New-York tribune., 1874-12-14

the Company on the last Wednesday n May, 1879 and
has been director ever since. He had no personal
know ledge whatever Of the business Of the Company
prior to May, 1879 but through examination OF the
books he had knowledge Of s accounts for is7a There
some items of the accounts during that period
which had not been explained to tho satisfaction OF the
Company. These items consisted solely OF payments
made to Richard B. Irwin their San Francco agent to
the aggregate amount Of t7oooo the original checks for
which Mr.. Hatch exhibited TO the Committee.
There six Of these checks, numbered copseer-
lively, all drawn on the National Bank Of Commerce Of
New York TO the order Of Richard b. Irwin and sigucd
for the Company by Theodore r. johnson. Treasurer
pro tem, and F. W. q. Bellows, vicePresident and oil
certified by the bank. Tho frat OF them IA for 5000.
and is indorsed not only by Irwn but by E. Williams.
cashier Of the American Exchange Bank. for deposit
The other checks are indorsed only by irwin and are
for the following amounts namely $6soooo. $4,000
e25 900. and two for 10000 each.
Tho witness stated that these the only checks or
the existence OF which hc has knowledge that have
been drawn outside Of the regular business OF the Com
paDy or which appear to require explanation. 30 far
as the witness knows, the Company has no record OF
these checks except the checkbOok there are how
ever, very large entries the books OF the Company
for several months before and after the date OF these
checks (namely, May "a. 1872, which indicate large
stock operations In wallst or money loans to bankers
and brokers' witness thought probable that the checks
In question related to or connected with some OF
these operaons there facts within his knowl-
edge leading to this impression these checks might
have been used to repay oans been otherwise con-
neced with these but witness had no per-
sonal knowledge Of any Of the business OF the Company
prior to the date when he became director.
Witness did not know whether the Company had any
agent at Washington during the pendency Of the move
ment for subsdy never heard any person alege per-
sonal knowledge of the Company's having employed
hara In chnrf Ind inf
tion either directly Indirectly. except through news
paper that the Company had expended
dollar to Influence Congress.
Witness had spoken to Irwin in his life, seen
him but once At that time he heard Mr.. Sage say to
Irwin that he (5age intended to 20 to the bottom OF
this matter, and also satisfy himself In regard to
certain large expenditure made by Irwin for fire exn-
guishers Witness himself suspended not satisfactory
voucher OF $4,000 for expenses or disbursements
which had been filed by Irwin at the time he left the
service of the Company in November, 1871 Witness
considered this voucher unsatisfactory because 1t was
supported by Irwin's name alone.
Examined by Mr.. Beck-wtness stated no one had
power to draw out The money Of the Company, except
by order of the President There nothing on the
books to show for what purpose this money was used
Action taken by the Company early in 1873 to ascer
tain what had become of this money. Witness did not
then know that Congress had commenced an inyestga
ton OF The matter Nothing had been developed in con-
versatops or Of the Board Of Directors to
show that any OF them had any desire or motive TO
up matters that their suit against Irwin
was not brought good faith. WitDesss theory as to-
these checks based nothing more than conjecture
as to possibilities Witness stated that james ID. Smith
Is Ihe only member of the present Board who was
director Of the Company at the time referred to.
Mr. Wsdron called witnesses attention the fact that
two OF the checks namely one for 5000 and one for
$4,000 stamped paid by the Dapk May 20. and
asked If this did not prove that Irwin was not tD
San Francisco about that time, AMI also whether In
view OF the other checks bearing ndorsemeEt except
it certain that they nad been paid
the counter Bank OF Commerce. and not through
any other bankf Witness answered in the affirmative,
re sponse TO further question by Mr. Wadron.
stated he knew OF no Investigation having as yet been
made by the Company at the Bank OF Commerce In
regard to these poluts.
Witness did not know whether or not 1t had been q
practice the Company prior his connection with its
protect the price Of It's stock There possibility
that these ks might have been used to repay loans
made by the Company, but be knew uOthing Whatever
about the Transactions than he had now stated.
Mr. Hubbard, as counsel for Irwin at this point sub
mtted TO the chairman (Mr Dawes) some written ques
lions 10 be prOpOunded to Witness but several members
obsery ed that would to he premature, Irwin
had not vet al appeared for examination.
Mr. Roberts remarked tnat there were no charges
pendlug before the Committee AGAINST lrwiD, and Mr.
BE sad he had heard OF witness appearing by
attorney. The questions were therefore not allowed to
be put at present -
Mr. Hatch was excused TO reappear when notified by
subcommittee consisting OF Messrs kasson ana Beck
aud TO then bring with him such of the CompaDy5 books
IA this sub committee may designate.
The was then adjourned uatil next Tues
day. wnen Irwin expected to DO present ior examn
tiun.