 
 
 Answer. I went around with the list- in the division I had charge 
 of, in the office, and some gave one amount and some another. 
 
 Question. How was it made ; in proportion to their salaries, .or 
 otherwise. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I gave so much ; and when I asked gentlemen I 
 told them to give whatever they thought proper ; that was all I said; 
 I do not know about any regulation in regard to salaries. 
 
 Question. How was it in 1858 ; was there more than one contribu- 
 tion taken up that fall ? 
 
 Answer. I believe so, in 1858. 
 
 Question. Was not one of them an assessment, and the other a con- 
 tribution ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; there was no assessment, so far as I was con- 
 cerned. 
 
 Question, Did you assist in collecting that ? 
 
 Answer. I did, within my division. 
 
 Question. By whose direction ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I was requested — I was not directed to do so— to 
 carry the list around in my division ; that is, to collect it. 
 
 Question. By whom? 
 
 Answer. By Mr; Hendricks, I believe, who was then Commis- 
 sioner ; it was a request. 
 
 Question. Was not the first collection that fall a contribution, and 
 the other a percentage assessment ? 
 
 Answer. 1 did not so understand it. 
 
 Question. How was it ; had you the amount of the salaries in a 
 column ? Just explain how it was. 
 
 Answer. I can explain so far as I was concerned ; I do not know 
 anything further than that ; I said that I gave so much myself, and 
 they could give as much as they pleased ; some gave |1 ; some $1 50, 
 and some |2 ; I gave between $2 and $3 myself. 
 
 Question. At which time ; the first or the last ? 
 
 Answer. At the last time. 
 
 Question. How much did you give the first time ; do you recollect? 
 
 Answer. I do not really recollect what I did give. 
 
 Question. Was it |10 or upwards ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; 1 do not think it was that much. 
 
 Question. Not so much as $10 ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was voluntary altogether. 
 
 Question I only wanted to get at the amount ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect now what the amount was ; it would be 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 565 
 
 impossible for me to tell ; honestly, I never charged my memory with 
 it, and never expected to be called upon to testify in regard to it. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Did you know the amount it was desirous to raise ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Were you not told that there was a certain deficiency to 
 be made up at the time you made that second collection ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not recollect that there was any amount 
 stated. 
 ' Question, Did you know what that money was for ? 
 
 Answer. I can tell you what I heard. 
 
 Question. From whom did you hear it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect now ; it was mere rumor. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to any rumor. 
 
 The Witness. I had no definite information in regard to it ; no one 
 ever told me directly. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Who assisted you in collecting this ? 
 Answer. No one accompanied me. 
 Question. You were alone in your own division ? 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; and after I got through I handed it over to 
 some one ; I do not recollect now to whom. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. You handed it to Mr. Hendricks did you not ? 
 Answer. No, sir ; I think I handed it to some other person. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I suppose you gave it to Cramer ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I think I did give it to Mr. Cramer. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know the amount you collected in your division? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I could not tell to save my life. 
 
 Question. Did all pay ? 
 
 Answer. Some paid and some did not ; some said they could not 
 pay, they were poor, and were not willing to pay ; there was no com- 
 pulsion about it at all ; that I stated when I went to them. . 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What did you state, so far as you can now recollect ? 
 Answer. That it was not compulsory ; that there was no compul- 
 sion about it, so far as I understood it. 
 
 By the Chairman : « 
 
 Question. Did you not feel that it was obligatory upon you to con- 
 tribute to pay that deficiency while you were holding office there ? 
 
566 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I did not ; I have always felt independent since 
 I have been in the office, ahle to live without office. 
 
 Question. Did I ask you whether you knew the amount of the de- 
 ficiency to be raised ? 
 
 Answer. Tou asked the question, sir ; and I answered that I did 
 not know. 
 
 Question. Was it the head of each division that made the collec- 
 tion? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I think not ; Mr. Cramer is not the head of a 
 division. 
 
 Question. Who is the head of his division ? 
 
 Answer. Dr. Brown, 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I understand that these contributions by you were purely 
 voluntary ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; that is the way that I understood it. 
 
 Question. Was there any order of the Land Office, or of the depart- 
 ment, assessing the clerks or compelling them to contribute ? 
 
 Answer. I did not so understand it. 
 
 Question. Were you so informed by Mr. Hendricks when he re- 
 quested you to take the list ? 
 
 Answer. He did not tell me so. He only said that he wanted to 
 raise some money ; that was all. 
 
 Question. Tou gave that money to your party purely voluntarily? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; as I had done before and would do again. I 
 have been in the habit of doing what I could for the democratic party 
 ever since I have been old enough to vote, and I will dp it again. 
 
 No. 41. 
 Tuesday, May 1, 1860. 
 
 JOSIAH M. LUCAS called and sworn : 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, I understand that yoa were a clerk in one of the depart- 
 ments. If so, in what department was it ? 
 
 Answer. I was a clerk in the Land Office, Department of the In- 
 terior, 
 
 Question, Will you tell us all you know about the collecting and 
 raising of money there for political purposes? 
 
 Answer, I can give all the information I have, probably, in a very 
 few words. Whilst I was a clerk in that department, levies were 
 made upon, various occasions upon the clerks for funds, and on every 
 occasion I dissented. It was against my feelings and my principles. 
 They did not come on all occasions to me ; but the last occasion, to 
 which I took exception, was one on which they wanted to raise a fund 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 567 
 
 of eiglit or nine thousand dollars in the various departments. That, 
 however, I do not know, but such was the statement made to me. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Say nothing about statements or hearsay, if you please. 
 
 Answer. The list of the clerks was made out, their names in one 
 column, their salaries in another, and the percentages levied in another 
 column. This list they presented to me and five others in the room, 
 all of whom paid but myself. I looked at the list, and asked the two 
 gentlemen who brought it who sent them to me. They said they 
 were not going to answer me any questions, but asked me if I would 
 pay. I told them " No ;" and that is pretty much the substance of 
 all the information I have, They went, as I saw, in the different 
 rooms I happened to have business in, to the different clerks and pre- 
 sented this list to them, and they paid their pro rata assessment. 
 The information that we received was that it was to raise a fund to 
 pay off a debt that had been contracted in Pennsylvania, which they 
 expected to have raised out of Congress, but it adjourned without 
 raising this amount, and they had to raise it in another way. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Who carried that list into your room ? 
 
 Answer. The persons who carried the list around for the portion of 
 the office in which I was were Mr. Cramer and a Mr. Slocumb, who 
 hails from Mississippi, but is recognized, probably, as an Indianian. 
 They brought the list around, and there were four or five other clerks 
 in the room besides myself. I refused to subscribe. My friends all 
 told me that I better subscribe, but I told them that I could not, with 
 my views of the case ; and I denounced it in the public prints. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you recollect about what the percentage was upon the 
 salaries ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, exactly ; I think it was between two and a half 
 and five per cent. 
 
 By the OHAiRMAiir : 
 
 Question. You say that it was an assessment, and that you refused 
 to subscribe ? 
 
 Answer. It was a regular assessment. It was upon paper that I 
 recognized as coming from a certain office. The names, the salaries, 
 and the amounts to be paid were all put down.. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Where did the paper come from ? 
 
 Answer. From the Department of the Interior. It was the same 
 kind of paper as the pay clerk uses. On a previous occasion an 
 assessment was made in the middle of the month, when the clerks had 
 no money, and the amounts were afterwards deducted from their pay 
 by the pay-clerk. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was that an assessment or a subscription? 
 
568 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 Answer. I will not be certain whether it was an assessment or a 
 subscription. At all events the money was deducted from the pay of 
 the clerks by the pay-clerk. 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. When was that first assessment that jou speak of? 
 
 Answer. I cannot be certain as to the exact time ; it was during 
 the struggle between Douglas and Lincoln. 
 
 Question. When was the last assessment made? 
 
 Answer. About two years ago, I think ; somewhere about that 
 time ; I cannot fix the date precisely. 
 
 Question. There was none of that fund raised to help Douglas, I 
 suppose ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I think not ; I know the democrats as well as the 
 others in the office denounced the matter, but yet paid ; I know a 
 great many of them denounced the principle, but paiid to buy peace, 
 as they said. 
 
 Question. Were you for Douglas ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was for Lincoln ; I was a whig, and had never 
 voted for a democrat in my life, I think. 
 
 Question. When did you leave the office ? 
 
 Answer. It will be two years in September next. 
 
 Question. Did you resign, or were you discharged ? 
 
 Answer. I resigned because I believed I would be removed. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Under whom were you first appointed to office ? 
 
 Answer. I received a temporary appointment not long after General 
 Taylor came in, and was given a permanent appointment by Mr, 
 Fillmore, 
 
 Question. How long did you hold office ? 
 
 Answer. I was removed by Mr. Pierce, but while I was away I was 
 reappointed again, without any application on my part ; I continued 
 in office until I resigned under Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Question. I understood you to say that you were for Lincoln and 
 not for Douglas ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I wrote political articles in his favor, which were 
 published in the west. 
 
 Question. Tou supported Mr. Lincoln's election, and wrote for him 
 in the western papers ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. ' 
 
 Question. You used the word "levied" in the first part of your 
 testimony. Do you mean to say that these contributions of the clerks 
 were forced contributions ? Were any threats held out by the persons 
 who brought the list ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not in my presence. 
 
 Question. How long after your refusal to contribute was it that you 
 resigned ? 
 
 Answer. Very soon after ; a month or less, perhaps. 
 
 Question. What is your present occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I hold the office of postmaster of the House of Representa- 
 tives. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 589 
 
 Question. In your election as postmaster, did you make any agree- 
 ments witli members of Congress to give office under you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you approached upon tliat subject by any member 
 of Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I was approached by one man, I recollect, who said to me : 
 '' if you are elected, I want an office for a friend of mine, but I don't 
 want you to make any pledges." 
 
 Question. Did you do so ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 By Mr. Tbain : 
 
 Question. Was that before or after your nomination ? 
 Answer. It was about the time of the nomination^; but I do not 
 remember whether it was before or after. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. Tou gave no pledges to any member of Congress, either 
 directly or indirectly, in regard to any patronage of your office ? 
 
 Answer. No^ sir ; not while I was a candidate. One man alleged 
 that I gave him a pledge, but I denied it. 
 
 Question. Who was he ? 
 
 Answer. A man from Indiana, who applied for a place for himself. 
 
 Question. Then you came into office with no agreement, either 
 directly or indirectly, with anybody in regard to the patronage of 
 your office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. What papurs did you write for ? 
 
 Answer.. For the Jacksonville and Springfield papers. 
 
 No. 42. 
 
 Tuesday, May \, 1860. 
 
 STEPHEN G. DODGE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I have been in Washington the most of the time for the 
 last seven years. 
 
 Question. What have you been engaged in ? 
 
 Answer. I was for six years and over a clerk in the Pension Office. 
 
 Question. When did you resign ? Or were you removed ? 
 
 Answer. I was removed on the 10th day of August last, by a letter 
 from the Secretary of the Interior ; the letter was delivered to me by 
 the Commissioner of Pensions ; I asked him the very natural question, 
 upon what grounds I was removed ; he said that he understood that it 
 was on the ground of political unsoundness, and referred me to the 
 Secretary of the Interior for fuller explanation as to what the special 
 
570 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 gronnds were ; I went to tlie Secretary immediately, and he informed 
 me that I was removed because there was a necessity for the reap- 
 pointment of a clerk who had been dropped on the 8th of July, I 
 think, among a large number who were dropped from the Pension 
 Office at that time in consequence of the reduction of the clerical force ; 
 the Secretary said they had not anticipated such a pressure from the 
 Stale of New Jersey for the reinstatement of this man as they had ex- 
 perienced ; I replied to him that if that was all I thought it quite un- 
 necessary for the Commissioner of Pensions to have referred me to 
 him for the reason of my removal ; he then stated that the cause of my 
 removal, so far as it was personal to anybody, was political unsound- 
 ness ; he said that the accusation of political unsoundness had been 
 made against me repeatedly during my official incumbency, but that 
 in every instance he had received such favorable accounts from the 
 Pension Office of my official ability and integrity of character, to use 
 his own words, that he had resisted ; he stated also that this accusation 
 had been lodged against me for an entire month previous to my dis- 
 missal from office. 
 
 Question. Did he state who had lodged the accusation ? 
 
 Answer. Not to me. 
 
 Question. Did you know who had lodged it ? 
 
 Answer. The Secretary told me that there never had been any ac- 
 cusation in writing presented against me or filed in the department. 
 Now, as I had never been, since I was a voter, a whig or an anti-slavery 
 man or a know-nothing, and as I knew the Secretary had received in- 
 formation that I- had made a voluntary affidavit that I never was a 
 know-nothing, I at once understood the grounds upon which I was dis- 
 missed from office, and what he meant when he used the phrase "po- 
 litical unsoundness." 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. What did you understand him to mean by that ? 
 
 Answer. I could not imagine that he meant anything else than that 
 I waB opposed to the President's views upon the subject of the Le- 
 compton constitution. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Are the imaginings and opinions of the witness com- 
 petent testimony ? 
 
 Mr. KoBiNSoN. He says the Secretary told him tljat he was removed 
 for political unsoundness, and that the Secretary knew that he had 
 made a voluntary affidavit that he never was a know-nothing. 
 
 The Witness. I said that the Secretary had received information 
 that I had made such an affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. And then I asked him what he understood the Sec- 
 retary to mean by "political unsoundness?" 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Do you think that is testimony ? 
 
 Mr. Eobinson. I think it is evidence of the impression made upon 
 his mind. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think it is merely an inference for argument which 
 any of us can draw as well as the witness. 
 
 Mr. Train. Ask the witness what he himself understood was his 
 political unsouudaess. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 571 
 
 Mr. WmSLOW. That comes around to the same thing. 
 
 The Witness. I should like to make a statement which I do not 
 wish to go down upon the record as testimony. 
 
 The witness then proceeded to state that he had asked Governor 
 Willard, of Indiana, to find out what was the reason of his removal ; 
 and that in a day or two after the Governor had met him and told him 
 that he had not been able to see the President, hut he had gone to the 
 department and there seen a person, but would not state who that 
 person was, or what was said, as it was confidential. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW objected to any conversation or narrative of the wit- 
 ness in the committee-room before the committee, that was not to bo 
 recorded in the testimony. 
 
 Mr. EoBiNsoN said that he desired to hear what the witness had to 
 say, and then the committee could decide whether any portion of it 
 was competent testimony. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow objected to the witness making any such statement 
 before the committee. 
 
 The vote being taken, it was decided that the witness be allowed to 
 proceed : yeas 3, nay 1, as follows : 
 
 Yeas — The Chairman, Messrs. Train and Kobinson. 
 
 Nay — Mr. Winslow. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw then asked that the witness leave the room for a few 
 moments. 
 
 The witness was accordingly requested to leave the room, which 
 he did. 
 
 Mr. Winslow then stated that his principal reason for objecting to 
 the statement of the witness was, that he understood the conversatioii 
 alluded to by the witness to be a confidential one between Governor 
 Willard and some officer of the government, and he (Mr. Winslow) 
 would not consent to have any such confidential conversations re- 
 vealed in this manner, 
 
 Mr. Kobinson said that he did not so understand the witness ; that 
 nothing confidential was proposed to be revealed, and he»himself 
 should be opposed to it. 
 
 After some further conversation between the several members of the 
 committee present, 
 
 The witness was recalled. 
 
 Mr. Winslow desired the clerk of the committee to take down the 
 narrative of the witness, if it was to be given at all before the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 By Mr. Train, [to witness :] 
 
 Question. Did Governor Willard tell you that this conversation he 
 had Lad with the Commissioner was a confidential one ? 
 
 Answer. He did not say with whom he had conversed. What he 
 said to me was not confidential. 
 
 Question. Did he tell you that the conversation he had had with 
 some one was confidential? 
 
 Answer. By no means. He told me what he chose to tell me. 
 What he withheld was what he said was confidential. He said that 
 he had had a couversation with a person whose name he refused to 
 
572 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 disclose to me. He had previously said he had not been able to see 
 the President. I asked him if it was the Secretary of the Interior 
 with whom he had h>d a conversation, and he declined to answer 
 that question. He then stated to me that the ground that I had 
 alleged, on the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, for my re- 
 moval from office was not the real ground. I then told bim that I 
 bad received that from the Secretary of the Interior bimself. I do 
 not know bow mucb of his reply you want down. But be raised both 
 bands and said, "There was a g — d d — n lie out somewhere!" I can 
 only speak the results as to the rest. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. What did be say you bad been removed for ? 
 Answer. He did not give any reasons. He said be was not at 
 liberty to state the grounds for my removal. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Did he tell you who bad demanded your removal ? 
 
 Answer. I ascertained that ; but I cannot positively give the specific 
 grounds upon which I came to that conclusion. But it is just as cer- 
 tain and positive in my mind as if I bad bad the most positive proof 
 of it, and I am a lawyer of twenty-two years' standing. 
 
 Question. Who was it? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I object to that ; tbat comes to bis opinions at last. 
 
 The Witness. I know in my own mind ; I am joist as certain about 
 it as if I bad seen and heard everything. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. Had you been talking politics, about the office, and 
 making your views known ? 
 
 Answer. I was not in the habit of talking politics mucb i the 
 office. 
 
 Question. How did your views come to be known ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I am a free man 
 
 Question. What I want to know is, did you talk with anybody, 
 and tell them what your views were ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; I claimed the right to freedom of speech. 
 When I found myself differing with the administration in regard to 
 the simple question of the Lecompton policy, I scrupulously refrained 
 from writing for the public press, because I tbougbt I bad no right 
 to be openly in opposition to an administration under which I held 
 office. But in private conversation I felt I was at perfect liberty as 
 an American citizen to express my views quietly, whatever they 
 might be. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I think that is a very just view myself. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I do not know as there is mucb of this that is 
 testimony. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you give any information as to the manner of raising 
 money in tbat department for political purposes ? 
 
 Answer. I know tbat a contribution was raised in the Pension 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 573 
 
 office, I think it was in 1856, to aid the administration party in the 
 State of Maryland, I was not called upon to contribute to it, and I 
 doubt if I was present when the contribution was raised. 
 
 Question. Tell us that which you know about. 
 
 Answer. In 1858, I think in the spring, after the Lecompton con- 
 troversy arose, the Indiana club, of which I had been a member, was 
 reorganized, and we, the members of the club, were called upon to 
 contribute to a fund for the distribution of Lecompton documents in 
 the State of Indiana. 
 
 Question. What do you mean by the "Indiana club?" 
 
 Answer. A club composed of Ibdianians temporarily resident in 
 Washington. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was it a voluntary thing ? 
 Answer. I do not know how voluntary it was. 
 Question. Was the club got up by orders of the department or by 
 the government ? That is what I want to know. 
 Answer. I cannot answer as to that distinctly. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Tell us what your knowledge of it is ? 
 
 Answer. I could tell you very plainly what my ideas of it were, 
 but that would not be evidence, I suppose. 
 
 [The witness then stated, without its being taken down by the 
 reporter, the particulars about, the Indiana club, and also about a 
 contribution to pay a debt of the Keystone club, for documents fur- 
 nished by them to various States.] 
 
 Mr. Winslow. If the club was a voluntary organization, we have 
 nothing to do with it. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. I want to know whether this was an assessment or a 
 contribution. 
 
 Answer. I regarded the thing as a matter of moral duress, that 
 is all. I had drawn up the articles of the association, originally. 
 The original organization of the club was entirely voluntary. The 
 reorganization I regarded as under moral duress. 
 
 Question. In what year was that reorganization ? 
 
 Answer. In 1858, after the Lecompton message. 
 
 Question. Tell us what you know about that reorganization? 
 
 Mr. Winslow. This opens the door to an immense investigation. 
 I could put any of you gentlemen upon the stand and question you 
 about any organization to which you may have belonged. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. State what you know about a paper that was handed 
 around relative to raising money to meet a deficiency of the Keystone 
 club, and the manner in which that money was paid or to be paid. 
 
 Answer. In the spring of 1858 
 
 Question. Was it the spring or summer? 
 
 Answer. In the spring or summer of 1858, or some time in 1858, 
 
574 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 a paper was presented to me for signature, headed, as near as I can 
 
 recollect, in these words : , ^ i t. j. i 
 
 " The undersigned req[uest the dishursing clerk oi the Department 
 of the Interior to retain out of our salaries for the current month the 
 sums set opposite our respective names." 
 
 Question. In whose handwriting was that paper drawn? 
 
 Answer. It was apparently in the handwriting of the Commissioner 
 of Pensions. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSiiOW : 
 
 Question. The present Commissioner, Mr. Whiting ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. The subscription was headed with the name of 
 the Commissioner with the sum of $10. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you know it to be his handwriting ? 
 
 Answer. I say it was apparently in his handwriting. He has 
 clerks in his office who frank his name, and whose handwriting is 
 almost exactly like his. I could scarcely distinguish between their 
 writing and his. It was apparently in his handwriting. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. G-o on and state what else you know about it ; what 
 other names were to the paper ? 
 
 Answer. The name of the chief clerk, who I think was absent, was 
 also down for the sum of |10, I think. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. In whose handwriting ? 
 
 Answer. I think that was in the handwriting of the Commissioner ; 
 I think that Mr. Boyington's name was also down, and the best of 
 my recollection is that he also contributed $10 ; I was asked to sign 
 the paper, but objected to doing so, on the ground that I had already 
 contributed $25 to the funds of the Indiana club for the purpose of 
 circulating the same kind of documents ; but being advised by some 
 friends that it would be better to make the contribution I did so; and 
 in a conversation with the Commissioner of Pensions himself, I said to 
 him that I had done it upon the principle of life insurance — to insure 
 my office to me. 
 
 By Mr. Eobinson : 
 
 Question. What reply to that remark of yours did he make ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember of his making any answer ; I presume 
 he had acted upon the same principle that I had ; that is only my 
 presumption, however. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did all the clerks subscribe ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. 
 
 Question. How was this money finally paid ? 
 
 Answer. The disbursing clerk of the Department of the Interior 
 refused to retain the money, alleging that it was in violation of law 
 for him to pay a cent less to any officer of the government than what 
 
ELECTION-', ETC. ^ 575 
 
 ■was due to him ; and the money was then voluntarily handed over 
 by the clerks to some person ; I do not remember whom. 
 
 Question. You do not know who was the agent to collect that 
 money and hand it over ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember. 
 
 Question. Was there any other contribution raised that you know 
 of? 
 
 Answer. A similar contribution was levied in the shape of a sub- 
 scription to the " Constitution " newspaper, soon after that was 
 started. 
 
 Question. How was that ; compulsory or otherwise ? 
 
 Answer. It was not in terms compulsory. 
 
 Question. Was it understood to be so ? Did you understand it so 
 yourself? 
 
 Answer. I had absolutely declined to subscribe for the paper ; but ' 
 I was advised by several persons to do so, persons who were my par- 
 ticular friends, and who intimated to me that it was best for my own 
 interests to do so. 
 
 Question. What did you understand by these intimations ? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOw. I think it would be better for the witness to state 
 the language of what was said to him. 
 
 The Witness. I could not repeat the exact language ; 1 do not 
 think that reasons were given ; I think it was generally m the shape 
 of advice simply to do it ; advising me as a friend to subscribe for the 
 paper ; it was a subscription for one year. 
 
 By the Chaiemak : 
 
 Question. To what did your contributions, or the assessments on 
 you, for that year amount ? 
 
 Answer. It amounted to $30 on the Lecompton business. 
 
 Question. Anything for elections ? 
 
 Answer. For the election in Maryland-r-I think it was the Balti- 
 more city election — it was |5. 
 
 Question. And how much for the subscription to the "Consti- 
 tution?" 
 
 Answer. That was $6, which I did not pay, however, for I was 
 turned out about a month after I had put down my subscription ; the 
 clerks generally in the office paid ; the paper was taken by a large 
 majority of the clerks in the office who were not before in the habit of 
 taking it. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any person losing his place because he 
 declined to subscribe these amounts ? 
 
 Answer. I know several who declined to subscribe for the "Con- 
 stitution," but they afterwards did subscribe. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any one being removed who declined to 
 pay these contributions, or to subscribe ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I do positively ; I am not certain of it; 
 I did not absolutely witness any such fact. 
 
 Question. Have you any reason, satisfactory to yourself, for believ- 
 ing that any person was removed for that ? 
 
576 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer, I am satisfied that Mr. Samuel V. Niles was removed from 
 the Land Office for that ; I have not the slightest doubt of that. 
 
 By Mr. KoBiNSON : 
 Question. What Mr. Niles was that ? 
 Answer. He was a claim agent here, a partner of Judge Young. 
 
 Thursday, May 3, 1860. 
 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. I wish to ask you a few further questions concerning the 
 elections in Pennsylvania. When you had interviews with Mr. 
 Buchanan previous to the election in Pennsylvania in 1858, did you 
 not freely talk with him in regard to the use of money to carry certain 
 districts ? 
 
 Answer. I talked with him freely as to the use of money in elec- 
 itons ; I do not remember as to any specific districts ; I talked about 
 the expenses of elections generally, the large amounts used ; yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell him that you were compelled to use 
 large amounts of money ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I told him I was compelled. 
 
 Question. That you were using large amounts of money ? 
 
 Answer. He was cognizant of the fact that I contributed largely for 
 elections. 
 
 Question. You had conversations with him upon that subject ? 
 
 Answer. It was the subject of conversation at different times, the 
 amounts that I contributed. 
 
 Question. What was the character of the several letters from Penn- 
 sylvania that he read you portions of during one of the interviews you 
 had with him about carrying certain districts? How was it to be 
 done? 
 
 . Answer. I think the most of them wanted material aid ; they made 
 suggestions as to aid required in different districts generally, and the 
 political affairs of their several districts. 
 
 Question. Why did he call your attention to those letters calling for 
 that kind of aid ? Was it because he expected you to attend to it ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I do not know indeed what the motive was ; our 
 conversations were generally about politics and the contest going 
 on ; and the letters might have been shown in connexion, which in 
 those days were generally political^ almost always ; I might say my 
 conversations with him were always of a political character. 
 
 Question. On what occasion was it that you had these long inter- 
 views with him ? Was it not immediately before the election, and 
 relative to the means to be made use of to carry the elections ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I could not say; I had them at different times. I 
 presume during the time of elections I had some long interviews, and 
 again at other times. I do not call to mind any particular date, when 
 these interviews were held. They were held at different times dur- 
 ing all my intimacy with him, ' 
 
ELECTIONS, ETCf, 577 
 
 Question. On what days of th.e week did you have long interTiews 
 with him^ Can you recollect ? 
 
 Answer. Pretty much every day, I should presume. I do not re- 
 member any particular day of the week. 
 
 Mr. Olin, [to the Chairman.] Do you suppose he took Sundays for 
 that purpose ? 
 
 The WiiNESS. I have had interviews with him on Sundays. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was it not your habit, previous to the election, to spend 
 the Sabbath day with Mr. Buchanan, conversing freely upon political 
 matters, and particularly with regard to the use of money to carry 
 elections ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say it was a usual habit. I saw him on Sundays ; 
 
 could not say how many. 
 
 Question. I am referring to immediately preceding the elections. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I may have seen him on one or two Sabbaths 
 immediately preceding the fall election of 1858. 
 
 Question. On those occasions had you conversations with him on 
 that subject ? 
 
 Answer. Conversations on politics ? 
 
 Question. In connexion with money matters. 
 
 Answer. The expenses of the elections would usually come up dur- 
 ing the conversations. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Buchanan object to carrying elections or help- 
 ing to carry them in that way ? 
 
 Answer. Never to me. 
 
 No. 55. 
 Thursday, May 10, 1860. 
 
 KOBERT D ARLINGTON called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Philadelphia, sir. 
 
 Question. What is your present business ? 
 
 Answer. I am inspector of customs. 
 
 Question. Were you supervisor on the Columbia railroad in 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. Did you at that time distribute any naturalization papers 
 at Parkesburg or any other point ? 
 
 Answer. Before I answer that question I would like to know 
 whether there has been any allegation made against me. I have no 
 objection to answer all questions you may ask me, so far as I know. 
 
 Question. That is a plain question ; you can say yes or no. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I did not ; I never had one in my hand to know 
 it to be such, and never saw one. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell some person engaged in the custom- 
 house at that time that you had taken such papers ? 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 37 
 
578 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. No, sir, never. 
 
 Question. Did you distribute any kind of naturalisation papers ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any persons being engaged in that. 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not. I had a good many men in my employ 
 upon the railroad, and a good many of them got naturalized ; I sent 
 them down to Philadelphia, and they went to some place there. I 
 sent them down to the committee at headquarters. I do not know 
 whether they got papers or not ; I suppose they did, and they were 
 legal, for anything that I know of. I have heard it rumored about 
 that fraudulent papers were used by both parties, but I never saw 
 one. 
 
 Question. Did you say that you did not take any papers of any kind 
 to Parkesburg ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I never did. 
 
 Question. Was it possible that all this stir could be made about 
 that, and prosecutions entered, and men convicted, and yet yon never 
 know anything about it ? 
 
 Answer. There might have been thousands of them issued, and yet 
 I might not know it. I heard it rumored that there had been such 
 papers in use, but I never saw one to know it to be such. 
 
 Question. Do you know Dutch Chris? 
 
 Answer. I may, probably ; not by that name. 
 
 Question. He was messenger, in the custom-house, to the appraiser, 
 in 1856. 
 
 Answer. I know the man now to whom you allude. I know him 
 when I see him and that is all. I never had any acquaintance with 
 him. 
 
 Question. Do you not know him to have been absent from his 
 .duties ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he might have been away and I not know it. 
 
 No. 59. 
 Thursday, May 17, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS J, McCAMANT called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside? 
 
 Answer. When I am at home I reside in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation here ; what situation do you 
 hold under government ? 
 
 Answer. I hold the position of pay-clerk in the Auditor's office for 
 the Post Office Department. 
 
 Question. Were you secretary to the Pennsylvania club in 1856 or 
 1858? 
 
 Answer. I was secretary at both times — in 1856 and 1858. 
 
 Question. In that capacity what services did you render ; what were 
 jjfjojjr duties ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 579 
 
 Answer, My duties there were to keep a correct account and minutes 
 of the proceedings of the club. I also notified different gentlemen 
 holding office from Pennsylvania that such a club was in existence at 
 that time, and invited them cordially to join us. 
 
 Question. What do you know about raising and sending money to 
 Pennsylvania at that time ? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing at all about it. We were engaged in 
 sending out documents — that was the object of the club — in favor of 
 the Lecompton constitution. 
 
 Question. In what way did you raise your money for that purpose ? 
 
 Answer. The money raised for that purpose, I believe, in the first 
 place was intended to be raised by democratic members of Congress. 
 I think that was the impression ; at least that was the impression that 
 Mr. Jones left upon the minds of members of the club ; but I think it 
 was raised afterwards by contribution ? 
 
 Question. Contribution from whom ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was done by the office-holders. 
 
 Question. In the different departments ? 
 
 Answer. In the departments ; I think so, sir. 
 
 Question. How was it raised ; by assessment ? 
 
 Answer. I think a paper was sent round, and they were left free to 
 subscribe what they pleased. I know that I contributed towards it. 
 The money that was raised was all paid for documents that had been 
 printed. 
 
 Wednesday, May 23, 1860. 
 
 CORNELIUS WENDELL recaUed. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You have said you made this proposition to the Presi- 
 eident about transferring from Mr. Rice the money for the post office 
 blanks ; when did you make this proposition ? 
 
 Answer. About the adjournment of the last Congress, I think, if 
 my memory serves me. , 
 
 Question. How did you make it ? 
 
 Answer. I think the first proposition was in writing through 
 Judge Nicholson ; if I recollect aright, I wrote a letter to the Presi- 
 dent, and requested Judge Nicholson to call on the President with it. 
 
 Question. Was this on your own motion, or were you invited to 
 do so ? 
 
 Answer. On my own motion. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether that letter was ever handed tp the 
 President ? 
 
 Answer. Only from Judge Nicholson's report to me. 
 
 Question. You said, sir, as I understood you, that you made this 
 proposition directly to the President in person ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. I understood you to say you had a conversation with the 
 President on the subject ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
580 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. When was that conversation held, before or after this 
 letter which you say you addressed to him through Mr. Nicholson ? 
 
 Answer. I think it was before ; I am not certain. 
 
 Question. You think it was before ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Where was it ; at his house ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Had he sent for you or did you go of your own accord ? 
 
 Answer. I went on my own volition. 
 
 Question. Was anybody present ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I am not in the habit of having conversations of 
 that kind in the presence of third parties ; no person was present, if 
 my memory serves me. 
 
 Question. What was the substance of that conversation ? 
 
 Answer. That the burden of the support of the " Union " and the 
 payments to other parties were too onerous upon me for the work that 
 I received. 
 
 Question. You manifested a disposition to get rid of the " Union " 
 to him? 
 
 Answer. 'Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect what the President said to you ? 
 
 Answer. Not particularly. 
 
 Question. He did not assume to enter into any bargains or enter 
 into details at all ? 
 
 Answer. Not at all." 
 
 Question. Is this a correct copy of a card you published in the 
 "Union:" 
 
 "Washington 'Union,' December 11, 1858. 
 
 " A Card. — My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter to 
 the New York Times, of the 9th instant, in vague and general terms, 
 that the President had caused certain money, justly due to some indi- 
 vidual, to be used for electioneering purposes. With this accusation my 
 own name has been so generally used in conversation that I feel con- 
 strained, publicly and emphatically, to deny all knowledge or belief of 
 any fact which can warrant it, and to declare that President Buchanan 
 never did authorize, advise or request me, directly or indirectly, to use 
 either my own money or that of any other person for any purpose like 
 that mentioned in the paragraph referred to, or in any manner affect- 
 ing any public election. 
 
 "0. WENDELL." 
 
 Answer. I presume it is. 
 
 Question. Did the President send for you about this printing? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the subject ? 
 
 Answer. I think this card was the subject ; or an attack upon him 
 ia relation to it. 
 
 Question. Did he ask you, or suggest to you, that you should write 
 that card ? 
 
 Answer. Not personally, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 581 
 
 Question. Then you never had a conversation with him on the sub- 
 ject of that card, I believe ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but allow me to state that Mr. Baker did ask me, 
 and said that the President wished him to ask me. 
 
 May I state more about this card? Gentlemen, about September — 
 some time in the month of September — I suggested the stoppage of the 
 payment to the " Pennsylvanian," on my own volition, believing 
 that the money was thrown away there. I stopped it. I had two rea- 
 sons for it. One was, I wanted some of the profits myself, for I was 
 running into difficulties, and I thought I was entitled to some of the 
 profits. _ I suggested it to the President, and without his direction I 
 stopped it. He did not direct this stoppage. He did not direct it to be 
 done, nor dissent. He would say this whole subject of the printing is 
 a source of annoyance to me, do as you please. I suspended the pay- 
 ment, and Mr. Eice, of course, was highly indignant, and he made 
 diverse statements, which were caught up by the reporters, and this 
 attack was made. Mr. Baker told me that the President wished me 
 to make this statement. He brought it to me already written, and I 
 signed it. It was, and is true, in every particular. I will read it : 
 " My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter to the ' New 
 York Times' of the 9th instant, in vague and general terms, that the 
 President had caused certain money, justly due to some individual, to 
 be used for electioneering purposes," He never did. " With this ac- 
 cusation my own name has been so generally connected in conversa- 
 tion, that I feel constrained, publicly and emphatically, to deny all 
 knowledge or belief of any fact which can warrant it, and to declare 
 that President Buchanan never did authorize, advise or rec[uest me, 
 directly or indirectly, to use either my own money or that of any other 
 person, for purposes like that mentioned in the paragraph referred to, 
 or in an y manner, affecting any public election." That is all true. 
 "N did was of my own volition. I thought the money could be 
 better applied to partisan purposes, and I took the responsibility. 
 
 Question, Mr. Wendell, what is the reason that you employed Mr. 
 ■ Crowell to print these post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. He had printed them for a great many years. He had all 
 the requisite materials and machinery, and could do them much 
 cheaper than I could myself. It saved a total of several thousand dol- 
 lars, he having the machinery fit for that work. 
 
 Question. I ask you if it was not considered that |10,000 per annum 
 would be about the extent of the profit that could be derived out of it ? 
 
 Answer. Ten thousand dollars was mentioned. 
 
 Question. Was it not considered that that would be his portion of 
 the profits derived from these blanks ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say that. The subject was much discussed;, 
 daily and weekly. He was to be secured, and was to have about ten 
 thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. Then that sum you considered about the fair proportion 
 of the profits for him, you having a fair profit for the work. That 
 impression was created by the fact that in consequence of this stereo- 
 typing establishment it could be done cheaper than the printer could 
 doit? 
 
582 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I could not do it at that price. 
 
 Question. Then it was ascertained afterwards that Mr. Rice was 
 receiving a much larger sum from this business than was in the con- 
 templation of any of those who gave it to him at the time ; and in 
 consequence of that, I ask you if it was not considered expedient that 
 a portion of those profits, exceeding that which anybody contemplated 
 . at the time, should go to this other office? 
 
 Answer. You remind me of it ; it was so. 
 
 Question. That is making a fair profit? The allowance was mad& 
 in ignorance of these improvements. It was supposed that the 
 "^Pennsylvanian " would be receiving |10,000 a year ; but it having 
 afterwards been found that the profits were very much greater, it waii 
 considered but fair that a portion of it should be diverted to somebody 
 
 Answer, You have it correctly. 
 
 Question. It was not then in addition ? You did not pay any mor& 
 by paying to the "Argus" this $5,000, for it was a mere diversioa 
 from one party to another. 
 
 Answer. That is the idea. You have it correct in the main. 
 
 Question. Now I want to ask you when you had this conversation 
 with the President in relation to the substitution of the "Argus?" 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell. I was in the habit of seeing the President 
 almost daily. He never went into details. He would say, " Well, 
 now, settle it. " Sometimes some of the parties interested would be there. 
 I should have a demand made upon me, and I should say to the Pres- 
 ident that I was called upon in this way ; and he would say, '• well, 
 settle it." He did not wish to be troubled with it. I do not wish ta 
 be understood as saying that the President said, " Wendell, if you do 
 not do this I will do that ;" but I have seen enough to take a hint. 
 
 Question. At these conversations with the President who were 
 present? 
 
 Answer. On some occasions Mr. Bigler, I think^ was present. 
 
 The Witness then said to the committee : When I was last before- 
 this committee, I was asked concerning a payment of $250 to " Mr. 
 Foster, Pennsylvania," and I said I would look over my accounts and 
 endeavor to find some explanation of it. I have searched my books, 
 every one I have, and I find this charged to political expenses ; but 
 whether it went to Mr. Foster's district I cannot say. 
 
 Question. Did I ask you before whether there was any other Foster 
 in Pennsylvania for whose election you contributed ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I contributed to the election of thi» 
 Foster. 
 
 Question. In your account book you have down, "Foster, Pennsyl- 
 vania, $250 ;" now, what Foster was that? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell ; it may have been the Foster running now 
 for governor, and it may not. 
 
 Question. Do you know any other Foster ? 
 
 Answer, I do not. 
 
 Question. And you have no memorandum to show whether yon paid; 
 that money to Mr. Foster here or ia Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 583 
 
 Question. Was he here about that time ? 
 
 Answer. Tdo not remember seeing him. 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. I believe you stated on a previous occasion that you 
 regarded spending money in that district as useless ; that it could not 
 be carried any way ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I know that I obtained that impression from 
 conversations with Mr, Foster and others. It was not satisfactory to 
 my mind that we were able to carry that district. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you ever had your recollection refreshed in regard 
 to the thousand dollars for that district ? 
 
 Answer. I have not, though I have turned the matter over in my 
 mind time and time again. Our conversations were so frequent and 
 so varied that I could not say positively. 
 
 Question. On one occasion you stated to a number of us in committee 
 that the President called your attention to a letter for a thousand dol- 
 lars for that district, and you said that it would be of no use, that it 
 would only be throwing away money— could this |250 to Foster have 
 been a portion of that which you gave, instead of giving the whole 
 thousand dollars ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say ; I cannot remember a circumstance connected 
 with that payment of $250. 
 
 No. 63. 
 
 TH0ESDAT, May 24, 1860. 
 
 JOSJ]PH B. BAKER called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Cornelius Wendell? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Look at this card, and say if you ever saw the original of 
 which this is a copy ? 
 The card is as follows : 
 
 "Washington ' Union,' December 11, 1858. 
 
 " My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter to the 
 New York Times, of the 9th instant, in vague and general terms, that 
 the President had caused certain money, justly due to some individual, 
 t» be used for electioneering purposes. With this accusation my own 
 name has been so generally used in conversation that I feel constrained, 
 publicly and emphatically, to deny all knowledge or belief of any fact 
 which can warrant it, and to declare that President Buchanan never 
 did authorize, advise, or request me, directly or indirectly, to use 
 
584 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 either my own money or that of any other person for any purpose like 
 
 that mentioned in the paragraph referred to, or in any manner aifect- 
 
 inar any public election. 
 ^ ^ ^ - "C. WENDELL." 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Who wrote it ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I wrote it. 
 
 Question. Where did you write it? 
 
 Answer. I wrote it in the Attorney General's office. 
 
 Question. At whose suggestion ? 
 
 Answer. At my own suggestion. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Wendell there ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where did you go with it ? 
 
 Answer. To his house. 
 
 Question. And asked him to sign it ? 
 
 Answer. I presented it to him and asked him whether he could sign 
 it, and he said he could sign it very cheerfully. 
 
 Question. You mean to say that this was signed by him very readily, 
 and without any solicitation on your part, or any influence exerted by 
 you, except a simple request? 
 
 Answer. That was all. 
 
 Question. Why did you write it? I want you to state all the cir- 
 cumstances attending your drawing up that card and procuring Mr. 
 Wendell's signature to it. 
 
 Answer. In the beginning of 1858, I understood that William 
 Eice was appointed printer of the post office blanks by the Postmaster 
 General. 1 knew very little further about it until the middle of the 
 same or towards the fall of the same year, when Mr. Eice informed 
 me that Wendell had ceased paying him the proportion that was due 
 to him. I then learned from him, for the first time, that he had 
 made arrangements with Mr. Wendell for executing the work, allow- 
 ing a certain percentage to Wendell for executing the work. He 
 said that Mr. Wendell's reason for c§asing to pay was, that he was 
 directed to pay the money to another paper, or to other parties, (by 
 the direction of the administration,) and desired to know of me whether 
 this was the fact. I replied that I did not know, and did not think 
 any directions of the kind had been given by the administration. 
 Later in the fall I heard reports in Philadelphia that Mr. Wendell 
 had said that he was authorized or directed to pay the money that was 
 due to Mr. Eice to other parties. On a visit to Washington, I inquired 
 of the administration whether this was the fact, and I was informed 
 that it was not. My attention was drawn to a paragraph in a letter 
 of the correspondent of the New York " Times," of December 9, 1858 ; 
 and I was requested to ascertain of Mr. Wendell to whom he paid the 
 money, if he had not given it to Mr. Eice, I found Mr. Wendell at 
 the Capitol, on December 10, 1858, and asked him to accompany me 
 to his printing office, to give me a statement of how and to whom he 
 had paid the money received for printing the post office blanks. On 
 mj way thither, in the carriage, I asked Mr. Wendell if it was true 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 585 
 
 that he had told parties in Philadelphia that he was directed by the 
 President to pay any money that he received from the printing of the 
 post office blanks to candidates for CongresSj or to any other person or 
 persons. He said it was utterly false. I then showed him the para- 
 graph in the letter of the New York " Times," before alluded to, I 
 read it to him, and he pronounced it a "damned lie." He went to 
 the office, and he gave me the statement 1 desired, which I have here : 
 
 Offiob of C. Wendell, WashinqtoNj D. , 
 
 December 10, 1858. 
 
 POST OFFICE BLANKS. 
 
 The aggregate amount received since January 1, 1858, is $35,268 05 
 
 The assumed profits on which is forty-three per cent., 
 
 amounting to ------ $15,165 26 
 
 Of which the " Pennsylvanian" has received $9,707 28 
 The " Argus" has received - - 5,400 00 
 
 Total paid " Pennsylvanian" and " ArguSj" - 15,107 28 
 
 Leaving for the " Union" - - - - 57 98 
 
 As the "Pennsylvanian" was to have one half of the profits, and 
 the " Argus" and "Union" the other half, it will be seen that both 
 the former have overdrawn their respective shares. 
 
 I certify, on honor, that the above is a truthful statement from the 
 books in our office. 
 
 JOHN LAECOMBB, 
 
 Bookkeeper. 
 
 On the evening of the same day, December 10, 1 called on the Presi- 
 dent, and stated what I had learned about how this money had been 
 paid. He said that he had given no directions whatever to interfere 
 with the payment or the diverting of the money which was due to Rice 
 as the printer of the post office blanks. I then related the answers 
 which Mr. Wendell had given to me about his directions, and also 
 read him the paragraph in the New York " Times," of December 9, 
 and asked whether it would not be proper for Mr. Wendell to deny it 
 in the "Union" over his own signature. He said I could do as I 
 thought best. I prepared the card which appeared in the Washington 
 "Union," of December 11, 1858, signed 0. Wendell, between seven 
 and eight o'clock, went to Mr. Wendell's house, and remained there 
 till after eleven o'clock, when he came in. He read the card, and 
 said he would sign it most cheerfully ; but the only objection to it was 
 that it did not go far enough ; that instead of the President directing 
 him to pay any money, or give any money to candidates for Congress, 
 he said it was very foolish and improper to use money in that way. 
 The President was led to make this remark from a conversation that 
 happened some two or three months previous, when Mr. Wendell 
 hinted in some way that he intended to assist the election of members 
 
586 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 of Congress in Pennsylvania by contributions of money. To that the 
 President replied. 
 
 I called at the executive mansion, December 11,1858, and the Pres- 
 ident remarked : "I see a card is published in the paper this morn^ 
 ing." That was the first that he knew anything about the card. 
 
 [The attention of the witness was called to a portion of Mr. Wen- 
 dell's testimony upon the Senate's Select Committee in which he said 
 that Mr. Baker told him that the President desired Mr. Baker to ask 
 him to sign that card. That portion of Mr. Wendell's testimony was 
 read to the witness.] 
 
 The Witness. I did not, and could not have mentioned the Presi- 
 dent's name at all. I was very particular not to mention it, because 
 of Mr. Wendell's own conversation with me that same day, on my 
 way to his printing office, on December the 10th. When I submitted 
 the card to Mr. Wendell^ he read it and asked no questions at all, but 
 said he would sign it most cheerfully. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You never, then, said you presented that card to him at 
 the request of the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I could not have done it. It would have been 
 telling a falsehood. In the conversation which I had with him, th€ 
 President said, do as you think best. I recollect it very distinctly. 
 He said that on a suggestion of mine. He did not even make the sug- 
 gestion. 
 
 Question. Did you tell Wendell that you were going to see the 
 President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; but he may have known that I had seen the 
 President. I see the President every day when I am here, and he 
 knew, I suppose, that I had seen him and had a conversation with 
 him. I had a conversation with him as to these reports. 
 
 Question. Then Mr. Wendell knew that you had seen the Presi- 
 dent? 
 
 Answer. I presume he did. 
 
 Question. Was there any allusion to the President that evening in 
 the conversation you had with Mr. Wendell ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. The conversation must necessarily have been 
 very brief. He came home at a quarter after eleven o'clock. He 
 signed the card and asked me to get it into the " Union." Fearing 
 that it had gone to press, he gave me a card in pencil to the foreman. 
 I went to the foreman, and he said at first that he could not insert it, 
 that the paper had gone to press ; but the press was stopped. 
 
 Question. Then you had not much conversation on that occasion, but 
 he agreed to sign the card very cheerfully ? 
 
 Answer. There was not much time for conversation. 
 
 Question. Did he know before that you were going to see the Presi- 
 dent ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; he no doubt knew that I came from the President 
 on the morning of the 10th, to ascertain how he had disbursed the 
 money that was alleged to be due to Eice. The reports were in circu- 
 
elections; etc. 587 
 
 lation that lie had directed the money to be paid otherwise, and I was 
 solicitous to ascertain how it had been paid. 
 
 Question. Were you requested by the President to ascertain ? 
 
 Answer. I was requested by the President, after I told him of the 
 reports in circulation in Philadelphia^ that he had given such and 
 such directions. 
 
 Question, Did you have conversations with the President at other 
 times on the subject of the distribution of this money ? 
 
 Answer. Not prior to this. 
 
 Question. Well, afterwards? 
 
 Answer. Afterwards I had. 
 
 Question. Will you state them ? 
 
 Answer. In January, 1859, Mr. Rice was quite violent and indig- 
 nant about not getting from Wendell what he supposed was justly due 
 to him. This conversation happened while I was here in January, 
 1859. Mr. Rice said, when he was appointed the printer to print the 
 post office blanks, that he had made an arrangement or contract with 
 Mr. Wendell to do the work for fifty per centum of the gross receipts, 
 and he contended that under that arrangement there was quite a large 
 balance due to him. I was very desirous that Mr. Wendell should pay 
 Mr. Rice, as I knew that he was in moneyed difficulties, the amount 
 he, Wendell, owed Rice ; and to ascertain that amount I called upon 
 Mr. Wendell. Mr. Wendell said that Rice was not to get fifty per 
 centum, but forty-three per centum of the gross receipts. Wendell also 
 stated at that time that the money was appropriated to other purposes, 
 and that he did not owe him anything ; that the Philadelphia " Ar- 
 gus " had received a portion of the forty-three per centum. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Wendell tell you at that time by whom this was 
 appropriated otherwise than to the publisher of the "Pennsylvanian?" 
 
 Answer. He said he had directions from the administration, or from 
 high official sources ; I do not recollect his exact words. 
 
 Question. What did you understand by the "administration?" 
 
 Answer. I understood the President. 
 
 Question. You spoke of conversing with the President about this ; 
 what was that conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I understood in the fall of 1858, 1 do not know from whom 
 or how^ that the " Daily Argus " was to receive ten and three fourths 
 per centum from and after the first of August, 1858, and I inquired of 
 the President whether he had given any directions for a portion of 
 Rice's money, or what was due to Rice as printer of post office blanks, 
 to be paid to the " Daily Argus." He said he had given no direc- 
 tions ; but report said the net profits from the printing of these blanks 
 amounted to about |20,000 per annum, and if such was the case, he 
 supposed that Mr, Rice could afford to pay the " Argus " out of his 
 own profits, or out of this sum. When Mr. Rice was first appointed 
 printer it was thought the net proceeds would not amount to over 
 $10,000 or $12,000, and when it was ascertained that it amounted to 
 |20,000, as the " Argus " was hard up, as it always is, it was given 
 without any directions from him. It was supposed, under Mr. Wen- 
 dell's understanding of it, that there had been a subdivision of it. It 
 then became necessary to learn how much was received for the blanks 
 
588 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 from July 1, 1858, to July 31 of the same year, and from August 1 to 
 December 10. I learned this at the Post Office Department. The 
 amount that Mr. Wendell received on account of the blanks during 
 the first period mentioned was $20,501 24, and for the latter period, 
 $14,766 82. 
 
 Question. Did you procure that information from the Postmaster 
 General ? 
 
 Answer. This document I received from the Auditor, Mr. Offutt ; 
 he is the proper officer of the department. 
 
 Amownts paid for printing hlanks used outside of the city of Washingion, 
 from January 1, 1858. 
 
 Februarys, 1858, to William Eioe $4,748 77 
 
 ' ■ " C. Wendell, assignee of Wm. Eice.. 3,172 89 
 
 " " 4,401 82 
 
 " " 1,243 80 
 
 att'y of Wm. A. Harris 4,125 82 
 
 " " 2,811 14 
 
 March 
 
 16, " 
 
 " C. ^ 
 
 Wet 
 
 April 
 
 13, " 
 
 
 (( 
 
 May 
 
 14, " 
 
 
 IC 
 
 June 
 
 10, '• 
 
 
 tl 
 
 July 
 
 12, - 
 
 
 (C 
 
 (( 
 
 li 
 
 C( 
 
 (C 
 
 IC 
 
 u 
 
 l( 
 
 
 Harris 
 
 20,501 24 
 
 A. 
 
 le 
 
 (C 
 
 (t 
 
 4,147 69 
 2,264 17 
 2,338 97 
 3,338 44 
 2,677 55 
 
 
 14,766 82 
 
 August 31, 1858, to 0. Wendell, att'y of W. A. Harris 
 
 September 8, 
 
 October 20, 
 
 November 10, 
 
 December 9, " " " 
 
 Question. You say, Mr. Baker, that it became necesBary to know ; 
 necessary for whom ? 
 
 Answer. Necessary for the settlement of Eice's account ; that is, to 
 ascertain what Eice had to receive. All this time he was complaining 
 a good deal about this money, in Philadelphia, and I was anxious that 
 Mr. Wendell should pay him. I lent my kindly auspices to sustain 
 him. 
 
 Question. It became necessary that it should be known ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. To whom ; to the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; to myself and Mr. Eice. 
 
 Question. By whose authority were portions of the profits of the 
 post office blanks diverted from the " Pennsylvanian' ' to the "Argus;" 
 by what authority did you understand that it was done ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know by what authority at all. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the President knew of that diversion 
 from any conversation that you had with him ? 
 
 Answer. I do not^ sir ; I do not know that he knew of the diversion 
 when it was made, but he knew it when he got these statements ; I 
 allude to the statement of December 10, 1858. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 589 
 
 Question. Did you not get this statement for his information ? 
 _ Answer. I got it for his information as well as for my own satisfac- 
 tion. It had heen charged in Philadelphia by Mr. Wendell, that the 
 President had directed him to use this money in this way ; and I felt 
 desirous to clear the President, and I made it my business to do so. 
 , Question. Did you not get the information at his request? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir, after having related to him the conversation or 
 statements I had heard that Mr. Wendell had made in Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Was it at that time that the President said if his profits 
 were |20,000, that Mr. Eice should let the "Argus" have a portion? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that it was that day, but it was about that 
 time. He had been fre3[uently applied to by Colonel Florence and 
 others interested in the success of the "Argus," who pressed its claims 
 with great pertinacity, and the President said to me that he might 
 have said in conversation with Colonel Florence and Wendell, who 
 were urging this distribution, that, if the profits were so large, Mr. 
 Eice, he supposed, would not make any objection to giving a portion 
 to the "Argus." I suppose it was on that that they went on and 
 made the diversion which caused all the difficulty. 
 
 Question. Did you have repeated conversations with the President 
 on this subject ? 
 
 Answer. At various times, I have, sir, about this post office blank 
 printing. 
 
 Question. Did you understand that the President approved this 
 distribution to the two papers ? 
 
 Answer. I never so understood him ; he never intimated to me that 
 he approved or disapproved of the diversion. 
 
 Question. Did you ever hear him express a wish that it should be 
 divided ? 
 
 Answer. I have not^ sir. I felt that Mr. Eice had been dealt un- 
 justly with by Mr. Wendell, and that the money that was taken from 
 him was disbursed or given to objects that Mr. Wendell desired more 
 particularly to assist than Mr. Eice. It will be observed, the amount 
 due Mr. Eice of the amount received between January and July 31, at 
 the rate of forty-three per cent., was |8,815 52 ; and, if the "Argus" 
 was to receive ten and three quarters per cent, subsequent to August 
 1, it would leave Mr. Eice's proportion thirty-two and a quarter per 
 cent of $14,766 82, equal to |5,359 25. The "Argus's " proportion, 
 at ten and three quarters per cent., of $14,766 82, would be about 
 $1,587. It received, instead of this amount, as per Mr. Wendell's 
 statement, $5,400. Agreeably to the per centages stated, the propor- 
 tion due Mr. Eice would be $14,169 78. He received, as per state- 
 ment of Mr. Wendell, $9,707 28, leaving a balance claimed by Mr. 
 Eice of $4,462 50. But Mr. Wendell contended that he did not owe 
 Mr. Eice anything, and even if he did, that the "Argus" was to have 
 ten and three quarters per cent, from the commencement, from Janu- 
 ary 1 — ten and three quarters per cent, of the gross amount. This 
 reduced the balance claimed by Mr. Eice to about $2,200, which he 
 was ready to receive from Mr. Wendell, and settle the account. Mr. 
 Wendell declined paying it. He said that he held notes of Mr. Eice 
 to about this amount. Mr. Eice contended that Mr. Wendell had no 
 
5bO 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETO. 
 
 notes of his ; and the money, as I understand, was not paid at that time. 
 But suhsequently, Mr. Wendell told me that he had paid a note that 
 Governor Brown, of Mississippi, had indorsed or given to Mr. Eice. 
 I do not know whether the remainder of the $2,200 has been paid. I 
 ■came to know that this note was paid after I was applied to by Mr. 
 Eice to prevail upon Mr. Wendell to pay him the balance that was 
 found to be due. I applied to Mr. Wendell, or asked Mr. Wendell 
 why he had not paid Mr. Eice this money ? He said he had an offset' 
 of notes of Mr. Eice to more than the alleged balance ; and then he 
 flpoke of securing or of paying Governor Brown this $1,000. 
 
 Question. Did he say why he considered himself bound to pay Gov- 
 ernor Brown ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether he said it or not. It was consid- 
 ered a sort of honorable debt. I had heard it spoken of as money that 
 would have to be provided for or protected. That is my general un- 
 derstanding, but how I got it I cannot say. 
 
 Question. Was this note for borrowed money ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know the character of the note at all. 
 
 Question. Did you understand, in your conversation with the Presi- 
 dent, that he had repeated conversations on this subject with Colonel 
 Florence and Mr. Wendell ; that he had more than one conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I have often heard the President say it was a source of 
 great trouble ; that Mr. Florence and others, Mr. Florence particu- 
 larly, had applied to him on this subject for a portion of the patron- 
 age, and he really did not want to have anything to do with it, and 
 he had not anything to do with it with me, and I suppose he would 
 ialk as freely to me as he did to anybody connected with the adminis- 
 tration. I know that I never got the satisfaction on this subject that 
 I think I was entitled to. 
 
 Question. Was it your intention, on making these inquiries, to act 
 in accordance with his advice and suggestions ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that it was. 
 
 Question. What was your object ? 
 
 Answer. I thought, as I have stated, that unfounded charges had 
 been made ; and, knowing how cautious he was in talking to me, that 
 he could not have given those directions, and as I was a personal and 
 political friend, I thought it incumbent on me to have them explained, 
 and I had no conversation with him until I told him so and so had been 
 said in Philadelphia. I told him what Mr. Wendell had said in Phila- 
 delphia, and that I knew Mr. Wendell was an impulsive man. 
 
 Question. Did you say you knew this? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I got the New York "Times" and read the 
 paragraph to him. He had not seen the paragraph until that evening. 
 
 Question. And your object was to protect the President ? 
 
 Answer. It was, sir ; for I supposed the statements were a grosa 
 perversion, and I was happy to find that they were so. 
 
 Question. You are an intimate personal and political friend of the 
 President's, and when here you call frequently upon him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You are from his town, I believe, and you are in the habit 
 of talking to him confidentially, and you think he talked so with you ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 591 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You are aware that not only on the part of Mr. Florence, 
 but of others from other parts of the country, many efforts were made 
 by editors and political men to get hold of what was considered a 
 good job — the printing of the post office blanks ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I will ask you if you have ever known the President to 
 interfere in the disposition of that matter ; whether he has not on all 
 dccasions manifested a great degree of impatience and disgust, and en- 
 deavored to get rid of it and leave it to the proper department ? State 
 geinerally what was the prevailing dominant sentiment of the Presi- 
 dent ; whether it was a disagreeable subject, and that he wanted to 
 get rid of it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I know that to be a fact, and I also know that 
 he has made a great many of his personal friends displeased because 
 he has not interfered in this matter. Four-fifths of those who have 
 been displeased with him have been made so because he would not in- 
 terfere in the giving to them the patronage they desired, or interfere 
 with the departments and throw it in their way. 
 
 Question. You, yourself, have been a little impatient with him for 
 not having attended to such things ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I have thought it a mighty hard case, after 
 having helped to elect a President from our own State, that he did not 
 interfere. 
 
 Question. Do you not think he might have made some suggestions ? 
 
 Answer. He might have made some suggestions, but he never made 
 them to me. I have no knowledge of that. 
 
 Question. Have you not testified that the President said to you that 
 he might have done so ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any arrangement or expectation of the 
 present publishers of the "Pennsylvanian" to receive money out of 
 this contract ? 
 
 Answer. I have understood that there was such an arrangement. 
 
 Question. State what it was. 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that question directly without prefacing 
 it a gdod deal. After the difficulty occurring between Mr. Rice and 
 Mr, Wendell, in the fall and winter of 1858-'59, Rice was exceedingly 
 anxious to sell the "Pennsylvanian." He thought he was defrauded 
 out of his just dues, and he could not carry on the paper, and he de- 
 sired to sell it. Before any person was bold enough to purchase such 
 a damaged concern, it was necessary to ascertain whether there was 
 any prospect of obtaining the printing of these post office blanks by 
 the purchaser or by the, person who purchased the "Pennsylvanian." 
 I was very desirous that the late Postmaster General should make a 
 contract for the printing of these blanks for two years. I urged him 
 •to do it because I had learned that the establishment which had here- 
 iiofore printed the blanks had been destroyed by fire, and that there 
 was no establishment from which the Post Office Department could be 
 supplied with post bills. He declined making a contract, for he said 
 
592 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 that he would not forestall any action that Congress might deem neces- 
 sary to take in changing or repealing the act giving him the power to 
 employ a person outside of the city of Washington to do this work, but 
 that he was willing to give an order to a good and responsible printer 
 in Philadelphia to execute the work during the pleasure of the depart- 
 ment or that of Congress. I declined naming any person for the reason 
 that it might be a loss to a person taking this work rather than a profit ; 
 for he would have to buy new materials and be at considerable expense 
 for machinery, &c., and that Congress might repeal it in a months' 
 time, or in a very short time. It is proper to say that Mr. Wendell 
 was exceedingly anxious to obtain the contract for two years. He 
 proffered to pay to the "Pennsylvanian" $15,000 per year if he could 
 obtain the contract. 
 
 Question. Who did he make that offer to ? 
 
 Answer. He made it me, sir. I left the Post Office Department, 
 declaring to Postmaster General Brown that I would have nothing 
 further to do either with finding a purchaser for the "Pennsylvanian" 
 or with the post office blanks ; and I would have adhered to that reso- 
 lution had it not been for Mr. Wendell, whom I left at the department, 
 following me to the hotel, at which he arrived just as I was leaving 
 for Philadelphia. He said he came from the Postmaster General, 
 who told him that he would appoint any person printer that I might 
 select ; that he would appoint him if I desired it, and that he wanted 
 to do this work ; that the "Union" was a very costly thing to keep 
 up, and that he could pay to the "Pennsylvanian" $1,000 per month 
 as long as the work would be continued to him, and that he would 
 have some $10,000 or $12,000 himself out of it ; that if inexperienced 
 parties were appointed in Philadelphia they would make no more than 
 $10,000 or $12,000 out of it, whereas his knowledge of the business 
 would enable him to make $20,000, or a larger amount, which 
 would enable him to pay $1,000 per month and leave him the sum he 
 mentioned for himself ; that the payments were to commence on the 
 15th January, 1859, and on the 15th of each month thereafter ; that 
 he must have the whole of the gross receipts for the month of December 
 for himself. The establishment by which this work had been done 
 had been burned down, and he must have the receipts for the month 
 of December to fix up. The omnibus was ready to start ; and he said 
 to me that I should, after my arrival at home, make out a contract 
 with that understanding, which I never did, but wrote to him that as 
 he was more conversant with those kind of documents than I was that 
 he should do it, but he never did. Application was made to him after 
 the first payment became due, and he refused to pay it on the ground 
 that Congress might repeal the act giving the Postmaster General the 
 authority to print these blanks. No payment was made until after 
 the negotiation was commenced for the sale or transfer of the Wash- 
 ington " Union." The proprietor of the " Pennsylvanian " (as that 
 establishment was bought with the understanding that Wendell was 
 to contribute as before stated) had claims upon Mr. Wendell, and 
 insisted that he should pay the amount promised, and Mr. Wendell 
 was so anxious to get clear of the "Union" that he paid $2,000 of 
 the amount due. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 593 
 
 Question. I want to know whether you stated that there were more 
 earnest attempts made to induce the Postmaster General to give a 
 contract for two years, and that he declined, and that the President 
 also declined, hecause he would not have anything to do with anything 
 of that kind. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I will state here that after the payment of 
 the $2,000, I understood from Mr. Wendell and General Bowman, 
 that Wendell was to pay $20,000 out of the printing of the post office 
 blanks, ten of which was to go for the " Pennsylvanian," 
 
 Question. Do you know where the other ten was to go to ? 
 
 Answer. I understood to the Washington " Union," $20,000 was 
 to be paid, ten of which was for the " Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Bowman consulted, and had he knowledge of 
 this distribution of money ? 
 
 Answer. General Bowman did not desire to have anything to do 
 with the money for the " Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. The question is, was he consulted, and did he know of 
 the disposition of this fund ? 
 
 Answer. He knew all about it ; I do not know that he was con- 
 sulted, but he knew of it. 
 
 Question. Did you not consult the President fully in relation to 
 this matter ; and do you not know that he was apprised about it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not consult the President about it ; he had 
 been so much troubled by frequent applications that he would have 
 nothing to do with it in this subsequent matter with me, and I 
 refrained from mentioning it to him. 
 
 Question. Did you inform him what you were going to do ? 
 
 Answer. I may have done so, but I do not recollect distinctly. 
 
 Question. What is your impression as to whether you communi- 
 cated to the President information respecting this disposition of money 
 to the "Pennsylvanian?" 
 
 Answer. My impression is decidedly that I did not consulthim about 
 the transfer, or about the proportion going to the " Pennsylvanian." 
 I am satisfied that I did not. There was a previous arrangement en- 
 tered into between Wendell and the proprietor of the "Pennsylvanian." 
 I allude to the present proprietor, who contended that it was an order 
 given to the " Pennsylvanian," and that any subsequent arrangement 
 of Mr. Wendell's should not interfere with the agreement that he.had 
 previously made. When speaking of an arrangement made with the 
 present proprietor of the "Pennsylvanian," I wish to say that the - 
 arrangement was made through me, as I acted as his friend, and I 
 stated to him the amount he would be able to get by this arrangement. 
 It is due to General Bowman to say, that he utterly refused collecting 
 from Mr. Wendell this $10,000, and that he only desired to attend. to 
 his own proportion — to the |10,000 which he was to receive. At the 
 same time Wendell insisted that he was to pay the whole of the money 
 to General Bowman, as he had entered into an agreement to that 
 effect, and consequently there was some trouble from this fact in getting 
 the amount that was due to the "Pennsylvanian." • 
 
 Question. Was this arrangement of which you have now spokenii. 
 pursuance of a previous agreement as to the " Pennsylvanian ?" 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 38 
 
594 ELECTIONS, ETC 
 
 Answer. With Mr. Wendell ? It was. 
 Question. Between Wendell and who else ? 
 Answer. Between Wendell and myself. 
 
 Question. Was the President apprised of the existence of this pre- 
 vious agreement between Wendell and yourself? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no conversation with the President about 
 this matter, for he positively refused assenting to a contract being 
 made for two years. The President was disgusted with the whole 
 thing, and I was afraid to say anything to him about it. 
 
 Question. Have you stated what the conversation was at the time 
 the President refused his consent to the contract for the post office 
 blanks for two years ? 
 
 Answer. He said he would not interfere, he would not do anything 
 to prevent Congress from acting upon the matter to repeal it ; he very 
 freq^uently said that he wished Congress had repealed it ; he said this 
 when he was troubled with applications for this patronage 
 
 Question. Mr. Baker, you interested yourself in favor of the pro- 
 prietors of the " Pennsylvanian " in relation to these post office blanks ; 
 will you be pleased to state whether, at a prior period, you had not 
 interested yourself for the same purpose for any other person or 
 persons ? 
 
 Answer. Very soon after I was appointed collector, I interested 
 
 1 myself very earnestly to secure this patronage for Colonel John W. 
 
 iTorney, to assist him in his contemplated enterprise of starting a 
 
 I'paper in Philadelphia. I subsequently saw the President in relation 
 
 ' to giving this work to Colonel Forney, both before and after he started 
 
 'hisipaper. Colonel Forney made several applications to me, and I 
 
 , came to Washington once, at his particular request, to get this work, 
 
 or a portion of it, for him — I mean a portion of these post office blanks. 
 
 'I presume iie knew the value of it, having been connected with the 
 
 public ; printing so long. I did not know what a fat job it was at 
 
 . that tiine ; ibut he, being a printer, knew all about it. The President, 
 
 at each application, refused doing anything or having anything to do 
 
 with the public printing or the post office blanks. He said that he 
 
 had heard that thene was great extravagance in the printing depart- 
 
 ..ment, and that no, action would be taken upon any matter in relation 
 
 to it until after the meeting of Congress. So we gave it up in despair — 
 
 I mean in, relation 'to Forney. 
 
 Question. ^You stated before that the President's friends had 
 ■frequent cause of .complaint in consequence of his not interfering in 
 ' , matters that they supposed he had the right to interfere in, in awarding 
 ■ contracts. or in giving out patronage? 
 
 Answer. 1 1 have thou^ght they had cause. 
 
 Question, Then I ask you if the refusal or the objection of the 
 : President to entertain the proposition made by you in behalf of Forney 
 ^• was not the cause of thft breach .between Forney and the President ? 
 Answer. I have no«doubt of it. Mr. Forney was exceedingly 
 anxious to get this w.ork, and he made frequent promises that he 
 would support the President fuJly, and not attack any of the Presi- 
 dent's friends with whom..he, was >at. enmity. I will simply mention 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 595 
 
 Governor Wise as one. I do not recollect others. I put this matter 
 to him ; not to the President, but to Forney. Colonel Forney never 
 opposed the President or the administration until he was fully satisfied 
 that he could not get this work. I refer to his paper. Colonel Forney 
 was personally dissatisfied and disappointed, and his party friends in 
 Pennsylvania were fearful that he would use the columns of his paper 
 to oppose the administration, and thereby cause a schism in the party 
 in Pennsylvania, and they were, consequently, anxious to get this 
 patronage in order to have the support and the assistance of his paper. 
 I, at least, was actuated by that desire. 
 
 Question. With whom did you talk, here in Washington, on that 
 subject ? 
 
 Answer. I talked with the President. 
 
 Question. Did you talk fully and freely with the President about 
 it? 
 
 Answer. Fully ; and I pointed out the consequences I apprehended 
 from his paper taking an opposition course ; it had a large circulation, 
 and would do considerable damage to the party, if not to the organiza- 
 tion of it in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. Had you any other motive for interfering to procure this 
 printing for Mr. Forney than a desire to promote the interest of the 
 democratic party ? 
 
 Answer. None in the world, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you induced to make these efforts by the hostility 
 manifested by Mr. Forney to the President ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; though it made me more desirous to accomplish 
 it. Mr. Forney was considered a good editor, and we were very 
 anxious that his paper should be the leading organ in the State, as he 
 had the ability to make it so. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Forney express disappointment at the Lecompton 
 policy of the President ? 
 
 Answer. I had no conversation with Colonel Forney after the Le- 
 compton policy of the President was developed, until the 28th or the 
 29th of December, 1857, and then I did not discuss the question. I 
 have never spoken to him since ; not from any indisposition on my part, 
 but from Mr. Forney's estrangement. The conversation that I had 
 with him on the 28th or 29th of December was for the purpose of 
 asking him to relieve me of an officer that I had appointed for him, 
 but who was performing service in Mr. Forney's office, and not in the 
 custom-house. I desired him to relieve me by Mr. Forney's inducing 
 the man to resign. 
 
 Question. Had Mr. Forney any interviews with the President about 
 this patronage ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I am aware of. 
 
 Question. Then I ask, when you saw the President, was Colonel 
 Forney with you ? 
 
 Answer. No,, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you be pleased to state in what year and at what 
 period of the year you made this application to the President for this 
 patronage for Colonel Forney ? 
 
596 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Anewer. Very soon after I was appointed collector of customs in 
 Philadelphia, on April 1, 1857. I made. repeated applications during 
 the summer of that year. The last time I talked with the President 
 about it was on his visit to Wheatland, either in October or in Novem- 
 ber ; it was the first visit the President paid to Wheatland after he 
 was inaugurated. That was the business I went to Wheatland to see 
 him about. That was the last conversation I had with him about it. 
 
 Question. Have you stated, so iar as you can recollect, everything 
 that you may know as a legitimate subject of inquiry under this reso- 
 lution ? 
 
 Answer. I think I have, sir. 
 
 No. 66. 
 Friday, May 25, 1860. 
 
 HAMILTON BKUCE called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know William M. Browne, one of the editors of 
 the "Constitution?" 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I am acquainted with him ; I have met 
 with him in my oflScial capacity, and have had the pleasure of being 
 introduced to him once or twice. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything relative to his connexion with the 
 custom-house at New York ? 
 
 Answer. I examined him for a position there to which he was to he 
 appointed ; it was at that time that I was introduced to him. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. What was your position there at that time? 
 Answer. I was at that time chief clerk of the warehouse bureau. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. It was your duty to examine the clerks, was it? 
 
 Answer. The chief clerk of each division examines the clerks as to 
 their fitness for the positions they are to occupy. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Browne under your supervision and control ? 
 
 Answer. In a measure ; he was under the supervision and control 
 properly of the deputy in charge of that division ; the chief clerk of 
 the division represents the deputy in those matters, sees that the clerks 
 attend to their duties, and reports the delinquents to him. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Browne ever render any service to the govern- 
 ment in the custom-house ? If so, to what extent ? 
 
 Answer. I examined him as to his fitness for his position and wrote 
 out the necessary report, which was signed by Judge Capers and 
 transmitted to the collector ; shortly after that — I cannot say how 
 long, for my memory does not serve me upon that point — he reported 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 597 
 
 himself for duty ; he brought a note to Mr. Capers from the collector 
 that he had been appointed to such a position ; he was introduced to 
 me again at that time ; a desk was assigned to him, and he was to 
 take the place of a Mr. Pitman, and his duty was to have been the 
 cancellation of transportation and exportation bonds ; if my memory 
 serves me right, he then said that he would be there in a day or two, 
 but I will not be positive about that ; but I never saw him again in 
 our office ; he did not occupy any desk nor perform any duty in the 
 division over which I supposed 1 had charge while I was there. 
 
 Question. Were you on duty all the time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you say he never rendered any service to the govern- 
 ment there ? 
 
 Answer. JSTot in my division ; he may have been assigned by the 
 collector some duty outside, for aught I know. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 Question. Did you have any notice that any such outside duty was 
 assigned him ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Who performed the duty he should have performed? 
 
 Answer. A clerk in the office was assigned to take that desk, and I 
 believe he still occupies it. 
 
 By the Odaikman : 
 
 Question. How long did Mr. Browne continue to occupy that po 
 sition or draw pay for it ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw any of his pay-rolls ; I heard of his going to 
 Washington. 
 
 Question. Did he continue to hold that position until he came to 
 Washington ? 
 
 Answer. That is my impression. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. When were you first appointed in the custom-house ? "^ 
 
 Answer. On the 1st day of May, 1838, by Jesse Hoyt ; I was the 
 first clerk he appointed. 
 
 Question. That was in Van Buren's time ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When did you resign ? 
 
 Answer. On the 1st day of June, 1859. 
 
 Question. How came you to be summoned here ? 
 
 Answer. That I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. All that you know about it is your being subpoenaed 
 here? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with anybody aboub this 
 matter before you were summoned ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had no conversation with any one in reference 
 to it. 
 
 Question. How do you conjecture that you came to be summoned 
 here if you had no conversation with anybody upon this subject ? 
 
598 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer, I have talked in New York in the office in reference to 
 these matters. 
 
 Question. With whom did you talk ? 
 
 Answer. I talked with Mr. Lydecker some time ago_. When I saw Mr. 
 Browne's name mentioned in the paper I asked him if Mr. Browne 
 received his salary. He said that Mr. Browne sent on his pay-roll 
 from Washington, and he collected the money and sent it to him. 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that Mr. Browne did no service. 
 
 Answer. I said, unless he was detailed to some service outside. 
 
 Question . You say that unless he was detailed to some service out- 
 side he rendered no service. 
 
 Answer. I do not say so ; he might have rendered service. 
 
 Question. What is the hest impression upon your mind ? You say 
 that when you saw Mr. Browne's name mentioned you were led to 
 ask Mr. Lydecker if Browne got his salary. Why should you ask 
 that? 
 
 Answer. Because when I was suspended I remained in the office at 
 the suggestion of Judge Capers and performed duty up to the first 
 day of June ; and when I resigned I did not get my hack salary, not 
 a dollar of it. 
 
 Question. Why should you want to know if Browne got his salary? 
 
 Answer. I thought that if he had got his, I ought to get mine, as 
 I had done service. 
 
 Question. And you thought Browne had done no service ? 
 
 Answer. I do not say that. 
 
 Question. I want to know why, when you saw Browne's name in 
 the papers, it should have attracted your attention so much as to lead 
 you to inquire whether he had been paid ; was it because you supposed 
 he had been paid while he did no work ? 
 
 Answer. To be candid with you, that was my impression. 
 
 Question. Why did you not communicate that fact to the collector 
 while you were in office ? 
 
 Answer. It was the duty of the deputy to do that. 
 
 Question. Is it not the duty of every officer to report such facts to 
 his superior ? 
 
 Answer. It was the duty of the deputy to do that for his division. 
 
 Question. You did not do it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. You say that Mr. Browne did no duty in your division 
 at the desk set apart for him, and if he performed any service, it was 
 at some place else ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Ohaikman : 
 
 Question. Do you not know of others, besides Mr. Browne, receiv- 
 ing pay without rendering any service? 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 599 
 
 Friday, May 25, 1860. 
 
 A. 0. P. NICHOLSON called and examined. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. State, if you please, your residence and occupation? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Tennessee, and am a lawyer by. profession. 
 
 Question. You are now a senator from Tennessee ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you receive a communication from Mr. Wendell for 
 the President of the United States, in relation to the " Union," and 
 upon the subject of the printing and publication of that paper ; and 
 if so, please to state what it was ? 
 
