National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-09


the time you were discharged, were you not
A. Yes, sir. :"
o. What did they discharge you fort A
They did not discharge me.
O. They did not discharge youf A. No, sir
worked until my time expired, the LIST of June
according to the contract.
Q. Then you say you were not discharged
for ineficiencyi A. No. sir.
O. Did YOU ever denounce this as q swindI
prior to your discharged AZ never was dis
charged.
@. Before you left, then! A. No, sir. ~.t
o. You began at once, then, after you ceased
to be in their employment, to denounce it, diC
you, A. No, sir.
Q. How long have you waitedl A. It wa
from the LIST of January until some time mex
August. 1 think 1t was about that time that
discovered this.
Q. What led you TO discover III A.. My at
tention was called to it by Mr.. Watson, th,
superintendent of the Board of Public Work
of Chicago. -.....
By the Chairman: Q. What time in Angus
did you say that vast A. I cannot give tn
exact date. 1 think it was in the month o
August, 1873. can refer to my time-book.
By Mr.. Harrington: Q. How long had yol
been acquainted with this process before you
left DeGolyer & Mcclellan? A. Two years, o.
more.
Q. You have seen great deal of 1t laidi A
Yes, sir.
Q. After you left their employment 1t wa
six months before you discovered it, A.
think 1t was about six months.
Q. Then you were two years and six month
discovering that this process was fraud, AM
then you discovered It because Mr.. Watson
told you sol A. He called my attention to the
fact. -
Q. To the facta A. Yes, sir.
O. In what manner A He shnwed m,
some blocks that he hadtaken to his hous
from the Lake street improvement, which wa
then being made in Chicago.
Q. Is that the only evidence that you hat
chat this was aswindle-those blocks that YOU
saw! a. Isaw them. They showed tor them
selves:
2. ask you is that the only knowledge that
you hadf A. Yes, sir.
y. How do you know that those blocks had
ever been properly treated! A. only know
that they claimed that they were properly
treated.
Y. In other words you formed your opinion
from the fact that q gentleman in ChicagC
showed you two or three blocks that were par
ITALY destroyed, and upon that you based YOU
opinion That this whole matter was fraud
a. Iurtner Dase1 my opinion upon the facl
tna1 mad examined the streets that had
puiit Two years previous and found them all
nereaoouts: a. Inc street known az
Soutn fark avenue, Chicago, built by DeGolyel
q McGieiian, which lsuperintended.
! z. You examined them here, too, did you
notf a. Yes, sir. Will also say, If you will
allow me, that examined the blocks that
iaid mere on the Avenue. l also add that as q
part Oh tne TACT.
ny Mr., Harrington: Q. Do you know Mr.
Nichoisoni A. do.
y; AT whose instance did you examine those
docks on pennsylvania avenue, or the blocks
that you laid in this cityi A. At my own In
stance; .
y, NOBODY suggested 1t 70 your A. NO, SIR
Y. When did you examine themi A. / ex-
ahmed them about the time OF This contro-
versy between the board and the firm, or rather
the BOARD on this ironizng process.
ABOUT tnat umef a. Yes, er. l can
state now came to examine them, If you wish
it.
~ certainly, II you desire to state It. A.
The order was made to change the grade from
rirst down TO Second street. In walking down
the street had occasion to examine the blocks
and discovered large portion OF them COM
menced to show decay. then carried the ex-
animation still further, and found that large
portion OF them were commencing to decay. /
TOOK some OF the blocks and carried them down
TO the Board of Public Works-to Mr.. Willard.
de was the gentleman showed the blocks to.
Q. What was your occupation at that time;
were you working for the boardi A. No, sir.
z: What was your occupationf A. Twas at
work Tor Taylor & Hilbert at that time.
Y. You said you knew Mr.. Nicholson; how
long had you known himi A. should judge
going on four years, perhaps. 49,. :.
Q. Is he in this business Of treating wood
A; he is, or at least he was.
v. ny what process did ne treat III A. The
process known as the Samuels ironizing pro-
cess.
Y. Did you ever say to Mr.. Nicholson that
unless ne PAID you sums OF money you would
sndeayor to destroy the value of his processl
No, sir.
=; Have you ever made proposition to any
gentlemen in Chicago within the last two or
,hree weeks that for the sum of $500 you
Touid make your testimony all right A. No,
sr;
V. ana tnat tine money was not given to
10Y you would come on here to- washington
lno piow this process upi A; No. sir; ! could
ioI. nave not oeen In Chicago for the last
Y. ND you ever make any demand on Mr..
lor money! a. NO, sir; except LII
ne oeS wnich ne ana mao,
=. Wnat was tne amount OF the Det' A. we
lau nstIe PEI on tEe eiection, OF ABOUT one
hundred and sixty odd dollars, think.
y dnas is an tne money you ever from him'
qlont get tnst; ne never paid 1t.
Y. fou never MADE any demand at any time,
nGni a. NO, sI, never ua.
BY Mr.. Christy: T. What Is your present
'usinessf A. have been travelling and selling
'oods Ior mouse IN chicago.
y. now long ID IL SINCE you nave been In
'n 1I
Inc witness. DO you mean TO be permanent!
mr. Gnristy. les, 10 remain.