Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-06-28
Did Gen. TalcOa take any part in the above |

th.t there was recognition OF con ract Dy Mr.
60 nncon,radicled thought OF it after they had e the
~ !. singular circumstances and, being in the habit OF
The verbal statement Of the heads of bureaus facs
hS have believed that Mr.. nwford had made contract
Gen. Tscott had not had papers In his hand was
move surpsed from the fact .a day two after General
To,t came into my office other business and introduced
,h sbiec Of this converaf with Doctor Carmichael and
ob.eryed to me- "You right, there was recog-
milton Of the contract. nd spoke. as thought somewhat
snssnry at Doctor Car nichass declaration that there had
been such recognition.
Or REORGANIZATION.
The counsel for def nee asked the witness Gen. Talcot
took any part the conversation with Doctor Carmchael
who replied that he did not.
Oussion 6y defence Did Gen. Talcot have the papers in
his possession, only pass them to you from Doctor Car
michael
Ans,ver. He ad them, and brought them with him.
Question ly defnce Did Doctor Carmichael state tho time
and place where tac verbal contract with Mr. Cnwiord was
made
Anso do not think that Doctor Carmichael stated any
particular tne OF place.
O.eoa by .5fce Did you consider necessary for Gen.
Tco plain you the nature Of the papers when you
had them tb 81 for your own examination
Asro. My looking at the papers at all was entirely sc
cdental II Gen. Talcon had stated to me officially tnat
there was such contract would have taken the fact for
granted as am in the daily habit of doing in reference to
contracts made by all the bureaus And when Doctor Gar.
michael made this assertion in bis presence, and ne remained
SILENT considered at the time equivalent TO his making
the dec alton himself nearly and took the papers
with n entire conviction that should find in them re-
cognioa Of the contract BY Mr. Crawford, and was gooe
The hour o'clock having arrived hS ns Court su,our,s.
,untal this morning ats o'clock.
THIRD DAr-WrDxEsDAx, JUxE Is, 1851.
eros ,-eraminatiOn Of the Secretary Of Continued
Question You stated in your direct examination yesterday
mat when you asked Mr. Carmichael if he had any evidence
Of the recognition Of his contract he answered that the pa
Pers in the case would show ii and that you theeupon
General Taco if the papers he held in his hand
in 10 hoo
hfnded them 10 you upon your request. Have you any
knowledge that the said papers, which, according your
collection, were handed TO you by General Talco were
other or less than the true papers, necessary to the decision
been made
Ans,ov. have no such knowledge.
Question You have stated that the said bundle Of papers
contained the original decision itself Of Mr. Secretary Craw-
ford upon the validity Of the said alleged contract Are
able to state tOh0t other papers 1t contained?
Anstcer. do not know that it is original not
sufficiently acquainted with his handwriting do think
That examined any other paper in the package except the
letter Of Mr. Crawford referred to ia my testimony Of yes
terdsy. took up that because saw the name Of Mr.
Crawford appended to it. asked Doctor Carmichael if that
was the paper which contained Mr. Cawfods recognition
He said it and he alluded to other papers than
the one in question.
Question. When Mr.. Carmichael answered your inouiry
whether there was contract made with Mr.. Crawford,
what induced you to ask General Talcott if they were the
papersl
.ans,D presume that was induced to ask that cues
ton, because the idea occurred that if they were the
papers would look for the recognition spoken Of
Question. If General Talco brought ,oh him. and held
conspeosy his hand before you, the papers touching
Carmchaers claim, and amongst them clear orittea deci
SION against him By Mr. Crawford could you suppose that
he meant knowingly endorse untruh, the means of
opposing which he himself, at the time, you say
held openly under your eye such manner as TO lead Won
to understand that il was the paper referred to !
Ans,oer did not say that he held the papers conspicu
ousy before me- or SO as invite my attention, but he held
the package openly in his hand Upon the supposton that
would examine the papers, such design is not SUPPOSE
bie but upon the supposon that might examine the
papers, such design perfectly consistent with the fact of
bis having the papers in his hand
Question: Can you suggest a why Gen. Talcott
should have brought these papers before you, M he did,
while he meant give countenanoe 10 an assertion ps
| refuted by them
Ans,oe. could only give suspicious. do not desire to
| give Them unless the Court desire 10 give them
know no facts desire to my answer. Speaking
Of suspicion, do not to say that then entertained
any suspicion. thought that Gen. Talcos conduct was
strange and singular and reflected after they had left
the room, and also the day aer-so much that made
an impression my memory 1t struck strange at
the time, and more in consequence Of what Gen. Talco
afterwards said on the subject.
Question. Did Dr.. Carmichael make any other appica-
ton you than that specified in the interview in question:
viz to redeem the pledge which he alleged the former had
made him
Ans,oer Dr. Carmichael urged upon to allow him to
make quantity of shot, partly the ground Of positive
contract, and partly account Of equitable circumstances
which be meni0ned-such having made arrangements
comply with the contract and having been disappointed and
IN TACT used every to induce to give him
tract as other people do who want to make with the
Government and mentioned among other things that be
going to live in my city, New Orleans. was infexibe,
however, and perhaps showed little Impotence because
thought he had attempted to introduce deception upon
me, and be finally gave up in despair.
Question. Please state what time you left this city
in the fall Of 1850 and when did you return !!
ans,oer left in the early part Of October and gone
fortnight or twenty days returned on the 23d October
$780, as the records Of the Department show and resumed
me business Of the Department on the Gath.
Question by the Court. Was there any thing in the cir
cumsances Inconsistent with the supposon that Gen. Tai
colt after Doctor Carmichael had finished his argument
would at that interview have given the opinion he after
wards viz that there pledge in Mr. Craw
lord letter, provided you the time bad not come
to the same opinion by the perusal of Mr. Crawords letter
.aassoer The reason why my surprise Gen. Talcots
silence, when Doctor Carmichael asserted that there
written recognition Of the contract by Mr. Crawford, in
creased BY his remarkng the day. day AFTER
that was right 10 my decision by deciding that there was no
recognition was this: had supposed possible that Gen.
Taicot agreed with Doctor Carmichael in thinking that the
letter signed by Mr. Crawford amounted to recognition of
bis contracts but when he afterwards said that he agreed
with me that there such recognition my surprise at
his silence increased because did not know how to account
for it.
Captain Msynadier recalled.
Question In making your report to the Secretary Of War
in May, 1885, did Gen. Talcon express you an OPT
Mon upon the subject?
Answer. do Tecolect to have heard Gen. Tai
colt express opinion that subject but in writing that
report in charge Of the Department during his temporary
ABSENCE endeavored express exactly what thought
would be his views, if present. was in the habit Of writing
reports sometimes without previously consulting Gen Tai