The Portland daily press., 1872-03-18

The bitter hatred and spiteful malignity of
| the Missouri Senator were never more con-
spicuous than i'll his attempts to make case
against the Administration and show that the
United States government has violated its neu-
trality obligations to the German government
for the purpose of alternating the great mass of
the Germans from the Republican party. In
the cross examination of Col Crispin of the
ordnance bureau, the chief point sought by Mr..
Schurz was that the deliveries on the sales to
Remington of October 18th and 18th ought to
have been stopped, but were not because of the
desire of the Department to aid the French
| agents. The witnesses having testified that
they regarded the Department bound by its
contracts, Schurz sought to show that this was
not true, and proceeded in his adroit way to in
stance case, and to place a perverted state
ment of the facts in the mouth of the witness,
and to ask him to swear to it. These tactics
have been SO uniformly resorted to by the pres
ecuting Attorney during the investigation thus
far, that the Committee has become disguised,
especially as the members have invariably seen
that these cunning questions, with their per-
verted answers, have been regularly telegraph
ed over the country as established facts. 1t
was SO manifestly the purpose of Senator
Schurz in this case to give the impression diff
ferent from the testimony of Col. Crispin that
Senator Hamlin, chairman of the Committee,
felt called ON to interfere, as will be seen from
the following extract from the report of the in
vestigation, as published in the New York pa
peers. '- .eif . '.'
Q.-By Mr.. Schurz-Do you remember a
bargain made between the Department and G.
X. Garrison about $4,000 Enfield rifles? A.
Yes, Sir. l
Q.-Was not there the margin put by the G.
X. Garrison? A.-C. X. Garrison put up that
margin. flt.a.5
Odd not afterward the bargain 60 back
in consequence of the Government not deliver
ing the guns? A.-No Sir.
Q.-Why was it? A.-Because the purchaser
failed to take the guns; for that reason the
bargain was not contaminated
Q.-By Mr.. Sawyer-He did not fulfill his
part of the contract? Ale did not fulfill his
part of the contract; the guns are in our pos
any time 4 .a.-
Odd he ever make any complaint of the
action OF the Government on his part? A
Never. f
Q-By Mr. schurz-It appears by the cores
pondence that the margin was returned to Gar
rison, SO that it seems that contract was can
celled finally in consequence of the failure of
the Government of the United States? Aft
you will look at my Endorsement you will see
the facts.
The chairman to Mr.. Schurz-When the wit
ness testified that it was not SO, why should
you ask him question assuming that it was
SO, and then telegraph to the reporter sitting
back "a; OF you on the sofa to have it telegraphed
all over the country?
Mr.. SGhurz-We are going over the whole
case: we l mean to show is this, that here
contract was cancelled.
me =. Chaiirman-No, Sir; You put in the
WOrQS L nloAb xtI
when the witness testifes that it was cancelled
by the other party by his refusing to receive the
arms L am only stating what the witness said,
Ihen' When ne mad said this, you put state
ment directly opposite, and telegraphed to the
reporter back of you, who, suppose, is to send
a garbled extract all over the country.
Mr.. Schurz-This is not garbled extract
was about reading the correspondence, if.
however cannot ask question.
The Chairman-You may ask any question.
but do not put in the witness mouth things
that he never said.
The Witness-My construction of it is that
Garrison failed to take the guns; failed to put
up his money We would gladly have accept
ed the money. He put up his margin but fail
ed to complete the purchase.
MIR. Ames-And you do not deliver until you
get the purchase money? A.-Never; that is
the universal rule. ftr.
Mr.. Schurz-Here is your own letter in refer
ence to the return of a margin. Look at the
date.
=, The Witness-The sale had failed and fallen
through by the action of the purchaser in not
putting up the money when he ought to have
put it up, and the Government was left with
these goods on its hands; he naturally makes
complaint, and an effort to get his margin back
again, he not then wanting the goods; that is
the whole transactions as understand it,
Q.-Dy you not give the whole history of that
transaction IN this letter which you wrote to
Washington? Al suppose SO; do not know
exactly that gave the history of it, 1 do not
remember what l wrote there
Q-But we have in the testimony series of
letters concerning this whole case, which make
it perfectly plain; for aught know the Colonel
is correct, but it merely occurred to me at this
moment. Mr. Schurz read the correspondence
on pages 104, 105, log and 107 of the testimony,
hibit No. 8.
The Chairman-General, does not that cor
respondence show that there was failure in
the part of the purchaser to pay the money?