The New York herald., 1867-02-20

ions with The Indians least to preserve peace Inc
pann s slleged, dd al ne Sonsu ~ b,s osn ri
ya,e purse amounting ane s2s 0oo 10 effect this OBJ
ject Il Is also alleged Una, husrf entered into con-
sIa riainNL which in the month Of January, 1852.
or,yl,ated the report that De Puy had received NE In
~. snr,,Itles and had embezzled Withholding
thern This charge was extensively circulated in the
TerTIiory In February, 1852, the plaintiff went 10
ysslinGton for the purpose OF obtaining the money,
but met Mr Dole on his way in Kansas who d.
his is' arrival at washington he was promised The
money On the stb OF March the plaintiff ordered me
Comm ssoner to investigate the charge of emoezkhng
the money, although lie knew that De Puy nsa never
received L. In the latter part OF March 1902 the ac-
counts OF the defendants against the plaintiff were maue
ou, in two vouchers OF 500 SO and $40 To- Ine pam
tG then owed Hurford individual account only ns
vouchers were made by direction OF MI Huriord anu
were paid Is alleged that the libeeus ietlers were
written by Hlrford to the parties named, cnsIRns 'a'
the vouchers were forgeres Inc ara ~
founded and In October 1862 that report was fled In
Washington Mr. De Puy then apped TO DC rcins'aiea N
his Office He removed IN May, 1867, and on the
coming in OF that report made the application Lush
baugh was In Washington, endeasoring to retain his
office and prevent the restoration o. De puy Ihen J.
was that these libels written The defendants and
Lusbbaugh could devise scheme better calculated to
effect their purpose than that adopted hy them First.
they made up false account, nomtnniiy against the
government, IN favor Of The government against ,it
amounted 10 p9rny. II consisted in part OF itens
restorat % pe Ply bu. which by an agreement between
ordereS c and defendants and IHshbaugh were TO bc
the .rIushbangh and paid for by him. The second
tar0f the account consisted OF tho items included IN
snese vouchers and paid for bv De puy, so that the
whole account false To sustain that account these
bes were written If we shall succeed In proving these
facts, then you wil unless the defendants can show
some excuse agree with us that these letters false
and malicious, and were written without excuse or
apology
THE EvIpgvcr
Henry De Puy being duly sworn. testified as fol.
NM Mr. cuermwero you prior to the writing of these
pointed Indian agent by Mr. Lincoln on the Ist April
g You reside on the agcncys A. Veg, sir
Were you acquainted with the defendant, Onvrr r.
Hnrford, and his brothers A. was acquainted with
Oliver p Hurford, but not with his brother.
Q. How far WIS that agency from Omahaf A. We
called II at that time one hundred and twenty I've miles,
but Soa DO not think .s,1su quite 50 l,S much
fore the time Of the lbes' A. As agent for the
pawnee I Indians, ! commenced dealings with. Mr..
for the use OF the agency; made several purchases
which ! made during the following three months,
sns M sap s Ss SSeSrs o Marn snS him the
Mr.. Hurford and requested him to have his account
against the Pawnee agency made out and his bin pre-
sented: He presented these bills the bills here
handed In 10 the Court evidcnce and marked A and
b. Ho told him he would send them to the agency by
man in his employ, named Hayes Early in April Mr..
Hayes came to the reservation, presented these bills
with tho necessary vouchers and received the money
O. Did Mr. Oliver P. Hurford direct those bills 10 be
made ouf A: Yes SIR; he directed Mr.. Lamer, his book
keeper, TO make them out.
@ Was there anything said In your interview with
Mr. Huri ord about changing some Items from the public
account 10 your individual account? A. Mr. Iamer had
placed, in mistake, some Items which had individually
purchased In the account against the agency, and
quested II TO be altered.
Q. These bills were made out In the usual form of
vouchers against the government, were they not2 A.
Yes sir; they called vouchers and as cert-
cate 10 show that havo pod the money; the govern
nlen required me to take four receipts for each pur
chase; as there were two bills in this received
OF ght vouchers.
@ These were all maic out by Mr. Lamer pursuant 10
the directions OF Ar Harford2 A. Yes, sir; Mr. Hur-
ford in his tore az Omaha at the time the vouchers
were made out and they were made out under his d-
rectons; after the vouchers paid called his atten
ticn TO them and requested him to to Them in
May, 1882, was removed from my agency.
Q Was there any investigation pending at that time
In which you were interested? a. Yes, sir; ther }
was an Investigation into my official conduct and 4
subponaed Mr.. Hurford as witness 70 testify to II
truthfulness Of these vouchers
Q Was the question Of payment then talked over ,e
tween your A. II was.
from early in July, 1862. until the end of October
during all that time mad Mr. Hurford as witness to-
appear in my favor.
Q. The charge preferred against you was cne OF Gun
@. And II was on that account that you had tho 81
conversations Win him relative to the paymentof Sac
@ What did he say with respect to your req uest te
attend and swear to the trrth OF these vouchers A.
cannot remember the precise words he used Ircgrde
Mr. Hurford at that time as my friend and hail s,ver
consultations with him In regard 10 these matters.
O. In substance did he say he was willing 10 b
tho truth Of themf A. He said he was noSony wiiltg
bus desrcus TO appear FOR and testify othe integrity
OF my vouchers and accounts with him ssrprssented by
me 30 the government
@ When wcro you removed from ofics2 A In May,
O. Who was appointed as your saccsseorf A. Ben,a-
min y. Luahbaugh, Of Maryland.
O Did you apply for reappontmentf A. Yes, sir.
At this point In the proceedings the Court adjourned
ntil ten O'Clock this morning, when the case will be
a med.