National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-09
o. Was it wood material, A. Yes, sir; that

B,| Mr.. Merrick: Q. Do understand you Ia
saw tb vt, through your recommendation, tue
Contract vas continued A. asked Governor
Shenbsrd l." he would permit these gentlemen
n nse mn his prepared msterial-material
Il which thew ha. prepared for paving in order to
he able m csrrv Nut their contract. told him
tbst m he would a o so they would give up Their
Contract and Ieaye Washington. Goye-noE
Shepherd promised m. that be would do 50.
q. When was thati a. 1 should think was
about the middle of la 81 Key enDel' nIeie
later, perhaps, than that.
was ever complied with or u. Hf a. presume
1t was.
Q. 1 will ask you r. the qua uty Of the pro-
Icess-the quality Of this kind ~ Work-Was
discussed at all at that timei was anytning
SAD Is TO the durability, the value VI tnsI klno
OF paving between you and the Boar OF fuDnc
| Works. A. That matter was discuss ed.
Y. was stated to have been con 1emneds
A. Governor Shepherd said to me thu some
one had written to him copdemning ths t pro-
cess. replied to thst that knew not hing
about the process; that did not desire hin. \ to
have the balance Of the blocks used up, uni sss
he was satisfied the process was good on. y
and that the parties whom came to aid would
furnish him such testimonials - would satisfy
him, that the charges which bad been made
were unfounded-
o. Did he say whether OF not he had any
faith in il at that timsf f. No, sir; he said he
didn't know.
Q. Were those testimonials furnished A. I
never inquired. don't know.
Q. You do not know whether they had been
laid before him at that time OT no1 A. do
not.
Q. This was in September A. About the
middle of September, as now remember.
Q. Was there any addition made to the
testimonials as to its value and durability
that they should be furnished before the con-
tracts should be extended-anythhng Of thsti
kind! A. l am not quite sure but think
there was something said to- that effect.
knew these gentlemen were herer and they
proposed to furnish that kind Of testimonials
before they went on with the work.
Q. Did DeGolyer s. Mcclellan make any
complaint afterward of the extension not hsV-
ing been madel A. do not think have con-
yersed with anybody on that subject since
then.
Q. You have no reason, then, 10 believe that
the request was not fully complied withf A. l.
suppose 1t was. had no reason to believe to
the contrary.
By the Chairman: Q. I will ask you one
more question. Had you any interest, in any
manner or form, in this matter of your CON
stituentsl A. Not dollar.
Q. You simply came on here at their request,
they being In troubled A. As have stated, I
came without fee or reward, simply to- oblige
my friends or my constituents; for no other
TedSO0, anu at great inconvenience 10 myself
Mr.. Merrick. believe the contract prtceof
Mr.. Filbert-S0 cents per square yard for grad
fng-has been given in evidence. The vouchers
and contracts I know were called for by Mr.
Wilson.
Mr.. Wilson. had the contract here, but
gave 1t back to the clerk.
Mr.. Merrick. 1 wish it to be considered In
evidenee-that part of the contract stating that
the price of the grading was to be so cents 3
yard. I refer to this Filbert contract, about
which we have been inquiring Of Mr.. Willard
/ do not know whether Il was formally put in
evidence or not, and desire to have It put In.
The Chairman. We will see that 1t Is put In
evidence.
The examination Of Mr.. H. A. Willard was
here resumed.
ByMr. Christy: Q. By whose instructions was
the copy made of that agreement Of which you
have spokenl A. The Strong7
Q. Yes, sir. A. By mine.
Q. For what purpose did you have It nader
A. FIT was to be an executed paper that there
should be two copies
| @. Who afterward kept possession Of that
coPyl A. did myself.
Q. What became OF the originall A.. Il was
destroyed at the time, | believe, Immediately
after the copy was made. The copy was made
before the different members were together. L
will state that as soon as received notice of
that paper directed q copyto be made; before
had even read II, or before had heard It
read.
Q. Then what subsequently came of the,
copyl A. retained It in my possession.
| o. And have it still A. think it is before
the committee.
The Chairman have stated IN relation. to-
that copy.
Mr.. C6risty. wanted to indemnity the copy
if could.
the parties who signed the originate A L pre-
sumo not. That was not considered an exc
cuted paper. This was a copy.
| Mr.. Christy. am endeavoring to show this
was not full and complete copy
Mr.. Stewart. What is the materiality Of the,
evidence in regard to it, anyway!
| Mr.. Christy. The materialtty OF 1t IS this: It
was matter, believe, of interest to the COM
mittee, because they Intercepted Mr.. Strong
Regarding it, partly of their own motion. 1t
was developed by the testimony of Mr.. Strong.
1 deem it material because ]. A Magruder,
who testified for the purpose of making an ex-
PLANTATION, withheld the facts from the COM
mittee that there were any signatures to the
original that has been destroyed, and that this
which purported to be acopy had not the names
upon it.
The Chairman. As understand it, this was
| an agreement prepared by the attorney of Mr..
Strong for an adjustment, or an arbitration.
Mr.. Magruder testified that the agreement or
| ARRANGEMENT was not executed by the board
We did not press him with reference to whether
there were any signatures upon that paper or
not.
Mr.. HubbelI. Bic said the board refused to
execute it.
The Chairman. Yes; he stated the board re-
fused to execute it, and Mr.. Magruder was re-
quested to bring q copy Of that paper to the
committee. He brought copy the next day
and handed II to me, but another witness was
under examination at the same time, and /
handed il back to him, saying that we would
call for IL again if we needed it.
/, Mr.. Christy. Which l now say was not q
copy to the extent of the names upon il. That
is the point wish to make.
The Chairman. That is not disputed, 1 be-
lieve.
Mr.. Wilson If the paper Mr.: Magrlder
brought here had no signature upon 1t, and the
original had, why It was not a copy, that is all
Mr.. Christy. call the attention of the COM
mittee to this matter because of the inability
of the committee to find this paper after search
| The Chairman. We have made no search
with reference to the paper. Ihsye stated that
the paper was handed to me by Mr.. Magruder,
and that gave 1t back to him.
Mr.. Christy. have understood that your
clerk is unable to find the paper
Mr.. Wilson. He is unable to find It because
It was handed back to Mr.. Magruder by the
chairman will say that / never saw; the
paper, or heard Of it.
The Chairman. Ibid not even read the paper.
q
as stated, another witness wasunder examina-
ton at the time it was given to me by: Mr.. Ma
: gruder, and it was handed back to him by me,
T saying that we would call for 1t again..
Mr.. Mattingly. understand Mr.. Willard 70
say that that is . copy, and that it was msl1n
/ for the purpose In case the agreement was car
RED out, and therefore this copy thst:was nn
nished to the chairman did not, ofcourse, sG
tain the names that were signed to- the, oE4
nal.
The Chairman. I do not know whetherE d
:. or not.
NJ. Mattingly. If the gentlemen attach al
particular Importance to the fact that tfia ori
inal was signed and the copy not, we.Ni n a
NIT such to be the case.
II The Witness. The two copies were y ade
order that If the paper was to be ezeH tied
could be signed. / had had no csnW rsatic
with any member of the board whmi1 orlert
the copy made. l received 1t IN als mann
. | stated.
Mr. Stewart After It was copied6H was the
read, and you decided yoe would u It execu
III
The witness. Yes, sir,
Mr.. Stewart. that is all therar-5 s of itl
Yes, sir. r.
Mr.. Stewart. A copy was madD in the usul
! way for each party to-hsyel a. The copy wi