 Answer. When I came here, in February, 1859^ to the extra session 
 of the Senate of the United States, I learned from Mr. Wendell that 
 he had made up his mind to quit publishing the "Union," and was 
 anxious to find somebody to whom he could sell or transfer it. Mr. 
 Macdonald, of Maine, was here then, or came soon after I did, and be 
 and Mr. Wendell entered into a negotiation. I think this letter [a 
 letter heretofore produced in evidence, when Mr. Wendell was under 
 examination] contains the terms on which he was willing to transfer 
 it to Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Wendell was anxious, in making the 
 transfer, to transfer it to some person who would be acceptable to the 
 President, inasmuch as he then was doing certain executive work, and 
 he wanted the proprietor of the paper to be a gentleman acceptable to 
 Mr. Buchanan ; he requested me to see Mr. Buchanan on the subject^ 
 with a view of learning whether Mr. Macdonald would be an accep- 
 table man, and be satisfactory to him as the editor of the paper. I 
 told Mr. Wendell he had better address him a note, stating wbat he 
 required, and I would see Mr. Buchanan, and hand it to him. I took 
 this letter ; I am not sure whether Mr. Buchanan read it, but I left it 
 with him, and I told him verbally what I came for. He said it was not 
 a matter of concern to him, that he should not advise Mr. Wendell to 
 aell to Mr. Macdonald or anybody else ; but Mr. Macdonald was a 
 good man, and if the transfer was made to him, he should be content. 
 Mr. Bowman, as far as I recollect, had not been spoken of at that 
 time. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything of the arrangement with Mr. 
 Bowman ? ' 
 
 Answer. I do not know who suggested Mr. Bowman to Mr. Wendell. 
 After he was suggested, (and I had very little knowledge of or inter- 
 t»urse with Mr. Bowman about i^j) I remember to have been at the 
 President's, and suggested that Mr. Bowman was thought to be a 
 good man to take the place. Mr. Buchanan said everybody knew his 
 Friendship for Mr. Bowman, but if Mr. Bowman did take it, he must 
 do it on his own responsibility ; he would not advise or persuade him 
 to do anything that would risk his little property ; he had now a good 
 office, and if he went into the paper, he ought to be sure he was not 
 endangering what he had. I think that was what was said. It was 
 
600 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 mentioned twice, once when General Bowman was present, and he 
 . said the same thing to Mr. Bowman. 
 
 Question. You and Mr. Bowman were present at the President's. 
 
 Answer. Yes. At the first he was not present, but the second time 
 he was. The President expressed great friendship for Oeneral Bow- 
 man. He said he had brought him here on account of his friendship 
 for him ; and that he had brought him here without his knowledge that 
 he was to be appointed Superintendent of Public Printing. I am very 
 sure that idea of his going into the paper did not originate with Mr. 
 Buchanan. 
 
 Question. Do you know with whom it originated? 
 
 Answer. I think I know that it originated with the Hon. Aaron 
 V. Brown, Postmaster General. He was the first man I ever heard 
 allude to it at all. I xio not know whether or not it had ever been 
 mentioned to Mr. Buchanan before I mentioned it. 
 
 Question. Was anything said about Mr. Bowman being elected 
 printer to the present Congress '' 
 
 Answer. There was by me. Referring to reasons why I thought 
 he would not run any risks, I told him I believed if he took the posi- 
 tion, it being known that he was a friend to the administration, it 
 would secure his election as public printer. 
 
 Question. Was anything said, that in case he were elected printer 
 Mr. Wendell might be employed, or had an office in which to do the 
 printing ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think that anything was said to Mr. Buchanan 
 on that subject. If there was, I have no recollection of it. I do not 
 recollect ot anything being said to him as to who would be elected 
 printer. That letter, I suppose, communicated to him all in relation 
 to that subject. 
 
 Question. It was a, matter well known to you all that Mr. Bowman 
 had no office in which to execute the printing, and that Wendell had? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I looked at it in this way : Wendell was anxious 
 to get clear of the paper, and he was anxious to transfer it to a man 
 who could be elected printer, with the expectation of doing the work, 
 I had no doubt. 
 
 Question. Did or did not that expectation or calculation enter into 
 this arrangement for the transfer of the "Union" without pecuniary 
 compensation ? , 
 
 Answer. That is a subject of which I know nothing. That was all 
 made after I left. My knowledge of it was from that letter which you 
 showed me. The expression at the beginning of the letter : "Youwere 
 consulted by us concerning the transfer which has this day been made 
 between us of the ' Union' newspaper ; you know the views and ex- 
 pectations which influenced us on both sides," &c., indicates that it 
 was made after I had left. My understanding before I left was that if 
 this arrangement was made, Mr. Bowman expected to be elected public 
 printer, and Wendell looked to that event as giving him a prospect of 
 doing the work in his office ; hut no bargain had occurred when I left 
 here on the subject. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. I do not allude to the bargain. 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 601 
 
 The Witness, I meau as to the sale of the paper. That was in 
 negotiation when I left. 
 
 Question. In making my inquiries, I do not inquire about a bargain 
 that would be valid. 
 
 Answer. I am speaking of the transfer of the paper, and not a bar- 
 gain for doing the work. 
 
 Question. The inquiry is, if such was the expectation ? 
 
 Answer. I can only infer from what my understanding of the letter 
 wa«. 
 
 Question. But there was such an expectation ? 
 
 Answer. I supposed that Bowman expected to be elected, and in 
 that event that Wendell would do his work. That I supposed Wen- 
 dell expected. When I left, I do not think T had heard anything 
 about Mr. Wendell transferring the paper without a consideration — I 
 mean when I went home in the spring. This letter I received at home 
 in due course of mail : 
 
 Washington, March 26, 1859. 
 
 Gentlemen : You were consulted by us concerning the transfer which 
 bus this day been made between us of the " Union" newspaper. Ton 
 know the views and expectations which influenced us on both sides. 
 While we do not contemplate the slightest difficulty, yet it is possible 
 that some collision of interest, or some difficultyiof opinion concerning 
 our rights or duties, may hereafter arise. In that event, we have 
 agreed to leave all questions between us to your arbitrament, and your 
 decision shall be binding and conclusive upon us both. If you shall 
 differ, you may choose some third person as umpire. It is, as you 
 know, understood between us, that the purchaser of the "Union" 
 shall not be a competitor with the seller for any portion of the execu- 
 tive work now done by Mr. Wendell at his large office, but that Mr 
 Bowman shall receive at the rate of twenty thousand dollars per annum 
 so long as Wendell continues to do the work as he does it now, but no 
 longer. If the work aforesaid be withdrawn from Wendell, his obliga- 
 tion to pay this twenty thousand dollars shall cease. If any consider- 
 able portion is withdrawn, it will be for you to decide whether Wen- 
 dell's payment shall cease, or in what proportion it shall continue. 
 We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, 
 
 C. Wendell, 
 Geo, W. Bowman. 
 
 Messrs. A. 0. P. Nicholson and J. S. Black. 
 
 Question. Did you hear anything about the " Pennsylvanian " and 
 the "Argus"? 
 
 Answer. Nothing in the world. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything further touching this matter? 
 
 Answer. My association and intercourse with Mr. Wendell has 
 bteen very intimate for many years ; we have had business associations ; 
 he did my work, and on that account he called on me, I suppose, to aid 
 him in negotiating the sale of the "Union," but it was outside of 
 matters of business between him and myself. 
 
 Question. You were formerly printer to Congress ? 
 
602 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And Mr. Wendell executed your work? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 No. 11. 
 Monday, May 28, 1860. 
 JAMES MURPHY called and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in New York city, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you a contractor for government work? 
 
 Answer. Sometimes I am. 
 
 Question. What kind of work ? 
 
 Answer. Steam engines and boilers. 
 
 Question. Have you a contract from government now ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had you a letter from the Navy Department in Washing- 
 ton, introducing a man from Hartford, in Connecticut, and requesting 
 you to aid him in conducting elections, latterly ? 
 
 Answer, I had no letter from the department ; I had a private note 
 of introduction from '^.r. Archbold. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. From Samuel Archbold ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Can you produce that note ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What were the contents of it, as near as you can recollect ? 
 
 Answer. It was merely a note introducing this gentleman to me, 
 and saying that he would state to me his business. 
 
 Question. Who was that gentleman ? 
 
 Answer. I forget his name. He told me that he was treasurer of 
 the democratic committee in Hartford. I do not know what his name is. 
 
 Question. What did that treasurer say to you his business was ? 
 
 Answer. He said that he would like for me to send him on some 
 money towards the election. 
 
 Question. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Walling, cap- 
 tain of the detective police, upon this subject ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know any such person. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 Question. Do you know the captain of the detective police in New 
 York city, or any captain — any one of them ? ■ 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you had a conversation with anybody upon this 
 subject? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 003 
 
 So. n. 
 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 JAMES MURPHY recalled. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. When you were here before I told you the reason why I 
 thought it advisable for you to remain until we could get these men 
 from New York. You had stated that you did not know Captain 
 Walling, of the detective police. 
 
 Answer. I do not know him. 
 
 Question. You understand that Captain Walling has given this in- 
 formation ? 
 
 Answer. In relation to parties going to Connecticut ? 
 
 Question. In relation to your receivifig a letter and sending some 
 persons to Connecticut, and Mr. Belmont furnishing money to pay 
 expenses. 
 
 Answer. I have never spoken to Mr. Belmont in my life. 
 
 Question. It was not necessary that you should speak to him. 
 
 Answer. I never had any communication with him by letter or 
 otherwise. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Did you send any parties over into Connecticut at the last 
 election ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never heard of such a thing until I came here. 
 
 No. 80. 
 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 JOHN APPLETON called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You have read the resolution under which this commit- 
 tee is acting. Be pleased to state if you know anything of the dispo- 
 sition of printing money, and any matters between Mr. Bowman and 
 Mr., Wendell. 
 
 Answer. The first part of the resolution directs the committee to 
 inquire whether $41,000, or any other sum or sums, were paid by the 
 public printer, or any party who executed printing or binding for the 
 last Congress or the executive departments, for the use or benefit of 
 any person or party conducting a newspaper, or to aid in the support 
 of any newspaper establishment ; and especially whether any such 
 payment was made to or for the benefit of the person or party inter- 
 ested in the publication of the Washington " Constitution," lately 
 called the "Union," the " Penusylvanian," and the Philadelphia 
 
604 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 "Argus." I, have no knowledge on the face of the earth whether 
 any money was so paid or to whom it was paid. 
 
 Question, Or agreed to be paid? 
 
 Answer. Or agreed to he paid, any more than you yourself. I have 
 heard and read a great deal about it ; but whether there was any 
 agreement to pay any money, I have no such knowledge as would en- 
 able me to testify. 
 
 Question. Have you had any conversation with the parties ? 
 
 Answer. I have had a great many conversations with Mr. Wendell 
 about printing generally, and I have heard a great many complaints 
 from him as to the inadequacy of his receipts for the support of the 
 Washington "Union." 
 
 Question. In the presence of General Bowman ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I have in the presence of General Bowman. 
 The other branch of the resolution is "whether any contract was 
 made, or any understanding hewi, at any time during the last session 
 of Congress, or since the 3d of March last, between Mr. Bowman, late 
 Superintendent of Public Printing, who was, on the lYth instant, 
 elected printer to the Senate, and the printer for the Senate or the ex- 
 ecutive departments during the last Congress, by which the said Bow- 
 man was to receive $20,000^ or other sum, a year, from such printer," 
 &c. I had a converersation with Mr. Bowman and Mr. Wendell ; 
 perhaps I was instrumental in inducing Mr. Bowman to purchase the 
 paper in the beginning. 
 
 Question. Will you state the particulars? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Wendell wanted to dispose of the paper, and he was 
 urgent that I should take it ; he stated that he had other offers, and 
 intimated that it might be sold ; I was satisfied that he was right in 
 sellingjt, for it was running him in debt ; I was naturally anxious 
 that it should be sold to a friend of the administration ; Mr. Bowman 
 was such a friend, and I had a conversation wilh him respecting the 
 purchase and the probable result ; I do not know whether anything 
 very definite was said, for the principal point was whether he would 
 take it ; he hesitated ; finally, I understood that Mr. Wendell and 
 Mr. Bowman had made an arrangement which was mutually satis- 
 factory. 
 
 Question. Do you know what it was ? 
 
 Answer. I have a vague recollection of it. I met them, and they 
 had a great deal of discussion about it as to the general plan of the 
 sale. As I understood it, Mr. Bowman was to take the paper. He 
 was to pay no consideration for it. Mr. Wendell was then in the re- 
 ceipt, as I understood, of a considerable amount of patronage, but .the 
 paper was running him into debt, and he wanted to dispose of it. He 
 had a large printing office on his hands, and he supposed that if he 
 could get rid of the paper, and get it into Bowman's hands, and if 
 Bowman would not compete with him for the executive printing and 
 binding, he might go on and make enough out of that to enable him 
 to compensate himself in part for the sale of the paper, and perhaps 
 contribute something to carry it on, should it be deficient. Precisely 
 the amount or the terms on which it was finally adjusted I should 
 
ELECTIONS. ETC. 605 
 
 not like to state, for I have not the details, hut that was the general 
 plan. I think there was something written. 
 
 Question. There is a contract between them ? 
 
 Answer. They undoubtedly had the general idea, that one having 
 the printing materials and the other the paper, they could get along 
 very harmoniously together and both of them be mutually benefitted, 
 without injury to any one else. 
 
 Question. What was the consideration given for the paper, types, 
 presses, &c. ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think that anything was paid for them. That is 
 my impression. 
 
 Question. Did they have any difficulty about the consideration or 
 the agreement between them? 
 
 Answer. I think the subject was talked over for several weeks about 
 the termination of Congress. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Bowman, at the time the paper was transferred, 
 the Superintendent of the Public Printing ? 
 
 Answer. I tbink he was. 
 
 Question. Were yon called upon by the parties to advise, or to at- 
 tempt to produce an agreement between them in relation to their 
 differences ? 
 
 Answer. I think it very likely that I was called upon by both of 
 them, for it has been my fortune to be called upon in relation to these 
 things very often. 
 
 Question. Did you undertake to adjust the matter, and arrange how 
 they should get on ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I did. If a distinct question was put to 
 me, 1 have no doubt I advised them to the best of my ability ; but I 
 have no distinct recollection of any such thing. My general anxiety 
 was to have the thing done. I wanted Mr. Bowman to take the paper. 
 
 Question. Do you know of anything that was determined or agreed 
 upon finally? 
 
 Answer. I know that they did come to an agreement, and, as I said 
 before, I understood that the substance of that agreement was reduced 
 \a writing. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether that agreement was carried out 
 between them ? 
 
 Answer. No,, sir ; I do not know whether it was carried out. I have 
 heard a great deal of conversation mutually among the parties about 
 it ; but whether it was carried out I could not say. They differed in 
 opinion about it at times. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether it was an understanding between 
 them that Bowman might be, or expected to be, elected printer to the 
 Senate for the present Congress ? 
 
 Answer. As to any understanding about it, I cannot state ; but I 
 have no doubt it was the expectation of both of them, and I have no 
 doubt it influenced them both. Bowman, I have no doubt, woald not 
 have gone into the paper if he had not expected to be elected printer. 
 And Wendell, I have no doubt, expected, as_ Mr. Bowman had no 
 office to do the work, that he would come to him to do the work. 
 
 Question. Was it the subject of conversation ? 
 
606 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. I think it was concluded to be a subject 
 that they could best settle among themselves ; about which there could 
 be no dispute, as their interests were identical. 
 
 Question. What was your idea of what would be the interests of 
 the parties? 
 
 Answer. That Wendell, having an establishment, would do the 
 work ; that Bowman, if he were elected printer, would hire Wendell's 
 building, or employ Wendell as his agent, and that this might be 
 done upon terms mutually beneficial. 
 
 Question. Was it understood that Bowman, out of this printing for 
 the present Congress, should pay anything? 
 
 Answer. I do not think they had got as far as that. 
 
 Question. Was that their expectation ? 
 
 Answer. I should say that I supposed it entered into consideration 
 on both sides. It was an expectation, and not an agreement or a posi- 
 tive arrangement. I suppose such an arrangement or understanding 
 as that by which the Clerk and the Speaker of the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives have been elected. 
 
 Question. An understanding that was spoken of? 
 
 Answer. I should not like to say ; but I have no doubt the subject 
 was talked over. I am sure Mr. Bowman said he would not take the 
 paper unless he expected to have the Senate printing. I am sure of 
 that. And I have no doubt in my own mind that Mr. Wendell as 
 confidently expected that, if Bowman was elected, he would come to 
 him to do the work. 
 
 Question. What sum was it that Wendell was to pay annually? 
 
 Answer. They made an estimate of the cost, and my impression is 
 Bowman was to receive somewhere about |10,000. 
 
 Question. Was that sum afterwards changed ; was it increased ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of any change. I think that was about the 
 sum he thought it would be necessary to use for the purpose. 
 
 Question. To support the paper ? 
 
 Answer. To support the paper. 
 
 Question. What was Wendell to receive for the newspaper estab- 
 lishment and the ten thousand dollars a year ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he was to receive anything. He was 
 already in the receipt of the printing and bindin g for the departments 
 directly or indirectly, and I imagine he supposed that if Mr. Bowman 
 did not compete with him it would be continued. 
 
 Question. Was it in the discretion of anybody to continue it? 
 
 Answer. It was in the discretion of those who give it out. I do not 
 know that there was any interference with it. 
 
 Question. Who were they ? 
 
 Answer. Those who have the printing to do, the departments and 
 the Executive. 
 
 Question. You allude to the printing for the public offices? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the distribution of any fund 
 that resulted from the post office printing of blanks ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not ; I have scarcely had any knowledge of 
 the post office printing. In the beginning of the administration I had 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 607 
 
 some conversation with various parties about it, and I was told who 
 had it at one time and who had it at another. [ may have been told 
 indirectly that A, B, and had it, but I had no agency in it. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything of the receipt of money for the 
 benefit of the " Pennsylvanian" and the " Argus?" 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. I have an impression, I scarcely know 
 how derived, about it. I am quite sure Mr. Rice had the post office 
 printing for a time ; but how long it was continued, or how his ar- 
 rangements were modified, I am unable to say. I think in this very 
 conversation to which I have referred, something was said about the 
 Philadelphia " Pennsylvanian " as being in the receipt of a certain 
 &um. 
 
 Question. From whom were they to receive it? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. My impression is that it came from the 
 executive printing and binding, and it was mentioned as a sort of lien 
 iipon that fund in connexion with this demand of ten thousand dollars 
 to Mr. Bowman. 
 
 Question. Who assumed to determine where this fund should go to ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. If anybody claimed it they got as much 
 as they could. I do not know who had it except the " Constitution" 
 and the " Pennsylvanian." 
 
 Question. Was it a fund distributed as a party fund for party 
 services? 
 
 Answer. I never heard of such a thing. My knowledge is what I 
 have stated. Mr. Rice, I think, had the contract for the post office 
 blanks, and I suppose he used part of it in carrying on his paper. He 
 did not do the work, as I have always understood, but employed some- 
 body else. 
 
 Question. Do you know who did it? 
 
 Answer. What I know is from hearsay. I hear things just as you 
 do. 
 
 Question. What were the difficulties between Bowman and Wendell 
 upon which your advice was asked for ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that there were any difficulties about it. 
 When they had made their own arrangements and came to the con- 
 clusion to make a change of the paper, I was asked by one or both of 
 them to meet them. They talked over matters. I do not know that 
 there were difficulties. 
 
 Question. What was the subject of conversation ? 
 
 Answer. What I have stated to you generally. The subject was 
 generally the sale of the paper from Wendell to Bowman. vVendell 
 was to pay Mr. Bowman, who was not to be a competitor for the print- 
 ing and binding. He was to pay him a sum of money which was not 
 far from ten thousand dollars. Something was said of a sum which 
 had been paid, and which was then being paid, as I supposed, to the 
 "Pennsylvanian." The two sums taken together were perhaps one 
 as much as the other. 
 
 Question. And did these two parties agree to this understanding- 
 Wendell and Bowman ? 
 
 Answer. I understood it so. I suppose it was essentially reduced 
 to writing. 
 
608 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did you understand that their agreement was in relation 
 to the printing for the present Congress, and was that reduced to 
 writing ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think there was any written agreement on that 
 subject. I think if anything was said it was put aside as a thing be- 
 yond their control ; and they must have confidence enough in each 
 other to arrange it when it was done. From my general knowledge 
 of the transaction, I have no doubt Bowman hoped and expected that 
 he would be the Senate printer, and I have no doubt Wendell expected, 
 if he was, he would be enabled to make an arrangement by which the 
 work would be done at his establishment, and on terms upon which 
 they might agree. 
 
 Question. A part of these terms was that Wendell was to pay Bow- 
 man these ten thousand dollars ? 
 
 Answer. Oh, no ; that, so far as relates to the executive printing, 
 had nothing to do with the printing for Congress. 
 
 Question. Then the ten thousand dollars was to be paid out of the 
 executive printing ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the money to be paid to the " Constitution" and 
 the " Pennsylvanian" was outside of the congressional printing. 
 
 Question. And was that arrangement or understanding satisfactory, 
 as you learned from their conversation and expressions ? 
 
 Answer. I judged it to be so. I do not think there was any dispute 
 about it. I think they made their own arrangement^ and that it was 
 mutually satisfactory. 
 
 Question. How long did Bowman continue Superintendent of the 
 Public Printing after this ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know. I supposed he had resigned. I had no 
 doubt he would resign a,fter the sale of the paper. 
 
 Question. I think, Mr. Appleton, you have stated that Mr. Wendell 
 was desirous that you should take the paper ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And if you had accepted it he would have offered terms 
 equally as favorable as the amount paid to Bowman ? 
 
 Answer. I have no doubt he would have given to me as favorable 
 terms as those he made with Bowman, for i think he has as much 
 confidence in me as he has in anybody. 
 
 Question. And you declined? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I declined. I fancy there can be no sort of doubt 
 about this arrangement being made at the time of which I am speak- . 
 ing. The arrangement between Mr. Bowman and Mr. Wendell was 
 patent, but I do not know what they did about it since. 
 
 Question. Has Mr. Bowman been elected printer to the Senate ? 
 
 Answer. I understand so. 
 
 Question. Does Mr. Wendell do the printing in accordance with 
 that arrangement ? 
 
 Answer. I understand not. I do not speak of any positive under- 
 standing. The floating expectation is a subject that nobody can pre- 
 cisely detail. I suppose nobody would undertake to divide out the 
 printing before it came. 
 
 Question. Was there any conversation at the time the written 
 
ELECTI0K8, ETC. 609 
 
 agreement was made that it was better that the understanding in re- 
 lation to the present Congress should not be inserted in the written 
 contract, but be merely an understanding ? 
 
 Answer. I have said that I do Hot know of anything being said 
 about its being better to leave that. If they could not get along in 
 harmony, after being together eight or nine months, it was useless then 
 to make any arrangement. I do not recollect that anything definite 
 was said about it. I know that Mr. Bowman said he would not take 
 the paper unless he expected to have the' Senate printing, and it was 
 generally understood that he would have it if he was editor of the 
 " Union," as it was thea called. Possibly there might be some fur- 
 ther conversation with other parties in reference to their matters, but 
 I have no distinct recollection of it. It was useless to talk about it, 
 for the Senate printer had not been elected. 
 
 Question. You spoke of an expectation on the part of Bowman to 
 have it, and of Wendell to do the Senate printing ; do you know how 
 these expectations arose ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose they arose out of the nature of the case. I do 
 not suppose it was difficult to imagine that the parties would have it. 
 
 Question. How do you suppose they originated ? 
 
 Answer. I know that Mr. Bowman told me that he expected to have 
 the Senate printing ; but he had no place to do it in. I think it was 
 a very plain subject of expectation. I have no doUbt it formed an in- 
 gredient in both their minds. 
 
 Question. Your knowledge of it, then, was derived from them ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect ; I do not know how I got my informa- 
 tion. It was an impression upon my mind. I heard them both talk 
 about it ; but that there was a definite conversation I do not think. I 
 suppose they both thought the Senate printing would take that direc- 
 tion. It was natural that Bowman should expect it, and that Wendell 
 should expect to do the work ; but it was one of those unwritten and 
 unwritable arrangements that it is difficult to define. 
 
 Question. Was this arrangement understood at the time ? 
 
 Answer. I have no doubt of it being expected, but I do not think it 
 was a matter of distinct stipulation. I have no doubt that both had 
 that expectation, and I confess I am rather sorry that they did not 
 carry it out. I think it would have been better for the government, 
 and certainly better for them. 
 
 Question. If there is anything further in relation to the printing 
 that comes within the resolution appointing the committee that you 
 have not stated, be pleased to state it. 
 
 Answer. I do not know that there is anything that 1 can add. I 
 have heard a great deal of floating conversation abbut it. 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 39 
 
610 
 
 No. 82. 
 Thursday, May 31, 1860 
 
 WILLIAM H. WITTE called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. In Philadelphia. 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir ; I am in the manufacturing business, chiefly ; 
 'in various branches of business. 
 
 Question. Were you applied to in 1858, during the canvass by 
 General Foster, for some money ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; do you wish me to state the circumstances? 
 Question. I will ask for another question. Did you, a few days 
 before the election that year, telegraph to Mr. Barclay to draw on you 
 for a certain amount ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 Question. For what amount ? 
 Answer. For $600. 
 
 Question. Had G-eneral Foster spoken to you, or written to you, or 
 both, on the subject before ? 
 
 Answer. He had both spoken and written to me previously on the 
 subject. 
 
 Question, Did you ever cash that draft ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the reason you did not ? 
 Answer. Well, sir ; my telegraphic despatch having been made 
 public, I thought if I paid the draft, perhaps, the nature of the trans- 
 action between General Foster and myself might be misconstrued ; 
 therefore I did not pay the draft. 
 
 Question. Were you not in the habit of calling transactions for po- 
 litical purposes loans, saying that you were loaning the money ? 
 Answer. I never had any transactions of that kind. 
 Question. Was it not called a loan ? 
 Answer. 1 It was a loan. 
 
 Question. Was it one of those loans that you expected to have 
 repaid to you ? Had you paid the draft would you have expected to 
 . get it back ? 
 
 Answer. General Foster had sent me his note for the amount, and 
 at the time I supposed it would be paid when it was due. 
 
 Question. Had you any business, relations with General Foster rela- 
 'tive to some railroad solicitorship, that you should pay money ? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Had you employed General Foster at any time to attend 
 to some railroad matters, tor which you should pay him a sum of money? 
 Answer. Never. 
 
 Question. You would have paid this draft you say, only from the 
 fact that a knowledge of it had got to the public ? 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 611 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I tMnk I would; I intended to pay it; Iliad 
 authorized Mr. Barclay to draw on me. 
 
 Question. Are you an engine builder yourself? I mean have you 
 had experience in that business, or are you only a contractor for the 
 government ? 
 
 Answer. I have no practical knowledge of the business. 
 
 Question. Are you interested generally in the establishment that 
 has been building these engines, or were you simply the party that 
 got the contracts from the government and became interested in that 
 way ? 
 
 Answer. I was a partner with them in the contract, having an 
 equal interest, only, however, in the work for the government. 
 
 Question. You were interested only in the government work ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; not in a general way. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson: 
 
 Question. You intimated that you would like to explain the whole 
 transaction. 
 
 Answer. If the chairman preferred it, I would have stated the cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 Question. I did not know but what yom wanted to make some ex- 
 |)lanation. 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 No. 90. 
 Friday, June 8, 1860. 
 
 GEORGE SANDERSON called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Aswer. I reside in Scranton, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? i 
 
 Answer. I am in the law business and in the banking business. 
 
 Question. What are your politics? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, since my youth up I have acted with the demo- 
 ratic party. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any money having been improperly used 
 in Colonel Scranton's election, or in that district? 
 
 An8,wer. I do not, sir. 
 
 Question. Being a banker, we supposed that if moneys had been 
 sed in that way you would be likely to have some knowledge of it. 
 Do you know of any money being used at all ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not know of a dollar. I cannot say that 
 now of the value of a farthing having been got from my bank by any 
 indvidual, or in any manner, directly or indirectly, connected with the 
 election of Colonel Scranton. 
 ' ' Question. Can you explain why it was that Colonel Scranton go 
 
612 ELECTIOliCSr ETC.'- 
 
 such a tremendous vote in that, district, overcoming a, majority of 
 some eight thousand ? 
 
 Answer. The majority of Governor Packer was ahout four thousand, 
 an,d the year hefore, on the other ticket, the majority was about three 
 thousand five hundred. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, what explanation have you to, give for the 
 enormous vote that Col. Scranton got in that district? W^^^'^^s the 
 cause of it ? 
 
 Answer. There werea combination of causes. 
 
 Question. What moneyed influence or corruption was brought to 
 bear to secure his election ? 
 
 Answer. None that I am aware of. 
 
 Question. Jast state what the causes were, then, if yoii please. 
 
 Answer. The democratic party — for that is the party that I affili- 
 ated with and am most acquainted with — got very much discouraged 
 and seriously disaffected by the disposition which the State adminis- 
 tration and the democrats in the legislature had made, of the public 
 works ; that was the first thing. Along through Luzerne county, 
 connecting north and south, is a canal costing the State some four or 
 five millions of dollars, and the democrats believed that the Sunbury 
 and Erie Eailroad had got possession of that by corrupt means, and 
 they thought Gov. Packer ought to have interfered. The consequence 
 was a general dissatisfaction, and a lack of confidence in the party in 
 the State. That was the first cause ; and the next was on account of 
 other differences, which grew out. of questions connected with the 
 course of the administration with regard to Kansas. A good deal of 
 discussion was had in that district upon that subject ; and without 
 any particular co-operation on the part of democrats, it was found 
 that the great mass of the people were not disposed to approve the 
 course which the administration had taken upon that question, but^ 
 were rather disposed to sustain the position which Mr. Douglas had 
 taken. There had been no action particularly upon the subject, but 
 it produced a great deal of excitement, and many of them declining 
 to organize separately from the democratic party, but desiring not to 
 indorse the course of the administration on the Kansas question, gave 
 notice to the convention at Wilkesbarre that they must not nominate 
 Mr. Leidy, that member of Congress who had gone entirely with the 
 administration upon this question, for they would be compelled to 
 vote against him or they would not vote at all. The result was that 
 they threw Mr. Leidy over, but passed resolutions approving his 
 course, and nominated a person who was equally objectionable. The 
 republicans as a party — the pure and simple republicans, not the ex- 
 treme men — got together to make a nomination, and were going to 
 nominate a man as radical as the generality of them are, but they 
 were told by the anti-Lecompton or Douglas men and others disaffected 
 with the course of the State administration, that if they would nomi- 
 nate a conservative and fair man, they would perhaps be able to concen- 
 trate this strength upon him. They then called a people's meeting at 
 Wilkesbarre and nominated Col. Scranton. Col. Scranton voted with 
 us for Gov. Packer, and since the dissolution of the whig party he 
 had often voted with the democrats. We thought he was the best 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 613 
 
 man we could get, and as we knew he had voted for Gov. Packer, we 
 thought he was just the man for this occasion. Then the third cause 
 was on account of the general prostration of business in the county, 
 growing out of the low prices of coal and iron. The great body of the 
 people, voters in that county, are connected with the mining business, 
 and they got it into their heads, whether right or wrong, that when 
 they did not get work, or were compelled to work for very low wages, 
 the whole thing was owing to theconrge of the democrats in not giving 
 them a tariff. That same thing has been done before in Pennsylvania, 
 and it was a mania that spread abroad through the whole county. 
 This was the third cause, and it operated very powerfully. Then Col, 
 Scranton was a pioneer. He came there when the country was a for- 
 est, and was instrumental in building up the northern part of Luzerne 
 county, until a little town which only contained a population of 1,800, 
 now contains 18,000. The town of Providence, in which Col. Scranton 
 is located, now contains that population. The borough of Scranton 
 contains a population often thousand, and is almost the third borough 
 in the State. Col. Scranton's prestige was very great. Every man 
 thought a great deal of him. I dont know of any man in the State 
 who has the extent of personal influence through that section which 
 Col. Scranton has ; and that prestige was a very great thing in his 
 favor. We did hot expect ahy such thing, but the result was, when 
 his party nominated him, that the whole force of the anti-ddministra- 
 tion men, the Douglas men as they call themselves, and the tariff inen, 
 all turned in and gave their support to him, and it surprised me. I 
 know I was struck aback as much as any one, that with a democratic 
 majority in the district of 3,500, he should have run 3,900 the other 
 way. 
 
 Question. Ton hate a very large mining and manufacturing interest 
 there ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Ours is a mining community. 
 
 Question. That interest, I understand you to say, went for him? 
 
 Answer. Entirely, en masse. The borough of Scranton polled 
 nearly eleven hundred votes, and I think there were only about a 
 hundred votes against the colonel. 
 
 Question. How did the other men run who were upon the ticket 
 with him ? 
 
 'Answer. One of the democratic carididatds for the legislature was 
 elected by a very small majority, about fifty or sixty, and two repub- 
 licans were elected. The democrats ought to hdve had fourteen, 
 undred majority. That is the usual majority in that county. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow : 
 
 Question. What did you say the democratic majority in that dis- 
 trict was? 
 
 Answer. I, think the democratic majority in the district the year 
 before was about 3,500. 
 
 Question. And what did Col. Scranton succeed by? 
 
 Answer, I think about 3,900. 
 
 Question. How did you vote ? Have you any objection to stating? 
 
 Answer. I voted for Col. Scranton. He is a neighbor of mine. 
 
61.4 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. When did you arrive in this city ? 
 
 Answfer. Last evening, sir. 
 
 Question. Did I understand you to say that there was no money 
 used in that election ? 
 
 Answer. There was none used that I am aware of. 
 
 Question. You do not say that there was not any used ? 
 
 Answer. Oh I no, sir. I do not know. 
 
 ■Question. You do not know of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; not of my own personal, knowledge. I do not 
 know of any ; and if there was any used, I was not the person they 
 would have been likely to use it through. It was the first time in 
 the history of my life that I had given a vote for any person who was not 
 on the democratic ticket. I disbursed a great deal of money, hut I do 
 not recollect a dollar either borrowed of me or pacing through our 
 office for that purpose, in any manner or form. 
 
 By Mt. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you know how you came "to be summoned here ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. He was summoned on my motion. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Have you conversed with any member of the committee 
 since you have been in the city ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. Some one introduced me to Mr. Covode last 
 evening. 
 
 Question. Did you talk with him ? 
 
 Answer. I had a few moments' talk with him. He asked me some 
 questions with regard to my being here. It was mere general talk — 
 that is all. 
 
 Question. You came yesterday evening ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. There were several of us came together. 
 
 No, 93. 
 Fbidat, June 8, 1860, ' 
 
 J. HENKY PULESTON called and s^orn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. In Pittston, Luzerne county, Pennsylvania. 
 Question. What has been your occupation there ? 
 Answer. Until recently I have been publishing a paper there. 
 Question. What kind of a paper, democratic or republican ? 
 Answer. Eepublican. 
 
 Question. Did you take an active part in the election of Mr. 
 Scranton ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir ; I took a pretty active part in it: 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 615 
 
 Question. Were you not his leading man or friend, who travelled 
 around with him ? 
 
 _ Answer. Well, sir, I was with him most of the time^ not all the 
 time ; we had a very short campaign, about three weeks. I was 
 with him the greater part of the time, and travelled with him ; gen- 
 erally the only one ; sometimes we had one or two others who joined 
 him on the road. I attended generally to his private correspondence. 
 
 Question. I tmderstand that you are well acquainted with every- 
 thing connected with that canvass. 
 
 Answer. I thought I was ; I will not undertake to say that I 
 knew everything ; but I thought I knew as much as any one. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt or improper means being 
 made use of to elect Mr. Scranton ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not ; neither directly nor indirectly. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know of the use of any money in the election of 
 Mr. Scranton, either by him or his friends ? 
 
 Answer. Oh I yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Please state all about it. 
 _ Answer. I have given |20 to editors in the district for printing 
 tickets. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any corrupt use of moriby at all ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Or of papers being bought up ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know of the sum of |4,000 being expended? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I know of no such sum. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any sum being expended in his election ? 
 
 Answer. Not improperly. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any fund being raised for his election? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not ; no fund whatever. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any illegal voting at that election ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir ; I do not know of it on either side ; the election 
 was pretty much one way ; there was a great deal of enthusiasm for 
 Mr, Scranton. 
 
 By the Chairmait : 
 
 Question. What begot that great enthusiasm for Mr. Scranton ? 
 
 Answer. A large majority of the people were miners, &c. The dis- 
 trict gave usually a democratic majority of about 4,000, but the people 
 had become tired of free trade, as they expressed it, and were de- 
 termined to change the administration, as they were very much dis- 
 gusted, or professed to be, with the present administration of public 
 affairs, and they determined to do all they could in our district to 
 effect a change. That, coupled with Mr. Scranton's great popularity, 
 made a change of some 8,000 votes in the district. In his own 
 borough of' Scranton, which usually gives a democratic majority, he 
 had an almost unanimous vote. In Pittston, where I reside, there 
 are some 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, and there were only some 35 
 votes against him. 
 
616 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. You are satisfied that there were no corrupt influences in 
 that election ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; I am satisfied of that. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Do you know Mr. A. B. Dunning? 
 Answer. I do not know him intimately ; I know him. 
 Question. Where does he live ? 
 Answer. In Providence, I think. 
 
 Question. Do you. know anything ahout any overtures heing made 
 to him ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question, When did you arrive in this city ? 
 
 Answer. Last evening ; a little after six o'clock, I think. ' 
 
 No. 94. 
 Feidat, June 8, 1860. 
 
 A. DAV1E3 called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside at Scrantpn, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I am the editor of a paper. 
 
 Question. What paper ? 
 
 Answer. The "Herald." 
 
 Question. Is it a republican or a democratic paper ? 
 
 Answer. Democratic. 
 
 Question. Did you support Mr. Scranton for Congress, in opposi- 
 tion to the nominee of your party, in 1858 ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Did you receive any pecuniary consideration for doing so ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 Question. Are you aware, of your own knowledge, of any improper 
 use of money during that contest? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Can you account for the large vote Mr. Scranton received 
 in that district ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I think I can, somewhat. 
 
 Question. What was the leading cause ? 
 
 Answer. The leading cause was that a very unpopular man was 
 nominated on the democratic ticket ; that is, he was so as far as I 
 know ; that waaat the other end of the county. 
 
 Question. Were there any inducements offered you from the other 
 side to induce you to support Mr. Scranton ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I told the conferees, previous to the nominatioa, 
 that if Mr. McEeynolds was nominated I would not support him ;. I 
 told them so in the presence of all the conferees and a bar-room full 
 of people. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 617 
 
 Question. Do you state that you know of no improper or corrupt 
 means made use of to secure the election of Mr. Scranton ? 
 
 Answer. I do not ; none at all. I had no conversation with Mr. 
 Scranton or any of his party friends, in relation to the election, pre- 
 vious to my coming out and supporting him. I did talk with some 
 few democrats in relation to the course I intended to pursue. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the use of money by Mr 
 Scranton or his friends in the election ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know ,of a dollar being expended. 
 
 No. 95. , 
 
 FaiDAT, June 8, 1860. 
 
 DAVID S. KOON called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Qliestion. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Pittston, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What ia your business? 
 
 Answer. I am an attorney-at-law. 
 
 Question. How long have you been in practice there? 
 
 Answer. About six years in that place. 
 
 Question. Were you in the district at the time of Mr. Scranton's 
 election ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. Do you know of your own knowledge of the use of money 
 by Mr. Scranton to secure his election ? 
 
 Answer. I know the payment of a small sum, and I saw a letter 
 irritten by Mr. Scranton, which 
 
 Question. You need not state the contents of that letter at present. 
 To whom was the letter written ? 
 
 Answer. To a gentleman by the name of Mr. Puleston. 
 
 Question. Give his whole name, if you please. 
 
 Answer. J. H. Puleston. 
 
 Question. You say you know of a small sum of money ; what was it? 
 
 Answer. Only $30. 
 
 Question. What was it for? State all you know about the trans- 
 action. 
 
 Answer. There was a hotel keeper in our place that complained 
 that Mr. Scranton had not paid him, as he had agreed to, the amount 
 he agreed to. He came to me for advice, and wanted to sue him. I 
 told him he had better not sue him ; that he had better write to him. 
 He did «o, and in reply Mr. Scranton wrote to Mr. Puleston, a resi- 
 dent of our town. 
 
618 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC, 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did he write to him, or did yon write to him ? 
 
 Answer. I did not write to him. He wrote to Mr. Puleston to set- 
 tle, and in a day or two Mr. Puleston handed me a draft for $30, 
 which I gave to this man. Mr. Puleston showed me Mr. Scranton's 
 letter, in which he said the campaign had heen heavy, and he thought 
 the hotel keeper had had something like $100 then, and supposed he 
 had paid all he ought to, or something like that. That is all that I 
 know of my own personal knowledge. I suppose hearsay evidence is 
 not received by this committee. 
 
 By Mr. Teain : 
 
 .Question. No, sir ; it is not. What is the name of this landlord, 
 or hotel .keeper ? 
 
 Answer. John Love. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What did he say that money was for ? 
 Answer. For forwarding the interests of Mr. Scranton at the elec- 
 tion . 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. How? By furnishing refreshments to the people? 
 
 Answer. Liquors. He was directed to furnish liquors on Mr. 
 Scranton's account to everyone that called; not refreshments gen- 
 erally. The place where the election was held in that district — the 
 polls — was at this tavern. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Did you not get part of that money? 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never got a cent of Mr. Scranton's money. 
 Question. I mean a part of the $30 ? 
 ' Answer. Not a cent. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. The amount of it was, that that $30 was a debt which 
 Mr. Scranton owed him for refreshments that he had furnished Mr. 
 Scranton's friends? 
 
 Answer. Well, it may be called so, perhaps. 
 
 Question. And through your intervention and that of Mr. Puleston 
 the $30 was paid ; the draft went through your hands, and you 
 charged a commission, I suppose ? 
 
 Answer. I charged nothing. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not see Mr. Scranton's letter, in which he said 
 he knew nothing about this matter? 
 
 Answer. I think Mr. Scranton said he did not know how matters 
 stood ; that he left it to Mr. Alton to settle matters there. I do not 
 recollect the contents of that letter altogether. My impression is 
 now that he referred to Mr. Alton to pay thia account. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 619 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Davis Alton is the man you speak of? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he here ? 
 
 Answer. He is not ; his name was sent to this committee. 
 
 Question. Did you write this letter ? [Showing witness a letter.] 
 
 Answer, (after examining it.) That is my letter. 
 
 The letter is as follows : 
 
 " PiTTSTON, Pa., April 5, 1860. 
 
 "Dear Sir: I senJ. you, at the suggestion of Hon. Thomas B. 
 Florence, the names of witnesses by whom it can he shown that large 
 amounts of money were expended by Mr. Scranton and his friends to 
 secure the election of Mr. S. to the present House. 
 
 '•' There need not he the least trouble in showing this if these wit- 
 nesses can be brought before the committee. I have already sent on 
 the names of the same witnesses to Mr. Oovode, the chairman, but I 
 suppose he is not anxious to inquire into the matter on the black re- 
 publican side : 
 
 Luzerne county, 
 
 JohnBrisbin, Scranton. E. D. Lacoe, Pittston. 
 
 Geo. Sanderson, 
 
 A. Davis, 
 
 Ira Tripp, 
 
 Joseph Scranton, 
 
 Or. W. Palmer, 
 
 M. Meylert, 
 
 *Daniel Lundy, 
 
 J. H. Puleston, 
 *A. 0. Thompson, " 
 John Love, " 
 
 Frederick Helf, " 
 M. Philbin, " 
 
 D. S. Koon, " 
 
 Wm. P. Miner, Wilkesbarre. 
 John Stewart, Lacka,wanna. *H. M. Hoyt, " 
 
 Davis Alton, Carbon(aale. G. M. Harding, " , 
 
 A. F. Eussell, Danville, Montour county. 
 
 Palemon John, Bloomsburg, Columbia county. 
 
 Frank Stewart, Berwick, Columbia county. 
 
 0. F. Gaines, now of Boonton, New Jersey, (important.) 
 
 " I have put my own name i;», as will be seen, as a draft on Mr, 
 Scranton, and in favor of a client ot mine, passed through my hands. 
 " Should it be deemed unnecessary to send for so many, I have 
 marked those that may be dispensed with with a star. 
 " Very respectfully, 
 
 "D. S. KOON. 
 " Hon. Warren Winslow." 
 
 Question. All the personal knowledge you had in reference to the 
 subject matter of that letter you have now stated to the committee, 
 have you not ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, about the payment of money. 
 
 Question. You do not kh jw that there was any corrupt or improper 
 use of money at all, of your own knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. I never saw any money paid directly by Mr. Scranton. 
 
620 ELECTIONS, Etc. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you not see the letter from Mr. Scranton, saying that 
 he knew nothing about the matter, and referred it to Mr. Puleston ? 
 
 Answer. I say that I cannot state the whole of the letter. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Mr. Scranton said that was an 
 attempt to hlack-mail him, and for Mr. Puleston to settle it as he 
 pleased ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect. 
 
 Question. Did you not see the letter, or was it not read to you, 
 stating that it was an effort to hlack-mail him ; that he would have 
 nothing to do with it, and for Mr. Puleston to settle it as he pleased ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say whether those words were in it or not. 
 
 Question. Was not that the substance of the letter ? 
 
 Answer. I have stated the substance of the letter to be that he did 
 not know of this ; that he supposed all these matters were settled ; that 
 he supposed. Mr. Alton had settled up these matters, and referred it to 
 Mr. Puleston. 
 
 Question. Did you not yourself write the letter to Mr. Scranton that 
 was enclosed by Mr. Scranton to Mr. Puleston ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Were you not in the store or post office, or wherever that 
 .letter was opened and posted up ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. And was it not on the bottom of the letter that it was 
 written by you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I never wrote a word of it. 
 
 No. 93. 
 
 Friday, June 8, 1860. 
 
 J. H. PULESTON recalled. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a letter signed by John 
 Love that was received by Mr. Scranton ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know John Love's handwriting ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Tou do not know who wrote that letter ? 
 
 Answer. I have no positive knowledge of it ; but I have had so 
 much to do with Mr. Koon's handwriting that I know it. I do no% 
 know that I can positively swear to it ; but when I received the letter 
 from Mr. Scranton with the other one enclosed, I held it up and pro- 
 claimed it to be Mr. Koon's writing. 
 
 Question. Fromyourknowledgeof Mr. Koon's writing, you believed 
 it to be his ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC., 621, 
 
 Question, Mr. Scranton wrote to you? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Enclosing the other letter to you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes., sir. 
 
 Question. What were the contents of Mr. Scranton' s letter ? 
 
 Answer. I think in the letter he says: " This is the second or third 
 letter I have had from that man. I have no knowledge of this mat- 
 ter whatever, and do not recognize it in any form or shape. But you 
 do with it as you think proper," or words to that effect. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Was this man Koon present when you received Mr. Scran- 
 ton's letter with the enclosure ? 
 
 Answer. He came into the post office a few moments after I received 
 it. When I opened it, and saw what it was, I remarked — " Look 
 at Koon's work," I said this jocularly, because the thing was so ab- 
 surd. I showed it to the posbmaster, among others. The letter was 
 so ridiculous, and yet so characteristic of the man, that I showed it 
 t^ere, and had much fun over it. Mr. Koon denied it to he his hand- 
 writing, but he knows to this day that I say it was his. 
 
 Question. Did you stick it up in the post office or paste it up ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I held it up there and showed it. The letter 
 went on to say : "I will expose you to the ' Luzerne Union ' (which 
 is a democratic paper) and show you up." 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you look upon it as an effort to black-mail Mr. Scran- 
 ton ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; as an effort to get the money. 
 Question. Mr. Scranton knew nothing of this claim? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You looked upon it as an attempt to coerce money out of 
 Mr. Scranton by a threat to expose him in the paper ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 No. 99. 
 Friday, Jime 8, 1860. 
 GEOKGE W. WALLINQ called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 Answer. Second avenue. No, 325, New York city. 
 Question. What is your occnpat,ion ? 
 
 Answer. I belong to the police department ; I am a captain of the 
 detective police force,, 
 
622 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge or information of money teing 
 raised for or men sent into Connecticut at the last election ? 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge of it. 
 
 Question. State what you know about that, and what the character 
 of your information is. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. State nothing hearsay ; state what you know of your 
 own knowledge. 
 
 Answer. I have no personal knowledge of anything ; in my official 
 capacity I received some information, but I have no personal knowledge. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question. All you know is what you have derived from the men 
 under you. 
 
 Answer. All my information I have received from that source. 
 
 No. 85. 
 Feidat, June 1, 1860. 
 
 HORACE F. CLAEK called and examined. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question, What congressional district do you represent in Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Answer. I represent the 8th congressional district of the State of 
 New York. It is the upper district of the city of New York. 
 
 Question. I will read you the last resolution under which this com- 
 mittee is acting. [Mr. Winslow then read the resolution in relation 
 to the use of money in elections.] I wish to ask you with regard to 
 the practice in the State of New York of using money in elections, so 
 far as it has come to your knowledge, either personal knowledge or 
 by reputation. I do not confine myself to one party, but refer to all 
 parties. 
 
 Answer. There is no question, gentlemen, but that money is em- 
 ployed in and about elections in the city and State of New York by 
 all parties. I should think it would be fair to say that each party 
 gets all the money it can for that purpose, the only difference being 
 that the democratic party- employs the money to bring out democratic 
 votes and the other parties to obtain votes of their own description. 
 The statement of the President in the Du Quesne letter, referred to in 
 the resolution just read to me, is undoubtedly true. The practice is 
 regarded as a great and growing evil. 
 
 Question. You consider that practice universal in the State of New 
 York? 
 
 Answer. So far as I know it is universal. I am not very well ac- 
 quainted with the local politics of the western part of the State. But 
 for the ten last years I have been sufficiently acquainted with political 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 623 
 
 affairs to know that the employment of money for election purposes is 
 one of general practice. And I think that any candid man with any in- 
 formation upon the subject must admit the fact. There are very many 
 legitimate expenses attending elections. Those legitimate expenses 
 are very great, and must be borne either by the candidate or by his 
 friends. I do not undertake to discriminate in the answer which I 
 have given between what may be regarded as legitimate expenses and 
 expenses which may be deemed illegitimate. The printing and the 
 circulation of docnments for the information of the people, and the 
 providing safeguards about the polls, are all the subjects of large ex- 
 penditures, and they are legitimate. There are undoubtedly illegiti- 
 mate expenses of elections. 
 
 Mr. Train. I will state that the committee have not undertaken 
 under this resolution to inquire into the expenditure of money in elec- 
 tions except where we supposed the money was in some way drawn 
 from the government. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. It is due to myself to state that I differ with the ma- 
 jority of the committee upon that point. The resolution is a broad one, 
 to inquire and report to the House whether money is used in elections 
 by any one ; and I suppose the object is to see if any legislation can 
 be devised in relation to the matter. The connexiwa of the govern- 
 ment with our inquiry is embraced in the first resolution. But the 
 second resolution has no reference to the connexion of the government 
 with the subject of investigation. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. I think myself, with Governor Winslow, that the 
 second resolution covers this inquiry ; but I do not think the House 
 has the power to order the inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Train. I have no occasion to deny your construction of the reso- 
 lution ; but we have not acted upon that construction. 
 
 The Chairman. It is proper to state here that we have not pursued 
 the investigation except where it was supposed that it had some con- 
 nexion with the government or government officers. 
 
 The Witness. Money has been raised in New York and sent to 
 Pennsylvania to aid in the payment of election expenses. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow : 
 
 Question. By both parties ? 
 
 Answer. I am more familiar with the contributions of the demo- 
 cratic party for the purpose of aiding in the payment of election ex- 
 penses in Pennsylvania. But I am satisfied that all parties obtain 
 contributions of money for election purposes ; I do not say otherwise 
 than legitimately. I differ from some gentlemen as to the morality 
 of such transactions. I do not think that the employment of money 
 to enlighten the public as to the political issues of the day, or to secure 
 the ends of good government, is wrong. I think it is right, and I 
 know it to be necessary. The evil is, perhaps, incident to our electioa 
 system, and is probably ,beyond the reach of Congress. 
 
624 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 No. 104. 
 
 Saturday, June 9, 1860. 
 
 JOHN B. HASKIN called and examined. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Do you know Samuel F. Butterworth, the superintendent 
 of the assay office. New York ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; very well. 
 
 Question. I want to inquire if you know, of your own knowledge, 
 anything in reference to his sending men into your district to defeat 
 your re-election to Congress ? 
 
 Answer. I have good reason to helieve that he sent men into my 
 district who were in the employ of the government under him, as I 
 have good reason to know that Mr. Schell, the collector of the port of 
 New York, did the same thing. 
 
 Question. How do you know that ? 
 
 Answer. I know it from having seen the men in the district at work 
 before the electiori^t the primary election and at the general election. 
 
 Question. Do you know they were men in the employ of the gov- 
 ernment in his office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How many men were sent there ? 
 
 Answer. I know of three that Mr. Butterworth sent^ as I helieve, 
 two of whom, I think, were expressly appointed for the purpose of 
 travelling over my district and doing what they could to defeat my 
 re-election. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Browne, of the " Constitution," sent into your 
 district ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Browne, of the " Constitution," addressed a public 
 meeting at Morrisiania, and his speech on the occasion, according to 
 my recollection, was mainly devoted to denunciations of me. That 
 speech was reported in the New York administration paper. 
 
 Question. Were you the candidate of the republican party in your 
 district in 1858? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I was not the candidate of the republican party. 
 After the adjournment of the 35th Congress I went home and an- 
 nounced myself as an independent democratic candidate ; but I was 
 not nominated by the republicans nor by the Americans ; I ran as an 
 independent democrat, and at every meeting at which I addressed the 
 people I announced myself as such, and in argument antagonized the 
 republican party upon their doctrine in favor of congressional inter- 
 vention to prohibit slavery in the Territories. I desire to remark 
 here to the committee that a statement was made by Mr. Butterworth 
 that upon my request he had paid money towards my election in 1856, 
 and that he had paid it to me- personally. That is not so. I never 
 requested Mr. Butterworth to contriljute a dollar towards my election, 
 nor did he ever give me a dollar towards it. He gave a financial 
 agent of mine $100 under peculiar circumstances. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 625 
 
 No, 110. 
 
 Tuesday, Jwne 12, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM KAKNS called and sworn. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Eeading, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. I have been contracting for the public works for a number 
 of years. 
 
 Question. Did you reside in Eeading in the fall of 1856 ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. "Did you at that time receive a quantity of blank natural- 
 ization papers from Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I received some blanks at that time. 
 
 Question. How did you receive them, by mail or express, or in what 
 way? 
 
 Answer. 1 think some few came to me by mail. 
 
 Question. Did they come to you under the frank of any persons ; 
 and if so, under whose ? 
 
 Answer. I think one or two came under the frank of Governor Big- 
 ler, and some came under the frank of other persons, but I am not 
 positive who they were. Governor Bigler's frank is the only one I 
 am positive about ; I think there were, -perhaps, three packages sent, 
 and one of them I know was under the frank of Governor Bigler. 
 
 Question. Were there large quantities of these papers sent to you? 
 • Answer. No, sir ; there were but few. 
 
 Question. How many did you get altogether, do you think? 
 
 Answer. Well, I have said to persons that I had three hundred or 
 four hundred, but that is not so ; I looked them over on Sunday last, 
 and discovered that there were perhaps two hundred or two hundred 
 and thirty altogether. Some of them had what purported to be the 
 seal of the court and the signature of the prothonotary : others were 
 mere blanks. 
 
 Question. Did you make application to Mr. Sallade for the use of 
 his back office ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Question. Who sent these papers to you from Philadelphia? 
 
 . Answer. They were either left at my house by Mr. Brown, or handed 
 to me in person by him ; I am not positive which. I have been trying 
 to recollect whether he gave them to me in person, or left them at my 
 house ; I think they were left by Mr, Brown at my house. At any 
 rate, they came from Mr. Brown. 
 
 Question. Did you not receive a letter relative to the use to be made 
 of them? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. From whom was that letter ? 
 
 Answer, There was no signature to it. 
 
 H. Eep. Gom. 648 40 
 
626 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Question. Were there any initials to it ? 
 
 Answer. It was signed " E," at tlie bottom of the letter. 
 
 Question. Did you not know the handwriting of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. That letter I compared with another that I had from a 
 in«,n in Philadelphia, which was signed " Brown." 
 
 Question. Reuben F. Brown? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you know the handwriting of that letter? 
 
 Answer. I thought the handwriting was the same as that signed 
 "Brown." 
 
 Question. Did you not know from other circumstances that the 
 letter was from Mr. Brown? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir ; I believe the letter was from Mr. Brown ; I think 
 he asked me afterwards if I had got the letter. , 
 
 Question. Did the letter state where these papers were to be used? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you know where they were to be used? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that a portion of them were to be used 
 on the Union canal enlargement, among the Irish ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conference with any one relative to 
 these Irish being supplied with these papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect of any conversation as to their being used 
 on the Union canal ; that is only my supposition ; I had then some 150 
 men employed on the canal, and I supposed that the object of giving 
 me these papers was for them ; I did not know. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I wish it to be understood that I do not think this is 
 evidence, but I do not object to it at all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. You say that you did not know that they were fraudulent 
 papers ; what impression was made upon your mind when you saw 
 them with the seal of the court and the signature of the prothonotary 
 upon them ? 
 
 Answer. I did not know that it was the seal of the court. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that it was irregular ; that you could 
 not fill in the name of a party in the country .in papers with the seal of 
 a Philadelphia court upon them ; you say that you did not know that 
 they were fraudulent papers ? 
 
 Answer. I did not know they were fraudulent. 
 
 Question. Did you not know that you could not in Berks county, 
 fill in the names of parties in papers prepared in Philadelphia ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; but my ifnpreSsion was that they were not 
 fraiidulent until they were filled up. 
 
 By Mr, Train : 
 
 Question. You knew this ; that if you had these papers with a gen- 
 uine seal and signature, it would be a fraudulent use of them to fill 
 them up? 
 
 Answer, Certainly, that is what I mean ; these were not filled up ; 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 627 
 
 the view I took of it was that unless they were filled up by inserting 
 the names of some persons, giving their places of birth, &c,, they 
 would not be fraudulent. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You looked upon the papers as being genuine blanks, and 
 the seal of the court and the signature of the prothonotary as also 
 being genuine? 
 
 Answer. That I cannot say.^ I looked them over on Sunday, and 
 there are two kinds of signatures to them. There is a kind which I 
 think likely is the signature of one who was prothonotary at the time 
 they were issued ; it looks like a genuine signature. In examining 
 those signed "Fletcher," I am inclined to think they were not all 
 written by one person. It looks to me as though that signature was 
 written by different persons ; however, I am not judge enough of that 
 to determine. But those signed "Vineyard," or "Vingard," or some- 
 thing of that kind-^I have only two of them; at least, that is all I 
 saw upon looking them over on Sunday — that looks to me as though, 
 it was a correct signature. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you bring a sample of those papers to the city ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where are what are left of them now ? 
 
 Answer. I possibly may have burned a few of them ; the others I 
 have at home. 
 
 Question. What time did they come to you^— close to the election ?' 
 
 Answer. Previous to the governor's election. 
 
 Question. Very near to the election ? 
 
 Answer, A short time before. I cannot say whether it was twoy 
 three, or four weeks previous to the election ; it was three or four weeks 
 probably. 
 
 Question. Can you state the contents of that letter that you believed 
 to be from Mr. Brown ? 
 
 Answer. That letter that I supposed to be from Mr. Brown was a 
 private letter altogether to me, and I do not want to expose the con- 
 tents of it unless I must. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Have you the letter with you ? 
 
 Answer. I have not ; it was altogether a private communicatiau to 
 myself. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 ' Question . Was the letter upon the subject of these papers ? 
 
 Answer. It spoke of the papers. 
 
 Question, Of the use of them ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 [The witness was then requested to leave the room, which he did. 
 
 The committee had some consultation as to whether the witness 
 should be compelled to state the contents of th6 letter, and it was 
 agreed that he should be asked to do so. 
 
628 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 The witness was then recalled, and his examination resumed as 
 follows :] 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 Question. We understand that this letter came with these papers ? 
 Answer. No,-8ir ; I do not know that it came with them. 
 Question, In connexion with them ? 
 
 Answer. A large bundle of the papers, as I have stated before, were 
 left at my house by Mr. Brown, or haijded to me in person by him. 
 I am not positive that the letter came with the papers, but my im- 
 j)ression is that it came by mail. 
 
 Question. That is, the letter signed " R?" 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 -Question. And it was in reference to the use of these papers ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What directions did it give you in reference to those 
 ipapers ? 
 
 Answer. Am I obliged to answer that? 
 Question. The committee have so decided. 
 
 Answer. As I have stated, there were signatures, as they purported 
 to be, of two different prothonotaries. Some were signed "Vineyard" 
 or "Vingard," I am not positive which. He. was prothonotary in 
 1850, but is dead. This letter explained (I cannot recollect the letter 
 exactly, though I read it last Sunday) that in filling up these papers 
 they must be made to correspond to the date. 1 am not certain 
 whether I got the impression from the letter or from conversation, 
 that these papers had been left over in the office, and had been got 
 out in some way. 
 
 Question. And when they were filled up they were to be made to 
 correspond with the time the prothonotary was alive, whose signature 
 was attached ? 
 
 Answer. So as to correspond to 1850, the date of the signature. 
 The others purporting to have been signed by Fletcher, were signed 
 in 1856, I suppose ; but I do not know that. 
 Question. Where did it direct you to distribute them? 
 Answer. It did not say. 
 
 Question. What else did the letter say about naturalization papers ? 
 Answer. Well, sir; it said that there were thousands ot them being 
 used or distributed, I do not remember which. 
 
 Question. Did you distribute them, or did you refuse to do so? 
 Answer. I never distributed them ; I do not knowth^at I was ever 
 asked to do it at all. 
 
 Question. Did you advise with anybody in reference to them ? 
 Answer. I do not know as I did. This was a thing talked o f by a 
 number of gentlemen there, as it was well known there. There was 
 a man came to me once about them, and I told him : " 'Now, you jttst 
 keep your fingers off them, or 'you will got yourself into the peniten- 
 tiary." 
 
 Question. Did you have any talk with Sallade about distributing 
 them ? 
 
 Answer, No, sir. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 629 
 
 '' Question. Did you see Brown until after the election ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; before. I told Brown, when he asked me about 
 these papers, that I had burned them ; I think I told him that I had 
 burned them. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where was Brown living at that time? 
 
 Answer. He was deputy naval oflBcer in Philadelphia. I will say 
 that I think there were two of these papers in the envelope with Gov- 
 ernor Bigler's frank ; I know that I was cross about it when I read 
 it, and I received three or four under the frank of some members of 
 Congress from Philadelphia. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect any of those franks ? 
 
 Answer. None, except Governor Bigler's ; I recollect that dis- 
 tinctly from the fact that I said to a friend of mine, " What an out- 
 rage this is ; suppose that some other administration should get the 
 control of affairs, and this letter should be sent to the dead letter 
 office, and they should open it and find these papers in it under Gov- 
 ernor Bigler's frank ;" and I will say that nonfe of the papers that I 
 got from Brown were used to vote upon ; that I am positive of. 
 
 Question. Do you know why it was that they were sent to you 
 particularly? Was it not because you were a contractor, and had a 
 large number of Irish employed ? 
 
 Answer. That is the "supposition ; but it is a mere supposition of 
 my own. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I understand you to swear that you never used any of 
 these papers ? 
 
 Answer. I never did, and I am satisfied that uone of those that 
 Brown handed to me, or those that came under the franks of these 
 gentlemen I speak of, were ever used lor the purpose of voting, or iu 
 any way used fraudulently. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you know the handwriting of Governor Bigler when 
 you saw this frank upon these papers ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I looked at it particularly ; I would 
 know it if I were to take it and examine it. 
 
 , The witness having read over his testimony desires to make the 
 following explanation: 
 
 •Shortly after having received those papers I packed them up with 
 a letter which I wrote, explaining from whom I got them, together 
 with the letter which I received from Mr. Brown; this was done in 
 case they should be found in pay possession after my decease: 
 
 Senate Chamber, June 12, 1860. 
 
 Sir: I have learned that Mr. Karns, of Reading, Pennsylvania, 
 who testified before your committee this morning, stated that he had 
 received certain fraudulent naturalization papers, under my frank, in 
 
630 ELECTIONS. ETC. 
 
 1856. I solemnly aver that I never franked any such papers to Mr. 
 Karns or any person, and never was possiessed of the slightest knowl- 
 edge of the affair. 
 
 Very truly your obedient servant, 
 
 ^ ^ WILLIAM BiaLBR. 
 
 Hon. John Covodb. 
 
 No. 111. 
 Tuesday, June 12, 1860. 
 
 JOHN COVODE examined. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Are you the treasurer of the republican executive com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Answer. I am the treasurer of th^ congressional executive com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Question. Is this paper a true copy of a circular issued by you? 
 
 Answer. That is a copy of a circular that we have circulated broad- 
 cast over the land to let the people know what speeches we have, and 
 that they can have them by sending the money for them. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about the expenditure of money 
 in elections in Pennsylvania ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. I have been charged in the papers with having 
 received and disbursed $100,000 in 1856. I state most positively that 
 I have never received and distributed one cent in any such way. All 
 my connexion with money here has been and is for the distribution of 
 documents. I have my book here to show that I have paid money 
 out for nothing else than for the printing of documents to circulate 
 in the country, and for that purpose I have collected money of mem- 
 bers of Congress. 
 
 Question. How much money have you collected as treasurer of the 
 congressional executive committee ? 
 
 Answer. I see by my memorandum book here that I have this ses- 
 sion paid out about $4,000 for speeches to be sent among the people. 
 
 Question. Was an assessment made- by you upon members of Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Answer. I made no assessment, but merely went around and told 
 them that we wanted so much from them. I will state further, that 
 I have been in politics for a great many years, and during that whole 
 time I have never received one dollar to be used for political purposes 
 other than the distribution of documents. For elections and such 
 purposes I never in my life received one dollar from any quarter. 
 • Question. Did you not make an assessment upon members of the 
 last Congress of ten dollars apiece? 
 
 Answer. I did not. I never made an assessment. 
 
 Question. Did you not collect that amount from them? 
 
 Answer. I did from some of them. 
 
ELECTIONS, ETC. 631 
 
 Question. From how many of tliem ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell. For the last five years I have been the 
 treasurer of the executive committee. 
 
 Question. Was it not the understanding that these members of Con- 
 gress should pay ten dollars each? 
 
 Answer. I do not know where such an understanding came from, 
 if there was any such.' We did say that it would take at least ten 
 dollars apiece from members to send documents to the country. Some 
 paid it, and some did not. 
 
 Question. How many paid ? 
 
 Answer. The most of them. 
 
 Question. Was any estimate made this session of the amount neces- 
 iSary to be collected from each member ? 
 
 Answer. There was a meeting of the executive committee ; I was 
 not present ; when it was estimated that it would be necessary for me 
 to collect twenty-five dollars each from the members. Some paid it, 
 «nd some did not. Some of them I have never asked to pay it, and 
 I suppose I never will. But those whom I knew to be able to pay it 
 I would ask to do so. 
 
 I wish to say here that, inasmuch as these charges have been going 
 the rounds of the papers, charging me with being the moneyed agent 
 of the republican party, I have requested Governor Winslow to put 
 these questions to me that I might settle^this whole matter once for all. 
 I have never received a dollar for the party in any way, manner, or 
 form, except as I have already sta* ed. It would be proper to add that 
 these documents were mostly for democratic districts, as the republi- 
 can members are expected to attend to their own districts. 
 
632 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Office op the " Constitution," 
 
 Washington, D. C, June 11, 1860. 
 
 My Dear Sie : I understand that it has been testified before the 
 committee of which you are a member and Mr. John Covode is chair- 
 man thai I made speeches during the canvass of 1858 in the ninth 
 congressional district of New York against the election of Mr. John 
 B. Haskin, the present representative of that district, and that I was 
 instigated or employed to do so by my friend Mr. Butterworth, the 
 superintendent of the assay office. 
 
 It is quite true that I made several speeches in Westchester county, 
 New York, in October, 1858, against the election of Mr. Haskin; but it is 
 utterly untrue that I was instigated or employed to do so by Mr. But- 
 terworth, or by any other individual. 
 
 I was invited by the democratic central committee of the State of 
 Ne;w York to address the democracy of the State at such points as I 
 might select, and received a letter from Mr. Cagger, the secretary of 
 the committee, conveying the invitation, which I take leave to enclose 
 herein. 
 
 I accepted the invitation, and selected to speak in the ninth con- 
 gressional district in favor of the election of Hon. Gouverneur Kem- 
 ble, the regular nominee of the democratic party of that district, and 
 against Mr. Haskin. I accepted no compensation. 
 
 Be kind enough to set this matter right, and believe me to be 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 WM. M. BROWNE. 
 
 Hon. Warren WiNSLOw, M. C, 
 
 House of Bepresentatives : 
 
 Albany, October 18, 1858. 
 Dear Sir : I am directed by the democratic State central commit- 
 tee to invite you to address the democracy of the State at such points 
 and places as you yourself may designate and select; and the commit- 
 tee will be happy to defray all the expenses to which you may be 
 subjected. 
 
 Our friends in every section of the State seem to have great confi- 
 dence in their ability to do far better than last year. 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 P. CAGGER. 
 Wm. M. Browne, Esq. 
 
 Treasury Department, June 13, 1860. 
 Sir: The following names appear on the payoroUs at the appraiser's 
 stores. New York, for the week ending November 6, 1858, the time 
 served, and the amount paid to each one, as appears by their re- 
 
ELECTIONS. Exa 633- 
 
 ceipts, viz: James ,0'Keilly, John Eeady, Jno. C. Ellrod, Adam 
 "Weyman, "William Long, Christopher Connolly. John Fleming, Mat- 
 thew Ming, Matthew Bradley, James Young, Jno. Immer, Charles 
 Heymen, Jacob Hoffman, Jacob Kintzer, and Henry Auger, each one 
 day, and each two dollars, ($2;) and Thomas Burk three and one-half 
 days, at $2 per day, $7; Burtus Shaff, James Reilly, and James Owens, 
 each two days, at $2 per day, $4 each. Of these, the foqr last-named 
 persons appear to have been appointed permanently, as their names 
 appear on the subsequent pay-rolls as laborers; also, the name of" 
 Matthew Bradley. 
 
 Inasmuch as it is stated on the pay-roll that the above-named persons 
 were appointed in place of others suspended, I have examined the 
 roll, and find that the following-named laborers on the permanent roll, 
 were absent from duty during that week the number of days attached 
 to each name, and their pay reduced to that extent, viz: Gilbert P. 
 Sherwood, two days, $5; John Driscoll, one day, $2 08; Hugh Fitz- 
 patrick, two and a half days, |5 21; Daniel Burns, five days, $10 42; 
 John Roach, two and a half days, $5 21; Daniel Donnavon, one day, 
 $2 08; David Dopson, three days, $6 25; John Reilly, four days, 
 $8 33; Patrick 0' Brian, one day, $2 08; William Roach, two days, 
 $4 17; Thoe. O'Brian, one day, $2 08; Jno. Feeny, two and a half" 
 days, |5 21; James Mclntyre, one-half day, $1 04; James Masterson, 
 three days, $6; Patrick Cleeson, three days, $6; John Collins, one- 
 half day, $1; James Smith, two and a half days, $5; Thomas Kear- 
 nan, three days, $6; John Cunningham, two and a half days $5; Wm. 
 Cook, three days, $6; Jno, Kelly, one day, $2; Thomas Plunkett, 
 three days $6; Peter McMahon, three days, $6; Daniel Marva, one- 
 day, $2; Geo. L. Nodene, one day, $2; Geo. Kavannagh, one day, $2; 
 Rich' d Higgins, two and a half days, $5; Patrick Banner, one day, $2;: 
 Enoch Smith, three days $6; Rob' t Fitzgerald, one day, $2; Nicholas 
 Metz, two and a half days, $5 ; Edw' d Burk, two and a half days, $5 ; 
 and Patrick Casseday, one day, $2 08. 
 
 It thus appears that thirty-three regular laborers lost sixty-nine 
 days during the week, and that $141 24 was deducted from their 
 wages, while ninetee-n persons were employed in their places, and 
 pa,id for twenty-four and a half days work the aggregate sum of $49;. 
 making a saving to the government of $92 24. 
 
 I do not know precisely what Messrs. O'Reilly and others testified 
 to, but it is very clear that if they received more money than they have- 
 receipted for on the pay-rolls, it must have been paid by the collector- 
 . of customs out of his own pocket, for he has received no credit at the- 
 department, and could not receive any such credit without furnishing- 
 vouchers for the payments. 
 
 The pay-roll, which is herewith submitted to your examination, 
 shows no other charges of payments to the persons referred to thaiv 
 those I have given. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. B. GUTHRIE, 
 Special Agent Treasury Department. 
 
 Hon. John Covodb, 
 
 fUinirmnn rt-.n. . Select Committee House of Bejpresentatives. 
 
POST OFFICE DETABTMENT, ETC. 635 
 
 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 No. 56. 
 Fbebay, May 11, 1860. 
 
 THOMAS P. WATSON called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman. 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. My legal residence is Bay City, Michigan . I am now living 
 in Georgetown, D. 0. 
 
 Question. Were you deputy postmaster at Detroit at one time ? 
 
 Answer. I resigned a clerkship here in the Pension office and ac- 
 cepted the office of deputy postmaster on the 1st of July, 1857. 
 
 Question. Who was the local mail agent? 
 
 Answer. Harry Scovel was the local agent at Detroit at the time I 
 entered upon the duties of my office, and continued to be such up to 
 the time I resigned, which was the 31st of March, 1859. 
 
 Question. What is Mr. Scovel's business ? 
 
 Answer. He is the " Items" man of the Free Press — a sort of local 
 editor. 
 
 Question. When was he appointed mail agent? 
 
 Answer. He was appointed a month or so previous to my appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Question.- Do you know what pay he got ? 
 
 Answer. I paid him his salary, one hundred dollars a month. 
 
 Question. Did he, during the time you were in the post office, attend 
 personally to the mails ? 
 
 Answer. Sometimes, when I would address him a note about some 
 irregularity, he would give his personal attention ; but an individual 
 who was employed by the railroads to deliver the mail bags usually 
 attended toi his business. This same man was employed by Mr. Scovel 
 to attend to his business also. 
 
 Question. He got something from Scovel for doing it ? 
 
 Answer. I think I understood him to say that he got three or four 
 hundred dollars to attend to that business. I did not pay him. 
 
 Question. Did you or the postmaster ever notify him that he must 
 attend to the duties of his office personally? 
 
 Answer. I addressed him a note once about some neglect of duty, 
 •which he attempted to explain by saying that it was not his business 
 particularly. It was with reference to one of the mail bags going 
 
636 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 
 
 ■wrong — going to Chicago, I comceived it to be bis duty, and. do stilly 
 that he should attend to the separation of the bags at the depot ? 
 
 Question. How many times, during the times you were assistant post- 
 master, do you think Scovel attended to the business? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I do not exactly know what the department 
 defines" to be his duties. If his duty was to accompany the mails to- 
 the post office, he came very seldom ; but if it was simply to attend to 
 the separation of the mails at the depot, stating which belongs to De- 
 troit aEd which does not, I could not tell as to that, because it was 
 not my business to be down at the depot. 
 
 Question. Being engaged in the post office, did you not know that 
 the law required him to attend to it personally ? 
 
 Answer. So far as my knowledge on the subject is concerned, I con- 
 ceived it to be his duty to accompany the mails to the post t)ffice, and 
 especially the transient mails going on the different boats, because 
 he admitted the charge when they were brought, and paid the dray- 
 man for bringing them from casual steamers coming in from the lakes. 
 He would allow that to be deducted out of his pay, and from that cir- 
 cumstance I presumed it to be his business to see them delivered at 
 the post office. 
 
 Question. Was this man whom Scovel had to attend to this service 
 competent to do it ; that is, could he read the name of the post office 
 on the direction on a bag, or anything of that kind ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know positively whether he could read ; I cannot 
 remember now whether I tested him or not. It is my impression that 
 he admitted that he could not read. Either he could not read or he 
 could not write, and I am not certain which. 
 
 Question. Was there not a great deal of complaint in Detroit about 
 Scovel' s putting a man in this position who was totally unfit for it, 
 and the public service suffering in consequence ? 
 
 Answer. I could not say that there was. If what you mean is, 
 whether the office was looked upon as a sinecure by the people, I would 
 say, yes ; but as to complaints, the people know very little about what 
 individual brings the mails, so long as they get their letters and papers. 
 
 Question. Have you not sufficient reasons for believing that thi& 
 appointment was made for the benefit of that newspaper ? 
 
 Answer. All that I know about it is, that the editor of the paper came 
 to Washington prior to the appointment. Upon what grounds he 
 got the appointment for Mr. Scovel I know not. Others were con- 
 templated for that office, and expected to obtain it ; but the editor 
 returned with the appointment for Scovel, who was " Items" man for 
 the Press. That was previous to the getting up of another paper 
 there. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 637 ' 
 
 DBTKOIT MATTERS. 
 
 No. 43. 
 
 Wednesday, May 2, 1860. 
 
 SHELDON McKNiaHT called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In Detroit, Michigan; 
 
 Question. Are you familiar with the management of the post office 
 at that place ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I have been very intimate there for a number of 
 years, and was postmaster there for a long time, from 1836 to 1842. 
 ■Since then I have been engaged in the transportation of the mails 
 from Detroit to Lake Superior by a line of steamboats. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about persons being paid for 
 -services in the post office there that were not rendered by them? 
 
 Answer. I was one of the parties who, a year ago, endeavored to 
 influence the Pi-esident to remove Mr. O'Flynn ; and knowing all the 
 clerks there, and not being very friendly to Mr. O'Flynn's appoint- 
 ment, in the first place, considering myself a democrat of the first 
 water, as I was opposed to Mr. O'Flynn's appointment, I took advan- 
 tage, of course, of what I could discover to endeavor to get him 
 removed. v 
 
 Question. Go on and state what you know about the management 
 of the post office there. 
 
