Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-27
From The Cincinnati Gazette, March IS.
yICE.PRESiDENT'S PROTESTING. II

From The Cincinnati Ga-eHe, MdrCh 10.
VICE-PRESiDENT'S PROTESTING. H.
According 10 the doctrines # The protest,
"ihe solitary question as TO Mr.. Caio'm'S Parl'c'-
patton" in the Rip Rap contract with NIX, was
the only inlcrrogaiory legally put to Mix, or
Vandeventer. think enough has been s'lc to
show that this is al untenable position as mat
ter of law. It's bearing upon the real merits OF
the inquiry, and upon Mr.. Calhoon's request 10
4" haze a full Investigation" has been limited at
1t shall be more fully examined,
Mix was the ostensible original party 10 the
Rip Rap contract, in question. He asserts the
nleres: of MIR. Calhoun in that contract, not
upon his own knowledge, but upon that OF Van
deventer. Whether MIR Calhoun was, in faci,
interested, or whether the charge against him
was slspdss Il II Nh tsff5dh was par
ticipa,or in the profits, it would not probably be
known to any one, but the parties. 1t was only
from them that the fact could be drawn. If
then, when Mix appeared before the Commit
tee, they had said 10 him, we want no nara
tive from you: we require only that YOU answer
this question: Do you know that Mr. Calhoun
participated in the profits of the Rip Rap con-
tract you made with Government 20 they could
only expect an answer in the negative Mix
had pretended to NO such knowledge. Had
Vandeventer then been CALLED, and the same
question put 10 him, the same answer was to be
expected, and no other. Very little experience,
in the practice of his profession, would be ,ufi-
Glen: TO convince every lawyer, that, had this
corrupt participation existed, the parties would
not hesitate 10 attempt its concealment. by the
commission Of perjury. This mode Of exami
nation would fall far short of"a full inyestiga-
ton" 1t could result in nothing but white
washing Of Mr.. Calhoun.
The committee were fully apprised that if
guilt existed, IL was TO be asCertained from re-
luctant and interested witnesses In pursuing
a course that led to ga full Investigation" they
at once, performed the daty imposed on them,
and complied with the request Of Mr. Calhoun
They examined Mix, not only touching his own
knowledge of Mr. Calboun's participation, but
also as to the alleged letter from Vandeven'er
The letter Of the 9Th Of August, 1918, showed
that, in the examination of 1922 full and fair
disclosure had not been made. And il asserted
the existence of secret partner whose name
was not to be known. The suspicion which
this letter attached to the transaction. was, by
no means removed by the examination and ex-
plantations of Vandeventer
The discrepancy between the letter and his
deposition as TO the time ne became interested,
has been noticed. But this is not the only point
Of disagreement In his deposition Vandeven-
ter says:
SIT the lime it the contract was made, it
was considered by those most x3erienocd in
such business a bad contract, and as ruinous
10 the ~contracior.'
This description of the contrac, cannot be
reconciled with the fact, that Alr. Cooper was
anxious to have his son George associated in
1t, nor with the fact that Jennings, Vandeven-
Ter, and person to remain unknown, were each
SO anxious TO retain his snare, as to make i,
impossible to admit George as partner. tits
also lrreconoieablc with the assertion that it
was unreasonable in Nh. Cooper 10 inss, upon
the admission of George, when It's result would
be "fo deprive US Of competency, and thus enrich
oiners az d"r loss strange consequence to
result from the loss Of ga ruiaous" con,rac,
These facts appear from the letter of the 71b Of
August, and cast cloud of deep suspicion mon
the assertion that the contract was considered
bad one, sand as ruinous 10 the confractoys.n
The letter of the 9TH August, thirteen DAVIS
only after the contract was signed, refers oby;. |
ously 10 previous letter: "JFhen Uniformed IN. |
ther that you and and Mr.. Jennings rerc each 10
haze fourth stated that one other person, ,ohom