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


Tacter for veracity. as well Of the specific op-
mon they have formed in relation TO some Of the
most prominent parts of his testimony.
On the subject of his general character for We
rscity, they have hesitation in saying, that he
Is entirely destitute of the sightes, claim 10 be be
Ieved upon his OATH
They have come to this conclusion, not only
from the testimony of respectable witnesses, going
TO establish the general inamy Of his character,
but from the total disregard for truth which he
manifested during the progress of his examination,
and the numerous contradictions in which he in
volved himself whilst giving in his testimony in the
presence of the Committee.
Without attempting 10 detail the numerous in .
stances IN which II is apparent to the COMMITTEE
that he has To wilful and deliberate false
hoods, they have confined themselves to those
parts OF his testimony which demand separate
and distinct consideration on other grounds.
On his first examination, he produced a letter
written by Major Vandeventer to him. dated the
9Th OF August, 1913, commencing with the fol-
lowing mutilated 'ence: {" | am very sorry that
the - are concerned in the contract, will not
agree 10 admit George on the terms ysu have stat
ed.''
The letter then goes on 10 state, that the writer
(Vandevener) had informed Major Cooper, his
iather-in-law, that there was other person
concerned in the contract, whose name las not
10 be mentonej and he letter seems to be designed
90 prevail upon Mr.. Cooper to become one OF the
the condition, on. which il appears he was insist
ing, that his sun George should have one-fourth
oil the contract Mix states that This letter
obtcra'ed when he receiv ed it, and that he does
not know rba, were the words that have been
erased. The Connittee are decidy of opinion
that the erasure was made by MIy, for the purpose
OF throwing mystery over the matter, and of
exciting suspicion that {! person alluded 10 in
the part ob.iieratej was Mr.. Calhoun.
That The obierstion not made BY the writer
OF the letter, is clear, from several obvious con-
alterations. II he had been so DESTROYS to con
ceal the words erased, the obvious and natur al
course would have been, 10 have omitted them al
together, instead OF first writing them down, and
then making eTasure that rendered the sentence
unintelligibe.
Another circumstance, that tends to satisfy the
Committee that the was made by Mix, is
the manifest difference betwee the ink with " hich
the letter is written and that with which the erasure
Is made, and the equally striking resemblance be-
tween the ink used in making the erasure in ques-
ton, and that used in making other erasures in the
same letter, which Mix acknowledges were made
by himself. II is obvious TO the Committee
that the word 90 the' is left unoblitera,e ed imme-
diately preceding erasure, in order 10 raise
suspicion that the word +" Secretary" or " Sc
creaiy of War;" occupied the tlolted space
which TO lowed: But not understanding the rules
OF grammar, which, otherwise, is ingenious
device, has left visible the words Z" who are con
cerned," Immediately after the erasure; from
which il is evident that the definite article pre-
cedng the erasure must have agreed not with " Sc
cretary,'' but with some common substantive in
the plural number, such as 90 the other gentle
men, 60 the rest of the gentlemen according
10 the explanation given by NIajnr Handkerchief -
1hs explanation of The words obIiteraied, which
is almost self evident, conclusivey shows that
Yandeventer could have no motive to make the
obiteration. and clearly shows the base motives
Ly which Mix must have been actuated in making
IF, TO these circumstances, we add the oath of
Major Yandevenier, that he did make the era.
sure, the fact that Mix did, is slablished by a
conclusive weight OF evidence.
On his FIRST examination, Mix stated that, pre =
yions 10 the 18Th of April, 1921, he PRESENTED to
Alr. Calhoun, among olber papers explanatory of
his claims, letter from Mai r Vandeventer to
him MiX) written whilst they were both in the
city OF New York, dated the l.. of April, 1921
and aiming copy of confidential let, CIR w hch
Fandev enter had that morning written, from New
York, to Mr.. Calhoun. In the first instance Mix
stated to the Committee that he could not recol-
lect the contents of he confidential letter farther
than that it informed Mr.. Calhoun that Mix had
been brought 10 terms, and would consent TO the
transfer TO Goldsborough
lie afterwards during the same examination,
ted that II contained something about Yande-
vcnter's going abroad upon foreign mission. N
member OF The committee perceiving that he had q
paper in his hand, 10 which he occasionally ieierr-
ed asked If that was copy OF the letter in ques-
ton. He Said that il was not correct py, but
that he had two others home one of " hich was
correct nearly On being requested to give
up tic paper he held in his hand, he refused
stating that ii was too incorrect 10 he exhibited As
copy. The next day he produced the two other
alleged copies, together with the one he had re-
fused to give up the day before. On being ask ed
which of the three the most correct copy, he
said he could not tell, but stated that they we're
all copied from the original while it was in hi.
possession. He now stated that he lost the letter
in the Department of War fi'e or six months
or a year before Mr.. Calhoun left it,
He further stated that Mr.. Calhoun, in the pre-
sence OF General Msconb and Captain Smith oil
the Engineer Corps. took the bundle OF papers, laid
them on his table before him, and said he would
attend to them. That be, (Mix,) retired, but
returned, in from five 10 ten minutes, and rote a
note 10 Mr.. Calhoun from the audience room, re
guessing either TO him have his papers re-
tsrned. That the bundle presented to him by
the messenger, and, examining it, he rerc ed
that the letter of the lst Of April, 1921, was
missing; that he Immediately went into Mr.. Cal
houn's room ah= stated the fact that paper was
missing, upon which Mr. Calhoun called Major
Vandey enter, and asked him if be knew any thing
Oft Major Vandevenier answered promptly, no
and Mr.. Calhoun, looking slernly, first at YanGe-
venier, and then at Mix, said he knew nothing of it,
On examining the three copies, they are all
found to agree tolerably well in substance, but
differ both in the arrangement and construction oil
the sentences, and in the words used TO express
the same idea. The composition is evidently that
of an illilerate man, who does not understasd the
rules of grammatical construction.
Major Ysndeventer denies uDequivocaly, that