 Answer. I could not very well go on and make any statement unless 
 you asked me about some particular point. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about persons being paid for 
 services in the post office at Detroit which were not rendered by them? 
 
 Answer. I read the affidavits of the clerks of the office— 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 Question. Are the affidavits in writing ? \ 
 Answer. I suppose they are. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. We cannot take parol evidence of documents that 
 .s{)eak for themselves. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 'Question. Do you know where those affidavits now are ? ^J 
 Answer. I presume the President has them ; or, if not, the Post- 
 master Greneral has them. They were submitted to Postmaster Gen- 
 eral Brown in the first place. After he died, the President refused 
 for a long time to remove Mr. O'Flynn, saying that he was a personal 
 friend of his, and he had appointed him upon his own responsibility. 
 When Mr. Holt came in, the opposition to Mr. O'Flynn was renewed, 
 and Mr. Holt took up the "case and decided very promptly that he 
 should be removed, as Mr^ Brown had befo»e decided. I will state 
 here that when the President said he would not remove him, he said 
 
638 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 he would not do so unless the charges were fully substantiated ; and 
 he sent Mr. O'Flynn back to Detroit for six weeks longer, to give him 
 an opportunity to disprove the charges. But it seems that he could 
 not do so, and in the end he was removed. There were several inter- 
 views with the President about the matter ; I had one interview with 
 the President myself. 
 
 Mr. WiNsLOW. I must reiterate my utter abhorrence of inquiring 
 into the private conversations with the President of the United States. 
 
 The Witness. This is not private conversation that I refer to. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. I am not complaining of you at all ; the question 
 was asked you. 
 
 The Witness. The question asked me was if I knew of any persons 
 who were paid there who rendered no service. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any? 
 
 Answer. I never saw Mr. O'Flynn's daughter in the office, nor Dr. 
 Alvord in the office at work. 
 
 Question. Do you know that Dr. Alvord got a salary from the office 
 as clerk? 
 
 Answer.- 1 never saw it paid to him ; I only saw the affidavits and 
 vouchers on file. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. They will show for themselves. 
 
 By the CnAiRMAN : 
 
 Question. Do you know that Dr. Alvord was not engaged in the 
 office as clerk ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; he was engaged in other occupations. 
 
 Question. What other occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Editing a newspaper. 
 
 Question. What newspaper ? 
 
 Answer. The "Detroit Democrat," or some such name as that. I 
 have forgotten the exact name, for we never noticed the paper much. 
 
 Question. There are several papers there, the "Detroit Herald" 
 among others. 
 
 Answer. I do not know but what that was the name of it. The 
 sheet used to make its appearance once a week or ten days, as occasion 
 required. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the present postmaster is paying 
 a salary to the editor of the paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not kno\^ that he is. 
 
 Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge, that Mr. O'Flynn 
 paid the editor of that paper a salary? 
 
 Answer. Not of my own knowledge. I never saw it paid ; I only 
 know what was the general report. 
 
 Question. Do you know that neither of the parties you named 
 rendered any service in the popt office ? 
 
 Answer. They might have gone in there some evening, perhaps. 
 I know that, as a general thing, I was about the office every; day 
 getting my mails to put on the boat. I was intimately acquainted 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTAffiNT, ETC. 639 
 
 •with the clerks, many of whom had been there a long time, and I did 
 not see these persons there at work in the office. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other person connected with the 
 newspaper, besides the editor himself, who received pay for serviceBf 
 not rendered ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 No. 44. 
 Wednesday, May 2, 1860. 
 
 HENRY J. ALVORD called and sworn. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do jou reside ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in Detroit, Michigan. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I am an editor at present, or have been until 
 recently ; I am rather out of that business now. 
 
 Question. Is your name in the Blue Book as a clerk in the post, 
 office at Detroit ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir ; I have never seen it. 
 
 Question. Have you been a clerk in that post office ? 
 
 Answer. I have. 
 
 Question. For what length of time ? 
 
 Answer. It was less than a year ; I do not know as I can teH ex- 
 actly what time. 
 
 Question. What service did you render ? 
 
 Answer. I had charge of the department of copying the registered 
 letter bills ; the "D. P. 0. registered letter bills." 
 
 Question. Did you attend to that business at the same time that- 
 you were conducting your newspaper ? 
 
 Answer. I have not yet been asked if I was conducting a newspaper 
 there then. However, I was conducting a newspaper, and I attended 
 to that business a part of the time, and a part only, while I was. con- 
 ducting the paper. 
 
 Question. How much of your time do you suppose you were em- 
 ployed in the post office ? 
 
 Answer. Well, it is rather difficult to tell how much of my time 
 I was employed. Perhaps, well, I performed some other duties occa- 
 sionally besides that ; I was sometimes called upon for other services.. 
 
 Question. What services ? 
 
 Answer. Well, various services in the post office. 
 
 Question. Please describe what frhe services were. 
 
 Answer. Well, I had occasionally some little financial business to 
 do for the office. 
 
 Question. What was the nature of that financial business? 
 
 Answer. Well, the post office received large amounts of paper 
 money that was sent in from country offices. The country offices de- 
 
'640 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 posited there, and they would send in paper money ; they had heea 
 in the habit of doing so for many years, and that practice was con- 
 tinned, and that paper money had to be exchanged for currency ; and 
 sometimes silver bad to be changed for gold, in order to meet govern- 
 ment drafts. I had some services of that kind to perform. 
 
 Question. How much service of that kind do you suppose you ren- 
 "dered for the government ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell ; it was not a great deal. 
 
 Question. Was it done very frequently ? 
 
 Answer. Not often ; no, sir. ^ 
 
 Question. How many times altogether, do you suppose you went out 
 4o change money ; a dozen times ? 
 
 Answei". Well, I do not know ; I might or I might not have done 
 so ; I cannot tell. 
 
 Question. Do you suppose that you went out five times on that service? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, I could not tell. 
 , Question. Did you go out more than once ? 
 
 Answer. 1 yes, I think I did ; there was not a great deal of ser- 
 "vice of that kind rendered ; not a great deal. 
 
 Question. What compensation did you get? 
 
 Answer. All I had was $500 a year. 
 
 Question. I asked you what portion of your time you were employed 
 in the post oflSce ; you have not stated that yet. What would it 
 ■amount to each day ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I presume that the duties of that department could 
 be performed — I presume I did perform them in, well, probably, an. 
 hour of each day. 
 
 Question. Were you at the post office every day attending to it? 
 ■ Answer. I was at the office room e^ery day ; some days I would not 
 work, and some days I would work all day. It was necessary to have 
 ■these all brought up every month during the month. 
 
 Question. Was that service rendered at night, or during business 
 hours ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I think my service was all rendered during business 
 hours. I do not know but what I might have done a little occasion- 
 ^ally at other times ; the work I did was work that I did out of the 
 office ; I wish that understood ; 1 took it home with me to my board- 
 ing place ; it has been the custom in that office to take that work 
 home ; and other similar work was taken out of the office also. 
 
 Question. _Was there any other service that you rendered to the 
 government in connexion with the post office? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir ; I was often called upon by the son of the post- 
 master, when he was called out, to remain in his room while he was 
 absent. 
 
 Question. To fill his place ? 
 
 Answer. Ic was necessary for some one to remain there while he 
 was absent, as people were constantly coming in ; I was often called 
 «p.-)n todo that— perhaps for halt an hour. 
 
 Question. That was in the post office ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 641 
 
 Question, Then you had no particular duties of your own to perform 
 in the post office ? 
 
 Answer. The duties that I had to perform I was at liberty to per- 
 form in the post office or at my room ; but everything which I copied 
 had to go through the letter-press, and that of course was done in the 
 office. 
 
 Question. How came you to be appointed in that office? Was it 
 not because you were editor of that paper ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that it was ; I could not say that it was. 
 
 Question, Have you any idea that you would have got that salary 
 for the little service you rendered, if it had not been for your con- 
 nexion with that paper ? 
 
 Answer, I think probably I might. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other persons getting pay in that 
 office who rendered little or no service ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. How about the daughter of the postmaster ; was she not 
 paid as a clerk ? 
 
 Answer. I believe she was. 
 
 Question, Was she on duty in the office ? 
 
 Answer, She was not on duty in the office ; her work was taken 
 home to her father's house ; it was similar service to that which" I 
 performed. 
 
 Question, How much service do you suppose that you rendered the 
 government in the course of a year ; how much of your time would 
 be taken up altogether ? You say that some days you would be in 
 awhile. 
 
 Answer. I think there was not a day during the time I was in 
 office — unless I might occasionally have been out of town for a day or 
 two, which sometimes happened, though not often — there was not a 
 day I was not in the office. 
 
 Question, Do you mean that you were in the office to render any 
 service ; or did you go there to get your mails ? 
 
 Answer, I was there to render service if called upon ; but I would 
 be there probably three or four times a day. 
 
 Question, And you were only called upon to render service in the 
 office to fill the place of the postmaster's son ? 
 
 Answer, When he happened to be absent ; when he wanted to go 
 out, he requested me to remain in the room while he was gone. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow : 
 Question. Who appointed you to the office?" 
 Answer, The postmaster, Judge O'Flyan, 
 Question. And your salary, you say, was $500 a year. 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question, Have you rendered any service under the preseat post- 
 master there ? • 
 Answer. I have not, 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 64 41 
 
642 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do I understand you to say that you performed all tlie 
 duties required of you while you held the office of clerk there ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 By the Chairman- : 
 
 Question. Was it expected when you got the appointment that you 
 were to render services in the office, or did you get it because you 
 were editor of that newspaper ? 
 
 Answer. It was expected that I would render that service. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Was there any understanding that you were to have a 
 sinecure — be paid a salary without rendering any services ? 
 
 Answer.. No, sir. 
 
 Question. No agreement of that kind at all ? 
 ■ Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. No conversation to that effect ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I had been editor of that paper several months, 
 probably six months, before I received that appointment. 
 
 By Mr. Robinson : 
 
 Question. Do you think that on an average you were engaged one 
 hour out of each twenty-four for the government ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, How much more than that ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell. 
 
 Question. Well, give as your opinion. 
 
 Answer. I was requested'hy the postmaster to report myself to the 
 office as much I could, and I was there as much as I could be. 
 
 Question. But you did no service in the office? 
 
 Answer. I did it at home, the principal part of it. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 _ Question. You took care of your newspaper, and did whatever ser- 
 vice at the office was asked ? 
 
 Answer. I had plenty of leisure time after attending to my paper: 
 that service did not interfere with my editorial duties at all. 
 
 Question. Was it a daily paper ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 By Mr. RoBiNSON : 
 
 Question. Was it a weekly paper ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question Was there any other person who rendered little or no 
 service in the office and received pay besides yourself and the daughter 
 01 the postmaster ? ° 
 
 Tn^T^'i: I^^i*^^"" '•i*^®^ ^^^ ^ ""^^ ^y *^« oame of J. Nicholson 
 Elbert, who had similar duties, which he performed in his own office. 
 
 Question. What pay did he get ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what, pay he received. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 643 
 
 By Mr. Winslow: 
 
 Question. "When Mr., Covode asked you tlie question about service, 
 he used the expression "in the office." Did you understand hy that, 
 duties connected with the office or duties performed inside of the 
 building itself? 
 
 Answer. My writing was not absolutely performed in the building 
 but was taken to my room. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What is Mr. Elbert engaged in in Detroit ? 
 
 Answer. •! think that is pretty much all the business he has had to 
 do ; he has done something, I believe, as an insurance agent, but, I 
 think, not much ; he was dependent upon his salary as clerk for his 
 support. Mr. Elbert had a great deal of service 'to perform, as I hap- 
 pened to know, and he earned his money and I earned mine. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Tou say that you earned your money ? 
 
 Answer. Why, I suppose I did. 
 
 Question. And yet you cannot tell an hour's work that you did 
 for it? 
 
 Answer. Cannot tell an hour's work ? 
 
 Question. No ; cannot tell what you have been doing. 
 
 Answer. I have told you of an hour's work, and of a great many 
 hours' work. 
 
 Question. I certainly failed to hear it, then. Just describe what 
 you did. 
 
 Answer. I told you that my business was to copy. 
 
 Question, ! your business was to copy. Did you copy anything? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. What did you copy ? 
 
 Answer. All of the "D. P. 0. registered letter bills" received at 
 that office. 
 
 Question. What was done with those copies ; were they sent here 
 to the general office ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose so ; I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Question. And all you did copy would be in your handwriting, 
 I suppose ? 
 
 j^swer. I presume so, sir. 
 
 Question. How much time did you spend altogether in copying 
 these bills ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell. 
 
 Question, Did you spend a week during the year while you were 
 there — one week in writing ? 
 
 Answer. I should think I did. 
 
 Question. At the rate of seven or eight hours per day. 
 
 Answer. A'year, at the rate of seven or eight hours a day ? 
 
 Question. One week at that rate ; I do not mean ten or fifteen 
 minutes a day for a week. But do you say that you did one week's 
 work in Copying the returns you speak of ? 
 
 Answer. During the year ? 
 
644 POST OFFICE DEPAETMEiilT, ETC. 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; during the year. 
 
 Answer. I think I spent a great deal more time upon it. But I do 
 not know how much a man can do in a week with the work before 
 him. 
 
 Question. The question is, did you occupy a week's time, allowing 
 the ordinary hours of labor per day ? 
 
 Answer.. I should think I did. 
 
 Question. Are you positive about it ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot be positive ; but I should say I did more than 
 that. But still I will not swear how much time I did occupy. 
 
 Question. Did you do anything else ? 
 
 Answer. No other copying. 
 
 Question. Did you do anything else ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing more than what I have told you. 
 
 Question. Well, repeat what else you did ; there seems to be some 
 misunderstanding. 
 
 Answer. I was frequently in the office, and was called upon by the 
 son of the postmaster, who was his assistant, to remain in his room. 
 His room was a front room by the side of the delivery office. There 
 were two front rooms. The office is in a building built for a church, 
 and the upper part of it occupied by the Mariners' Episcopal Church. 
 The basement is used for the post office. It is divided by a partition 
 running, through nearly the whole length of the building. The post- 
 master's room is the front room, and on the corner is the general 
 delivery office. The postmaster is receiving calls every few minutes 
 during the day, of course. It is a large office", and there is a g'reat 
 deal of business done. And it was necessary that that office should 
 be kept open. Sometimes Mr. O'Flynn, the young man who was 
 generally there, would be called out, and it would be necessary for 
 some one to remain in his place. And I spent a great deal of time 
 in the postmaster's room, as much of my time there as I could. I 
 suppose I averaged, during all the time I was employed in the office, 
 two hours a day certain there in the postmaster's room. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. That was serving the son of the postmaster, and not the 
 government. 
 
 Answer. It was serving the Post Office Department, I suppose, as 
 I was a clerk of the post office. ♦ 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you think of any other service that you perfornied? 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Thuesdat, May 3, 1860. 
 
 HENEY J. ALVOED recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of receipts being signed in 
 blank and being filled up for a larger amount than what was paid at 
 the Detroit post office ? 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 645 
 
 Answer. Only in one instance. . 
 
 Question. In what case was that? 
 
 Answer. It was in my own case. I was about to remark yesterday, 
 at one time during my examination, that there Was a little error in 
 the account in the Blue Book. I think that all of the vouchers that I 
 signed there were signed in blank, and excepting the voucher for the 
 quarter ending the list of Maroh^ 1859, and for a fractional quarter 
 at the time of the change in the office, ending the 10th of May, 1859, 
 were filled up correctly. These I have seen since I have heen here, 
 and they seem to have heen filled up for a larger amount than I have 
 received. I do not recollect exactly how much they are filled up for, 
 but for a larger amount, at any rate, than |500 a year. 
 
 Question. Do you know by whom that was done ? In whose hand- 
 writing is it ? 
 
 Answer. That I could not tell without looking at the vouchers. 
 
 Question, Whose business is it to fill up these blanks ? 
 
 Answer. That of the deputy postmaster usually. My vouchers 
 were all correct except those two ; those two are wrong. After dis- 
 covering that fact I wrote to Judge O'Flynn in reference to it some 
 tiine early in the winterl 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about a porter in the establish- 
 ment having been paid a much less sum than his vouchers were filled 
 up with ? 
 
 Answer. Not froin my own knowledge. 
 
 Question. Did you ever hear it from the porter himself? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I ever did hear it from him. 
 
 Question. What do you know about the local mail agency there? 
 
 Answer. There was a local mail agent there. 
 
 Question. What do you know about the administration of his 
 affairs ? Just state what you know about it. 
 
 Answer. The local mail agent there is a man of the name of Sco- 
 vel — Harry M. Scovel ; his name was Henry or Harry ; they called 
 him Harry, at any rate, and my impression is that his name was 
 Harry ; and lie has been the local mail agent there, I should think, 
 for the last three years. He was appointed soon after the comrpence- 
 ment of this administration, at any rate. He is'the assistant editor of 
 the Detroit daily " Free Press." 
 
 Question. What salary does he get? 
 
 Answer. He gets a salary of $1,200 a year. 
 
 Question. What service did Mr. Scovel render ? 
 
 Answer. Well, the general impression there has been that he did 
 not render a great deal of service. During the time I was in the 
 office I do not think J saw him half a dpzen times attending to his 
 business. The service required of him is to see to the receiving and- 
 the departure of the mails ; see that they are taken from the office 
 and placed upon the cars and steamboats, and also see that they are 
 brought from the cars and steamboats to the post office. The common 
 report in Detroit is that he has hired a man, I think by the name of 
 Walker, to attend to it for him, for which he pays him $300 a year. 
 This Walker is a man, I am told, who is employed by the railroad 
 companies to transport the mails to and from the post office and rail- 
 
646 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 road depots. It is said about the post office there tliat Scovel paid 
 Walker some $300 for looking after this matter, as a sort of deputy, 
 which I suppose is correct. 
 
 Question. Is this Scovel still receiving pay ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose he is ; he was when I left home in Decemher. 
 I have heard of no change there. 
 
 Question. Are you aware of any conditions in connexion with his 
 being continued in that place ? 
 
 Answer. I am not, from my own personal knowledge. There has 
 been a great deal said about it in Detroit. It has been a subject of a 
 great deal of conversation and remark. But from personal knowledge 
 I do not know anything about it. .==«... 
 
 Question. Do you know how long he has been in that position ?' 
 
 Answer. My impression is that he was appointed in March, after 
 the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan — in March or April; in March, I 
 think, shortly after the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan. 
 
 Question. You were there a great deal about the office, of course. 
 Do you know of his ever rendering any service himself to the govern- 
 ment? 
 
 Answer. Well, about two years ago, I should think, from the pres^ 
 ent time, there was some talk of his being removed. There were 
 threats made that there would be an effort made to have him removed, 
 because he did not attend to his duties. It was the subject of com^ 
 plaint on the part of the postmaster. He said that Scovel did not 
 attend to his duties, and had not attended to them during the time he 
 had been postmaster. 
 
 Question. What postmaster was that ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. O'Flynn. And I heard Mr. O'Flynn himself say that 
 he should recommend his removal ; and I do not know but what 
 Judge O'Flynn told me that he should recommend his removal, unless 
 he attended to the duties of his office. At any rate, Mr. O'Flynn 
 told me that he should notify Scovel that he must attend to his busi- 
 ness personally, as he is required by law to do. It was expected that 
 he would do it personally himself. Mr. Stuart got him appointed, 
 and I had a conversation with Mr. Stuart about it afterwards. 
 
 Questioif. Do you mean Senator Stuart? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Mr. Stuart said he was determined that whoever 
 had that place should give it.his personal attention, though it had been 
 done by proxy for some years before, and perhaps had nearly always 
 been so done ; and it was understood that Scovel received the ap- 
 pointment with the express understanding that he would give it his 
 personal attention, as the regulations of the department required. 
 And about this time two years ago I saw Scovel about the office a 
 few times. He seemed to have become suddenly inspired with a dis- 
 position to attend to his duties personally ; and perhaps I saw him on 
 the mail wagon half a dozen times, I should think. I do not think 
 I ever saw him do that more than that many times during the whole 
 time of the three years. The legitimate duty of the mail agent is to 
 go on the mail wagon with the mails and see them deposited on the 
 boats or cars, or delivered from the boats and cars to the post office. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 647 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. It is his duty to see personally to the safety of the mails 
 as they pass to and from the post office and the boats and cars? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; they are in his charge. I do riot think I ever 
 saw him leave the office on a mail wagon half a dozen times in my 
 life. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is there any probability that that would have been toler- 
 ated only in consideration of his services as an editor ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kobinson. That would be merely an opinion, if the witness 
 oould answer the question. 
 
 The Witness. Tes, sir ; and you can draw your own conclusions. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know of any other person receiving a salary 
 without rendering services ? . • 
 
 Answer. Connected with the post office ? 
 
 Question. Tes, sir. 
 
 Answer. As I remarked yesterday, I do not. One charge against 
 Mr. O'Plynn — and it is due to him and to yourselves, and to the de- 
 partment, that I should state it here — was, that he had a clerk on his 
 pay-roll of the name of Moore. Several witnesses swore that they 
 knew no such man in Detroit ; but that was an error, for on looking 
 at the pay-roll here at the department they afterwards discovered that 
 the name was not Moore, but Moran. Now, there was a person of that 
 name, and I understood that he was a clerk in the post office. I did 
 not know Moran myself, but I know his father very well ; the young 
 man I do not know, and do not know whether he was a clerk or not. . 
 I merely speak of this because testimony of that kind may, perhaps, 
 come before you ; and it is due to Judge O'Flynn not to have injus- 
 tice done him unnecessarily at any rate ; and it is due to the commit- 
 tee, too. 
 
 Question. Are you not aware of some other person receiving a salary 
 of $1,200 a year for certain considerations independent of his ser- 
 vices ? 
 
 Answer. In that post office ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I am not. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about salaries paid in the custom- 
 house at Detroit for services not rendered ? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing from personal knowledge. All I know is 
 from hearsay. (After a pause.) Well, yes ; the information that I re- 
 ceived from the party himself. 
 
 Question. That is competent testimony. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; there was an employ^ around the custom-house 
 during the last administration, and probably for some time during 
 this administration. My impression is, that he was there until within 
 a year or so, receiving, I think, |l,200.a year. 
 
 Question. What was the name of the party to which you refer ? 
 
648 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Answer. His name is Benjamin F. Hyde. 
 
 Question. Can you tell for what services, or for what considerations, 
 he received that salary ? 
 
 Answer. He had the appointment of weigher and ganger. 
 
 Question. Did he render any services in that capacity? 
 
 Answer. There is not a great deal of service in that custom-house, 
 I believe, to be rendered in that capacity. It was a common remark 
 there among our citizens that the most laborious duty required of the 
 weigher and ganger was to go up to get his pay. 
 
 Question. What conditions were required of him, in consideration 
 of his being continued in that sinecure or office? What services did 
 he' render or was he to render for that $1,200 a year ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose all that was required of him was, to do what- 
 ever duties in that line that were required of him. 
 
 By Mr. Tkain : 
 
 Question.. Was he to do anything for the i)arty or the administra- 
 tion anywhere? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that question ; I do not know ; that would 
 be a matter of opinion only. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did he not tell you himself what use he had to make of 
 the money he received ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I think he never told me. 
 
 Question. Did you not know, without being told by him, what use 
 he had to make of that money ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I could not say that I did. 
 
 Question. Is there anything else that it is important for this com- 
 mittee to know in connexion with that, that you could either give the 
 information yourself directly, or give us the names of parties who can 
 give it ? 
 
 Answer. Well, Mr. Covode, I hardly think that is exactly a proper 
 question to ask me. 
 
 Question. It has always been so held and ruled on investigating 
 committees on which I have served before. It is always proper to 
 make the inquiry of a witness as to his knowledge directly or indi- 
 rectly. 
 
 Answer. As to persons who' could prove things? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; any knowledge he has of persons who do 
 know. 
 
 Answer. I would rather you would not insist upon that question 
 just now. 
 
 Question. Probably I can put the question in some other way that 
 would be less objectionable to you. It is important that the commitee 
 should be put in possession of all the information you have upon the 
 subject. ' 
 
 Answer. Will you state the question again ? 
 
 Question. I was going to put it in another form. 
 
 Answer. Very well. 
 
 Question. Have you not been told by the parties themselves in some 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETO. 649 
 
 instances that they have been continued in their places and received 
 their salaries in consideration of their making a particular use of 
 them, or portions of them ? 
 
 Answer. I think not. 
 
 Question. Have you stated all the information you have on the sub- 
 ject of the management of the post office and custom-house at Detroit 
 that it is proper for this committee to know ? 
 
 Answer. I think that I have stated all the knowledge I have in re- 
 gard to it of my personal knowledge. I do not think of any more 
 now. 
 
 Question. Do you not know of some more important^ say, outrages 
 on the public revenue that have been perpetrated at Detroit than you 
 have stated ? 
 
 Answer. There were certain outrages by the late collector of cus- 
 toms there, for which he was removed. It was supposed that he had 
 made a little more free with Uncle Sam's perquisites than it was proper 
 for him to do. 
 
 By Mr. Kobinson : 
 
 Question. He has been removed, you say ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 Question. When was he removed? 
 
 Answer. He was removed some time in the summer, I think. 
 Question. Last summer? 
 
 Answer. I think so ; either last summer or last fall. Probably it 
 was in the fall ; I think now it was. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Was not the man who received pay for being a potter in 
 the post office engaged in one of the printing offices there ? 
 • Answer, He was. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. In what capacity ? 
 
 Answer. As a compositor and foreman 6f the office. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is it not the custom at Detroit to pay for services in .the 
 printing offices principally by government offices ? 
 
 Answer. Well, I do not know how. far that custom extends. I 
 would like to look in the Blue Book for a moment about one thing I 
 think of just now. (After examining the Blue Book.) The name of 
 the former collector and his employes appear in tbis Blue Book. 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Who is the present collector ? 
 
 Answer. His name is Robert W. Davis. 
 
 [After the witness left the room — 
 
 The Chairman stated that the reason why he asked the witness con- 
 cerning other abuses than those he had specified, and the names of 
 persons who knew about them, was, that the witness had told him 
 that the committee was on the wrong scent ; that there were things 
 more important, and he wanted to see if he would tell.] 
 
650 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 No. 49. 
 
 Tuesday, May 8, 1860. 
 
 CHAELES E. STUART called and sworn. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you reside in Micliigan? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You were formerly senator in Congress from that State? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When did your term of office expire ? 
 
 Answer. With the last Congress. 
 
 Question. Do you know a man of the name of H. M. Scovel, of 
 Detroit ? 
 
 Answer. I know a Dr. Scovel, but what his christian name is I do 
 not know, and I know him but very slightly ; he is the only man of 
 that name that I know ; I think there is a son of his there, but I do 
 not know him. 
 
 Question. Does this Mr. Scovel hold an office under the govern- 
 ment ? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing of that at all. 
 
 Question. Is this Mr. Scovel you speak of connected with the De- 
 troit Free Press ? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, that I do not know. 
 
 Question. As I understand it, it is the young man perhaps we desire 
 to inquire about. Do you recollect of recommending this young 
 Scovel to an appointment in the local mail agency ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. Who was the proprietor of the Free Press during the lat- 
 ter portion of your term in the Senate ? * 
 
 Answer. Well, it is understood to belong to Wilbur F. Story. 
 
 Question. Did not Story apply to you to obtain the appointment of 
 this young Scovel to the local mail agency there, by reason of his 
 connexion with the Free Press, in order to relieve that establishment 
 of the salary they were paying him? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that he did, and I would not now say that he 
 did not ; but I do not recollect that he made such an application to me. 
 
 Question. Your recollection is not distinct upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. It is not so distinct as to enable me to say positively that 
 he never did any such thing, and you will understand the reason very 
 obviously, from the fact that the number of offices and the recommen- 
 dations to those offices were very numerous ; the applications were 
 infinitely numerous ; I have had thousands of applications that I re- 
 jected. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect meeting Story on your return home from 
 Washington in 1857' ? 
 
 Answer. Meeting him where ? 
 
 Question. At Detroit. While on your return from Washington in 
 1857, did you not meet Story at Detroit, and consult with him in re- 
 lation to this appointment ? 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 651 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect of it. 
 
 Question . I will endeavor to refresh your memory as far as practicable. 
 This is the point of the inquiry that we wish to ascertain from you : 
 whether this , young Scovel, in connexion with the Free Press, was 
 through your instrumentality appointed to a local office there, the duties 
 of which were merely nominal, and appointed in consideration of his 
 being connected with that press and receiving a salary from the pro- 
 prietor of it, who would be relieved from that incumbrance if young 
 Scovel held some office that would pay ; whether Mr. Story did 
 not make personal application to you for that, and place it upon that 
 ground ; whether you did not recommend his appointment ; and 
 whether in fact he was not so appointed ? Any recollections which 
 you have upon that subject we would be pleased to have you state. 
 
 Answer. I have no objection to stating to you or to anybody else my 
 action in any such matter ; none in the world. And, perhaps, had I 
 had notice of the inquiry, I might have referred to something that 
 would have refreshed my recollection, though I hardly think I could 
 have done so. I will give you my impressions now. They are that, 
 I had nothing to do with recommending Mr. Scovel to that place, if 
 he ever had it. There were many applications for that place, and 
 among them the prominent applicant — that is, prominent in the 
 numbers who requested it through him — was a man that I absolutely 
 refused to recommend for any place ; and my impression is that I went 
 home without making any recommendation. I speak now of the time 
 when this administration came into power. My impression is that I 
 went home without making any recommendation for the place at all. 
 And at Detroit this man who was' so prominent came to me and 
 wanted to know why I would not recommend him, and I told him that 
 he was such a man that I would not recommend him for any place. I 
 mention this only in the way of history of this matter, not that I have 
 any feeling in this matter at all ; not a bit. For the only feeling I 
 ever had in recommending men for office was to recommend those who 
 were in all respects competent, morally and otherwise. And I con- 
 fess to you that these things being equal, I was disposed to recom- 
 mend those whose democracy was sound and who were disposed to do 
 something for the cause. I think, however, that for this office I made 
 no recommendation whatever, and subsequently the appointment was 
 made to that office without my recommendation. JSTow, I may be mis- 
 taken in that ; but if I made any recommendation it is on file in the 
 proper department — in the Post Office Department- The duties of 
 that office are important, very important ; and they are such as to 
 require, in my opinion, an excellent man to fiU^it. 
 
 Question. What do those duties generally consist of? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, he has the charge of all the mails that come to 
 Detroit, to take them to and from the post office and railroad depots 
 and steamboats — all the important mails of the whole country that are 
 taken to that post office and distributed or otherwise rearranged at 
 the office. It therefore has always been in my estimation a place de- 
 manding both capacity and integrity. I give you what are my 
 impressions at this time, and yet there is a possibility that I might 
 have recommended somebody to that place. This man of whom you 
 
652 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 
 
 speak, this Scovel, who was reported to have had a connexion with 
 the office, I do not know at all. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. Did you ever learn that the person holding the office did 
 
 not render the service himself? 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I object to any hearsay testimony about the matter. 
 The Witness. I can answer that distinctly ; that I know nothing 
 
 about it at all, the one way or the other. 
 
 The following was received from the Postmaster General in response 
 to the call of the committee of May 22, 1860 : 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, May 28, 1860. 
 
 Sir : I transmit herewith, agreeably to the request md,de in your 
 letter of the 22d instant, copies of the correspondence with William 
 C. Barney, referred to in his testimony before your committee, a copy 
 of which you have forwarded to the department. 
 
 With respect to the temporary mail service engaged by this depart- 
 ment between the Atlantic and Pacific States, by way of the Isthmus 
 of Panama, which is the subject of Mr. Barney's testimony before 
 your committee, it is proper, perhaps, that I should submit for. your 
 information some observations by way of explanation of the action 
 taken by the department in the premises. 
 
 It is important to observe that this service was not let under a reg- 
 ular advertisement, as in the case of ordinary mail contracts, but 
 under the authority conferred by the proviso in the twenty-third sec- 
 tion of the act of July 2, 1836, which authorizes the making of tem- 
 porary contracts by the Postmaster General without advertisement. 
 
 The previous contracts for the Atlantic and Pacific mail service, 
 both "via Panama" and ''via Tehuantepec," were to expire by ex- 
 press limitation on the 30th of September, 1859. Congress had 
 failed to legislate for the continuance of the service on either route 
 beyond that date, and in view of the vast and important interests in- 
 volved, both commercial and social, it devolved on this department, as 
 a matter of absolute necessity, to make temporary arrangements to 
 continue the semi-monthly mail service between New York and San 
 Francisco, and New Orleans and San Francisco, until legislative ac- 
 tion could be had on the subject. Acting under this pressing neces- 
 sity, I addressed letters of inquiry to the old contractors, as well as to 
 all other parties known to the department at the time as applicants 
 for mail contracts by either of the Isthmus routes, requesting propo- 
 sitions from each " for transporting the mails of the United States be- 
 tween New York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and 
 San Francisco, for a period of nine months from the 1st of October, 
 1859, to the 30th of June, 1860, inclusive." To secure the fullest 
 competition no particular route or routes of transmission were desig- 
 nated, but each of the parties proposing were directed to " state the 
 number of trips per month, the time to be occupied each way, the in- 
 termediate points embraced in the route or'routes, the amount of com- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC 653 
 
 pensation, &c. ;" and they were also notified that their proposals 
 " must be accompanied with a full and satisfactory guarantee that the 
 party or parties proposing are prepared to perform the designated ser- 
 vice, and will, if their proposal is accepted by the Postmaster General, 
 enter into contract with the department, with good and sufficient 
 sureties for the faithful performance of the same during the period 
 named." 
 
 It was not obligatory on the Postmaster General to accept the lowest 
 proposition, without reference to other considerations, as in the case 
 of ordinary mail proposals duly guaranteed, at the regular lettings ; 
 but propositions were invited for the purpose of obtaining full informa- 
 tion as to what arrangements could be made for the temporary service 
 designated, it being discretionary with the Postmaster General to make 
 the best arrangement that he could, not only with regard to cost, but 
 also with reftrence to the character of the service proposed, and the 
 ability of the parties proposing to perform it. 
 
 Propositions were received from the following parties, viz : 
 
 The Panama Railroad and Pacific Mail Steamship Companies ; 
 
 Cornelius Van der hilt ; . 
 
 The Louisiana Tehuantepec Company ; 
 
 Daniel H. Johnson ; and 
 
 William C. Barney. 
 
 The proposal of Daniel H. Johnson, of New York, for semi-monthly 
 service, " via Nicaragua," at the sum of 1162,000, was the lowest re- 
 ceived, and being guaranteed in due form, it was accepted, after inquiry 
 into the responsibility of the guarantors, on the 9th of May, 1859. A 
 contract in accordance therewith, containing all the usual stipulations 
 for the faithful performance of the service, was signed on the 31st of 
 May by Mr. Johnson, with sureties approved by the postmaster of New 
 York, who had been specially instructed "to see that the sureties 
 offered by Mr. Johnson are persons of undoubted means and responsi- 
 bility, that the department and the public may have an ample guar- 
 antee that the mails will be faithfully carried according to contract. ' ' 
 
 Notwithstanding the representations made to the department by 
 respectable and responsible parties in New York, at the time tli 
 contract was made, of the ability of Johnson to perform the service, 
 the department was wholly unable to obtain, after its execution, any 
 reliable information from him in regard to his arrangements for tran»^ 
 porting the mails; and it became very doubtful, in fact almost certain, 
 before the period for commencing the service arrived, that no arrange- 
 ments whatever had been completed by him for that purpose, either 
 by providing the necessary steamships for the ocean service, or steam- 
 boats and land carriages for the service across the Isthmus of Nicara- 
 gua. It was apparent, therefore, that unless a conditional arrange- 
 ment, contingent upon his failure to carry out his contract, was made 
 with some other party known to the department to have at disposal 
 the means for tra,nsporting the mails, the first of October would find 
 the government without a carrier upon this the most important of all 
 its domestic routes, and unable to obtain a contractor for the service ex- 
 c^t upon such exorbitant terms as the respective steamship lines b&- 
 
654 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. ' 
 
 tween New York and San Francisco and the Panama Eailroad Com- 
 pany might choose to demand. 
 
 To guard against such a contingency it was considered necessary to 
 conclude in advance, if possible, a piovisional arrangement with one 
 of the two parties known at the time to have at command the means 
 of transporting the mails. Those parties were Cornelius Vanderbilt . 
 and the Panama Railroad and Pacific Mail Steamship Companies, both 
 of whom had proposed for service by the Panama route, and were then 
 running rival lines via Panama. 
 
 The proposition originally submitted by Mr. Vanderbilt being at a 
 lower sum than that of the Panama Eailroad and Pacific Mail Steam- 
 ship Companies, and for service either via Panama or via Nicaragua, 
 an offer was made to contract conditionally with him, on the terms of 
 his proposition, contingent on the failure of Johnson to carry out his 
 contract ; .which offer was accepted by Mr. Yanderbilt, and a pro- 
 visional contract executed by him on the 30th of August, 1859. This 
 department, however, studiously avoided giving any information re- 
 specting this contract until a telegraphic despatch, under date of Tth , 
 September, appeared in one of the New York papers announcing ihe 
 fact ; and this was some three weeks after Mr. Johnson, as stated in 
 his letter to me of 20th August, had completed all his arrangements 
 for the performance of the service. 
 
 The several propositions made by William C. Barney were for ser- 
 vice by way of the Isthmus of Nicaragua. They were not considered 
 at the time the provisional arrangement was made with Mr. Yander- 
 bilt for the following obvious reasons : 
 
 1. The opening of a new route for the mails across the Isthmus of 
 Nicaragua necessarily involved a very large expenditure of money, 
 and could not be at once effected, even if practicable — a considerable 
 period of time being necessary to complete arrangements to that end. 
 
 2.. The department had no satisfactory information as to the m^ans 
 or ability of Mr. Barney or his associates to convey the mails in ques- 
 tion by any route, and particularly via Nicaragua, a route generally 
 considered impracticable for mail purposes. 
 
 3. The object of the conditional arrangement referred to was to pro- 
 vide immediate means for the transportation of the mails from: New 
 York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, respectively, on the 5th of 
 October, 1859, in theevent of Johnson's failure. Mr. Barney, so far 
 as the department was informed, had no steamships or other necessary 
 means of transportation at command ; and it is manifest that no person 
 or company would or could enter into such a provisional contract unless 
 he or they had steamships at command and in actual service at the time 
 upon the route in question. 
 
 The copies of Mr. Barney's testimony submitted by you are here- 
 with returned . * 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant. 
 
 Hon. John Covode, 
 
 Chairman Special Committee, House of Beps. 
 
 J. HOLT, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 655 
 
 Washington City, D. C, 
 Saturday, March 5, 1859. 
 
 Sir: I propose to contract with the Post Office Department to 
 transport the mails between New York and Aspinwall, or San Juan 
 del Norte, via Havana, with the privilege of a branch from Havana 
 to Minatitlan, twice a month each way, for the period of two years 
 from and after the 30th of September, 1859, receiving as full com- 
 pensation for said service one-third of the gross postages on the Cali- 
 iornia mails carried, payable quarterly, and to transporli the West 
 India mails between New York and Havana during the same period 
 for the gross postages thereof. And I farther propose to contract for 
 the transportation of the mails between Panama, San Juan del Sur, 
 Ventosa or Acapulco, and San Francisco, twice a month each way, for 
 the period of two years from and after the 30th of September, 1859, 
 receiving as full compensation therefor two-thirds of the gross postages 
 on the mails carried, payable quarterly, under the provision of the act 
 ' of June 14, 1858, entitled "An act making appropriations for the trans- 
 portation of the United States mails by ocean steamers and otherwise 
 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1859." 
 
 I am prepared, upon ten days' notice, to enter into proper sureties 
 to carry out my proposal. 
 
 I would respectfully suggest that if the service on the Tehuantepec 
 route be continued from New Orleans upon a proper schedule of 
 departures, there would be a weekly mail from the Atlantic States to 
 CJalifornia. 
 
 I would likewise suggest that it being left to the option of the 
 Postmaster General to send the mails under this proposal, via Nica- 
 ragua, he would then not be at the iliercy of the Panama Railroad 
 Company. ■ 
 
 I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. 0. BAENEY. 
 
 Hon. Aaron V. Brown, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Office ofNew York and New Orleans Steamship Co., 
 
 No. 1 ParTz Place, New York, March 11, 1859. 
 
 Sir : On the 5th instant I sent written proposals to the Postmaster 
 •General in regard to the California mail service, in which I stated 
 that upon ten days' notice I would enter into proper bonds. I have 
 to request that any communication you may be pleased to address to 
 me may be sent to this office. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. C. BAENEY. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D. 0. 
 
656 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 New York, March 21, 1859, 
 
 Dear Sir : Will yon do me the fa,vor to inform me, whether my 
 proposal for the California mail service, by sea and isthmus, under 
 the act of 14th June, 1858, has been considered ; or whether it has 
 been, with all other matters of that nature, postponed until the decis- 
 ion of the President with regard to an extra session of Congress, shall 
 be made. I do not desire to urge this matter, but its importance to 
 my associates makes me anxious. 
 
 Your oliedient servant, 
 
 WM. C. BARNEY. 
 
 Hon. Horatio King, 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Washington City, D. C, 
 
 Thursday, March 24, 1859. ' 
 
 Sir : I beg leave to make the following modifications of the propo- 
 sition submitted to your department on the 5th instant, in reference 
 to the ocean mails from New York to Aspinwall or San Juan del 
 Norte, and thence to San Francisco and Astoria. 
 
 I propose to carry the United States mails between New York and 
 Aspinwall or San Juan del Norte, via Havana, twice a month each 
 way on American steamers, and between Aspinwall or San Juan del 
 Norte, via Ventosa, Acapulco, San Francisco, and Astoria, twice a 
 month each "way, in like manner, for the gross inland and sea postages 
 on all the United States mails between the above named places, (with 
 the privilege of taking a mail on the same terms froip Havana to 
 Minatitlan,) from and after the 30th September, 1859, for the period 
 of two years, under the act of the 14th of June, 1858. 
 
 If the Postmaster General desires any modifications, I presume we 
 can agree on them before signing the contract. 
 
 It will be seen that this arrangement will secure almost a weekly 
 mail from the Atlantic States, if the service on the Tehuantepec route 
 will be continued upon a proper schedule of departures from New 
 Orleans ; for instance, the mails leave New York by steamer on the 
 1st, arrive at Ventosa on the 16th, The mails leave New York, 
 inland, via New Orleans, on the 6th, and arrive, via Tehuantepec, 
 at Ventosa on the 16th. 
 
 WM. C. BAENEY. 
 
 Having, as the Postmaster General is advised, the right under the 
 original proposition in this case to the part of the service proposed 
 beyond Havana, I agree to the above, 
 
 ELLWOOD FISHER. 
 Hon. Jos. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Z7. 8, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 657 
 
 National Hotel, 
 Washington^ March 25, 1859. 
 
 Sir : It seems to me that the laws of the United States, of 1845 and 
 1847, establishing the mail service between the Atlantic and Pacific 
 States, and the several laws making appropriations for that service, 
 leave no room for a doubt as to that service being included in the 4th 
 and 5th sections of the act of 14th June, 1858, the opinion of the 
 Attorney General to the contrary notwithstanding. , 
 
 That service was created by the acts of 1845 and 184T, and in those 
 acts that service is designated as "foreign," and the act of 14th June, 
 1858, is but an amendment of those acts. Under those acts alone can 
 be found the authority of the Postmaster General to continue this 
 service, and all the appropriations for this service are put in the 
 ocean mail service bill, separately and distinctly from the inland 
 transportation account, which is in another act. 
 
 If you cannot find authority under the act of 14th June, 1858, to 
 contract under my modified proposals of 5th March, then that service 
 must necessarily be discontinued at the expiration of the existing con- 
 tracts, to wit, on 30th September next, for there is no other law under 
 ■which you can find authority for making a contract. 
 
 The act of 1851 gives authority to contract lor the transportation of 
 the mails through a foreign country ; but how are you to get the mails 
 to that foreign country, unless under the 4th and 5th sections of the 
 act of 14th June, 1858? / 
 
 You are then placed in this position, either to contract under the 
 act of June 14, 1858, or allow the service to cease, or contract without 
 authority of law. 
 
 KespectfuUy, your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. C. BAENEY. 
 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, March 28, 1859. 
 Sir : After a careful consideration of the views submitted by Mr. 
 Barney and yourself, in support of the offer to transport the mails 
 from New York to San Francisco, via the Isthmus, for the " gross 
 inland and sea postages " received, I cannot but regard the proposal, 
 as made under the act of June 14, 1858, as one which this depart- 
 ment has no authority to entertain. If the service be domestic in its 
 character^ as has been held by the Attorney General, then, if the some- 
 what questionable power to contract for it on the basis proposed be 
 conceded, it is clear that such contract could not be made without 
 previous advertisement, to which Mr. Barney and yourself are under- 
 stood to object. If it be treated as a foreign sea iservice, as you 
 evidently contemplate, then a contract' for its performance for the 
 postages as a consideration would be necessarily followed by raising 
 
 H. licp. Com. 648 42 
 
658 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 the rates to the standard established by the act approved March 3, 
 1851, that is to say, 20 cents on single letters for a distance exceed- 
 ing 2,500 miles, and for a distance under 2,500 miles, 10 cents. 
 Tour offer to convey the mails for the postages estimated at the 
 present domestic rates, if accepted, would not remove the difficulty. 
 The obligation to increase them to the standard fixed by the act of 
 March 3, 1851, would still remain. The present rates of postage be- 
 tween New York and our possessions on the Pacific coast have been 
 too long established by usage and the sanctions of law to justify this 
 department in an attempt to increase them by placing them on a 
 basis which they have not heretofore occupied. If such a change is 
 desirable, it must be sought at the hands of Congress. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 
 Ellwood Fishek, Esq., Washington, D. C. 
 
 Washington, April 2, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In view of the urgency of some immediate action by the owners 
 of the charter for the Isthmus of Nicaragua, I beg leave to ask you to 
 take J»to con»id«ration the importance, poK<ica%, to the United States, 
 of thM, charter, which, if not fulfilled by the 30th of September next, 
 from megfect by the ownera thereof will lapse, and the Belly charter will 
 supersedie ji, 
 
 I have m)W to request that you will make the delay for deciding the 
 
 mail eoaiinaiisb &>t the California mails as short as possible, and will 
 
 invite propoaaHs so that a decision may be arrived at in time for the 
 
 ateamer <of llith sjwtant from New York, via Famama, for California. 
 
 Yom oh&Meut servant, 
 
 WM. 0. BAKNEY, 
 
 National JBbtdi 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, 
 
 Nadionai. Hotel, Washmtoton, D. C, 
 
 Monday, April 4, 1859. 
 
 Sib : While I wish to avoid the error of saying too much, I think 
 that the;«mergency requires that I should leave nothing unsaid which 
 may tend to aid you in coming to a conclusion upon my proposal. 
 
 If the question is to be treated altogether as a postal matter, I have 
 no doubt that the present contractors would perform the service pro- 
 posed gratuitoEsly until the 30th of June, 1860, as they would thereby, 
 at a less cost tha« they have heretofore paid to Mr, Vanderbilt, close 
 forever to American citizens the Nicaragua route, :.nd secure their 
 monopoly, with its privilege of exacting enormous bounties from the 
 government for transporting the mails, and charging double fares on 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 659 
 
 all passengers to and from California. These contractors have had 
 the monopoly for eleven years, and have received from the government 
 nearly ten millions of dollars, and, with the aid of Mr. Vanderbilt, 
 have almost consummated the forfeiture of vested rights of American 
 citizens in the transit of Nicaragua. 
 
 The question is reduced to this : the Nicaragua route can be secured, 
 under the White charter, from Nicaragua, provided a mail contract 
 be given to us ; but if it be refused the charter will be forfeited, and 
 European influence will control the transit. 
 
 The only contestants for this contract are, as I understood you to 
 say, Mr. Davidge and Mr. Vanderbilt, the former the payer and the 
 latter the recipient of a large bonus in consideration of his keeping 
 this route closed. 
 
 So onerous has the tax of the monopoly of the Pacific Mail Steam- 
 ship Company become to the citizens of California that the legisla- 
 ture of that State, on the 10th of March, 1858, passed a series of reso- 
 lutions condemning the grasping exactions of the monopoly, and 
 instructing their senators and requesting their representatives to 
 oppose any renewal of their contract. 
 
 Mr. Vanderbilt has, from time to time, made a feint to start an 
 opposition line to California, but his true object has always been ap- 
 parent, for as soon as his exorbitant demand was complied with by 
 the monopoly, he withdrew his steamers, and the rates of fare were 
 immediately raised in order to draw from the travelling community 
 the necessary means to comply with his extortion. 
 
 These facts require no proof ; but the evidences of the collusion 
 between him and the present contractors I shall have the pleasure of 
 handing to you on or before Wednesday next. 
 
 Under this state of facts, I submit whether it would not be an act 
 of injustice to your department, to the mail service, and to our posses- 
 sions on the Pacific, to entertain any proposition from either of these 
 parties. 
 
 I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. C. BARNEY. 
 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 National Hotel, Washington, 
 
 April 5, 1859. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to submit to you evidence of the fact of the 
 payment to Cornelius Vanderbilt of a large monthly bonus by the con- 
 tractors via Panama in consideration of his withdrawing the steamers 
 of the Nicaragua line. 
 
 I beg leave to correct an error in the date of the forfeiture of the 
 *' American Atlantic and Pacific Ship Canal Company ;" the charter 
 requires the route to be opened on or before the 16th of November 
 next. I am informed, by advices from New York, that there is a rumor 
 there " that representations have been made in Washington th^it the 
 
660 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 
 
 canal company cannot carry out a mail contract for want of means." 
 When that question shall properly come before ypu I a,m prepared to 
 give good and sufficient guarantee for the faithful performance of the 
 contract. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. C. BAKNET. 
 Hon. J. Holt, Postmaster General. 
 
 "It was ordered that an appropriation of five thousand dollars be 
 made to Mr. Vanderbilt as on account of compensation for the with- 
 drawal of the steamers of the Nicaragua line from competition with 
 the Trust line, as to which Mr. Fisher objects and protests." 
 
 I hereby certify that the above is a correct extract from the minutes 
 of the trustees of the United States mail steamship line from New- 
 York to Aspinwall and New Orleans under the Sloo contract, and is 
 all that is recorded on that subject at the date of the record, Septem- 
 ber 5, 1856, and that nothing else I am aware of appears elsewhere 
 on said record ; and that I am the party who objected and protested 
 on that occasion against that transaction, but that I was overrulet^by 
 M. 0. Koberts and Horace F. Clark, my colleagues in the Trust ; and 
 that it appears from the books of account of said Trust that, not only 
 after said transaction, but as long prior to it as the "previous month, 
 the said Vanderbilt was paid out of said Trust funds the sum of ten 
 thousand dollars per month, for the purpose stated in said above order ; 
 and that, having been at the other times, as well as at the date of the 
 order above vested, applied to to sanction said payments, I always 
 refused. 
 
 And I further certify that the reasons assigned on that occasion, 
 and at other times, by said colleagues, was that said Vanderbilt re- 
 ceived the sum of thirty thousand dollars per month from the Pacific 
 Mail Steamship, Company for the same purpose, and that the agree- 
 ment was that said Vanderbilt was not to run his steamships, or those 
 of the Nicaragua Steamship Company, between New York or New 
 Orleans and California ; and that, on the establishment of any com- 
 peting line, his pay, as aforesaid, of forty thousand dollars per month 
 from the Atlantic and Pacific lines was to cease ; and that the argu- 
 ment used in favor of such arrangement was that Vanderbilt under- 
 took thus to intimidate oppositi^ of all kinds to the said two lines, 
 threatening that in case ot such opposition or competition from any 
 quarter he would immediately put his own line in operation and break 
 down the competitor ; and that said arrangement continued until the 
 Washington started, some time last winter, with passengers, for 
 Nicaragua, to connect with the Herman on the Pacific, and that then 
 I was advised, or soon after, by my collefigue, M. 0. Eoberts, that 
 said arrangement with Vanderbilt had thereupon ceased ; but that 
 said Vanderbilt complained that said payments to him had been stopped 
 by the Pacific Mail Company, and insisted that no such opposition 
 had been established as authorized the refusal of such payments. 
 
 And I further certify that allegations of the aforesaid black mail 
 arrangement have, in the last ten years, been made by papers of New 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 661 
 
 York and San Francisco, and by members of Congress, and have 
 never, to my knowledge, been denied publicly, although I have under- 
 stood that said Vanderbilt, and certain employes of the Pacific Mail 
 Steamship Company, have denied that any arrangement was made to 
 stop or to keep closed the Nicaragua Transit Company ; but I certify 
 that the understanding was that the payments were made in considera- 
 tion of suppressing all competition, that of Nicaragua included. 
 
 EHLWOOD FISHER. 
 New York, April i, 1859. 
 
 CoR. 3 AND C, March 28, 1859.. 
 
 Sir : Since our last interview I have examined, I believe, all the 
 laws concerning the transportation of the United States mails via the 
 Isthmus of Panama to California and Oregon. Not one of them treats 
 the several routes on that line as inland or domestic, 
 
 1. The inland and domestic routes are provided for by a general 
 law, which fixes the duration of the contracts at four years, and pro- 
 vides for advertisements for proposals. The California service by sea 
 consists of three routes — one from New York and New Orleans, via 
 Havana, to Chagres, one across the Isthnius, and one from Panama to 
 California and Oregon — the first and last both having a foreign termi- 
 nus. The service was provided for by a special law, which also pro- 
 vided for the other foreign lines by sea, and the duration of the contraqt 
 was fixed at ten years, and every annual appropriation for mail pay 
 for them all is contained in a single and distinct la.w. It cannot be 
 said without an abuse of terms that the route from New York and 
 New Orleans to Chagres or Aspinwall via Havana is domestic or inland, 
 or that the route from Panama to San Francisco is. 
 
 2. The only thing that gives color to the assumption that tho^e 
 routes have been regarded by the department as domestic is the appli- 
 cation of the provisions of a general law fixing postages for distances 
 over three thousiand miles at ten cents to the California postages by 
 sea; but this is a latitudinous construction, and is to be adopted only 
 as iiar as it goes; and that is, as a modification of the law fixing the 
 rate of postages by sea between places in the United States. To carry 
 it further ; to say that it transfers one system of service and contracts 
 to another, the foreign and sea to the domestic and inland, is to con- 
 strue latitudinously a construction already latitudinous. 
 
 3. The inland or domestic service has been uniformly provided for 
 in a separate post office appropriation bill, which always begins with 
 the clause : For transportation of the mails inland so much, and in 
 that sum has been included never the compensation for the sea routes 
 between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States. 
 
 4. Unless the views I have presented be adopted the department has 
 no authority whatever to make any sort of contract for those mails 
 by those routes, and the service must therefore cease on the first of 
 October next. In that event the Britsh lines already established from 
 
662 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 New York to Havana, and about to he tbence to the Isthmus, and from 
 there to Frazer's river via San Francisco, will carry the important 
 United States mail— a result that would be far from flattering to the 
 Post Office Department and the government. 
 
 5. The opinion of the Attorney General of June 26, 1858, besides 
 being as to this case a mere obiter dictum, has the misfortune of contra- 
 dicting itself. In that opinion it is held that the route from Panama to 
 San Francisco is inland and domestic. If so, why was it not advertised 
 for, as the law directs, in all cases of inland and domestic routes ? 
 Yet the opinion is given ex post/ado to sustain a contract made ten 
 days before without any previous advertisement. Yet the opinion 
 relies mainly on the appropriation made in the regular foreign sea 
 service bill, and made evidently on the ground that the service was 
 such. 
 
 6. The fifth section of the act of June 18, 1858, determines by the 
 time of its enactment as well as by its terms most conclusively the 
 purpose of Congress. Every one of the ten-year contracts for the 
 foreign sea service, that via Panama included, would, it was weU 
 known, expire in a little more than a year from the date of this act. 
 The Postmaster General, of course, required that much time to pro- 
 vide for the continuance of the service. The act was passed fixing 
 the terms. An offer was made by one of the New York and New 
 Orleans lines via Havana, in accordance with its terms, and was 
 promptly accepted by him, and surely that service is as much domestic 
 and inland as the service now proposed. The oifer now made is the 
 second under that act, and is admitted to be the best ever made, and 
 better than was expected ; for the proprietory of the existing lines 
 under contract positively refused the terms, and went to the last ses- 
 sion of Congress for better, and were emphatically repudiated, their 
 proposition incorporated in the mail steamer bill was rejected, their 
 course in paying Vanderbilt about half a million a year to crush com- 
 petition having no doubt had much influence with that body. 
 
 T. Your department has not consideied itself bound by the opinion 
 of the Attorney General of 26th June, 1858, or has not considered it 
 applicable to this case. For when in the last session of Congress Mr. 
 Ynlee, chairman of the Senate Post Office Committee, sent to the late 
 Postmaster General the draught of a bill to provide for this very sea 
 service at a cost of about a million of dollars, he answered and insisted 
 that he could provide for it on much better terms under the act of 
 June 14, 1858, on which we rely, and beg leave to refer you to that 
 answer on file in the department. 
 
 8. I understood you to observe that while the Post Office Department 
 received the postages arising from the service to California, &c., the 
 payments for that service were made out of the treasury, and hence 
 the department in its present predicament would by the proposed con- 
 tract have to relinquish that part of its revenues which might other- 
 wise be applied to other service. But if a contract is made for service 
 to be commenced on the first of October next, the first quarter's pay will 
 not be due until the 1st January following, nearly a month after the 
 regular session of Congress commences, which in that time will un- 
 questionably provide i'or all exigencies of the department. 
 
POST OFFICE BEPAETMENT. ETC. 663 
 
 9. It will be seen by the third section of the act of June 14, 1858, 
 that the appropriations for the transportation of the mails from New 
 York to Havre by Southampton, from Charleston to Havana, and those 
 across the Isthmus of Panama, altogether amounting to three hun- 
 dred and eighty thousand dollars, are to be paid out of the revenues of 
 the department, not, as heretofore, out of the treasury ; and this affords 
 additional evidence of the meaning of Congress, not only that the Cal- 
 ifornia sea service belongs to the same class with the European — ^^be- 
 longs to the foreign and not the domestic service — but, in connexion 
 with sections four and five, of its determination that it must be sus- 
 tained by the postages. And whatever may be said as to which class 
 of postal service the California lines belong, there can be no dispute 
 as to the intention of Congress that the pay should be reduced to the 
 postages, a reduction of nearly one-half on the existing rates, and on 
 those proposed to the last Congress, as is manifest from the draught of 
 t^e bill sent by Mr. Yulee to the Postmaster General. 
 
 I have in conclusion but to repeat my wish for a proper decision of 
 the department, as that is requisite for the execution of the contract 
 tendered, and to request that I may be immediately advised of the de- 
 dsion made by letter addressed to the Brevoort House, New York. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Hon. Joseph Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 ELLWOOD FISHEE. 
 
 Washington Citt, D. C, 
 
 Tuesday, March 29, 1859. 
 
 Sir : I submit to you a brief of all the laws of the United States 
 relating to " occian mail service," and hope that it will facilitate your 
 thorough examination of them, which I think the case demands before 
 you give a final decision. 
 
 But for the most extraordinary opinion of the Attorney General, 
 there cannot be a doubt what your decision and that of every lawyer 
 would be. 
 
 The opinions of the Attorney General are but opinions, merely ad- 
 visory, and by no means obligatory ; and now this opinion, which was 
 obtained to sustain a previous construction of the law, and to sanction 
 a previous executive act underthe law, applicable only to a particular 
 case, is set up as the final decision upon the construction of that law, 
 a construction totally at variance with the intention not only of the 
 special framers of the law, but with the construction placed upon it 
 by the legislators when they made it the law of the land, (or rather 
 of the sea.) 
 
 There can be no doubt as to the intention of the legislators as to 
 the scope and meaning of that law. The debates upon it prove be- 
 yond a cavil their construction of the law. The chairman of the 
 committee of conference on that act, upon interrogatories from many 
 members of the House, stated, in plain English, the construction 
 which the committee had placed on the law ; and upon that construe- 
 
664 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 tion he asked the concurrence of the House of Representatives. He, 
 stated that the law applied " not only to the foreign, but to the home 
 service ;" " not only to the service to Europe, hut to the service on 
 our coast, and to the service between the Atlantic and Pacific States;" 
 that this act curtailed the power of the Postmaster General, conferred 
 upon him by the act of 3d March, 1845, by limiting the duration of 
 contracts and the pay for the service. 
 
 This construction placed upon the law the House of Eepresenta- 
 tives accepted, and passed the act. 
 
 It will be difficult to find any other law in the statutes the mean- 
 ing of which is more clearly defined by the framers of it, and that 
 meaning, would not have been questioned butfor another clause in the 
 act making appropriation for the service fr6m Panama to Astoria for 
 one year, which, however, if not restricted by the general scope of the 
 fourth and fifth sections, could only be construed as an exception to 
 the general principle ; but when it can be proved that the appropria- 
 tion above named, under a mistaken statement of facts made inno- 
 cently to the House of Kepresenta'tives, received the sanction of the 
 House, surely that exception should not be so construed as to defeat 
 the very intention of the act. 
 
 The appropriation above named was voted by the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, under the belief that it was necessary to carry out an 
 existing contract. This statement was made in the committee of 
 conference on this act. 
 
 1 will not offer any reason of politics, or of policy, to induce you to 
 give to this law its literal and, to my mind^ only interpretation. The 
 law, notwithstanding the interpretation of the Attorney General, is 
 simple and plain ; the intention of its framers is well known ; the 
 construction given to it, which obtained for it the sanction, is clearly 
 defined, and it remains for you to execute the law as yon understand, 
 it, upon your own responsibility, having satisfied yourself of the con- 
 struction placed upon it by Congress. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 WM. CHASE BARNEY. 
 Hon. Jos. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, U. S., Washington, D. G. 
 
 The act establishing service between the United States and foreign 
 countries, (page 748, vol. 5,) was " An act to provide for the trans- 
 portation of the mail between the United States and foreign countries." 
 The first section authorizes the Postmaster General "to contract for 
 the transportation of the United States mail between any ports of the 
 United States and a port or ports of any foreign power." The third 
 section fixes the rates of postage on all mailable matter in these mails,, 
 to wit : not less than 3,000 miles, 24 cents, with United States inland 
 added. 
 
 The next law upon these sea mails is the act of 3d March, 1847, 
 entitled " An act providing for the building and equipment of four 
 naval steamships," (page 187, vol. 9.) ' The fourth section says: "It 
 shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Navy to contract with A. G. 
 Sloo for the transportation of the mails from New York to New Orleans, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 665 
 
 toucliing at Havana, and from Havana to Chagres and bact, twice a 
 month." And the fifth section " provides for the transportation of 
 the mail from Panama to some port in Oregon, to connect with the 
 mail from Havana." Contracts were made in virtue of the above 
 upon proposals received under the Post Office Department's advertise- 
 ment, under the law of 3d March, 1845. 
 
 The next law on thi# subject is in the post route bill of 3d March, 
 1847, (page 200, vol. 9, section 6,) limits the expenses to $100,000 per 
 annum, and authorizes the Postmaster General to contract for trans- 
 porting the mails across the Isthmus of Panama. This is the first 
 mention made of the transportation across the Isthmus of Panama. 
 Section seven fixes the rate of postage, to wit : to Chagres, 20 cents ; 
 to Havana, 12^ cents ; to Panama, 30 cents ; to Astoria, or any other 
 place on the Pacific coast in the United States territory, 40 cents. 
 
 It is thus placed beyond a doubt that the rates of postage for matter 
 *' conveyed in the mail." of the act of March 3, 1845, did not apply 
 to the mail by sea between the Atlantic and Pacific States. 
 
 The next lawisthe "actmakingappropriationsforthenavalservice," 
 August 3, 1848. Section 10, page 272, volume 9, says : " It shall be 
 the duty of the Postmaster General, under the direction of the Presi- 
 dent, to cause the net receipts of postages collected on the several lines of 
 steamers from New York to Europe, from New York to Chagres, and 
 from Panama to some point in the Territory of Oregon, to be deposited 
 in the treasury to the credit of the appropriation for the annual trans- 
 portation of the mail to be rendered under said contracts, or otherwise 
 apply the said postages in payment of the said annual compensation." 
 
 Here, then, if no subsequent act had been passed by Congress, the 
 Postmaster General finds full authority for "applying the postages in 
 payment of the annual compensation," 
 
 The next law is the post route act of August 14, 1848. Section 3, 
 page 320, volume 9, fixes the rates of postage on letters to or from 
 all places on the Pacific, in thfe United States, to any place on the 
 Atlantic coast, at 40 cents ; all letters between places on the Pacific, 
 12^ cents ; and " the Postmaster General is authorized to apply any 
 moneys received on account of postages aforesaid to the payments to 
 be made on the contract for transporting the mails in the Pacific." 
 
 Here, then, is the principle of applying the postages to pay for the 
 JBervice again laid down. 
 
 The mail steamship service between the Atlantic and Pacific began 
 October, 1848, under the contracts above authorized by the act of 1847, 
 and the Postmaster General sent the mail across the Isthmus of 
 Panama in charge of special post office-agents. 
 
 The Panama railroad was then in process of construction. 
 
 The act of March 3, 1851, " An act to reduce the rates of postage," 
 page 587, has these words : " for every single letter conveyed in the 
 mail for any distance between places within the United 8tg,tes not ex- 
 ceeding 3,000 miles, prepaid, 3 cents ; not prepaid, 5 cents ; and over 
 3.000 miles, double those rates ; for every single letter, when conveyed 
 wholly or in part by sea, and to and from a foreign country, for any 
 distance under 2,500 miles, 10 cents, except when the rate is or may 
 be adjusted by postage treaty." 
 
666 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 This law plainly draws a distinction ''between places within the 
 United States " and the mails " conveyed wholly or in part hy sea." 
 
 The act of March 3, 1851, making appropriations for naval service, 
 (page 623,) makes the appropriation for the mails to Liverpool, 
 Chagres, and Oregon, thus clearly showing this service was considered 
 a sea service, and was not included in the inland service. 
 
 The next law is the act making post-routes, March 3, 1851, page 
 645, authorizing the Postmaster General to contract for transporting 
 the mails through any foreign country, and he is "bound to select 
 the speediest, safest, and most economical route." Vol. 10, page 
 641, act to amend act to reduce postage March 3, 1855 : every single 
 letter between places in the United States under 3,000 miles, 3 cents ; 
 over 3,000 miles, 10 cents, prepaid. 
 
 We now come to the act of June 14, 1858. Section 4 limits the 
 powers of the Postmaster General conferred upon him by act of 
 March 3, 1845, to contract for mail to foreign countries, (page 364, 
 1857, 1858.J Section 5 authorizes the Postmaster General to contract 
 for two years, and give postages as pay. Under this act alone, can 
 the Postmaster General find authority to contract for the mails by sea 
 between the Atlantic and Pacific States. 
 
 I append the opinion of Attorney General Black, given to the 
 Secretary of the Navy June 4, 1857, upon the weight to be allowed \o 
 the opinions emanating from this office. 
 
 " Standing on these grounds, I am safe in saying that the action of 
 the Postmaster General and the accounting officers is not conclusive, 
 nor was it intended by them to be so. Subsequent to that action 
 nothing was done except taking the opinion of the Attorney Generah 
 Is that opinion such a judgment in the case that it shuts out aJl further 
 inquiry ? 
 
 "I am clear that it is not. The duty of the Attorney General is to 
 advise, not to decide. A thing is not to be considered as done by the 
 head of a department merely because the Attorney General has advised 
 him to do it. You may disregard his opinion if you are sure it is 
 wrong. He aids you in forming a judgment on questions of law, but 
 still the judgment is yours, not his. You are not bound to see with hig 
 eyes, but only to use the light which he furnishes in order to see the 
 better with your own." 
 
 The opinion, then, of the Attorney General upon the act of June 
 14, 1858, does not shut out all further inquiry, and the judgment 
 upon the question is yours, not his. 
 
 Office New York and New Orleans Steamship Company, 
 No. 1 Park Place, New York, April 22, 1859. 
 Sir : In making proposals for conveying the mails of the United 
 States between New York and San Francisco, and between New 
 Orleans and San Francisco, agreeably to the letter dated April 7, 
 1859, addressed to me by the First Assistant Postmaster General, I 
 desire to know if the usual printed blanks properly filled up as imtal 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 667 
 
 should be used, or can be used, or are preferred by the departmeut ; 
 and if so, I request that six of these blanks be sent to me. 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM 0. BAENEY. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D, G. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, April 23, 1859. 
 Sir : I have to inform you, in answer to your letter ^of 22d inst., 
 that no particular form has been prepared for the proposals invited in 
 my letter of 7th instant, the parties proposing being at liberty to make 
 their bids in such form as they may think proper to adopt, the essen- 
 tial requirements being fully met. 
 
 I send herewith several copies of the usual form of proposal for 
 domestic service, which you can use so far as it is applicable, making 
 the necessary changes according to circumstances. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 Wm. C. Barney, Esq., 
 
 OJice ofN. 7. & N. 0. 8. 8. Go., 
 
 No. 1, FarJe Place, New York. 
 
 PROPOSAL. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, William C. Barney, whose post office address is 
 New York, county of New York, State of New Yorjc, proposes to con- 
 vey the mails of the United States, for a period of nine months, from 
 the 1st of October next to the 30th of June, 1860, inclusive, between 
 New York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San 
 'Francisco, agreeably to the letter of the First Assistant Postmaster 
 General, dated April 7, 1859, for the sum of one hundred and seventy- 
 eight thousand dollars, ($178,000.) 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New 
 York, touching at Havana, thence to San Juan del Norte by river 
 San Juan and Lake Nicaragua, and overland to San Juan del Sur, 
 thence, via Ventosa and Acapulco, to San Francisco, in twenty-three 
 days ; and back by same route from San Francisco, twice a month, to 
 New York, in twenty-two days, for $143,100. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New 
 Orleans to San Francisco, by Havana, San Juan del Norte, San Juan 
 del Sur, and Acapulco, in twenty-one days, and from San Francisco, 
 by same route, twice a month, to New Orleans, in nineteen days, for 
 $35,100 ;*it being understood that the mails from New Orleans for 
 San Francisco shall connect at Havana with the mails from New York, 
 and proceed with said mails to San Francisco, and the mails from Saa 
 
66'8 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 
 
 Francisco for New Orleans shall leave San Francisco with the mails 
 for Kew York as i'ar as Havana, and from thence to New Orleans. 
 The sea service to he performed by good and efficient steamships. 
 
 WILLIAM C. BARNEY. 
 Witness : Charles H. Wood. 
 
 GUARANTEE, 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 The undersigned, residing at New York, State of New York, under- 
 take that if the foregoing hid for carrying the mail hetween New 
 York and San Francisco, and hetween New Orleans and San Fran- 
 cisco, he accepted hy the Postmaster G-eneral, the bidder shall enter 
 into the required contract with the department, with good and suf- 
 ficient sureties for the faithful performance of the service proposed, ; 
 and they guarantee that the party making the above proposal is pre- ' 
 pared to perform the designated service. 
 
 JAMES HALL, 
 J. L. WHITE, , 
 Witness: Wm. Caldwell, 
 
 Assistant Postmaster, New York. 
 
 CERTIFICATE. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 The undersigned, postmaster at New York, State of New York, 
 certifies, under his oath of ofiice, that he is acquainted with theabore 
 guarantors, and knows them to be men of property and able to make 
 good their guarantee. 
 
 ISAAC' V, FOWLER, Postmaster. 
 
 PROPOSAL. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, William C. Barney, whose post office address is 
 New York, county of New York, State of New York, proposes to con; 
 vey the mails of the United States for a period of nine months, from 
 the 1st October next to the 30th June, 1860, inclusive, between New 
 York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Fran- 
 cisco, agreeably to the letter of the First Assistant Postmaster 
 General, dated April 7,1859, for the sum of two hundred and fiftew 
 thousand and ten dollars, ($215,010.) 
 
 The undersigned proposeiS to make two trips a month- from New 
 York, via Key West, San Juan del Norte, San Juan del* Sur, and 
 Ventosa and Acapulco, to San Francisco, in tweniy-three days, and 
 back by same route, twice a month, in iwenty-iwo d(j2/s, for $194,310. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 669 
 
 Orleans, via Key West, San Juan del Norte, San Juan del Sur, and 
 Acapulco, to San Francisco, in twenty-one days, and back by same 
 route, twice a month, in nineteen days; and to convey the mails of the 
 United States between New York and Havana, via Key West, twice 
 a month by the same steamer, and between New Orleans and Havana, 
 via Key West, twice a month by the pame steamer, for |20,Y0O. It 
 being understood that the mails from New Orleans should connect at 
 Key West, and proceed thence with the mails from New York to Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 The sea service to be performed in good and sufficient steamships. 
 
 WILLIAM C. BARNEY. 
 
 Witness : Chakles H. Wood. 
 
 GUARANTEE. 
 
 New Yoek, Jpril 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, residing at New York, State of New York, under- 
 take that if the foregoing bid for carrying the mail between New 
 York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, 
 be accepted by the Postmaster G-eneral, the bidder shall enter into the 
 required contract with the department, with good and sufficient sureties 
 for the faithful performance of the service proposed, and they guar- 
 antee that the party proposing is prepared to perform the designated 
 service. 
 
 JAMES HALL. 
 J. L. WHITE. 
 Witness : Wm. Caldwell, 
 
 Assistant Postmaster, New York. 
 
 certificate. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, postmaster at New York, State of New York, 
 certifies, under his oath of office, that he ia acquainted with the above 
 guarantors, and knows them to be men of property and able to make 
 good their guarantee. 
 
 ISAAC y. FOWLER, 
 
 Postmaster. 
 
 PROPOSAL. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, William 0. Barney, whose post office address is 
 New York, county of New York, State of New York, proposes to 
 convey the mails of the United States for a period of nine months, from 
 the Ist October next to the 30th June, 1860, inclusive, between New 
 York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Fran- 
 cisco, agreeably to the letter of the First Assistant Postmaster General, 
 dated April 7, 1859, for the sum of two hundred and thirty-seven 
 thousand six hundred dollars, ($237,600.) 
 
670 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New 
 York, via Havana, San Juan del Norte, San Juan del Sur, and Ventosa 
 and Acapulco, to San Francisco, in twenty-three days; and back from 
 San Francisco by same route, twice a month, to New York in twenty- 
 two days, for $179,100. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New Or- 
 leans to San Fjancisco, via Havana, San Juan del Norte, San Juan 
 del Sur, and Acapulco, in twenty-one days, and back by same route in 
 nineteen days, for $35,100. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from Savan- 
 nah, via Havana, San Juan del Norte, San Juan del Sur, and Acapulco, 
 to San Francisco in twenty-one days, and back by same route twice a 
 month, in nineteen days, for $23,400. 
 
 It being understood that the mails from New Orleans and from Savan- 
 nah shall connect at Havana with the mails to and from New York, 
 and to and from San Francisco, and proceed to New York and to San 
 Francisco with said mails. The sea service to be performed by good 
 and sufficient steamers. • 
 
 WILLIAM C. BARNEY. 
 
 Witness : Charles H. Wood. 
 
 GUAKANTEE. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 The undersigned, residing at New York, State of New York, under-, 
 take that if the foregoing bid for carrying the mail between New 
 York and San Francisco, and New Orleans and San Francisco, and 
 Savannah and San Francisco, be accepted by the Postmaster General, 
 the bidder shall enter into the required contract with the department, 
 with good and sufficient sureties for the faithful performance of the 
 service proposed, and they guarantee that the party making the pro* 
 posal is prepared to perform the designated service. 
 
 JAMES HALL. 
 ^ J. L. WHITE. -'■'- 
 
 Witness: Wm. Caldwell, 
 
 Assistant Postmaster, New York. 
 
 CBRTrPIOATB. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 The undersigned, postmaster at New York, State of New York, 
 certifies, under his oath of office, that he is acquainted with the above 
 guarantors, and knows them to be men of property and able to make 
 good their guarantee. 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER, 
 
 Postmaster. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 671 
 
 PROPOSAL. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, William 0. Barney, whose post office address is 
 New York, county of New York, State of New York, proposes to con- 
 vey the mail of the United States for a period of nine months, from 
 the 1st of October next to the 30th June, 1860, inclusive, between 
 New York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San 
 Francisco, agreeably to the letter of the B'irst Assistant Postmaster 
 G-eneral, dated April 7, 1859, for the sum of two hundred and sixty- 
 eight thousand and two hunred dollars, ($268,200.) 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New 
 York direct to San Juan del Norte, thence by river San Juan and 
 Lake Nicaragua and overland to San Juan del Sur, thence, via Ven- 
 tosa and Acapulco, to San Francisco, in twenty-two days, and back by 
 same route, twice a month, to New York, in twenty-one days, for 
 $189,000. 
 
 The undersigned proposes to make two trips a month from New Or- 
 leans direct to San Juan d^el Norte, there connecting with the mails 
 from New York, and proceeding with said mails to San Francisco in 
 twenty days, and back twice a month by same route to New Orleans, 
 in nineteen days, leaving San Francisco with the mails for New Yorkj 
 and with said mails as far as San Juan del Norte, and thence direct 
 to New Orleans, for $79,200. The sea service to be performed by 
 good and efficient steamships. 
 
 WILLIAM C. BARNEY. 
 
 Witness: Charles H. Wood. 
 
 GUARANTEE. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 The undersigned, residing at New York, State of New York, under- 
 take that if the foregoing bid for carrying the n\»il between New York 
 and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, be 
 accepted by the Postmaster General, the bidder shall enter into the 
 required contract with the department, with good and sufficient sure- 
 ties for the faithful performance of the service proposed, and guarantee 
 that the party making the above proposal is prepared to perform the 
 designated service. 
 
 Witness : Wm. Caldwell, 
 
 Assistant Postmaster, New York. 
 
