Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-17

one fourth par. to'a person whose name Was 10 b.
kept secret.
The only explanation on this part of the subject
whichit is in the power of the Committee to give,
is that they believe the erasures and excisions in
the letters of the Sd Of August, 1918, and the
18th Of October. 1920, contained the words &c the
General" or ." General Swift as, at the time
OF writing them, Major vendeventer believed
Seneral Swift was concerned in the contract;
which impression he now swears was made BIZ the
representations OF Mix, and retained, until
pending the investigation OF 1892, when the Geu-
eral made oath that he never had been in,eres ed
| IN mat contract. Mr.. Jennings also swears. that
ne was informed by Mix, that General Swift was
interested in his contract. Mix also admits tina,
he might have told Vandeventer so.
Immediately after this contract was closed, bond
was gwen Tor the fulinient of is conditions, in
the sum OF twenty thousand dollars. dated the 9th
OF August, ISIS, and signed BY Elijah Mix, George
cooper, Samuel Cooper, AMI James O,kley.-
sealed and delivered IN presence of John Martin,
| and Simon Eilyef
To which is attached the following certificate
| oil the Recorder of New York.
" The sureties having been By me duly sworn.
40 hereby approve OF them good and sufficient.
New York, 9Th Aug. 1915 r. RIKER."
Upon TINS bond being iecei, e., at the Engineer
department, an advance of $4,000 upot; the
contract was made to Mix, by draft upon the
Branch Bank OF the u. States at New York
After this period, it was discovered that there
were two errors in the bond: first tina, i, was for
the delivery Ut one hundred thousand perch OF
| stone, instead of one hundred and fifty thou sand
whieh the contract called for; next, that the
OF George Cooper was placed in the bond as one
OF the contractors, when Mix alone was the con-
tractor.
Some time after the date of this boud il was
cancelled, and one formed sui, the provisions of
the contract, in all particulars, and was forwarded
10 the Engineer Department, which second bond
was dated The OH of August, 1918, The same day
on which the first was dated At what precise
period this bond was received at the Engineer
Department, is not known. but, if The testimony
oil General Swift and Majo, ysndeven,er is cor
rect, 1t must have been early in the Fall of 1878
The sum of S 900 was drawn from the Trea-
suTy, u Is supposed upon verbal reqrisilion as
there Is nothing written upon the subject This
however, previous TO the date of this transaction
was sometimes the case, appears from testimony
OF Gen. Swift, and from the communication of
the secretary OF the Department of War 10 the
committee, d'teG the 10Th day of Feb. 1927
The committee th:.k il further necessary TO
state, that he certificate of The Recorder of New
York, which was attached the first or the can
celed bond, Is not attached TO the second or new
oond, but that, when copy of THIS bond was
sent 10 committee of the House, in the wear
lo2';, the copy OF the certificate Of the old was
attached to he new bend. aud certified by an ofii
Ger to be a true copy. The manner in which the
irresplarty hapreced, is accounted for in The ,es
'imony of Captain Smith /; does not appear, in
any part OF this inquiry, thu, the u S. sustained
any injury, although there So lie irregularities
Alter taking all the testimony which coulI lie
had, calculhed TO throw light on the sub"c,, The
COMMITTEES feel 1t their duty 10 -tate TO the House
th't there is nothing in the evidence warranting
a belief, or that tends 10 induce even the slightest
suspicion, that Mr.. Calhoun was, either directly or
Indn ecily. concerned in any contract made with
me department OF War, whilst he Secretary
OF that Department, or that he participated in the
Profits of any such contract, OF that he connived
al any such participation in any of his subordinate
officers, AID that. in their opinion, there are no
! grounds for any farther proceedings
On motion OF NJ. Floyd, the above raper was
then ordered TO lie on the table, and ne printed
| MI. Saunders al North Carolina, moved that the
paper re'eed TO in the report Of he committee as
containing the protest OF Mr.. Nj 'Du.fie, on the
behalf OF Mr.. Calhoun against certain acts of tn.
committee, be now read.
The Speaker replied, that the motion w as not in
order, as the rrpori and DO 'lnents had Just been
laid upon the table by the House, and ordered to
be printed. The motion. however might be re-
ceived by leave of the House.
| The question being put leave was .-ranted for
| the mo'ion; and
| Mr.. Saunders renewed his motion.
| Mar. Wight oIpos ed the reading of this ,locu-
! ument, unless the other documents accnmpanyirg
| the report, were read also Ii this were read he
MIR. Saunders replied, that, should The gentle
man do 20, it would be for the Hnu,e TO SAY
! whether this call -houd be compli d with
| The question was then put On reading the doc
ument, embraced by the motion of Mr. Saunders
and neSatived - Ayes 70, Noes 81.
| Mr.. Forsyth asked leave TO presen, pe.iiion
which had reference to he subject now before the
House
Leave heins granted, Mr.. F. then presented the
following communication f:
To The Speaker Of The II. of r of The u. s.
| WAsHINGToN Feb -, 1927
| Err Il Cannot but express my regret, that IN G
Select Committee ofthe ii. OF r., appointed on the
Vice p e-ident's Letter of the ooh of Dec last
have not accompa MED their report to the Hous. by
a communication Of mine, of the 1st instant, ex-
plsnaiory OF transactions, far | am concerned
IN connection with the subject of investigation.
Deepins his communication necessary for tina,
purpose, l herewith transmit il, with It's accom-
p1nyng documents, and pray that il may be re
ceved by the House, and PLACED am ing the papers
presented by the Committee, connected with this
investigation.
, have the honor to be, with perfect respect,
your most obi serv't, G. yANDEyENpEB
, The petition read.
Mr.. Forsyth said, that in presenting this petition
he did not intend to give any statement of his own
sentiments in relation 10 the petitioner lie knew
nothing about the testimony to which il referred
whether OF an inculpaory or exculpafory cha
Iacter. In presenting il, he would only do 10 this
person an act OF justice which he would be willing
10 perform in all similar cases. He concluded hi,
observations, by moving that the petition and
accompanying documents, be laid upon the table
: and printed.
MIR. Brent, Of Louisiana, asked for division o
the motion, and that the question be hrst t,k.n M