The New York herald., 1874-12-22

demand Of to-day When defea.e in the House
70" We sa aS net o m "as Il woad T. d
hns i wise for the company 70 give their checks IN
or s each as You sire sni i ineS must DC used
but az say above end hem because want to
everything TO insure success Of course will return
Very re rsspeesay pe o' ss
Indorsed upon that IN pencil, in my writing. l
fad three notes; one is, "Answered May 6:n then,
as kept no copies OF my correspondence, and
never nave done so when away rom my clerks.
made two memorandums IN pencil opposite the
different paragraphs OF the letter. which indicate
TO lne the character OF my answer; opposite the
paragraph In relation 10 what he says said above,
"No.n when means that did hot say so and op-
poslte the paragraph In which ne says. "Ol course
memorandum ..Noe, with an exclamation marx.
meaning tnat was not going 10 return them and
AID not return them; these letters are in Stock
wells own handwriting.
z. That written agreement was subsequently
modinsd verpally' A. Only in regard 70 amount.
ten agreement as 70 amount A. That l do not
remember.
q. Was it ever modified in writing A. No, sir.
onces
THE AMOUNT PAID TO IRWIN.
A. Well, ought TO say here 1t was never made
perfectly definite as 10 amount until the latter
part OF May, 1877; IN other words. the substance
partly verual was ths that was 10 pay Tor the
services OF all those whom employed to assist me
III tHc ButbtI VoIp VI COulSe, lHe company sup
posed must nave some one TO help mel that
was to pay Tor all those services; and that when
specify how muc that wsu sO e no e e0
would then decide whether TO go on with II, and
that decision was finally made aud the contract
contaminated AT the time the money was paid,
$750,Uoo believe; am not sure about the
amount. but they cali IT S750ooo. and Tor the sake
OF argument we win call IL s750,000.
z. DO you mean TO say mat the company was 10
decide when you told them how much II would
cost whether they would go on with the appca.
press understanding to that eject.
z. Was that what you meant In your last
answers Yes, SIR; mention II, because until
The amount was definitely fixed, or course there
was nothing by which the company was bound in
stated 10 them the amount II was gong 10 cost,
not only offered 10 release them from the whole
saa 's but so urssd
them, as ! nad zone before they went Into the
Q. When the amount was ascertaiued were you
paid by cheek A. Yes. sir.
:. q. The check Will show the date, supposeS A.
Z. And you spoke Of the amount OF this check Q
moment agos A. The amount or all the checks;
the amount nom their testimony, subject TO cor.
rsc9n re-, 9n waen see ths SnsSxs my impreson s
course would not Ike to swear to anything that
90 not Know:
A. II Is stated Dy them 70 Ds aoout s7so.ooo.
9. And you believe that to he corrects 4.
Z. That sum was 10 embrace your own personal
THE .ExPENsEs' INCURRED
9. What expenses were you 10 incur here A.
IT was to cover all expenses incurred here.
9. Your personal expenses while living here
Yes, SIR; and my personal expenses IN New York,
my travelling expenses TO and from san Francisco
a0d | was to protect the company against any
claims which might be made by these persons
q. Did all the money paid out by the company
through you A. do not know, sir.
z. Was II understood that IL was 10 pass through
you A.. That was the agreement between Mr..
stockwell and myself: the agreement was tnat
@. THIS $3.50, 900, II that Is the right sum, covers
these expenditures bv you A. Yes. str; walt q
to mean to ask me- was sSas Gy 'Hs "0ra e0Vess
Q. do not mean that. Does that sum cover
ANYTHING elsei A. It covers nothing else but
q. IL covers nothing but the money expended by
you To obtaining the passage or toe subsidy A.
That and my personal expenses.
q. You mean that 1t covers nothing but those
expenditures and your personal expenses In that
Ns a. No i a
expenses to and from San Frsnctsco.
q you @ naesYa meaa your % personal expenses In and
It was understood that II came here was to nave
all my expenses paid.
personal expenses IN anything not connected with
thts matterf a. virtually mad nothing else to
attend to; out whatever expenses did nave they
At this point Irwin said be was too unwen to no
any lurther, aud the examination was adjourned.
CORRECTION OF THE EvIDENuE.
DEC. 17-rne subcommittee continued TWINS
examination at ms room as iollows:-
1he WIrNEss-Beore you proceed with the ex.
my testimony yesterday. suited that my my en-. n
extended over i've months-!rom January to May,
1872 inclusive; without any quallncalioni that
would convey rather erroneous idea; was
really emulOvod
Ss.wssS i lsss p, ana is;a liz. . ssy ass:
tnst time, rad entire charge oi ali the
1865 up TO 1889. so that in lact had continued
cnurge OF the company's Washington business in
aspaG % or ssn s
1885 TO 1872 inclusive. and 1t was always special
employment; originally. undersook ms SUBSIDY
President Of the company: Allen McLane.
THE BEGINNING OF THE SCANDAL,
Mr.. Stockwell lett the company 10 May, 1878. aud
was was sue succeeded by Captain George H. Bradbury.
sonal iriends IN fact our relations ao.aay psr are
closer and more anectionate than they ever were;
captain Bradbury eft the company on account OF
difference between himself aud Mr.. Ruius Hatch,
VINO had just oeen elected Vice President IN No.
yvemoer, 1873. while was In England; up to that
not the slightest idea that there was single
point OF difference between myself and the
company, except tne baOcOck ExtlnRulsher mat
ter, previously referred to ana noticed in Mr..
Sage's testimony, all or which occurred and was
pany, and haa nothing whatever to do with the
subject OF TINS inquiry, ana Captain Bradbury has
since told me Voluntarily that no adherence ought
iecrly satisfied about It; in TACT, Immediately
ON his election l wrote him letter
told him to do just what he pleased aoout
It; the nrst that / knew o. these charges against
me was some time In April 1874, when was III, at
Ventnor, In the Isle or Wight. whittier nau gone
1or the purpose OF getting . complete rest Shortly
afterward received copy OF House Mlscella.
drst session, whlch contained the testimony or
Irenor W. Park. John Roach and George y. Scott,
before the Committee on Post Ottlccs and the
COMMITTEES on Appropriations, rejecting on me In
various matters, and particularly asserting that
mad stolen $500, 900 OF the company's
money aud invested It In real estate in PhIla-
oelphla. IN my sisters name; these statements