 JAMES HALL. 
 J. L. WHITE. 
 
 CEBTIFICATB. 
 
 New York, April 28, 1859. 
 
 The undersigned, postmaster at New York, State of New York, 
 certifies, under his oath of office, that he is acquainted with the above 
 
672 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT. ETC. 
 
 guarantors, and knows them to be men of property and able to make 
 good their guarantee. 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER, Postmaster. 
 
 Washington City, D. 0. , 
 
 Tuesday, May 3, 1859. 
 
 Sir: Having made proposals to your department to convey the 
 mails between New York and New Orleans and San Francisco, and 
 believing that the " Pacific Ifail Steamship Company" and Cornelius 
 Vanderbilt are competitors for the same service, I feel myself war- 
 ranted in submitting to you several iacts which show that the bids of 
 neither of these parties should be entertained by tlie Post Office De- 
 partment. 
 
 The 24th section of the act of July 2, 1836, ends as follows : " Pro- 
 vided, however, That the Postmaster General shall not be bound to 
 consider the bid of any person who shall have wilfully or negligently 
 failed to execute or perform a piior contract." 
 
 Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Daniel Drew and Edward N. Dickerson, 
 as sureties, entered into a contract with the Postmaster General, on 
 the 9th of May, 1857, to transport the United States mail to South- 
 ampton, in England, and to Bremen, and back to New York, for the 
 year ending June 1, 1858, the first trip on the 13th June, 1857, and 
 he last outward trip on the 15th May, 1858, for the gross amount of 
 the United States postages, sea and inland, and to carry said mail 
 within the times fixed in the annexed schedule of departures and 
 arrivals. 
 
 Now, the said Vanderbilt totally failed, to perform the trips from 
 New York on the 23d of January and 2Uth February, 1858, being 
 the days named in the schedule. At that time Mr. Vanderbilt had 
 five steamships lying idle at the docks in New York, to wit, the Van- 
 derbilt, Ariel, North Star, Northern Light, and Daniel Webster. 
 Hence it is evident that his failure to make those trips was " wilful." 
 
 It is well known that Mr. Vanderbilt publicly announced that he 
 would not convey the mails in the winter season for the postages, and 
 this in the face of his contract. 
 
 I now respectfully submit whether the section of the law above re- 
 ferred to should not be rigorously applied to such a delinquent con- 
 tractor, or whether such a deliniiuency shall be rewarded by giving 
 another contract ? 
 
 The 28th section of the act of July 2, 1836, enacts, " that no con- 
 tract for the transportation of the mail shall knowingly be made by 
 the Postmaster General with any person who shall have entered into 
 any combination to prevent the making of any bid for a mail contract 
 by any other person or persons ; or who shall have made any agree- 
 ment, or shall have given or performed, or promised to give or perform, 
 any considerntion whatever, or to do, or not to do anything whatever, 
 in order to induce any other person or persons not to bid for a mail 
 contract, " 
 
 1 respectfully submit whether the "Pacific Mail Steamship Company" 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 673 
 
 and Mr. Yanderbilt do not fall within the operation of this section 
 of the law? It is^a fact, admitted by both these parties, that the one 
 paid a large bonus annually to the other to close and keep closed the 
 Nicaragua route, and thereby subject the department to the exactions 
 of the Panama monopoly. I have heretofore submitted to you a 
 transcript from the books wherein this bonus was ordered by the 
 board of directors to be paid to Mr. Vanderbilt, and I now submit a 
 prima facie evidence of the acknowledgment of this fact, in that they 
 appointed referees to settle the claim growing out of the non-payment 
 of the subsidy agreed to be paid, while opposition was kept off the 
 California route.* (See money article in the New York Tribune, of 
 April 29th, enclosed.) 
 
 I now most respectfully submit whether either of these parties should 
 be encouraged and rewarded ? 
 Yours, very repectfuUy, 
 
 W. 0. BARNEY. 
 
 Hon. Joseph Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, U. 8. 
 
 *> The referees in the case of Commodore Vanderbilt against the Pacific Mail Company 
 have awarded $30,000, about one-half the amount claimed. The claim grew out of the 
 non-payment of the subsidy agreed upon to be paid while opposition was kept off the Cali- 
 fornia route, which subsidy was held back for the month when the Washington made her 
 trips to San Juan. 
 
 Ordered that there be printed, with the testimony taken before this 
 committee in relation to contracts for carrying the California mails, 
 &c., the documents contained in Senate Executive Document No. 
 72, 35th Congress, 1st session, in relation to the route across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and the documents contained in Senate Ex- 
 ecutive Document, No. 45, 36th Congress, 1st session, in relation to 
 the contract with Daniel H. Johnson to carry the California mails, 
 &c. — (Committee Journal, May 26, 1860.) 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 — ^-43 
 
35™ Congress, > SENATE. . ( Ex. Doc. 
 
 Is* Session. \ I No. 12. 
 
 MESSAGE 
 
 cw 
 
 THE PRESIDENT OE THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 A resolution of the Senate respecting the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 June 11, 1858. — Eead. Motion to print referred to the Committee on Printing. 
 June 12, 1858. — Report in favor of printing submitted, considered, and agreed to. 
 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 In answer to the resolution of tlie Senate of the 19tli ultimo, respect- 
 ing the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, I transmit herewith a report from 
 the Secretary of State, with the documents by which it is accompanied, 
 together with the copy of a letter from the Postmaster General of the 
 24th ultimo' to the Department of State. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 Washington, June 11, 1858. 
 
 Department of State, 
 Washington, June 11, 1858. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom was referred that branch of the 
 resolution of the Senate of the 19th ultimo, requesting the President 
 " to inform the Senate whether any efforts have been made or author- 
 ized by the executive department, or any oflScer thereof, to induce the 
 government of Mexico to annul or impair the grant of February 5, 
 1853, for the construction of a plank road and railroad across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as recognized in the treaty published at 
 Washington, on the 30th of June^ 1854, and to obtain a new grant of 
 the same, or like character, for other parties ; and, if so, that he com- 
 municate the names of those parties, together with the terms, condi- 
 tions, and considerations of the grant, and all the correspondence 
 connected therewith," has the honor to lay before the President the 
 papers mentioned in the list subjoined. 
 EespectfuUy submitted, 
 
 LEWIS CASS. 
 
 The President. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 675 
 
 List of documents. 
 
 1. Mr. Letcher to Mr. Webster, (extract,) April 25, 1852. 
 
 2. Same to same, (extract — enclosures,) no date. 
 
 3. Mr. Kich to same, (extract,) August 31, 1852. 
 
 4. Mr. Conrad to Mr. Conkling, (extract,) October 14, 1852. 
 
 5. Mr. Conkling to Mr. Everett, (extract,) November 23, 1852. 
 
 6. Same to same, (extract,) February 2, 1853. 
 T. Same to same, (extract,) same date. 
 
 8. Same to same, (extracts,) February 3, 1853. 
 
 9. Same to same, (extract — enclosures,) February 6, 1853. 
 
 10. Same to same, (extract — enclosures,) February 22, 1853. 
 
 11. Mr. Hargous to Mr. Marcy, May 7, 1853. 
 
 12. Mr. Conkling to same, (extract,) May 14, 1853. 
 
 13. Mr. Marcy to Mr. Gadsden, (extract,) July 15, 1853. 
 
 14. Mr. Gadsden to Mr. Marcy, (extract — enclosure,) April 5, 1856. 
 
 15. Mr. Hargous to same, April 21, 1856. 
 
 16. Mr. Marcy to Mr. Forsyth, (extract,) August 16, 1856. 
 
 17. Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Marcy, (enclosure,) November 15, 1856. 
 
 18. Mr. Cass to Mr. Forsyth, (enclosure,) July 17, 1856, 
 
 19. Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Cass, ( extracts — enclosures,) September 
 15, 1856. 
 
 Mr. Letcher to Mr. Webster. 
 [ Extraet.] 
 No. 5.] LEaATION OF THE UNITED StATES OS AmBKICA, 
 
 Mexico, April 25, 1852. 
 
 Sir : Since the rejection of the Tehuan tepee treaty I have held no 
 intercourse with the minister of foreign relations. I am satisfied, 
 however, that the adniinistration and congress are anxious to escape 
 from the consequences of the act which they have perpetrated, and 
 that they will adopt some plan of legislation by which the right of 
 way will be granted. I think I may say they are determined on this 
 course. 
 
 The first plan proposed in congress was to grant to a Mexican 
 company the right to construct a way of communication. The stock 
 was to be divided into shares of |1,000 each. This company was to 
 be under the control of the government. The second proposition was 
 to authorize the president to make a contract with any company for 
 the construction of the way of communication. 
 
 The first scheme was withdrawn, and the second did not receive a 
 moment's consideration. 
 
 The president then atfvised the congress, in secret session, through 
 his minister, to take the entire coutrol of the subject, promising to co- 
 operate in any contract which they might adopt. In consequence of 
 
676 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 this communication, the proposals of Mr. Sloo, an American citizen, 
 were introduced, which have been received, as I have been informed, 
 with considerable favor. I have the honor, herewith, to transmit a 
 copy of the proposition of Mr. Sloo. 
 
 It was stated in Congress, and confirmed by the administration, that 
 all the requisitions in regard to Tehuantepec contained in the annual 
 message of the President of the United States should be complied with ; 
 and that if Mexico should be coerced to do more by the strong arm of 
 Dower, the responsibility of the consequences would not then rest upon 
 her. *** * * * * * 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 K. P. LETCHER. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 
 Secretary of State, 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 The undersigned, A. G-. Sloo, in view of the great existing necessity 
 for establishing an interoceanic communication between the Atlantic 
 and Pacific waters by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, asks of the Mexi- 
 can republic, for himself and his associates, a privilege upon the fol- 
 lowing bases : 
 
 Article 1. The communication through the Isthmus of Tehuante- 
 pec shall be opened, in the first place, by means of a wagon road, 
 constructed either of wood or of stone, and when the wants of travel- 
 lers or the transportation of goods require it there shall either be built 
 a railway or a canal. 
 
 Article 2. When the road shall be passable, its transit must be 
 considered as neutral and common to all nations that are at peace with 
 Mexico. 
 
 Article 3. The execution of the work shall be on account of A. G. 
 Sloo and his associates, who will enjoy the exclusive privilege for a 
 period of forty years after the road shall have been completed. 
 
 Article 4. The construction of the plank or stone road shall be 
 commenced within a year, counting from the date of the privilege, and 
 completed in as short a space of time as possible. 
 
 Article 5. There shall be granted to the contracting company one 
 league of land on each side of the line of communication, with the 
 liberty to take from any of the lands belonging to the republic such 
 timber, stone, limestone, or other materials as may be required for 
 the construction of said road. In case the lands to the extent of one 
 league on each side of the line should belong to private individuals, 
 the latter shall be indemnified, agreeably to the provision of the 
 Mexican constitution. 
 
 Article 6. The transit duties which may be fixed upon goods or 
 passengers shall go to the contractors for the period of forty years, at 
 the end of which all such duties shall belong to the Mexican govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Article 7. Two-fifths of the net produce of the tolls or transit 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 677 
 
 duties upon goods and passengers shall, for the period of forty years, 
 belong to the government of Mexico, and the same shall be paid to it 
 every six months or annually. For the period of forty years after the 
 road has become the property of the government the latter shall pay 
 to the contractors the same two-fifths of the net produce. 
 
 Article 8. The Mexican government, as well as the contractors, 
 may each respectively appoint agents, superintendents, and mediators, 
 (inter ven tores,) to see that the revenue of the roads is punctually col- 
 lected. 
 
 Article 9. The exclusive right of navigating the river Ooatzacoal- 
 cos shall form part of the privilege for opening the way of commu- 
 nication. 
 
 _ Article 10. The following articles shall be exempt from duties, 
 viz: timber, screw pins, canvas, and iron hoops, worked stone and 
 wooden houses, as well as such provisions as, in the opinion of the 
 collector of customs, shall be deemed necessary for the exclusive sup- 
 port of the laborers employed in the construction of the road. 
 
 Article 11. All steam vessels employed in carrying the mail and 
 passengers exclusively shall be exempt from tonnage duties. 
 
 Article 12. The Mexican government shall not be at liberty to im- 
 pose more transit duties during the existence of the privilege than 
 such as may be established by consent of the company, without any 
 injury accruing to the capital which may be employed in the republic^ 
 either directly or indirectly. 
 
 Article 13. The government shall open at each extremity of the 
 Isthmus such ports as it may deem suitable to the interests of the 
 public treasury, and shall locate at every point where it thinks it ex- 
 pedient to do so custom-house officer8_, and such guards of safety as it 
 may consider necessary for the protection of the revenue and the 
 security of the interests of the nation. 
 
 Article 14. The government shall pledge itself to protect the com- 
 pany in the peaceful prosecution of the work, and guarantee to the 
 latter quiet and undisturbed possession of the same during the whole 
 term of the privilege, at the expiration of which the route, in the con- 
 dition in which it may then be found, its interests, stations, and all 
 that properly belongs to the same, shall become the property of the 
 Mexican republic. 
 
 Article 15. All differences which may arise between the govern- 
 ment and the contractors shall be adjusted by the supreme court of 
 justice. 
 
 Article 16. Mexico shall preseiVe sovereign jurisdiction over all 
 the territory across which the communication may be established ; and 
 this territory can neither be sold nor transferred, nor pledged away, 
 either whole or in part, to any foreign nation. 
 
 Article 17. Should the contractors think proper to establish colonies 
 of foreign families, they will have to subject themselves to the existing 
 laws of the republic which govern the matter, or to those which may 
 be enacted in future by the general congress. 
 
 EAMON ARISTA. 
 MANUEL PAYNO. 
 
 Mexico, April 23, 1852. 
 
678 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Mr. Letcher to Mr. Webster. 
 
 [Extract ] 
 
 no, 8] leaation of the u. s. of america, 
 
 Mexico, , . 
 
 Rtti '^ ^ * * * * * "^ 
 
 Congress adjourned sine die on the night of the 21st instant, having 
 passed a hill authorizing the government to make a contract, subject 
 to their approval, with some company, giving Mexican citizens the 
 preference, to open a way of communication between the two oceans 
 across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 A copy of the bill, as it passed, marked No. 3, is herewith enclosed. 
 
 I enclose also copies of a memorial and proposals to undertake the 
 work, made in behalf of Col. Sloo, an American citizen, by his agents, 
 all of whom are Mexican citizens.- — (Marked No. 4.) 
 
 It is said that the government will probably close the contract upon 
 the terms specified in the proposals. But upon this subject 1 do not 
 pretend to be accurately informed, as I have constantly refused, since 
 the rejection of the treaty, to hold any conversation with Mr. Eamirez, 
 or any one else, in regard to any new scheme. 
 
 I have maintained the same ground I occupied when the treaty was 
 rejected, without giving up one inch. 
 
 I am told there is a secret article, which is to form a part of the 
 contract, in case it goes into effect, binding Col. Sloo to stand between 
 Mexico and the New Orleans company, and to pay all just claims 
 which that company may have against Mexico, growing out of the 
 rejection of the treaty. I may not be accurately advised, but such is 
 said to be the purport of the article. 
 
 ********* 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 E. P. LETCHER. 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 The most excellent the president of th'e republic has been pleased to 
 address to me the following decree : 
 
 " Mariano Arista, president of the United Mexican States, to the 
 inhabitants of the republic : Know ye that the general congress has de- 
 creed as follows : 
 
 " Article 1. The government shall enter into a contract, or shall 
 promote the formation of a company of native citizens, who shall, in 
 both cases, be preferred to foreigners, or of both natives and foreigners, 
 for the purpose of opening, by canal, railroad, or wagon road, a way 
 of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, The government shall not execute the con- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 679 
 
 tract wMcli it may make until the same shall have been first approved 
 by the general congress. 
 
 " Article 2. The government, in order to make use of the power 
 granted to it in the preceding article, shall be subject to the following 
 conditions : 
 
 " 1st. That the contract which is entered into shall not contain any 
 clause which, through the rights it grants, may countenance reclama- 
 tions of foreign governments against the republic, or impair in any 
 respect the full and speedy exercise of its sovereignty in the said 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 " 2d. That, in order to lend to the undertaking the most efficient 
 and constant protection, the government may be one of the copartners. 
 "3d. That the inter oceanic communication by the Isthmus shall 
 be free and open to all the nations of the globe. 
 
 " 4th. That, in order to render firm and perpetual the advantages 
 of the communication, the government may negotiate with those 
 powers which are allied to the republic by treaty, for the express re- 
 cognition of neutrality of the passage by the Isthmus in case of war. 
 
 '/ MAEIANO TANEZ, 
 " President of the Chamber of Deputies, 
 " GABKIEL SAQAZETA, 
 
 "President of the Senate. 
 "FEANOISCO ENOISGO, 
 
 " Deputy Secretary. 
 " ger6nimo ELIZONDO, 
 
 ' ' Senator Secretary. 
 
 " Wherefore, I order it to be printed, published, circulated, and 
 given due fulfilment. 
 
 " Palace of the national government at Mexico, May 14, 1852. 
 
 " MARIANO AEIST A. 
 " To Don JosB F. Eamirbz." 
 
 And I communicate it to you for your knowledge and consequent 
 purposes. 
 
 God and liberty. Mexico, May 15, 1852. 
 
 EAMIEEZ. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 The law which empowers the government to enter into a contract 
 or to promote the formation of a company, native, foreign, or mixed, 
 for the purpose of opening, by canal, railroad, or wagon road, a way 
 of communication between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, having been published, we, the subscribers, 
 have drawn up the proposols which we enclose to your excellency, and 
 trust that you will examine them and take them into consideration. 
 
 We have .preferred to form a mixed company rather than one en- 
 tirely Mexican, because we think that this will render the work more 
 
680 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 practicable ; there will be more capital invested in it ; a greater num- 
 ber of interests will work in its favor ; and the enterprise will g6 for- 
 ward with more rapidity and perfection to its completion. To limit 
 ourselves solely to what the country itself can give, in view of its 
 present resources and circumstances, would, in our opinion, be to de- 
 prive ourselves of many efficacious means of realizing our idea, and 
 perhaps to condemn ourselves to never seeing it realized. 
 
 The conditions which our proposition contains are entirely harmo- 
 nious with the law, and no one who considers them impartially will 
 fail to acknowledge the advantages which they offer to the nation. 
 The nation accords to the undertaking the plenitude of its sovereignty ; 
 it possesses for a certain time a part of its profits ; the absolute prop- 
 erty finally remains with it ; and the foreign stockholders renounce 
 every right or pretension which is not equally granted to Mexicans. 
 
 It would have been easy to form a company entirely Mexican in 
 name, and to have its shares afterwards pass to foreigners, thus en- 
 abling a mixed enterprise, or one entirely foreign, to appear to be 
 altogether Mexican, and to obtain rights in preference to any other 
 company ; but such a course not being proper we abstained from fol- 
 lowing it^ being persuaded that the truth must manifest itself at all 
 events. We will not omit to make here one observation, which is, 
 that when a company is once organized, the transfer of its stock from 
 one set of hands to another indiscriminately cannot be prevented, and 
 that what was purely Mexican at its origin may become mixed or 
 foreign afterwards. In order to reach such an end it would be neces- 
 sary to provide that when the shares were all taken by citizens of the 
 republic in no case could they be transferred to any one unless he had 
 the same qualities — a prevention which it would be impossible to 
 carry into effect, both because it would be an attack on property, and 
 because it would occasion great obstructions in the common order of 
 civil affairs. 
 
 Your excellency will be pleased to receive this proposition, and to 
 report the same to the most excellent the president. We do not doubt 
 that, upon a careful examination of it, it will obtain his respectable 
 approval as well as that of the august chambers. If so, he will share 
 with us the satisfaction of having promoted a work of benefit to the 
 world, and of advantage and honor to Mexico ; we being subject, in 
 all respects, to its laws, and in perfect agreement with its supreme 
 authorities. 
 
 We proffer to your excellency the assurances of our high considera- 
 tion. 
 
 God and liberty. Mexico, March 15, 1852. 
 
 MANUEL PATNO, 
 KAMON OLARTE, 
 
 Agents for A. G. Sho. 
 JOAQUIN PESADO. 
 FRANCISCO ARANGOIZ. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 681 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 Contract entered into between the supreme government of the republic, of 
 the one part, and Joaquin Pesado and Francisco Arangoiz, repre- 
 sentatives of a Mexican company^ and Bamon Olarte and Manuel 
 Payno, agents of A. G. Sloo, of the other part, for the opening and 
 construction of a way of communication between the waters of the Gulf 
 of Mexico and those of the Pacific ocean, by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 Akticle 1. The contractors bind themselves to carry into effect the 
 way of communication, making it by water as far as possible, and 
 constructing from such point the roads which will be mentioned in 
 article 13. 
 
 Article 2. The government grants to the contractors and to their 
 associates the exclusive privilege of navigating the river Goatzacoalcos 
 for the whole time established by the present contract ; but all the 
 inhabitants and owners of lands and other property situated on the 
 bank of the river can import such articles as they need, and export 
 their agricultural or manufactured products in vessels of Mexican 
 construction. 
 
 Article 3. It also grants to the contractors and their partners, by 
 way of donation, a strip of land, one league wide, on each side of the road 
 which is opened, if the lands should be of the public domain ; but if 
 they should belong to private persons, only the ground necessary shall 
 be taken, its owners being indemnified according to law. 
 
 Article 4. The contractors may take, gratis, from the lands of the 
 public domain any material which may be necessary for the con- 
 struction of the road or of its appurtenances, and for its preservation. 
 
 Article 5. Such materials can also be taken from the grounds of pri- 
 vate persons, but on indemnifying the owners, in conformity to article 
 112 of the constitution. 
 
 Article 6. During the time that this contract lasts the contractors 
 shall enjoy the exclusive privilege of transportation by the way of 
 communication, and, consequently, can collect tolls, transit duties, 
 and storage, and any other charges for carrying merchandijse, or the 
 prices of passage, agreeably to the" tariff which shall be approved by 
 the government ; and the government cannot exact an impost or con- 
 tribution of any kind, either on the transit of merchandise, on passen- 
 gers, or on the capital invested in the undertaking. 
 
 Article 7. The government exempts from tonnage duty the com- 
 pany's steam vessels, which, sailing under the Mexican flag, may be 
 appointed to convey correspondence and merchandise in transit. 
 
 Article 8. The company can import, free of duties, the materials and 
 implements necessary for the construction and preservation of the road 
 and its appurtenances, previously obtaining the permission of the gov- 
 ernment, through its inspector, with a memorandum of the articles 
 which it is proposed to import. It can also introduce, upon the same 
 conditions, goods which cannot be obtained on the Isthmus, and which 
 may be needed by the laborers and persons employed in the labors of 
 the road, for their subsistence and clothing. 
 
682 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Article 9. The liberty granted to the company for the trans- 
 portation of merchandise shall be subject to the regulations which the 
 government may prescribe, it being understood that with such liberty 
 is not granted that of selling the merchandise at any point on the 
 Isthmus. 
 
 Article 10. The government shall open the navigable and coast- 
 wise ports which may be necessary for the better service of the way of 
 communication, which ports are to be selected by the contractors. 
 
 AUticlb 11. The privileges which the government grants shall be 
 valid and exclusive for the contractors and their partners during the 
 whole time that the contract lasts. 
 
 Article 12. The government will protect, with its whole power, 
 the prosecution, preservation, and security of the works. 
 
 Article 13. The contractors bind themselves to commence a plank 
 road from the point at which the river G-oatizacoaloos may not be navi- 
 gable, and leading towards the Pacific, within the year at which the 
 present contract is dated, and to finish such plank road within three 
 years from its commencement ; to commence the construction of a 
 railroad within a year from this last date, and to finish said railroad 
 in six years after ; it being requisite in both cases that the contractors 
 shall give seasonable notice to the government of the works having 
 been commenced and of their having been finished. 
 
 Article 14. If the company should not comply with the obligations 
 imposed by the preceding article within the periods prescribed, it shall 
 lose its privilege, and the works which shall have been commenced, 
 the accumulations of materials, implements, machines, and any other 
 utensils which may have been gathered on its territory, shall inure to 
 the benefit of the nation without indemnity therefor, and the company 
 shall, moreover, incur a fine of two hundred thousand dollars, which it 
 guarantees in conformity to what is prescribed in article 24 ; but the 
 periods mentioned shall be suitably extended in case of war, pestilence, 
 shipwreck, or of the occurrence of any other fortuitous event. 
 
 Article 15. The company also binds itself to construct the wharves 
 and docks which may be necessary for . the service of the way of com- 
 munication at the ports which are newly established at the extremities 
 of the road. ' 
 
 Article 16. The company binds itself to establish a line of steamers, 
 under the Mexican flag, conformably to the laws of the country, to 
 run from Vera Cruz to the point at which the river Goatzacoalcos may 
 not be navigable, and from which the road or railway is to start. 
 
 Article 17. The company binds itself to convey, free of expense, 
 the correspondence which may come for any point of Mexico, and that 
 which is sent thence to other points where its steamers may touch, 
 receiving and delivering it with the customary formalities ; in like 
 manner, it will convey all goods and articles which may be the 
 property of the government at half of the tariff rates. Likewise, it 
 will convey without any charge^ going and returning, the officers, 
 troops, employes, or agents of the general government or of the States. 
 The metals and agricultural and manufacturing products of the re- 
 public will be conveyed at 25 per cent, less than the tariff price, and 
 its citizens at 20 per cent. less. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 683 
 
 Article 18. The company •will exert itself to have the Pacific 
 steamers continue jjiaking Acapulco their depository of stone coal, 
 and it hinds itself to examine, as soon as possible, the coal mines in 
 the State of Guerrero, with a view of working them by means of con- 
 tracts with their respective owners. 
 
 Article 19. For forty years, reckoning from the day on which the 
 tariff mentioned in article 6 goes into execution, the Mexican govern- 
 ment shall annually receive forty-five per cent, of the net receipts of 
 the road, and for forty years more, reckoning from the conclusion of 
 the first forty, the government shall annually receive sixty per cent. 
 of the net revenues of the road, and for both periods the privileges 
 granted shall be valid and exclusive, and cannot be changed, except 
 by mutual consent ; and at the end of that time the Mexican govern- 
 ment shall enter into full and absolute possession of the road, with all 
 its trains, implements, and appurtenances, on the footing which they 
 may have had at the time of their greatest augmentation, it being 
 understood that these, as well as the road, are to be delivered unincum- 
 bered and in perfectly serviceable condition, the old cars, machines, 
 and utensils to be not more than half worn, but it is not understood 
 that the vessels and steamers are to be included. 
 
 Article 20. The government and the company, each in its own 
 behalf, can appoint comptrollers in proportion to the interests they 
 respectively represent, in order to supervise, inspect, and explain the 
 accounts of the road during the term of their respective rights. 
 
 Article 21. The company obligates itself to observe the following 
 restrictions : 
 
 1st. The company cannot build fortresses on the Isthmus, nor 
 organize military forces of any kind. It shall not give passage to any 
 armed force, either Mexican or foreign, without express authority 
 from the government. 
 
 2d. The company cannot establish colonies on the lands which are 
 granted, unless with the consent of the government, being subject to 
 the regulations which it may prescribe for such case, and to the gen- 
 eral provisions of the laws. 
 
 3d. The company shall immediately dismiss from its service any 
 person who shall be engaged in or who shall protect smuggling, and 
 it shall assist the government in suppressing it. 
 
 4th. The company will endeavor to have every passenger observe 
 the custom-house laws of the republic. 
 
 Article 22. The differences which may arise between the govern- 
 ment and the company, or any of its copartners, shall be decided, in 
 the last resort, and upon final judgment, by the supreme court of 
 justice, in conformity to the laws ; but the copartners who are for- 
 eigners cannot allege any kind of right or privilege which is not 
 enjoyed by Mexicans. In order further to obviate any difficulties which 
 may arise on this account, it is agreed that neither the company nor 
 its members shall be able to alienate the whole or a part of their 
 shares to any foreign government, and that if they should do so, they 
 will lose by the very fact what is alienated, it accruing to the shares 
 of the government in the character of a fine. Neither can they enter 
 into any kind of contract or agreement with a foreign government or 
 
684 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 its subjects when the effect of the contract entered into with them 
 would be to create a right which would be objectionable or different 
 from that expressed in this article. 
 
 Article 23. The transit by the way of communication shall be free 
 for all the inhabitants of the globe ; but the merchandise proceeding 
 from countries which shall not have recognized by treaty the neutrality 
 of the Isthmus shall pay 25 per cent, more than the merchandise pro- 
 ceeding from the countries which have entered into such stipulation. 
 
 Article 24. In order to guaranty the execution of the stipulations 
 contained in this contract, the contractors will deposit $500,000 in a 
 bank of the United States, or will give security for that amount, on 
 the responsibility of this contract, to the satisfaction of the minister 
 plenipotentiary of Mexico in that republic ; it being observed that, in 
 case of the guaranty going into effect, it will be limited to the amount 
 deposited or given as security, without any further responsibility on 
 the part of the copartners. 
 
 Mexico, May 15, 1852. 
 
 Mr. Rich to Mr. Webster. 
 
 [Extract. ] 
 
 No. 20.] Legation op the United States, 
 
 Mexico, August 31, 1852. 
 
 Sir: * * * ***** 
 
 The time for receiving bids for the Tehuantepec road has been again 
 further postponed to the 30th August, and it is said these postpone- 
 ments are fiiade for fear of the United States, and that this govern- 
 ment is anxiously waiting to hear from the United States to know 
 what are the intentions of our government in relation to the Garay 
 grant. 
 
 There were four sealed letters sent in yesterday for proposals for 
 opening the Tehuantepec road ; the result will not be known for a day 
 or two. 
 
 * * * * *' * * 
 
 I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM EICH, 
 
 „ ^ ,^ Charge d' Affaires ad int. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
ETC. 685 
 
 Mr. Gonrad to Mr. OonkUng. 
 
 [ Extract. ] 
 
 No. 4. J Department op State, 
 
 Washington, October 14, 1852. 
 
 gjjj ;* * * * * *** 
 
 A few general instructions are all that are necessary for your guid- 
 ance: 
 
 A communication affording a cheap and rapid means of trans- 
 porting passengers and merchandise across the Isthmus of Tehuante- 
 pec has long been considered an object of great importance to the 
 commercial world. To the United States in particular it is difficult 
 to estimate the value of such a communication. Mr. Trist, who was 
 first appointed commissioner to negotiate a treaty of peace with Mex- 
 ico, was authorized to offer a large sum if she would agree merely to 
 put our citizens and government upon the same footing as her own in 
 regard to crossing the Isthmus by any communication then existing, 
 or thereafter to be constructed. The proposition was rejected by 
 Mexico, on the ground that she had, several years before, transferred 
 all her right in regard to this right of way to one of her own citizens, 
 (a Mr. Garay,) who had subsequently assigned them to British sub- 
 jects. The British subjects alluded to transferred all their rights to 
 the grant to certain persons, and the same have now passed to an 
 association of American citizens, by whom it is now held. This asso- 
 ciation have taken measures to construct a railway across the Isthmus. 
 With the knowledge and consent of Mexico a survey was made for 
 that purpose, which resulted in the .discovery of an excellent harbor 
 on the Pacific, the existence of which appears to have been heretofore 
 unknown, and the want of which had always been thought to present 
 an insuperable obstacle to the success of the undertaking. The enter- 
 prise was found to be in other respects of easier accomplishment than 
 had been supposed. Unwilling, however, to embark their capital in 
 this undertaking without the guaranty of their own government, they 
 applied to it for that purpose. Tour predecessor was accordingly in- 
 structed to propose to Mexico a treaty on this subject. The proposal 
 was acceded to, and on the 22d day of June, 1850, a treaty was nego- 
 tiated, by which, among other stipulations, Mexico virtually recog- 
 nized the validity of the grant ; but the provisions containing this 
 recognition not being as explicit as it was desirable they should be, it 
 was sent back to Mexico for amendment, without having been sub- 
 mitted to the Senate. A new convention was made, which was ap- 
 proved by the Senate and ratified by the President of the United 
 States, and was returned to Mexico to receive the assent of that gov- 
 ernment. Before it was submitted to the Mexican congress, however, 
 that body adopted a decree by which they declared a formal decree, 
 (of the Dictator Salas,) on which tlie validity of the original grant 
 depended, to be null and void. The convention was subsequently 
 rejected by the same body. In the mean time those who were engaged 
 in making the survey were compelled, by an order from the Mexican 
 
686 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 government, to leave the Isthmus before the survey was quite com- 
 pleted. It is understood a law has recently been passed by the 
 Mexican congress authorizing the President to contract for the con- 
 struction of a road across the Isthmus with any one who may under- 
 take it. The above is a brief history of this negotiation. For more 
 minute information on the subject you are referred to the correspond- 
 ence between the two governments, to be found in the archives of the 
 legation, and in a pamphlet recently printed by order of the Senate, 
 with a copy of which you have been furnished. 
 
 Mexico having rejected the convention and repudiated the grant, 
 and having made no proposition whatever, either to our minister there 
 or through her representative here, this government cannot consist- 
 ently, with a due regard to its own dignity, make any overtures to 
 renew the negotiation. Nevertheless, this government anxiously de- 
 sires that some arrangement should be made whereby the communica- 
 tion across the Isthmus may be established, and would listen to any 
 reasonable proposition for that purpose. If, therefore, any such propo- 
 sition should be made, you will receive and transmit it without delay. 
 It is impossible to anticipate what form such a proposition may 
 assume. I would suggest, however, that this government' would 
 advise the holders of the grant not to insist upon a literal compliance 
 with its terms, and if there be any clauses in it particularly obnoxious 
 to the Mexican government or people, those clauses might possibly be 
 dispensed with or essentially modified. 
 
 You will therefore endeavor to ascertain what arethe real objections 
 to the grant, and whether and how they could be obviated or removed. 
 It is understood that the grant of so large a portion of her territory is 
 very objectionable to that government. If so, it might possibly be 
 exchanged for some suitable eqijivalent, such as a prolongation of the 
 privileges beyond the period mentioned in the grant. It is possible 
 the pride of the nation might be wounded by a direct recognition of 
 the grant. If so, this difficulty might be obviated by a direct cession 
 of the right of way to the United States. 
 
 Tou will bear in mind that the great and paramount object of this 
 government is to obtain a right of way across the Isthmus. If this 
 object can be attained through the grant to Garay, it would, in justice 
 to the holders of that grant, prefer accomplishing it in that way. It 
 will in no event do any act to prejudice their rights against Mexico, 
 growing out of said grant ; but, if all the efforts of the government 
 to obtain a recognition of the grant should be unsuccessful, it cannot 
 permit the existence of a right which Mexico refuses to recognize, to 
 present an insuperable obstacle to, the prosecution of an enterprise in 
 which the whole people of the United States are so deeply interested. 
 In case, therefore, no proposition should be made to you based upon 
 the recognition of this grant, and you should perceive no indications 
 of a favorable change in the views or action of the government rela- 
 tive thereto, 'you will cautiously sound the government, with a view to 
 ascertain, if practicable, whether it would be willing, on any and on 
 what conditions, to cede the right of way to the United States, taking 
 care, however, to say nothing which may lead it to infer that Congress 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 687 
 
 may not, as intimated by tlie report of the committee of the Senate, 
 determine to enforce the performance of the grant. 
 
 It may he well to state that Mexico has always professed to be 
 anxious to open the communication, and it is said the president, by 
 virtue of the decree of congress above referred to, has recently adver- 
 tised for proposals for a contract for that purpose. * * 
 
 Supposing, however, that government to be sincere in these pro- 
 fessions, it is believed that the object can never be accomplished by 
 Mexican capital, and that no foreign capitalists will embark in so great 
 an undertaking without some other guaranty for the protection of their 
 rights than the power and good faith of the Mexican government. 
 
 #)C if£ 3f£ 3|C S^C JfS "P Jp 
 
 C. M. CONRAD, 
 
 Acting Secretary. 
 Alfkbd OoNKLma, 
 
 cfcc, dc, do. 
 
 Mr. Gonkling to Mr. Everett. 
 [Extract.] 
 
 No. 1.] Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, November 23, 1852. 
 gjn .******* 
 
 Congress has been in session since the 15th of last month ; and ever 
 since about the time of my arrival the -project of an interoceanic com- 
 munication across the Isthmus of Tehauntepec has occupied no incon- 
 siderable share of the attention both of the executive and legislative 
 branches of the government, as well as of the public at large. 
 
 After the adoption and abandonment in succession of various incon- 
 sistent modes of deciding upon the proposals invited by the govern- 
 ment for executing this important work, they have at length been 
 formally opened and referred to the chamber of deputies ; but it having 
 been discovered that some of them had been, in fact, made known 
 long ago, and additional ones received from those who possessed this 
 knowledge, it has just been decided to receive new proposals from those 
 who had a right to complain of this breach of good faith, and they 
 are availing themselves of this license. Of the means resorted to, and, 
 as it is said, openly invited by the deputies to obtain votes, I abstain 
 from speaking. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully^ sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 A. CONKLING. 
 The honorable the Secrbtaet of State, Washington, 
 
688 POST orFicE department, etc. 
 
 Mr. Conhling to Mr. Everett. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 No. 14] Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, February 2, 1853. 
 
 gjj, . ******* 
 
 I regret that the incessant agitation, for three months past, (in 
 itself a great moral and political evil,) of the Tehuantepec question, 
 has even yet led to no practical result, though it is now confidentially 
 said that a contract for the construction of a railroad across the 
 Isthmus is likely to he concluded in a few days with an American citi- 
 zen named Sloo, and "his associates," and that I shall be invited to 
 negotiate with the Mexican government a convention designed to 
 secure the successful prosecution of the work, and its beneficial use 
 when completed. Whether this expectation is to be fulfilled is a 
 question concerning which I shall not hazard an opinion. Should it 
 be verified, I should regard it as so great a misfortune to have the 
 proposed negotiation postponed indefinitely, on account of the sup- 
 posed want of authority in our minister here to entertain it, that, al- 
 though my instructions on the subject were not framed with a view to 
 the contingency of a new contract for the execution of the proposed 
 work, and are not therefore in terms applicable to such a case, I think 
 I shall venture, keeping steadily in view the spirit of my instructions, 
 and the policy of the government as manifested in its past acts relative 
 to the subject, to engage in the proffered negotiation without await- 
 ing further instructions, which, however, it is in my opinion of vital 
 importance that I should receive as soon as they can be prepared after 
 the terms of the new contract shall be made known to our government. 
 
 'P 3(C 3fC ?fC ^ 3jC #7* •P T^ 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALFRED CONKLINa. 
 Hon. Edward Everett, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Gonkling to Mr. Everett. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 No. '15] Legation of the United States, Mexico, 
 
 February 2, 1853, at night. 
 
 Sir : After closing my accompanying despatch, No. 14, I received, 
 through the secretary of the legation, an oral message from Mr. 
 Arroyo, the acting minister of foreign relations, to the effect that a 
 contract between the Mexican government and Mr. Sloo, for the con- 
 struction of a railway across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, would cer- 
 tainly be signed in the course of a very few days, and that the Mexican, 
 minister at Washington would be immediately so informed. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 689 
 
 Such an instrument is known to have been prepared and drawn up 
 in form by legal gentlemen by order of the president, several days 
 ago, and to have ever since been before the president, by whom it has 
 been most carefully revised and corrected. Its provisions have been 
 the subject of so much anxious thought and earnest discussion that it 
 seems reasonable to conclude that ttiey are well adapted to the interest- 
 ing and important end in view. I think it probable that a copy or 
 abstract of it will be forwarded at once to Mr. Larrainzar. 
 
 It having thus become my duty at the eleventh hour [the courier 
 leaves at an early hour to-morrow morning] to avert again to this 
 subject, I avail myself of the opportunity to subjoin a word of explana- 
 tion relative to my observation, contained in the accompanying 
 despatch, of my intention not to decline to enter into a negotiation on 
 the subject, should I be invited to do so. 
 
 My apprehension touching the principle on which the government 
 of the United States saw fit to interpose in this affair after the assign- 
 ment of the Garay contract to American citizens, (the New Orleans 
 company,) is this : Not that the government considered itself under 
 any obligation to these assignees, at their instance, and for their grati- 
 fication or profit, thus to make themselves parties to this contract, in 
 its nature primarily, and, as Mexico has always insisted, exclusively, 
 cogni^ble in the Mexican judicial tribunals ; but that the United 
 States, without violating any principle of international law, might, 
 at their option, insist on the recognition by Mexico of the rights 
 claimed by these assignees, and in doing so, might further insist on 
 stipulations from the Mexican government, deemed necessary to the 
 accomplishment of the great enterprise in view, and to its practical 
 utility when completed ; and that considering the vast importance of 
 the work to the whole American people, it was fit and proper for their 
 government to avail itself of the opportunity thus presented, to inter- 
 pose in the manner it did. If I ain right in my interpretation of the 
 past official language and acts of the government on this subject, it 
 would seem to follow that I should be fully warranted, by the spirit of 
 my instructions, in concluding such a treaty with the Mexican govern- 
 ment, relative to the new contract, as the government of the United 
 
 States deemed it proper to offer with regard to the" Garay grant. * 
 ***** 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 • ALFRED OONKLING. 
 Hon. Edward Everett, 
 
 h'ecretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Gonhling to Mr. Everett. 
 
 [Extracts.] 
 
 No. 16.] Legation OF THE United States, 
 
 Mexico, February 3, 1853. 
 
 Sir : By the British courier, which left Mexico at an early hour 
 this morning for Vera Cruz, I transmitted two despatches, Nos. 14 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 44 
 
G90 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 and 15, prepared yesterday and last night, to be carried to Washing- 
 ton by Mr. Yturbide, whom I appointed bearer of despatches for that 
 purpose, and who had already left town for Vera Cruz. 
 
 These despatches were very hastily written, and under adverse cir- 
 cumstances, as therein stated and explained. In number 14, ad- 
 verting to the probability of my befng invited before long to negotiate 
 a convention with the government of Mexico relative to the con- 
 struction of a transit way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, I took 
 occasion to observe that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, 
 I should feel myself warranted in accepting such an invitation. After 
 closing that despatch, at a late hour of the day, I received an oral 
 message from the acting minister of relations, inferring a very high 
 degree of probability that a contract would be entered into by his 
 government within two or three days for the opening of this transit 
 way. Deeming it to be my duty to communicate this fact to you, I 
 prepared despatch No. 15 for that purpose, and availed myself of the 
 occasion to add some explanatory remarks touching the observation I 
 have mentioned contained in my despatch No. 14. 
 
 On the receipt of my instructions, &c., the day before my embarca- 
 tion at New York, I read them and laid them aside. Finding, on 
 my arrival here, the condition of things I have described, I saw no 
 reason for reverting to those parts of my instructions which relate to 
 the Tehuantepec transit way and the 11th article of the treaty of 
 peace, and accordingly left them to sleep in their repository. * * 
 
 It thus happened that I was obliged to write on the subject without 
 referring to my instructions, and with little reflection relative to the 
 subject, though I was not altogether unmindful that it was not quite 
 safe to do so. On recurring to it to-day, and exam'ining my in- 
 structions and powers, I deeply regret to find that the impression under 
 which I wrote, that I was fully authorized to conclude a convention 
 with this government on the subject, as well of Tehuantepec as of 
 Indian depredations, is unfounded, my full powers being limited to 
 the making of a treaty upon this latter subject, while in regard to 
 the former I am only directed to receive and transmit to your depart- 
 ment any proposition relative thereto which might be offered by the 
 Mexican government. 
 
 ******** 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALFRED CONKLING. 
 Hon. Edward Everett, 
 
 Secretary -of State, City of Washington. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 691 
 
 Mr. Conkling to Mr. Everett. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 No. 18.] Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, February 6, 1853. 
 
 Sir : In my despatches Nos. 14 and 15, whicli T had the honor very 
 recently to transmit to the Department of State, I gave you reason to 
 expect that a contract for the construction of a transit way across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec would very soon be entered into hy the Mexi- 
 can government. It is now my duty to inform you that, although 
 very serious doubts subsequently arose, and continued until within the 
 last twenty-four hours, whether this expectation would be verified, 
 the contract is at length concluded. 
 
 I transmit herewith, marked A, a copy of a communication received 
 at a late hour last night, announcing this result, and also a copy, 
 marked B, of the correspondent decree, a printed copy of which I re- 
 ceived from the minister of foreign relations this morning, accompa- 
 nied by a note, a copy whereof, also marked B, I have the honor like- " 
 wise to enclose. The contract itself I have not seen. I am promised 
 a good translation of it as soon as it can be made, and will, without 
 delay, forward a copy of it to your department. 
 
 I transmit also, herewith, a copy of my note of this morning, in 
 answer to the two notes above mentioned. I am not sure it may not 
 appear to you that, in speaking as I have done of the conduct of the 
 president, I have departed from the strict line of official duty, and it 
 is due to myself, therefore, to state that in an interview with the 
 president, at his instance, two days since, and at a very trying crisis, 
 we had a free conversation on the subject of the Tehuantepec question, 
 in the course of which I became convinced that he was governed by 
 the motives and acting in the spirit described in my note, and I am 
 quite sure, situated as he is, that what I have written will bo very 
 grateful to bis feelings, and I am not without hope that it may 
 strengthen him in his responsible, harrassing, and, I am sorry to add, 
 still somewhat precarious position. You will observe that I have ex- 
 pressed my willingness to " receive overtures." In assuming that I 
 have authority to do this, although a contingency has arisen not con- 
 templated by my instructions, I trust I am not mistaken in supposing 
 that I have the requisite authority, ****** 
 
 I have the honor to be, with very high respect, sir, your obedient 
 servant, 
 
 ALFEED CONKLINa. 
 
 Hon. Edward Everett, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
692 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Mr. Arroyo to Mr. Conlding. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, 
 
 February 5, 1853. 
 
 The undersigned, chief clerk, at present in charge of the office of 
 the secretaryship of relations, has the honor of addressing this com- 
 mjinication to his excellency Alfred Conkling, envoy extraordinary 
 and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, to in- 
 form him that, in pursuance of the law passed by the general congress 
 on the 14th day of May, 1852, and the edict published in consequence 
 thereof on the 29th of July, of the same year, his excellency the 
 president ad interim, in the exercise of the powers with which he is 
 invested, has deemed it good to agree to and direct the preparation of 
 the necessary legal document approving the propositions relating to 
 the opening of an interoc'eanic communication through the Isthmus of 
 Tehuantepec submitted to him, in the name of a mixed company, by 
 Messrs. Ramon Olarte, Don Manuel Payno, and Don Jose Joaquin 
 Pesado, in behalf of A. G. Sloo & Company. 
 
 Together with the gratification which he experiences in communi- 
 cating to his excellency Mr. Conkling a resolution which must be ac- 
 ceptable to the whole civilized world,, the undersigned entertains a 
 hope that his excellency, seconding the wishes of his excellency the 
 president of the republic, will immediately transmit it to his govern- 
 ment, duly impressing it with the appreciation of the fact, and that 
 his excellency will, as the best proof of his approbation, be the first 
 to give his assent to the speedy conclusion of a treaty of neutrality, 
 which shall hold out to all the nations of the globe advantages of im- 
 mense value, and at the same time draw more closely the relations of 
 peace and friendship which now unite the two neighboring republics. 
 
 The undersigned, therefore, has the honor to renew to his excellency 
 the minister plenipotentiary of the United States the assurances of his 
 distinguished consideration. 
 
 J. MIGUEL AREOYO. 
 His Excellency Alfred Conkling, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary 
 
 of the United States of America. 
 
 Mr. Arroyo to Mr. Conlding. 
 
 [Translation] 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, 
 
 February 5, 1853. 
 _ The undersigned, chief clerk in charge of the department of rela- 
 tions, has the honor of enclosing to his excellency Mr. Alfred Conkling 
 copies of the decree issued by his excellency the president ad interim 
 of the republic, approving the propositions for the opening of the 
 interoceanic communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, 
 alluded to in his note of this date addressed to his excellency, aud at 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 6!^ 3 
 
 the same time of tendering to* him renewed assurances of his very 
 distinguished consideration. 
 
 J. MIGUEL ARROYO. 
 His Excellency Alfred Conkling, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Flenipotentiary 
 
 of the United States of America. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 Department of Foreign Relations. 
 
 His excellency the president ad interim of tlie Mexican republic has 
 been pleased to address me the following decree : 
 
 The president ad interim of the Mexican United States to the in- 
 habitants of the republic, be it known : That, considering that the 
 opening of the Isthmus of Tehuan tepee has come to be not only a 
 commercial requirement for the whole world, but also a political 
 necessity for the preservation of the integrity and sovereignty of our 
 territory ; 
 
 Considering that from the non-settlement of the question within 
 the narrowest period of time, which is still left to adjust it with every 
 element of independence and dignity, it might, perhaps, be involved 
 and blended with political questions, and the republic herself in 
 serious complications, which will result in detriment to all her in- 
 habitants ; 
 
 And considering, lastly, that the approval of the propositions of 
 the mixed company, with which those of Oajaca and Garcia, and the 
 States of Oajaca, Tabasco, and Chiapas, have been united, will not 
 only result in great material well being to the nation, but that they 
 will also, and in a peaceable, quiet, and honorable manner, settle the 
 questions to which the subject has given rise, I have, ia the exercise 
 of the powers with which I find myself invested, and in pursuance of 
 the law of the 14th of May, 1852, and of the edict published iu conse- 
 quence thereof on the 29th of July, deemed it proper to decree the 
 following : 
 
 Single Autiole : Approved, together with the modifications and 
 explanations which appear in the act of this date, which shall be pub- 
 lished, the propositions for the opening of the interoceanic way of 
 communication through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, submitted by 
 the mixed national and foreign company, under the name of A. G. 
 Sloo. 
 
 Wherefore, I order that the foregoing shall be printed, published, 
 and circulated, and that it be carried into due effect. 
 
 Palace of the national government, in Mexico, on the fifth day of 
 February, 1853. 
 
 JUAN BAUTISTA CEBALLOS, 
 A. D. J. MIGUEL ARROYO. 
 
 And this I communicate to you for your information, and for its 
 consequent effects. 
 ■ God and liberty, Mexico, February 5, 1853. 
 
 J. MIGUEL ARROYO. 
 
694 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Translation of the Sloo cpntract for#the opening of, and communi- 
 cation through, the Isthmus of" Tehuantepec, entered into on the one 
 part in the name of the supreme government of the Mexican republic, 
 by the most excellent Mr. Jose Miguel Arroyo, chief clerk, with the 
 charge of decrees of the department of foreign and domestic relations, 
 and, for the time being, entrusted with the business of said depart- 
 ment ; and on the other part by Mr. William D. Lee, empowered by 
 Messrs. A. Gr. Sloo and his associates, and by Messrs. Kamon Olarte, 
 Manuel. Payno, and Jose Joaquin Pesado, for the Mexican partners 
 and contractors interested in the enterprise of the interoceanic com- 
 munication of Tehuantepec, and representatives of the whole company, 
 which, under the style of Mixed Company, assumes the aforesaid 
 opening and communication upon itself, in agreement with the com- 
 panies known as those of Oajaca and of D. Felipe Garcia and associates, 
 and with the authorized agents of the States of Chiapas, Tabasco, and 
 Oajaca, under the following articles, to which they have agreed, the 
 supreme government exercising the power conferred upon it by the 
 law of the 14th of May, 1852, and of the further powers granted to 
 it by the decree of the 11th of January last : 
 
 1. The means of communication shall be carried on by water, in 
 the navigable part of it that may exist ; and where the latter ends 
 with the Coatzacoalcos river, there shall the roads referred to in article 
 2 commence. \ 
 
 2. The contractors bind themselves to commence a plank road at 
 such point as the Coatzacoalcos ceases to be navigable, in the'direction 
 cf the Pacific, in a year after the closing of this contract, and to 
 complete it iu three years after its commencement ; to begin the con- 
 struction of a railroad in a year, reckoning from the last date, and 
 completing the same, with all the requisite machinery and trains, 
 within the four years following, and to advise the supreme govern- 
 ment, in both cases, of the commencement and of the completion of 
 the work. 
 
 3. The line of direction of the road shall be such as competent en- 
 gineers may lay down as the most practicable, from shortness of dis- 
 tance and for facility of construction, starting from the point at which, 
 after due examination, the Coatzacoalcos ceases to be navigable. 
 
 4. The grantees shall, at their own cost, and in the new ports 
 which the government may open at the two termini of the route, 
 build such wharves and embankments as may be necessary for the 
 communication way. 
 
 5. The government grants to the company the land required for 
 the carriage and railroad, the wharves, embankments, storehouses, 
 depots, stations, sheds for stages and other vehicles, and hotels for 
 passengers ; but should the lands of the public domain prove insuffi- 
 cient for all the aforesaid requirements, those of private individuals 
 shall be taken for such purposes, the owners being indemnified there- 
 for in conformity with the laws. 
 
 6. The company will be at liberty to take, without compensation, 
 from the lands of the public domain, all materials whatsoever which 
 may be required for the construction of the road, or of its appurte- 
 nances, and for its preservation, [repairs.] 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 695 
 
 T. Sucli materials may be taken from the lands of private indi- 
 viduals also, but the owners shall be indemnified therefor in con- 
 formity with the law. 
 
 8. During the time for which this contract shall hold, the com- 
 pany shall enjoy the exclusive privilege of transportation through 
 this way of communication, and they shall^ consequently, have power 
 to collect tolls, transit and storage dues, and what other rate soever 
 for freight on merchandise or passage fare, in conformity with the bill 
 of rates which the government shall approve, which government shall 
 not have the power to levy either impost or contribution of any kind, 
 either on the transit of merchandise, or on the passengers, or on the 
 capital invested by the company ; but it does reserve to itself the 
 right given to it by article 32 of the edict, which says to the letter : 
 " The government binds itself not to impose any contribution or tax 
 on the road, on the merchandise and passengers that may go upon 
 such road, or on the. capital invested therein ; but it will have the 
 power to impose an additional duty on packages and passengers, at a 
 rate not to exceed one real, the whole proceeds thereof reverting to 
 itself." 
 
 9. The company shall have the power to import, duty free, the 
 materials and utensils necessary for the construction and preservation 
 of the road, and of its appurtenances, on permission previously ob- 
 tained froin the government, through the channel of said govern- 
 ment's inspector, furnished with a note of the objects which it is 
 proposed to import. It will also have the power to import, under the 
 aforementioned conditions, objects not procurable on the Ishmus, and 
 which, in the way of supplies and clothing, may be required by. the 
 workmen and peons engaged in the works of the road. 
 
 10. The franchise granted to the company for the transportation of 
 merchandise will be subject to such regulations as the government 
 may make, it being understood that by such franchise the right is 
 not granted to said company to distribute them for consumption at 
 any point of the Isthmus. 
 
 11. The supreme government will open the seaports, and those for 
 the coasting trade, which may be necessary . for the better service of 
 the communication road, there being, tor the present, none other than 
 the port of Vera Cruz, on the Gulf of Mexico, and that of Ventosa, 
 on the Pacific. This latter port shall be solely used for the reciprocal 
 transit of passengers and merchandise. 
 
 12. The privileges which the government grants shall be binding 
 and exclusive in behalf of the company for the whole period of the 
 duration of this contract. 
 
 13. The government will apply all its power to the prosecution, 
 preservation, and security of the works. 
 
 14. The fulfillment of this contract to the satisfaction of the supreme 
 government is guaranteed by a sum of $300,000, (three hundred 
 thousand dollars,) real money, which the representatives of the com- 
 pany shall pay in cash, within the terms which the supreme govern- 
 ment may provide, and, in addition, fifty thousand dollars, monthly, 
 
696 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 until tlie makiDg up of the sum total of $600,000, (six hundred thou- 
 sand dollars.) The latter $300,000 (three hundred thousand dollars) 
 shall hear interest at six per cent, per annum, since the former three 
 hundred thousand dollars shall he delivered without any interest as a 
 guaranty for the present contract. But both amounts, with the in- 
 terest attached to the latter three hundred thousand dollars, from the 
 date of their delivery, respectively, until the extinguishment of the 
 capital and the interest which may accrue, shall be paid to the com- 
 pany through the one-half of the first proceeds to which the govern- 
 ment may be entitled ; the general treasury furnishing to said com- 
 pany as its security the certificates, bonds, or necessary documents for 
 the above-mentioned sum of $600,000, (six hundred thousand dollars.) 
 The periods stipulated in articles 14 and 15 of the edict shall be pru- 
 dently extended by the government in case of shipwreck or other un- 
 controllable cause, the tenor of said articles being as follows : 
 
 "Art. 14. The execution of the contract to the satisfaction of the 
 government is guarantied under a stipulated penalty, which shall not 
 be less than two hundred thousand dollars. This amount shall be 
 secured by the deposit of the money or specie, or by mortgages, or by 
 securities given in conformity with law. The grantee shall incur the 
 penalty of forfeiting the expenses incurred, the materials and imple- 
 ments found within the territory of the republic, and his rights under 
 the contract, if he shall not begin and complete the carriage road, and 
 if he shall not begin the railroad, within the stipulated periods. 
 
 "Art. 15. Upon the beginning of the work on the railroad, the 
 deposit made by the grantee shall be returned to him, or the obliga- 
 tion in which the stipulated penalty may consist shall be cancelled; 
 but if, after it will have been begun, he do not complete it within the 
 periods assigned, he will incur the penalties above expressed, except 
 that of the fine, and he will only have the right of being considered 
 as a partner in the value of the rails, trains, cars, and other materials 
 imported from abroad : Provided, That their original cost, with the 
 expenses added, shall exceed two hundred thousand dollars, for if 
 they should prove to he less he shall also incur the penalty." 
 
 15. The company binds itself to convey to any point bordering 
 upon the road, and free from cost, such mails as are to pass over said 
 road, receiving and delivering them. in the usual forms. It shall, in 
 like manner, transport all articles and eiFects belonging to the govern- 
 ment at one-fourth of the rate of prices ; it shall also convey, going 
 and returning, without any compensation whatsoever, the officers, 
 troops, employes, or agents of the general government or of the States. 
 Metals and agricultural and industrial products of the republic shall 
 be transported for twenty-five per cent, less than charged by the tariff 
 of prices. 
 
 16. For fifty years, reckoning from the day when the tariff of rates 
 mentioned in article 8 will have been carried into effect, the govern- 
 ment of Mexico shall receive twenty per cent, of the net proceeds of the 
 road. During the whole of that period all the privileges contained in 
 this contract shall be valid and exclusive, nor shall they be altered 
 except by mutual consent ; and, at the expiration of the period men- 
 tioned, the government will go into full and absolute possession of the 
 
POST OFFICE BEPARTMENT, ETC. 697 
 
 road, with all its trains, (which, at the least, must be such as are 
 necessary to convey five hundred passengers daily, and ten thousand 
 arrobas of freight,) its utensils and appurtenances ; it being understood 
 that both these and the road are to be delivered in running and perfect 
 condition for service ; the rails, cars, engines, and utensils beirag re- 
 quired to be, at least, of average fitness for use^ and not including 
 herein the vessels and steamers. In order not to elude the delivery 
 of the road, and all its utensils mentioned in the preceding clause, the 
 company binds itself to deposit through the last ten years ten per cent, 
 of the net proceeds belonging to them, which deposit shall be returned 
 to them immediately upon the government's receiving, to its satisfac- 
 tion, all the objects mentioned in said preceding clause. 
 
 17. The existence of light-houses at the two extremities of the road, 
 and also on the reef of the Alacraves, as an additional one in the port 
 of Acapulco, being a matter of the' highest necessity for the vessels 
 navigating in the direction of the intercommunication way ; and it 
 being equally necessary for the development of the resources of the 
 republic and for the construction of vessels that the bar of the Goatza- 
 coalcos, as well as the bed of said river, should, if practicable, be 
 deepened, the company shall set aside, annually, to make those im- 
 provements, upon plans approved by the government, two and a half 
 per cent, of the net yield of the road, until such works will have been 
 completed. The light-houses, being once constructed, shall belong 
 exclusively to the government. 
 
 18. The government and the company, each in its own behalf, will 
 have the power to appoint representatives, in proportion to the interests 
 which they may respectively exhibit, to watch over, examine and state 
 the accounts of the road during the existence of this contract. The 
 government, representing not more than the fifth part of the whole 
 produdt, will be considered, for its representation, in the light of clause 
 24 of the edict, which says : "The government shall be considered as 
 a stockholder to an amount of, at least, the third part of the whole of 
 the shares into which the undertaking may be divided." 
 
 19. The company binds itself to the observance of the following re- 
 strictions : 1st. It shall not be lawful for the company to construct 
 forts on the Isthmus, nor to organize military forces of any kind. It 
 shall not afi'ord passage to any armed force, whether national or 
 foreign, without express authority from .the government. 2d. The 
 company shall not introduce on the lands which it may occupy, in 
 relation to all that is said in article 5, a greater number of persons 
 than that which shall be necessarily required for their operations in 
 all of their branches. 3d. The company shall forthwith dismiss from 
 its service any, whomsoever, of its employes that shall carry on, or 
 protect, smuggling, or shall commit any other misdemeanor ; and it 
 shall afford the government every assistance in their prosecution. 
 4th. The company will cause every passenger to ebserve the revenue 
 laws of the republic. 
 
 20. Foreigners engaging in the undertaking shall be subjected to 
 the provisions of articles 21 and 22 of the edict, which say to the 
 letter: "Art. 2l8t. Those foreigners who may take share in the 
 mixed company, whether as stockholders, or under any other title 
 
698 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 that should give them the right of interfering therein, of sharing in 
 its proceeds or claiming any of its grants, shall not hold greater rights 
 than shall the Mexicans, nor other means of enforcing them than those 
 that are granted to the latter hy the laws of the repulic. All ques- 
 tions of this nature, and such as may^arise out of the acquisition, 
 preservation, or loss of shares in or rights over the said road, shall 
 he decided by the competent national courts, in conformity with the 
 laws of the republic. The employes and officers of the company shall 
 be subject to the same conditions. Art. 22. The person or persons 
 ■who may contract for the opening of the road shall not have the right 
 of transferring or conveying the grant without previous consent ob- 
 tained from the government, or of taking in either a government, or a 
 State as a copartner. A violation of any of those conditions will work 
 as a nullity of the grant, and the Mexican government shall have the 
 right of disposing of it at will, saving the shares lawfully acquired by 
 the individual stockholders." 
 
 21. The transit across the inter-communication way shall be free to 
 all the inhabitants of the globe ; but an additional rate of twenty-five 
 per cent, shall be laid on the merchandises of those nations which will 
 not have entered into conventions of neutrality with Mexico. 
 
 22. So soon as the company may have been organized, an office for 
 the issue of bonds shall be established in Mexico ; another shall, like- 
 wise, be opened in London, or in any other mart of Europe, and during 
 a period, which shall not be less than six months, one-third at least 
 of all the shares shall be held at the disposal of such Mexican citizens 
 as may choose to become subscribers to the stock. 
 
 23. The company shall have the privilege of transporting the foreign 
 mails over the intercommunication way, in sealed bags ; and such bags 
 shall be sealed by the agents of the post office, or by the collectors ot 
 the several custom-houses. 
 
 24. The company shall not have the power of selling or of convey- 
 ing shares to the States confederacy, in exchange for waste lands or 
 for services of Indians. 
 
 25. The company accept, as an indispensable condition, all the 
 articles of the edict published by the supreme government, under date 
 of the 29th of July, of the year last past, that do not clash with or 
 stand in contradiction to the spirit, the text, and the letter of the 
 present contract. 
 
 NAVIGATION. 
 
 Article 1. The supreme government grants to the contractors and 
 to their associates the exclusive privilege of navigating the Goatzacoal- 
 cos river during the whole period assigned for the existence of this 
 contract ; but all the inhabitants and owners of plantations, or of any 
 other property situated on the banks of the river, shall have the power 
 of importing all such articles as they may require, and exporting their 
 agricultural or industrial products in vessels of Mexican build. 
 
 Article 2. The government releases from duties on tonnage all the 
 steamers of the company intended for the transportation of mails and 
 merchandise in transitu. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 69.9 
 
 Abticle 3. The company binds itself to the establishment of a line 
 of steamers, equal to the service of the intercommunication way, under 
 the Mexican flag, in accordance with the laws of the land, to ply from 
 Vera Cruz to such point of the Goatzacoalcos river where the railroad 
 shall start. 
 
 Article 4. The company engages to transport, free of cost, such 
 mail matter as may be intended for any point whatsoever of Mexico, 
 and such as may be sent thence to the other points where its steamers 
 may touch, receiving and delivering it in the usual form ; to convey 
 likewise all articles and effects, the property of the government, for 
 one-fourth of the established rates ; to transport, also, without any 
 compensation, going and returning, the officers, troops, employes, and 
 agents of the general government or of the States, The metals, the 
 agricultural or industrial products of the republic shall be transported 
 for twenty-five per cent, less than the established rates of prices. 
 
 Article 5. The company shall see that the steamers on the Pacific 
 side shall continue to keep their coal depot at Acapuico, and it binds 
 itself to an examination, as speedy as possible, of the coal beds of the 
 State of Guerrero, in order that they may be worked under agreement 
 with their owners, respectively. 
 
 Article 6. For due iulfilment of all that is contained and embraced 
 in this contract, the supreme government will come to an understand- 
 ing, through its agents or attorneys, with the representatives of the 
 mixed company, mentioned in the caption of this instrument, or such 
 as may hereafter be their successors. 
 
 J. MIGUEL AEROYO. 
 M. PATNO. 
 W. D. LEE. 
 JOAQUIN PESADO. 
 RAMON OLARTE. 
 
 Mexico, February 5, 1853. 
 
 Mr. ConMing to Mr. Arroyo. 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 Meofico, February 6, 1853. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
 of the United States of America, loses no time in replying to the note 
 which he had the honor to receive, at a late hour last evening, from 
 his excellency Mr. Arroyo, acting minister of foreign relations, an- 
 nouncing the long-delayed decision, now made by his excellency the 
 president of the republic of Mexico, in obedience to the law enacted by 
 the general congress on the 14th of May last, and of the convocatoria 
 promulgated in pursuance thereof on the 29 th of July last, having for 
 their object the speedy construction of a transit way across the Isthmus 
 of Tehuantepec, for the purpose of facilitating the communication be- 
 tween the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. 
 
 Deeply impressed as the undersigned is with the vast importance of 
 this noble enterprise, he fully concurs with his excellency Mr. Arroyo 
 in the opinion that this decision cannot fail to be gratifying to the 
 
700 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 whole civilized world ; and fully aware as the undersigned is of the 
 numerous and almost insuperable difficulties which surrounded the 
 subject, and of the patriotic and self-sacrificing spirit and the firmness 
 and integrity of purpose with which his excellency the president has 
 encountered and at length overcome these difficulties, the undersigned 
 cannot doubt that his excellency the president has secured for himself 
 the merited gratitude of his country and the applause of all commer- 
 cial nations. 
 
 Tho undersigned will hasten to communicate to his government the 
 decision and decree of his excellency the president ; and in the mean- , 
 time will be happy, in accordance with the invitation contained in his 
 excellency Mr. Arroyo's note, and with his own instructions to receive 
 from this government any overtures likely to result, as the under- 
 signed earnestly hopes they may, in a treaty suited to the exigencies 
 of the case and adapted to secure the happy fruits so eloquently 
 described by his excellency Mr. Arroyo. 
 
 The undersigned also has the honor to acknowledge the receipt, 
 this morning, of the note of his excellency Mr. Arroyo, enclosing 
 printed copies of the decree in question. 
 
 The undersigned has great satisfaction in renewing to his excel- 
 lency Mr, Arfoyo the assurances of his high respect and distinguished 
 consideration. 
 
 ALFRED CONKLING. 
 
 His Excellency J. Miguel Akroto, 
 
 Acting Minister of Relations. 
 
 Mr. Oonhling to Mr. Everett. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 ^0. 23.] Legation of the United States, 
 
 » Mexico, February 22, 1853. 
 
 Sir: * * * * * * 
 
 Last evening I received from the acting minister of relations a note, 
 of which I have the honor to enclose a copy, marked A, and to ivhich 
 I this morning returned an answer, of which I transmit a copy, also 
 marked A. 
 
 _ I earn^tly hope, and with considerable confidence trust, that in the 
 line of conduct I have deemed it to be my duty to adopt relative to the 
 projected transit way across the Isthmus Tehuantepec, I have not had 
 the misfortune to contravene the sentiments of my government, nor to 
 appear to you to have assumed an undue degree of responsibility. 
 
 The considerations hy which I have been governed will have been 
 already sufficiently indicated in my former despatches, and I will only 
 add that if I have erred it has not been for want of deliberate and 
 mature reflection, or of an anxious desire to discern and follow the 
 path of duty. 
 
 The prospect of being able to conclude a favora,t)le treaty continues 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 701 
 
 to be propitious ; and, with respect to the propriety of adopting the 
 policy I have taken the liberty in my former despatches to recommend, 
 of fully empowering me at once, under such additional instructions as 
 may be thought necessary, to act in the premises, I may be permitted 
 to mention the fact, in addition to the considerations I have already 
 had the honor to suggest, that I am informed, directly and indirectly, 
 of an earnest wish on the part of the Mexican government, that the 
 negotiation may be consummated before my departure from the country. 
 
 ^ !)c lis sk ak sK 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALFRED OONKLINa. 
 Hon. Edward Evbrett, 
 
 Secretary of State, 
 
 Mr. Arroyo to Mr. Gonkling. 
 
 National Palace, Mexico, 
 
 February 21, 1853. 
 
 The undersigned, chief clerk of the department of relations, sea- 
 sonably received the note which his excellency Mr. Alfred Conkling, 
 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
 of America, did him the honor of addressing him on the 6th instant, 
 in which, in answer to the note of this department of the day pre- 
 ceding, in relation to the decree issued, and the contract signed for the 
 opening of an intercommunication way through the Isthmus of Tehuan- 
 tepec, his excellency stated that, in pursuance with the instructions 
 which he holds, and upon the invitation of the undersigned, he would 
 take pleasure in proceeding to a negotiation for the arrangement of a 
 treaty, guaranteeing the neutrality of the right of transit across said 
 road, and securing the fruitful results which it is bound to yield to 
 the world. 
 
 The undersigned has brought said note to the knowledge of his ex- 
 cellency the trustee general of the supreme executive power, and his 
 excellency, anxious to attain so laudable an end,, and to promote, to 
 the extent of his ability, whatever may contribute to. confirm the friendly 
 relations which exist between Mexico and the United States, and 
 place them on a solid and lasting footing, such as considerations of 
 expediency and reciprocal benefits, has appointed their excellencies 
 General D. Jose Maria Fornel and D. Joaquin Maria de Castillo y 
 Lanzas, plenipotentiaries of the republic, to proceed in the negotiation 
 with Mr. Conkling of the treaty to which reference has been made. 
 
 The undersigned flatters himself that his excellency will consider 
 this measure as a new proof of the friendly sentiments which actuate 
 Mexico in regard of the United States, and that, with the acknowledg- 
 ment of the like sentiments on his part, his _ excellency _ will take 
 pleasure in carrying to a successful close a negotiation as philanthropic 
 
702 POST OFFICE DEPA.ETMENT, ETC. 
 
 in its objects as it must be important in its results to both countries 
 in view of the advantages which it is to secure for them. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor of tendering to, his excellency re- 
 newed assurances of his distinguished consideration. 
 
 J. MIGUEL AKROYO. 
 His Excellency Alfred Conkling, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, 
 
 of the United States of America. 
 
 Mr. ConUing to Mr. Arroyo. , 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, February 22, 1853. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
 of the United States of America, hastens to acknowledge the receipt 
 last evening of the note of his excellency Mr. Arroyo, communicating 
 to the undersigned the information that bis excellency General Lom- 
 bardine, depositary of the supreme executive power of the Mexican 
 republic, had been pleased to a^ppoint two highly distinguished citi- 
 zens, viz : D. Jose Maria Fornel, general of division, and D. Joaquin 
 Maria de Castillo y Lanzas, plenipotentiaries of the republic to ne- 
 gotiate with the undersigned a treaty relative to the projected transit 
 way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor to repeat to bis excellency Mr. Ar- 
 royo the assurance contained in his former note referred to by Mr. 
 Arroyo of his readiness to enter at once upon the proposed negotiation; 
 and, to that end, the undersigned will be glad to receive from the gen- 
 tlemen above named, as soon as may be agreeable to them, proposi- 
 tions for a treaty such as Mr. Arroyo has described, and which shall 
 be best adapted, by means of well-devised guarantees on the part of 
 the two republics, not only to secure the speedy and proper completion 
 and beneficial use of the noble work in contemplation, but which, by 
 drawing Mexico and the United States into more intimate association, 
 shall have the happy effect also of augmenting and perpetuating their 
 mutual good-will and promoting their prosperity and happiness. 
 
 The undersigned avails himself with pleasure of this opportunity to 
 offer to Mr. Arroyo the renewed assurance of his high consideratian. 
 
 ALFEED CONKLING. 
 
 His Excellency J. Miguel Arroyo, 
 
 Acting Minister of Relations. 
 
 Mr. Hargous to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 New York, May 7, 1853. 
 Sir : You' will probably have been informed, by papers in your de- 
 partment, of my connexion with the grant of the Mexican government 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 703 
 
 to Garay, for the construction of an interoceanic communication across 
 the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. This connexion began in February, 
 1849, as you will see by a petition of mine to the Senate, in which I 
 prayed Congress not to commit themselves irrevocably to any other 
 route, in authorizing contracts for carrying the mail to OalifoYnia. 
 My petition undoubtedly attracted the notice of Mr. De la Rosa, the 
 vigilant and astute Mexican minister, at Washington, who must have 
 informed his government of it, and warned them of the supposed 
 danger of allowing United States citizens to become the proprietors of. 
 the grant. That these warnings alarmed the Mexican government, 
 and led to a resolution on their part to nullify the grant, was soon 
 confirmed by my correspondents at Mexico. I lost no time in making 
 this known to Mr. Clayton, then Secretary of State, who addressed an 
 instruction on the subject to Mr. Clifford, then our minister at Mexico, 
 directing him to inform that government that ours would hold them 
 accountable for any unjust discriminations against United States citi- 
 zens, who miglxt be holders of the Garay grant. When Mr. Letcher 
 succeeded Mr. Clifford, he was instructed to make a treaty with the 
 Mexican government upon the subject of Tehuantepec. He was also 
 ofiicially instructed to apply for passports for the engineers who had 
 been employed by the American proprietors to survey the route, and the 
 passports were granted. Mr. Letcher concluded a treaty upon the subject. 
 By one of it articles, however, it was stipulated that it should not be 
 submitted either to our Senate or to the Mexican congress without the 
 consent of the proprietor of the grant. As some of the articles 
 seemed to me ambiguous, I could not conscientiously give this consent, 
 and so informed Mr, Webster, then Secretary of State. The treaty 
 was consequently sent back to Mexico for amendment, but few of 
 those deemed by me necessary were made. In its amended form, 
 however, I consented to its presentation to our Senate, whose sanction 
 it received^ and was ratified by President Fillmore. Soon after the 
 amended treaty was concluded, Mr. Letcher returned home on leave of 
 absence. He had scarcely left the city of Mexico when a bill was 
 brought into the Mexican congress proposing a repeal of the Garay 
 grant, on the ground that Salas, who succeeded Paredes as temporary 
 president of Mexico, transcended his authority in prolonging the time 
 for the commencement of the works on the Isthmus under the grant. 
 I have no legal proof of the fact, but from my knowledge of Mexican 
 affairs, and from the tenor of the letters of my correspondents, copies 
 of which are on file in your department, I am morally certain that 
 this measure was originated and consummated principally through 
 the influence of the British minister at Mexico. The Mexican congress 
 having thus repealed the Garay grant, the treaty of that government 
 with ours for the protection of Americans interested in that grant of 
 course fell to the ground. 
 
 Besides the foreign influences brought to bear against that grant, I 
 am sorry to say that there were several combinations of our own citi- 
 zens also, as will appear by Mr. Letcher's communication to Mr. Web- 
 ster, under date the l4th December, 1851." This is made a high 
 misdemeanor by act of Congress, and one of the offenders was in- 
 dicted at Washington, and probably would have been convicted if 
 
704 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 President Arista had not refused to give up the original of a letter 
 ■which he had addressed to him ou the subject. 
 
 Independently of the grant, I have already expended over a quarter 
 of a million of dollars out of a limited private fortune. I have made 
 this expenditure in consequence of assurances from my government 
 that it would protect my rights and interests. 
 
 Mr. A. Gr. Sloo, however, has obtained a new contract from the 
 Mexican government, and, as I am informed, Mr. Conkling, the 
 United States minister at Mexico, has made a treaty with that gov- 
 ernment, recognizing that contract, and guaranteeing the neutrality 
 of the Isthmus. Notwithstanding all this, I hope that I may still 
 rely with confidence enough upon the protection of my government 
 to feel assured that the treaty referred to will not be accepted by the 
 President, especially if it be true that our minister had neither author- 
 ity nor instructions to conclude it. 
 
 An answer upon this point, as prompt as your convenience wiU 
 allow, will greatly oblige your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 P. A. HARGOUS. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Marct, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
 Mr. Conkling to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 Legation op the United States, 
 
 Mexico, May 14, 1853. 
 
 By the steamer Texas, which arrived at Vera Cruz on the 3d instant, 
 news was received of the failure of Mr. Sloo to pay the bills drawn by 
 his agent here in favor of the bankers who advanced the money due 
 to the Mexican government under its grant and contract for the con- 
 struction of a transit way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. It is 
 out of my power adequately to describe the surprise and chagrin occa- 
 sioned here by these evil tidings. Nothing could have been more un- 
 expected or unaccountable. The news was brought fiom Vera Cruz 
 by an express in advance of the mail. The letters received by the 
 latter gave information of Mr. Sloo's inability to raise the funds re- 
 quisite to meet his engagements, but they shed little light upon the 
 cause of his ill success. * * * Hopes are still entertained 
 that this unfortunate delinquency will be repaired ; but as the grant 
 has been hypothecated to the bankers as the only condition on which 
 they would consent to advance their money, as they are men of ample 
 means, * * * The, great enterprise in question, already 
 begun, will doubtless be communicated, in conjunction, however, with 
 American citizens, and by the aid of a liberal supply of American on 
 their foreign capital. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALFRED CONKLING. 
 Hon. William L. Marct, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 705 
 
 Mr. Marcy to Mr. Gadsden, 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 No. 3.] Depaktmbnt OE State, 
 
 Washington, July 15, 1853. 
 
