National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-10

By Mr.. Christy: Q. How long was Mr..
QuimbY In your employi A. think probably
about Three years, in all, in our employ, but
not steady, along from time to time.
g. He was an honest gentleman, was he not;
and so regarded by you'll A. Well, sir, we
looked upon him as q man who would work
FOR our interest.
Q. Did he not dosol A. DO not think he
Q. Why did you retain him IN your employ
three years If you did not think he was nonests
"A. We did not know these things until lately
sir.
=. Q. Did he do you any injury whatever during
the time he was in your employ! a; les, sIri
have found out lately that he has been Talk
-Inp about our work in different places, the
humbuo of our psvement-that 1t was hum
bug practiced on the public, ana that ne telt
Conscientious about It and that he was not
going to have the public use any more OF IL. =,
O. Do not YOU yourself deem the y irontLing"
process to be injurious to the woodi A. am
not able to say, so far. am watching It
closely to see how It is going to turn out.
o, Has not the Board Of Public Works In
Chicago pronounced against it, A, No, sir;
they have man under them by the name OF
Watson, who has pronounced against It. He
has written letter, may be two or three let
tiers to that effect, and Mr.. Quimby has taken
the pains TO send these letters to the different
places he wished.
Q. Have you laid any pavement, whatever,
treated in this manner, since Mr.. Watson pro-
nounced against It in the city of Chicagol A.
No, sir; because they have not been laying any
paTements until last summer, since the fire.
The pavement that Mr.. Quimby particularly
speaks Of was on Lake street, place where
the FIRE had burnt it I'D, where the house had
tumbled on it, red brick, iron, and everything
else had fallen over the pavement, and had
''charred it very much indeed.
Q. Can you get a contract in Chicago for
laying pavement thus treatedl A. do not
think we can now.
Q. Would you as an honest gentleman ask
any city to allow you TO lay it? A. Yes, sir.
From my knowledge of it to-day would ask
that, for think the treatment, If it is properly
made, and the Ingredients have great faith
in the ingredients as used for the purpose of
curing wood, but l have made up my mind not
to ask any city or individual to use it until
an positive that it can do what claim for it..
Q. Then it is simply an untried experiment!
A. 1t is being tried, sir; and, so far as Chicago
is concerned, which is the first place where l
know Of anything being put down, the streets
are now in a very good condition.
Q. So your only ground of accusation against
Mr.. Quimby is that he has said that the ironing
process is injurious to the woodl A. And the
DeGolyer No. 2 humbug.
Q. When did you first begin to speak of Mr..
Quimby as your foreman in charge of gang of
hands: A. When ever had any occasion to
speak of him. That is all he was.
Q. During all this time! A. He was one
time travelling agent for us, representing this
pavement.
Q. Then he was not foreman in charge of a
gang Of hands A. Not then, he was not; but
he was in tn ity of Washington and the city
of Chicago.
Q. Did Mr.. Cook superintend the laying of
this pavement herel A. He was good deal
on the street.
Q. Was he not your bookkeeper! A He was
our bookkeeper and financial man, and was on
the street, presume, whenever it was neces-
sary.
Q. am not speaking of prescriptions; was
it any part of his duty to superintend the lay
ing of this pavement A. Yes, sir; it was
part of his duty to see to 1t all.
Q. What wages did you pay to Mr.. Quimby?
A. l think it was S125 month.
Q. Is 1t usual to pay to man who is not an
expert but simply driver of hands, S125 per
month"; A. We have paid $500 per month.
We found them the cheapest men, too.
Q. inexperienced men, knowing nothing about
the art of laying pavement of this high-priced
characterl A. We have paid men $500 month
in Milwaukee and other places.
Q. Mere common laborers? A. / mean men
capable of taking charge of men and returning
theic time correctly during the month they
were at work.
Q. Then you have paid $500 month to time
keepers merely A. paid $500 to gentleman
in Milwaukee the summer before last and part
of last summer for experimenting men, and he
quit me at that and went and got better job.
= Q. Did you ever use that expression in re-
gard TO Mr.. Quimby until you heard that he had
pronounc ed your pavement a humbug? A.
We'll, sir,I have spoken of Quimby-
Q, Nc, l am speaking of the expression "fore-
1. LII T
wheneTe have had occasion to speak of him.
By Mr.. Harrington: Q. Who is this Mr.. Wat
son on the Board of Public Works of Chicago!
A. He is man put over-what we call side
walk inspector.
Q. A special policeman is he notl A I sup
pose he acts in that capacity occasionally when
he is called on.
Q. Is there any such officer in Chicago as he
styles himself A. do not know what he
styles himself. l would merely say that he
was bailiff, TO be sent out with messages, and
things of that kind, and sent to look at certain
work that was going on, and make report to
the board.
from Chicagol A. Mr.. Cook, my bookkeeper.
Q. Did you bring any one from Chicago for
the purpose of uIing his influence in this city?
The Witness. At this timel
Mr.. ChriSty. Q. At any timel A. l never
brought g man from Chicago, to my knowl-
edge, for the purpose of using influence.
Q. Did anybody go on and render you service
in that direction! A. do not know, sir, unless
it is George f. Chittenden. l asked him to
come.
Q. He came of his own motion, you say? A.
He came to assist me in helping me to collect
the money on the certificates of the Board of
Public Works.
O. Did you bring no other person here? A
Not at all, sir; have never brought any per-
son here.
By Mr.. Mattingly: Q. Did you ever see that
letter beforel Handing document to the wit
ness A. / did not, sir; l do not remember of
ever seeing that letter before.
The witness was here notified to bring before
the committee his entire books and correspond
ence relating to tine subject-matter of his ex-
animation.
Mr.. Christy stated that he wished the wit
ness also to bring his correspondence with Mr..
Chittenden.
The Witness. That cannot do, because It is
not in my possession.
By M Christy: Q. In whose possession is
that correspondence A. When Mr.. Charles
E. Jenkins became my partner by purchasing
the interest Of Mr.. DeGolyer, deceased, he, Of
course, had q right to look over all the papers,
and therefore place himself in the same posi-
ton that Mr.. DeGolyer was in. He took all
the dispatches, letters and communications be-
tween George r. Chitterden aud DeGolyer &
Mcclellan. do not think he left anything in |
the office of the correspondence between them |
Q. And has never, in fact, returned them? |
4. have never known of their being returned. |
Mr.. Christy. desire to offer In evidence the |
letter Of George R. Chittenden. This has never
formally gone IN. l regard its materiality as |
established. This witness admits that he re- /
4uested Mr.. Huntington, by direction of Mr.. |
70 Of IN