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

Wents ne couiu suggest IN the conversations III
had with Mix on the subject, previous to OBJ
tanning his consent; and it is particularly 10 b,
presumed, that, if he had any thing confidential h,
would have communicated it verbally, and not il
| writing.
| Nothing can be more unnatural and improbabl,
upon the face OF it, than that he would have for.
mally reduced TO writing and sent TO man WIN
was in the same city with him, confidential mat
ter, which he must have previously stated in con.
versaiion, if the whole be not a fabrication. In
addition to the improbabili,y Of the story itself
the papers presented as copies of the confidential
letter have internal evidences of their having been
fabricaed by Mix. He swears, that they were all
taken from the original, willis, in his possession
1t he had merely taken copies from the original
would have been much easier TO take true co
Ply than an incorrect one. aud all the objects oil
copying would be defeated by not making the CO.
ny accurate. Now, il is found tina, all the three
copies, taken, as he says, from the same original
differ from each other, in the construction, COM
position, and arrangement of the sentences. But
The most conclusive badge of forgery stamped up
on the papers themselves, is their compo .ilion-
They are evidently composed by an iliiterate man =,
who does not understand the art oil writing good
English, and correspond, in this respect, with the
general character OF MiX's composition On the
contrary, from the letters of Major yandevene r it
Is obvious tibet he writes correctly and grammati-
cally. Moreover, it is highly improbable, in the
separate copies, unless we suppose he had fore
SIGHT OF lis loss; and if that had been the case
ne would have taken one correct COPY, inst cad of
three incorectones. The story rel,tive to the
loss OF the original, is equally improbable and is
accompanied by palpab,e contradictions He first
stated that he lost i, previous TO the 9th of April
| 1871; and afterwards, that il was FIVE or six
months, or year, before Mr. Calhoun left the
Department OF War That he should have left
papers with Mr.. Calhoun to be deliberately exam
'ned, and returned, and asked for them in FIVE or
SIX minutes, can Only be accounted for upon the
snrposition that his object, from the beginning,
was to give plausible face to the story he was
| inven'ing.
The whole OF his evidence relative to this letter,
IS cont adictory aud suspicious. He stated in the
hrst Instance, that one of The copies was nearlY
correct, but, that the one he then had with him
was so inaccurate, that he would not present il, -
ihe next day, when he produced all three of the
copies, he could not tell which was the mos, &C
curate, or whe her the which he had refused
10 give up, as being to, Inaccurate was les accu-
rate than the rest That copy, in fact contains all
that the Others contain, aud is at least equally as
full as they are.
The neat portion of the testimony of Mix,
which the Committee think proper TO notice sepa
ra'ely, is the letter of Major Y.ndeventer, of the
18th OF October, 1870, which he produced on his
secoud examination, with the accompc wing ties =
timony given by him, TO the execution OF the
second bond Major Vandev enter had stated,
that the second bond executed a short time
after the FIRST, TO witt some time in the early pert OF
| the Fall of 1918.
| Mix produced this letter OF the 9Th of October
| 1920, written by Vsndeventer to- him, at New
YORK, In which Mix Is requested To " attend to The
bond" Selling upon this expression in Vande-
veniers letter, TO give color his story, be swears
hat the FOND was executed in New York about
the date OF the letter. and that the reference in that
letter, was TO the executing of the bond. After
repeatedly swearing TO this fact, in answer TO seve-
raj questionshe was asked il he distinctly recol!ect-
ell 10 have signed the bond, and to have seen the
sreties sign it in the latter part Of 1920. 10 this
he answered, that he distinctly recOlIected sgnin.
the bond, but not in the Fall of 1920. He then
admitted, that the second bond was executed a
short time after the first. Major Vandevent.r
states that the request in the letter of the nth of
October, 1920, about The bond referred 10 the pro-
curement OF the certificate of the recorder az to the
suficiency of the securities; and General SAft
swears, that the second bond was lodged in the
Engineer Department, in the Fall of 1918, before
ne lett the office of Chief Engineer.
! IL is evident, therefore, that the whole of Mix's
testimony, relative TO The execution OF the second
bond in 1870, IL wsnonly and maicousy false
and intended 10 discredit Vandeve enter.
| The last piece Of the testimony of Elijah Mix,
I upon which the committee deem it necessary to
! pronounce separate and specific opinion, il the
letter OF Major Vandeventer, of The 81 Of An.
gust, 1918, with the accompanying explanations
This letter produ' ed at the close of his second
examination after he had repeatedly stated rha; h.
had no other Letters OF pandev enter in his DOS
! session. The letter was mutIlated in several pla.
ces by cutting out words; and these muiilston:
render the letter unnteiligible TO a certain extent
the committee feel II their duty to express ihei.
opinion, both as 10 the person who made them
and as to the object Tor which they were made -
They have no hesitation in saying they were mad,
by Mix, for the purpose of exciting suspicion
against Mr.. Calhoun and that he is not TO b,
credited when he says 1t was done by Ysndev enter
That the House may have the cans of es matins
the character Of this witness, the committee hay,
bought il expedieni 10 state briefly and dstinctl,
the circumstances connected with this part of hi
testimony. Near the close OF his last examina
ton, he voluntarily stated to the committee, that
since his first examination, Major Vandeventer Ia,
come to him, and requested 10 know whether h,
could find The letter of The Sd OF August, stating
that he desired permission to cut out or erase Ger
tain words that were in it; that he (Mix) foun,
the letter the next day, and carredit 10 vande
venter, at the Department OF War, who requested
him not TO speak about il there for that they wer
watched, and would be overheard, and proposed Il
60 TO the House of Mix that night, to conyers
with him on the subject; that Vandeventer CAM
to his house, accordingly, and prevailed upon him
by importantly, 10 permit the letter to be mu;ilat-
ed, and that II was muilaed, accordingly. b,
Vandeventer. In answer to repeated questions
seeking to ascertain the words cut out, he Away
answered that he did not know any thing of them
yet stated that the words cut out in Two separate
places, were, be believed, the same.
Major Nandeyenler, on being recalled, statet
that he had never seea he letter in question sine
he wrote it; that Mix never had been 10 see bin
at the Department Of War, since his first exami