National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-10-19
The RED CLOUD REPnRI.
tconiiau.s fron Second Psq..,

49,
1fapOlogy OF explanation, or e1cuses A. MajOl
cattie look so gaunt. told him we had driver
| the cattle in n storm for two days and one night
that they had neither grass or water during that
@. Was that statement to Major Burt a correc.
statement Of the faets in the case? A. Yes, sir;
was merely answering the question
x. what was, in other respects, the condition
Of those cattle? A. They were good cattle out OF
herd Of 5000 head like those you have seen this
, morning.
Q. Were they as good as those we have seen
this morning7 A. Yes, sir; they were fatter cat
fle, only we had driven them two days and a
time as 1t was, ID made them look rough: they
had ne food or water during that time.
Q. How far had you driven? A. had started
them from about i've miles below here, where we
are on the Niobrara; that is about thirty five
miles from the agency.
q. How Mapped you to bo SO long driving them
thirty milesT A. 1t commenced showing on the
morning we started driving the cattle, and kept
showing all thas day and all that night, and the
next morning egot lost, and did not get into the
1t Is apparent that the cattle were seen by
Prof. Marsh, MAJOR Burt, Major stanton and the
and it is more caritable to all concerned and more
consistent with the facts to conclude that they
were misled by the rough, gaunt appearance Of
they had misrepresented what they sny or that
the cattle were really ''walking skin and bone, /"
but Professor Marsh asserts that DR.. SaTille adj
OF November did not average more than S50p0unds;
and that this admission, in connection with the
undisputed fact that DIR. Sayille receipted for
them at an average of 043 pounds, is conclusive
against DR.. Saville and fully establishes the al
legged fraud. This admission, fatal to the reputa-
tion of DIR. Saville for honesty and integrity, If
true, is said to have been made in Washington in
May last. Professor Marsh states the admission
Of DR.. Saville in these words:
agent Sayille was confident that the cattle,
thin as they were, would weigh $50 pounds on an
average" On my questioning this, he insisted
that .those he weighed came up to that average,
himself weighed all ofthe herd that were weighed
in the morning they arrived" Memoranda Of
these statements Of Agent Sayille were taken
self, and at subsequent conference were found to
agree.
The attention of DR.. Saville was called to this
statement of Professor Marsh and he testified as
follows:
O. In the same connection, Professor Marsh
says that agent Sayille was confident that these
cattle, thin a. they were, would weigh $50 pounds
on an average" Did you make that statement to
him? A. / shall have to explain that in the same
asked me If these cattle would weigh, every one,
1000 pounds, and said, mo they would not" and
then remarked that the contract did not require
them to be J. 900 pounds in weight; and he asked
me how much it was, and told him $50 pounds;
and he turned to me and said: "Did these cattle
average $50 pounds ?" asking a general explana-
him in three words: "Yes, and more" Those,
think were the exact words used.
tiOn or any other. that they weighed $50 pounds
H. No, sir; not fixing the amount, only that they
filled the contract.
Prof Marsh having appealed to Bishop Hare to
corroborate his version Of that affair, examined
the Bishop fully upon the subject with the follow
ing result:
Saville was read to him, and then the question
was put to him:
q. ask you now if that statement aecords with
your recollection? A. would omit the words,
'and mOre;" but If was put on my oath to deny
that he said sand mOre,"1 should prefer not say
ing il, because 1t is merely matter of memory,
and mans character is at stake.
@. Then, Bishop, how in other respects does the
statement agree with your recollection A. Ex-
BY Mr.. Marsh: @. Do you remember his speak,
ing of the thousand pounds" and 1.-THE contract"
A. / do.
of Prof Marsh, and had been cross-examined by
him, and after DIR. Saville's statement and testi-
mony were known to Prof. Marsh, he, upon his
Q. Do you say, Professor, when Sayille said
those cattle would weigh $50 pounds, that he did
not say land mors am pc tS S1d SH5
that he did not imply 1t in anything that he said
q. Do you remember whether, during the con-
versation which has been referred to, anything
was said about the cattle coming up to the con-
tract weight A. won't be positive on that
point.
q. Or whether the fact Of their weighing q
thousand pounds was mentioned? A. feel sure
that was not mentioned.
u. w as there any reIerencefnaQe 10 the contract
weights Of 500 pounds in the summer and 1000 in
the winter? Do you differ with the Bishop on
that subject? A. Since the Bishops statement
have thought that over and don't recall any refer
ence to that; but yet it may have been said.
