Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-01-08
The Pacific Mail Investigation,
EXAMINATIoN OF AESSRS. PARSONS AND
SCHUNAKER.

Z
The Committee of Ways and Means this
morning resumed the Pacific Mail inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PARSONS.
Mr., Parsons, NJ. c. from Ohio, at his own
request, was swOrn:-He read written state
ment to the effect that when the subsidy was
granted by the 42d Congress he was prac-
tslng lawyer in the city of Cleveland, Ohio,
and marshal OF the United States Supreme
Court; that three years ago Mr. StOckWelI,
who had long been his client i'm Cleveland
and whom he knew well, asked him al a time
when ne was not a member OF Congress. TO
assist the Pacific Mail company to obtain a
subsidy. ThereupOn he collated statistics OF
aid given steamship lines by other countries:
The relative cost of vessels built in this cOun-
try and on the Clyde, &c. He had always
been in favor of subsidies to American
steamship lines, and took occasion at the
time he was Consul at Rio Janeiro To recon-
mend 10 the State department the advisa-
! bllity of giving Brazilian subsidy to an
American line. After the subsidy passed,
and his labors in its aid had been completed, ,
Stockwell sent for his bill His connection
| with the subject was public, and he did not
see nything wrong in practising his profess
sion while he was marshal of the Supreme
Court. He was paid by StOckwell Sl2 600
and by Irwin S1,500; no other money was
ever directly or indirectly paid him.
OF this amount he paid 1880 TO his brother
in-law, who assisted him. He was employed
by Stockwell seven months before the subSi-
dy passed No person was present when Ir-
win paid money to any person. and hal no
knowledge of any money being paid to any
member of Congress. He did not deliver the
argument he had prepared favOring the sub
sldy, because it was found that the Senate
committee before which he was 10 have ma lie
the argument, were so unanimous in favor of
the subsidy that it was considered unneces-
sary. lie never asked any member of Con-
gress to vote for the bill, and never called
with Irwin upon any member of Congress in
its interest. He never employed anybody to
assist him, and Irwin never toll him who
he had employed To assist him. He hal hal
stock speculatiOnS with Stocxwell before the
passage OF the subsidy. and since: il was his
private business; he lost money, however, on
the outcome.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHUMAKER TESTIFIES.
John q. Schumacher was sworn at his own
request. lie stated that in 1872 he was attOr-
ney for the Pacific Mail company, Mr.. s 'Ock-
Well and Richard B. Irwin; was a practising
attorney in the city of New York; was not at
that time member of Congress- hal been
before; is now, and has been reelected To the
next House; knew VIM. $. King; ha 1 Il check
given to him i'll May, 1872, by a client. in Il
confidential capacity, and went to a bank in
New York city To get il certified Did havea
check for $4,000. 1t was drawn by Richard
h. Irwin and was so endorsed as TO become
payable 10 bearer. He took il To some bank
in New York to get it certified, but does not
remember just what bank il was; thought it
was the Bank of Commerce.
z. Did you receive the check from Irwin?
A. That is something confidential between
myself and client.
q. If ii was not of that confidential rela-
tionr would you tell?
a. could and would tell.
q. Did you receive ii as compensation for
services rendered?
A. l received it from one of my cIientsFI
did no, receive IL all as compensation Tor
services; my share for services amounted in
the neighbOrhoOd OF $4,000. / took the
$4,000 check to the Brooklyn Trust COM
pany, and at the direction OF my client. had
ii broken up into smaller checks; sent the
checks thus broken up to persons as direc te
by my client, reserving $1,000 for myself
q. Were the broken checks returned to the
Pacific Mail company?
A Again the question Of client and cOun-
sci comes up-if am forced TO answer will
tell.
q. Whom did you instruct the BROOKLYN
Trust Omrany TO send these checks to?
A. don't think ought to tell that; what
passed between me and the Brooklyn Trust
company was as between attorney and coun-
sel-what l did there was in personificatiOn
of my client; the Bb0klyn Trust company in
breaking OF the S2I5,0OO check passed to my
credit SIS, 900; it was not my instructions to
the bank to have this done; it was mis-
take; they misunderstood me; in breaking
up the large check three smaller ones were
given in the Marine bank, of New York; |
directed the Brooklyn Trust company to pass
them 10 certain clients indicated by me.
@. How was the S125 600 about which the
mistake was made distributed?
A. IL was sent TO my clients; when found
1t out said this is mistake; the check,
with the exception of 900 was then brokeu
up and sent TO my clients.
Mr.. Schumacher began an explanation i'm a
by Mr.. Dawes, who said: Don't talk so fast
Mr.. Schumacher; you ovewhelm me.
a: Well, you are hard TO Overwhelm.
Witness then testified that the broken
checks were all sent 10 one person, IN one di-
rection, and at one time some of the broken
checks were for amounts aggregating 1900.
q. Were the broken checks paid to the
same person you received the S215,OOO check
from?
A. 1t would be fine distinction to say
they were not.
@ Would it be distinction without diff
ference?
A. COhldn't say that il would.
After good deal Of questioning the witness
stated that the checks were all sent to the
Pacific Mail Steamship Company-to Mr.
Stockwel1. He also said that before he would
sacrifice his honor as attorney, by revealing
the secrets of his clients Zone of whom was
now in jail), and without their consent, he
would be willing to walk out of Congress-:
also, that he had never bribed a member of
Congress, in the 42d House or any other
The committee adjourned, subject TO the
call of the chairman.