New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-12-21
THE PACIFIC MAIL CORRUPIIOH
CASE

|
TIE INVESTIGATION GOING ON SMOOTHLY WHEN
| THE wrrNrss POSITIVELY DECLINES TO TELL
WHO ASSISTED HIM AND TO WHOM HE fAiD
| uovry-pROpApUITY THAT HE WILL BE AK
| RAIGNED AT TIE BAR OF THE IOCsE-HEi
| REsENTATIyE PARSONS TO BE EXAMINED BUM
| (BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRBUSEi
| WASHINGTON, Dec. 2O-Messrs. Dawes, n"'
| ond Reck went to the room occupied by Irwin, the
;tpess in the Pacific Mail corruption case. on SAT
| rrdav IN continue his examination. but had pro-
| coded only n little way when they were brought
nm with round turn by his utter refusal to an
| swer O question which they put to him. Ills prev
ous testimony had IN substance been. that no Id"
| received from the Pacific Mail Company checNs W
the amount of $75OCO0. which he was lnstruc'cu W
use in securing an additional subsidy that aiter
kecninp them nearly four days and protesting
against this mode of securing the SUI
sidy. he drew the money on them anu
| afterward scent it here in Washington
The story about $500 600 of it going to the lrih VI
Harriet a. Moves is denounced as absurd, because,
"a e said If il had been used in that way anu n"o
| been returned, why was the Company sueing nln
| for itf OF course in his testimony he eh'cieu
largely ito all The details OF the transactohs ""'
answered the questions put to him IN pronp, anu
satisfactory manner, until, when he hau ADMIT"
Yesterday that he had employed men here IN WASH
| ipgton to assist him, he was asked: Whom d'n
You employ and to whom did You pay money y
This question he absolutely refused to answer
| Irwin bases his refusal on several grounds, tne
| most important of which are the following Ao
| said that not having paid any money or arrape'u
for the payment of any money to any oiicer Oh iei
Der of the House of Representatives of the ALiid
Congress- who is an officer member OF the preseh'
| House of Representatives, and not having any
| knowledge that any money was paid to any such
pcrson neither the House nor the Committee had
! jurisdiction 10 ask auy such question. Moreover
if the Committee ever had jurisii lotion to ask him
questions Oh this subject at all, that jurisdiction
| has been exhausted, because by the resolution
under which they were acting, 1t had only
extended to the power to inquire whether money
had been used to procure the passage of the adGi
tonal subsidy, and that they had already found out
from his testimony. Again, ho refused to answer
because as he claimed, no person has IlSu' 10
diyulge any matter of which lie has received knowl-
edge in confidence when the subject matter OF such
confidential communication is not within the Jurs-
diction of the House of Representatives. Finally,
he refuses to answer because, he claimed no res
olution had ever been passed by the House giving
the Committee jurisdiction over this case.
Tho subcommittee consi Tered these reasons as
wholly insufficient and as The witness could not be
induced 10 answer tHcIr question, duJO"ihNu' LAW
full Committee will hold meeting in the morning.
and will probably introduce the customary Iesou-
ton to bring the contumacious witness before the
bar of the House early during the session t0-InOr-
row. The Committee announce their determina-
ton to press the Investigation with the greatest
vigor and call every VINO is suspected OF having
any knowledge whatever Of the matter. One OF the
first witnesses called will be Representative Par
sons who will be very closely questioned as to the
part he took in securing the subsidy. The names OF
several well known lobbyists are also mentioned as
among the early witnesses who will be examined
THE TESTIMONY OF DIRECTOR SMITH.
TIE USE OF MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO
CURING SUBSIDY UNKNOWN TO TIE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS.
GENERAL PRESS DIsPArCHl
WASHINGTON Dec. 20.-Tbe following concluding
portion of the testimony before the Committee on
WAYS and Means of james d. Smith. director IN
the Pacific Mail Steamship Company at the time the
subsidy was pending before Congress. is extracted
from the official report
BY Mr.. KassOn-Afer the subsidy measure passed.
was there no communication made to the Executive
Committee the Board of the expenses OF the agency
| at Washington A. There any.
O. BY Stockwell any one else A. Never. Sir IL
never oned to the Board at ALL and did not
hear Of It until good many mon bs aiterward.
Q. You heard Of any voucher among the papers
presented TO officer Of tho Company touching the
agency disbursements connected with Washington A.
never did, Sir.
BY Mr. Kelley-When was your attention first called
to this subject Of the alleged expenditure for the pro-
curement Of the subsidy A. cannot state the exact
ume but II months afterward. We were discuss
ing with OF the large stockholders what We had
better do with it, and the first know OF The matter
heard Of puolcy the street, that there had Oeeh
large amount expended, and went to look into H.
and IL became question before the Board that s0Ie-
body should look into IL and who accountable
for It, forget date, but the resolution would
show.
O. State the question that arose among youf A. "e''
1t came out upon tho street that Mr.. BtOckwe had
spent very large amounts OF the COmpany's money m
ANNA way iu Obtaining this subsidy but the date capt
tell you
O. ABOUT what da'ef A. Eight or nine months
think; a good while aftcrward anyway.
O. Well. what the question thu arose among you'
Was 1t as 10 how tho MONEY had been expended or
whether so much aad been expended. or what' A.
think mat The rst shape took to refer the
we should do to hold whoever had spent this money to
legal account, that we should proceed In regular
orderly and legitimate manner.
O. Then the SUN total claimed 10 have been expenaeu
In that way was surprise the Board Of Directors
A. Utterly and entirely so to every man OF tnem'
have talked to every man OF them and there was not
one Of them that eve. dreamed OF it.
| GENERAL POLITICAL NEWS