The New York herald., 1869-06-25
THE EITEL CASE.
The Suit Against Ex-Surveyor Wakeman-
TIE Pardon and Appointment Bureaux Ven-
tilated-Interesfing Testimony ana Docs-


.ents.
This well known old litigation, which has been
dragging through the courts for upwards OF year
having been amended in the peadIngs SO as
10 include Mr.. Latting, the business part
ner Of the defendant, is still ON investigation
before John b. Haskin, as referee under an
order OF the Supreme Court The case, 1t VIII
be remembered, involves the defendant Abram
Wakeman, formerly Surveyor OF the port under the
administration q. President Lincoln, as having re-
ceived from the plaintiff, John y. Eitel, money
compensation for services rendered IN procuring
pardon for him lEiteD Tor offence alleged to have
been committed by him during the war; and this
suit is brought Tor the recovery OF the money SO
paid,
Yesterday the crosse animation OF Mr.. Lucius E.
Chittenden continued by Mr. smith, counsel for
the plaintiff and the following the chief points
OF the evidence ecited:-
Mr.. Chitenden testified that he only continued in
the employ OF the government about three weeks
and believed that he received his appointment from
the Secretary OF War; He could not state positively,
but spoke from recollection. The appointment was
received some time in The month OF February, 1896,
ana was discontinued ON account oil disagreement
between witness and Colonel Baker, in reference TO
some Of his transactions. The only notice gwen
was that he would mol 30 ON with the business,
which was, he thought given TO General chapman,
who had charge Of the business, and with whom
witness had correspondence Witness could not re-
member when he first Mr.. Latting, but believed
1t was soon after he went TO New York. BY soon he
meant within a day or two. lie should like to Tx
the date and to INFORM the court how he came to 30
there, and what time the appointment referred To
was received, with reference TO the time he went to
Colonel Bakers ofice.
Counsel for plaintr said that the only thing he
wished TO fix was the dates.
Witness replied that he could FIX the dates bv
sending IN the appointment itseii.
Mr.. Chittenden stated. In answer TO question
whether he had commission, that he had letter
from Secretary Of War; and that the facts OF MS
appointment were as fOllows:-S0me OIcer OF the
department wanted him to go there and look over
| Bakers business to see what he was doing. He
! went on from Washington, and then, without any
| interference Of his, while he was doing this, IL
was suggested at Washington tbas 1t was better he
| should act III some Official capacity, and then
| a letter sent appointing him Judge Advo-
| cate or Assistant Judge Advocate. He did not want
1t to appear IN cOur: that 1t was position hlch
| came OF his own seeking, and one that he was ever
proud OF. There were numerous charges against
Mr.. Eitel in the papers which have been presented
| here. Afidavits do not make the charges they
state the facts which, If true, would be evidence or
the paintir having been guilty of them. The papers
| shown contain evidence tending to show that Mr..
| Eitel had committed those offences. They do not
make specific charges against him. AS TO the
charges against Mr. Eitel there were letters written
| TO the war Department, but the witness did not
| know OF any specific ones made against him except
| as contained III the documents before the court
| The witness was here handed bundle OF papers
from the District Attorneys office, and requested TO
select any one containing charges against MI EItel
and selected an affidavit from the Mayor OF Borden
| '.YOu make me say all the time exhibit charges;
do not mean say that have said that the papers
| contain evidence TO show that he was guilty OF
onences.n exhibit No. was then read in evidenced
Witness then at the request OF plaintiffs counsel
selected another paper ne siateenn ncb OF wSs wa la
read in evidence.
officer, but do not know II in the regular army or
volunteers; it was place for ensting men, and the
officers had charge OF the recruiting station.
Witness here selected the statement OF Mrs. +.
Coin exhibit No. 4, appendedl which was read in
evidence. This is the wife, or supposed to be the
wife, OF captain Coin, who had charge of the rem
dezvous. Witness stated that he did not call these
charges but papers that Implicated Eitel. lhe
pendedl, was read in evidence. Witness was handed
exhibits Nos. 4 ana G, and stated that the former
IN sas hut asSouss ns S Of ns Ia
familiar to him could not name the writer
s0esa esrs s1a neS cd
ment OF George ii. Peters lexhibit No. ap-
Wished to say that upon referring to these papers,
he should think that he was there longer than three
weeks. lie mad stated the time to be three weeks;
| but on examining the dates on the documents,
thought he must been there over four.
Questioned by Judge Emott-There were papers
| there tnat he had distinct recollection about winch
were not here, but only one or two papers Of that
| class.
| He found one paper winch showed division OF the
| profits between Eitel ana Peters, whose statement
were se also mum humber ' Of enlistment cerfca,es in
some Of which Mr.. Eitel appeared TO have acied as
commissioner Cwitness selected q number r. Of
assumed to act in an official capacity as repre-
sentative OF the government as a commissioner.
him. l''' SAID SAID ''e nc 0S did nc not A know Mr. i:
Eltes handwriting. They were from enve-
them and were there the day before. He was there
| few weeks ana after having u disagreement with
Baker lett Bakers Ofcc and soon alter went 10 Tar
| rytown. When leaving ceased all connection with
the Office. Thought he recolected seeing the papers
tenlistmenu before seeing them at the Iestrct At
torneys office. Thought they sent 10 the proper de-
partment for those papers, and also for the books OF
some receiving snip 10 which large num-
Was certain they had the papers there In
which Mr.. Eters name appeared as commissioner
| he Thought those were the ones In answer TO the
ques ion whether he had seen the papers until seen
IN the District Attorneys office witness stated that
the other papers, lie distinctly remembered Of the
other papers spoken OF, aside IRON looking at them;
| the aIndavits OF the Mayor of Bordentown, the
statement OF Mrs. Com, the statement OF Peters
and the statement and a1ldavt Of O'Reagan. In an
swer to questions about visiting Bakers ONCE about
the mddle OF july ana leaving after four weeks with
out returning. and the making OF paper Exhibit
| No. q. ut loot by the Mayor Of Bordentown ON the
3lst OF March, the witness sald:-Upon going TO the
| ofice he found the whole OF Bakers proceedings
| had been conducted IN what he called loose man
| ner; several OF those papers were In the form OF
| statements not sworn 10, and IN some cases not
! signed by the parties; he required Baker before he
would make any Recommendations IN those cases.
have the statements verified by the oaths Of the par
| ties, aud several were verlied; he remembered
| the paper Of Tnompson's distinctly; Thompson
at the once and conversed with him. and the writ
ten statement before him; he supposed that was
signed and verified by oath after hrs departure; nc
\ was not certain tnat ne forwarded "a paper sworn
| TO to Washington; ne forwarded papers, and sup
posed the statement OF thompson was among them;
he forwarded or carried them; witness did not state
| that tue ground Of the difficulty with Baker
thar those things were not verified; n they say that
lalt was found In Colonel Baker by was not In
reference to tins matter. nor IN reference to the
papers being verified; witness did not know that he
found ault but he required tine papers to be verified
before he acted upon them; he could not say wny, II
! he saw the statement OF Thompson before HIM at
Bakers Office, he did not send IL to Washington;
thought Mr. Thompson reliable respectable
| man, but could not tell MS age beyond
| that he was middle-aged man, ana he