National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-17

had hold on certain gentlemen connected
with the Board of Public Works, and If they
did not settle with you that you intended to
Texpose themf A. No, sir; nsver said that.
q. Have YOU said anything IN substance like
thatl A. have stated with emphasis at the
time that would not permit myself TO be
swindled by being compelled to take bonds
that were only worth so cents where paid my
money, dollar for dollar, and that would make
/ them pay IL.
Q. But did you not 60 further than that and
say that you had hold upon those men, and
that If they did not settl ewith you that you
would expose themi A. / never said had
hold upon them. sr
Q. What was It that you said, That you
knew facts in relation to their management, or
works to that effects I do not pretend to give
the exact words. A. Well, do not recollect
of using language that would Imply what you
would seem to think. What have said with
reference to my own affairs Is that have re-
garded that was not treated fairly with refer
enee to these bonds.
Q. But did you not propose to use some
knowledge that you possessed for the purpose
of compelling these gentlemen to settle with
you and pay youi A. do not remember of
using any language of that sort.
Q. Did you not give them or anybody else to
understand that you would diyulge facts that
were within your knowledge If they did not
compensate you for what they owed you'd A.
udNC odlu buuoLduCC pIOUdDily huu L
have no doubt that have said substantially,
this: that the Board of Public Works were not
treating me as a creditor justly: and that they
were not treating me with the liberality-in
other words, justice-that some parties who
were contractors also had been treated; and /
remember distinctly saying this: that when the
money was appropriated by Congress that par
ties who had obtained the city certificates,
either by discount, purchase, or otherwise, re-
ceived their money largely in bulk, whereas
the balance of the contractors got very little of
that money, and 1t was unjus: and outrageous.
l did state that.
Q. But did you not 60 further than thati A.
l do not remember.
Q. would like to have you reflect about
that little. A. If you will call my attention
to any time or place will try.
Il Q. want to see If you remember both time
and place. A. No, sir; do not remember. J
do not remember saying that had hold on
them. do not mean TO be understood as say
ing that, and do not think l have ever used
language that could reasonably suppose that.
: Q. Did you not say, in substance, that you
were In possession OF facts that you would dis
close If they did not settle with you or pay you?
A. l do not remember anything of the sort,
Judge; do not remember saying that.
: Q. Did you not say that in substancei A. 1
! do not remember of using language that could
fairly or properly be construed to mean what 1
understand you to mean.
Y. Did you not say that you had q hold on
Governor Cooke and Governor Shepherd and
Mr.. Huntington, and that if you were not set
tied with you would disclose the facts in your
, knowledgea A. No, sir; never said that.
2. What did you say on that subject? A.
have already stated, and in substance it
: amounts to this: That the connection that ex-
listed between Mr.. Huntington and the First
National Bank was Of character that was
unjust toward the creditors, and that all the
facts Herewith connected spread upon the re-
cord would show that injustice was done and
J being done to parties who had Just and
proper claim for q pro-rata distribution of all
money Congress appropriated, or whatever
else was to be paid to contractors, and one man
had no right to be preferred, and that through
the fsvoritism that appeared upon the record, l
regarded It as unjust.
, Q. Is that the only thing that you referred
tot A. am telling you what have said in
, substance.
Q. Is that the only thing that you referred
, tot A. don't remember, judge, of saying
what would be implied by what you speak of.
, Q. Nor anything in substance like that A.
No, sir; not any further than that have stated.
Q. Is this matter of the records of the bank
. the only thing to which you allude in the re-
marks which you made in regard to those gen
| tlemenl A. ! don't remember the particular
time to which you refer, and l do not remem-
Der using language like what you indicate. II
. you will call my attentionto any place should
DO very happy to state.
By Mr.. Stewart: Q. You say you do not recol,
lect using the language that you had any hold
upon the Board Of Public Works, or that you
could expose them, or something to that effect
You do not remember of using that expression
Have you any such holdf A. Well, don't
, know of any. hold their certificates of in.
debtedness, and If could find anything to get
hold of would hold.
Q. Have you had any transaction with them
yourself, or do you know Of any which are i'm.
proper. A. There never has been word in
the premises but what was fairly, gentlemanly,
and satisfactorily arranged, except what have
said In reference to Mr.. Magruder not treating
the subject of bonds in accordance with his
agreement.
II Q. Have you made any arrangement Of any
kind except those in the contracts! Have you
had any arrangement with anybody to get any
contractsa A. No, sir. Perhaps have omit
ted to state one thing that now occurs to me.
At the time when this man Quinby went and
got these certificate of which am speaking,
and brought them here, they notified US, and
DeGolyer Mcclellan, that they would stop
treating by the ironizing process. l went 10
Mr.. Willard, and Mr.. Willard said that we
could go on and treat until they were satisfied
| on the subject of what the facts were, and
directly learned that the council or board Of
. public works Of Chicago had furnished q salts
f factory report, and nothing further hos beer
said on the subject.
Difference to what effecti A. To the continu
ance OF the treatment. You understand that
they passed resolutions; gave notice, at any
; rate, that, until we explained the statements
! made by Mr.. Quinby, they would accept nc
further work after that week. Afterward
: was informed that they got the satisfactory
reference from Chicago, and that is the last
said upon the subject. 1 never called upon Mr.
} Willard. = E.
Q. They did accept more work after that
; A. Yes, sir; they accepted work up to the time
} rented my works. rented my works after
ward to Mr.. Robbins, and then they proposed
7 to treat by burnetizing. have never treated
otherwise than by ironizing. ...-..
BY Mr.. Mattingly: @. When did they com
: mence laying this DeGolyer pavementi A
Two years ago.
Q. What month"; A. It must have been May
or June, think; really do not remember.
: Q. Near ABOUT Ygpei A. Yes, sir.
: Q. ! understand you to say you did not write
J this letter. Handing the letter to witness.
A. This letter has my name to It. did moi
write It; but notice there is half-line, inter
: lined, which is in my handwriting, which goes
, to show that of course knew Of its having
been written. It was written by my foreman,
: think. / suppose 1t to have been written by
: my foreman, because see half-line that is in
my handwriting.
@. Just read that letter. Witness reads as
! follows:
sErrrMBER 70, 1szs
Hon. III. A. Willard: - q
MY DEAR Sin: have seen the blocks shown
= you by that black mailer, Quinby. They had
been burnt not by my process, but BY hro, for an
Infamous purpose. / ask you to place IN inspec
tor on my work, at my expense, to see that oui
work is well done, until get the certificates from
Chicago, showing the falsity OF the charges
against the process, which will OF once obtain.
@. Were those certificates afterwsrd OBJ
tainedl A. understood they were forwarded
, to the board, and were satisfactory.
By Mr.. Wilson: Q. Do you wish the commit
tee to understand that there were certificates
| sent here from Chicago favorable to your pro
cess of treating Woodl A. understand ths'
! the Board of Public Works was applied to b.
, Mr.. Ray. eE
Mr.. Mattingly. There was q certificate signed
by the membe rs of the Board of Public Work.
. Of Chicago, and referring to this pavement IL
Chicago, yf.7 -ras
|, Mr.. Wilson. That am aware of. But the
,, question put to the witness is, whether thert
was q certificate from the Board of Public
, Works Of Chicago approving this process o
|, treating wood A. / have never seen the Ger
tifcate, but was informed that they had certi
/, fed that the pavement was In good condition
| a~H a. ST. g.,