Here are three persons endeavoring to detail q
particular conversation. Bishop Hare and Pro-
fessOr Marsh, to whom no suspicion of improper
motives can be imputed, do not remember 1t alike.
Bishop Hare corroberates DR.. Saville in important
particulars, and in those same particulars differs
from Professor Marsh. He can hardly be said to
contradict Sayille ut all. In this confusion we
can only determine the truth by looking at the
probabilities. DIR. Saville had already given n
receipt to the contractor for these cattle, ut an
average Of l,043 pounds which had been paid, and
which he knew could be found on file in an hour
guilty OF defrauding the Government to the ex-
tent claimed he was then conscious of IL, and we
can hardly conceive that he should under such
circumstances be weak enough to make the state
ment ascribed to him by Professor Marsh, which
is in the nature Of an admission Of his own guilt.
II, as he claims, he was refuting the charge of
Professor Marsh as to the cattle being small and
poor, and was claiming that they were fully up to
the contract requirements, he not having before
him and not remembering the weights, his state
ment of the conversation, in part corrOborated by
Bishop Hare, seems entirely consistent and natu-
raj, and 1t should be remembered in this connec-
tion that Professor Marsh was at the time assail-
ing the reputation of DIR. Saville for integrity;
that the interview became angry, Saville accus-
ing Marsh on the spot "Of seeking to make a case
Of fraud against him whether true or not" 1t is
not impossible that, in his desire to bring to light
and Just condemnation supposed frauds, he may
have unintentionally given a construction to the
language of DR.. Sayille which was not intended.
The result is, we are obliged to say that the evil
dence fails to show that any admission was made
or intended by Dr. Saville to the effect that the
cattle delivered on the 18th Of November would
think that if Bishop Hare and Professor Marsh
SO understood him they must have been mistaken
Professor Marsh calls attention to the state
ments OF Lieutenant w. L. Carpenter contained
in his letters to the Professor, of June p, 1875
concerning an issue Of beef at Red Cloud agency,
May 4, 1875, in which he says "that the cattle
then issued were wretchedly poor and about hall
of them ridieulously small. That out of about
200 head which saw killed at the time, there
were but three oren which would be accepted by an
army eommissary for issue to troops. There were
many yearlings in the herd which would not net
200 pounds Of beef; and, to the best of my knowl-
edge and belief, the entire herd would not aver
age seven hundred and fifty pounds (75O) gross
weight"
This statement is followed by the certificate of
Louis Reshaw, but we think his confederation
weakens rather than strengthens the statements
Of Lieutenant Carpenter. We have seen Mr.. Re-
shaw, and are satisfied that he is capable Of gross
Misrepresentation and falsehoOd. Lieutenant
Carpenter gives 1t as his opinion only, and as we
have not been able to see him, or ascertain the
mine the value Of that opinion. From the favora-
bic terms in which he is spoken of we should be
inclined to give great weight TO any statement
that he might make concerning matters within
his own knowledge or experience. But 1t has
been demonstrated over and over again in this
investigation that the estimate Of men, not thor
average weights of miscellaneous herds of cattle
are very unreliable. We have noticed that most
of the army officers estimate gross weights lower
than other class of witnesses, and yet IL appears
that the army system seldom deals with gross
weights, but with net beef on the block, and the
army mode Of determining net weight isdifferent
than that usually practeed. The army contracts
require that the slaughtered animal, excluding
kidneys, tallOw, shank and brisket, be weighed to
ascertain net beef and to determine net weight
for cattle on the hoOf for the supply of a moving
army. The system is to kill q few average cattle
and to obtain the net weight by the above rule.
By this process of excluding tallow, kidney,
shanks and brisket, from fifty to seventy five
pounds per head is lost by net weight as usually
understood. The experience Of army officers
therefore, would incline them to estimate cattle
on the hOof at less than their real weight. The
fact that the price paid under army contracts for
beef in that neighbOrhoOd is much higher than
paid for the Indian supply Is part attributable
doubtless, to the circumstance that, according to
army practice, the net beef bears a smaller pro-
portion to the gross than elsewhere.
The following is q table kindly furnished US by
by Major John p. Hawkins, commissary Of sub
sistence, U. s. A:
Abstract of contract prices of fresh beef and
beef cattle furnished the Subsistence Department
United States Army, in the Department of the
Platte, during the fiscal years ending June 80,
IA, rs, and 70:
EETgTIEEEEII|IILEEIIEI2IlIyEI