 During the last administration, this government interested itself in 
 behalf of the assignees of a grant made by Mexico of the right of way 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 The privileges of the original grantee had passed, by assignment, to 
 citizens of the United States. A deep interest was felt by our people 
 generally in the object of this grant, and our government interposed 
 to give it effect. It has urged Mexico to respect the rights of the 
 present proprietors of the grant, but she has denied the validity of 
 that grant, and by a formal decree of her legislature declared it null 
 and void. There is in the archives of the legation an extensive cor- 
 respondence on the subject, which will enable you, should it come up 
 for your consideration, to understand the condition of that question. 
 It is not proposed to instruct you at this time to resume this negotia- 
 tion. Should the President hereafter conclude to do so, his views will 
 be fully made known to you. 
 
 James Gadsden, Esq., i&c. 
 
 W. L. MAKCY. 
 
 Mr. Gadsden to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 [Extract.] 
 
 Legation oe the United States, 
 
 Mexico, April 5, 1856. 
 ********* 
 
 I now enclose a communication from the attorney of Peter A. Har- 
 gous, esq., claiming to be a native of Pennsylvania and a citizen of 
 the United States, invoking the interposition of this legation to an 
 attempted renewed controversy, for rights and immunities withheld, 
 
 on the ever-belligerent Tehuantepec transit. 
 
 ********* 
 
 JAMES GADSDEN. 
 Hon. Wm. L. Maect, 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 H, Rep. Com. 648 45, 
 
706 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Mr. BeUange to Mr. Gadsden. 
 
 Mexico, March 31, 1856. 
 
 Sir : In the name of Mr. Petef A. Hargous, a native of Pennsyl- 
 vania and a citizen of the United States, whose power of attorney has 
 been intrusted to me, I take the liberty of informing you of the fol- 
 lowing facts, in consequence of which I am obliged to ask your pro- 
 tection to obtain justice from the Mexican government. 
 
 On the 5th of February, 1853, the Mexican government granted to 
 Messrs. Payno, Pesado, and Olarte, representatives of a company com- 
 posed of Mexican and American citizens, a privilege for opening a way 
 of communication by the Isthmus of Tehuan tepee. By the 14th article 
 of the above-mentioned privilege, the grantees were bound to deliver 
 into the Mexican treasury an amount of $600,000 ; but having no 
 funds, they applied to Mr. F. de P. Falconnet, a British subject, to 
 lend the amount required, offering in payment thereof bills drawn by 
 a Mr. W. D. Lee on A. G- Sloo, of the United States. Mr. F. de P. 
 Falconnet accepted the proposal, under condition that Messrs. Payno, 
 Olarte, and Pesado should obtain from the Mexican government a full 
 authorization to pledge the privilege obtained as a warranty of the 
 payment of the bills drawn on the United States to the amount of 
 $600,000. The Mexican government consented to give the authoriza- 
 tion, and the deed by which the privilege was given as a pledge in 
 case the bills should not be paid was duly drawn up on the 10th of 
 February, 1853. The 2d article of the deed above mentioned, and 
 approved by the Mexican government, authorized Mr. F. de P. Fal- 
 connet, in case the bills drawn on the United States should not be 
 paid, to dispose of the privilege in his favor, or in favor of any one 
 else he thought proper, without the intervention of any judiciary au- 
 thority. In consequence of the arrangements entered into by the 
 parties interested in the business, tl.e $600,000 were delivered by Mr. 
 F. de P. Falconnet into the Mexican treasury, and he holds the re- 
 ceipts of the treasurer. The bills drawn by W. D. Lee on A. Gr. Sloo 
 were sent by Mr. F. de P. Falconnet to the United States, and were 
 not accepted when presented nor paid when due. 
 
 I have thought proper to enter into all these details, although I 
 suppose that they must be known to you, merely for the sake of re- 
 calling to your memory all the facts relative to this business, and shall 
 proceed to inform you of what happened in consequence. 
 
 By a note dated the 2d June, 1853, Mr. Falconnet informed the 
 Mexican government that the bills drawn by W. D. Lee on A. G. Sloo 
 were neither accepted nor paid, and asked to be recognized as the 
 owner of the privilege in compliance with the 2d article of the deed 
 of pledge drawn up on Ihe lUth of February, 1853. The Mexican 
 government gave no answer to this note, or to the others which were 
 subsequently sent by Mr. F. de P. Falconnet, 
 
 When Mr. F. de P. Falconnet agreed to lend the $600,000 he had 
 no other object in view than an exchange business between Mexico and 
 the United States, and never thought of fulfilling the engagements 
 entered into by the grantees of the privilege to open a way of commii- 
 aication by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. He therefore looked out in 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 707 
 
 the United States for a capitalist of high standinsj and sufficient in- 
 fluence to form a company able to repay the $600,000 advanced by 
 him, and to execute the engagements entered into with the Mexican 
 government by Messrs. Payno, Olarte, and Pesado, in the name of a 
 company which never existed, at least as far as capital is concerned. 
 
 In consequence, Mr. F. de P. Falconnet entered, on the Ifith of 
 April, 1855, into an agreement with Mr. P. A. Hargons, of New York, 
 and made him a formal cession of the privilege. The Mexican gov- 
 ernment was informed of this circumstance on the 8th of August, 
 1855, and requested to recognize the legal cession made by Mr. F. de 
 P. Falconnet to Mr. P. A. Hargous. 
 
 On the 26th of November, 1855, Mr. F. de P. Falconnet received 
 at last from the Mexican government an answer to the various notes 
 which he had presented. In said answer it is stated that his excel- 
 lency Greneral Alvarez, president of the Mexican republic, has decided, 
 in a c^uncil of ministers held on the 26th of November last, that Mr. 
 F. de P. Falconnet is recognized as sole owner of the privilege in 
 execution of the 2d article of the deed of pledge consented and au- 
 thorized by the Mexican government, and signed on the 10th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1853, by Mr. F. de P. Falconnet, and Messrs. Payno, Olarte. 
 and Pesado recognized by the government as sole and lawful agents of 
 the company they represented, and that the cession made by Mr. Fal- 
 connet to Mr. P. A. flargous is not recognized, without stating on 
 what motives this last decision is founded. 
 
 Since then all the efforts made by Mr. Falconnet, or his agents, and 
 by me, to obtain from the Mexican government the approval of the legal 
 cession of his rights made by Mr. F. de P. Falconnet to Mr. P. A, 
 Hargous have been without any success. Being convinced that it is 
 useless to wait any longer for a favorable decision from the Mexican 
 government, I take the liberty to request you to grant to Mr. P. A. 
 Hargous the protection due him. as a citizen of the United States. 
 This appears to me the only course to be followed in this business; the 
 more so as I have been informed, from good authority, that Messrs. 
 Payno, Olarte, and Pesado have, in the name of this imaginary com- 
 pany, applied to government to obtain the entrance to the Goatza- 
 coalcos of an agent sent from the iJnited States to begin a plank road 
 over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, although all the rights of said com- 
 pany have been forfeited, to all intents and purposes, by the non-exe- 
 cution of the engagements contracted by them with the Mexican 
 government and J$!f r. F. de P. Falcounet, and although said forfeiture 
 has been declared and corroborated by the decision of the Mexican 
 government of the 26th of November last. 
 
 I do not doubt that, informedof the circumstances of the case sub- 
 mitted to you, you will take such measures as will protect, in an effec- 
 tive way, the rights acquired by Mr. P. A. Hargous, and insure his 
 acknowledgment by the Mexican government as owner of the privilege. 
 
 I shall teel highly favored by an answer to the present note, and, 
 meanwhile, I remain, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALEX. BELLANGE, 
 
 General James Gadsden, 
 
 Minister PUnipoteniiary of the United Slates. 
 
708 FOST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Mr. Eargous to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 Washington, April 21, 1856. 
 
 Dear Sir : You will probably recollect that in an interview which 
 I had the honor to have with you not long since, I stated that the 
 grant for a right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, com- 
 monly called the Sloo grant, had been forfeited to Mr. F. de P. Fal- 
 connet, a British subject. This forfeiture took place pursuant to the 
 consent and with the authority of the Mexican government. It waa 
 occasioned by a pledge which was made of the grant to secure Mr. 
 Falconnet the reimbursement of $600,000 (say six hundred thousand 
 dollars) which he had advanced to that government in behalf of the 
 Sloo company, and which has never been paid, even in part, by that 
 company. In order to secure this great privilege to citizens of the 
 United States, I obtained an assignment of it from Mr. Falconnet, 
 subject to the approval of the Mexican government, but this approval 
 has heretofore been withheld, despite repeated applications. I have 
 every reason to believe that Mr. Gadsden, United States minister to 
 Mexico, has been well aware of the circumstances which I have men- 
 tioned, and of all the antecedents respecting this business. Notwith- 
 standing this, however, I have reason to apprehend that the hesitation 
 of the Mexican government in granting my request has been occa- 
 sioned either by his lukewarmness or by his opposition to me. That 
 I have cause to believe he must have been actuated by the feeling 
 last mentioned, would seem to be shown by the fact that he has ad- 
 dressed representations to the Mexican government in behalf of the 
 Sloo company. I cannot believe that, in this proceeding, Mr. Gads- 
 den has acted either under the instructions or sanction of my govern- 
 ment. You will at once see, however, how important it is for me to 
 be relieved from any doubt upon this point ; I will consequently thank 
 you to address an answer to me at your earliest convenience. 
 
 I have received through the agents of Mr. Falconnet, in Mexico, a 
 copy of the note of Mr. Gadsden to Mr. De la Eosa, the minister for 
 foreign affairs of Mexico, which I inclose for your information, in case 
 the copy which Mr. Gadsden himself will undoubtedly have forwarded 
 to your department should not, by some accident, have reached there. 
 
 It will, of course, be obvious to you that as all the rights of the citi- 
 zens of the United States in the Sloo grant were extinguished by its 
 transfer to Mr. Falconnet, who is a British subject, it must remain in 
 possession of the latter until his transfer to ine shall be approved by 
 the Mexican government. It is unquestionably, I should suppose, the 
 policy and the interest of our government that citizens of the United 
 States and not British subjects should have exclusive control of the 
 privilege referred to. If, therefore, the Mexican government shall be 
 countenanced in much longer delaying my request, the danger to the 
 policy and interests to which I have adverted will be subjected is 
 submitted to your wise consideration. 
 
 I would have called on you at the department with this communi- 
 cation, but 1 am suddenly summoned to New York to attend to im- 
 portant private business there. This, however, enables me to avoid 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 709 
 
 engrossing any of your valuable time in conversation on the subject, 
 at present. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with great regard, your most obedient 
 servant, 
 
 P. A. HAKGOUS. 
 Hon. W. L. Marct, 
 
 Secretary of State, Washington, D. G. 
 
 Mr. Marcy to Mr. Forsyth, 
 
 [Extract ] 
 
 No. 2.] Depaktment of State, 
 
 Washington, August 16, 1856. 
 
 You are already aware that disputes have arisen among our citizens 
 in regard to the owoership of a grant made by the Mexican govern- 
 ment for a right of way across Mexico, called the Tehuantepec route. 
 This is not, strictly speaking, an international matter. You will, 
 however, take occasion to make known to Mexico the deep interest felt 
 by the government and people of the United States in the success and 
 early completion of the enterprise now on foot for opening a passage 
 from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific ocean by Tehuantepec, and 
 that it is very much desired that the Mexican government should 
 exert all the legitimate power it has to remove the obstacles which lie 
 in the way of giving effect to that grant. There is no doubt that the 
 establishment of that thoroughfare would be advantageous to both 
 countries in a commercial point of view, and strengthen the ties of 
 friendship between them. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. L. MARCY. 
 
 John Forsyth, Esq., 
 
 i&c, dec, &c. 
 
 Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Marcy. 
 
 No. 8.J Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, November 15, 1856. 
 
 Sir: T have the honor to transmit herewith, and' at his request, a 
 communication from A. Bellange, esq., the representative of Mr. P. 
 A. Hargous, on the subject of the Tehuantepec grant. 
 
 As I came to Mexico with the determination that this legation, 
 while under my charge, should not be made use of as an attorney's 
 office for either of the rival American claimants for the privileges of 
 this transit, and to take sides with neither in a dispute which, it 
 appeared to me, was one that belonged to the courts of this country 
 to adjudicate, unless I had the positive instructions of my government 
 
710 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 to the contrary, I have no remarks to make on this communication, 
 except that he does not give the precise version of my reply to him 
 when he called upon me as the American minister to espouse the 
 cause of his client, and to throw my official influence against that of 
 the Sloo or Mixed Company. 
 
 My answer was very frankly given that I did not deem it a question 
 for my official intervention ; that it was a judicial question ; that the 
 rival party had as much right as Mr, Hargbus to demand my services 
 in their hehalf ; and that certainly they would have just and grave 
 cause of complaint if I, equally the representative of both, should 
 take sides against them. I added that in fortunate concurrence with 
 my own views of propriety were the instructions of my government 
 on the point, which I read to him. 
 
 It is for the department to determine whether I am to act under a 
 different view of duty. So far I have seen no cause to believe that it 
 is an erroneous one, and I hope the department will not alter its_ in- 
 structions until I have been here long enough to ascertain the feelings 
 of the Mexican government on the subject. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN FORSYTH. 
 
 Hon. W. L. Maect, 
 
 dec, i&c, &c. 
 
 Mr. Bellange to Mr. Forsyth. 
 
 Mexico, November 12, 1856. 
 
 Sir : On the 29th of last month I had the honor to address you a 
 note, asking the protection of the government of the United States in 
 favor of Mr. P. A. Hargous, an American citizen, and remitted to 
 you all the documents relative to the business for which I claimed 
 said protection. 
 
 In an interview which I had with you subsequently, my note was 
 verbally answered by your stating that, according to the instructions 
 of your government relative to the Tehuan tepee question, it was not 
 in your power to grant the protection asked.for, and that, unless new 
 instructions should be received, you could not protect the interests of 
 Mr. P. A. Hargous in an efficacious way. 
 
 The documents which I have had the hoaor to submit to your 
 perusal will have informed you of the real state of the case, and will 
 have enabled you to iorm an opinion respecting the side where mere 
 honesty and equity ought to call the protection of the government of 
 the United States. It would, therefore, be useless to relate again all 
 the antecedents and observations which have made the subject of the 
 note which I addressed to General. James Gadsden, then minister 
 plenipotentiary of the United States, on the 31st of March last, and 
 which has met with so little attention on his part, at a time when a few 
 officious words from him might have finally settled the question to the 
 entire satisfaction of the American and Mexican governments, and of 
 all parties seriously interested in the matter ; however, I consider it to 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 711 
 
 be my duty, in the defence of the interest which has been trusted to 
 me, to lay before you such arguments as may favor Mr. P. A. Hargous, 
 and may incline the government of the United States to alter their 
 views upon the Tehuantepec question. 
 
 The facts which are established, beyond any doubt, by the numerous 
 documents which I have submitted to you, are the following : 
 
 1. That an imaginary company, composed of American and Mexican 
 citizens, without a cent of capital, obtained from the Mexican govern- 
 ment a privilege to open a way of communication through the Isthmus 
 of Tehuantepec. 
 
 2. That to obtain said privilege they agreed to pay into the Mexi- 
 can treasury $600,000. 
 
 3. That having no money they borrowed it from Mr. F. de P. Fal- 
 connet, a British subject, to whom the privilege was pledged, with 
 the authorization of the Mexican government, under the conditions 
 that he might dispose of it in any way he chose, without the inter- 
 vention of any judicial authority, in case the bills, which were given 
 him on the United States, in payment of the $600,000 delivered by 
 him into the Mexican treasury, should not be paid. 
 
 4. That the bills were not paid, and that in consequence, at the 
 request of Mr. F. de P. Falconnet, said gentleman was declared by 
 the Mexican government to be the rightful owner of the privilege. 
 
 5. That Mr. F. de P. Falconnet, with a view to recover his money, 
 made a cession of his privileg-e to Mr. P. A. Hargous, that said cession 
 has not yet been approved by the Mexican government, who has sent 
 the matter before a commission, which has not yet given any decision. 
 
 6. That the company which originally obtained the privilege has 
 lost all right to said privilege, because they have not repaid the 
 $600,000, because they have not complied with the 5tli article of the 
 secret conditions, which imposed upon them the obligation to indem- 
 nify the owner of the G-aray grant, and because said privilege has 
 legally passed into the hands of Mr. F. de P. Falconnet. 
 
 7. That, therefore, the pretended company organized at New 
 Ofrieans, under the name of the Tehuantepec Company, has no right 
 whatsoever to the privilege granted by the Mexican government, and 
 that the people now employed by said company on the Isthmus may 
 be, in perfect justice, turned out by the Mexican authorities when- 
 ever they may think proper to do so. 
 
 These facts, which are clearly established by the documents which 
 have been put into your hands, show the real state' of the case, and 
 ■will convince you that, if the intrigues which have for the last three 
 years deceived the American and Mexican governments in their hopes 
 to see " the communications opened," are allowed to continue by the 
 tacit protection of both governments, it is to be expected that, sooner 
 or later, such a state of things may occasion serious difficulties be- 
 tween both nations. These difficulties may be easily avoided now, if 
 the government of the United States consents to give its protection to 
 Mr. P. A. Hargous, and cause its influence with the Mexican govern- 
 ment to obtain the acknowledgment of the cession made by F. de P. 
 Falconnet to P. A. Hargous. 
 
712 POST OFFICE DEPAETMEMT, ETC. 
 
 If. both governments sincerely wish to come to a final settlement of 
 this question, the principal point is to establish the legal possession 
 of the privileges, in order that men of capital and enterprise may find 
 all the necessary security for the large sums which are required for 
 the execution of so large an undertaking. Until so important a point 
 is decided no serious capital will be found for the enterprise in view, 
 and business jobbers are not the men to fulfil the conditions stipulated 
 in the grant. 
 
 The object mentioned would undoubtedly be obtained if the govern- 
 ment of the United States would insist on the acknowledgment, by 
 the Mexican government, of the cession made by F. de P. Falconnet to 
 P. A. Hargous. The question might thus be finally settled and pro- 
 cure the following results: 
 
 1. The question would be adjusted according to the invariable prin- 
 ciples of justice and equity, and thus in an honorable way for both 
 governments. 
 
 2. Mr. F. de P. Falconnet would be put out of the question by fur- 
 nishing him with the means to recover his $600,000, with the in- 
 terest and damages. 
 
 3. The execution of the enterprise of opening the way of commu- 
 nication would be realized by giving entire security to the American 
 capital employed in the business. 
 
 4. The claim of Mr. J. de Garay would be adjusted by due compli- 
 ance with the secret articles of the grant. 
 
 5. A complete satisfaction would be given to the government of the 
 United States, who desire to see a shorter way of communication with 
 California opened through more healthy climates. 
 
 These are the positive advantages which may be obtained by a 
 change in the policy of the government of the United States respect- 
 ing a question which has remained pending ever since 1848 ; and I 
 hope that you will lay the present note in favor of the interest which 
 I represent before your government, and support the solution therein 
 recommended as the most favorable to a final adjustment, in view of 
 the interests of both governments. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ALEX. BELLANGE. 
 John Forsyth, Esq., 
 
 Minister Plenipotentiary and 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Cass to Mr. Forsyth. 
 
 ■^0. 27.] Department of State, 
 
 Washington, July IT, 1857. 
 SiK : The value and importance to Mexico of a railroad across the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec can scarcely be overestimated. In this the 
 United States are also deeply interested. The proximity of the Isth- 
 mus to our shores, the salubrity of the climate, the adaptedness of 
 the ground for the construction of a railroad, and the great diminu- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 713 
 
 tion of distance in comparison with other more southern routes between 
 our Atlantic and Pacific possessions, all conspire to point it out as far 
 preferable to any other route outside of our own territory. 
 
 Under our treaty with the republic of Mexico, of December 30, 1853, 
 the United States have acquired a right of transit across the Isthmus 
 which they will never, under any circumstances, abandon. This may 
 be sufiBcient for all practical purposes, yet it is desirable that the pro- 
 visions of that treaty should be confirmed, extended, and rendered 
 more specific. It is, therefore, now proposed to enter into a new 
 treaty for this purpose. 
 
 But of what value will this right be to either the one or the other 
 republic, unless effectual measures should be adopted for the construc- 
 tion of a railroad between the two oceans. Already much precious 
 time has been lost by the conflicting grants made for this purpose by 
 Mexico. But for these, this great work would have been in successful 
 operation ere the present day. The period has now arrived when 
 there should be no longer any delay in commencing, prosecuting, and 
 completing an undertaking in which not merely Mexico but all com- 
 mercial nations are so deeply interested. These conflicting grants are 
 two in number, and have usually been denominated the G-aray grant 
 and the Sloo grant. On each of these I shall make a lew observations. 
 
 On the Ist of March, 1842, the Mexican government granted to Don 
 Jose de Garay the privilege of opening a line of communication, " by 
 water, except where it is impracticable, when railroads and steam 
 carriages shall be used, between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, 
 through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec." And this passage, when 
 opened, is, in an enlightened spirit, declared to be " neutral and com- 
 mon to all nations at peace with the Mexican republic." In order to 
 enable Mr. Garay to accomplish the undertaking, there was granted 
 to him in fee simple " all the unoccupied lands (belonging to the gov- 
 ernment) for a distance of ten leagues on either side of the line of 
 communication ;" and it was further stipulated that " all foreigners 
 are permitted to a,cquire real property, and to exercise any trade or 
 calling, not even exoepting that of mining, within the distance of fifty 
 leagues on either side of the line of transit." 
 
 In consideration of these concessions Garay was "to give to the 
 government, from the time that the line of communication shall be 
 opened for the transport of effects, a fourth part of the net profits of 
 the receipts for this purpose, deducting the expenses of administra- 
 tian, preservation, and repair thereof." 
 
 No taxes or imposts were to be laid upon articles passing in transit 
 between ocean and ocean. 
 
 ' This was a liberal concession to Garay, and had it not been annulled 
 by^the Mexican Congress, there can be no doubt that ere this a com- 
 munication would have existed by steamboat and railroad across the 
 Isthmus. 
 
 The limitation of time contained in this concession for the com- 
 mencement of the work was extended from Ist July, 1844, until the 
 Ist July, 1845, when it expired, and under the express term's of the 
 consession, " in case this should not be performed (the commencement 
 
714; POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 of the work) within the time specified, the exclusive privilege hereby 
 conceded to him (Garay) shall cease." 
 
 More than sixteen months after this limitation had expired, that is 
 to say, on the 5th November, 1846, General Don Jose Mariano de 
 Salas, at the time exercising supreme executive power, having pre- 
 viously attacked and subverted the government of Paredes by military 
 force, issued a decree extending to Garay the term for the commence- 
 ment of the work, " for two years more, to be reckoned from the date 
 of the publication of this decree." Of course, the period of this ex- 
 tension expired on the 5th November, 1848, though the holders of tbe 
 Garay concession allege that they had commenced the work before this 
 date, and consequently saved the forfeiture of the grant. However 
 this may be, the Mexican congress passed a decree on the 23d May, 
 1851, declaring that "the decree of the 5th November, 1846, is de- 
 clared null and insubs^stent, as the powers with which tbe provisional 
 government of that jieriod were invested were insufficient to dic- 
 tate it." 
 
 It is not my purpose to discuss the question whether the Mexican 
 congress had the right to annul this decree of Salas, or whether the 
 assignees of the Garay grant had used due diligence in commencing 
 the work. The former question you will find fully discussed among 
 the archives of your legation. 
 
 It is certain that this decree of the Mexican congress was passed 
 after a treaty upon the basis of the Garay grant, signed by the pleni- 
 potentiaries of the two governments, had been submitted to the Sen- 
 ate of (he United States, and had been unanimously approved and 
 ratified by that body, with some amendments, and returned to Mex- 
 ico. This treaty was, notwithstanding, rejected by Mexico, and the 
 Garay grant was annulled. This brings us to take some notice of tbe 
 Sloo grant. 
 
 The congress of Mexico, on tbe 14th May, 1852, passed a law in- 
 viting proposals for opening the interoceanic communication across 
 the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 
 
 In pursuance thereof, on the 5th February, 1853, Cevallos, presi- 
 dent ad mterim, in conformity with the law of the 14th May, 185^, 
 and the decree calling for proposals, published in consequence thereof 
 on the 29th July, 1852, accepted the proposals which had been "sub- 
 mitted by the Mixed National and Foreign Company, under the name 
 of A. G. Sloo," "for the opening of interoceanic communication 
 through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec." On the same day (5th Feb- 
 ruary, 1853) a contract was entered into and signed between the pai- 
 ties, a copy of which is herewith transmitted. 
 
 By the 14th clause of this contract it was stipulated that A. G. 
 Sloo & Co., as a guaranty on their part for its fulfilment, should de- 
 posit in the Mexican treasury the sum of $600,000, of which 
 |300,000 were to be deposited immediately, and the remainder in 
 monthly instalments of $50,000 each. Sloo & Co. being unable to 
 comply with this stipulation, on the 7th and 10th February, 1853, 
 an agreement was entered into, with the license and lull approbation 
 of the Mexican government, under which Francisco de Palezieux Fal- 
 oonnet, a British subject, resident in Mexico, was to advance the above 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 715 
 
 sum of $600,000 to the Mexican treasury, and accept bills of ex- 
 change, payable to his order for the sanJe, drawn by William D. L6e 
 on the house of A. Q. Sloo, of New Orleans. In case of failure of 
 payment, for whatever causes, the grant or concession from the Mex- 
 ican government was pledged and mortgaged for this sum to Mr, Fal- 
 connot, with power for him to proceed in a summary and extra- 
 judicial manner and sell the concession "to the highest bidder who 
 may offer, without any judicial formality, or to adjudicate it to him- 
 self, if he chooses, without these appearers or their representatives 
 having any right of opposition or making any reclamation, since 
 now, in anticipation of that case, they confer upon him the most full, 
 irrevocable, and efficacious power that can be required in law, with all 
 the amplitude that may be legally sufficient," &c., &c. 
 
 The bills were protested, and have never been paid. Mr. Falconnet, 
 on the 2d June, 1853, addressed the Mexican government requesting 
 them to acknowledge him as the rightful owner of the concession, but 
 received no answer. It is stated in a note of Mr. Lettsom, charge 
 d'affaires of her Britannic' Majesty, to Don Lous de la Kosa, Mexican 
 minister for foreign affairs, under date of 22d April, 185(5, "6th. 
 That Mr. Falconnet, with a view of recovering his money, subsequently 
 made a legal cession of his privilege to Mr. Hargous, of New York ;. 
 that Mr. Falconnet, through his agents, on the 8th August, 1855, 
 informed the Mexican government of the cession being thus made ; but 
 that to this communication the Mexican government returned no an- 
 swer ; and that on the 5th November, 1855, Mr. Falconnet's agents 
 again addressed the Mexican government, requesting answers to their 
 letters of 2d June, 1853, and of the 25th February, 8th August, 
 and 5th November, 1855." 
 
 " 7th. That no answers were given to any of these communications 
 until the 26th November, 1855, when Mr. Falconnet was informed by 
 the minister of public works that that gentleman had been acknow- 
 ledged by the Mexican government as the owner of the privilege ; but 
 that the cession of it by him to Mr. Hargous was not recognized." 
 This information was given in a letter of this date from the minister 
 to Messrs. Letcher, Torre & Co., the agents of Mr. Falconnet, in 
 answer to the letters above-mentioned, recognizing Mr. Falconnet 
 to be " the possessor of the grant in question, according to the above 
 mentioned ountract of the 10th February, but not as regards the trans- 
 fer which he has made of his right to Mr. Peter Amedee Hargous, 
 as stated by you in your last mentioned communication." In the 
 note of 22d April, 1856, above referred to, Mr Lettson insists, on 
 behalf of Mr. Falconnet, as a British subject, that the concession made 
 by him to Mr. Hargous should be recognized as the means of recovering 
 his $600,000, and " that the time granted by the second article of tbe 
 privilege should'be reckoned naturally, only from the day (26 Novem- 
 ber, 1855) on which Mr. Falconnet's numerous applications to the 
 Mexican government were answered," (26 November, 1855.) This 
 sum has never been .refunded to Falconnet, although without his 
 money the contract could not have been obtained. It does not even 
 appear that any attempt has been made to refund it to this innocent 
 party, who had no interest in the transaction. So far from this, it may 
 
71 6 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 he fairly inferred from the 9th article of the charter of incorporation 
 under the law of Louisiana o'f the Tehuantepec Company, " founded 
 on the Sloo grant," that no intention exists of refunding this money, 
 until the amount shall be received by the company from the profits ot 
 the road. Mr. Falconnet, therefore, with strong apparent reason, 
 now claims to be the owner of the Sloo concession, under the recogni- 
 tion of the Mexican government, which, however, has withheld from 
 him the right of transferring, it to Mr. Hargous. 
 
 In any event it would appear that, whether the transaction be a 
 mortgage or an absolute title, neither Mr. Sloo nor the Tehuantepec 
 Company can, until they shall first refund the amount paid to Mr. 
 Falconnet to the Mexican government, with interest and damages, 
 deprive Mr. Falconnet of his interest in the concession. 
 
 On the 21st of June, 1853, and notwithstanding the default in the 
 payment of the bills drawn on A. G Sloo, he and his partners incor- 
 porated themselves by the name of " the Tehuantepec Company," 
 under a law of the State of Louisiana, passed in 1852. 
 
 The second clause of the contract with the Mexican government of 
 the 5th of February, 1853, required the contractors "to commence a 
 plank road at the point at which the river Coatzacoalcos ceases to be 
 navigable, in the year that this contract has been made, and to finish 
 it in three jears afier having commenced it. To begin the construe- 
 tion of a railroad in one year, counting from this last date, and to 
 finish said railroad, with all the necessary cars and engines, within 
 the four following years, notifying the supreme government in both 
 cases of having commenced the works, and of their being finished." 
 
 By the 14th article it is provided, that " the contractor shall incur 
 the penalty of losing the expenditure already made, the materials and 
 tools collected together in the territory of the republic, and the rights 
 conceded to him by the contract, if he does not commence and finish the 
 wheel road, and if he does not commence the railroad loithin the stipu- 
 lated time." 
 
 The Mexican government acted wisely in requiring the construction, 
 of a plank road in anticipation of the completion of the railroad. 
 This could have been speedily constructed through the Isthmus from 
 the nature of the ground and the quantity of timber which it supplies ; 
 and the commercial world, as well as the republic of Mexico, would 
 have derived great benefits from this road. They could then have 
 waited for the construction of a perfect and permanent railroad. 
 
 The Tehuantepec Company have violated their engagement, and 
 forfeited the contract under which they act, by not having, even until 
 this day, commenced the construction of the plank road. They have 
 never la d a plank upon the route, and probably never intended to do 
 this. In their charter under the Louisiana law, (^d article,) they 
 say nothing about the plank road, and simply declare that the 
 " corporation is established for the purpose of constructing a carriage 
 road," &c. 
 
 It is, however, alleged by the company that they have constructed 
 a carriage (not a plank) road across the Isthmus, and " the through 
 transit was efi"ected on the 4th February, (last,) being one day within 
 the limit prescribed by the original giant." Even if this were suffl- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT^ ETC. 717 
 
 cient, which it clearly is not, according to the address of the president 
 and directors of the Tehuantepec Company, dated at New Orleans on 
 the 9th of May last, it is not expected by them that the carriage road 
 can he made available for traffic and travel before the 1st of October 
 next. 
 
 But it is alleged that the Mexican government have accepted what 
 the company have done as a fulfilment of the original contract, and 
 have waived the construction of the plank road. I have seen no 
 sufficient evidence of this fact ; but even if it were well founded, this 
 could not have been done without the consent of the government of 
 the United States. Under the 8th article of the treaty with Mexico 
 of the 30th of December, 1853, the United States have acquired a ' 
 common interest with Mexico in " the early construction ot a plank 
 and railroad across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec," and without our 
 consent the forfeiture of the contract could not legitimately have been 
 waived. 
 
 The United States have a deep interest in the early construction of 
 this railroad, and it matters comparatively but little to them by whom 
 this object shall be accomplished. If the existing company were able 
 and willing to perform the task we should cheerfully waive all past 
 derelictions of duty on their part, and encourage them to proceed. I 
 regret to say, however, that it would seem almost impossible that the 
 railroad can be constructed by them. 
 
 Under the charter the capital stock is fixed at |10,000,000, and is 
 divided into 100,000 shares, of $100 each ; 50,000 shares, or one- half 
 of this capital stock, says the charter, " shall be held and retained by 
 A. G. Sloo and assignees, and be considered fully paid, as a compen- 
 sation for the contract." Thus one- half the entire capital is given to 
 Mr. Sloo as a bonus for ohtaining the contract, and is entirely sunk 
 as a fund for the construction of the road. In regard to the remain- 
 ing 50,000 shares, without descending to particulars, it is quite 
 evident, from a view of the charter, that but a small portion of these 
 can be rendered available for this purpose. In fact, it is not known 
 or believed that a single instalment was ever called in or paid upon 
 the stock subscribed.- On the contrary, there is good reason to believe 
 that Messrs. Sloo & Company intended to construct the entire road, 
 not by means derived from the stock, but by loans from Europe, 
 secured on the railroad. Even if this had been possible at the date of 
 the charter, it has now become impossible by the high rate of interest 
 in London and Paris. 
 
 Thus you will perceive that the complications are endless, and the 
 right of none of the contending parties is clear ; and thus the con- 
 struction of this great international highway has been hitherto pre- 
 vented. It is but just to observe, however, that on the face of the 
 papers the claim of Mr. Falconnet seems to be the best founded. 
 
 But the prospect for the construction of the road has now become 
 brighter ; because Mr. Falconnet, the Tehuantepec Company, and the 
 owners of the Garay grant have united their interests, and now seek 
 to obtain from the iVIexican government such modifications in the 
 Sloo grant as will secure the construction ot the road. If these modi- 
 
718 POST OFFICK DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 fications can be obtained, it is confidently believed that sufficient capi- 
 tal, enerfijy, and entei prise, will be enlisted to accomplish the object. 
 
 The Hon. J. P. Benjamin, senator in Congress, from Louisiana, 
 and JJmile La SerS, esq., of New Orleans, president of the Tehuan- 
 tepec Company, will proceed to Mexico for this purpose, and the latter 
 will bear you these instruttions. They will carry with them and de- 
 liver to you copies of the agreement between the respective parties 
 above mentioned, the deed of trust, in pursuance thereof, and a new 
 charter of incorporation under the law of Louisiana. 
 
 The capital of the new company is to be $10,000,000, divided into 
 shares of $100 each. Eight millions of this stock is to be held open 
 for subscription. The remaining two millions, in full paid certificates 
 of stock, together with one million of 8 per cent, bonds, are to be de- 
 livered to the parties entitled as a full consideration for the transfer 
 to the new company of the Garay grant and of all the rights of the 
 present Tehuantepec company. All their assets, property, the work 
 done, in short everything belonging to them, or either of them, on 
 the Isthmus, or elsewhere, are to be surrendered to the new company, 
 so that it shall come into existence released and discharged from all 
 liabilities whatever, except the claim of Mr. Sloo himself, who, it is 
 understood, is now engaged in a lawsuit with the existing company, 
 and who denies that the president and directors of this company fairly 
 represent the Sloo grant. < 
 
 No profits are to be divided arising from the transportation of pas- 
 sengers, merchandise, and other articles across the Isthmus until after 
 the completion of the railroad ; but these are to be faithfully applied 
 towards its construction. 
 
 The company are not <o divide, at any period of its existence, more 
 than at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum upon its capital stock; 
 and whenever the profits exceed this rate the tolls are to be reduced 
 to that standard. The new company are, of course, to be liable for 
 the contracts already entered into by the old company for mail coaches, 
 baggage wagons, and for making the bridges, completing the wagon 
 road, building piers, and furnishing steamboats for the navigation of 
 the Coatzacoalcos river. It is also to satisfy Mr. Falconnet for $600,000 
 advanced by him to the Mexican government, but it will indemnify 
 itself out of the interest of that government in the net profits of the 
 company, as provided for in the Sloo grant. 
 
 I have thus stated the general outlines of the new agreement, 
 because it has not, in its final form, been yet reduced to writing. 
 This arrangement furnishes strong reasons to believe that under it the 
 road will be constructed. The chief drawback is the controversy be- 
 tween Mr. Sloo and the present company, who, however, have posses- 
 sion of the Isthmus, and have been prosecuting the work at consider- 
 able expense. It is to be hoped that this controversy will be amicably 
 adjusted between the parties. You are hereby instructed, upon the 
 request of Messrs. Benjamin and La Ser^, to make known to the Mexi- 
 can government the object of their mission, and to give them such aid 
 in its accomplishment as you may deem advisable and effectual. 
 
 They may render themselves useful to you in obtaining the cessions 
 of territory irom Mexico embraced by your instructions, and, if deemed 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 719 
 
 expedient, you may employ their services for this purpose. They are 
 both gentlemen of high character and patriotic feelings, and will, I 
 have no doubt, do all that they can, in compliance with your wishes, 
 to render your negotiations successful. But you are to be exclusively 
 the judge in the matter. 
 
 Without intending to decide positively what are the rights of Mr. 
 Falconnet, which have been recognized by the Mexican government, 
 as heretofore stated, you are instructed to insist that that government 
 shall extend a similar recognition to any American citizen or com- 
 pany who has purchased or may purchase the same from or under Mr, 
 Falconnet. We cannot agree that any distinction shall be made in 
 favor of British subjects over American citizens. 
 
 But whatever may be the rights of the parties to conflicting Mexi- 
 can grants, the interests of the government and people of the Onited 
 States demand that their permanent right of way across the Isthmus 
 shall be placed upon sure treaty foundations. For this purpose I 
 transmit articles to be submitted to the Mexican government. The 
 first of these articles, after confirming the stipulations in favor of the 
 United States, in the 8th article of the treaty of December, 1853, and 
 rendering them applicable to any company or individuals -by whom 
 the road may be constructed, contains an express cession of the right 
 of transit across the Isthmus to the United States and their citizens, 
 in the most general and comprehensive terms, reserving however to 
 the Mexican republic its right of sovereignty. This article, with a 
 single exception, does no more than substantially carry into effect the 
 provision of the treaty of December, 1853, securing " the stable bene- 
 fits of the said transit way to the persons and merchandise of the 
 citizens of Mexico and the United States," and prohibiting either 
 government from interposing "any obstacle to the transit of persons 
 and merchandise of both nations." 
 
 The exception referred to is embraced in the stipulation that this 
 right of transit shall " be used and enjoyed in the same manner and 
 upon equal terms by both republics ;" whereas the 8th article of the 
 treaty of December, 1853, provides only that " at no time shall higher 
 charges be made on the transit of persons and property of citizens of 
 the United States than may be made on the persons and property of 
 other foreign nations." 
 
 It is certainly reasonable and equitable that the United States, even 
 upon the principle of mutual equivalents, should be placed upon an 
 equality with Mexico in the use and enjoyment of the transit. By 
 the next succeeding article, they agree to extend their protection to 
 all routes of communication across the Isthmus, and to guaranty the 
 neutrality of these routes, as well as bind themselves to exert their 
 influence with other nations to obtain from them a similar guaranty 
 of neutrality. 
 
 These are obligations of an important and responsible character, 
 without which it might be difficult to obtain the capital necessary for 
 the construction of the road ; and in consideration of these we may 
 justly claim to be placed upon the same footing with Mexico. But 
 we do not desire this for ourselves alone, as you will perceive by the 
 next succeeding article, but for all other nations. This provides for 
 
720 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 a perfect equality of the citizens and subjects of all nations with the 
 citizens of Mexico, in regard to charges and tolls on the railroad or 
 any other means of communication across the I-ethmus. 
 
 The contemplated railroad will he a thoroughfare for all the com- 
 mercial nations of the world, and the period has passed when restric- 
 tions of any kind upon such a thoroughfare can be patiently tolerated 
 for the benefit of one nation to the prejudice of the rest. The practice 
 of modern commercial nations, based upon the soundest policy, repu- 
 diates the idea that discriminations shall be made in favor of any 
 particular nation on the great avenues of international commerce. 
 Besides, this liberality is the true policy of Mexico. It will enable 
 the railroad within her territory to compete successfully with the 
 Panama railroad and other rival routes across the Isthmus. And, 
 after all, from her geographical position, she will deiive great and 
 peculiar advantages from the railroad of which she cannot be deprived. 
 Nature has secured these to her, and with these she ought to be sat- 
 isfied. 
 
 These views you are instructed to urge strongly upon the Mexican 
 government, and it is confidently hoped you will do this with success. 
 Should you fail in your efforts in favor of other nations, it is believed 
 you can obtain an equality for the United States with Mexico in this 
 particular. We shall most reluctantly yield this point. If we can 
 succeed, the equality of all nations on the route will soon follow. 
 
 Second article. I have already anticipated in the preceding obser- 
 vations much of what I had to say in relation to this article. It pro- 
 vides that the Mexican government shall establish two free ports, one 
 at either end of the Isthmus, where no tonnage or other duties shall 
 be levied on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of any 
 nation passing merely in transit from ocean to ocean, and not intended 
 for consumption in Mexico. The reasons will at once occur to your 
 mind against both the injustice and impolicy of any attempt on the 
 part of Mexico to raise a revenue by tonnage or other duties upon 
 articles merely passing in transitu over the road. To prevent all 
 future disputes, however, this ought to be expressly stipulated by 
 treaty. In regard to the two free ports, although deemed important, 
 these may be dispensed with if Mexico shall persistently refuse to 
 establish them. 
 
 Whilst it is believed that, under the treaty of December, 1853, the 
 Postmaster General already possesses the right to enter into a contract 
 to carry the mail of the United States in closed bags across the Isthmus, 
 yet, to prevent all disputes, it is deemed advisable to insert such a 
 clause as that proposed in the treaty. 
 
 The third article does no more than carry into effect and extend to 
 all the routes of communication which may now or hereafter exist 
 across the Isthmus the following provision in the eighth article of the 
 treaty of December, 1853 : " The Mexican government having agreed 
 to protect with its whole power the prosecution, preservation, and 
 security of the work, the United States may extend its protection, as 
 it shall judge wise, to it, when it may feel sanctioned and warranted 
 by the public or international laws." For this reason it is not pre- 
 sumed that objection will be made to this article. If the jealousy of 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 721 
 
 the Mexican government, however, should , interpose an insurmounta- 
 hle obstacle, the concluding portion of the article might be made to 
 read : " but upon failure to do this, for any cause whatever, the gov- 
 ernment of the United States may" extend its protection to all or any 
 such routes, according to the provisions of the eighth article of the 
 treaty of the 30th December, between the United States and Mexico. 
 
 The fourth article. This is confined merely to the troops, military 
 stores, and munitions of war belonging -to the two governments. It 
 will have no injurious effect upon the general commerce of the citizens 
 or subjects of any nation. Mexico and the United States are the two 
 nations on whom and on whose citizens the burden of the construction, 
 preservation, and protection of the road will chiefly rest, and who are 
 the most interested in its success. It cannot, therefore, be deemed 
 unreasonable that their troops, military stores, and munitions of war 
 should be transported over it free of toll ; this right, in regard to the 
 United States, being confined to such troops, military stores, and 
 munitions of war as may pass in transit between their Atlantic 
 possessions. Should it be found impracticable to induce the Mexican 
 government to assent to the portion of thi^article in favor of the 
 United States, it might be so modified as to ^Iscribe that the troops 
 of the United States only shall pass free of toll, their military stores, 
 and munitions of war paying no more than one-half of the usual rates.; 
 
 Article fifth. It is almost certain that the railroad across tha 
 Isthmus, if properly conducted, will eventually become a source oi"' 
 immense profit to the stockholders. This article is therefore intended-. 
 to prevent this profit from becoming too extravagant, and thus ta. 
 protect the citizens and subjects of all nations against the imposition. 
 
 I desire you to understand distinctly that the exercise of any influ- 
 ence on your part in favor of the changes in the Sloo grant sought to 
 be obtained from the Mexican government by Messrs. Benjamin and, 
 La Sere will be on condition that the new grant shall conform to the- 
 stipulations in the foregoing articles. 
 
 Thus the President, confiding in your patriotism and abilities, has. 
 entrusted to you a most important negotiation. Should you succeed,, 
 this will be productive of great and enduring benefits to your country,., 
 and entitle your name to be enrolled in the list of her most distin- 
 guished diplomatists. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 LEWIS CASS.. 
 
 John Forsyth, Esq., cfec, <&c., &c. 
 
 Akticlb 1 . In addition to the stipulations contained in the 8th article^ 
 of the treaty between the United States and the Mexican republic,, 
 dated the 30th of December, 1853, all of which are hereby confirmed, no- 
 matter by whatcompany or individuals the plank and rail road, or either- 
 of them therein mentioned, may be constructed, the Mexican republic, 
 hereby cedes to the United States in perpetuity, and to their citizens and 
 property, the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Tehuan te- 
 pee, from ocean to ocean, over any railroad or other route of commu- 
 nication, natural or artificial, whether by land or by water, whick, 
 H. Eep. Com. 648 46 
 
722 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 may now or hereafter exist, or be constructed, to be used and enjoyed 
 in the same manner and upon equal terms by both republics and their 
 respective citizens ; the Mexican republic, however, reserving its right 
 of sovereignty over the same. 
 
 Article 2. The United States hereby agree to extend their prolec- 
 tion to any such railroad, and to all other routes of communication 
 across the Isthmus aforesaid, and to guarantee the neutrality of the 
 same. They also agree to employ their influence with other nations 
 to induce them to guarantee such neutrg,lity. And the Mexican 
 republic, on its part, hereby undertakes, within from the ex- 
 change of the ratifications of this treaty, to establish two free ports — 
 one on the Grulf of Mexico, on the eastern, and the other on the Pacific, 
 on the western side of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec — where no tonnage 
 or other duties shall be imposed or levied by the Mexican government 
 on any effects or merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of the 
 United States, or of any other country, intended bona fide for transit 
 across the Isthmus, and not for consumption within the territories of 
 Mexico. And no higher or other charges or tolls shall be imposed on 
 the conveyance or tran^ of persons and property of citizens or sub- 
 jects of the United St"s, or of any other country, on or over any 
 lailroad or other route of communication across the Isthmus, than are 
 imposed on the persons and property of Mexican citizens. And the 
 Mexican republic recognizes the right of the Postmaster' General of 
 the United States to enter into contracts with individuals or compa- 
 snies to transport the mails of the United States across the Isthmus, in 
 ►closed bags, not intended for distribution along the line of communi- 
 •cation, free from the imposition of all taxes or duties by the Mexican 
 .government. 
 
 Aetiolb 3. The Mexican republic agrees that, should it become 
 ■necessary at any time to employ military force for the security and 
 .protection of persons and property passing over these routes, or any 
 of them, it will employ the requisite force for that purpose; but upon 
 failure to do this, for any cause whatever, the government of the 
 United States may, in its own discretion, employ such force for this 
 and for no other purpose, and when the necessity ceases, such force 
 shall be immediately withdrawn. 
 
 Article 4. The Mexican republic and the United States mutually 
 .agree that no charges or tolls whatever shall be imposed upon any 
 railroad, or other route of communication, for the conveyance over it 
 of Mexican troops, military stores and munitions of war ; nor of troops, 
 military/Stores and munitions of war of the United States, passing in 
 transit, backwards and forwards, between their Atlantic possessions. 
 
 Article 5. No company now in existence, or which may hereafter 
 be established, for the construction of a railroad, or any other route of 
 ■communication across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, shall ever divide 
 .more than at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum to its stockholders 
 from tolls collected upon the same ; and whenever the rate of tolls 
 shall be found to exceed this amount, they shall be reduced to the 
 iStandard.af jfifteen per cent, per annum. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTlftllilT, ETC. 723 
 
 Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Oass. 
 
 [Extracts.] 
 
 No. 48.]- Lbsation of the United States, 
 
 City of Mexico, September 15, 1857. 
 Sib : Department despatches, Nos. 27 and 28 of the series, have 
 been placed in my handai by the Hon. Emile Las^re, to whom they 
 were entrusted. 
 
 ******** 
 
 In respect to the privileges required by my instructions on the 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, there would not have been much difficulty, 
 had I been authorized to purchase them. * * * j ^^d, before 
 receiving these instructions, sounded the government on the Isthmus 
 question, and had asbertained that I could, for a consideration, obtain 
 concessions even more ample than those contemplated in my instruc- 
 tions — concessions that would have given the virtual protectorate and 
 military occupation of that transit to the United States. 
 
 Messrs. Benjamin and LasSre will, of course, report to the depart- 
 ment the result of their private mission on behalf of the Garay, Har- 
 gous, and Louisiana Tehuantepec Compa,ny interests. In obedience 
 to your directions, I introduced these gentlemen to the president, and 
 informed him that I was instructed to say that their scheme had the 
 approval of my government, and that I was ordered to support it. 
 Of the course and private history of their negotiations I am unable to 
 speak, for I know nothing. ***** 
 
 The department will perceive, from the copy of the contract, here- 
 with enclosed, which Messrs. Benjamin and Lasere have concluded in 
 the form of a grant to the Louisiana company, that it is neithei' in the 
 shape nor in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth in 
 your instructions to me. * * * * j (Ji,j ti^e only thing I could 
 to compel conformity to the instructions and to protect the interests of 
 the government of the United States, and this was, in the midst of 
 the mysterious negotiation, to call upon the president, and bring 
 pointedly to his attention the following extract from your instructions, 
 marking the condition upon which I was ordered to support the views 
 of Messrs. Benjamin and Las§re. The following is the extract : "I 
 desire you to understand distinctly that the exercise of any influence 
 on your part in favor of the changes in the Sloo grant sought to be 
 obtained from the Mexican government by Messrs. Benjamin and 
 LasSre will be on condition that the new grant shall conform to the 
 stipulations in the foregoing articles." I read to the president the 
 articles referred to, and told him that * * * * I felt it my duty 
 to say that my influenqe, as the representative of the United States, 
 in favor of the arrangement to be made, was to be considered as given 
 or withheld according as the arrangement was or was not in confor- 
 mity with these articles. The president replied that the matter con- 
 tained in these articles was of very grave and delicate import, requiring 
 the serious consideration of the Mexican government ; that he could 
 not, in such an informal interview, presume to give an opinion .upou 
 
724 POST OFFfbE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 the sutject, and advised that the matter should be brought formally 
 before the government through ^the minister of .relations. In respect 
 to Messrs. Benjamin and Lasere, he remarked, that they had been 
 introduced to him by me as the minister of the United States, and 
 recommended to his favorable consideration, as I had been instructed 
 to say, by the President of the United States ; that he was treating 
 with them as private persons, and making a contract for the best ad- 
 vantage of Mexico, and he could not perceive what either the govern- 
 ment of the United States, or the minister .of the United States, had 
 to do with a question which was altogether and exclusively a Mexican 
 
 I^T^Q 'I- 'K •!• 'I* 
 
 I regret that the public negotiation confided to me has not had so 
 happy an issue as the private one of Messrs. Benjamin and Lasere. 
 While these gentlemen carry home with them a privilege, be it worth 
 more or less, the government of the United States gets nothing, and, 
 I fear, loses something. It is certain that it has lost the valuable 
 time intervening between the receipt of my instructions and the 16th 
 instant, when Gen. Commonfort's full powers cease. * * * 
 
 The note of Mr. Lerdo, of the 12th instant, in reply to mine of the 
 5th, taken in connexion with the restrictions of the 21st article of the 
 late grant to the Louisiana company, appeared to me to have a sig- 
 nificance that I could not let pass. I accordingly addressed a note to 
 Mr. Lerdo, dated. 15th instant, a copy of which is inclosed, protest- 
 ing, in the name of my government, against any act or-interpretation 
 of any act by the government of Mexico which would in the smallest 
 degree diminish the security and effect of the guaranties contained in 
 the 8th article of the Gadsden treaty, warning Mexico that under no 
 circumstances would the United States yield a jot of the rights ac- 
 quired by that treaty. 
 
 ******** 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN FORSYTH. 
 Hon. Lewis Oass, cfcc, (&c. 
 
 [ Extracts. ] 
 
 Legation of the United States, 
 
 Mexico, September 5, 1857. 
 ******** 
 Second. The second object embraced in the proposed negotiatiom 
 relates to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. And as these objects cannot 
 be more succinctly stated than they are in the draught ot articles for 
 the proposed treaty, the undersigned transmits to his excellency a 
 copy of' these. 
 
 For the purpose of avoiding misunderstanding and unnecessary 
 subsequent explanations, the undersigned has the honor to state that 
 the concessions asked for in reference to Tehuantepec * * * are 
 unaccompanied by the offer of any pecuniary compensation. 
 
 If the government of Mexico should be inclined to entertain a treaty 
 negotiation, and for the objects briefly designated in this note, the un- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARIMENT, ETC. 725 
 
 dersigned is ready, at tlie pleasure of his excellency, to enter upon a 
 conference to that end. 
 
 The undersigned takes this occasion to assure his excellency of his 
 very high consideration. 
 
 JOHN FOliSYTH. 
 His Excellency Senor Don Sebastian Lbrdo db Tbjada, 
 
 Minister of Belatims. 
 
 [ Extracts of Translation. ] 
 
 National Palace, 
 Mexico, September 12, 1857. 
 
 The undersigned, minister of foreign relations of the republic, has 
 the honor to reply to the note which his excellency John Forsyth, 
 envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States, 
 addressed to him on the 5th instant. 
 
 In it his excellency has been pleased to state that, in compliance 
 with the instructions of his government, he transmits * ' * * 
 * * * stipulations relative to interoceanic communication 
 across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. His excellency adds, that he is 
 ready to confer, if the government of Mexico is disposed to open ae- 
 gotiations for such purpose. 
 
 The undersigned felt it his duty to communicate the contents of the 
 note * * * to his excellency the president of the republic, 
 receiving his sanction to the following reply. 
 
 Eespecting the * * draught, various concessions are likewise 
 therein proposed : as that of the perpetual right of way, the right to 
 pass an armed force, and the full power of granting [otorgar] protec- 
 tion on the Isthmus, which stipulations Mexico could not admit, inso- 
 much as they depreciate her rights of sovereignty over that territory. 
 
 Nevertheless, retaining its full and unqualified rights, the govern- 
 ment of the republic is disposed to endeavor, in the most fitting 
 manner, to encourage and secure the benefits of interoceanic com- 
 munication, not only in favor of the interests and commerce of Mex- 
 ico, but also in favor of the commerce of the United States and other 
 nations. 
 
 For these reasonsj the negotiations might be fruitless, if his excel- 
 lency, Mr. Forsyth, following his instructions, cannot consent to 
 abandon the points indicated ; but if he feels at liberty to modify the 
 proposals substantially, or to draw up new ones which shall not be 
 repugnant to the spirit of this note, there will then be no obstacle to 
 overtures with the Mexican govern meilt, animated as it is by the ami- 
 cable sentiments consonant with the happy relations subsisting be- 
 tween the two republics. 
 
 The undersigned has the honor of reiterating to his excellency Mr. 
 Forsyth, the assurances of his very distinguished consideration. 
 
 S. LERDO DE TEJADA. 
 
 His Excellency John Foksyth, 
 
 Envoy Extraordinary, and 
 
 Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States, 
 
726 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 [Extracts.] 
 
 Legation op the United States, 
 
 Mexico, September 15, ISST. 
 
 The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
 of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the 
 note of his .excellency the minister of relations of the 12th instant, 
 in which he is informed that the government of Mexico declines en- 
 tering into negotiations for a treaty on the hasis of * * * 
 certain concessions to the United States on the Isthmus of Tehuante- 
 pec. The time having passed when the undersigned would have felt 
 authorized to depart from the letter of his instructions in the forma- 
 tion of a treaty, he has now nothing to do but to report to his gov- 
 ernment the answer of the Mexican government to its proposals, and 
 to await its further instructions. 
 
 The undersigned cannot permit this occasion to pass without ad- 
 verting to a pas8<ige in his excellency's note, which, taken in con- 
 nexion with the spirit of a late contract, made by the Mexican gov- 
 ernment with the Louisiana Company, for the opening of the Tehuan- 
 tepec Isthmus route, appears to have an important significancy. His 
 excellency statey, among other things, that "the right to pass an 
 armed force" over the Isthmus, if granted by Mexico, would "depre- 
 ciate her rightsof sovereignty over that territory;" while, in the grant 
 to the Louisiana Company, dated the Yth instant, a restriqtion is 
 placed upon the company in article 20, which absolutely forbids it to 
 transport armed forces, foreign or national, over any road or transit 
 it may control. The undersigned has to observe that, if the granting 
 of a permission by Mexico to the United States for the transit of her 
 troops and munitions across the Isthmus be equivalent to a deprecia- 
 tion of Mexican rights of sovereignty over that territory, then Mexico 
 has already, quo ad hoc, parted with that sovereignty. In the 8th 
 article of the treaty of 30th December, 1853, it is provided, among 
 other things, that "'the two governments will enter into arrange- 
 ments for the prompt transit of troops and munitions of the United 
 States, which that government may have occasion to send from one 
 part of its territory to another, lying on opposite sides of the conti- 
 nent." It is true, the "arrangements" here spoken of have never 
 been made, but it is only because, up to this moment, the way across 
 the Isthmus has not been opened, and there has been no occasion for 
 the United States to ask for the fulfilment of this stipulation. When 
 that occasion does present itself the United States government will 
 insist, and will have a right to insist, upon the arrangements 
 necessary and proper to perfect the right, conferred by Mexico in this 
 article, to pass her troops promptly across the Isthmus. The under- 
 signed would fail to act in the spirit of his instructions from his gov- 
 ernment did he not protest, as he now does, against any act or decla- 
 ration, or any interpretation of any act or declaration, of the Mexican 
 government, which may be supposed to call in question, or place 
 in jeopardy, the clear guarantees of the 8th article of the treaty of 
 1853. Peculiarly placed as the territories of the United States are, 
 
PO^T OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 727 
 
 on the borders of the two oceans, with Mexican territory intervening, 
 and offering a transit fully eight days shorter for the passage of her 
 citizens, her merchandise, and her troops, than hy any other route, 
 it is not to he expected that the United States, in an age when steam 
 and electricity have made the saving of time so important an element 
 of progress, can forego the advantages or yield up the privileges 
 guaranteed to her by solemn treaty stipulations. So far from it, the 
 government of the United States feels that it has a right to expect 
 from the comity of a friendly and neighboring republic an extension 
 of the facilities and privileges of transit over this important highway, 
 it being always understood that they are to be enjoyed in perfect con- 
 sistency with the sovereign rights of Mexico over that territory, and 
 without detriment to the interests, the honor, or the prosperity of the 
 Mexican government or people. 
 
 This interesting question is surely destined to be the object of early 
 investigation and negotiation between the two governments ; and if 
 the undersigned should chance to be the minister of the United States 
 when that time arises, he does not despair of being able to demon- 
 strate, by fair argument, not only that the government of Mexico can 
 treat with that of the United States in the spirit of the Tehuantepec 
 articles, lately submitted to it, without depreciating her rights of 
 sovereignty, bat thkt such a course is consistent with her clearest 
 duty and highest national interests. 
 
 The undersigned takes this occasion to assure his excellency of his 
 distinguished consideration. 
 
 JOHN FOESYTH. 
 
 His Excellency Senor Don Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, 
 
 Minister of Relations. 
 
 [Translation.] 
 
 'Department of Interior, [Fomento,] Colonisation, Industry, and Com- 
 merce of the Mexican Republic. 
 
 FIFTH SEOTIOSr. 
 
 His excellency the president of the republic has transmitted to me 
 the following decree : 
 
 Ignacio Oomonfort, president of the Mexican republic, to the 
 inhabitants thereof : Know ye, that, using the powers granted to me 
 by the plan of Ayutla, remodelled at Acapulco, I have thought proper 
 to issue the following decree : 
 
 Sole article. The privilege granted on the 5th of February, 1853, 
 to Mr. A. G. Sloo and associates, and to the company entitled 
 " Mixed," for the opening of interoceanic communication through 
 the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, is declared null and void ; the grantees 
 having violated the obligations imposed by the decree of the above 
 
728 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 date. Wherefore, I order it to be printed, published, circulated, and 
 duly carried into effect. 
 
 Issued in the palace of Tacubaya, September 3, 1857. 
 
 IGNACIO COMONFOKT. 
 
 To the citizen Manuel Siliceo. 
 
 Communicated for your information and proper action. 
 God and liberty. Mexico, September 3, 1857. 
 
 SILICEO. 
 
 FIFTH SECTION. 
 
 His excellency the president of the republic has transmitted to me 
 the following decree :. 
 
 The citizen Ignacio Comonfort, president of the Mexican republic, 
 to the inhabitants thereof: Know ye, that, using the power granted 
 to me by the plan proclaimed at Ayutla, and remodelled at Acapulco, 
 I have thought proper to issue the following decree : 
 
 Art. 1. A privilege is conceded to the company formed in New 
 Orleans on the 30th of July of the present year, called the " Louisiana 
 Tehuantepec Company," for the opening of an interoceanic commu- 
 'nication across the Isthmus of that name, according to the conditions 
 expressed in the present decree. 
 
 2. The company shall establish the communication by water in the 
 navigable part of the Coatzacoalcos, and from the point where that 
 river ceases to be navigable shall begin the roads referred to in the 
 two succeeding articles. 
 
 3. The company shall coTistruct a railroad, which shall be com- 
 menced in eighteen months from the date of this decree, and finish 
 in each year a length of ten leagues (26 miles 73^ yards) until the 
 entire completion of the line. 
 
 4. Until the railroad is completed, the company shall keep in good 
 serviceable order a convenient road, with the necessary bridges, for 
 the passage of carriages conveying passengers and merchandise of 
 small weight. 
 
 5. As soon as the necessary surveys are made, and the plans drawn 
 by the engineers for the line of the road, they shall be submitted to 
 the minister of fomento (internal improvements) for his approval. 
 
 6. The company shall build, at its own cost, within two years from 
 the completion, of the railroad, the moles and dykes necessary for the 
 line of communication in the ports of Coatzacoalcos and Ventosa, 
 which are open for foreign commerce. It shall immediately construct 
 such works as are necessary for discharging vessels and protecting 
 merchandise frc m damage. 
 
 7. The government grants to the company the lands necessary for 
 the carriage road and railroad,'the moles, dykes, warehouses, depots, 
 stations, sheds for stages and other carriages, and hotels for passen- 
 gers ; but if the public land is insufScient for these purposes, the com- 
 pany shall take lands of private proprietbrs, indemnifying the owners 
 according to law. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 729 
 
 8. The company may take gratis from public lands materials neces- 
 sary for the construction and preservation of the road, and its appur- 
 tenances. It may also use materials from private lands, indemnifying 
 the owners according to law. 
 
 _ 9. The exclusive privilege of transport by the line of communica- 
 tion is granted to the company, which shall consequently have power 
 to levy tolls, transit dues, storages, and any other dues for freight of 
 merchandise, or conveyance of passengers ; but the tariff fixed by it 
 shall not exceed fifty cents per league for each passenger, nor three 
 cents per league for each arroba (twenty-five pounds) of merchandise, 
 nor one per cent, on the value of precious metals and jewels, for car- 
 riage across the entire length of the road. 
 
 10. The government shall exact no impost nor contribution of any 
 kind, whether on the transit of merchandise or passengers, or on the 
 capital invested in the road ; but the company shall pay the govern- 
 ment each month twelve cents for each passenger and each package of 
 merchandise carried across the general line. 
 
 11. During the time necessary for the construction of the road the 
 company may import into the Isthmus, free of duty, the materials, 
 engines, iron work, carriages, and tools necessary for the construction 
 and preservation of the road and its appurtenances, as well as such 
 objects of first necessity as are not found on the Isthmus, and as may 
 be required for the maintenance and clothing of the laborers and per- 
 sons employed on the road. After that time the company shall have 
 the right to import free of duty only the engines, cars, and rails 
 necessary for the road. This latter exemption shall last during the 
 whole term of the privilege ; and this, as well as the exemption first 
 mentioned, shall be used in accordance with the rules to be issued by 
 the minister of the treasury. 
 
 12. The government will protect with its whole power the prose- 
 cution, preservation, and security of the work. 
 
 13. The right granted to the company for the conveyance of mer- 
 chandise shall be subject to rules to be issued by the minister of the 
 treasury, having for their object the prevention of abuses, and espe- 
 cially the facilitating of the prompt despatch of the merchandise. 
 This right shall not confer on the company the privilege of opening 
 any stores for sale of merchandise on the Isthmus. 
 
 14. The government shall keep open, for foreign commerce, the 
 ports of Coatzacoalcos, on the G-ulf of Mexico, and of Ventosa, on the 
 Pacific. 
 
 15. The company shall construct first-class light-houses on both 
 termini of the line of communication, and another in the port of 
 Acapulco. The first two to be finished within seven years, and the 
 third within ten years from this date, which shall belong exclusively 
 to the government. It shall also deepen the bar and bed of the Coat- 
 zacoalcos river, if practicable, according to plans to be approved by 
 the minister of fomento, ' 
 
 16. The present privilege shall last sixty years from this date, 
 during ail which time the government shall receive fifteen per cent, of 
 the net revenues of the whole line whenever dividends are declared to 
 the shareholders. During all this time the exemptions and other 
 
730 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 rights conceded to the, CDmpany by the decree shall be valid and ex- 
 clusive, and shall not be changed except by mutual consent ; and at 
 the end of these sixty years the government shall enter into full and 
 absolute possession of the road^ with all its trains, (which shall be at 
 least sufficient for the daily carriage of five hundred passengers and 
 ten thousand arrobas of merchandise,) tools, and appurtenances ; it 
 being understood that the whole is to be delivered in a perfectly ser- 
 viceable state for current use, the rails, cars, machines, and utensils, 
 not to be more than half worn. The ships and. steamboats of the 
 company are not included in this obligation. 
 
 17. The company assumes the payment to Mr. Francisco P. Fal- 
 connet of the six hundred thousand dollars, with interest and damages 
 legally due, lent to the Sloo enterprise, to enable it to comply with 
 the 14th article of the contract of the 5th February, 1853, liberating 
 the government from all future responsibility, and without diminish- 
 ing its share of net profits fixed in the preceding article. 
 
 18. The company shall convey to any point of its whole line, free 
 of charge, the mails which pass on the road, receiving and delivering 
 them with the regular formalities. It shall also convey, for half its 
 tariff of prices, all products and objects belonging to the government. 
 It shall also convey gratis, going and returning, the officers, troops, 
 employes, and agents of the general government, and of the iStates 
 when travelling 6n public service. The metals and agricultural and 
 manufactured products of the republic shall be conveyed for twenty- 
 five- per cent, less than the tariff of prices under regulations to be 
 issued by the minister of the treasury. 
 
 19. The government shall name two of the nine directors of the 
 company, with the same faculties and prerogatives as the other direo- 
 tors, and may establish a commission on the Isthmus to watch the 
 works undertaken in conformity with this privilege. 
 
 20. The following restrictions are imposed on the company: 1. It 
 shall construct no fortress on the Isthmus, nor organize an armed 
 Ibrce of any kind, nor give passage to any armed force, national or 
 foreign, without the express authorization of the general government. 
 2. It shall immediately discharge from its service any of its employes 
 engaged in smuggling, or protecting smuggling, or who shall commit 
 any offence, and shall aid the government in prosecuting the delin- 
 quents. 3. It shall enforce any measures designated by the general 
 government for the purpose of compelling all passengers to obey the 
 revenue laws of the republic. 
 
 21. The company, and ail foreigners who may take part in it, 
 whether as shareholders or by any other right which may entitle them 
 to intervene in its operations, share in its profits, or claim any of its 
 concessions, shall have no greater rights than Mexicans, nor any other 
 means of enforcing them than those conceded to the latter by the laws 
 of the republic. All questions of this kind, and those which may 
 arise in relation to the acquisition, preservation, or loss of shares or 
 rights in the said road, shall be decided by competent national tribu^ 
 nals in conformity with law. The employes and servants of the com- 
 pany shall be subject to the same conditions. 
 
 22. The restrictions of the preceding article shall not apply to dis- 
 
POiT OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 731 
 
 putes or differences between foreign shareholders not within the re- 
 public, for, in this case, such disputes may be examined and decided 
 as if this restriction did not exist. But these decisions of foreign 
 tribunals shall in no manner affect the prescriptions of this decree, 
 nor those of the company to which the privilege is conceded, which 
 is to be reputed Mexican for all the purposes of the concession, nor 
 Mexican interests. 
 
 23. The company shall not transfer, alienate nor hypothecate this 
 privilege without previous consent of the government, nor admit as a 
 partner, in any case, any foreign government or state. 
 
 24. The transit by the line of communication shall be free for all 
 the inhabitants of the world ; but the freight on merchandise of na- 
 tions who may not make a neutrality treaty with Mexico shall be 
 increased twenty-five per cent. 
 
 25. The company shall open lists in Mexico for a period of four 
 months for subscription to its stock by Mexicans, and a third of the 
 whole of its shares shall be reserved for that purpose. After that 
 period, the company shall be at liberty to place its shares at any point 
 in the United States or Europe. 
 
 26. The company shall have the right to convey by its line of com- 
 munication, in closed bags, which shall not be opeped, foreign mails ; 
 and these bags shall be sealed by the postmasters or collectors of 
 customs. 
 
 27. There is conceded to the company the exclusive privilege of 
 navigating the river Coatzacoalcos, under the Mexican flag, during 
 the whole time of the concession, establishing for the service of the 
 line steamboats or sbips, which shall not be bound to be provided with 
 such officers and crews as the laws require for vessels reputed national ; 
 but their captains, employes, and servants shall be subject to the pro- 
 visions of the twenty-first article of this decree. 
 
 28. The privilege conceded in the foregoing article shall not prevent 
 the inhabitants, owners of plantations or other property, situated on 
 the banks of the river, importing objects which they may need, or 
 exporting their agricultural or manufactured products in vessels of 
 Mexican build and under the Mexican flag. 
 
 29. The vessels of the company used solely for conveying corre- 
 spondence and merchandise for transit across the whole line shall be 
 free from tonnage duty. 
 
 30. The company shall convey in its vessels, free of cost, the mails 
 which may come from any point of the republic, or may be sent from 
 the republic to any point at which its vessels touch, receiving and 
 delivering them in due form ; in the same way it shall convey, for 
 half its tariff rates, all articles the property of the government, and 
 without charge, whether going or returning, the officers, troops, em- 
 ployes, and agents of the general government or of the States when 
 travelling on public service. Metals and the products of the agricul- 
 ture and manufactures of the republic shall be carried for twenty-five 
 per cent, less than the tariff price. 
 
 31. The maximum tariff of prices on the vessels of the company 
 shall be three-fourths of that fixed for the railroad. 
 
 32. If the company should req[uire for depot or winter quarters any 
 
732 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 other port on the Pacific than Ventosa, it shall give the preference to 
 Acapulco. 
 
 33. The company shall appoint an agent in Mexico with the neces- 
 sary powers and instructions for coming to an understanding with the 
 general goverment and other authorities of the republic on all mat- 
 ters which refer to the ohligations imposed on it by this decree. 
 
 34. This privilege shall become null and void if the company shall 
 not comply with any of the obligations, or shall infringe the restric- 
 tions imposed in the present decree, as well as for a suspension of its 
 work on the road for the space of four months. In any of these events 
 it shall not only lose the concession, of which the Mexican government 
 may dispose at its pleasure, hut all the expenses incurred and work 
 done on the Isthmus, which shall remain for the profit of the nation ; 
 and shall also pay a fine ot $50,000, which shall be secured to the 
 satisfaction of the minister of fomento. 
 
 35. In case there should be any doubt or difference in the execution 
 or interpretation of this privilege, it shall be, decided by arbitrators 
 and amicable compounders, one named by the government and the 
 other by the company, who, before beginningtheir examination, shall 
 name a third in case of disagreement. Against the decrees of these 
 arbitrators and the umpire there shall be no appeal nor recourse 
 whatever. 
 
 Wherefore, I order that this be printed, published, circulated, and 
 duly enforced. 
 
 Given in the national palace of Mexico, on the Tth of September, 1857. 
 
 I. COMONFOET. 
 To the citizen Manuel Siliceo. 
 
 And I communicate it to you for your information and due results, 
 God and liberty. Mexico, September 7, 1857. 
 
 SILICEO. 
 
 Mr. Brown to Mr. Cass. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, May 24, 1858. 
 Sir: In reply to your communication of the 21st instant, enclosing 
 a copy of the resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 19th 
 instant, calling for information respecting the transit over the Isthmus 
 of Tehuantepec, I have the honor to enclose a copy of a letter which I 
 have just prepared and will send to the chairman of the Post Office 
 Committee, in reply to a call made by the committee on the same sub- 
 ject, which I hope will be satisfactory. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 AAEON V. BEOWN. 
 Hon. Lewis Cass, 
 
 Secretary , of State. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 733 
 
 Mr. Brown to Mr. English, 
 
 Post Oefiob Dbpaetment, 
 Washington, May 24, 1858. 
 
 Sib : In reply to your communication of the 20th instant, I have 
 the honor to state that no contract has heen entered into with any 
 party or parties to carry the California mails by the Tehuantepec 
 route. Applications for such a contract having been repeatedly made 
 verbally, and, perhaps, in writing, the department advertised for pro- 
 posals, which may be seen in the printed pamphlet of Proposals for 
 Louisiana, page 51. Having advertised for proposals on this line, 
 and received one or more bids on it, the department, after taking 
 suitable time for deliberation, has come to the conclusion to establish 
 mail service thereon from New Orleans, via Tehuantepec, to Acapulco, 
 provided a satisfactory contract can be made for that purpose. The 
 service is not proposed to be put on further than to Acapulco, because 
 the present line of steamers from Panama to San Francisco always 
 touch at Acapulco, and can take on the New Orleans mails and pas- 
 sengers.* It is not, however, proposed to make the first contract for 
 a longer period than one year from 1st October next, so that this con- 
 tract and the one from New York to Aspinwall may expire at the 
 same time. In the course of this year the practicability of the Te- 
 huantepec route may have been fujly tested, and its capability to 
 fiirnish the shortest, cheapest, and safest mail route to Oaliforuia fully 
 demonstrated. The department, by the simultaneous expiration of 
 the contracts on these two routes, will be enabled to determine which 
 one to select, or whether to keep up both, accommodating the mails 
 and the passengers from New York and New Orleans, respectively, but 
 paying according to the amount of mail service rendered. 
 
 It is alleged that, by starting this line from New Orleans, corre- 
 spondence from the Atlantic side will be received nearly one week 
 later than at present, and from California to the Atlantic States in 
 like proportion — that is to say, that whilst letters sent from Boston and 
 New York to California, by Panama, would reach Acapulco about 
 
 days after they had been written ; others sent from New Orleans, 
 
 via Tehuantepec, to Acapulco would reach them in about days ; 
 
 thus practically furnishing nearly a weekly mail, instead of a semi- 
 monthly communication, as at present. 
 
 The terms of the contract are not yet definitely settled, and, there- 
 fore, cannot be set forth ; but the department does not anticipate much 
 difficulty in being able to obtain the service on reasonable and satis- 
 factory term.1. The authority of this department to make such aeon- 
 tract may be found in the second section of the act of March 3, 1851, 
 which the Postmaster Greneral considers ample and undoubted. 
 
 Serious doubts have been expressed as to whether the road has been 
 yet or will be made in time sufficient for the performance of the con- 
 
 *It is not here intended that the line is to the port of Acapulco, but it is mentioned only 
 as a designation of the place at or near which the two lines are to be merged into one. The 
 legal form of the contract will be for service from Pfew Orleans to San Francisco, both being 
 Ajnerioan ports, and strictly within the act of 1851. 
 
734 POST OFFICE DEPAETMKNT, ETC. 
 
 templated service. The department, however, will take care, in making 
 any contract, to provide that where there is no service there shall be 
 no pay, and that no fines or forfeitures shall be remitted for failures 
 arising from a want of a suitable road or for obstacles presented by 
 the insufficiency of river navigation, or of the bays, at either terminus 
 of the transit. If, therefore, the river, bay, or road, shall not be suf- 
 ficient, the contractors, not the government, will be the losers by it. 
 
 The Tehuantepec route has long been a favorite one with the gov- 
 ernment and people of the United States. No opportunity has been 
 lost in endeavoring to secure it. Having at last secured it, by the 
 terms of the Gadsden treaty, and a reasonable probability now exist- 
 ing that the route has been, or will in a short time be, placed in a 
 condition to receive the service, the department sees no good reason 
 why it should not enter on the enjoyment of those advantages so 
 earnestly desired and so long anticipated by the people and govern- 
 ernment of the United States. 
 
 In proposing to make this contract, the Postmaster General does 
 not intend to decide any controversy which now exists, or may here- 
 after arise, between rival claimants under the grants or decrees of the 
 Mexican government. Who are the true owners of the right to make 
 the road is left to the proper tribunals to determine. It is enough for 
 the department that parties of undoubted responsibility, claiming to 
 be in possession of the road and to be the lawful owners of it, have 
 proposed to perform the desired service. If in this there shall be any 
 mistake, the contract with the parties will terminate with their loss of 
 the road, and the department be as ready to contract with the success- 
 ful claimants as with the present ones. In any point of view, it would 
 seem to be the interest of the true owner of this right, whoever he 
 may be, that this contract should be made. It will materially aid in 
 the early completion of the road, and furnish the assurance that after 
 the United States had entered on the use .of it, in the transmission of 
 their mails, no wanton or illegal revocation of the right would be 
 tolerated. 
 
 The department in arriving at the conclusion that the time had 
 come when the mail service of the United States ought to be placed 
 upon this new and additional route, has not been influenced, in the 
 slightest degree, by mere geographical partialities. Kightly consid- 
 ered, there is no rival and separate interests of the north or northeast 
 to be prejudiced by the establishment of this route. 
 
