The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-08
WASHINGTON.
GENERAL WASHINGTON DISPATCHES.
WASHINGTON, Jan. I, 1875.

TESTIMONY N THE sTowELL BRIBERY CASE
WEAKENING THE REPUTATION OF THE CHIEF
WITNESS
The House Committee on Naval Affairs resumed
the investigation or the charge against Represen-
.atiye Stowell OF selling a naval cadetsnip.
senator Graham, of Virginia, continued his tes-
nmonY from yesterday, saying he had nothing
whatever TO do VITA preierring the charges
against Mr.. Stowell. They mad been preferred by
Mr.. Brady, another witness. lie was asked by ex
Governor Wells, attorney for Mr.. sloweil, whether
ne had been charged with embezzling clothing
and selling it out OF the State when ne was an
agent OF the Freedmen's Bureau. The
witness declined to answer the question on
the ground that 1t was not pertinent 10
the investigation. After further proceedings
the witness said he went TO DR.. Shields, who had
introduced him to DR.. Beatty. and paid him $500
from the sum he received from DR.. Beatty, who
purchased the cadetsnip Tor his stepson The
witness during the investigation said he paid
between 5000 and 500 on account OF expenses
attending the Lynchburg Convention. He was
asked other questions regarding his expenditure
OF money the replies showing that at about the
time OF the Lyncnburg Convention he
paid $3.50 for family expenses. but out OF
money other than that he received from
DIR. Beatty; he had also paid $3.50 or $40 on ac-
count OF the schooling OF his niece the witness
repeated that he hal not put $40 70 Stowell's
credit, which amount was required to make the
$1,000 which he said he had agreed to give TO Mr.
5towell A letter was shown 10 witness sgned by
himself as Chairman Of the Republican District
Convention, April Is. 1873, recommending TO Mr.
Stowel the appointment OF Schoolcraft as a cadet
and countersigned by Joseph p. Evans as Secre-
tary. witness was asked whether he signed or
initiated the secretary's name. witness said
he was not quite positive about that,
and, therefore, he could not say.
He was asked whether he did not 90 TO Evans and
request him 10 state or admit 10 him that he
authorized the witness to sign the Secretary's
name. witness replied that he mignt have asked
Evans, but he did recoIect doing so. lie was
further asked whether the statement OF the resid-
ence OF the BOY Schoolcralt was true or false. lie
answered that II the boy wasa resident at all he
was resident OF Charlotte county, but he did not
look up the record Mr.. Stowen. however, knew OF
the transaction IRON nrsr TO last.
At the evening session OF the committee ex-
Governor Wells resumed the cross-examination OF
Senator Graham. Mr.. Wells produced i've due
bills from senator Graham to Mr.. Stowel, the first
dated May, 1872, and the last November, or the
same year, amounting in the aggregate to $500.
This was year before the disposal OF the cadet
ship. Counsel produced these due bills to show
that Mr.. Granam, having paid $40, owed
10 be still due to Mr.. Stowe. In exam
nation by Mr.. Gooch. member OF the COM
mittee, Mr.. Graham repeated that he paid $500 at
the Baltimore and OHIO Railroad depot to Mr..
Btowell on account OF the sale OF the cadetship.
Mr.. Graham said he started to run for Congress,
but withdrew three weeks before the nominating
convention met; he preferred somebody TO
Stoweli, but when Srowell was nominated he made
speech In his behalf and voted for him.
Mr.. Archer asked senator Graham whether he
believed, in view Of his statement that Stowell
sold o cadetsnip, that he was proper man TO
send 10 CongressS
The witness replied that be never made such an
issue with Stowell. aud had endeavored 10 dis
suade Brady from making the charge against him.
In response to O question he said he met Stowell
by appointment at the depot, witness having
previously sent a telegram or note to Stowell.
1t seemed from subsequent testimony that on
the 1ltn OF December last, Graham arriving from
Richmond sent note 20 Mr.. Stowe informing
him he was at the Howard Hotel and could be
found there between certain hours; subsequently
he called at Mr.. Stowelps hotel, but Mr.. Stowell
refused to see him; the witness went to Virginia
from New York, in 1866, after having served In
the Union army, and Mr.. Stowen went TO that
State the year before.
Joseph p Evans, co.ored, was sworn, and testi-
fed HE is a member Of the Virginia State Senate
and Secretary OF the Committee or the Fourth Con-
gressional district The recommendation OF the
youth Schoolcraft Tor cadetship shown to
him. 1t was signed by George W. Granam as
Chairman and Joseph p. Evans as secretary. The
witness said he dld not sign the paper, and had
no knowledge OF his name being there until
Mr.. Stowel showed him the paper in Richmond
he did not authorize Mr.. Graham to sign his name
at any time; Mr.. Graham has had a conversation
with him on the subject; witness thought that
Mr.. Graham had told him that he (Mr. Graham)
signed witness name TO the paper and asked
witness whether il was not the understanding that
one should sign papers for the other; but witness
never had sucn an understanding with Mr.. Graham.
and certainly he should not have signed any paper
like that presented or involving money. His sig
nature the handoills posters for the political
campaign was not Objectionable.
The committee adjourned till tomorrow.
COST OF THE CURRENCY PRINTING AND EN-
GRAvNa-AN IMMENSE SAVING TO THE Gov
ERNlENT POSSIBLE.
Mir. J. II. Porter, President OF one OF the New
York bank note companies, appeared before the
Committee on Banking and Currency to-day and
delivered an argument on the subject OF the
proper method OF engraving and printing the
government issues. Mr.. Porter maintained that
this should be done in accordance with the plan
recommended by the Congressional Retrenchrnent
Committee and not exclusively in the Treasury
Department, as recommended by the present
Secretary. He argued that the Bureau OF En-
craving and Printing employed double the number
OF hands that are employed by private company
to do the same work; that the work done by he
Bureau last year at cost Of sl3e5, 900 would have
cost, II done by the bank note companies at their
regular contract prices, less than $1,000 ;
that II the work OF the past four years
had been done By 0e companies instead
OF BY the bureau it would nave resulted In o saw
ing TO the government OF over s1,Sooooo, and that
the companies were now ready to contract for do
ing the work o! the bureau for ten, fifteen or
twenty years at q saving to the government OF
ever $3.50, 900 per annum, and, II the government
required, would do &c in the city Of Washington.