Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian., 1858-12-04

There was some misunderstanding he told
me, in regard to it; why, he did not state;
saw the item charged in Mr.. Heenan's hand
writing, against the Board, as services it was
in book in the desk before mentioned; forty
five hundred and sixty folios were charged for;
4 marginal note stated that he had been paid
$57O on the claim; IIeenan acknowledged to
me that he had made but one copy; it was
for the Pioneer office he gave numerous rea-
sons to excuse himself for this matter; the
substance was, that he had to furnish copy
to both papers, and 80 did it as cheap and
easy as possible the conversation was had
about the fourth of July, during the sitting of
the Investigating Committee
(The Defence here admitted as evidence
printed statement of the investigation made
by Daniel Rohrer and s. w. Walker as show
ing the mode they arrived at the amount col
lected by Heenan.)
We charged him with unpaid taxes up to
June 7th, with $57, ,s5405. This is not the
real footing of his book-it footed more,-over
SCI 900 altogether. We got at it by adding
up everything in the red-line book, and deduc-
ting the amount marked paid
There are more red lines drawn through it
now than there were then.
(Witness then explained how the amounts
had been arrived at) We couldn't tell what
the charge of cents for 'incidental expens-
~ Il col kI,o
Cross-examined-Whe we found the
red lines in the book, we paid no attention to
it,-but considered them as erasures. There
were no mistakes found in the return of the
City Treasurer for 1857. Judge Tullis' re-
turn was much defaced and blottcd. Heenan
claimed difference of $4OO on it. 1t may
be a true one. Mr.. Heenan confessed the
red-line book contained errors. We made
our report on the oath of July, 1858. We
only got the red line book in the afternoon be-
fore; we got the amount $57, ,SJf.05 from the
red-line book l never saw tho tax-collection
book; we could not get possession oft at all {;
our only object of asking for the book was to
verify our account with his; he acknowledged
the correctness of our report, however, and so
we had no further use for it; we consulted
Heenan about everything we could not under
stand he got mad at this, SO we had to avoid
going to him for information, as much as pos
sible we sometimes called on him half doz-
en- times each day; there was somc.misunder-
standings, but no quarreling we stated moth
ing in our report but what was true, and ack-
nowledged by Heenan as facts, but not as de-
ductions; there were no unfriendly relations
between us, until the report was published !;
that produced coolness have taken no ac-
tive part in this examination, or in getting up
the charges on the contrary, rested under
the ilnputation of trying to avoid testifyng,
&C.; have only appeared on the contrary af-
ter solicitation; l never applied to Mr. New
son to publish reports derogatory to Heenan !;
he published, at my request, a statement of
Mr. Mclean in relation to the old Board
BIZ Mr. Gilman-Wa as it not customary for
Mr.. Heenan's predecessors to add the 81 .15
as fees?
Objected to by Mr.. Ames. Ruled out.
By same-In turning over moneys collected
by you, do you not deduct or retain fees?
Objected to, and ruled out.
Adjourned until Friday at ten o'clock.