 If it be shorter, safer, and more expeditious than other routes^ it 
 can and will be adopted by the people of that portion of the United 
 States, both for postal and travelling purposes, as freely and fully as 
 by those of the west and southwest. If it present no such striking 
 advantages, then more southern transits, such as Panama, Ohiriqui, 
 Nicaragua, &c. , will continue to be used by all the northern or north- 
 eastern portion of the Union, while that of Tehuantepec would proba- 
 bly be used by the people of the west and of southwestern States, whose 
 geographical positions rendered it to them the most desirable transit. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 AARON V. BEOWN. 
 
 Hon. Wm. H. English, 
 
 Chairman Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. 
 
S6th Congress, ) SENATE. ( Ex. Doc. 
 
 lat Session. \ } No. 45. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, 
 
 COMHUmOATmO, 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, copies of the contracts of 
 Daniel H. Johnson and Gorndius Vanderbilt, for transporting the 
 mails between New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, via the 
 Isthmus, together with the correspondence relating thereto. 
 
 Mat 4, 1860. — Read and ordered ta lie on the table. 
 Mat 22, I860.— Ordered to be printed. 
 
 Post Oibicb Department, 
 
 Washington, May 2, 1860. 
 
 Sir : In obedience to the resolution of the Senate of the 23d April 
 last, I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of the contracts of 
 Daniel H. Johnson and Cornelius Yanderhilt for the service between 
 New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, via the Isthmus, together 
 with an abstract of the several bids made for such service, and copies 
 of the correspondence, fully explaining the action of the department 
 on the. subject. 
 
 It is proper to add, that the gross' amount of postages on mails 
 received and sent hj the Yanderhilt line of steamers, from October 8, 
 1859, to March 24, 1860, inclusive, was $37,348 94. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant. 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 
 Hon. J. C. Breckinridsb, 
 
 Vice President of the United States. 
 
 Copy of circular letter inviting proposals. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, April 1, 1859. 
 
 Sir : I am requested by the Postmaster General to inform you that 
 he is prepared to receive and consider proposals for transporting the 
 mails of the United States between New York and San Francisco, and 
 between New Orleans and San Francisco, for a period of nine months, 
 from the Ist of October next to the 30th of June, 1860, inclusive. 
 
 Proposal should state the number of trips per month, the time to be 
 
736 
 
 occupied each way, the intermediate ports embraced in the routeor 
 routes, the amount of compensation, &c., and must be accompanied 
 with a full and satisfactory guarantee that the partyor parties^ pro- 
 posing are prepared to perform the designated service, and will, if 
 their proposal is accepted by the Postmaster General, enter into con- 
 tract with the department, with good and suflScient sureties for the 
 faithful performance of the same during the period named. 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOKATIO KING, /rj 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 P. S. — Proposals will be received at the department until three, 
 p. m., of Saturday, the 30th of April, instant. H. K. 
 
 In answer to the foregoing call, the department received the follow- 
 ing bids for nine months' service, viz : 
 
 Bids for service both from New York and New Orleans. 
 
 1. Daniel H. Johnson, for semi-monthly service between New York 
 and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, via 
 Key West and Isthmus of Nicaragua, (in twenty-three days from and 
 to New York, and twenty days from and to New Orleans,) at the sum 
 of $162,000. 
 
 2. William Barney, for semi-monthly service between New York 
 and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, via 
 Havana and Isthmus of Nicaragua, (in twenty-three days from New 
 York and twenty-one days from New Orleans, returning in twenty? 
 two days to New York and nineteen days to New Orleans,) at the sum 
 of $178,200. 
 
 3. William 0. Barney, for like service, via Key West and Isthmus 
 of Nicaragua, in same time each way, at $215,010. 
 
 4. William 0. Barney, for like service, via Havana and Isthmus of 
 Nicaragua, embracing Savannah, Georgia, as a third Atlantic termi- 
 nus, in same time each way, at $237,600. 
 
 5. William C. Barney, for like service, between New York and San 
 Francisco, and New Orleans and San Francisco ; steamships to run 
 direct from New York and New Orleans, to and from the Isthmus of 
 Nicaragua, (in twenty-two days from New York, and twenty days 
 from New Orleans to San Francisco, returning in twenty-one days 
 from San Francisco to New York, and nineteen days from San Fran- 
 cisco to New Orleans,) at $268,200. 
 
 Bills for service from New York only. 
 
 6. Cornelius Vanderbilt, for semi-monthly service between New 
 York and San Francisco, via Isthmus of Panama, (exclusive of the 
 Isthmus transportation,) in twenty-three days each way, at $37,500, 
 with privilege to transfer service to route via Nicaragua, at $37,500 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 737 
 
 additional for the Isthmus transit via Nicaragua, making full pay for 
 service via Nicaragua, $75,000, 
 
 7. The Panama Kailroad and Pacific Mail Steamship Companies' 
 joint bid for semi-monthly service between New York and San Fran- 
 cisco, via Isthmus of Panama, in twenty-two days each way, at the 
 sum of $199,000, the Pacific company guaranteeing a connexion with 
 the Pacific terminus of the Tehuantepec route. Also, for same service, 
 with same conditions, " the compensation to be adjusted by the depart- 
 ment, upon consideration of the proposals for similar through service." 
 
 Bids for service from New Orleans only. 
 
 8. Cornelius Vanderbilt, for semi-monthly service between New Or- 
 leans and San Francisco, either via Panama or via Nicaragua, in from 
 eighteen to twenty-three days each way, at the sum of $150,000 — the 
 Isthmus transportation not included, if the mails shjuld be carried 
 via Panama. 
 
 9. The Louisiana Tehuantepec Company, for semi-monthly service 
 between New Orleans and San Francisco, via Isthmus of Tehuantepec,, 
 touching at Acapulco, on the Pacific, at the sum of $420,000, the ser- 
 vice on the Pacific to be performed in connexion with the steamers 
 belonging to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. 
 
 Or, for semi-monthly service between New Orleans and Ventosa, via 
 Isthmus of Tehuantepec, at the sum of $210,000, the time occupied to. 
 be from fifteen to seventeen days each way. 
 
 Post Office Department, May 9, 1859', 
 Sir : I am instructed by the Postmaster General to inform you that 
 your proposals of the 29th ultimo, for the service between New York 
 and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, con- 
 necting at Key West, for nine months from first October next, amount- 
 ing in the aggregate to one hundred and sixty-two thousand (162,000) 
 dollars, have been accepted, and that articles of contract, for execu- 
 tion, will be transmitted in due time. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 _ HOEATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johns9N, Esq., 
 
 New YorTc. 
 
 [Private.] 
 
 Post Office, New York, May 17, 1859, 
 Dear Sir : Having observed various paragraphs in the newspapers 
 referring to the late award of the contract for carrying the mails be- 
 
 H. Een. Com. S48 47 
 
738 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 tween this city and San Francisco, in some of which the character of 
 the hid and the responsibility of the bidder of the successful party were 
 questioned, and feeling assured that you desired as full and explicit a 
 knowledge of th-e matter as was possible to obtain, I caused myself to 
 be put in communication with Mr. Daniel H. Johnson. 
 
 After a free and full conversa,tion with hira on two occasions — the 
 last one this morning — I am convinced that he intends in good faith 
 to perform the service, and he assures me that the names of the parties 
 in interest are highly responsible and of great respectability, and that 
 their names would have transpired before this but for the fact that 
 some matters of detail are yet to be settled ; that when this is done 
 their names will be given to you. 
 
 Permit me, however, to suggest the propriety of forwarding on the 
 contract, that the parties may thus be hurried up, and that you may 
 thus be enabled to know the character of those on whom the burden of 
 the contract is to rest. Let me add that I have thus written solely with 
 the view of aiding and forwarding the final determination of the mat- 
 ter, and that in all matters of investigation as to the character and 
 responsibility of the parties, my aim shall be to give you all the inr 
 formation I can obtain, for your better guidance in matters relating to 
 the bid, _ * * 
 
 The responsibility of the sureties to the hid is ample, and Mr. John- 
 son assures me that, in all things, he is sincere and determined, and 
 that the character of the parties, who will soon appear, will justify 
 him and his proposal. 
 
 Hoping that you will take. occasion to instruct me in the premises, I 
 am, very truly, 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER, 
 
 Fostmaster,, 
 
 Post Office Dbpartmtsnt, 
 
 Washington, May 18, 1859. - 
 
 Sir: I enclose herewith the draft of a contract, to be execute^by 
 Daniel H. Johnson and his sureties, which I have caused to be prer 
 pared under his accepted bid, for transporting the mails between New 
 York and New Orleans and San Francisco, via Key West, semi- 
 monthly, for nine months, commencing October 1, 1859, and ending 
 June 30, 1860. 
 
 The provisions of this contract ,are the same as those embraced in 
 tlie existing contract from New Orleans to San Francisco, ma the Isth- 
 mus of Tehuantepec, and the stipulations therein are those uniformly 
 inserted in other mail contracts. 
 
 I also enclose, on a separate sheet, a schedule of departures and ar- 
 rivals, allowing twenty-three days between New York and San Fran-' 
 cisco, and twenty days between New Orleans and San Francisco, 
 agreeably to Mr. Johnson's bid, which, if satisfactory, you will please 
 cause to be copied upon the contract before its execution. 
 
 The Fostmaster General desires that you will attend to having this 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 730 
 
 contract executed by the contractor, witli good and sufficient sureties, 
 as soon as practicable, and return it to bim. 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 Isaac V. Fowlbk, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, New Yoi^Jo, N. T. 
 
 Schedule days of departures and arrivals for the contract period of nine 
 months, commencing October 1, 1859, and ending June 30, 1860. 
 
 Leave New York on the 5tb and 20th, and New Orleans on the 8th 
 and 23d, of each month, and arrive at San Francisco within twenty- 
 three days thereafter, from New York, and within twenty days from 
 New Orleans. 
 
 Beturning. 
 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month, and arrive 
 at New Orleans within twenty and at New York within twenty-three 
 days thereafter. 
 
 When the regular sailing day from either end of the route falls on 
 a Sunday, the departure is to be made on the following Monday. 
 
 [Confidential.] 
 
 New York, May 19, 1859. 
 Dear Sir : The enclosed note X have just received. The parties 
 associated with me are now engaged in settling the terms of purchase 
 of five ocean steamers for cash, and desire that neither their names 
 nor their business be known until all is concluded. 
 
 If positively required, they will, of course, sign the contract as sure- 
 ties, but prefer delaying it until next week. I most respectfully ask, 
 can this indulgence be granted ? 
 
 The imperative tone of the letter enclosed has induced this applica- 
 tion to you. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 JPostmaster General. 
 
 [Enclosure.] 
 
 Post Office, New York, 
 
 May 19, 1859. 
 
 Sir : The postmaster desires me to inform you that the mail con- 
 tract, executed on the part of the Postmaster General, has been for- 
 warded here for immediate execution by you and sureties. 
 
740 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Please send me the names of the sureties, that I may enter them in 
 the contract at once. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM CALDWELL, 
 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., 
 
 Contractor, &c. 
 
 Assistant Postmaster, 
 
 Post Office Depaktmbnt, 
 
 May 20, 1859. 
 
 Sib: In answer to your letter of the 19th instant,! am directed by the 
 Postmaster General to inform you that objection will not be made to 
 delaying until next week the execution of your contract, and you will 
 be pleased so to advise Mr. Fowler, the postmaster. 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., 
 
 New York. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, May 24, 1859. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to inform you that a temporary contract has 
 recently been awarded to Mr. Daniel H. Johnson, of New York, for 
 the conveyance of the United States mail, semi-monthly, in steamships^l 
 steamboats, and land carriages, from the 1st of October, 1859, to the 
 30th of June, 1860, inclusive, between New York and San Francisco, 
 and New Orleans and San Francisco, viaK.ey West, Florida, San 
 Juan del Norte, Virgin Bay, and San Juan del Sur, in the State of 
 Nicaragua. 
 
 I beg, therefore, to suggest that the Nicaraguan government Be 
 officially informed of this arrangement, and requested to adopt such 
 measures as may be necessary to protect the mails in their transit 
 across the Isthmus. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 
 Hon. Lewis Cass, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Department of State, 
 
 Washington, May 24, 1859, 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 this date, relative to a certain arragement for the conveyance of the 
 United States mail between New York and San Francisco and New 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 741 
 
 Orleans and San Francisco, and to state, in reply, that your req^uest 
 regarding the matter has been complied with. 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 LEWIS OASS. 
 Hon. Joseph Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, May 25, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Circumstances have transpired since my letter to you of the 
 20th instant which render it necessary for the Postmaster General to 
 insist upon the immediate execution by yourself and sureties of the 
 contract for the mail service to and from San Francisco, via Nicaragua, 
 which was transmitted to the postmaster of New York on the 18th 
 instant. 
 
 Mr. Fowler has therefore been requested to require its prompt exe- 
 cution and return to the department. 
 
 I am, very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING. 
 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., 
 
 Ntw York, N. Y. ■ 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, May 25, 1859.. 
 
 Sir : The Postmaster General requests me to state that, from in- 
 formation received this morning, he deems it important to require the 
 prompt execution by Daniel H. Johnson and sureties of the contract 
 for mail service to Oalifotnia transmitted to you on the 18th instant. 
 
 You will, of course, see that the sureties offered by Mr. Johnson are 
 persons of undoubted means and responsibility, that the department 
 and the public may have an ample guarantee that the mails will be 
 faithfully carried according to contract. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, yoUr obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 
 Isaac V. Fowler, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, New York, N. Y. 
 
 Post Office, New York, May 26, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In reply to yours of yesterday, permit me to state the action, 
 taken relative to the contract to be executed by Daniel H. Johnson. 
 
 Immediately on its receipt, on Thursday last, the 19th instant, I 
 communicated in writing the fact of its reception, and that I awaited 
 its execution, with all due diligence. Mr. Johnson assured me that 
 his sureties, who were to be unexceptionable in every point, would be 
 immediately forthcoming. On Saturday last, in reply to a note from 
 me asking for the execution of the contract, he showed to me a letter 
 
742 POST. OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 from you, in which you said: "That ohjeetion will not be made to 
 delaying until next week the execution," &c. Presuming that "un- 
 til next week " was not intended to include the whole week, I again, 
 on Tuesday, the 24th instant, addressed Mr. Johnson and received a 
 replyj of which the enclosed is a copy. In this note he fixed the time 
 for executing the contract for this day. To-day Mr. Johnson called 
 and gave me the names of Asa Tifft, of Key West, Florida, and Henry 
 Churchill, of Connecticut, with very respectable city references. I 
 shall inquire into the circumstances fully. 
 
 Mr. Johnson asserts that, in case these sureties are not in every way 
 acceptable, he will give me the names of additional sureties, so there 
 can be no cavil. 
 
 Will you please say to me by return mail what sum in the aggre- 
 gate the sureties should be worth in order to exact a compliance with 
 the terms of the contract. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ISAAC y. FOWLER, 
 
 Postmaster. 
 
 Horatio Kino, Esq., 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, May 2T, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In answer to the inquiry made in the concluding paragraph 
 of your letter of 26th instant, I am requested by the Postmaster Gen- 
 eral to state that the sureties offered by Mr. Johnson should be worth, 
 in'the aggregate, at least two hundred thousand dollars. 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING. 
 Isaac V. Fowler, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, New York, N. Y. 
 
 Post Office, New York, May 30, 1859. 
 Sir : Relative to the execution of the contract by Daniel H- John- 
 son, esq., I have to report that on Saturday I was furnished with the 
 names of George H. White, of Cherry Valley, New York, and Mr. 
 George Irving as sureties ; and to-day with the additional names of 
 
 Hiram Grimes and Jlr. Tunnicliff. 
 
 As time is required to make inquiries, I have appointed one o'clock 
 to-morrow for the time for executing the contract. I shall exact an 
 aflSdavit from each before the United States commissioner as to their 
 responsibility, &c. 
 
 I hope to be able to send the contract to-morrow properly executed. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ISAAC v. FOWLER, 
 
 Postma,ster. 
 Per WILLIAM CALDWELL, 
 
 Horatio King, Esq., i&c, dc, &c. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 743 
 
 Post Office Department, May 31, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : Your letter of the 30th instant is received. 
 The Postmaster G-eneral directs that before accepting the bond 
 offered by Mr. Johnson, you communicate with the department, to the 
 end that there may be no mistake as to the responsibility of the 
 sureties. 
 
 Eespectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING. 
 Isaac y. Fowler, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, New York. 
 
 Note. — Same request was made by telegraph. 
 
 , Post Office, New York, May 31, 1859. 
 
 Sir ; I herewith return to you the contract now executed by Daniel 
 H. Johnson and sureties. 
 
 It has been executed at the earliest practicable time, with good and 
 sufficient sureties. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER, 
 
 Postmaster. 
 
 Horatio Kins, Esq., 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office, New York, May 31, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Your telegraphic dispatch, in the words "do not accept bond 
 till department is consulted as to responsibility of stireties," was re- 
 ceived at three minutes before three, p. m,, a few minutes after the 
 postmaster had left the office, and over an hour after the execution of 
 the contract and acceptance of the sureties by him. 
 
 The contract as executed goes forward by same mail with this. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 WILLIAM CALDWELL, 
 
 Assistant Postmaster. 
 Horatio King, Esq., 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
744 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 No. 3.] [$162,000 for nine monthe. 
 
 This article of contract, made the day of May, in the year 
 
 eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, between the United States, acting in 
 this behalf hy their Postmaster G-eneral, and Daniel H. Johnson, con- 
 tractor, and Hiram Grimes and George Irving, of the city of New York, 
 and George W. White^ of Cherry Valley, New York, as sureties : 
 
 WITNESSETH, That whereas, Daniel H. Johnson has been accepted 
 according to law, as contractor for transporting the mail on route No. 
 3, from New York and New Orleans, by Key West, Florida, thence to 
 San Juan del Norte, thence by .the river San Juan and Lake Nicaragua 
 to Virgin Bay, thence to San Juan del Sur, in the State of Nicaragua, 
 and thence to San Francisco, California, touching at each of the above- 
 named ports, and back, twice a month, in good and sufficient steam- 
 ships, to and from the Isthmus of Nicaragua, on either side, and across 
 said isthmus in good and sufficient steamboats and land carriages, 
 at a compiinsation of one hundred and sixty-two thousand dollars 
 ($162,000) for and during the term of nine months, commencing on the 
 first day of*'October, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
 nine, and ending with the thirtieth day of June, in the year one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and sixty : the time to be occupied in making each 
 trip, each way, not. tD exceed twenty-three days between New York 
 and San Francisco, and twenty days between New Orleans and San 
 Francisco. Now, therefore, the said Daniel H. Johnson, contractor, 
 and Hiram Grimes, George Irving, and George W. White, as sureties, 
 do jointly and severally undertake, covenant, and agree with the United 
 States, and do bind themselves : 
 
 1. To carry said mail within the times fixed in the annexed schedule 
 of departures and arrivals, and so carry until said schedule is altered 
 by the authority of the Postmaster General of the United States, as 
 hereinafter provided, and then to carry according to said altered 
 schedule. 
 
 2. To carry said mail in a safe and secure manner, free from wet or 
 other injury, in steamships, steamboats, and land carriages, and in a 
 separate and convenient apartment of each steamer, to be suitably 
 fitted up under order of the department at the expense of the con- 
 tractor, for the assorting and safe-keeping of the mail, and for the sole 
 and exclusive occupation, use, and accommodation of the Post Office 
 Department and its mail agent, if the Postmaster General shall require 
 it, for the use and accommodation of the mail and mail agent, and 
 such mail agent is to be conveyed without further charge. 
 
 3. To take the mail and every part of it from, and deliver it and 
 ■ every part of it into, each post office on the route, or that may here- 
 after be established on the route, and into the post office at each end 
 of the route, and to the mail carriers on connecting routes. 
 
 They also undertake, covenant, and agree with the United States, 
 and do bind themselves^ jointly and severally as aforesaid, to be an- 
 swerable for the person or persons to whom the said contractor shall 
 commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable to 
 the United States for any damages which may be sustained by the 
 United States through his or their unfaithfulness or want of care ; and 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 745 
 
 that the said contractor will discharge any carrier of said mail when- 
 ever required to do so by the Postmaster General ; also, that he will 
 not transmit, or be concerned in transmitting, commercial intelligence 
 more rapidly than by mail, and that he will not carry out of the mail 
 letters or newspapers which should go by post, and that he will not 
 knowingly convey any person carrying on the business of transporting 
 letters or other mail matter, without the consent of the department ; 
 and further, that the said contractor will convey, without additional 
 charge, post office blanks, mail bags, and the special agents of the 
 department, on the exhibition of their credentials. 
 
 They further undertake and covenant with the United States that 
 the said contractor will collect quarterly, if required by the Postmaster 
 General, of postmasters on said route the balances due from them to 
 the General Post Office, and faithfully render an account thereof to the 
 Postmaster General in the settlement of quarterly accounts, and will 
 pay over to the General Post Office all balances remaining in his hands. 
 For which services, when performed, the said Daniel H. Johnson is to 
 be paid by the United States, in quarterly payments if practicable, the 
 sum of $162,000, as soon as Congress shall make the necessary appro- 
 priation for that purpose, either through the postmasters on the route 
 or otherwise, at the option of the Postmaster General of the United 
 States ; said pay to be subject, however, to be reduced or discontinued 
 by the Postmaster General as hereinafter stipulated, or to be suspended 
 in case of delinquency. 
 
 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the said contractor and his 
 sureties that the Postmaster General may increase the service or change 
 the schedule, he allowing a pro rata increase of compensation within 
 the restrictions imposed by law for the additional service required ; 
 but the contractor may, in case ol increased service or change of 
 schedule, relinquish the contract on timely notice, if he prefers it to 
 the change. 
 
 It is hereby also stipulated and agreed by the said contractor and 
 his sureties^ that in all cases there ip to be a forfeiture of the pay of a 
 trip when the trip is not run, and/, forfeiture of a due proportion of it 
 when a grade of service is rendered inferior to the mode of conveyance 
 above stipulated ;. and that these forfeitures may be increased into 
 penalties of a higher amount, according to the nature or frequency of 
 the failure and the importance of the rdail ; also, that fines may be 
 imposed upon the contractor unless the delinquency be satisfactorily 
 explained to the Postmaster General in duo time, for failing to take 
 from, or deliver at a post office the mail, or a-v part of it ; for suffer- 
 ing it to be wet, injured, lost, or destroyed ; toi carrying it in a place 
 or manner that exposes it to depredation, loss, o. injury, by being wet 
 or otherwise ; for refusing, after demand, to coi-vey a mail by any 
 steamships, steamboats, or land carriages, which the contractor runs, 
 or is concerned in running, on the route, beyond the number of trips 
 above specified ; or for not arriving at the time a t in the schedule. 
 And for setting up or running an express to trans it letters or com- 
 mercial intelligence in advance of the mail, or for tr nsporting know- 
 ingly, or after being informed, any one engaged in transporting letters 
 or mail matter in violation of the laws of the United States, a penalty 
 
746 POST OFFICfi DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 of fifty dollars may be exacted for eacli oflfence, and for each article so 
 carried. And no fines or forfeitures shall be remitted for failures 
 arising from a want of a suitable road, or for obstacles presented by 
 the insufficiency of the river navigation, or of the bays, at either 
 terminus of the route. 
 
 It is further stipulated and agreed, by the said contractor and his 
 sureties, that the Postmaster General may annul the contract for 
 repeated failures ; for violating the post office laws ; for disobeying the 
 instructions of the department ; for refusing to discharge a carrier or 
 any other person having charge of the mail by his direction, when 
 required by the department ; for assigning the contract without the 
 consent of the Postmaster General ; for setting up or running an 
 express as aforesaid ; or for transporting- persons conveying mail matter 
 out of the mail as aforesaid ; or whenever the contractor shall become 
 a postmaster, assistant postmaster, or member of Congress ; and this 
 contract shall in all its parts be subject to the terms and requisitions 
 of an act of Congress passed on the twenty-first day, of April, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled "An 
 act concerning public contracts." 
 
 In witness whereof, the said Postmaster General has caused the seal 
 of the Post Office Department to be hereto affixed, and has attested 
 the same by his signature, and the said contractors and his sureties 
 have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year set opposite 
 their names respectively. 
 
 Signed, sealed, and delivered by the Postmaster General in the 
 presence of — 
 
 HoBATio Kins. 
 
 J. HOLT, [seal.] 
 
 And by the other parties hereto, in the presence of — 
 William Caldwell, 
 Isaac V. Fowler. 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON. 
 HIRAM GRIMES. 
 GEORGE WHITE. 
 GEORGE IRVING. 
 
 I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with Hiram Grimes, 
 George Irving, and George W. White, and the condition of their 
 property, and that after full investigation and inquiry, I am well 
 satisfied that they are good and sufficient sureties for the amount in 
 the foregoing contract. 
 
 ISAAC V. FOWLER, 
 
 Postmaster. 
 
 L. 
 
 S.' 
 
 "l. 
 
 s.' 
 
 L. 
 
 8.' 
 
 'l. 
 
 S.' 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 747 
 
 Schedule days of departures and arrival for the contract period of nine 
 'months, commencing October 1, 1859, and ending June 30, 1860. 
 
 Leave New York on the 5th and 20tli, and New Orleans on the 8th 
 and 23d of each month, and arrive at San Francisco within twenty- 
 three days thereafter from New York, and within twenty days from 
 New Orleans. 
 
 Beturning. 
 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month, and arrive 
 at New Orleans within twenty and at New York within twenty-three 
 days thereafter. 
 
 When the regular sailing day from either end of the route falls on 
 a Sunday, the departure is to be made on the following Monday. 
 
 Post Ofmcb Department, 
 
 Washington, July. 6, 1859. 
 
 Sir : I am requested by the Postmaster General to inform you that 
 as steps will be taken through the State Department to procure in ad- 
 vance of the commencement of service, via Nicaragua, the co-operatiou 
 of the government of Nicaragua in protecting the mails and passen- 
 gers during their transit across the Isthmus, and an assurance from 
 that government that the necessary measures have been adopted for 
 that purpose, it is important that you inform the department more 
 fully and particularly than has heretofore been done, with reference to 
 the parties in interest with you, and all particulars relative to means 
 and facilities of transportation, plans of operation, under your con- 
 tract, &c. 
 
 You will therefore please communicate this information as early as 
 
 practicable, either by letter or in person. If you can conveniently visit 
 
 the department at an early day, a verbal interview on this subject would 
 
 no doubt be the most satisfactory . An immediate answer is solicited. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOKATIO KING. 
 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq. , 
 
 New York, N. T, 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 July 9, 1^59. 
 
 Dear Sir : It is particularly desired that you will visit Washington 
 without delay, with reference to important matters relating to your 
 contract, 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., New York. 
 
74.8 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 [Telegraph.] 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 July 11, 1859. 
 
 Postmaster General says : See Mr. Daniel H. Johnson, and request 
 him to come here immediately. 
 
 I, V. FowiBR, Esq., 
 
 Fostmaster, New York. 
 
 New York, July 19, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Tour letter of the reached me at Salem, Massachusetts, 
 
 where I was detained hy sickness, and whence I have jjist returned.^ 
 
 In accordance with your request, I shall he happy to call on you in 
 Washington next week, heing now detained here a few days with the 
 details of the arrangements for carrying the California mails, having 
 already procured the requisites for the punctual performance of my 
 mail contract. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully; your ohedient servant, 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON, 
 
 Box 433, Post Office. 
 Hon. H. King, First Asst. Postmaster General, 
 
 Washington, D. G. 
 
 P. S. — The Nicaragua Company, organized under the Van Dyke con- 
 tract, with which I am connected in this undertaking, have already; 
 two steamboats nearly ready to start for Nicaragua, and have also sent 
 here to purchase some previously on the route. 
 
 New York, July 21, 1859. 
 
 Sir : It is generally supposed here in New York that the contractor 
 with your department for the transportation of the California mails 
 from October, 1859, to July, 1860, will be unable to fulfil his en- 
 gagements or perform the service It is in view of the contingency of 
 his failure that I now address you. 
 
 I am running a line, semi-monthly, of steamers to California, via 
 the Isthmus of Panama, leaving New York and San Francisco on the 
 5th and 20th of each month, being the days of the departure of the 
 mails 'under the existing arrangement. I was a competitor for the 
 service lately proposed by your department, and for which Mr. John- 
 eon was the successful bidder. In offering for the proposed service I 
 found myself embarrassed by the refusal of the Panama Railroad Com- 
 pany (who have, of course, the entire monopoly of the Isthmus) to 
 state the sum for which they would permit the maila to be transported 
 across the Isthmus upon their railroad. 
 
 The advertisement of your department required proposals for the 
 entire service from New York to San Francisco, (embracing the 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 749 
 
 Isthmus ;) and the refusal of the Panama Eailroad Company to state 
 the price for the railroad transportation rendered it impossible for me 
 to propose otherwise than for the ocean service. In reply to my ap- 
 plication to the Panama Eailroad Company to name their price for the 
 Isthmus transportation, they stated that they preferred to contract for 
 the transportation of the mails across the Isthmus directly with your 
 department. Their letter announcing such determination was trans- 
 mitted by me to your department in the month of April last, and I 
 heg that you will refer to it. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to conjecture the motives which induced the 
 Panama Railroad Company to take this course. It is well known iu 
 this community that the persons having the direction of the Panama 
 Railroad Company are largely interested in the line of steamers at 
 present performing the mail service between New York and San Fran- 
 cisco ; and this fact, taken in connexion with the fact that a joint bid 
 for the service for which proposals were lately invited by your depart- 
 ment was made by the Panama Railroad Company and the Pacific 
 Mail Steamship Company leaves no room to doubt that the Panama 
 Railroad Company were desirous and determined to prevent any suc- 
 cessful competition with the Pacific Mail Steamship Company for the 
 proposed mail service. It would not seem to be an unjust comment 
 upon this course of procedure to say that it was designed to work injury 
 to the public service, and advantage to the parties now performing the 
 mail service between New York and San Francisco. 
 
 The form of the. proposals invented by your department were calcu- 
 lated, but of course without design, to facilitate the scheme of the 
 Panama Railroad Company and their steamship confederates. 
 
 Should your department see fit to contract directly with the Panama 
 Railroad Company for the Isthmus transportation of the mails, and 
 throw the ocean service open to competition to all American citizens, 
 it is respectfully submitted that the public interests would be subserved, 
 and an injurious combination of the description referred to would be 
 prevented. 
 
 This scheme of the Panama Railroad Company to prevent competi- 
 tion with the Pacific Mail Steamship Company was, of course, for the 
 time being frustrated by the action of your department in awarding 
 the contract to a party proposing to carry by the Nicaragua route. If 
 that route was actually open and free to the public it would,_of course, 
 be impossible that any combination to preclude competition in the 
 California mail service should be successful. But at the time of the 
 offering for proposals by your department it was not actually open, 
 nor in condition for the transportation of the mails, and for these 
 reasons ray proposal to transport the mails by the Nicaragua route 
 was contingent; 
 
 I was not made aware of any assurances on the part of our govern- 
 ment to protect the mails against interference from the Nicaraguan 
 authorities, and, without such assurance in some form^ it appeared to 
 me to be indiscreet to contract absolutely for the performance of the 
 ;mail service by that route. With such assurance, lam willing to 
 undertake, forthwith, the transportation of the mails by that route, 
 and to make at once the considerable expenditures of money necessary 
 
750 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 to place the route in effective working condition for the transportatiorl 
 of mails and passengers. 
 
 Permit me, therefore, at this time, in view of the probahle failure 
 of the contractor for the California mail service from October to July 
 next to perform his engagement, to make to your department the fol- 
 lowing suggestions : 
 
 Ist, That in the event that new proposals are invited by your 
 department, such proposals, by the Panama route at least, be for the 
 ocean mail service alone, and that the department contract directly 
 with the Panama Eailroad Company for the service upon their railroad. 
 Under the present arrangement the railroad service is the subject of a 
 separate and distinct contract, and it is hardly to be presumed that the 
 Panama Eailroad Company would decline to contract with the govern- 
 ment directly for the transportation of the mails across the Isthmus at 
 a reasonable price. 
 
 2d. That permission should be given the contractor to transport the 
 mails by the Nicaragua route in case the Postmaster General should 
 be first satisfied that such service can be so performed as effectively as 
 heretofore. 
 
 It would seem to establish a precedent dangerous to the public inter- 
 ests to permit the Panama Railroad Company to determine who may 
 and who may not enter into competition for the California mail servi<»; 
 and feeling assured, as I do, that your department has regard solely 
 to the public welfare, and would do no act to favor- one citizen to the 
 prejudice of another, or advance one interest to the detriment of another, 
 I have deemed myself justified in making this communication. 
 
 I hope that the mail service to California by sea will, at the expira- 
 tion of the present arrangement, be thrown open to public competition, 
 and that such precautions shall be resorted to by your department as 
 will permit all responsible parties to propose for the required rervice. 
 
 If I am at liberty to do so, I will make such further suggestions to 
 your department touching this subject as may occur to me. I should 
 be pleased to be informed of the course which the department proposes 
 to adopt, in case of the contingencies to which I have referred ; and to 
 have, in any event, the opportunity afforded to me to propose for the 
 performance of such mail service to California, after October 1, as may 
 be required by your department, contingently or otherwise. 
 
 Awaiting reply, I am, your very obedient servant, 
 
 C. VANDEEBILT. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D. O. 
 
 No. 59.] Merchants' Exchange, 
 
 Oefice op the U. S. and Cenikal American Transit Company, 
 
 New York, July 22, 1859,. 
 Sir : I am instructed to inform you that this company, formed under 
 grant fromi the government of Nicaragua, known as the "Van Dyke and 
 Wallace contract," hold an instrument executed by Mr. D. H. John- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 751 
 
 son, assigning abd transferring to them a contract to transport the . 
 United States mail from New York and New Orleans to San Fran- 
 cisco, via Nicaragua, a copy of which is enclosed. 
 
 This informal agreement is transmitted to the-department to he held 
 until a more formal instrument can be executed, and to secure the 
 rights acquired under it by this company. 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ISAAC C. LEA, 
 
 Secretary, 
 Hon. J, Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 It is understood and agreed that D. H. Johnson is to transfer and 
 assign to the company formed under the Van Dyke & Wallace contract, 
 according to the general steamship law of New York, and he does 
 hereby assign and transfer to the same, the mail contract already pro- 
 cured and existing, between the government of the United States and 
 said Johnson for carrying the mail to San Francisco, via Nicaragua ; 
 in consideration whereof, it is understood and agreed that said John- 
 son is to receive from the mail pay of said contract the sum of ten 
 thousand dollars, as a commission to him or to his order ; and also, a 
 further sum from the mail pay, not exceeding twenty-five thousand 
 dollars, for which sum the said Johnson has become liable to the sure- 
 ties on said contract. And if at any future time it should appear 
 impracticable that said contract shall be assigned, by reason of the 
 regulation of the Post Of&ce Department, or otherwise, then said 
 Johnson is to give to the said company an irrevocable power of attor- 
 ney to collect the pay from the United States for the carrying of said 
 mail, less the above amount of thirty-five thousand dollars to be paid 
 pro rata out of each payment ; and for that purpose this paper shall 
 be considered a sufficient power. 
 
 Done in New York, June 21, 1859. 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON. 
 
 I certify the foregoing to be a true copy from the original paper in 
 my possession. ISAAC. C. LEA, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 New York, July 21, 1859. 
 ^IR : I have been unable to reach Washington up to the present 
 time, in consequence of the failure of parties who were to have assisted 
 in carrying the mail, making it incumbent on me to make some change 
 in my arrangements. 
 
752 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 ' This change I hope within a few days to complete, and shall come 
 on to Washington immediately on the completion. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON, 
 
 Box 433 Post Office. 
 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D. O. 
 
 Post Office Department, July 26, 1859. 
 
 Sib : Your communication in relation to the transportation of the 
 mail from New York to San Francisco, via Nicaragua, was received, 
 and, at your suggestion, was forwarded to the President, now at the 
 Bedford Springs. 
 
 My purpose in addressing you at this moment is to inquire whether, 
 in the event of the failure of the existing contract, you would be will- 
 ing to enter into an arrangement with the department upon the terms 
 heretofore proposed by you ? Of course the government will guar- 
 antee the safe transit of the mails, so far as political obstacles are con- 
 cerned. None, however, are^ anticipated ; but should they arise, and 
 not be overcome, the contractors would not be held responsible for 
 such a result. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 
 Commodore C. Vanderbilt, New York. 
 
 New York, July 30, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : Your letter of the 26th instant, addressed to 0. Vander- 
 bilt, has come to hand during the commodore's absence from town on 
 an excursion. When he returns your inquiry shall have prompt 
 notice by a reply in writing, or he will see you at Washington. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 D. B. ALLEN. 
 Hon. Joseph Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington. 
 
 Post Office Department, July 30, 1859. 
 Sir : In reply to yours of the 22d instant, I have to state that, be- 
 fore I can determine the question whether this department will assent 
 to the assignment of the contract by Mr. Johnson to the "United 
 States and Central American Transit Company," I must be informed — 
 
 1. Who are the members of said company. 
 
 2. A copy of the charter granted them by the Nicaraguan govern- 
 ment must be forwarded to this department. 
 
 3. What ships are now owned by the company, and destined for 
 the service referred to, and within what time the arrangement for the 
 execution of the contract will be complete . 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 753 
 
 Asking that you ■will at once furnish the information suggested by 
 these inquiries, I am', very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 Isaac 0. Lea, Esq., Secretary^ &c. 
 
 New York, August 5, 1859. 
 Dear Sir : I have telegraphed to Mr. Vanderbilt your inquiry, 
 received a day or two since, and he directs me to say to you that he 
 is desirous of having an interview with you, and that he will go to 
 Washington for that purpose immediately after his return from 
 Canada ; that his ships are at the disposition of your department, so 
 far as the California mail is concerned, and he hopes this will be satis- 
 factory to you. 
 
 Mr. Vanderbilt directs me further to say, that if you must have an 
 immediate answer he will go to Washington at once ; but it will be 
 an accommodation to him not to do so during the month of August. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 D. B. ALLEN. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington. 
 
 P. S. — I shall be glad to know whether the above suggestions will 
 meet your wishes. D. B. A. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 Washington, August 17, 1859. 
 
 Sir : By direction of the Postmaster General, I enclose herewith 
 articles of contract for you to execute, after filling the blanks left for 
 the number of days to the trip, &c., and inserting the schedules at 
 the end. 
 
 The Postmaster expresses the hope that you will name the shortest 
 time practicable in which the trips are to be performed. The execu- 
 tion should be consummated in the usual manner^ under the super- 
 vision of the postmaster of New York, who will, of course, at your 
 request, make no mention of the terms of agreement. 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 • HORATIO KING. 
 
 0. Vanderbilt, Esq., New York. 
 
 H. Rep. Com. 648 48 
 
754 POoT OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Ccmtract. 
 
 This article of contract, made the twenty-ninth day of August, in 
 the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, between the 
 United States (acting in this behalf by their Postmaster General) and 
 Cornelius Yanderbilt, of the city of New York, contractor, and Jacob 
 H. Vanderbilt and Daniel B. Allen, as sureties, witnesseth : 
 
 That whereas the said Cornelius Vanderbilt has been accepted, 
 according to law, as contractor for transporting the mail on route 
 No. 3, from New York to San Francisco, by the way of Aspinwall and 
 Panama, touching at and delivering and receiving mails at Acapulco, 
 on the Pacific coast, and back, twice a month, in good and sufficient 
 steamships to and from the Isthmus of Panama, on either side, at and 
 for a compensation of thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars, for 
 and during the term of nine months, commencing on the first day of 
 October, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, and 
 ending on the thirtieth day of June, in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and sixty ; the time to be occupied in each trip, each way, 
 not to exceed twenty-five days ; the government of the United States 
 to provide for and to defray the expense of the transit of the said 
 mails across the Isthmus between Aspinwall and Panama ; 
 
 And whereas the said Cornelius Yanderbilt has been accepted, ac- 
 cording to law, as contractor for transporting the United States mail 
 on route No. 3, from New Orleans to San Francisco, by the way of 
 Aspinwall and Panaima, touching at and delivering and receiving 
 mails at Acapulco, on the Pacific coast, and back, twice a month, in 
 good and sufiicient steamships to and from the Isthmus of Panama, oa 
 either side, at and for a compensation at the rate of one hundred and 
 fifty thousand dollars for nine months service, commencing as soon as 
 practicable after the said first day of October, in the year one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-nine, and ending on the 30th day of June, in 
 the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty ; the time to be occu- 
 pied in each trip, each way, not to exceed twenty-three &ays ; the 
 government of the United States providing for and defraying the 
 expense of the transit of the said mails across the Isthmus between 
 Aspinwall and Panama ; 
 
 And whereas the said Cornelius Yanderbilt has contractedf'and 
 agreed (and has been accepted according to law as such contractolr) to 
 transport and convey all of said mails by the Nicaragua route, instead 
 of by Aspinwall and Panama, to wit : from New York and New Or- 
 leans to San Juan del Norte, thence by the Kiver San Juan and Lake 
 Nicaragua to Yirgin bay ; thence to San Juan del Sur, in the State of 
 Nicaragua^ and thence to San Francisco, California, touching and 
 leaving and receiving mails at each of the above-named ports, and at 
 Acapulco, and back, twice a month, in good and sufficient steamships, 
 to and from the Isthmus, of Nicaragua, on either side, and across said 
 Isthmus in good and sufficient steamboats and land carriages, at and 
 for a compensation at the rate of seventy-five thousand dollars for nine 
 months' service, for the New York and San Francisco mails ; and at the 
 rate of one hundred ani fifty thousand dollars for nine months' service 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 755 
 
 for the New Orleans and San Francisco mails ; tlie additional compen- 
 sation beyond what is stipulated for the route by the Isthmus of 
 Panama being intended to meet and cover the expenses of the land and 
 boat transit over the Isthmus of Nicaragua, which expenses are to be 
 borne and paid by the said Cornelius Yanderbilt ; this last-mentioned 
 service by the Nicaragua route is to commence as soon as practicable, 
 and when commenced is to be in lien of that by Aspinwall and Pan- 
 ama, which is thereafter to be discontinued ; and the said service by 
 Nicaragua is to be paid for at the rate mentioned, for and during the 
 time only that it shall be actually performed: 
 
 Now, therefore, the said Cornelius Vanderbilt, contractor, and Jacob 
 H. Yanderbilt and Daniel B. Allen as sureties, do jointly and sever- 
 ally undertake, covenant, and agree with the United States, and do 
 bind themselves : 
 
 1. To carry said mails within the times fixed in the annexed sched- 
 ule of departures and arrivals, and so carry until said schedule is 
 altered by the authority of the Postmaster General of the United 
 States, as hereinafter provided, and then to carry according to said 
 altered schedule. 
 
 2. To carry said mails in a safe and secure manner, free from wet 
 or other injury, in steamships, steamboats, and land carriages, and in 
 a separate and convenient apartment of each steamer, to be suitably 
 fitted up under the order and direction of the department, at the ex- 
 pense of the said contractor, for the assorting and safe-keeping of the 
 mails, and for the sole and exclusive occupation, use, and accommo- 
 dation of the Post Office Department and its mail agent, if the Post- 
 master General shall require it for the use and accommodation of the 
 mail and mail agent, and such mail agent is to be conveyed without 
 further charge. 
 
 3. To take the mail and every part of it from, and deliver it and 
 every part of it into, each post office on the route, or that may here- 
 after be established on the route, and into the post office at each end 
 of the route, and to the mail carriers on connecting routes. They also 
 undertake, covenant, and agree with the United States, and do bind 
 themselves, jointly and severally, as aforesaid, to be answerable for 
 the person or persons to whom the said contractor shall commit the 
 care and transportation of the mails, and accountable to the United 
 States for any damages which may be sustained by the United States, 
 through his or their unfaithfulness or want of care ; and that the said 
 contractor will discharge any carrier of said mails whenever required 
 
 ,, to do so by the Postmaster General ; also, that he will not transmit, 
 or be concerned in transmitting, commercial intelligence more rapidly 
 than by mail ; and that he will not carry, out of the mail, letters or 
 newspapers which should go by post, and that he will not knowingly 
 convey any person carrying on the business of transporting letter^s or 
 other mail matter, without the consent of the department ; and, far- 
 ther, that the said contractor will convey, without additional charge, 
 post office blanks, mail bags, and the special agents of the department, 
 on the exhibition of their credentials. 
 
 For which services, when performed, the said Cornelius Yanderbilt 
 , is to be paid by the United States, in quarterly payments if praeti- 
 
756 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 cable, the several sums mentioned in the foregoing recitals, or so much 
 thereof, at pro raia rates, as the service actually performed shall 
 amount to, on each of the several routes therein specified, as soon as 
 Congress shall make the necessary appropriation for that purpose, said 
 pay to he subject, however, to be reduced or discontinued by the Post- 
 master General, as hereinafter stipulated, or to be suspended in case 
 of delinquency. • 
 
 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the said contractor and his 
 sureties that tke Postmaster General may increase tbe serviceor 
 change the schedule, he allowing a ipro rata increase of compensation 
 within the restrictions imposed by law for the additional service re- 
 quired ; but the contractor may, in case of increase of service or change 
 of schedule, relinquish the contract on timely notice, if he prefers it to 
 the change. 
 
 It is hereby also stipulated and agreed by the said contractor and 
 his sureties, that in all cases there is^to be a forfeiture of the pay of a 
 trip when the trip is not run, and a forfeiture of a due proportion of 
 it when a grade of service is rendered inferior to the mode of convey- 
 ance above stipulated ; and that these forfeitures may be increased into 
 penalties of a higher amount, according to the nature or frequency of 
 the failure and the importance of the mail ; also, that fines may be 
 imposed upon the contractor unless the delinquency be satisfactorily 
 explained to the Postmaster General in due time, for failing to take 
 from or deliver at a post office the mail, or any part of it, for suffering 
 it to be wet, injured, lost, or destroyed : for carrying it in a place or 
 manner that exposes it to depredation, loss, or injury by being wet or 
 otherwise ; for refusing, after demand, to convey a mail by any steam- 
 ships, steamboats, or land carriages which the contractor runs or is 
 concerned in running on the routes, beyond the number of trips above 
 specified ; or for not arriving at the time set in the schedule ; and for 
 setting up and running an express to transmit letters or commercial 
 intelligence in advance of the mail, or for transporting knowingly, or 
 after being informed, any on,e engaged in transporting letters or mail 
 matter, in violation of the laws of the United States, a penalty of fifty 
 dollars may be exacted for each offence, and for each article so carried. 
 And no fines or forfeitures shall be remitted for failures arising froni a 
 want of a suitable rofed, or for obstacles presented by the insufficiency 
 of the river navigation, or of the bays at either terminus of the routes. 
 
 It is further stipulated and agreed by the said contractor and bis 
 sureties, that the Postmaster General may. annul this contract for re- 
 peated failures, for violating the post office laws, for disobeying the 
 instructions of the department, for refusing to discharge a carrier or 
 any other person having charge of the mail by his direction, when 
 required by the department ; for assigning this contract without the 
 consent of the Postmaster General ; for setting up or running an ex- 
 press as aforesaid, or for transporting persons conveying mail matter 
 out of the mails as aforesaid ; or whenever the contractor shall become 
 a postmaster, assistant postmaster, or member of Congress ; and this 
 contract shall in all its parts be subject to the terms and requisitions 
 of an act of Congress passed on the twenty-first day of April, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled "An 
 act concerning contracts." 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 757 
 
 The United States government hereby stipulates and agrees that all 
 obstacles growing out of the action of the government or the people of 
 Nicaragua to the safe and peaceful transit of the said mails across the 
 Isthmus, irom San Juan del Norte to San Juan del Sur, shall be re- 
 moved, and that all the instrumentalities employed by the said Corne- 
 lius Vanderbilt in the transportation of the mails by that route shall 
 be protected from detention, violence, or injury, on the part of said 
 government and people. 
 
 It is further stipulated and agreed, as well by the said Cornelius 
 Vanderbilt as by the United States, that this contract is made and is 
 to go into effect on the express condition that the existing contract 
 executed by Daniel H. Johnson for the transportation of the United 
 States mails from New York and New Orleans to San Francisco and 
 back, for the period of nine months from the 1st day of October, in 
 the year 1859, and bearing date the day of May^ 1859, shall not 
 
 be executed and fulfilled by said Johnson, in which event, on notifica- 
 tion of such failure by the department to said Cornelius Vanderbilt, 
 the foregoing contract will at once go into operation, and the said 
 Vanderbilt will proceed to transport the United States mails at the 
 time and in the manner provided for by its stipulations. 
 
 I witness whereof, the said Postmaster Greneral has caused the seal 
 of the Post Office Department to be hereto affixed, and has attested 
 the same by his signature, and the said contractor and his sureties 
 have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year set opposite 
 their names respectively. 
 
 Signed, sealed, and delivered by the Postmaster General. 
 [l. s.] J. HOLT, 
 
 In the presence of — 
 
 Horatio Km©. 
 And by the other parties hereto. 
 
 August 30, 1857. 
 
 0. VANDERBILT, 
 
 August 29, 1859. 
 J. H. VANDERBILT, 
 
 August 29, 1859. 
 D. B. ALLEN, 
 
 August 29, 1859. 
 In the presence of — 
 
 William Caldwell, 
 Assistant Postmaster, New York. 
 I 
 I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with Jacob H. Vander- 
 bilt and Daniel B. Allen, and with the condition of their property, 
 and that after full investigation and inquiry', I am well satisfied that 
 they are good and sufficient sureties for the amount in the foregoing 
 contract. 
 
 WILLIAM CALDWELL, 
 Assistant Postmaster at New York, N. Y. 
 
758 POST OFFICE UEPABTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 August 30, 1859. 
 
 Upon the execution of the foregoing contract with Cornelius Van- 
 derbilt for the transportation of the United States mails between New 
 York and San Francisco, it appears that the stipulations therein con- 
 tained obliging the said Vanderbilt " to take the mail and every part 
 of it from, and deliver it into, the post office at each end of the route," 
 was not contemplated by the bid of said Yanderbilt, in response to the- 
 proposals of the department, and he having signed said contract with 
 the understanding that said stipulations would not be enforced or in- 
 sisted on, I hereby, for the consideration aforesaid, relieve him from, 
 the obligation which said stipulation imposed, and the department 
 charges itself with the duty of otherwise providing for the reception 
 and delivery of said mails at the termini of said route. 
 
 J. HOLT. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Boute via Panama. 
 
 Leave New York on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at San Francisco by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at New York by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave New Orleans on the "Tth and 22d of each month. 
 Arrive at Sail Francisco by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at New Orleans by the 28th and 13th of each month. 
 
 Boute via Nicaragua. 
 
 Leave New York on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at San Francisco by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at New York by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave New Orleans on the tth and 22d of each month. 
 Arrive at San Francisco by the 30th and 15th of each month. 
 Leave San Francisco on the 5th and 20th of each month. 
 Arrive at New Orleans by the 28th and 13th of each month. 
 
 New York, August 24, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : The form of contract was duly received by the hands of 
 General Skinner. 
 
 Mr. Vanderbilt's continued absence from the city, and uncertain 
 whereabouts, induced me not to intrust a matter of so much impor- 
 tance to the risks of correspondence, and I therefore deemed it pru- 
 dent to retain the paper until I should be certain concerning his move- 
 ments, and learn from him the probable period of his return. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 759 
 
 I hear from him to-day that he will he here the latter part of this 
 ■week, when I hope to have the pleasure of informing you of his ac- 
 tion on the suhject. 
 
 In the meantime I take the liherty of inviting your attention to the 
 following points, which occur to me in reading over the contract, and 
 to which I heg you to respond at your earliest convenience. 
 
 1. Neither the invitation for proposals given out hy the depart- 
 ment nor the proposals themselves called for stopping at Acapulco to 
 land and receive mails. And I should be glad to learn whether you 
 regard this as an indispensable point. 
 
 2. The basis of Mr. Vander hilt's calculations of the service to be 
 performed at the time he made up his estimate and bid, and in which 
 I assisted him, was the cost of the service simply as freight transpor- 
 tation in the ships, and it did not occur to him, nor to me, that the 
 carriage between the ships and the post offices at termini of the route 
 would be required of the contractor. We supposed that this would be 
 done by the department. 
 
 In the event of the Acapulco service being determined as indispen- 
 sable, I submit whether you will not be disposed to concede the second 
 point, viz : the carriage of the mails to and from the post offices from 
 and to the ships. 
 
 3. The clause relative to protection, it seems to me, ought to include 
 Costa Rica as well as Nicaragua, for the reason that the river "San 
 Juan," through about one-half its course, is the boundary line of the 
 two republics, ahd the control of the lower portion of the river is still 
 an unsettled question between Nicaragua, Oosta Eica, and the Mos- 
 quito protectorate. 
 
 Your kindness to me hitherto induces me to make this communica- 
 tion in all frankness, and to solicit from you an early reply, so that I 
 may be enabled to submit the matter to Mr. Vanderbilt, on his return, 
 in a form to secure, as I hope, his prompt and unqualified approval. 
 
 By our steamer, the "North Star," of the 20th instant, I sent to 
 our agents at San Francisco orders respecting the mails, of which the 
 enclosed is a copy, in accordance with my promise to you at our last 
 interview. Be kind enough to inform me of the nature of your in- 
 structions to the San Francisco office in this behalf, so that I may be 
 prepared to give any additional orders that may he deemed necessary 
 to go forward by steamer of the 5th proximo. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 D.B.ALLEN. 
 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington. 
 
 [Per "North Star."] 
 
 New York, August 19, 1859. 
 
 Gentlemen : You will please hold yourselves in readiness, on the 
 5th of October, to take the United States mails that may be offered to 
 you by the postmaster at San Francisco for transportation from that 
 place to New York. 
 
760 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 
 
 On the failure of the contractor, Johnson, to receive the San Fran- 
 cisco mails of that date, they will be offered to us, and you will please 
 forward them as above, with instructions to deliver them to the Pan- 
 ama Bailroad Company for delivery to our Atlantic steamer. 
 
 It may be as well to communicate this to no one except to the post- 
 master at San Francisco, and to him only when it may in your judg- 
 ment become necessary— say after the departure of the 20th of Sep- 
 tember steamer. 
 
 Eespectfullv, your obedient servant, 
 
 By D. B. ALLEN. 
 Messrs. C. K. G-arrison & Co., 
 
 Agents, San Francisco. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, August 25, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your letter of the 24th instant, I am instructed' 
 by the Postmaster General to inform you that it is quite desirable to 
 have your steamets touch and leave a mail at Acapulco going and 
 returning ; and as it can be done with little trouble, he hopes it will 
 not be objected to. 
 
 As regards taking the mails to and from the post offices at the ter- 
 mini of the route, I am desired to say that this service is performed 
 by the present contractors ; the advertisement contemplated that this 
 would be done ; and as it is the usual course, and the expense to you 
 must be comparatively trifling, it is expected that there will be no 
 objection to it on your part. 
 
 With reference to your suggestion, that Costa Eica ought to be in- 
 cluded in the clause relative to protection, the Postmaster General has 
 no objection to so altering the articles if you shall desire it, and will 
 return them to the department ; but he thinks it wholly unnecessary, 
 inasmuch as this government has no existing difficulty, nor is any 
 anticipated with that of Costa Eica. 
 
 It is very important that the contract should be executed in time to 
 give the postmaster at San Francisco instructions on the subject by 
 the mail of the 5th of September. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 First, Assistant Postmaster General, 
 
 0. Vandbrbilt^ Esq., New York. 
 
 New Tore, August 29, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : I arrived in town this morning, and Mr. Allen has sub- 
 mitted to me the form of contract brought by General Skinner, as also 
 your favors of the llth and 25th instant, in reference thereto. 
 
 Aware, as I am, of the importance of having the contract executed 
 in time to enable you to give the postmaster of San Francisco instruc- 
 tions on the subject by the mail of the 5th of September, and as the 
 
i-OST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. YCi 
 
 fime intervening will not safely admit of further delay, I have con- 
 cluded to take immediate action in the execution of the contract, 
 expressing, at the same time, my views on the several points raised 
 by Mr. Allen in his cprrespondence with ^he department on the subject. 
 
 As regards the Acapulco mail, I am willing to accede to the is^^ishes 
 of thfe Postmaster General, as he seems to regard this service as " quite 
 desirable;" and as regards the protection clause, I agree with you in 
 deeming it of not sufficient importance to require alteration. 
 
 But in reference to the carriage of the mails between the ships and 
 the post offices at the termini of the route, I beg leave to say that this 
 service was not contemplated by me as a part of my diity, and that in 
 making up my estimate of what service would be required of me, I 
 made my calculations of the cost solely as freight matter to be trans- 
 ported in the ships. I made this calculation with much care ; and the 
 language of the invitation for proposals was such as entirely to pre- 
 clude the idea that this additional service would be required of me. 
 
 For these reasons, I am sure the Postmaster General will concede 
 the propriety of relieving me from this duty ; and I have executed the 
 cantract in the full confidence, and on the condition, that the service 
 referred to will be performed by the department, or that the Post- 
 master General will add the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars (|2,500) 
 to the mail pay, for the nine months' period covered by the contract- 
 say from 1st October, 1859, to 30th June, 1860 — the option being 
 with the department to perform this service on its own account, or to 
 intrust it to me for a compensation of |2,500 for the contract period. 
 
 Noting the request contained in your favor of ITth instant, wherein 
 you say ' ' the Postmaster General expresses the hope that you (I) will 
 name the shortest time practicable in which the trips are to be per- 
 formed," I have to say that I have filled up the schedule in accord- 
 ance with my original proposals. At the same time I beg leave to 
 add, that inducements of a much stronger character than that of the 
 speedy transportation of the mails (although this will be one of a 
 potent character) will necessarily urge me to the performance of the 
 trips in the quickest possible time ; for my pride is enlisted in this, 
 and I mean to perform the work as satisfactorily, at least, as it is 
 possible for any one to do it. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 0. YANDERBILT. 
 
 Horatio Kino, Esq., 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General, Washington. 
 
 Post Office Department, August 30, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter of th'e 29 th instant, with articles of contract 
 executed' on your part, has been received. 
 
 The department will attend to the conveyance of the mails to and 
 from the post offices at the ends of the route. 
 
 A certified copy of the contract will be sent to you in the course of 
 a day or two. 
 
 EespectfuUy, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING. 
 
 C. Vanderbilt. Esq., New York. 
 
762 POST OFFICE DEFAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Post Office Dbpaktment, August 31, 1859. 
 
 Sir: A contract has been made with Daniel H. Johnson, of New 
 York, to convey the mails between New York and San Francisco, and 
 New Orleans and San Francisco, via Nicaragua, semi-monthly, for 
 nine months from 1st October next. You will therefore make up and, 
 deliver the mails to him accordingly, instead of to the Pacific Mail 
 Steamship Company, whose contract expires on that day. 
 
 In the event, however, of Mr. Johnson's failure to carry, you are 
 nstructed to deliver the mails to C. Vanderbilt, or his agent, with 
 whom a conditional arrangement has been made to carry either via 
 Nicaragua or Panama. 
 
 If it becomes necessary, in the event of such failure, to send by Mr. 
 Vanderbilt' s line, you will employ some suitable person to convey the 
 mails to and from the steamship, under the supervision of a trusty 
 clerk, as Mr. Vanderbilt's contract does not embrace that service. It 
 may be well to make a contract for the nine months ; and this should 
 be done on the best terms practicable. In New York the cost of this 
 service for nine months will not exceed $250, the department now 
 having an offer at that sum. 
 
 If the United States mails shall be sent via Nicaragua, the mails 
 for Panama, Aspinwall, and the South Pacific may be sent by the 
 steamships of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, under the act of 
 14th June, 1858, for the postages thereon, which should be carefully 
 reported to the Auditor for this department. 
 
 I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOKATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 Chas. L. Wbllee, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, San Francisco, CaXifornia. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, September 10, 1859. 
 Sir: I am directed by the Postmaster General to request your 
 immediate attention to the importance of placing the department in 
 possession of full information in respect to the arrangements made by 
 you for carrying out your contract for transporting the mails between 
 New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, via Nicaragua. This 
 matter cannot be longer delayed, and especially with reference to the 
 service from New Orleans the department must know immediately 
 whether or not your arrangements are complete for commencing that 
 service on the 1st of October next, agreeably to contract. An answer 
 by return mail is requested. 
 
 Eespectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 _ HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., Neio York. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 763 
 
 Salem, Massachusetts, September 13, 1859. 
 Dbak Sir : I noticed enclosed paragraph of the 12th instant, in 
 "Tribune," dated 11th, and, only upon the presumption they might 
 have published the truth for once, I beg leave to ask you if you have 
 written me within two months past concerning my contract No. 3, 
 as I have not received any communication from your department which 
 remains unanswered ; but that may have been intercepted by my foes 
 in New York. I am now on a visit here, and would be highly gratified 
 to hear from you per'return mail. I regret I did not see the Hon. 
 Horatio King on his tour east. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 DAN'L H. JOHNSON, 
 
 10 North street, Salem. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 Postmaster General, Washington, D. O. 
 
 P. S. — For your consideration, I annex a copy of my letter of 20th 
 August, to my friend, Colonel A. G. Sloo, the original of which you 
 may iave received. 
 
 Enclosure. 
 
 New Yoke, August 20, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Having, with Colonel Sloo, of Indiana, to aid in the trans- 
 portation of the mails between New Yqrk and New Orleans, via Key 
 West, via Nicaragua, to San Francisco, &c., &c., agreeably to my 
 contract (No. 3.) with the Post Office Department, I have to request 
 that the postmasters on the line of the route be instructed to deliver 
 to said Sloo and the servants of his company the mail matter to be 
 transported under said contract. 
 
 I have the honor, &c. , 
 
 DANIEL H. JOHNSON. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington^ D. C. 
 
 Endosure. 
 [Copy from the New York "Tribune," Monday, September 12, 1859.] 
 
 Washinston, September 11, 1859. 
 
 " A gentleman of this city has assured the Post Office Department 
 that the contract for carrying the California mail will be executed. 
 But as the contractor himself has neither responded upon the point, 
 by a visit here in person, to explain, as requested, nor by letter, the 
 department has addressed him another earnest communication, asking 
 
764 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 as to his preparations for carrying out the contract. _ A response is 
 necessary, since if the New Orleans branch of service is not to be exe- 
 cuted, the California mails from that city must be brought on to New 
 York before the 5th of October." 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 WcLsMngton, September \b, 1859. 
 
 Sib, : I am directed by the Postmaster General to acknowledge the 
 receipt of your letter, dated 13th instant, at Salem, Massachusetts, 
 and to transmit to you the enclosed copy of a letter of inquiry addressed 
 to you at New York, on the 10th instant, an answer to which is re- 
 quested by return mail. 
 
 Your letter, dated New York, August. 20, 1859, of which you en- 
 close a copy, has never been received by the Postmaster Q-eneral. 
 
 Instructions as to your contract were sent to San Francisco by the 
 last mail. '~ 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ■ • HOKATIOKING. 
 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., 
 
 Salem, Mass. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, September IT, 1859. 
 
 The present service between your office and San Francisco, both via 
 Panama and via Tehuantepec, will expire on the first of October next, 
 from and after which date the mails are to be transported agreeably to 
 the new contract made with Daniel H. Johnson, of New York, semi- 
 monthly, via Key West and the Isthmus of Nicaragua, the sailing 
 days from New Orleans being the 8th and 23d, and from New York 
 the 5th and 20th of each month, the mails from both offices connecting 
 at Key West, and proceeding from thence direct to San Juan del 
 Norte, and across the Isthmus of Nicaragua to San Juan del Sur, and 
 thence by steamships to San Francisco. 
 
 But as no assurance has been given to the department by Mr. 
 Johnson, the contractor for the new service, that he has completed the 
 necessary arrangements commencing that service agreeably to his con- 
 tract ; and as a failure on his part to commence the service according 
 to contract will render it impossible to provide for a direct mail from 
 New Orleans, by steamship, in time for the first trip in October, you 
 are hereby instructed to made up mails for California and the South 
 Pacific, and despatch them by the land route to Neio Yorh, in time to 
 connect with the steamer to sail from New York on the 5th of October, 
 next ; and to insure the prompt transmission of as large a portion 
 of the New Orleans mails as possible, you will make up dat'^y mails for 
 California, &c., commencing on the 26th and continuing until tbc 
 30th instant, inclusive, and despatch the same each day to New York, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 765 
 
 by the land route. Tou are also instructed to give the public notice 
 of this arrangement. 
 
 Should Mr. Johnson fulfil his contract by departing from Kew 
 Orleans, on the 8th proximo, you are also instructed -to make up the 
 mails on that date, and deliver them to him or his authorized agent, 
 accordingly. 
 
 As the contract for mail service via Tehuantepec, will expire on the 
 30th instant, it will he impossible in the execution thereof, to com- 
 plete a trip commenced at New; Orleans, on the 27th instant, only 
 three days previous to its expiration ; and the Postmaster G-eneral 
 having heretofore declined renewing th'e contract for that service, 
 and not being willing to grant any extension thereof, you will omit 
 sending any mails by that route on the 2Tth September instant. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 _ HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Fostmaster General. 
 
 F. S. Masks, Esq., 
 
 Fostmaster, Neio Orleans, Louisiana. 
 
 New York, September 19, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : A» there is no arrangement made by the "Johnson" 
 party for the transportation of the mails that can be relied upon at 
 all, I am led to believe that our agreement for the California mail 
 service will go into effect the 5th October. 
 
 We are all ready from here, and can be ready at New Orleans to 
 leave there on the 5th and 20th, if the department feels justified in 
 ordering the mails to be sent from there on those days. Tho only 
 object of this note is that I must have the notice at this time that I 
 may make the necessary preparation. 
 Kespectfully yours, 
 
 0. VANDERBILT. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Fostmaster General, Washington. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 September 20, 1859. 
 
 Dear Sir : In answer to your letter of the 19th instant, I have to 
 inform you that the postmaster of New Orleans has been instructed to 
 send the California mails for the 5th Ocftober by the way of New York, 
 and to give public notice to that effect. He will also despatch mails 
 for Johnson's line if they are called for, otherwise the trip out from 
 New Orleans on the 5th October will be omitted. ' » 
 
 Full instructions will in due time be given to th6 postmaster of New 
 York ; but every precaution will be used to avoid adopting any 
 
766 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 measures whict could by possibility be seized on by Mr. Johnson as 
 offering an excuse for his failure. 
 I am, very respectfully, yours, 
 
 ' -^ ^ HORATIO KING, 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 0. Vanderbilt, Esq., New YorJe. 
 
 [Telegrapli. ] 
 
 New York, September 22, 1859. 
 
 Do me the favor to advise by telegraph if Johnson's contract has 
 been revoked, or still remains in force. 
 Answer paid. 
 
 WM. H*. DAVIDGE. 
 Hon. Horatio King, 
 
 Washington. 
 
 [Telegraph.] 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 September 22, 1859. 
 
 Johnson's contract remains in force. 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 W. H. Davidsb, Esq., 
 
 President Pacific Mail Steamship Co., New York. 
 
 I New York, September 22, 1859. 
 
 My Dear Sir : Subsequently to my communication of the 21st day 
 of July last I entered into a contract with the department to convey ; 
 the mails between New York and New Orleans and San Francisco, for 
 the nine months ensuing the 1st of October next. This undertaking 
 was contingent upon the failure of Johnson to perform his contract to 
 carry the mails via Nicaragua, and was made in anticipation of such 
 failure. 
 
 As it is well known here that Johnson and his associates will be 
 utterly unable to perform their contract, I, of course, stand ready to 
 perform mine in all respects. The circmmstances which induce me to 
 address you at this time are these : It is rumored in thi§ city to-day 
 that Mr. Joseph L. White, who (in conjunction with Mr. Sloo) claims 
 to have some kind of assignment of Johnson's contract, has proposed 
 to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and their connecting steam 
 company from New York to Aspinwall, to carry the mails uia Panama, 
 in performance of his (Johnson's). contract ; Mr. White undertaking to 
 obtain the consent of the department to such performance, in lieu of 
 that stipulated, which was by Nicaragua. I have not permitted my- 
 self for one moment to suppose that the department would, in disre- 
 
POST OFFICE iDEPAETMENT, ETC. 767 
 
 gard of my rights uader ray provisional contract, permit tlie Pacific 
 Mail Steamship Company and their comnecting: Atlantic steamer tcf 
 perform the service under an arrangement between them and Mr. 
 White and his associates. But I have, nevertheless, felt at liberty to 
 apprise you of the circumstances, lest, through some inadvertence, the 
 matter might escape the attention of your department. I take it for 
 granted that your department has not been officially informed of the 
 fact of the inability of Johnson and his associates to perform their 
 contract, but it is notorious here ; and aware, as I have been, that they 
 have no provision for the service upon either ocean, I have kept my- 
 self in readiness to perform the required service, and have made specia 
 ,,,p.rra,ngements to that end. It would be to me a matter of great mor- 
 tification if (after my intervention and provisional contract with the 
 dtepartment) my competitors, the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, 
 should be able to obtain the mails, to my exclusion, by means of any 
 contrivance of any description. 
 
 I have, of course, refused to deal with these parties, and was a good 
 deal surprised upon being informed that the Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Company had consented to negotiate with them, especially after they 
 must have learned, through the public press, that I had made a con- 
 tract with the department providing for the contingency of Johnson's 
 failure. Of course, their only object would be to defeat my action 
 and, if possible, embarrass my well-known determination to open the 
 transit by Nicaragua as soon as it is in my power to do so. If neces- 
 sary to a perfect understanding of the question, and a proper appre- 
 ciation of its importance, I will at once attend at Washington to make 
 any further explanation. 
 
 Will you do me the favor to advise me of the receipt of this commu- 
 nication, and, if consistent with the usages of the department, lay a 
 copy before the President. 
 
 Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 C. VANDERBILT. 
 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington, 
 
 Post Office Department, September 23, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your letter of the 22d instant, I have lo inform 
 you that if Mr. Daniel H. Johnson shall fail to make arrangements to 
 carry out his contract to convey the mails via Nicaragua, your condi- 
 tional contract for the conveyance of these mails will take effect, as a 
 matter of course. The postmaster of San Francisco has been so in- 
 structed by letter under date of 31st August, and the postmasters of 
 New York and New Orleans will, in due time^ be instructed to the 
 same effect. 
 
 The mails will not be delivered to Mr. Johnson, nor to his order, 
 
768 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 except upon the positive assurance that they will be carried via Nica- 
 ragua,, agreeably to contract. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING, 
 Acting Postmaster General.' 
 0. Vandekbilt, Esq., New Yorh. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, September 23, 1859. 
 
 Sir: Beferring to my letter of the lOfch instant, in which you were 
 requested to place the department in i'mraeciliaie possession " of full in- 
 formation in respect to the arrangements made by you for carrying 
 out your contract for transporting the mails between New York, New 
 Orleans, and 8an Francisco, ma Nicaragua," to which letter you have 
 not as yet, after the lapse of thirteen days made any answer, I have 
 now to inform you that unless you are fully prepared to take the mails 
 from New York and San Francisco on the 5th, and from New Orleans 
 on the 8th of October next, and convey them via Nicaragua, accord- 
 ing to the stipulations in your contract, a provisional arrangement 
 already concluded with another party providing for the conveyance of 
 the California mails, in case of failure bn your part to carry out your 
 contract in good faith, will necessarily go into effect. 
 
 It is, therefore^ of the highest importance that you ishould apprise 
 tbe department at once of the arrangeinents made by you for trans- 
 porting the mails via Nibaragua according to your contract, in order 
 that the department may issue the necessary instructions in the 
 premises. The mails will not be delivered to you, except upon the 
 certain assurance that they will be transported over the Nicaraguan 
 route. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING, 
 Acting Fostmaster General. 
 
 Daniel H, Johnson, Esq., 
 
 New York, N. Y. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, September 23, 1859. 
 [Duplicate.] 
 
 HOEATIO KING, 
 Acting Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq., - 
 
 Salem, Massachusetts, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 769 
 
 Oeficb ce the U. S. and Central American Transit Co., 
 No. 3 Bowling Green, New York, September 26, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Your letter addressed to Daniel H. Johnson has been referred 
 to this company for a reply. 
 
 Mr. Johnson long since made arrangements with us for the trans- 
 portation of the mails under his contract with your department, 
 Colonel A. Gr. Sloo acting for us in the premises. 
 
 We kre ready to transport the mails from the points in the manner, 
 and according to the terms and conditions designated in the contract, 
 and to transport them via Nicaragua, which we have caused to he put 
 in complete order for the service. 
 
 We should long since have been ready, and would have named our 
 ships, had it not been for the "provisional arrangement" made by 
 your department, which necessarily threw doubt and distrust on our 
 ability to perform the service, and which furnished a motive and in- 
 ducement to the favored " provisional" contractor to resort to any 
 means to defeat us in the performance of it. Indeed, such seems to 
 have been the object of the "provisional arrangement," since every 
 one is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own act ; 
 and, besides this, we have' the further evidence of repeated declara- 
 tions, by an Assistant Postmaster General, that " no confidence was 
 felt by the department that Johnson would carry the mails." Pub- 
 licity was given to this and other similar declarations in the New York 
 Tribune, the telegraphic correspondent of which seemed always to 
 speak by authority. The contents of even your letter of the 10th 
 instant appeared in that paper the morning of the 11th, and your 
 letter did not reach him until the evening. 
 
 You cannot fail to see that such a course of conduct on the part of 
 an official, although it may have precedents, of which we are ignorant, 
 has an inevitable tendency to destroy the credit of those against whom 
 it is directed. That such was the purpose of it, we can of course only 
 conjecture, but we felt the necessity of not revealing any of our " ar~ 
 rangements" until it should be too late to defeat them by a " provis- 
 ional" contractor, who was stimulated by the hope of future reward, 
 held out to him by the government, to resort to all the means that money 
 and machination can command for such purpose. 
 
 But, whatever may have been the purpose and intent of these re- 
 peated hostile declarations, and this " provisional arrangement" with 
 one who has always proved himself the enemy of every American 
 maritime enterprise, we repeat that we are ready to carry the mails 
 according to the spirit and letter of the contract. 
 
 If there be any law or rule" of your department requiring a contrac- 
 tor to furnish all the particulars of his business in the performance of 
 his contract, we shall of course yield to it. But we had supposed that 
 a contract once made, with proper sureties, the duty of the depart- 
 ment ended, until a failure occurred. 
 "Very respectfully, yours, &c., 
 
 ISAAC C. LEA, Secretary. 
 
 Hon. H. King, Acting Postmaster Oeneral. 
 
 p, s. — We shall, at our earliest convenience, send your letter and a, 
 copy of this reply to the President of the United States. 
 
770 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Post OFFrcE Department, 
 Washington, September 28, 1859. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of the 26th, written as a reply to mine of the 23d 
 instant, addressed to Daniel H. Johnson, the contractor with this de- 
 partment for conveying the California mail, via Nicaragua, after the 
 1st proximo, is received. 
 
 As Mr. Johnson is still recognized and held by this department as 
 the contractor for that service, an answer to the inquiries made in my 
 letter of the 23d instant, was expected from him, and not from any 
 third party with whom he may have made arrangemenis, unauthorized 
 by, and without Ihe sanction of, the department. 
 
 But as you have assumed to address me in reply, and have taken 
 occasion to animadvdrt on the action of the department in the matter, 
 it is perhaps proper that I should notice your communication, simply 
 for the purpose of explanation. 
 
 The contract with Daniel H. Johnson was signed on the 31st of May 
 last, and contains the usual provision, inserted in all mail contracts 
 for the protection of the government against improper and irresponsi- 
 ble assignees, that it shall not be assigned '^ without the consent of 
 the Postmaster General." It was entered into in perfect good faith 
 on the part of the department, and every precautionary measure taken 
 to aid and promote its faithful execution. The Department of State 
 was at once informed relative to the new arrangement, and requested 
 to ■communicate officially with the government of Nicaragua, and secure 
 the adoption of such measures by that government as might be neces- 
 sary for the protection of the mails during their transit across the 
 Isthmus. On the 6th of July last, the contractor was advised of the 
 steps taken to secure the co-operation of the State of Nicaragua, in pro- 
 tecting the mails and passengers, and that it was important that he 
 should " inform the department more fully and particularly than has 
 heretofore been done, with reference to the parties in interest with 
 you," (him,) "and all particulars relative to means and facilities of 
 transportation, plans of operation, &c." An immediate answer was 
 solicited, and a personal interview at the department requested, if pos- 
 sible, at an early day. But all the efforts of the department to obtain 
 an interview with Mr. Johnson on that subject, or any information 
 from him or other reliable sources, relative to his arrangements for 
 the mail service, proved totally unavailing. 
 
 Your letter of the 22d of July last, enclosing the copy of an alleged 
 assignment by Daniel H. Johnson to tl^e " United States and Central 
 American Transit Company," (of which you are secretary,) of his 
 contract with this department, for a consideration of $35,000, (|lO,000 
 to Johnson and $25,000 to his sureties,) contained the first intimation 
 that any action had been taken by him with reference to his contract. 
 But before the Postmaster General could asstent to any assignment of 
 the contract, it was proper and necessary, in view of the important 
 character of the service to be performed,»lhat he should be placed in 
 possession of full and reliable information as to the ability of the pro- 
 posed assignees to perform the service required ; and, for the purpose 
 of obtaining such information, he addressed to you a letter, in answer, 
 
POST OrFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 771 
 
 on the 30th of July last, stating that before he could determine the 
 question of assenting to the proposed assignment of the contract to the 
 _ United btates and Central American Transit Company" he must be 
 informed — 
 
 "1. Who are the members of said company. 
 
 " 2. A copy of the charter granted them by the Nicaraguan gov- 
 ernment must be forwarded to the department. 
 
 " 3. What ships are now owned by the company, and destined for 
 the service referred to, and within what time the arrangements for the 
 execution of the contract will be complete." 
 
 Although you were requested to furnish at once the information 
 therein called for, you have made no reply, either in writing or ver- 
 bally, and, in the absence of the information required, the department 
 was precluded from taking any action with reference to the proposed 
 transfer, which could not, in the nature of the case, be allowed, except 
 upon satisfactory information and assurance that your company were 
 then or would be prepared to perform the l-equired service in good 
 faith and in a satisfactory manner. 
 
 The Postmaster General having wholly failed to obtain from the 
 contractor any information whatever with respect to his arrangements 
 for the performance of the stipulated service, and having likewise 
 failed to receive any information from your company in answer to his 
 letter of 30th July, he was forced to conclude that the representations 
 publicly made through the press, and by communications addressed 
 to the department, that the contractor would not be prepared to enter 
 upon the required service at the appointed time, might prove to be 
 correct, and it became absolutely necessary, under the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the case, and in view of the disastrous consequences which 
 would result from even a temporary suspension of the California mails, 
 that he should take precautionary measures in advance for keeping 
 up this very important branch of the mail service between the Atlantic 
 and Pacific States in the event of Johnson's failure. Accordingly, a 
 provisional arrangement was concluded with Mr. Vanderbilt for the 
 transportation of the California mails, contingent on the failure of Mr. 
 Johnson to take the mails from New York and San Francisco on the 
 5th and from New Orleans on the 8th of October next, according to 
 his contract. This provisional contract does not, however, in any 
 respect interfere with the just rights of the original contractor. 
 
 With reference to the statement made in your letter, that "we 
 should long since have been ready, and would have named our ships, 
 had it not been for the provisional arrangement made by your depart- 
 ment, which necessarily threw doubt and mistrust on our ability to 
 perform the service," &c., I beg leave to remark, that at the time you 
 were requested to furnish the information necessary to enable the Post- 
 master General to act tipon the proposed transfer from Johnson to 
 your company, viz : on the 30th of July last, and for a month subse- 
 quently, no such provisional arrangement had been concluded. More- 
 over, the department studiously avoided giving information of that 
 arrangement until after the telegraphic despatch of the Tth of Septem- 
 ber appeared in the New York Tribune, (which despatch did not proceed 
 from nor was it authorized by the department,) announcing that such 
 
 ■nm-trioinTiol nnnt.raY>t. haA Tnaem mn.(1f> Trith Mr, Yandcrbilt, 
 
772 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 But although the Postmaster General had thus wisely guarded 
 against a failure to have the mails transported, he was anxious for 
 the fulfilment of Mr. Johnson's contract, and continued his efforts to 
 ascertain whether or not his wishes were to be gratified. To this end 
 I addressed, under date of 10th September instant, a letter to Mr. 
 Johnson in the following words, viz : 
 
 " I am directed by the Postmaster General to request your immedi- 
 ate attention to the importance of placing the department in possession 
 of full information in respect to the arrangements made by you for 
 carrying out your contract for tranajporting the mails between New 
 York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, via Nicaragua. This matter 
 cannot be longer delayed, and especially with referenceto the service 
 from New Orleans, the department must know immediately whether 
 or not your arrangements are complete for commencing that service on 
 the 1st of October next, agreeably to contract. An answer by return 
 mail is requested." 
 
 To this letter no answer has come to hand ; but on the 15 th instant 
 the Postmaster General received from Mr. Johnson a letter written 
 from Salem, Massachusetts, under date of September 13, in which, 
 alluding to telegraphic despatches in the New York Tribune of the 
 11th and 12th September, in regard to his contract, he asks, " if you 
 [he] have written to me [Johnson] within two months past concerning 
 my contract No. 3," and states that "I [he] have not received any 
 communication from your department which remains unanswered," 
 &c. With this letter he enclosed a copy of a letter purporting to have 
 been written by him on August 20, 1859, and addressed to the Post- 
 master General, informing of an engagement made with Colonel A. 
 G. Sloo, 6f Indiana, "to aid in the transportation of the mails," 
 agreeably to his contract, and requesting that instructions might be 
 given to postmasters on the line of the route ' ' to deliver to said Sloo, 
 and the servants of his company, the mail matter to be transported 
 under his contract." 
 
 He was informed immediately, in answer, by letter of 15th instant, 
 that his letter of August 20, of which he had enclosed a copy, had 
 never been received by the Postmaster General, (nor has it yet come 
 to hand,) but that instructions as to his contract had been sent to San 
 Francisco by the last mail. A copy of my letter of 10th instant was 
 at the same time enclosed to him at Salem, with a request to answer 
 by return mail. 
 
 It will be observed, therefore, that whereas the department was par- 
 ticular to withhold all information about the provisional arrangement 
 until after it obtained publicity from some other quarter by the Tribune 
 despatch of the 7th September, above referred to, according to Mr. 
 Johnson's statement, all his arrangements for carrying out his con- 
 tract were completed prior to or by the 20th of August. Hence the 
 provisional arrangement with Mr. Yanderbilt, made subsequently to 
 that date, cannot now be urged as having been the means of delaying 
 those arrangements on the part of Mr. Johnson, nor as throwing 
 "doubt or distrust on your ability to perform the service ;" neither 
 does it afford any excuse either to him or to yourself for not answering 
 the letters addressed to you respectively by the department. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 773 
 
 With regard to your remark that "if there he any law or rule of 
 your department req^uiring a contractor to furnish all the particulars 
 of his business in the performance of his contract, we shall, of course, 
 yield to it," I have to observe that any information touching the 
 preparations made for performing a contract is at all times proper to 
 he furnished hy contractors, and I am not aware that it has been before 
 refused when asked for by the department. Such information was 
 not only proper, but particularly necessary in the present case, on 
 account of the magnitude of the service to be performed, and the diffi- 
 culties attendant upon the transportation of the mails by a new route, 
 across the territory of a foreign country. And when your company 
 proposed to take Mr. Johnson's contract, by transfer, it became equally 
 important that you should advise the department with regard to your 
 ability to perform the service. But as the contract has not been trans-^ 
 ferred, and Mr. Johnson and his sureties are the only parties relied on 
 for its fulfilment, the department will not, of course, presume to make 
 any further call on your company for the particulars of its business. 
 
 In conclusion, I can only say that the department looks to Mr. 
 Johnson to carry out his contract in good faith, and it will be gratified 
 to know that his arrangements are complete beyond the possibility of 
 failure to secure this desirable result. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, yoar obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KINa, 
 Acting Postmaster General. 
 
 Isaac 0. Lea, Esq., 
 
 Sec'y United States and American Transit Oo., 
 
 No. 3 Bowling Green, New Jorh city. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 Washington, September 29, 1859. 
 
 Sir: The Postmaster General having requested you, in his several 
 communications dated 6th July, 10th September, and 23d September, 
 1859, respectively, to furnish the department with full information 
 relative to the arrangements made by you for carrying out your con- 
 tract for transporting the mails between New York, New Orleans, and 
 San Francisco, via Nicaragua, and no answer having been received 
 from you to either of said communications, you are hereby instructed 
 to answer specifically the following inquiries : ,. ^ 
 
 1 What means have been provided by you for the execution ot your 
 contract for transporting the United States mail from New York and 
 New Orleans to San Francisco and back, via Key West and Nica- 
 ragua ? and that you specify : 
 
 2 By what steamships, and by whom such ships are owned and 
 commanded, the mails are to be transported from New York and New 
 Orleans to and from the Isthmus of Nicaragua, and between San 
 Francisco and the Isthmus of Nicaragua. Also, what steamboats and 
 land carriages are provided for performing the services across the 
 Isthmus of Nicaragua from San Juan del Norte, thence by the river 
 
774 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 San Juan and Lake Nicaragua to Virgin Bay, and thence to San Juan 
 del Sur, in the state of Nicaragua. 
 
 Your answers to the above inquiries must be handed to the post- 
 master of New York, or his chief assistant, by Monday nest, the 3d 
 of October. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOBATIO KING, 
 Acting Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johnsgh', Esq., 
 
 Salem, Massachusetts. 
 
 Post Opfiob Depaktment, 
 Washington, September 29, 1859. 
 
 [Duplicate.] 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 Acting Postmaster General. 
 Daniel H. Johnson, Esq. , 
 
 New York, New York. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 September 29, 1859. 
 
 Sib : I send you herewith a letter addressed to Daniel H. Johnson, 
 contractor for the New York, New Orleans, and California mail service, 
 which you will, at the earliest moment practicable, seal and place in his 
 hands, if he is in Salem, and note the time, &c., of your complying 
 with this instruction. 
 
 EespectfuUy, your obedient servant, 
 
 _ HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General, 
 Joseph S. Perkins, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, Salem, Massachusetts. 
 
 V\ S. — Similar request is made of the postmaster of New York by 
 duplicate. 
 
 Post Office Department, 
 
 September 29, 1859. 
 Sib : I send you herewith a letter addressed to Daniel H. Johnson, 
 contractor for the New York, New Orleans, and California mail service, 
 which you will seal and place in his hands (keeping evidence of the 
 same) at the earliest moment practicable. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 Isaac V. Fowleb, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, New York. 
 
 P. S. — I have sent a duplicate, with similar instruction, to the 
 postmaster of Salem, Massachusetts. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 775 
 
 Office American, Atlantic, and Pacific Ship Canal Company, 
 
 28 Broadway, New Ycyrh, September 30, 1859. 
 Sis: I deem it my duty, on behalf of the American, Atlantic, and 
 Pacific Ship Canal Company, to apprise the department that the 
 steamers Cass Irisarri, Catherine Maria, and Laura Francis, in the 
 service and under the control of this company, and the property of 
 John P. Yelverton, esq., (the president of this company,) now in the 
 river San Juan and on the Lake of Nicaragua, will not be available 
 for the conveyance of the United States mail to California, to leave on 
 the 5th of October next. 
 
 Attempts have been made in Nicaragua to get control and posses- 
 sion of the lake steamer Cass Irisarri, and the steamer Catherine 
 Maria, but I am informed by the Hon. General Cass, Secretary of 
 State, by a letter dated 26th of this month, addressed to me, that the 
 steamers Cass Irisarri and Catherine Maria had been claimed by 
 George B. Slocum and William H. Place, but because they could not 
 show a title of ownership their pretensions were not recognized by 
 Nicaragua. 
 
 The steamer Laura Francis was in the possession of our agent, Mr. 
 H. Dickson, according to a letter from him to me, dated San Juan del 
 Norte, 16th September instant. 
 
 No application has been made to this company up to this date by 
 any parties connected with the mail for the use of said steamers Cass 
 Irisarri, Laura Francis, and Catherine Maria, and this company has, 
 in the most positive manner, instructed its agent in Nicaragua not to 
 allow the said steamers to be used for any purpose of transit either of 
 mails or passengers, except under direct orders from the undersigned, 
 secretary of the American, Atlantic, and Pacific Ship Canal Company. 
 
 The documents of title to said steamers are all on the books of the 
 custom-house in New York. 
 
 This company will afford no facilities to parties who have placed 
 themselves in hostility to our company, both here and in Nicaragua, 
 and who, owning no boats of their own in the waters of Nicaragua, 
 have used all means to obtain a surreptitious possession of property 
 which does not belong to them. 
 
 We have a great interest in opening the Nicaragua route ourselves, 
 and in due time we expect to do so. 
 
 I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. E. BODY, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 Hon. Joseph Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General, Washington. 
 
 New York, October 4, 1859. 
 Dear Sir : In consequence of the various reports touching the trans- 
 portation of the United States mail to leave New York on the 5th 
 instant, I tender to the department the use of my ships for the trans- 
 portation of the whole, or any portion of the same, from New Torkto 
 
776 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 California, at the same rate of pay as one voyage will bear to the 
 whole number of trips to be made by me under my contract of ; August 
 30, 1859, provided I should hereafter carry, or not, the mails under 
 that contract. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 C. VANDERBILT. 
 HoEATio King, Esq., 
 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 [Despatch.] 
 
 New YokKj October 4, 1859. 
 
 Is steamer Habana or other vessel ready to take California mails 
 to-morrow, under the Johnson contract ? Answer here. 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 Postmaster, New Orleans, Louisiana. 
 
 [Telegraph.] 
 
 New OelbanSj October 5, 1859. 
 
 We are not advised of any arrangement for carrying the mails under 
 the Johnson contract. 
 
 S. F. MARKS, P. 
 H. King, First Assistant Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office, New York, October 5, 1859. 
 
 Sib : Up to this moment (10^ a. m.) it is undetermined whether or 
 not the bulk of the mails is to be sent under Johnson's contract, via 
 Nicaragua ; but, in any event, the mails for the South Pacific, &c., 
 will go forward by Mr. Vanderbilt's steamer " Northern Light," and 
 all mails that may be sent by that vessel to-day, as well as all mails 
 which may be brought to Panama by the Vanderbilt line, you will be 
 pleased to see conveyed across the Isthmus, at a compensation agree- 
 ably to one or other of your recent propositions, as the Postmaster 
 General may hereafter elect. Of course, if the mail is so light as to 
 come to less than the rate of $100,000, payment will be made by the 
 pound. Our agent at Panama is instructed to weigh them. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 
 David Hoadlet, Esq., 
 
 President Panama Bdilroad Company, New York. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 777 
 
 Post Office, New York, October 5, 1859. 
 
 Sir : The mails to be taken by your ship to-day for the South Pacific, 
 &c., you will pass over to the Panama Eailroad Company in the usual 
 manner, and the same with reference to any mails which may be 
 brought by your line to Panama. 
 
 In the event of the entire failure of Johnson, your conditional con- 
 tract will of course take effect at Once, but if a portion only of the 
 California mails are sent by your line to-day, as contemplated by your 
 note of yesterday, it is to be done, as proposed in that note, without 
 reference to your contract. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING, 
 First Assistant Postmaster General, 
 COBNELius Vandbkbilt, Esq., 
 
 New YorTf. 
 
 New York, October 5, 1859. 
 
 Sir : In view of the new expedition set on foot by G-eneral Walker, 
 for the invasion of Nicaragua, I have thought that it might be unsafe 
 to send the United States mails by that Isthmus. 
 
 Under the circumstances of the case, therefore, I have to request 
 that the mails may be sent via Panama, and that I and the co- 
 sureties may be released from any penalties under the contract made 
 with D. H. Johnson, to carry the said mails via Nicaragua. 
 
 In no event shall any claim be made on the government for damages 
 under said contract. 
 
 EespectfuUy yours, 
 
 GEOEGE IRVING. 
 Witness : 
 
 I. V. Fowler. 
 Hon. J. Holt, 
 
 Postmaster General. 
 
 Post Office, New York, October 5, 1859. 
 Sir : I am in receipt of your communication of this date, addressed 
 to the Postmaster General, asking, for yourself and co-sureties, to be 
 released from your liability under the contract executed in May last, 
 by Daniel H. Johnson, as principal, and yourselves as sureties, for 
 the transportation of the California mails between New York and New 
 Orleans and San Francisco, via Key West and the Isthmus of Nica- 
 ragua, and agreeing, on your parts, that in no event shall any claim 
 be made for damages on account of the contract not being carried" out. 
 
778 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 In answer, I am instructed by the Postmaster General to accept your 
 proposition and agree to its conditions. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HORATIO KING. 
 First AssistaTvt Postmaster General. 
 Geokgb Irving, Present. 
 
 New York, October, 1859. 
 MeTnorandum. — Wrote to Mr. Vanderbilt to know if he can take 
 mail from New Orleans for California to connect with the trip from 
 New York to-day. 
 
 H. K. 
 
 Eeceived verbal answer that he could not, as he had no vessel at 
 New Orleans which could be used for that purpose ; that he could 
 have done it had he been notified a week or two ago ; that the service 
 will be regular from there, commencing with second trip in October. 
 
 H. K. 
 
 Post Office, New York, October 5, 1859. 
 Dear Sir: The Johnson contract is given up, they being unable to 
 carry it out ; and Vanderbilt's conditional contract for the California 
 and other mails, of course, takes effect at once. 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 HOEATIO KING. 
 Chas. L. Wellbr, Esq., 
 
 Postmaster, San Francisco, California. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 779 
 
 No. 62. 
 
 Tuesday, May 22, 1860. 
 
 WILLIAM 0. BARNEY called and sworn. 
 !By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In New York city. 
 
 Question. Have you ever been engaged in the mail service? 
 
 Answer. I have ; in the ocean steam service.. 
 
 Question. Were you a. bidder for the California mail contracts at 
 the end of the last Congress ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you get that contract ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 Question. Just give the committee a statement of the proposal 
 you made yourself, and the proposals made by others — a history of 
 the whole matter. 
 
 _ Answer. On the day that Congress adjourned I prepared a propo- 
 sition to the Postmaster General to carry the mails between New 
 York, New Orleans, and San Francisco^ and filed it in the department 
 on the 7th of March. In that proposition I offered to do the service 
 for the posta,ges, according to the fourth section of the act of Congress 
 of the 14th of June, 1858. My application expressly asked that the 
 contract should be made with me under that section of that act. I had 
 several interviews with Postmaster General Holt upon that subject. 
 He stated that the second section of the post-route bill, passed March 
 3, 1851, prevented him from making' that contract with me. He then 
 asked me to modify my propositions, which was done according to his 
 suggestion. And on the 24th of March, 1859, I modified my propo- 
 sitions to do the service entirely through, including the Isthmus and 
 all — giving the department the choice of routes — for the postages. I 
 telegraphed to some of my party in New York, and they telegraphed 
 me to accept such a proposition as I made. The Postmaster General 
 declined the proposition, and said he did not consider that service an 
 ocean service, but an inland service, and, therefore, the act of Congress 
 of June 14, 1858, did not apply to it. He then asked me to make 
 propositions to do it for a fixed sum. I then, at his own suggestion, 
 on the 2d of April, proposed to do the service from the 30th of Sep- 
 tember, 1859, to the 30th of June, 1860— nine months^ two trips a 
 month — for a sum to be based upon the postages of the previous year. 
 He then decided that he could not make any contract at all under the 
 law of 1858 ; that it was an inland route, and he should ask proposals 
 from such parties as he thought likely would desire to do the service. 
 He then issued letters inviting proposals for carrying the mails from 
 New York and New Orleans to San Francisco. This was handed me 
 at the department, but there was no time fixed for handing in the 
 proposals. But subseq[uently a letter was handed me, in which the 
 time was fixed. 
 
780 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 I made four bids ; my lowest bid was for semi-monthly service be- 
 tween New York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and 
 San Francisco via Hayana and Isthmus of Nicaragua, 23 days from 
 New York, 21 days from New Orleans, and returning to New York 
 22 days, and to New Orleans in 19 days, fl'ZSjlOO. 
 
 The next was for the service via Key West and Isthmus of Nicara- 
 gua, in same time each way, $215j010. 
 
 The next was for like service via Havana and Isthmus of Nicaragua, 
 embracing Savannah, Georgia, as a third Atlantic terminus, in same 
 time, each way, $237,600. 
 
 And my fourth bid was for like service between New York and Sau 
 Francisco, and New Orleans and San Francisco, steamships to run 
 direct from New York and New Orleans to and from the Isthmus of 
 Nicaragua, in 22 days from New York and 20 days from New Orleans, 
 and returning in 21 days to New York and 19 days to New Orleans, 
 1268,200. 
 
 There was another party who bid for the service, at $162,000. 
 
 Question. What was the name of that bidder ? 
 
 Answer. Daniel H. Johnson, of New York. Mr. Vanderbilt put 
 in a bid to do the service from New York to San Francisco, exclusive 
 of the Isthmus, for $37,500 ; likewise another bid to do it from New 
 Orleans to San Francisco, exclusive of the Isthmus, for $150,000. 
 That made his bid $187,500, exclusive of the Isthmus, and the 
 Isthmus was $75,000. The contract was made with Daniel H. John- 
 son, and when I heard it I immediately telegraphed to Washington 
 city — knowing Mr. Johnson, and that he never would carry out the 
 contract unless my interest was with his — and asked the Postmaster 
 General whether, in case Johnson failed to give proper sureties, he 
 would give the contract to me as the next lowest bidder ; and my 
 friend went to see Mr. Holt, and asked him about this, and then tele- 
 graphed me as follows : 
 
 "Mr. Holt considers refusal to execute impossible; Mr. Holt de- 
 clines to answer." 
 
 In the latter part of August the Postmaster General made a condi- 
 tional contract with Cornelius Vanderbilt to Carry these very mails 
 upon the terms of his two separate bids — which were irregular and 
 informal, as he himself states — amounting to $187,500, and also a 
 contract with the Panama Kailroad Company for $75,000 — making, 
 in all, $262,500. My first bid was for $178,100. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Over this same route ? 
 
 Answer, Over any route the department might choose. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How much would the acceptance of your bid have saved 
 to the government ? 
 
 Answer. My first bid would have been a saving of over $84,000 , 
 my next bid would have been a saving of $47,000 ; and my next bid, 
 which embraced an extra service — that is, a line from New York 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 718 
 
 touching at Havana, and a line from Savannah, Georgia, touching at 
 Havana, for $237,600— would have been a saving of |24,900 ; three 
 lines, one embracing the southern section of country. The contract 
 ■with Johnson was to go into effect on the 5th of October. Assistant 
 Postmaster General King came on to New York on the 3d of October. 
 I saw him, and asked him if Johnson was going to carry the mails ; 
 he said that Johnson had notified him that he could not do it. I then 
 told him that I would like to carry the mails, as I was the next 
 lowest bidder ; he told me that it was too late, for the department had 
 already made a conditional contract with Mr. Vanderbilt. And here 
 let me state another fact : that when this conditional contract was 
 made with Vanderbilt, in August, it was telegraphed by Mr. Harvey 
 to New York on the very day it was made by the Post Office Depart- 
 ment, the effect of which was to break down Mr. Johnson, or that is 
 what I suppose. I had much to say to the department about this, 
 and all that I said I submitted in writing, I called the attention of 
 the department to the fact that the act was passed as coming from a 
 committee' of conference of the two houses ; that Mr. Sickles was 
 upon the committee that reported this 4th section. I referred to the 
 debates o^ Congress, and showed where Mr. Sickles was questioned 
 by Horace F. Clark, Miles Taylor, and others, as to what that section 
 applied, and it was answered that it applied to service between New 
 York and Charleston and Savannah, and New York and San Fran- 
 cisco, and between ports of this country and foreign ports. 1 sub- 
 mitted likewise a brief of all the laws of the United States. 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Do you know whether the Postmaster General consulted 
 the Attorney General, and got his opinion ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Holt stated that he considered this an inland route, 
 and produced an opinion of Attorney General Black upon the law of 
 the year before. Postmaster General Brown had made a contract 
 with the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, and when the contract 
 was attacked, sixteen days after it was made, he got an opinion of the 
 Attorney General to sustain him. That opinion was produced by 
 Postmaster General Holt, and I took the liberty of laughing at it 
 before Mr. Holt's face, and he rather laughed at it too. In this same 
 law was an appropriation of some |300,000 for one year's service be- 
 tween Panama and San Francisco. The appropriation was passed 
 under a false and fraudulent statement ; for it was said that it was 
 to carry out an existing contract, which was not the case. 
 
 Question. You say that all your communications with the depart- 
 ment are on file ? 
 
 Answer. They were on file. 
 
 By the Chairman. 
 
 Question. Have you kept copies of all your correspondence, tele- 
 graphic despatches, &c. ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Olin. In the event that we should not get them frona the de- 
 partment, we may want them from you ; but it would be proper for 
 the committee first to call upon the department. 
 
782 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 The WiTKBSS. The copies will be forthcoming whenever the com- 
 mittee may call upon me for them. 
 
 No. 62. 
 
 Wednesday, May 23, 1860. 
 WILLIAM 0. BARNEY recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you inow any of the circumstances connected with 
 the surrender of the Johnson contract ? If so, please state them. 
 
 Answer. On the 3d of Octoher Mr. Johnson notified Mr. King that 
 he could not fulfill his contract ; that was at twelve o'clock. I then 
 applied to Mr. King, as being the next lowest bidder, to carry the 
 mails. Mr. King said that they had made a conditional contract with 
 Mr. Vanderbilt ; that I was too late ; but he said he would send to the 
 Postmaster General, which he did. The Postmaster General came to 
 New York the next day. On the 6th of the month Johnson said that 
 he had got his pay. 
 
 Question. Did Johnson tell you that he had sold out ; had got 
 money for his contract ; had received pay for his contract ? 
 
 Answer. He said, clapping his hand on his pocket, that he had 
 received his pay. 
 
 Question. Did he say from whom he had got it? 
 
 Answer. He did not. 
 
 Question. Where does this Johnson live ? 
 
 Answer. In New York. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Vanderbilt engaged in transporting the mails 
 of the United States prior to his present contract ? If so, did he ful- 
 fill his contracts ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Vanderbilt was engaged in transporting mails between 
 the United States and Europe, under a contract with the Postmaster 
 General. He fulfilled the contract during the summer months, but 
 did not run during the winter months. 
 
 Question. Did not the Postmaster General, in writing, state to you 
 that Mr. Vanderbilt could not get a contract in consequence of having 
 failed to fulfill a former contract ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. Mr. Vanderbilt was a competitor with me for 
 the present contract. I called upon the Postmaster General, and 
 submitted to him, in writing, objections to Mr. Vanderbilt being con- 
 sidered a competitor for contracts, inasmuch as he had put himself 
 out of that line by having failed to fulfill previous contracts. I have 
 here a copy of the letter I addressed to the Postmaster General. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. Have you the reply to that letter ? 
 Answer. There was no reply. I read the letter to the Postmaster 
 General, and left it with him. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 783 
 
 Question. You will please read the letter for our information. 
 
 [The witness accordingly read the letter. He then went on to say :] 
 I called the attention of the committee on yesterday to some of the 
 laws applicable to this subject ; I now wish to call their attention to 
 another section, to which I called the attention of the Postmaster 
 General at the same time that I called his attention to the 4th section 
 of the act of July 14, 1858. I said that that 4th section applied to 
 the home sea service ; and I called his attention to the 5th section of 
 the same act to show that the 4th section applied to home ocean ser- 
 vice, and 5th section to foreign ocean service. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is the price paid Mr. Vanderbilt more or less than your 
 first proposition for the posta,ges ? 
 
 Answer. The price paid Mr. Vanderbilt is $84,300 more than my 
 lowest hid. 
 
 Question. How much more is it than your proposition to carry it 
 for the postages ? 
 
 Answer. It is |3Y,500 more than the postages, estimated by the 
 year previous, for the nine months. 
 
 Question. Does Mr. Yanderbilt render as much service as you pro- 
 posed to do in any of your bids ? 
 
 Answer. In my third bid from the lowest, I proposed to run a line 
 from New York, one from Savannah, and one from New Orleans, 
 making three termini in the Atlantic and Gulf ports, whereas Mr. 
 Yanderbilt has only two termini ; and my bid is some $29,000 lower 
 than his bid. 
 
 No. 64. 
 Thursday, May 24, 1860. 
 ELLWOOD FISHEE called and examined. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Where do you reside ? 
 
 Answer. In this city, sir. 
 
 Question. "Were you ever engaged in the transportation of the United 
 States mails ? If so, what mails, and at what time ? 
 
 ALnswer. I was one of three trustees that managed the United States 
 mail steamship line, carrying the mails from New York to New Orleans 
 by way of Havana, and New York to Aspinwall — the California mails. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Who were the other trustees? 
 
 Answer. Marshall 0. Eoberts and James Van Nostrand, at first ; 
 and in place of Mr. Van Nostrand, Horace P. Clark, during the time 
 when I was a trustee, which was about four years and half, ending in 
 September, 1859. 
 
784 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Did you make any proposals to Postmaster General Holt 
 for the transportation of the mails? If so, what mails, and when? 
 
 Answer. Some time last spring, Mr. William 0. Barney called upon 
 me and stated that he was the agent of a steamship line then and now 
 plying regularly hebween New York and New Orleans — a distinct line 
 from the mail line — and that the proprietors of that line wished to carry 
 the California mail as far as it would go on their route, and asked whether 
 we could not make an arrangement, or whether I could not, to take 
 it from Havana down to the Isthmus and from there to California ; 
 and he stated that the law gave the postages. Upon considering the 
 proposition as suggested, I told him I had no douht it could be done, 
 and if he would make the proposal, I would see that that part of the 
 route beyond the route which he was concerned for, should be provided 
 for on those terms. I understood that he made the proposal, and upon so 
 being informed I notified Mr. Holt that I had agreed to see that the 
 line beyond Havana should be provided for running to the Isthmus, 
 and from the Isthmus to San Francisco. 
 
 Question. Were you interested in that proposal ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. State the times of the proposals, and under what law you 
 made them? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect the date. It was some time last spring, 
 in March or April. Some time in March, I think. 
 
 By Mr, Winslow : 
 
 Question. Did you mention what Isthmus you proposed to carry the 
 mail on, or did you use the word generally ? Was it mentioned 
 whether it was the Nicaragua or the Panama route ? 
 
 Answer. I do not now recollect whether I mentioned the route or 
 not. I rather think not ; for at that time it was uncertain which we 
 should go on. 
 
 Question. I want to know whether the proposal used the word 
 "Isthmus," or specified which. You say you wrote a letter to Mr. 
 Holt, in which you agreed to take the mails from Havana through the 
 Isthmus to San Francisco. I want to know which Isthmus it was ? 
 
 Answer. Ihavenocopyof the first letter that I wrote, I think. lam 
 now under the impression that I referred to the Isthmus of Nicaragua 
 as the one that I proposed carrying the mail on. I know I thought 
 of that at the time as the most probable one. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question, Did you have any conversation with Mr. Holt upon the 
 subject ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. I had two or three. 
 
 Question. Please state all that occurred. 
 
 Answer. I find on reference to a letter that I have before me, which 
 was written after one of the most protracted of those conversations, 
 that it reviews all the points that were referred to in that conversation, 
 and with the permission of the committee I will read it. 
 
 Question. You will read it for our information. 
 
 [The witness then read the letter.] 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 785 
 
 By Mr. Olin: 
 Question. Is tliere a copy of that letter ou file ia the department ? 
 Answer. I sent the original to the department, and I presume it ia 
 on file there. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know the amount of the postages on the Califor- 
 nia mails for the past fiscal year? If so, please state it. 
 
 Answer. I do not know except from what I think I have seen stated 
 in the papers. My impression is that it is about three hundred thou- 
 sand dollars. 
 
 Question. Do you know the price paid to Mr. Vanderbilt? 
 
 Answer. According to my recollection, it was about $250,000. 
 
 Question. Was that amount larger or smaller than the bids in which 
 you were interested ? 
 
 Answer. After the Postmaster General decided that this must be 
 regarded as an inland service and that he must advertise, and could 
 only make a contract for nine months, Mr. Barney again came to me 
 and told me about it, and I told him that I would not be bound by 
 any bid. If he pleased to make a bid, he might give me the right of 
 refusing it ; but I would not be bound by any bid under that construc- 
 tion of the department, that a contract could only be made for nine 
 months, for the reason that great competition was to be expected from 
 other companies, and a contract for only nine months did not afford 
 much encouragement to commence a competiticin against companies 
 that had become rich by high paying contracts. But I did afterwards 
 co-operate, in taking steps to execute the contract made with Mr. 
 Johnson, understanding: he was the agent merely of the parties who 
 were engaged in establishing the Nicaragua line. 
 
 Question. Can you tell why that bid of Mr. Barney's was changed 
 or modified ? What were the circumstances connected with it ? 
 
 Answer. Because the Postmaster General decided that the proposi- 
 tion of taking the mails for the postages was not' in accordance with 
 his construction of the law, and that he must advertise, and advertise 
 to make a contract for nine months. 
 
 Question. Do you- know anything about any money being paid to 
 Mr. Vanderbilt by any other mail contractors, within the last two or 
 three years ; and if so, for what purpose was it paid ? 
 
 Answer. During the greater part of the time that I was trustee in 
 that line there was paid out of it to Mr. Vanderbilt ten thousand 
 dollars a month, in pursuance of an alleged contract with him that 
 upon the payment of that money in that way he would abstain from 
 establishing a competing line ; and the ground upon which the ar- 
 rangement was advocated and excused to me by my colleagues or co-/ 
 trustees was that we would thereby have a monopoly of passengers/ 
 trade, &c., and it was part of the arrangement that the Pacific Mafl 
 Steamship Company, holding the contract upon the Pacific side, be- 
 tween Panama and San Francisco, paid thirty thousand dollarti a 
 month for the same time and the same purpose ; so that he got /orty 
 thousand dollars a month from the two mail lines to |,bataiy from 
 competition himself, and upon the condition that whenever ai^y com- 
 H. KeD. Com. 648 50 / 
 
786 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 petition appeared that payment should cease. And hence it was held 
 that he was interested in preventing competition, and the terror of 
 his name and capital would he effectual upon others who might be 
 disposed to establish steamship lines. For my own part, I never 
 sanctioned the arrangement, but protested against it from the begin- 
 ning, and continued to protest to the last. 
 
 Question. What length of time did that arrangement continue 
 until it was broken up ? 
 
 Answer. For more than three years. 
 
 Question. According to that arrangement, it goes to show that 
 there has been $480,000 a year paid to keep down competition, and in 
 that way rob the government ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; $480,000 a year was paid. 
 
 [Mr. Winslow requested the witness to leave the room. The com- 
 mittee then had some consultation in reference to the investigation 
 embraced in the examination. of this witness, during which Mr. Robin- 
 son appeared in the committee room. After some time the witness 
 was recalled and his examination resumed: The last question and 
 answer having been read to the witness, he proceeded to say :] 
 
 In reference to that last remark, I wish to say that I did not con- 
 sider that the government was robbed. My opposifion to it was upon 
 the ground that it was an illegal and unwarrantable arrangement, 
 whereby some parties concerned in the trust were robbed for the bene- 
 fit of Mr. Vanderbilt. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. You were naturally fighting against it, of course ; all 
 other capitalists were, I suppose ? 
 
 Answer. I was trustee of one of the parties, and I thought it was 
 an attempt to rob him for the benefit of Mr. Vanderbilt. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 
 Question. Is not the effect of these combinations to keep up the 
 prices of mail and passenger service ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; the effect is to keep up prices ; a monopoly can 
 dictate their own prices for both mails and passengers. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Did you not offer to take the mails from Havana across 
 ■ the Isthmus to San Francisco ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How did you expect to do it ? 
 
 Answer. By another line. 
 
 Question. What line was that ? 
 
 Answer. The Nicaragua route. 
 
 Question. But how could that be if there was a monopoly ? You 
 pay that you and Mr. Barney and all these people were paying Mr. 
 "Vanderbilt so much a month to abstain from carrying the "mails, in 
 order to keep up a monopoly ; and if that was so, how could you 
 ■carry them on another route ? 
 
 Anjswer. A party may monopolize a route, and may subject the 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETO. 787 
 
 party or the individuals who are competing to great losSj to deter them 
 from competition ; but the way in which it was proposed to meet this 
 monopoly in taking the Nicaragua route was in getting across the 
 Isthmus without paying the Panama road so large an amount as is 
 charged, and thus save money on one hand to countervail the money 
 paid on the other hand. 
 
 Question. And you offered to take the mails through, notwithstand- 
 ing this prejudice? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we offered to take the mails through for the 
 postages, via Nicaragua. 
 
 Question. Are you a capitalist? 
 
 Answer. I do not know as I know exactly what you mean hy a capi- 
 talist ; I am a person of independent fortune ; I am worth ^abont 
 $200,000 over and above my debts* 
 
 Question. Do you own ships? 
 
 Answer, I have an interest in ships. 
 
 Question. I mean exclusively of this trust fund ? 
 
 Answer. There were two ships — the Ohio and G-eorgia — that were 
 held by me in another trust, and I was interested in the property. 
 Mr. Sloo held the principal part of it, independent of that. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Eainey well ? 
 
 Answer. I have known Mr. Eainey ever since that time. 
 
 Question. Which time ? 
 
 Answer. When he made the proposal. 
 
 Question. Did you ever know him before ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I may have met him occasionally before, but 
 not to know him intimately. 
 
 Question. Upon that short acquaintance, did you think it expedient 
 to go into a thing in that way ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Eainey spoke of the line of which he was an agent, 
 and I had conversations subsequently with some of them, and under- 
 stood they were ready to do that part of the service. 
 
 Question, Is Mr. Eainey a man of wealth ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir, what his circumstances are ; but I 
 presume not, himself. 
 
 Question. Does he own ships? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not that I know of. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Daniel H. Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. I can hardly say that I; know him ; I have met him occa- 
 sionally, but I never had any dealipgs with him. 
 
 Question. You live in New York!* 
 
 Answer. No, sir; I live in Washington. 
 
 Question. You are a good deal about New York with business people 
 
 Answer. I am not so much there as to be able to speak with much 
 confidence about business men there. 
 
 Question. Do you know them by reputation? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; some of them. 
 
 Question. Do you suppose him to be an obscure man, from the fact 
 that you know nothing about him in connexion with steamships ? 
 
 Answer. I should not suppose that would be evidence of it. I never 
 
788 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 heard that he was employed, except as an agent of the parties who 
 had obtained a contract from the government of Nicaragua. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. An agent of Jo.' White & Co ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Johnson's means? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 
 
 Question. Not by reputation? 
 
 Answer. I can hardly say that. I have heard, or should infer, that 
 he was not a man of means himself. It is now due to the committee 
 that 'I should say that Mr. Sloo (who owned the principal interest in 
 the Ohio and Georgia, and to whom, for his interest in the mail line, 
 Mr. Eoberts proposed to give $200,000 more, or two steamships out of 
 that line) concurred in, and exerted himself very zealously for some time 
 in getting up the Nicaragua line, in co-operation with White and myself. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know what course was taken by the administra- 
 tion in regard to the opening of the Tehnantepec route ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. Just state what you know about that now. 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, in March, 1857, the Tehuantepec grant from 
 the Mexican government was held by a company organized in New 
 Orleans, of which Mr. Sloo, I think, was the principal stockholder. 
 It was, I think, in June that I was informed here that this adminis- 
 tration (I state that to explain what course I took myself) had taken 
 up the Tehuantepec question. Being somewhat concerned in that 
 enterprise myself, (being then fitting out a steamboat for it, which 
 afterwards started for the Isthmus,) it struck me with great surprise 
 that the administration sbould interfere with it ; and I'went to see 
 Mr. Buchanan, and asked him in what way he proposed to interfere, 
 and what was the amount of that interference ; and we had a general 
 conversation. The amount of it was, that Mr. Buchanan had con- 
 cluded that the work was not going on fast enough, and he thought 
 Mr. Sloo had not acted properly with the Mexican government and 
 certain parties in Mexico with whom he had had some dealings ; and 
 he went on to send by Senator Benjamin and Mr. La Sere a despatch 
 to our minister at Mexico, advising or requesting the Mexican govern- 
 ment to terminate or qualify or*'abrogate the contract with Mr. Sloo, 
 and _ to make another one in favor of the parties with whom Messrs. 
 Benjamin and La Sere were interested, and, as it turned out, Mr. 
 Slidell, and Mr. Hargous, of Pennsylvania, and the thing was done. 
 The Mexican government made no complaint of Mr. Sloo, nor had he 
 violated his contract. Certainly not, according to the spirit of it ; 
 and preparations were then going on, and Mr. Sloo had acquired this 
 very property that he afterwards wanted to put into the Nicaragua 
 line, because it had been rendered useless by the abrogation of his 
 contract in Mexico, for which he had got together about two hundred 
 thousand dollars worth of steamship property to put upon that route, 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 789 
 
 and was ready -with about one hundred thousand dollars of cash 
 means, acceptances, and letters of credit from his own concern, to go 
 on and complete the road. He was engaged in the work upon the 
 road when this thing was done. The President appeared to be dis- 
 satisfied with every part of the contract with Mr, Sloo^ including the 
 making of it, and with everything that had been done, and that had 
 not been done under it ; and he instructed our minister in Mexico to 
 procure from the Mexican government the abrogation of the Sloo con- 
 tract and the making of another one with other parties, and it was 
 done. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. Is that really true ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; and I was sorry that a resolution of inquiry, in- 
 troduced in the Senate and directed to the President, had not been 
 introduced earlier, for the information came too late for Congress to 
 act upon it, or the mischief might have been averted. I have got a 
 copy of that despatch from this government, signed by General Cass, 
 but, as I understand, written by the President himself. That con- 
 tract was protected by the Gadsden treaty. The seventh or eighth 
 article of the Gadsden treaty provides that the government of the 
 United States may interfere for the protection of the route under this 
 contract. The President saw that if he got that contract abrogated at 
 his own request, it would forfeit the rights of the United States under 
 that treaty, and therefore he instructed our minister, after he got the 
 contract abrogated and another made, to get another treaty made to 
 confirm that, and he sent him the basis of the treaty and the articles. 
 When the thing was done, the Mexican government had availed itself 
 of the President's eagerness to make a much worse contract ; and our 
 minister went to them with the treaty, and they told him they had 
 considered the matter, and would rather not have a treaty. They did 
 not think it had been expedient before to allow the United States the 
 right of interference, and now they would not make another treaty for 
 that route, and there is none. Now, one of the grounds upon which 
 the President stated that he interfered was, that Mr. Sloo was not 
 able to complete this work. Mr. Sloo never expected to be able to 
 complete it by himself alone ; but he put in about three hundred 
 thousand dollars, to my own knowledge, to advance the enterprise. 
 Mr. Bnchanan, in his despatch, names the parties, names the arrange- 
 ment they had made, and they then went on with the work j but they 
 have broken down all to smash, and the route is desolate. The 
 responsible parties whom he substituted for Mr. Sloo, when this thing 
 was done in Mexico, did not appear to have that abundant capital 
 that had been alleged in their favor, and they came to this govern- 
 ment before they had done any work for a mail contract, and they 
 got it. 
 
 By Mr, Olin : 
 
 Question. These new contracting parties ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; Hargous and Company. They made a. contract 
 with the Post Office Department not only without the sanction ot law, 
 
790 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 but in violation of law, for $250,000 a year to carry that mail ; and 
 they have drawn the money, but were never in a condition to carry 
 the mail across the Isthmus as the mail ought to be carried. The 
 total amount of the postages for which they got this contract of 
 $250,000 a year, did not equal $5,000 ; so that not only was the 
 diplomacy of the country prostituted abroad 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. Prostituted? 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; prostituted abroad by the interference of 
 the Executive 
 
 Mr. WiNSLow. By the interference of the President ? 
 
 The Witness. Yes, sir ; by the interference of the President ; and 
 the Post Office Department at home was prostituted for the purpose 
 of transferring a valuable contract to one class of men who were per- 
 sonally more the favorites of the administration than another class. 
 
 Mr. WmsLOW. These are brave words. 
 
 Mr. Olin. That is pretty plain talk, Mr. Fisher. 
 
 The Witness. Well, sir ; it is true. 
 
 CALIFOENIA MAILS. 
 
 No. 65. 
 
 Feiday, May 25, 1860. 
 WILLIAM H. DAVIDGE called and examined. 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Are you the president of the Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Company ? 
 
 Answer. Yes^ sir ; I am president of that company and have been 
 for four years. 
 
 Question. Do you know William 0. Barney, commonly called 
 " Chase " Barney ? 
 
 Answer. I do know him, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he a capitalist ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Is he a man of property ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge, sir. 
 
 Question. Has he not the reputation of being a man of no property ? 
 
 Answer. I have heard it so represented. 
 
 Question. Does he own ships, to your knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. I think not. 
 
 Question. Are you intimately connected with shipping between 
 here and California — the transit routes ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I am intimately connected with them ; 
 I have a general knowledge of other shipping, besides that controlled 
 by our company — perhaps as general as anybody else ; I make it a( 
 Tule, however, to mind my own business. 
 
 Question. What capital do you suppose it would require to put on 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC, 79 i 
 
 and maintain a line of steamers from New York and New Orleans to 
 Panama, and from the other side to San Francisco, making two trips 
 a month in the usual way, twenty-one days being the time allowed ? 
 _ Answer. It would not be safe to undertake it with less than a mil- 
 lion and a half of dollars, in first class ships. 
 
 Question. Had you been Postmaster General and proposals were 
 made by Chase Barney in April, 1859, to carry the mails as they are 
 now carried, from New York and New Orleans to the Isthmus and 
 thence to San Francisco, the ships to be put on in October, would you 
 have rested upon his assurance that he could perform the service, and 
 would you have made such a contract with him ? 
 
 Answer. I would have accepted the proposal of no one who to my 
 certain knowledge had not steamers built or ready money to purchase 
 them. , 
 
 Question. Was it not notorious that he could not do it? 
 
 Answer. I think he was looked upon more as an attorney in such 
 matters than as a capitalist. 
 
 Question. Was he not looked upon as what is termed a " striker ? " 
 
 Answer. I would rather not answer that question ; my personal 
 opinion of him would not be evidence, and I would rather not give it. 
 
 Question. Your own personal opinion would not be evidence, but I 
 am speaking of the general opinion expressed of him in New York ? 
 
 Answer. I do not think I could say anything upon that subject. 
 The circle in which I move in New York have not much confidence in 
 Mr. Barney. I do not know who his friends are ; he may have friends 
 who think better of him. 
 
 Question. Had any application been made to you as president of the. 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Company to carry the mails on the other side 
 in case he got the contract ? 
 
 Answer. There were repeated suggestions made by Mr. Barney, and 
 he represented that he had the lowest bid or the next to the lowest 
 bid. I would not be positive as to that, however. That was imme- 
 diately after the award of the contract to Mr. Johnson. A proposal 
 was afterwards made to me by Mr. Jo. White, who, I believe, was 
 connected with Mr. Johnson, He represented to me that they had 
 vested rights in the transit ; that they were all ready to carry it out, 
 and all they needed, if they could make one trip they would secure 
 their contract, but after their first trip they had provided means to 
 run the contract. He then asked me whether our company would not 
 take part in this matter. I told him our company would on one con- 
 dition ; and that was, that he should pay the charter money of the 
 ship to go up to carry his mails from Nicaragua to San Francisco, and 
 he should pay that money before the orders left New York. That 
 continued— it was a matter of a good deal of detail and conversation 
 and management upon his part— that continued up to 12 o'clockon 
 the last day on which the first mail was to leave New York. I thmk 
 it was the 5th of October, but I am not so positive as to that. Mr. 
 King, the Assistant Postmaster General, was in New York— a man 
 whom I have known a great many years— and he told me he did not 
 want Mr. Vanderbilt to have the mail if he could rely upon Mr. John- 
 son'6 carrying out his contract. I told him what had transpired, and 
 
792 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 
 
 told him if at 12 o'clock the money was not deposited I would give 
 him information. At 12 o'clock I told him that our company had 
 made no arrangements to carry the mail. That is the history of that 
 transaction in brief. Our company is the owner of thirteen steamers 
 upon the Pacific, and we could have employed one of the steamers in 
 this way. The proposition by Mr. White was that he had a steamer 
 secured upon the Atlantic, and it was only necessary to have a steamer 
 upon the Pacific; q,nd if the expense of doing that had been secured 
 I should not have objected to its being done. 
 
 Question. Then no arrangement was ever concluded between you 
 and White? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you concerned in the railroad across the Isthmus ? 
 
 Answer. I have bee^ a stockholder in it, but have not been con- 
 cerned in it as a manager. 
 
 Question . You know somethi n g about the business of that compan y ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I know it intimately. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether any arrangement had been made 
 by the Panama company with Mr. Barney to take the mails across the 
 Isthmus ? 
 
 Answer. None would be necessary. The charter of the Panama 
 company is from New Granada. They have certain privileges, and 
 among others that of carrying the mails across the Isthmus of Panama. 
 They had had a contract at that time with the government, which was 
 at the rate of $100,000 a year, and had expired ; and they had evinced 
 in writing their willingness to carry the mails at the rate of twenty- 
 two cents per pound ; so that no formal contract would have been 
 necessary to get the mails across. The mails go on the Isthmus of 
 Panama from foreign governments ; in case there is no contract they 
 carry it for so much a pound. 
 
 Question, What I mean to say is that there was no contract between 
 Mr. Barney and the Panama company ? 
 
 Answer. I am confident that there was no arrangement existing. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr, Daniel H. Johnson? 
 
 Answer. I have never seen him to speak to him but once. He then 
 seemed to know me very well, but I never remember to have seen him 
 before. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about his pecuniary abilities ? 
 
 Answer. Not of my own knowledge. 
 
 Question. From reputation, then? 
 
 Answer. From reputation I should not suppose his pecuniary abili- 
 ties were very great. I have understood that he was a broker in New 
 York, and not a capitalist, 
 
 [Mr. Olin here appeared in the committee room. J 
 
 Question. Had any offer been made by him to the companies you 
 were connected with to take the mails for him? 
 
 Answer. There was no certain arrangement, to my knowledg 
 There were constant rumors from week to week, of arrangements 
 having been made, or being about to be made ; I investigated some of 
 them and found them so otten fallacious that at length I ceased think- 
 ing of the matter. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 793 
 
 Question. None was made, you think ? 
 
 Answer. None to my company ; and not to my knowledge with 
 other parties. 
 
 Question. I see from this document hefpre me that on the 22d of 
 September you telegraphed to the department, asking for advice if 
 Johnson's contract had been revoked, or if it remained in force ; and 
 upon that day a telegraphic despatch was sent to you stating that the 
 contract did remain in force ? 
 
 Answer. Now that you mention the fact, I recall it to mind. 
 
 Question. Now could you tell me, unless it is an impertinent ques- 
 tion, with what view you telegraphed to the department at that time? 
 I do not want to interfere with your private matters, and will not press 
 the question unless you are willing to answer it. 
 
 Answer. I am perfectly willing to tell every thing I know. Will 
 you allow me to look at that document. [After looking at it, the 
 witness continued.] We had been contractors with the government 
 since 1849; we were pioneers on the Pacific, and I felt exceedingly 
 mortified that this service should pass out of our hands. I had no 
 confidence myself in the abilities of these contractors to carry out their 
 contract — that was my individual opinion, and it was the constant 
 representation of those with whom I came in contact. I supposed that 
 if the contract should not be carried out the service would naturally 
 fall into our hands. We were upon the spot to perform it, and sought 
 every means to obtain information about the matter ; and now that I 
 see this telegraph, it refreshes my recollection, and I could now answer 
 more fully than I have done as to the arrangements with Johnson. 
 This is a subject that I have not thought of for a long while. 
 
 Question. Suppose you had been Postmaster G-eneral, and a con- 
 tract had been made with Johnson to carry the mails, as was made 
 with him, with your notions of Johnson's inability to carry it out, and 
 you had supposed it proper to make some provisional arrangement in 
 case he failed, of the two men, Messrs. Barney and Vanderbilt, which 
 one would you have made that provisional arrangement with ? 
 
 Mr. Olin objected to that question, and after some discussion it was 
 withdrawn. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Vanderbilt? 
 
 Answer. I do, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he a capitalist ? 
 
 Answer. He is one of the largest capitalists that I know of. 
 
 Question. Does he own ships ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, a great many. 
 
 Question. Upon this side or upon the other side ? 
 
 Answer. On both sides ; or perhaps I should qualify that a little. 
 He has until recently owned ships on both sides ; at the time you speak 
 of there were ships on the Pacific under his control — two ships, 
 which I understood to be the property of his son, William Vander- 
 bilt, and two other ships, the property of Mr. Garrison, were under 
 his control. The diflaculty in getting that service performed would be 
 in getting tonnage to the Pacific in time to do the service. 
 
794 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. How do you know tliat lie controlled these ships — what 
 evidence have you of that ? 
 
 Answer. I know it from his declarations, sir, and from the general 
 facts that; come to my knowledge in the course of my business. I cannot 
 say that I know it absolutely, but I have no doubt of it. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. In July Mr. Vanderbilt entered into a contract to carry 
 the mails from New York and New Orleans across the Isthmus to San 
 Francisco, in the way they are now carried. From his pecuniary 
 abilities, and all you know about him, would you not have perfect re- 
 liance upon his ability to carry out that contract in October ? 
 
 Answer. Most assuredly I should. 
 
 Question. Could you have had the same confidence, in the same 
 manner, as regards Mr. Barney ? 
 
 Answer. I should have that confidence in Mr. Vanderbilt which I 
 would have in very few men living, in a matter of that sort. In re- 
 gard to Mr. Barney, I should very pauch want to know whom he rep- 
 resented before having any confidence in him. 
 
 By the Chaieman : 
 Question. Do you know who Mr. Barney represented ? 
 Answer. I have no knowledge upon the subject. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about his ever offering to sell out 
 his contract ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know whether it amounted to a proposition for the 
 sale of his contract. He came into my office two or three times, and 
 he made the proposition that I might take his bid and perform the 
 service. I think he told me that somebody connected with the Johnson 
 contract would put it in my hands, and I replied that I would not give 
 sixpence for it, or something of that sort. I state this as my recollec- 
 tion of a random conversation held a good while ago, to which I 
 attaTshed very little importance at the time^ and have attached very 
 little since. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about an application of Mr. 
 Johnson to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company to take the mails for 
 him? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; I answered that just now. It was not an appli- 
 cation from Mr. Johnson ; it came to our company from Joseph L. 
 White. I believe Mr. Sloo came down to see me on that day ; either 
 it was to tell me that they had no money or that they had money, I 
 do not know which. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Sloo ? 
 
 Answer. I have known him a good many years. 
 
 Question. Do you know anything about his pecuniary abilities ? 
 
 Answer. I do not, sir. I have understood that his affairs were 
 embarrassed, but he has some claims upon the United States Mail 
 Steamship Company. I know that of my own knowledge. What 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 7D5 
 
 those claima are -wortli I do not know, I think he represents some 
 very large figures. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Do you know anything ahout the responsibility of Mr- 
 Johnson's sureties? 
 
 Answer. I am not sure that I recollect who they are, sir. 
 
 [Mr. WiNSLOW stated that they were Hiram Grimes, George White, 
 and George Irving.] 
 
 I cannot express any opinion ; I do not know as to that. 
 
 Question. Do you know of any eff'ort heing made to collect the 
 forfeiture by the government ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. I cannot see, possibly, how such a thing could 
 come to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Fisher call upon you at any time, to see if you 
 would carry out Mr. Barney's contract in the event of his getting it ; 
 and if so, did you say that you would ? 
 
 Answer. I never said that I would to any one. 
 
 Question. Well, sir, did he call upon you for that purpose ? 
 
 Answer. Whether he called upon me or not I really cannot recall. 
 I can remember much better with regard to the transaction you refer 
 to than particular visits, because I sometimes see fifty men in the 
 course of the day. 
 
 Question. Did you do anything to induce Mr. Fisher to believe that 
 you would carry out the contract if it was awarded to him? 
 
 Answer. I will answer that by referring to my answer to Governor 
 Winslow, which gave the whole occurrence. 
 
 Question. I have another question to ask. Were you a party to 
 paying Mr. Vanderbilt forty thousand dollars a month to keep off 
 competition ? 
 
 Answer, The Pacific Mail Steamship Company was a party to an 
 arrangement with Commodore Yanderbilt for the regulation of their 
 steamship business in New York, and under this arrangement the 
 sum of thirty thousand dollars a month passed from that company to 
 Commodore Vanderbilt. The arrangement was based upon there 
 being no competition, and the sum was regulated by that fact.* I 
 should be inclined to take exception to the terms in which you ask the 
 question, and should rather go into an explanation of our own business 
 to show how it was done. 
 
 Question. Please to state for what period of time that arrangement 
 continued. 
 
 Answer. The arrangement by which more or less money passed horn. 
 our company to Mr. Vanderbilt existed from March or May, 1856—1 
 
 do not remember which— until the latter part of It is difficult for 
 
 me to answer this question in detail without particular reference to a 
 series of matters running through several years, and which I think 
 ought to be confined to the office of the company. Nevertheless, i 
 will try to give you an answer. . 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I have no objection, personally, to any investigation 
 
 - with regard to the private affairs of Mr. Vanderbilt or of the Pacific 
 
 Mail Steamship Company, but I hold that there is not a particle ot 
 
796 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 authority given to us in the resolutions to investigate this matter in 
 the slightest degree. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What effect must these comhinations necessarily have 
 upon the interests of the government and the people at large ; is it 
 not to increase the price of service of any kind passing through the 
 mails — all kinds of service ? 
 
 Answer. I shall have to give a lengthy answer to that question, if 
 I answer it at all. 
 
 Question. Do not these comhinations to keep off competition have a 
 tendency to increase the cost of transportation for the government as 
 •well as the people? 
 
 Answer. The date of that contract of the Pacific Mail Steamship 
 Company with the government was the 1st day of October, 1848, and 
 that contract expired. 
 
 Question. That is not an answer to the question. 
 
 Answer. I am going on to answer it ; that contract expired on 
 the 1st day of October, 1858 ; it -was extended until the 1st day of 
 October, 1859, because the contract with the connecting line on the 
 Atlantic expired on the 1st day of October, 1859 ; on the 1st day of 
 October, 1859, there was no arrangement of any nature whatever 
 existing between the Vanderbilt and the Pacific Mail Steamship Com- 
 pany ; I believe that conveys a clear answer to the question. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 Question. What other party paid money to Mr. Vanderbilt besides 
 the Pacific Mail Steamship Company ? 
 
 Answer. The arrangement was between the United States Mail 
 
 Steamship Company and here I am a little in error in using the 
 
 name of that company, because there were legal complications, trustee- 
 ships, &c. ; I spoke of it as a legal corporation, meaning those who 
 represented it ; it was between them on the Atlantic ocean and the 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Company. 
 
 Question. Do you mean that those parties paid money to Mr. Van- 
 depbilt ? 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge that they paid it ; they agreed to 
 pay it. 
 
 Question. What was the agreement between your company and 
 Mr. Vanderbilt in reference to the amount of money that he should 
 receive ? 
 
 Answer. It was to be thirty thousand dollars a month upon the 
 part of our company ; my understanding was that it was ten thousand 
 dollars a month upon the part of the other company. 
 
 Question. Now for what was that money paid to Mr. Vanderbilt? 
 
 Answer. That brings up the subject that I mentioned just now ; if 
 you wish me to answer that I shall have to go into a good many de- 
 tails in order to explain the business thoroughly ; I will answer 
 generally, that it was a matter for the arrangement of the steamship 
 business. 
 
 Question. Was not one element in it an agreement on Mr, Vander- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMEST, ETC. 797 
 
 bilt's part that he should not interfere with the mail contracts with 
 the government, or become a competitor for those contracts ? 
 
 Answer. There was no specific element of that sort. 
 
 Question. Was there no such understanding ? 
 
 Answer. A part of the understanding was that Mr. Vanderhilt 
 should not run his steamships upon the route to California ; the busi- 
 ness between New York and California, as I explained to Governor 
 Winslow in the beginning, requires a great deal of capital. If two 
 lines are run there cannot be less than three millions of capital, and 
 it may run up as high as four- or five millions of capital. Men may 
 have different opinions as to the effect of such an arrangement. By 
 that arrangement, a million and a half of capital would have to be 
 supported — one-half of the capital, rather — besides whatever passed 
 to Mr. Vanderhilt. Therefore, when you ask me my opinion as to 
 injuring the public or injuring the government, I want to go into 
 explanations ; because the government, I take it, ought to pay fair 
 prices, and we never expected them to pay anything more for carry- 
 ing the mails. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Please to state what the government did pay for mail 
 service at that particular time under that arrangement — the service 
 from New York to San Francisco ? 
 
 Answer. You must get the others to answer for themselves, and I 
 will answer for myself ; the government paid the Pacific Mail Steam- 
 ship Company |348,250 for the service between Panama and Oregon, 
 a distance of over four thousand miles, twice monthly. 
 
 Question. What other payments did they make ; what did it cost 
 to carry the mail through ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that specifically, sir, because I am not a 
 manager of the railroad company, and could not tell what they 
 received. 
 
 Question. Did it run up to a million of dollars or near it, in your 
 
 judgment? t. t ^ t 
 
 Answer. If you were to ask me to state to the best of my belief, I 
 would say that the sum on the contract between New York and New 
 Orleans, by way of Havana, and between Havana and Aspinwall, in 
 other words, from New York to Aspinwall, and the line from Havana 
 by way of New Orleans, to the best of my knowledge amounts in all 
 
 to $299,000 a year. 
 
 Question. And what for the overland service? 
 
 Answer. For the Panama railroad I judge that they received 
 $100,000, because they never consented to receive less. 
 
 Question. Well, put it all together ; how much does it amount to .'' 
 
 Answer. About $750,000 a year, including the service to New 
 OrlGSiiis ■ 
 
 Question. What does that service cost the government now, since 
 this arrangement terminated ? + „„:4 
 
 Answer Up to the 5th of October, 1859, the gov^nment paid 
 precisely the same amount, because it was a matter of contract ot 
 many years standing. 
 
798 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Question. I mean under the new contract ? 
 
 Answer. I refer you to the terms of the Vanderbilt contract ; I 
 believe the compensation of the Panama railroad is just the same. 
 
 Question. Has not the government a good deal more service ren- 
 dered now for two hundred and some odd thousand dollars a year than 
 it had for seven hundred and some thousand under that arrange- 
 ment? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; on the contrary they have less ; because on the 
 Pacific ocean the contract now merely extends to San Francisco, while 
 then it extended to the Columbia river in Oregon ; on the Atlantic 
 ocean, as I understand it, Mr. Vanderbilt does the California service 
 of New York and New Orleans, but he does not do any service between 
 New York and New Orleans, which is an element in the previous 
 contract. The original contracts were made for this California service 
 at a time when the whole Pacific coast was a wilderness, and no 
 steamer had ever been put on ; and the routes were based somewhat 
 upon that. 
 
 By Mr. WiNSLOW : 
 
 Question. Travel has increased since then ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; travel has increased, for at that time the gold 
 was not discovered. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. What effect has the arrangement had upon travel ; has 
 it lessened the fare for passengers or increased it ? 
 
 Answer. Of course the prices for passage are less when there is any 
 competition. 
 
 Question. How much less are they than when that arrangement 
 lasted ? Give us the prices of each time as near as you can. 
 
 Answer. During the competition the prices were ruinous. 
 
 Question. How high were they ? 
 
 Answer. I could not name them without looking at our book. 
 
 Question. Since the competition ceased how have they been? 
 
 Answer. Well, sir, we have tried to make them remunerative ; I 
 will state here, with reference to this species of property in steam- 
 ships, in the first place it requires the investment of a large amount 
 of capital ; it also requires some skill in its management, and the in- 
 vestment is rather a hazardous one ; so that the remuneration must 
 be large or else the property is not worth holding ; the average life of 
 a steamship is not over ten years, and during that time she must 
 make money or the property is not worth having. 
 
 Question. In your testimony you represented something equivalent 
 to this — that if a service was rendered by a million and a half of 
 money it could be done cheaper than if there had been three millions 
 employed ; now, what I mean to get at is, did you not do the service 
 cheaper when there was a million and a half of capital than when 
 there was three millions ? 
 
 Answer. T do not understand the question. 
 
 Question, My experience in transportation is, that where you buy 
 off parties at enormous prices you have got to add it to the price of 
 the service you render ; has not that been the case in these transao 
 
POST OFFICE DEPABNMENT, ETC. 799 
 
 tions with -which you are connected ; had you not to put that upon 
 the charge for travel and service ? 
 
 Answer. My answer is this : that if two lines were running hetween 
 New York and San Francisco, the probahility of their running at 
 fixed and remunerative rates would be very small indeed ; I might 
 say it was almost impossible with a man whose experience in life has 
 been such as Mr. Vanderbilt's has been. The answer that I gave just 
 now was this : That if two lines were run, you would employ the 
 capital necessary for two lines, and you would have the running ex- 
 penses necessarily incident upon two lines ; so that if Mr, Vander- 
 bilt's line had been running at the same time with the line of the 
 Pacific Mail Steamship Company, it is very clear to my mind that if 
 both companies had remunerative rates the public would be taxed 
 more than they would be to sustain one line remuneratively and pay 
 the bonus to Mr. Vanderbilt besides. That is my answer, as I in- 
 tended to be understood. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. Mr. Vanderbilt had a line from Nicaragua, had he not ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; some years ago. 
 
 Question. He was competing with the other lines, was he? 
 
 Answer. Yes^ sir. 
 
 Question. And that competition produced ruinous results to both 
 companies ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. If two lines were established between New York it would 
 take exactly double the capital to carry them on that it would take to 
 have one line only do the business ? 
 
 Answer. I would not say that it would take double the capital, for 
 the oppositioti line is generally an inferior one ; but it would take a 
 large additional capital. 
 
 Question. And to remunerate the owners of both lines the prices 
 must be raised ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. > n- o 
 
 Question. And that would result in a heavy tax upon the public ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And the result would be that it would he better to have 
 one line only rather than two ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; it would. 
 
 Question. Do I understand that any arrangement was made be- 
 tween the Pacific Mail Steamship Company and Mr. Vanderbilt for 
 the purpose of forcing the government to pay more than they ought 
 to pay for transporting the mails? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. I may appear a li^tlf prosy in my 
 answers, but as I happen to represent a corporation ot |4,000,0UU ot 
 capital, I want to give my answers so that those interested m the cor- 
 poration may understand them, if they ever see them. 
 
 Question. Is there anything more that you desire to say upon the 
 subject of this arrangement ? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean the arrangement with Mr. Vanderbilt i 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. Do you desire to say anything more about it ? 
 
800 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Answer. I may after having seen what I have already said. 
 
 Question. You would be at liberty to do so in writing, I presume. 
 
 Answer. I think it is apparent to you all what my motive is in my 
 answers, and that is simply to state what I say that it may he plainly 
 understood. 
 
 No. 67. 
 
 Fripat, May 25, 1860. 
 JAMES E. HAEVEY called and sworn. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Mr. Winslow read to the witness that portion of Mr. Barney's tes- 
 timony which referred to Mr. Harvey's having telegraphed to New 
 York the conditional contract made with Mr. Vanderbilt for carrying 
 the California mails. 
 
 Question. What do you know about that? 
 
 Answer. All I can say about that is simply this : my recollection 
 of the matter is very imperfect, and could only be revived by my read- 
 ing my correspondence upon that subject to the " North American " 
 at that time, in which I treated the subject more elaborately than I 
 did in the brief telegraphic despatch I sent to New York, if I did send 
 one. This subject at that time was one of large public interest both 
 to Philadelphia and New York, and to the whole commercial commu- 
 nity. Of course I took occasion to inform myself from the best sources 
 whether the mail was to be stopped at the expiration of the contract 
 or to be continued, and how continued. Therefore I applied to the 
 best sources of information in order that the commercial community 
 should have the benefit of it. If I sent such a despatch I should want 
 to read it before T speak in regard to it. 
 
 Question. J)id you ever communicate to Mr. Barney that you sent 
 such a telegraphic despatch to any paper ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; if I sent such a depatch you may take it for 
 granted that I sent it believing it to be so, and that I got my informa- 
 tion from- the best sources. As to the struggle between these parties, 
 I cared nothing about it at all. 
 
 Question. Do you know Mr. Chase Barney ? 
 
 Answer. I know him generally ; I had a limited acquaintance with 
 him many years ago. 
 
 Question, Do you know him now by reputation ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he a capitalist? 
 
 Answer. Not that I ever have heard. 
 
 Question. Is he a man of any means ? 
 
 _ Answer. I should judge not, from what I have heard from some of 
 his own relations. 
 
 Question. Should you judge so from hia general reputation ? 
 
 Answer. I should judge not. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 801 
 
 Question. Does he own any. ships ? 
 
 Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Question. Is not Mr. Barney's reputation what we in common par- 
 lance call that of a "striker?" 
 
 Answer. I have regarded Mr. Barney, in connexion with these 
 public matters, as rather a speculator or adventurer ; perhaps "spec- 
 ulator" is the proper word. 
 
 Question. Do you know Daniel H. Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, I do not. 
 
 Question. Do you know Cornelius Vanderbilt ? 
 
 Answer. I know him slightly personally, and very well hy general 
 repute. 
 
 Question. What is his reputation for pecuniary ability ? 
 
 Answer. He is regarded as among the most wealthy men of the 
 country. . 
 
 Question. What is his reputation for ability in managing steam- 
 ship matters ? 
 
 Answer. So far as my knowledge and opportunities of information 
 gol should say he was among the most skilled and competent men, 
 being the architect of his own fortune, and having risen as a steam- 
 boat man to his present distinction. 
 
 Question. Can you say, from your best recollection, that if such a 
 despatch was sent by you the information was not furnish^ to you by 
 the Postmaster General? 
 
 Answer. From general recollection I think I can safely say that. 
 
 Mr. Harvey, upon examination of the foregoing testimony, desires 
 to say, that since he appeared as a witness on the 25th of May, he has 
 taken occasion to inform himself more particularly in regard to the 
 questions propounded by Mr. Winslow. After inquiring in Philadel- 
 phia he discovered that his last letter to the North American was 
 written on the 31st of July, and that he left this city a few days after. 
 The despatch attributed to him by Barney, as having been sent from 
 Washington to New York, in regard to the provisional contract of 
 the Post OfSce Department with Commodore Vanderbilt, was not sent 
 by him, for at that very time, and for several weeks before and after 
 it, he was in Brattleboro', Yermont. 
 
 June 4, 1860. 
 
 No. 62. 
 Saturday, May 26, 1860. 
 WILLIAM C. BARNEY recalled. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 Question. You stated in your former testimony that you made pro- 
 posals on the 5th of March, 1859, to the Postmaster General to trans- 
 port the mail. Were.the proposals signed by guarantors ? 
 Answer. They were not, sir. I will remark that the proposals were 
 
 H. Een. Com. 648 51 
 
802 POST OPBICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 dated the 5th of March, and were filed on the Tth. The proposals 
 contain this clause : " I am prepared, upon ten days' notice, to enter 
 into proper sureties to carry out my proposals." 
 
 Question. Was any person interested with you ; and if so, who were 
 they ? With whom was you connected ? 
 
 Answer. The New York and New Orleans Steamship Company, 
 composed of Livingston, Crocheron, Lockwood, and Meade, were inter- 
 ested with me in making these proposals, and agreed to do the service 
 "between New York, Havana, and New Orleans. The other part of 
 the service was to he done by Elwood Fisher, Mr. Sloo, and others. 
 
 Question. What were your relations with the parties whom you first 
 named — Livingston & Co. ? 
 
 Answer. My relations with them were these : I was concerned with 
 them in Europe. I made proposals to carry the mails hetween Bor- 
 deaux and New Orleans, and raised $4'00,000 for that purpose. They 
 agreed to raise one-half of the money, and I had the other half. That 
 was my connexion with that matter. 
 
 Question. Have you copies of those proposals ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Were your hids that you put in under these proposals t& 
 the Postmaster General signed by any guarantors ? 
 
 Answer. The four bids that I put in under proposals invited hy a 
 letter from the Postmaster G-eneral, addressed to me, were signed hy 
 two guarantors, whose sufficiency was certified to hy Postmaster 
 Fowler, of New York. 
 
 Question. Did you ever obtain a contract for transporting the mails 
 from the Postmaster General ? If so, state between what points, and 
 for what compensation ? 
 
 Answer. I obtained a contract from Postmaster General Brown. 
 
 Question. Between what points ? 
 
 Answer. Between New York, New Orleans, and Havana, for two 
 years ; the compensation was the postages, under the law of the 14th 
 of June, 1858. This was immediately after the passage of the law ; it 
 was the first contract under the law. The contract will expire on the 
 30th of next June, and the service has been faithfully performed. 
 Only one trip was lost, which was in consequence of the loss of the 
 steamship Black Warrior. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What line was that of which you are speaking ? 
 
 Answer. The New York and New Orleans Steamship Company. 
 
 Question. In what business are you engaged ? 
 
 Answer. I am engaged now in getting up a line from New Orleans to 
 Bordeaux ; I have been engaged in that enterprise for some five years 
 past. 
 
 Question. Where do you live ? 
 
 Answer. In New York city, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you keep house or board ? 
 
 Answer. I have been keeping house. 
 
 Question. What ships do you own ? 
 
 Answer. I do not own any. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 803 
 
 Question. Did you ever own any ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. What reliance did you have that you could perform this 
 contract for carrying the mail between New York and San Francisco ? 
 
 Answer. I had Crocheron, Livingston, & Co. to carry it between 
 New Orleans and Havana. 
 
 Question. How was it to go from there? 
 
 Answer. Elwood Fisher agreed with me to do the rest of the service. 
 
 Question. From Havana ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What was the nature of that arrangement between you 
 and Mr. Fisher ? 
 
 Answer. I merely asked Mr. Fisher to do it, and I was to have had 
 no consideration paid me for it. I merely wanted him to do that part 
 of the service. 
 
 Question. He was to have the whole contract from Havana through. ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Fisher when you 
 made the contract ? Was it made at his instance and with his appro- 
 bation and consent ? 
 
 Answer. I threw up my proposals, and submitted it to him. 
 
 Question. Did you have any conversation with him on the subject 
 before you submitted it to him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I distinctly understand you to say that you had a conver- 
 sation with Mr. Fisher before you filed your proposals ; and when you 
 filed your proposals the understanding was that Livingston & Co. 
 should do the work to Havana, and Mr. Fisher was to do it from 
 Havana to San Francisco, and he was to have the benefit of the 
 whole of that ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you advise the Post Office Department of that ? 
 
 Answer. In the presence of Mr. Fisher I did. 
 
 Question. What ships did Mr. Fisher have? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Fisher acted as trustee for Mr. Sloo. 
 
 Question. Acted as trustee for Sloo ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did he have any ships ? ... 
 
 Answer. Mr. Fisher had the control of one-half the ships— that is, 
 all the ships belonging to Mr. Sloo— one-half of the ships belonging 
 to the New York and United States Mail Steamship Company. 
 
 Question. You mean that he had control of all Mr. Sloo's ships, 
 which were half of the ships of the other company ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Will you name what ships they were ? 
 
 Answer. There were five of them— the Illinois, Moses Taylor, Em- 
 pire City, Philadelphia, and Star of the West. _ 
 
 Question. Where were these vessels at that time ? _ 
 
 Answer. They were in New York, engaged in carrying the mails. 
 
 Question. Where? ^ * • n 
 
 Answer. From New York and New Orleans to Aspmwall. 
 
 Question. Were they all employed upon that line? 
 
804 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Answer. They were all employed, but some of them might have 
 been lying idle temporarily. 
 
 Question. What ships did Mr. Sloo have upon the Pacific side ? 
 
 Answer. None that I know of, sir. 
 
 Question. How long does it take a vessel to get fitted out at New 
 York, and go round the Horn to San Francisco? What would be the 
 usual voyage? 
 
 Answer. It has been done in sixty days, but eighty ought to be al- 
 lowed on the average. 
 
 Question. What capital do you suppose would be necessary to main- 
 tain a line in efficiency on those routes, under the proposals that you 
 made from New York to San Francisco ? 
 
 Answer. Two ships would do that part of the line between New 
 Orleans and Havana — say ^300,000. 
 
 Question. I want to know the whole amount of capital that would 
 be necessary to maintain these lines, or either of them that you oflFered 
 for, from New York to San Francisco, in a i^tate of efficiency ? 
 
 Answer. One million of dollars. 
 
 Question. What are your pecuniary means ; what are you worth ? 
 
 Answer. I have no property at all. 
 
 Question. You are not worth anything? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You are not a capitalist ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. With what capitalists are you associated ? 
 
 Answer. With Crocheron, Livingston & Co. 
 
 Question. How much are they worth ? 
 
 Answer. About half a million dollars, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you the control of that capital? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Are you a partner in their line from New York to New 
 Orleans ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. How do you stand afiected towards that line ; what is 
 your situation or connexion with it ? 
 
 Answer. I have been acting for them as agent for about two years 
 and a half. 
 
 Question. What compensation did you get ? 
 
 Answer. They gave me two thousand dollars. 
 
 Question. Two thousand dollars a year ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they gave me that some two years ago. Since 
 then I have not done anything ior them. 
 
 Question. You were not in their employment when you made these 
 proposals ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; they were made during that time. 
 
 Question. When did your agency expire? 
 
 Answer. I began with them just belore the adjournment of Con- 
 gress, in 1858. I believe it was just a year, sir. 
 
 Question. Then your agency had expired when you made these pro- 
 posals? 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 805 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Congress adjourned in June, 1858, and it was 
 during that year, sir. 
 
 Question. The year from June, 1858, to June, 1859 ? 
 
 Answer. Tes, sir. 
 
 Question. When was it that you made these proposals ? 
 
 Answer.^ In March, 1859. 
 
 Question. And you say that you got two thousand dollars for your 
 general services? , 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You got no more than that, did you? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Was it by the year that you were employed? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; it was not by the year. 
 
 Question. How was it then ? 
 
 Answer. They asked me to attend to certain business in Washing- 
 ton with regard to mail contracts. 
 
 Question. So you got two thousand dollars to attend to certain busi- 
 ness in reference to mail contracts ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Please to state what business that was ? 
 
 Answer. I got the contract that I named before, to carry the mail 
 between New York, New Orleans, and Havana. 
 
 Question. You procured that for them ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You tried to get other contracts alsOj did you not ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Did you succeed in doing it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Your engagement with them was then at an end ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; then I made application for this contract. 
 
 Question. That was part of your service for the compensation of 
 two thousand dollars ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. When you succeeded in that, it was paid over ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; they gave it to me for my expenses and services. 
 
 Question. Did you inform the Postmaster General of the relation in 
 which you stood to this firm — that you was merely acting as their 
 agent ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I did not. 
 
 Question. How long have you been here this session ? 
 
 Answer. I came down on Monday last. 
 
 Question. And you proposed to stay until Congress adjourned ? 
 
 Answer. I did, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you any engagement here now ? 
 
 Answer. I have an application before Congress for the establish- 
 ment of a line from New Orleans to Bordeaux. 
 
 Question. Who are you acting for in that in matter? 
 Answer. I am acting for inyself. 
 
 Question. And you propose to carry the mail from New Orleans to 
 Bordeaux ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
806 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Question. Have you made proposals to the Postmaster General? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they are to Congress. 
 
 Question. In what shape — in the shape of a memorial ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. , 
 
 Question. When was it filed ? 
 
 Answer. On Monday last ; it was presented by Senator Benjamin 
 in the Senate, and Hon. Miles Taylor in the House. 
 
 Question. And you are not concerned with any body at all in that 
 matter ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Lockwood is concerned with me. 
 
 Question. Who is he? 
 
 Answer. He is one of the firm of the New York and New Orleans 
 steamship company. 
 
 Question. The same individual that you mentioned before ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What interest did each of you have ? 
 
 Answer. I was to own one half of the line. 
 
 Question. But you stated just now that you had no capital ? 
 
 Answer. I have $400,000 at my disposal. 
 
 Question. To whom does it belong? 
 
 Answer. To a house in Bordeaux. 
 
 Question. What is the name of the house ? 
 
 Answer. A. Olivari. 
 
 Question. Were they to be partners with you? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; they lent me the money. 
 
 Question. What security did you give them ? 
 
 Answer. They gave me the money to build the ships, and took a 
 lien on the ships as security. 
 
 Question. When did you expect to build' the ships ? 
 
 Answer. Not until I got the contract. 
 
 Question. When does your memorial ask that the contract shall go 
 into operation ? 
 
 Answer. It does not state any fixed time. 
 
 Question. Then you put in a general memorial to take a contract to 
 carry the mails to 13ordeaux, and expect to build the ships to perform 
 the service in ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; as is usually done — we do not expect to com- 
 mence in less than twelve months. 
 
 Question. Can you build four ships in twelve months ? 
 
 Answer. We only want two. 
 
 Question. Do you expect to have them done in twelve months ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you are asking Congress to pass a law authorizing 
 the establishment of a line to Bordeaux, when you have got no ships 
 to carry the mails in ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you are to get no compensation from any one what- 
 ever? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I have been five years devoting my time to that 
 enterprise. 
 
 Question. Are you to put two ships on yourself? 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 807 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question, What is this other gentleman to do ? 
 Answer. He is to build one extra one— we are to have three ships, 
 so as to have one in case of an accident ? 
 Question. He is to build one ship, and you two ? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What is the arrangement between you and him about the 
 shares ? 
 
 Answer. Each is to have half, sir. 
 
 Question. You are to put in two ships and he only one, and each, 
 have half of the profits ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. For how long a time have you borrowed that money of 
 this French house ? 
 
 Answer. For ten years, payable by instalments each year. 
 
 Question. What benefit are they to get from this ? 
 
 Answer. They are to have the agency, and four and a half per cent, 
 interest on their capital. 
 
 Question. And you say, supposing you do not succeed in getting this 
 contract, that you are then to get nothing from anybody? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Are there no expenses to be paid ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Where are you staying here in Washington ? ' 
 
 Answer. I am staying at the Exchange Hotel. 
 
 Question. Have you been making any interest in Congress for the 
 passage of this law ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Have you spoken to any members about it? 
 
 Answer. I have mentioned it Messrs. Colfax and Craig, of the Post 
 Office Committee, informally. 
 
 Question. Have you seen the Postmaster General upon the subject? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. You have had no communication with him at all ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir, not a word. 
 
 Question. Do you know Daniel H. Johnson? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Is he a capitalist? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Has he any means at all? 
 
 Answer. Not that I know of. 
 
 Question. With what capitalists is he associated ? 
 
 Answer. None that I know of, sir. 
 
 Question. What enabled you to say that Mr. Johnson could not 
 carry out his contract— that is what you sayin your testimony ? 
 
 Answer. Because I was aware of his exertions to do so ; and I knew 
 that the parties with whom he was connected could not do it. 
 
 Question. You add, unless aided by you ; what do you mean by 
 
 that ? 
 
 Answer. I mean that if the parties with whom I was connected had 
 cdme in we could have carried it out. 
 
808 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Question. What parties ? 
 
 Answer. Crocheron, Livingston, and others. 
 
 Question. Did you propose to aid him ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Then why did you put in that ? 
 
 Answer. It was a statement that if I had chosen to aid him he could 
 have carried it out. 
 
 Question. Could he not have got Mr. Vanderbilt to aid him ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Vanderbilt refused to do it. 
 
 Question. But you say he could not to do it unless aid by you ; were 
 there not many other persons in New York who had the means to aid 
 him? 
 
 Answer. Certainly ; but they refused. 
 
 Question. Do you know that all the capitalists in New York had 
 refused ? 
 
 Answer. He had applied to some dozen, and none of them would 
 aid him. 
 
 Question. State who he applied to. 
 
 Answer. He applied to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, and 
 they refused ; then there was the Eoberts Company, Mr. Vanderbilt, 
 and Horace H. Day, the India-rubber man ; I believe there were two 
 or three others, whom I cannot call to mind now. 
 
 Question. "Was not Mr. Johnson what is called a " bogus bidder," 
 sir, in your opinion ? 
 
 Answer. He was ; I considered him so, sir ; his bid was certified to 
 by sureties. 
 
 Question, I do not know whether I have asked you how many ships 
 it would require to perform the service upon either of your lines. Your 
 first proposition is for semi-monthly service between New York and 
 San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco, via 
 Havana and the Isthmus of Nicaragua, and twenty-three days from 
 New York, and twenty-one days from New Orleans, returning in 
 twenty-two days to New York and nineteen days to New Orleans. 
 How many ships would it require to perform that service ? 
 
 Answer. Six vessels would do it. 
 
 Question. Your next proposition is for similar service ma Key West 
 and the Isthmus of Nicaragua in the same time each way. Would 
 that require any more vessels ? 
 
 Answer. No more, sir ? 
 
 Question. The third proposition is for a like service via Havana and 
 the Isthmus of Nicaragua, embracing Savannah, Georgia, as a third 
 Atlantic terminus in the same time each way. How many ships would 
 that require ? 
 
 Answer. That would take seven ships. Samuel L. Mitchell, of New 
 York, was to put that part on from Savannah. 
 
 Question. Your other proposition is for like service between New 
 York and San Francisco, and New Orleans and San Francisco, the 
 steamships to run direct from New York and New Orleans to and from 
 the Isthmus of Nicaragua, in twenty-two days from New York, and 
 twenty days from New Orleans to San Francisco, returning in twenty- 
 one days from San Francisco to New York, and nineteen days from 
 San Francisco to New Orleans. How many ships would that require ? 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC, 809 
 
 Answer. That would require five. 
 
 Question. "What ships did you have to rely upon to perform the 
 service from New York on the fifth of October, supposing that, unon 
 that day, when Mr. Johnson failed to carry the mails^ the Postmaster 
 General had closed with you on your proposals ? 
 
 Answer. I had no ships in New York ; but I had every reason to 
 believe that the steamship St. Louis, belonging to the Pacific Mail 
 Steamship Company, then coaled, would have done the service. 
 
 Question. Where was she? 
 
 Answer. She was lying at the dock in New York. 
 
 Question. In whose possession ? 
 
 Answer. In the possession of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. 
 
 Question. Was she up for any place ? 
 
 Answer. She was offered to the Johnson people to do that service. 
 
 Question. What ship did you have on the other side? 
 
 Answer. I expected the Pacific Mail Steamship Company to do the 
 service. 
 
 Question. You had no arrangement with them, did you ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; no arrangement. 
 
 Question. You said something about Mr. Fisherj owning half the 
 Sloo vessels, agreeing to do the service for you ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know who the legal title was in for those vessels? 
 
 Answer. Elwood Fisher, Marshall 0. Koberts, and Horace F. Clark. 
 
 Question. Had you consulted either of the other gentlemen besides 
 Mr. Fisher upon the subject ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. Then you had no reliance upon the majority of the 
 owners that they would do the service? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Fisher represented one-half of the ships, although 
 there were three trustees. 
 
 Question. How do you mean ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Sloo owned one-half of the ships and Mr. Fisher was 
 his trustee. The United States Mail Steamship Company owned the 
 other half, and they had two trustees. 
 
 Question. Did they own the ships, specifying to whom each he- 
 longed, or was one-half of each ship the property of Fisher and the 
 other half the property of the two trustees? 
 
 Answer. I do not know, sir. 
 
 Question. You are not prepared to say whether Fisher owned any 
 one vessel out and out. 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; I am not prepared to say. 
 
 Question. You had not had any conversation with the co-trustees 
 whatever? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. And you had no contract with them ? 
 
 Answer. None whatever. 
 
 Question. Did you contract to purchase or charter any vessel your- 
 self? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
810 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Question. Did you make any arrangement in writing, toucliing this 
 contract, with any person ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; with Mr. Fisher. 
 
 Question. Have you got that writing? 
 
 Answer. No, sir ; Mr. Fisher has it. 
 
 Question. Have you any copy of it ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. In making that arrangement, did you only have one 
 copy of it and retain none yourself? 
 
 Answer. I retained none. He drew it up and I signed it. 
 
 Question. You consider it somewhat under your control? 
 
 Answer. Not at all, sir. 
 
 Question. He has the writing still, has he not? 
 
 Answer. I presume he has it. 
 
 Question. Is it not the property of hoth? 
 
 Answer. It was a joint agreement between us. 
 
 Question. As you did not retain a copy, do you not consider that 
 as you are a party to the agreement you are entitled to the custody of 
 it as well as he ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose so. 
 
 Question. Could you produce it if required ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Fisher has gone away now, but I do not suppose 
 there will be any difficulty at all upon the subject. 
 
 Question. Have you any credit that would have enabled you your- 
 self to carry on this operation ? 
 
 Answer. I had made arrangements to do it and wanted none other. 
 
 Question. Suppose Fisher had not stood by his agreement, would 
 you not have been thrown upon your own exertions to do it ? 
 
 Answer, With the mail contract, and could have done it. 
 
 Question. How is that? 
 
 Answer. The mail contract was worth half a million of dollars. 
 
 Question. Clear profits. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How do you make that out ? 
 
 Answer. It was in consequence of the power it threwinto the hands 
 of the contractors. 
 
 Question. What power ? 
 
 Answer. The control of the Isthmus route. 
 
 Question, Which Isthmus route' 
 
 Answer. Either of them. Whoever had the mail contract had the 
 power to govern the Isthmus. 
 
 Question. The Isthmus of Panama. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; either of them. 
 
 Question. Who owns the Panama railroad ? 
 
 Answer. One-third of it is owned in England, and the balance is 
 owned by stockholders. 
 
 Question. And you say that if you had got the contract for carrying 
 the mail you would have controlled the passenger travel and business 
 on that route. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How could you have done that ? 
 
POST OrPlCE BEPAKTMENT, ETC. 811 
 
 Answer. Well, sir ; four-fifths of the passengers who go from New 
 York want to go by the mail line, for they know that the mails are 
 bound to go through, and they want to go with the mails. 
 
 Question. If the Nicaragua route was not opened, then they would 
 be obliged to go by Panama. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; in that case. 
 
 Question. Could you control the Panama route then ? 
 
 Answer. If the Nicaragua route was not opened, it would be because 
 the people did not choose to open it. 
 
 Question. If the Nicaragua route was not open, and the department 
 had accepted your proposition to go by Panama, could you have so 
 controlled the Panama route as to make $500,000 clear profit? 
 
 Answer. Well, I do not know that I could control that-company. 
 I stated that the contract was worth that, because it controlled the 
 travel to California ta a great extent. 
 
 Question. That is, throwing out the Panama Eailroad Company en- 
 tirely. 
 
 Answer. Paying them what they might charge. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that that company has refused to con- 
 tract with anybody but the government ? 
 
 Answer. I do. 
 
 Question. What reliance had you, then, that they would contract 
 with you ? 
 
 Answer. They were obliged to take a contract by the government 
 of Panama. 
 
 Question. From the mail contractor. 
 
 Answer. From anybody. 
 
 Question. Why has not that been done, then ? 
 
 Answer. Because nobody has gone down to Panama and enforced 
 the laws of Panama upon them. 
 • Question. Wky did you put in four bids ? 
 
 Answer. There were four routes. 
 
 Question. Your first bid was for semi-monthly service between New 
 York and San Francisco, and between New Orleans and San Francisco 
 via Havana and Isthmus of Nicaragua, 23 days from New York, 21 
 days from New Orleans ; returning, to New York in 22 days, and to 
 New Orleans in 19 days, for $178,100. You say it would require six 
 vessels to perform that service. 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Your fourth bid was for like service, the vessels to run 
 direct from New York and New Orleans to and from the Isthmus of 
 Nicara<>-ua in 22 days from New York and 20 days from New Orleans ; 
 returning, in 21 days to New York, and 19 days to New Orleans, 
 for $268,200. You say it would require five ships to perform that 
 service. 
 
 Question. Why would it require only five ships for that, when you 
 say it would take six for the other ? , t, ,,. ^i, . 
 
 Answer I contemplated putting the Atlantic and Baltic on that 
 route. And then it costs more to run quick^than to run slow 
 
 Question. And you think a day less would be worth $100,000 f 
 
812 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Answer, With larger ships. 
 
 Question. Did you state to the Postmaster G-eneral, in making these 
 propositions, that the reason you increased the amouht of the bid 
 |100,000 was for larger ships? 
 
 Answer. I distinctly stated to him that the Atlantic and Baltic 
 would he put on that route. 
 
 Question. By whom were those vessels owned ? 
 
 Answer. By Brown & Brothers. 
 
 Question. Where are they ? 
 
 Answer. In New York. 
 
 Question. Had you made any arrangements with them for their 
 ships ? 
 
 Answer. I had had conversations with Clarkson N. Potter ahout 
 the matter. 
 
 Question. Had you any assurances that they would be so used ? 
 
 Answer. I bad the assurances of a gentleman. 
 
 Question. Who ? 
 
 Answer. Clarkson N. Potter. 
 
 Question. That the ships could be so used ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. So that when yoa made tlie proposition, you rested only 
 upon Ihe word of Mr. Potter that you could get the ships ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And if he had refused to let you have them, could ycm 
 have carried out the contract ? 
 
 Answer. The ships were in market. 
 
 Question. Could you have bought them ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. What were they worth ? 
 
 Answer. They were worth $ljOOO,000, but they were offered for 
 $450,000. 
 
 Question. You stated that Mr. Johnson was broken down by the 
 conditional arrangement with Mr. Vanderbilt ? 
 
 Answer. I stated, just now, that the contract was worth half a 
 million of dollars ; and had not discredit been thrown upon it by the 
 announcement in the papers that a conditional contract had been made 
 with Mr. Vanderbilt, Johnson could have got money irom capitalists. 
 
 Question. How was that? 
 
 Answer. The announcement threw discredit upon it by leading 
 persons to suppose that the government themselves did not rely upon 
 the contractor. 
 
 Question, That did not affect the ability of the party to carry out 
 his contract ? 
 
 Answer. In my opinion, it did ; and in the opinion of the capital- 
 ists of New York it did. 
 
 Question. Explain upon what you base your opinion ; what are the 
 facts upon which you base it ? 
 
 Answer. I base my opinion upon the fact itself, that discredit was 
 thrown upon it by the department. 
 
 Question. Johnson had the contract ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 813 
 
 _ Question. And it got out that a provisional arrangement, was made 
 m case that Johnson failed to meet his contract? 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. And you say that had the effect to break Johnson down ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Of what assistance did that deprive Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know of what assistance it deprived him; but I 
 know the general effect it had in New York. 
 
 Question. You do not know, then, that it did deprive him of any 
 assistance ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know specifically of any individual assistance 
 that it deprived him. 
 
 Question. It is just your judgment, then ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 _ Question. It is merely your opinion that it did deprive him of as- 
 sistance,^ although you do not know anybody of whose assistance it 
 did deprive him ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know when this provisional arrangement was 
 made with Mr. Vanderbilt ? 
 
 Answer. It was made in the latter part of August, but I find that 
 it was announced publicly in New York on the 7th of September. 
 
 Question. Then from the 30th of August, when that arrangement 
 was made, up to the 7th of September or thereabouts, when it was 
 publicly announced, it could have had no effect upon Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir. 
 
 Question. W hat was the time between the 7th of September and 
 the day when the ship was to leave New York ? 
 
 Answer. A month, less two days. 
 
 Question Then your opinion is tliat up to that time Johnson had 
 made no arrangement whatever to carry out his contract ? 
 
 Answer. I know the fact that he had not. 
 
 Question. Then you say that a month before the ship was to sail the 
 ^ect of this provisional arrangement was to break Johnson down ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, I know it ; I know that he was trying to make 
 arrangements ; I was watching him very closely, as I considered my- 
 self aggrieved by his contract. 
 
 Question. Did you write to Mr. Vanderbilt to aid you in carrying 
 out this contract ? 
 
 Answer. I did, on the 5th of March. 
 
 Question. What reply did he make to you ? 
 
 Ansvier. I had better state my proposition, as it was telegraphed to 
 him. 
 
 Question. I have no objection. 
 
 Answer. I telegraphed' to him, " Will you do the service between 
 . Panama and San Francisco for two years for ^ two- thirds of the post- 
 ages?" His answer was, telegraphic, "No." 
 
 Question. What is the amount of postages on that route ? 
 
 Answer. The last year it was 299,900 and odd dollars, and that 
 was low. 
 
81.4 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Question. Tour first proposition was to do the service for that com- 
 pensation ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. I think you have said that it was notorious in New York 
 that Johnson could not carry out his contract ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. If you had wanted to make a contract suddenly to carry 
 the mails from New York and New Orleans to San Francisco, upon 
 whom would you have placed most reliance if two propositions had 
 heen made to you, one hy Mr. Vanderbilt and one by Mr. Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. If Mr. Vanderbilt had given sureties I would have taken 
 him. 
 
 Question. If he had not? 
 
 Answer. Then I would not have taken him. 
 
 Question. I mean upon whose pecuniary ability would you have 
 placed the most reliance ? 
 
 Answer. Oh ! Mr. Vanderbilt is the strongest steamship man in 
 the United States. 
 
 Question. He has great experience ? 
 
 Answer. .Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. You would not have relied upon his word ? 
 
 Answer. I would not have taken the word of either of them. 
 
 Question. Suppose both had applied, without any bond or surety to 
 do the service ; upon which would you have relied in preference to the 
 other, Mr. Vanderbilt or Mr. Johnson ? 
 
 Answer. Oh^ upon Mr. Vanderbilt. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Vanderbilt refused to purchase 
 Johnson out ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know the fact ; I believe it from common rumor. 
 
 Question. Do you not know that Johnson applied to Marshall 0. 
 Eoberts and the trustees of the United States Mail Steamship Com- 
 pany, and they refused ? 
 
 Answer, Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know when he applied to the Pacific Mail Steam- 
 ship Company? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question. Did he not do so at the last hour ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir, and he did long before that. I will state another 
 thing ; the Pacific Mail Steamship Company were willing to do the 
 work tor nothing. 
 
 'Question. Do you know anything about Johnson assigning the 
 contract to Sioo & Co.? 
 
 Answer. Johnson did make an assignment of his contract to Mr. 
 White, very shortly after he obtained it. 
 
 Question. Did you ever ofier to sell out your chances to get the 
 contract ? 
 
 Answer. Do you mean to sell out if I got the contract ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir. 
 
 Answer. I did not ; I went to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company 
 and said to them that if Johnson failed to fulfill his contract and it 
 was awarded to me as the lowest bidder, they could have it without 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 815 
 
 giving me any compensation whatever for it ; I made that proposition 
 to Mr. Davidge, and asked them if they would take it. 
 
 Question. Did you ever offer it for a specific sum of money ? 
 
 Answer. Never. 
 
 Question. Are you a lawyer ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. How long did you read law? 
 
 Answer. I read law with Charles J. Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, 
 about a year. 
 
 Question. Did you ever practice ? 
 
 Answer. I practiced in Philadelphia, after I was admitted, about a 
 year ; then I went to Baltimore, hut had bad health, and left the 
 practice of the law and went into civil engineering. 
 
 Question. "What was the extent of your practice ? Did you get 
 many cases ? 
 
 Answer. I was a mere lad in the office ; I abandoned the practice 
 of the law more than twenty years ago ; I went into civil engineering. 
 
 Question. Has your attention been turned to legal studies since 
 that period ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; somewhat. « 
 
 Question. What books have yon read ? 
 
 Answer, I am unable to specify. 
 
 Question. Have you ever read Dwarris on Statutes? 
 
 Answer. I never heard of the book. 
 
 Question. You took the liberty of criticising the opinion of the 
 Attorney General on tlie law about carrying the mails ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. And you took the liberty of laughing at it? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. And you say that the Postmaster Greneral laughed at it 
 also? 
 
 Answer. He smiled. 
 
 Question. You said in your testimony that he " laughed at it." 
 
 Answer. I did not mean by that that he laughed out loud. 
 
 Question. Are you quite sure that he was not laughing at you ? 
 
 Answer. He may have been laughing at me. 
 . Question. I see this statement in the special correspondence of the 
 New York Herald of yesterday : "Barney, who testified a day or two 
 ago, was also here on business when he was summoned to come before 
 the committee." Do you know anything about that- statement? 
 
 Answer. I know that statement exactly, because I told them myself 
 that I was not summoned from New York, but that the committee 
 summoned me here. 
 
 Question. To whom did you tell that ? _ 
 
 Answer. To a man by the name of Davidson. 
 
 Question. Who is he ? -? ^i, tt u t 
 
 Answer. He is a reporter for some of the papers ; for the Herald-, i 
 think ; I do not think he is a regular reporter. 
 
 Question. Did he apply to you, or did you go to him and give him 
 that information ? . ^ , , -.r m- i x 
 
 Answer. I met him at Mr. Fisher's ; I went to see Mr. Fisher to 
 
816 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 pay liim a visit and met him there, and told him that I was here on a 
 visit and had been summoned here. 
 
 Question. What was your object in stating that? 
 
 Answer. He was stating that Mr. Wilson was before the committee 
 on compulsion. 
 
 Question. Was your object to show that you were a voluntary or 
 an involuntary witness ? 
 
 Answer. That I was an involuntary witness. 
 
 Question. Did you not write to the chairman of this committee 
 some time since upon this subject ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Proposing to give him some information upon it ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 No. 75. 
 
 Saturday, May 26, 1860. 
 
 » 
 
 J. P. BENJAMIN called and examined. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. The committee have had before them Mr. Elwood Fisher, 
 and in the course of his examination he was asked by the chairman if 
 he knew " what course was taken by the administration in regard to 
 the opening of the Tehuantepec route." He said he did, and went oa 
 to give a long history of the matter. [Mr. Wifslow here read from 
 the testimony of Fisher that part in which he refers to Mr. Buchanan 
 sending out instructions by Senator Benjamin and Mr. La SSre to the 
 United States minister in Mexico in regard to the Tehuantepec route.] 
 I am anxious to hear your explanation, whether there was any con- 
 versation between you and the President in regard to any of these 
 matters. 
 
 Answer. The statement will take some little time. I will begin 
 before Mr. Sloo's connexion with it. About the year 1848 the citizens 
 of New Orleans determined on making an effort to open the Isthmus 
 of Tehuantepec. They entered into a contract with Mr. Hargous, who 
 owned the Garay grant, and organized a company under that grant. 
 General Taylor furnished a major of the engineer corps to make the 
 survey. The Mexican government gave passports to the engineers, 
 and the work was commence!. The company had agreed to give Mr. 
 Hargous |3,000,000 of stock for this grant, and this sum excited the 
 cupidity of the people in Mexico, and they cast about for a pretext to 
 turn the engineers off the Isthmus. The Mexican congress passed an 
 act annulling the grant on the ground that one of the presidents who 
 hfed given a prolongation of time for building the road had no power 
 to do so. For a series of years the United States government, through 
 Mr. Webster and Mr. Conrad, were in communication with the Mex- 
 ican government, urging the claims of our company and claiming 
 damages for a breach of contract, even to the point of pretty distinctly 
 threatening war for the confiscation of our rights. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 817 
 
 Mr. Sloo, under these circumstances, went to Mexico and obtained 
 a contract for opening this route, agreeing to give Mexico $600,000 
 cash. Not having any money there, he- authorized an agent to draw 
 bills on him m New Orleans, representing that he had the cash there 
 m bank, and obtained a negotiation of these bills through an English 
 banking house in Mexico. This house, however, refused to advance 
 the money on his bills unless with a pledge of the grant, and an au- 
 thority to sell out the grant instanter, without any judicial proceed- 
 ings, if the bills were dishonored. The contract was made in accord- 
 ance with these conditions, with the approbation of the Mexican 
 government. When the bills arrived at New Orleans, they were 
 written accepted not paid ; Mr. Sloo had not a cent in bank there. 
 Mr. Sloo organized a company, with a nominal capital of $10,000,000, 
 of which he was to have one-half for himself as the price of the grant 
 which he conveyed to the company as the basis of its operations. No 
 appreciable amount of stock was ever subscribed to his company, and 
 no money raised by payments on the stock ; and Mr. Sloo devoted his 
 efforts to obtaining a loan of money from capitalists, on the pledge of 
 his grant, to build the road. 
 
 Several years passed without anything being done on the Isthmus 
 of Tehuantepec towards building the plank road, or even a carriage 
 road that could be crossed in dry weather. The Isthmus remained 
 closed to the commerce of New Orleans. The old company still in- 
 sisted upon indemnity for the confiscation of its grant. Mr. Sloo got 
 into a quarrel with the board of directors of his own company, and 
 finally into lawsuits with them. In the meantime the English banker 
 in Mexico obtained a cession from the Mexican government, under the 
 pledge that had been made to him by Sloo forfeiting the grant in his 
 favor ; and this English capitalist proposed to Mr. Hargous to transfer 
 to him his rights thus acquired under the pledge made by Sloo, and 
 to unite these rights with the rights under the G-aray grant, and put 
 the whole together and apply to the Mexican government for a new 
 contract, which would liquidate the rights of all the parties, relieve 
 Mexico from the claims of the old Garay company, and also relieve the 
 English banking house from the loss of the $600,000 which it had 
 advanced to Mr. Sloo. This contract was made between Mr. Falconett, 
 the English banker, and Mr. Hargous, who was acting for the benefit 
 of the Louisiana company, in which I had been engaged. The Mexi- 
 can government, however, refused to permit Mr. Falconett to transfer 
 his rights to Mr. Hargous. 
 
 I then made complaint to the President that the Mexican govern- 
 ment was willing that that right of transit should be in the hands of an 
 English subject, but refused to allow it to pass into American hands. 
 And I applied to him to issue instructions to our minister to Mexico, 
 demanding that Mexico should put our citizens upon the same friendly 
 footing with the citizens of Great Britain. This was not done at the 
 time I first asked it ; but when a common contract had been made 
 between the direclors of the Sloo company and myself, in behalf of 
 the Garay company, which promised a settlement of all the conflicting 
 claims on the Isthmus, the President then said that he saw an opening 
 promising success in the establishment of this transit for our country, 
 
 H. Eep. Com. 638 52 
 
818 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 and sent a despatch to Mr. Forsyth, which will speak for itself, as it 
 has heen published on call of the Senate. 
 
 Mr. La Sere, who was the president of the Sloo company, and 
 myself went jointly to Mexico, and there made a new contract with 
 the Mexican government, agreeing with it to abandon all rights under 
 both the old grants, and to tate in exchange a new grant, the terms 
 of which were made as satisfactory as we could get them. The new 
 contract will speak for itself. 
 
 By Mr. Olin : 
 
 Question. I understand you to say that an agreement was entered 
 into by the president of the company in which Sloo was particularly 
 interested and the company under the Garay grant? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. At this time you say Sloo was at law with the company. 
 
 Answer. He was a stockholder and was at law with the company. 
 
 Question . In litigation with the company of which he was a member ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. He was not assenting to or agreeing in the contract, I 
 suppose, made by the president of the company with you on the part 
 of the Garay company ? 
 
 Answer. On the contrary, he was opposing it. 
 
 Question. The Sloo grant, as it is called, was guarantied under the 
 Gadsden treaty, was it not? 
 
 Answer. It was referred to in the Gadsden treaty, what the article 
 of the treaty means will, of course, appear upon its face ; the Gadsden 
 treaty guarantied the right of transit to the United States over the 
 Isthmus. 
 
 Question. Has the contract you obtained, the last one, been guar- 
 antied by any treaty stipulations between the two governments ? 
 
 Answer. No further than as succeeding to the Sloo grant ; the re- 
 cent treaty, not yet ratified, contains some further privileges in behalf 
 of the United States ; but our grant we consider to be covered by the 
 guaranty of the Gadsden treaty, we do not see any doubt about that. 
 
 Question. Were you interested in the company as a stockholder ? 
 
 Answer. Both in the Garay company and the new company, very 
 largely interested ever since 1848, but not in the Sloo company. 
 
 Question. Has anything been done towards opening the route since 
 the execution of the last contract which you have mentioned ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir ; we opened the route and had it open for a year, 
 and did a vast deal of work upon the Ist.hmus, but we broke down at 
 the close of the year from two causes. When we commenced to open 
 the route we did not anticipate working anywhere but on the Isthmus ; 
 when we obtained the contract from the government of the United 
 States for carrying the mails across the Isthmus as a shorter route, we 
 supposed we could readily get some steamship company to join us to 
 carry the mails on both sides ; we failed in making such a contractfor 
 the Gulf side, and to provide steamships ourselves and provide steam 
 communication on the Gulf, as well as conveyance across the Isth- 
 mus, our capital proved insufficient for that purpose. We had some- 
 thing like $250,000 or $300,000 paid in, which, with the receipts from 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT. ETC. 819 
 
 the mail contracts and passengers, gave us $500,000 or $600,000 the 
 first year, but so much was absorbed in establishing water communi- 
 cation across the Gulf that we were greatly restricted, and at the end 
 of the year, the mail contract having been withdrawn, the credit of the 
 coppany was broken down ; Mr. Hargous, the agent of the company, 
 failed in New York, and that destroyed the credit of the company. 
 
 Question. What was the difficulty in readily getting steamships 
 on the Gulf and the other side ? 
 
 Answer. I will tell you what I have understood the difficulty to 
 arise from: that there was some secret arrangement between Mr. 
 Vanderbilt and the Southern Mail Steamship Company of Harris & 
 Morgan, which does all the business on the Gulf, by which they were 
 inhibited from doing anything towards making any connexion with 
 California, which would interfere with Vanderbtlt's profits by his 
 being connected in some way with the route on the other side. New 
 Orleans is not a steamship place. There is one large steamship com- 
 pany there doing business along the Texan and Mexican coast, but 
 they refused to carry the mails for us to Tehuantepec, and we were 
 driven to use our capital in that way. • 
 
 Question. Would you have been able to have gone on with the 
 enterprise if government had continued the mail contract with you ? 
 
 Answer. The mail contract of itself would have helped us very 
 much, and we might have struggled through. But a terrible draW' 
 back was the heavy running expenses of steamships before the route 
 was in a condition for travel. We had to run the steamships to carry 
 the mails, and yet the route was not in a condition for transportation; 
 of passengers over it. If all our resources could have been devoted* 
 to making the Isthmus transitable for passengers as well as for mails— 
 it has always been transitable for mails— we could have gone through,, 
 without any difficulty, I think. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. I have already read to you that portion of the testimony; 
 of Mr. Fisher which mentions your name and Mr. La Sire. There 
 is also something said about Mr. Slidell. 
 
 Answer. Mr. Slidell never had any interest in it at all, except that,, 
 when our new company was formed he subscribed $5,000^ to the stock 
 of the company. _ 
 
 Question. I will now read you, from his testimony, his last answer. 
 " Hargous and company made a contract with the Post Office Depart- 
 ment, not only without the sanction of law, but in violation of law, 
 for $250,000 a year to carry that mail; and they have drawn the 
 money, but were never in a condition to carry the mail across the 
 Isthmus as the mail ought to be carried. The total amount of the 
 postages, for which they got this contract of $250,000 a year, did not 
 equal $5,000 ; so that not only was the diplomacy of the country^ 
 prostituted abroad, but the Post Office Department at home waa 
 prostituted by the interference of the President, for the purpose of 
 giving contracts and jobs to one class of men who were personallyr 
 more his favorites than another class." The effect and object of that, 
 testimony is to create the impression that there was a corrupt under 
 
820 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 standing between the President and Mr. La Sere and yourself and othr 
 ers, his favorites, for the purpose of benefitting you and other parties. 
 
 Answer. I cannot be expected to go into that kind of thing, of 
 course. The Postmaster General advertised for proposals under the 
 regular annual lettings for carrying the mails from New Orleans to 
 San Francisco via Tehuantepec. That was one of the regular annual 
 lettings. We made a proposition, and, with a great deal of difficulty 
 and urgency, finally obtained the contract from the Postmaster General, 
 stating that we had the right to it under his advertisement. The 
 President never had the slightest interference of any kind, to my 
 knowledge, with this mail contract. I had heard the previous year 
 of his refusing positively to permit the Sloo Company to have a mail 
 contract, upon the ground that he had no evidence of their preparation 
 to carry the mail. And as regards the mail service, the mails were 
 regularly carried during the eleven months that the contract lasted, 
 with a single failure, and that from no difficulty upon the Isthmus, 
 The one failure, which occurred during the whole time, resulted from 
 the steamship having been detained in the Mississippi river forty-eight 
 hours by a very unusual fog, so that she could not find her way over 
 the bar, and did not reach the Isthmus in time to connect. The mail 
 •never failed once of being carried during the whole time, except the 
 single instance I have just mentioned. The time varied from fourteen 
 to sixteen days ; it once or twice reached seventeen or eighteen days, 
 ^because our mail and passengers were detained from forty-eight to 
 sixty hours at Acapulco, waiting for the connexion of the other line 
 hif tPanama. The mails, which arrived via Panama, were constantly 
 announced as having had their advices anticipated by New Orleans. 
 I think there- was not a single exception to that announcement. 
 
 Question. Did anything ever occur between you and the Presiient, 
 by conversation or understanding, that would have warranted the ex- 
 pression that the diplomacy of the country had been prostituted for 
 your benefit and that of your associates ? 
 
 Answer. I can say that not only was it not so, but I thought the 
 President very rigorous in his action towards us ; very stringent, in- 
 .deed. He interfered in insisting that the action of the_ government 
 •should not be exerted in Mexico, even in defence of our rights, unless 
 we would agree to put in our charter a stipulation that the dividends 
 of the company should never exceed fifteen per cent. I remonstrated 
 with him that that was a matter with which the government had 
 nothing to do ; that the prices for transit on the Isthmus concerned 
 Mexico alone ; that that was governed by our contract with Mexico, and 
 that we had a right to the protection of our government without any 
 hard condition being imposed upon us. He insisted not only upon that, 
 'but he also insisted that inasmuch as Mexico had reserved certain advan- 
 tages for herself in the transit of public property' over her own Isthmus, 
 similar advantages should be granted to the government of the United 
 States, inasmuch as we wanted their protection, and ought, therefore, 
 to give a reasonable consideration, with proper regard to the public 
 interests, for that protection. I think it will be seen, in the instruc- 
 tions to Mr. Forsyth, that the President directed him to insist upon 
 that, and especially to take care in the negotiations that by no possi- 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. ETC. 821 
 
 £*^trSotyif ^T?^^ P"^"^^^' '^ *^° United States, in the 
 jeopardy ^^ ^°'"'' ^* ^"^^ ^°«*^°* ^« P"* ^^ ^o^^* or 
 
 Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. Sloo? 
 Answer. Slightly. 
 
 AZ'lT'lPf- y°^,^?«T a^/tbing of his pecuniary abilities? 
 
 asfheZ'nt .f fv #'^^,>r^7*- ^'""^^ ^'- Sloo for the $600,000, 
 as the agent of this English banker ; but I never got a cent from him! 
 
 No. 64. 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1860. 
 
 ELL WOOD FISHER recalled. 
 
 By Mr. Train: , 
 
 Question. Do you wish to change your testimony, or make any ex- 
 planation in regard to it? 
 
 Answer. I have been waiting here for two days, at the suggestion 
 of Governor Winslow, who told me that he wanted to ask me some 
 questions. I propose, after that has been done, to make some expla- 
 nations in regard to some portions of my testimony, respecting trans- 
 actions referred to by me, and to correct some misrepresentations that 
 have been made; one particularly in the organ of the administration. 
 
 Mr. Winslow. I have no disposition to ask the witness any questions 
 at all ; I do not desire to cross-examine him. 
 By the Chairman: 
 
 Question. What correction or explanation have you to give ? 
 
 Mr. EoBiNSON. The witness, refers to some statement in the organ of 
 the administration. We have nothing to do with the statements in 
 the newspapers. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Question. Is there any portion of your testimony that you defeire to 
 explain or alter in any way ? 
 
 Answer. There is one thing that has been brought to my notice by 
 what has appeared in the papers since I was examined before ; that 
 Mr. Senator Benjamin has been testifying before this committee. I 
 understand that I have the right to see his testimony, and if so I ask 
 the permission of the committee to see it now. 
 
 [Mr. Winslow requested that the witness leave the committee room, 
 while the committee consider the subject. The witness accordingly 
 left the room. 
 
 After examining the testimony of Senator Benjamin, and some time 
 spent in consultation by the committee, the witness was recalled.] 
 
 Mr. Train (to witness.) We do not see that there is anything in 
 the testimony of Mr. Benjamin that relates to you particularly. Mr. 
 Benjamin has merely given his version of the matter, as you did. 
 
 Mr. Robinson. He does not refer to you. 
 
 The Witness. It was not that he referred tb me particularly, but 
 
822 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 because he is said to have made some statements respecting my tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Mr. Train. We have nothing to do with that. You have each 
 given your version of the matter. 
 
 The Witness. I wish to make some additions and explanations to 
 my testimony. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW (to witness.) Do you want to correct or explain any 
 of your testimony ? 
 
 The Witness. Kather to enlarge upon some portions of it. 
 
 [Mr. WiNSLOW again requested the witness to leave the committee 
 room, while the committee consulted further upon the matter. The 
 witness accordingly left the room. 
 
 After some time spent in consultation, the witness was recalled, and 
 informed that the committee had concluded to grant him permission 
 to write out his statement and submit it to the committee for their 
 action.] 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 82 B 
 
 1^0. 85. 
 
 Friday, June 1, 1860. 
 
 HORACE F. CLARK called and examined. 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. In the examination of William Chase Barney and Elwoo.1 
 Fisher, before this committee, your name has been mentioned, in con- 
 nexion with Mr. Marshall 0. Roberts and Mr. Elwood Fisher, as 
 one of the trustees of certain ships belonging to the Uuited Mail 
 Steamship Company, and something was said about a subsidy that 
 was paid by that company and the Pacific Mail Steamship Company 
 to Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, of New York. I would be obliged to you 
 if you would explain to the committee all the facts that you know 
 in regard to that matter. 
 
 Answer. I was one of three trustees who held the title of certain 
 steamships of the United Mail Steamship Company. That com- 
 pany had aline of steamers plying between New York and Aspinwall, 
 and also a line between New Orleans via Havana. In my capacity as 
 one of that board of trustees I became acquainted with the subject 
 matter to which you refer. 
 
 And allow me here to say that I have obeyed your summons rather 
 from personal respect to the numbers of your committee than because 
 I regard the subject of your inquiry a proper one. I will take the 
 liberty to say, without intending disrespect to the committee, that it 
 has seemed to me that inasmuch as this niatter was a private transac- 
 tion between private individuals, it hardly comes within your cogni- 
 zance under the order of the House. But there is no secret about it, 
 and I will waive any privilege that I might otherwise assert. 
 
 Mr. WiNSLOW. I will admit that under ordinary circumstances that 
 would be my opinion, and that may be my opinion now. But in the 
 course of the examination deductions were made that I thought unfair 
 towards the administration, showing that this matter of subsidy was, 
 or might have been, made with the cognizance of the administration, 
 putting it in the power of parties to charge what they pleased for 
 mails and passengers on that route. 
 
 The Witness. Why, gentlemen, the arrangement referred to was 
 fully established before the incoming of Mr. Buchanan's administra- 
 tion ■ in fact, before Mr. Buchanan was nominated for the presidency, 
 and neither the administration nor Mr. Buchanan was in any way 
 concerned with it. But they did, as I think, attempt afterwards to 
 interfere with it. 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. In what manner ? 
 
 Answer. The arrangement for the paynient of this subsidy was 
 made in the spring of 1856, during General Pierce's administration. 
 The arrangemPent^was this! the Pacific Mail Steamship Company 
 running steamers between Panama and San Francisco, and the 
 trustees of the United Mail Steamship Company, running steamers 
 belween New York and the Isthmus of Panama, paid Mr. Vanderbilt 
 
824 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT. ETC; 
 
 a subsidy of |40,000 a month to indyce him not to run between New- 
 York and California, via Panama, in competition with them, but to 
 permit his steam tonnage to be unemployed or to be employed in the 
 European trade. Mr. Vanderbilt was the ownerof a large number of 
 steamships, and claimed the right of every individual having steam- 
 ships to employ them on the ocean wherever he chose. We felt — and 
 when I use the word " we " I refer to the trustees of the Qnited Mail 
 Steamship Company — we felt that it would be ruinous to our enter- 
 prise to permit that competition ; and, for the protection of the inter- 
 ests of the stockholders, we representing |2,000,000, and the Pacific 
 Mail Steamship Company representing |3, 500,000, made this arrange- 
 ment with Mr. Vanderbilt. He p'jrmitted his own ships to lie idle, 
 or employed them in the Atlantic trade, at a loss at times, and it was 
 considered, in view of the large capital which he had thus unprofitably 
 employed, that a subsidy of |40,000 a month was about equitable. 
 The arrangement was perhaps beneficial all around ; but Mr. Buch- 
 anan's administration had nothing to do with it. , 
 
 I mentioned an attempt on the part of Mr. Buchanan's administra- 
 tion to interfere with it. I took the same exception then that I now 
 take to your inquiry. The way this matter came up was this ; some 
 time in the year 1857, or 18i8, the Secretary of State, addressed a 
 letter to the President of the United States Mail Steamship Company, 
 inquiring as to the particulars of that arrangement. That letter came 
 before the trustees, at a session when I was present ; I thought that 
 it was an inquiry which the administration had no right to make ; 
 and I think upon my suggestion, or upon my motion, the letter was 
 not replied to. It occurred to me that the attempt of the administra- 
 tion to invade the subject of a private transaction between private 
 citizens was altogether unwarranted, and then Mr. Buchanan, in the 
 year 18o7, upon more than one occasion, in conversations with myself, 
 made the matter of this subsidy a subject of complaint ; he appeared to 
 be apprehensive that it was prejudicial to the public interests. I in- 
 formed Mr. Buchanan generally of the arrangement, but at the same 
 time I suggested to him that it was a matter which, if perhaps detri- 
 mental to the interests of the public, was not detrimental to the ser- 
 vice of the Post Office Department ; and that it was a subject with 
 which the government had no right to interfere. 
 
 Question. Do I understand you to say that the arrangement with 
 Mr. Vanderbilt was to prevent his running on the Panama line? 
 
 Answer. Certainly. The route by Nicaragua was closed by reason 
 of the interference of the government of Nicaragua against American 
 citizens having the right of navigation of those waters. These citizens 
 had applied to the administration for its intervention for their pro- 
 tection against the acts of persons exercising political power in- Nica- 
 ragua. It was the subject of complaint, and is still the subject of 
 complaint, that this interference has not been had. But that was the 
 fault of Congress, not of the President. The President was powerless 
 to give this protection, and his representations to Congress have been 
 disregarded. Mr. Buchanan, upon, that matter, is wholly free from 
 censure ; he has done all he could to redress the invasion of private 
 property, which resulted in the closing of that route, and in the loss 
 of millions perhaps to American citizens ; but Congress has never 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 825 
 
 acted upon the suggestions of the President. I made that remark for 
 tli3 purpose of showing that this whole subject matter of inquiry was 
 entirely foreign to any just investigation of the transactions of the ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 Question I think that you stated that Mr. Fisher, Mr. Koherts, 
 and yourself, were the three trustees of the United States Mail Steam- 
 ship Company ? 
 
 -lo^^^^^^i ^ ^^^ °°* ^^ ^*^*^ ' ^"* *^^y "^ei'e- From the spring of 
 lorn! tPt *he termination of the trust, which was the first of October, 
 1859, Mr. Marshall 0. Koherts, Mr. Elwood Fisher, and myself, were 
 the trustees. By the terms of the trust, and by the judicial decisions 
 governing its action, the majority of the trustees controlled. Mr. 
 Fisher represented Mr. Sloo's interest, I represented the interest of 
 the United States Mail Steamship Company, or their stockholders, 
 whose capital had built the ships. Mr, Sloo was the original mail 
 contractor with the government. This trust was created I think in 
 1847. 
 
 Question. Will you state now what ships were in the trust? Can 
 you name them ? 
 
 Answer. At what period ? 
 
 Question. In the year 1858? 
 
 Answer. In 1858 the ships embraced in the trust were the. Moses 
 Taylor, Philadelphia, Illinois, Empire City, and Star of the West, 
 These five steamships were run under this mail contract by Marshall 
 0. Eoberts, who was the agent of the company and of the trustees. 
 The majority of the trustees controlled the action of the board. 
 
 Question. What interest had Fisher as a trustee ? 
 
 Answer. He represented Sloo's interest. 
 
 Question. What interest was that ? 
 
 Answer. To inform you of it in a word : the trust, in the first place, 
 was to pay the construction account for the building of the steamers, 
 which would go to the stockholders of the United States Mail Steam- 
 ship Company.; the residue was to be divided equally between the 
 United States Mail Steamship Company and Mr. Sloo — Sloo and his 
 creditors being entitled to one-half of the residuum after the payment 
 of the construction account. 
 
 Question. Do you know the amount, or can you state anywhere in 
 the neighborhood of the amount ? 
 
 I'. Answer. The amount of the construction account was in dispute. At 
 that time it was claimed, I think, by the United States Mail Steamship 
 Company to be about $1,000,000, It was contended on the part of 
 Mr. Sloo that a larger sum had been paid than the company stated ; 
 and it was even alleged at times by him, though denied by the com- 
 pany, that it was fully paid. That was then, and is still, a subject 
 of dispute between them. 
 
 Question. Mr. Fisher then, you say, had no authority whatever to 
 dispose of the ships without the action of the majority of the trustees? 
 
 Answer. Undoubtedly not. 
 
 Question. He therefore could not give authority to any one, on his 
 own mere motion, without the consent of the board, to put those ships 
 in any trade, or to carry out any contract with the government? 
 
8^6 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 Answer. Certainly not. Mr. Fisher, acting with Mr. Roberts, the 
 other trustee, could have done it without my consent, or Mr. Roberts, 
 acting with me, could have done it without Mr. Fisher's consent. 
 
 Qnestion. Do you know William Chase Barney? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 Question. Do you know whether he ever got the consent of the 
 trustees to run those ships to carry out a contract with the govern- 
 ment to carry the mails from New York to San Francisco ? 
 
 Answer. He did not get my consent, and I am not aware that he 
 got the consent of my co-trustees. Mr. Fisher once applied to me to 
 give such consent, and I informed him that I would assent to any such 
 arrangement provided the United States Mail Steamship Company, 
 whose iaterest I represented, would acquiesce, with the consent of 
 Mr. Roberts, but not without. I would not have stood in the way, 
 provided the parties interested, other than myself, had consented. 
 My personal interest would, of course, have been protected before I 
 would have consented to any such transfer. 
 
 Question. And such acquiescence or consent was never given, to 
 your knowledge ? 
 
 Answer. Certainly not. 
 
 Question. A.nd with your situation was it possible or probable that 
 such consent could have been given without your knowing it ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot think it possible. I was largely interested in 
 the residuum. I held $100,000 of the interest of Mr. Sloo in the 
 trust, and it is hardly possible that, without my acquiescence, my co- 
 trustees would have made an arrangement with Mr. Barney. I have 
 never heard that they did. I think that the whole arrangement be- 
 tween Mr. Barney and Mr. Fisher, so far as the steamships were con- 
 cerned, was inchoate, and subject to the action of the board of trustees. 
 
 Question. Could you inform us what capital would be necessary to 
 maintain a line of steamers from New York to Aspinwall ? 
 
 Answer. Running twice a month ? 
 
 Question. Yes, sir ; and on the other side to San Francisco, with 
 voyages of 20 or 21 days. 
 
 Answer. At the present time the capital of the Pacific Mail Steam- 
 ship Company, on the Pacific ocean, running between Panama and 
 San B'rancisco, is $4,000,000. The capital employed on this side, 
 including the New Orleans branch of the service, is about $2,000,000. 
 I think that, without reference to accidents, which are ever liable to 
 occur in a business of that kind, a capital of from three to four mil- 
 lions might, perhaps, do the business. 
 
 Question. What is the expense of a single voyage ; can you give 
 any idea of that ? 
 
 Answer. I can ; the expenses of a voyage from New York to San 
 Francisco, with a complement of, say, 500 passengers, is $100,000, as 
 near as may be. It may vary somewhat, according to circumstances ; 
 but $100,000 is about the cost of a round voyage. 
 
 By Mr. Train : 
 
 ' Question. Do you reckon in that wear and tear and insurance ? 
 Answer. No, sir; I reckon nothing but disbursements. 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 827 
 
 By Mr. Winslow : 
 
 Question. What do you suppose is the least possible amount of 
 capital that it would be prudent to employ to undertake to run the 
 route? We have just mentioned carrying the mails twice a month, 
 m 20 or 21 days. Now, to do that, with a line to New Orleans also, 
 what IS the least amount of capital that it would be safe and reliable 
 to depend upon ? 
 
 Answer. At least $3,000,000, with an unquestioned credit. 
 
 Question. Then, of course, it is a consequent that $500,000 would 
 be a totally inadequate capital for a man to rely upon in such a busi- 
 ness? 
 
 Answer. It is simply ridiculous. It seems to me that a party who 
 would undertake such a business with |500,000 would be insane. A 
 single accident might sweep away the whole. If you will reflect, the 
 business is very extensive ; at times it is lucrative, of course, and at 
 times depressed. I cannot think that any man at all acquainted with 
 that business would express the opinion that a capital of but $500,000 
 was at all adequate to attempt such an enterprise. 
 _ Question. Do you know William Chase Barney's pecuniary abili- 
 ties ; do you know anything about his pecuniary abilities ? 
 
 Answer. I know nothing of my own knowledge. I have never 
 supposed him a man of wealth. 
 
 Question. Is he reputed in the city of New York to be a man of 
 means ? 
 
 Answer. I think not. 
 
 Question. I will ask you, then, if his reputation is not quite the 
 reverse ; that he is not a man of means ? 
 
 Answer. I have always supposed Mr. Barney to be an active, enter- 
 prising gentleman, without money. I have frequently seen him, and 
 I have never known him to make any representation that he possessed 
 means. 
 
 Upon motion of Mr. Winslow, it was 
 
 Ordered, That the following extract* from the President's annual 
 message to Congress of December 6, 1858, be appended to the testi- 
 mony of the Hon. Horace F. Clark, relative to the carrying of the 
 California mails, &c. : 
 
 " The political condition of the narrow isthmus of Central America 
 through which transit routes pass, between the Atlantic and Pacifiic 
 oceans, presents a subject of deep interest to all commercial nations. 
 It is over these transits that a large proportion of the trade and travel 
 between the European and Asiatic continent is destined to pass. To 
 the United States these routes are of incalculable importance as a 
 means of communication between their Atlantic and Pacific posses- 
 sions. The latter now extend throughout seventeen degrees of lati- 
 tude on the Pacific coast, embracing the important State of California 
 and the flourishing Territories of Oregon and Washington. All com- 
 mercial nations, therefore, have a deep and direct interest that these 
 communications shall be rendered secure from interruption. If an 
 arm of the sea, connecting the two oceans, penetrated through Nica- 
 
828 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 ragua and Costa Eica, it could not be pretended that these States would 
 have the right to arrest or retard its navigation to the injury of other 
 nations. The transit by land over this narrow isthmus occupies nearly 
 the same position. It is a highway in which they themselves have 
 little interest when compared with the vast interest of the rest of the 
 world. Whilst their rights of sovereignty ought to be respected it is 
 the duty of other nations to require that this important passage shall 
 not be interrupted by the civil wars and revolutionary outbreaks 
 which have so frequently occurred in that region. The stake is too 
 important to be left at the mercy of rival companies claiming to 
 hold conflicting contracts with Nicaragua. The commerce of other 
 nations is not to stand still and await the adjustment of such petty 
 controversies. The government of the United States expect no more 
 than this, and they will not be satisfied with less. They would not, 
 if they could, derive any advantage from the Nicaragua transit not 
 common to the rest of the world. Its neutrality and protection, for 
 the common use of all nations, is their only object. They have no 
 objection that Nicaragua shall demand and receive a fair compensation 
 from the comjianies and individuals who may traverse the route ; but 
 they insist that it shall never hereafter be closed by an arbitrary 
 decree of that government. If disputes arise between it and those 
 with whom they may have entered into contracts, these must be ad- 
 justed by some fair tribunal provided for the purpose, and the route 
 must not be closed pending the controversy. This is our whole policy, 
 and it cannot fail to be acceptable to other nations. 
 
 "All these difficulties might be avoided if, consistently with the good 
 faith of Nicaragua, the use of this transit could be thrown open to 
 general competition ; providing at the same time for the payment of 
 a reasonable rate to the Nicaraguan government on passengers and 
 freight. 
 
 " In August, 1852, the Accessory Transit Company made its first in- 
 teroceanic trip over the Nicaraguan route, and continued in successful 
 operation, with great advantage to the public, until the 18th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1856, when it was closfedj and the grant to this company, as 
 well as its charter, were summarily and arbitrarily revoked by thfe 
 government of President Eivas. Previous to this date, however, in 
 1854, serious disputes concerning the settlement of their accounts had 
 arisen between the company and the government, threatening the in- 
 terruption of the route at any moment. These the United States in 
 vain endeavored to compose. It would be useless to narrate the va- 
 rious proceedings which took place between the parties up till the 
 time when the transit was discontinued. Suffice it to say, that since 
 February, 1856, it has remained closed, greatly to the prejudice of 
 citizens of the United States. Since that time the competition has 
 ceased between the rival routes of Panama and Nicaragua ; and, in 
 consequence thereof, an unjust and unreasonable amount has been 
 exacted from our citizens for their passage to and from California." 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAKTMENT, ETC. 829 
 
 No. 64. 
 ELLWOOD FISHER handed the following to the committee : 
 
 Corner Third and Streets, June 5, 1860. 
 
 Sib, : In pursuance of the permission of your committee to present 
 my further testimony in writing, I herewith submit it. 
 
 I was not connected with Sloo, nor with hi^ Tehuantepec contract 
 at the time it was made, nor for a long time afterwards. I was ap- 
 pointed by him a trustee of the United States mail line of steamers 
 from New York to New Orleans, and from both, via Cuba to Aspin- 
 wall, in April, 1855. I was not connected with the Tehuantepec con- 
 tract until 1857, four years after it was made, and then only with the 
 lines of connecting steamers required by the contract. I never held 
 any stock in the Tehuantepec company, organized in New Orleans, for 
 constructing the roads across the Isthmus. I never asked any aid or 
 favor from the administration for the Sloo grant or for anything else. 
 
 I did not seek to testify in this investigation. I did not know I 
 would be called before this committee until the day before it was done ; 
 tor although I had been deeply wronged by the conduct of the admin- 
 istration, I had been avenged. It had fallen. I had merely stated in 
 casual conversations what had occurred in the Tehuantepec business, 
 and my remarks had, I suppose, been mentioned, but not by me or 
 at my instance, to some member of the committee. I was about to 
 leave town on urgent business and was prevented by virtue of the sum- 
 mons. I did not volunteer the publication of any testimony. 
 
 When I was appointed trustee of the mail line, I considered Sloo's 
 interest in that worth at least a million and a half of dollars. During 
 the period of about four years and a half that I was one of the trus- 
 tees, the earnings of the line were very large, but the greater part of 
 the money was wrongfully appropriated to Vanderbilt for black-mail, 
 and to others on various pretexts. Sloo received, during that time, 
 only about half a million. Much, perhajps the most he received, was 
 appropriated to his Tehuantepec engagements. I was frequently 
 called on to provide the means out of his interest in the line to pay 
 large amounts of this kind, and was satisfied his fortune was seriously 
 involved in that enterprise. But operations on it had ceased on the 
 retirement of Sykes & Co., the first contractors for the roads, aljout a 
 year before. 
 
 At the desire of Sloo, I co-operated in the effort at a resumption of 
 the work, and by the winter of 1856,-'57 had succeeded in providing 
 for over half a million of means for the enterprise, including seventy 
 thousand dollars cash, two steamers for the river, two steamships for 
 the Atlantic side, and all the engines for the Pacific steamers. I had 
 co-operated in making a contract the year before, but the contractor 
 had Uot complied with his engagements, and the work had languished 
 and was again coming to a stand, when we at length succeeded in pro- 
 vidino- all that was necessary to insure the opening of the route. And 
 then commenced my connexion with the contract, tor I was unwilling 
 to be connected with it until its success was assured. 
 
830 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC 
 
 But when this was done, it was announced in the papers that the 
 administration had taken up the subject. So I called on the President. 
 He stated some of the views contained in his despatch to our minister 
 in Mexico. He referred particularly to the non-acceptance by Sloo, 
 and the non-payment of the drafts drawn on him for tlie |600,000 for 
 which those drafts were cashed by Falconett & Co., to pay the gov- 
 ernment of Mexico for the grant. I stated to him the accounts I had 
 received from various parties and froiri the documents relative to that 
 transaction. By one of the secret articles attached to that grant or 
 contract, its validity — its very existence — was made dependent on the 
 sanction of our j^overnment ; and the only mode by which that sanc- 
 tion could be given was by treaty ; and the grant arrived too late to 
 be acted on and sanctioned by the Senate that session, and was not, 
 in fact, sanctioned by the Senate in the Gadsden treaty until about 
 seventeen months afterwards. Sloo, therefore, finding himself called 
 on to become individually liable for |600,000 for a grant not then 
 valid, and which might never become valid, and which could not be- 
 come so for a long period, was right in refusing to accept, unless he 
 had authorized his agent to draw in such a contingency ; which Sloo 
 denied, and which, from the papers relied on, that I had seen, I be- 
 lieve he had not done. 
 
 Besides, the grant, when it came to him, was to three Mexican 
 parties besides himself, and on the face of it he was entitled to only 
 one-fourth of its benefits, and yet he was drawn on for the whole of 
 the money. He would have been a fool to accept. He was not in 
 Mexico when the grant was made, nor had he been for nine months. 
 He had gone there to make a bid for himself. He was now in a 
 critical position. The grant had been mortgaged in Mexico to secure 
 the payment of these bills. In its invalid condition it might be sold 
 under the mortgage at a nominal sum, and then himself subjected to 
 vexatious litigation for the balance of the money, on the question of 
 his liability for the acts of his agent, not only as to these bills, but as 
 to engagements with the other co-grantees ; and the grant, as it stood, 
 afforded no adequate security to Falconett, and if permitted so to 
 stand, without prosecuting the work, the probabilities of obtaining 
 the sanction of the Senate at the next session would be diminished. 
 Sloo took, perhaps, the wisest course, and for all parties the most 
 equitable. He made a vigorous effort to go on with the work. He 
 arranged with the Mexican parties their several interests and his own. 
 He then sought one of the largest railroad contracting parties in the 
 world, that of Sykes & Co., then of Shefiield, England, and carrying 
 on a work in Canada. He offered them liberal terms, and expressed 
 the conviction that if the work were vigorously prosecuted prior to the 
 meeting of Congress, the contract would be confirmed by treaty ; and 
 he offered, if they would in the meanwhile pay the Falconett debt, to 
 pledge them the security of the whole contract. Their partner or 
 agent in Canada accepted the offer and contracted for the house ; and 
 Sloo, after making this contract — after allottingto the Mexican parties 
 their stock — after incurring the expense of a journey to Mexico and to 
 Canada, and paying the drafts of agents, engineers, counsel, &c., and 
 atter himself buying and fitting out a steamer at Louisville, in aid of 
 
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 831 
 
 the work, had nothing left for himself but stock representing ahout 
 two-fiftlis of the residuary interest in the grant after it had paid all 
 the costs of making the two roads— plank and rail— and their equip- 
 ments and the Falconett debt, reserving to himself also the right of 
 establishing the connecting lines of steamers, for which, as a large 
 owner in the United States mail steamship line, he had peculiar 
 facilities. 
 
 Had the contract been complete, so that it could have been negotiated 
 or hypothecated in this country, there was a class of steamship capi- 
 talists from whom it would have been as easy to obtain $600,000 on it 
 as to obtain par for United States six per cents. The mistake was in 
 making any advance to the Mexican government until the contract 
 was complete. Sloo always denied he had authorized the act of draw- 
 ing on him on such a contingency and under such circumstances, and 
 refused to become the victim of it. 
 
 The contract being made with Sykes & Co., the agent or partner in 
 this country drew on them for the' principal and interest of the Fal- 
 conett debt, and these drafts were given to the holders of that debt ; 
 but in England that house took the same exception that Sloo had 
 taken — that there was as yet no treaty with the United States, and 
 therefore no valid grant from Mexico, and, as Sloo had done, refused 
 to accept. Meanwhile operations had commenced on the Isthmus, 
 and at length the Senate and President ratified, in June, 1854, the 
 grant. But the Crimean war had begun. It had produced a financial 
 revulsion, fatal to great railroad undertakings, aud before the news of 
 the ratification reached England the house of Sykes & Co. had sus- 
 pended. Afterwards their affairs were retrieved, and, thinking well 
 of the Tehuantepec contract, one of the partners started over to this 
 country to resume operations. He was lost in the Arctic, and the 
 partnership being thereby dissolved, the house ceased to exist. 
 
 The President said the grant had been tranferred to Falconett with 
 the approbation of the Mexican government. I denied it, and said 
 a clerk or minister ad interim of the foreign ofiice there had attempted 
 it, but that the act had never been ratified by the Mexican govern- 
 ment ; that the Sloo company now had possession of the route, and 
 had recently, and within the time fixed, opened the road from, the 
 head of navigation of the Coatzacoalcos river to the Pacific ; that 
 they, had not made a plank road, for it was found plank roads would 
 not answer in hilly regions, but that they intended, where it was 
 necessary, to use a sort of volcanic rock found there ; that I myself 
 had recently received official information that a steamer I had just 
 fitted out for Sloo & Co. at Baltimore for the route would be duly 
 received and recognized under the contract. 
 
 The President asked how Falconett was to be paid ? I replied that 
 as soon as the route was opened and in operation it would have reve- 
 nues that could be hypothecated to pay him. It would have to be 
 done ; otherwise he could sequester the revenue and pay himself. 
 It was impossible for the parties to save the contract and pay him 
 first, or to comply with all the engagements at once after so many 
 disasters. But the prompt prosecution of the work was the complete 
 security of Falconett. 
 
832 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 
 
 The President spoke of the rights of the Graray company, I told 
 him the Mexican congress had unanimously voted them extinct, and 
 surely if the Sloo grant could he questioned, which in four years had 
 done and was doing so much, the Garay grant could not be coun- 
 tenanced, which in ten or eleven years, from 1842 to 1852, had done 
 almost nothing at all. 
 
 The President said the present company in New Orleans was or- 
 ganized adversely to Sloo. Yes ! I told him I had been informed that 
 two days before the recent election of directors a sudden and unlawful 
 emission of a million and a third of stock had occurred, which had 
 been used in voting down the Sloo ticket. But the transaction was 
 impotent; the parties had not the money to carry on the work; that Sloo 
 had — who had already sent a vessel himself from New Orleans with men 
 and provisions, to be followed by the materials for bridging, &c. Yet 
 the President took these two parties, invested their chiefs, (Mr. Ben- 
 jamin, the president of the defunct Garay company, and Mr. LeSere, 
 president by virtue of that remarkable emission of stock,) invested them 
 with diplomatic powers, and sent them to Mexico to get the Sloo grant 
 modified. It was modified 1 The Sloo grant was annulled by an ex- 
 ecutive decree ; another grant by another decree given to the coalesced 
 Le Sere and Benjamin parties. The Sloo grant expressly provided 
 that controversies between the government and the grantees should be 
 settled by arbitration or adjudication. Our executive instructs our 
 minister to have that grant so modified by the executive of Mexico, 
 (without even the sanction of their congress,) so that the principal 
 grantee shall be turned out and those who held in harmony with him 
 and who voted about two-thirds of the legal stocky and to have his fa- 
 vored parties substituted. 
 
 The'President objected that the means and resources of the Sloo 
 party were inadequate, and preferred the Garay company, which put 
 in a defunct grant. No, they did not do that. They ceded it to the 
 coalesced company for two millions of the new stock. The Garay 
 company, instead of contributing to the means of the new company, 
 contributed a burden on it of two millions. The Le Sere company, 
 after renouncing its organization and its claims to the contract, under- 
 took to put in the work that had been done by the Sloo company, 
 much 6f it by the sale of stock at a sacrifice, and of that thus sold, 
 most of it belonged to Sloo and his friends, and the whole of if was 
 taken from the five millions of the reserved stock of which the Presi- 
 dent complains so much in his despatch to our minister. I am, per- 
 haps, mistaken. The two millions of reserved paid up stock under the 
 coalesced company was probably to indemnify both the allies — the 
 Garay company for their defunct charter, the Le Sere company for the 
 work already done, as I have described, I believe, however, among the 
 secret articles of the Sloo grant, there was one that bound the grantees 
 to indemnify the Garay company for some work actually done in the 
 ten or eleven years of their pretended ownership of the route. It was 
 understood to he about $60,000, but I think the Garay party claimed 
 that it was much more. At all events, all that had been done under 
 the Garay company in ten years, undertheSloocompany in four years, 
 by Sykes & Co. at first, and by the sale of Sloo stock afterwards, had 
 
POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 833 
 
 not made a road a hundred miles long that could be conveniently 
 travelled by a stage, and for this two millions of the new, prime, lona 
 pae, paid up ^ock was to be appropriated, and I have heard some of 
 It .was to be offered to 8I00 to obtain a relintjuishment of his rights. 
 And Mr Falconett, instead of being paid cash,, and for ^hom the 
 ITesident was so much concerned, received, I understood, eight per 
 cent, bonds ot the company, for which it was provided a million should 
 be created. 1 hus the same arrangement was made for him which the 
 bloo company had made. 
 
 The new company had yet eight millions of stock to be taken, and I 
 find by the New York Herald of August 17, 1857, that the following 
 subscriptxoQs of stock were made on its organization, or when the books 
 were opened m New Orleans, July 30, 1857 : 
 
 EmileLeSere 50 shares. J.L.Warner 50 shares. 
 
 J. W. Burbridge.... 50 " W.E.Starke 50 " 
 
 Lionel 0. Levy 50 " A.Penn,per Jno.Le 
 
 D. F. Kenner 50 " Sere 50 " 
 
 J. P. Benjamin S'O " JohnSlidell,perJno. 
 
 J. D. Denegre 50 " LeSere 50 " 
 
 P. 0. Hebert 50 " P. A. Hargous, per 
 
 John M. Bell 50 " J. P. Benjamin... 100 " 
 
 700 shares, or |70,000, of which ten per cent., or seven thousand dol- 
 lars,' w^s, by the terms of the charter, to be paid in cash, when the 
 subscriptions were made. This was on the 30th July, 1857. The in- 
 structions of the President to our minister in Mexico are dated 17th 
 July, 1857, and they contain the plan of the new company. And thus, 
 with these instructions in their pockets, and seven thousand dollars in 
 their treasury, and subscriptions for $63,000 more, and with the de- 
 funct Garay grant as additional assets, and claiming to own the road 
 made by the Sloo company, and with admitted obligations to the 
 amount of three millions, Messrs. Benjamin and Le Sere sat out to 
 Mexico to get Sloo's contract taken from him on account of his want of 
 means, and given to them on account of their abundance of means t 
 And the President backed this undertaking with the diplomatic in- 
 fluence of this country. 
 
 It is true the Sloo company had reserved five millions of stock, but 
 that was for parties who had personally bound themselves to Mexico 
 to perform the whole contract, and a large part of this very stock had 
 already been devoted to that work. But the new company had only 
 170,000 of assets in one hand, and a claim in the other, to encumber 
 the enterprise, of two millions ! The subscribers in the new com- 
 pany might, in the aggregate, be worth more than Sloo, but they had 
 bound themselves to pay only $70,000 to perform this contract. Sloo 
 and his associates were bound personally to perform it all, and had 
 already contributed thrice as much as the new parties had subscribed, 
 and Sloo himself had provided means to the extent of some half a 
 million more. 
 
 But the thing was done. Sloo was sacrificed. The new company 
 got a contract from the Mexican executive, and, before doing any work 
 H. Kep. Com. 648 53 
 
834 POST OFFICE DEPABTMENT, ETC. 
 
 of consequence on the road, got a contract with the Post Office De- 
 partment to carry the mails for $250,000 a year, and at the end of 
 that contract the operations of the company ended and their assets 
 have heen sold to pay their creditors. 
 
 Thus the President interfered to get a valuable contract with a 
 foreign government wrested from one set of American citizens and 
 given to another, and for this purpose used the diplomatic power of 
 this government to induce that to violate its engagements, and do by 
 executive decree what it had stipulated could be done only by a de- 
 cision of court. Then the Post Office Department of this government 
 was used to the extent of $250,000 to sustain the scheme, the postages 
 realized being only about |5,000. And thus a few only, being a ma- 
 jority of the subscribers to the new company, holding some thirty-five 
 or forty-thousand dollars of its stock, on which had been paid some 
 four thousand dollars, were invested with the control (and as circum- 
 stances might indicate, could maintain it) of all the benefits of all the 
 Mexican and post office contracts, for they had only to issue bonds for 
 the money yet required and retain the profits to themselves. 
 
 The Presidents pretexts were : 
 
 1st. He wanted to open the route speedily. 
 
 (It is now desolate and abandoned.) 
 
 2d. That he wanted Falconett paid. 
 
 (Falconett is not yet paid.) 
 
 3d. He wanted even a better treaty and stronger guarantee than be- 
 fore to protect the Isthmus. 
 
 (There is now no treaty recognized by Mexico.) 
 
 4th. He wanted the mails carried by that route. 
 
 (I offered, on our part, to have it done in sixty days, and give 
 ample security, although I was not aware that any law existed to 
 authorize any contract unless a contingent one.) 
 
 I have thus stated the circumstances of this case, as I knew them 
 from personal knowledge and observation, whilst I was concerned and 
 where I was located. As to all else where I was not present and 
 where I was not interested, I have stated them from the best infor- 
 mation I could get from the parties. For their statements or trans- 
 actions I am not responsible, but as I have related them I have believed 
 them, and have since seen nothing to change that belief. 
 
 It is my impression I gave the President a statement in writing of 
 the means and preparations of Sloo to carry on the contract, but am 
 not certain. Every preparation had been securely made to put the 
 whole route, land and water, in operatio'n from New York to Cali- 
 fornia, except that for the Pacific side there would have been required 
 some two hundred thousand dollars more to aid in the construction of 
 three steamers. The total means altogether necessary to commence 
 operations did not exceed one" million of dollars, with what incidental 
 credits the employment of that capital involves or easily securesi 
 Bridges would have been required on the approach of the rainy season. 
 
 I do not pretend to recollect fully the conversation with the Presi- 
 dent as it occurred. In some cases it was more, and in some probably 
 less detailed than I have given it, and I have interspersed some ex- 
 planations as to subsequent events, which, of course were not then 
 
PO&T OFFICE DEPARTMENT, ETC. 835 
 
 made. But the main features of the conference are given, for I 
 thought it important that he should he fully advised as to the injustice 
 and fallacy of the positions he had assumed towards the Sloo grant, 
 and which were set forth in the instructions to our minister in Mexico. 
 EespectfuUy, 
 
 ELLWOOD FISHER. 
 Hon. John Oovodb, 
 
 Chairman, of Committee of Investigations, 
 
 EmLse of BepresentaMves. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Report of Hon. Cham.es E. Teatn— majority . . 
 Eeport of Hon. ■Wareen 'Winslow — minority*'. . 
 Journal of Committee 
 
 LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION, ETC. 
 
 Page. 
 1 
 
 29 
 59 
 
 Eobert J. Walker 
 
 93 
 
 Ellis B. Schnabel 
 
 97 
 
 Thomas C. McDowell 
 
 99 
 
 John J. McElhone 
 
 101 
 
 Robert J. Walker, recalled 103 
 
 Thomas L. Clingman 119 
 
 M.P.Bean 120 
 
 Samuel Medary 133 
 
 Graham N. Fitch 136 
 
 Cornelius Wendell 138 
 
 Matthew Johnson ..... 150 
 
 S. M. Johnson 151 
 
 H.L. Martin 157 
 
 Appendix to testimony of H. L. 
 
 Martin 172 
 
 A.J.Isaacs . 174 
 
 William M. Browne 176 
 
 F.W.Walker 178 
 
 Cornelius Wendell, recalled 184 
 
 Ellis B. Schnabel, recalled 197 
 
 George W. Bowman 202 
 
 Edwin G. Dill 210 
 
 Cornelieus Wendell, recalled 214 
 
 David Webster 218 
 
 Henry Wilson - 224 
 
 Samuels. Cox 229 
 
 Henry Wilson, recalled 231 
 
 Benjamin Andrews 231 
 
 Charles B. Flood 236 
 
 William W. Shore 240 
 
 J. S. Black 246 
 
 William W. Shore, recalled 251 
 
 A. H. Eyana, recalled 256 
 
 JaredD. Elliott 258 
 
 James H. Smith 260 
 
 Thomas Miller 260 
 
 William B. Mann 267 
 
 Ira Freeman, jr — 269 
 
 Horace F. Clark 269 
 
 Charles Brown 273 
 
 Joseph H. Geiger 277 
 
 JohnB. Haskin 280 
 
 Samuel S. Cox, recalled 289 
 
 JohnW.Forney 291 
 
 Joseph H. Geiger, recalled.. 304 
 
 James H. Smith, recalled 305 
 
 Samuel S. Qox, recalled 310 
 
 Cornelius Wendell, recalled 3H 
 
 Hon. Jacob Thompson . ..... 314 
 
 Hon. Howell Cobb 317 
 
 James Davidson 323 
 
 Appendix 324 
 
 PHILADELPHIA NAVY YAED, ETC. 
 
 J.B. Guthrie 327 
 
 George W.Baker 328 
 
 James C. Van Dyke 332 
 
 Thomas McDono'ugh 346 
 
 John H.Bryant - 348 
 
 Francis Grice 353 
 
 S&mel B. Grice 355 
 
 Joseph B. Baker 356 
 
 Francis McCormick - 360 
 
 John F. Schell 362 
 
 Andrew Brumaker..i 364 
 
 George Downey 366 
 
 Andrew Brumaker, recalled 368 
 
 Patrick Lafferty 370 
 
 John Dunn. 
 
 376 
 
 Frederick Engle 377 
 
 Edward W. Power 383 
 
 Thomas McDonough, recalled 387 
 
 Patrick Lafferty, recalled 391 
 
 Thomas McDonough, recalled 393 
 
 Patrick Lafferty, recalled 40i 
 
 Charles W. Clement 403 
 
 Charles Brown 405 
 
 William C. Patterson 407 
 
 Andrew M. Sallade 409 
 
 P. Barry Hayes 410 
 
 Albert R. Schofield 412 
 
 Gideon G. Westcott 414 
 
 Appendix 418 
 
838 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 EXECUTIVE BINDING, ETC. 
 
 Page. 
 
 WUliam Pettibone 423 
 
 Columbus Alexander 429 
 
 S. B. Blanchard 433 
 
 ■William F. Bayly 433 
 
 Talentine Blanchard 434 
 
 W. E. Kennaugh 434 
 
 Page. 
 
 John Wagner 435 
 
 A. Eoane 435 
 
 J. S. Black 441 
 
 Archibald A. Quantrille 443 
 
 W. C.N. Swift 445 
 
 Joseph Grice - 454 
 
 Cornelius Wendell 459 
 
 Augustus Schell .- 472 
 
 Sam. F. Butterworth 485 
 
 Augustus Schell, recalled 491 
 
 Sam. F Butterworth, recalled 491 
 
 James O'Beiley 495 
 
 Cornelius Wendell, recalled. 501 
 
 Eichard Schell 511 
 
 Alez.H. Evans 515 
 
 Isaac v. Fowler a. 516 
 
 John Ready 526 
 
 JohnCEUrodt 529 
 
 Adam Wegmann 532 
 
 James Owens 534 
 
 W.B. Shaw 537 
 
 George W.Bowman,. . i. 538 
 
 George Plitt 546 
 
 Isaac West 552 
 
 B.F.Slocumb 556 
 
 J. L. Cramer... . 560 
 
 Nicholas Vedder jii 563 
 
 JosiahM. Lucas ... .. 566 
 
 ELECTIONS, ETC. 
 
 Stephen Gi Dodge 569 
 
 Cornelius Wendell, recalled — . — 576 
 
 Eobert Darlington - 577 
 
 Thomas T. McCamant 578 
 
 Cornelius Wendell, recalled 679 
 
 Josephs. Baker 583 
 
 Hamilton Bruce , 596 
 
 A. 0. P. Nicholson 599 
 
 James Murphy 602 
 
 John Appleton.. . 603 
 
 William H. Witto , 610 
 
 George Sanderaon ..^ 611 
 
 J.Henry Puleston 614 
 
 A. Davies ^..^ 616 
 
 Davids. Eoon i 617 
 
 J. H. Puleston, recalled 620 
 
 George W. Walling .* 621 
 
 Horace F. Clark 622 
 
 JohnB. Haskin i... 624 
 
 William Earns 625 
 
 John Covode ., 630 
 
 Appendix .j 632 
 
 POST OFFICE DEPAETMENT, ETC. 
 
 Thomas P. Watson 635 
 
 Sheldon McKnight 637 
 
 Henry J. Alvord .. 
 
 Charles E. Stuart 
 
 Correspondence of Post Office De- 
 partment with W. C. Barney 
 
 Senate Ex. Doo. No. 72, 36th Con- 
 gress, 1st session, relative to route 
 across the Isthmus of Tehuante- 
 
 pec . 
 
 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 45, 36th Con- 
 gress, Ist session, relative to con- 
 
 639 
 650 
 
 652 
 
 674 
 
 tracts with Daniel H. Johnson 
 and Cornelius Vanderbilt for 
 
 transporting the mails 
 
 William C. Barney . 
 
 EUwood Fisher 
 
 William H. Davidge 
 
 James E. Harvejr 
 
 William C. Barney, recalled . 
 
 J. P. Benjamin .. 
 
 BUwood Fisher, recalled 
 
 Horace F. Clark 
 
 EUwood Fisher 
 
 735 
 779 
 783 
 790 
 800 
 801 
 816 
 821 
 823 
 829