The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1876-07-06


dance as a witness for me at the last
term Of the Federal Court, in eonse-
quence OF III health. This question Of
the deposit Ofthis particular lot of vbis-
Ky seemed to have been regarded Cat
least by those furnishing this evidence
before the court as to the quantity. etc.
rs the point upon which hung the final
result OF my case in court. Although.
as before stated, I was sued for s pen-
atty for an alleged failure te give a no.
tee, which had been given by the prop
er person and true owner of the dlstfl-
iery. And yet not satisfied with tbeir
seemingly successful attack npon me In
court, and the ends there attained. al
least portion Of these same witnesses.
the Oldest Of whom was complimented
upon his second Introduction as a Wit
ness IN this ease, as being = man whose
integrity no one would dare 10 inpeach,
since their return from the Federal
Court. have endeavored to tix, x,indeliibly
upon my private character IN the COM
munity in which / was born and raised,
the stain Of iniamy they labored SO in-
duStriOusiy to accomplish at Nashville,
by quietly whispering in certain quar-
ters 10 particular friends that Chalin
sWore before tile Federal Court az
Nashville elf there were only eight
barrels Of SKY deposited At Harvey
& Gilm0re's 6fug store, tetile 5oEr Of as
S10cre poSitjUsis that there lCero from ff-
teen % eighteen barrels.
Think of this How terrible for one
individual, unprotected TO stand before
legal tribunal, in the presence OF
Mighty God, and under the sanctisy of
an oath swear positively 70 the existence
of particular fact; and then observe
that mighty host OF witnesses, consist
ing of Professional and Official charac-
ters of high standing, marching forward
in bold defiance, and hear each one la
turn swear positively TO the existence
of an entirely different state Of facts TO
that sworn to by the lone Witness.
But listenl / have the undeniable
evidence of the ineorreetness tat least
in this cRse) Of the old adage, eHigst
makes right" and will proceed to intro
duce it in conclusion VIM. Thomas the
Deputy Collector who figures rather
conspicuOusly In this narrative (whose
spisit, however, no doubt inhabits a bet
ter world than this, the old gentleman
having passed away from this sinful
haeitatiOn same eighteen months since)
was a native of Wales, man possessed
of fine intelligence and of correct busi-
ness habits ;while in the discharge Of his
the deposit of this notable los of whisky
had the precaution 10 take from Messrs
Harvey & Gilmore their receipt for
the same. From some unknown cause il
seems that this receipt was not returned
TO Harvey s. Gilmore by Mr.. Thomas,
when over seven months aiIir the date
thereof he dispatched deputy Collector
j. NJ. Lain Co the town of Lawrence
burg with orders TO remove this lot OF
-.
the city of Columbia. On more occas-
siOns than one. / have heard r. IL.
Harvey state (and If l remember corr
rectly, he made a similar statement on
the witness stand In the Federal court
room in Nashville during the trial of
this cause) that he executed to Mr..
Thomas a receipt for this whisky, set
ting forth the correct number OF barrels
deposited, and that Thomas failed % ro-
turn this receipt when he sent Mr..
Lain for the whisky, but sent an order
directing them TO deliver il 10 Mr..
Lain, and stating that he (Thomasl
would be at Lawrenceburg in a short
time and would then settle the matter.
This order of Mr.. Thomas has been lost
or mislaid, according to the statemeutof
/ II. ii. Harry, and therefore like tho
/ receipt was not forthcoming at the late
trial, notwithstanding had in my pos
session several receipts and letters bear
| ing directly on this disputed question,
! several of which have repropuoed la
this correspondence and could Ii It were
] deemed necessary, produce a large NUM-
/ Der of sworn statements OF parties who
delivered this whisky on June 18th, Is
| 20, and of those who removed the same
to Columbia on Jan'y 18th, 1871, and OF
others who saw the whisky while tire
mained on deposit Ia Lawrcnceburg,
all of which would fully support my
statement in regard to the number OF
barrels of whisky deposited with Har-
vey q Gllmore-I regarded this receipt
of theirs executed 20 Mr.. Thomas as
herein stated (ii the same could be
found) as decisive Of this disputed
question, and at once determined TO dis
cover its whereabouts Il possible, and
| on my return from the Federal Court =
month ago, | set about the work
with DO fiattering prospects of early
success, and after several weeks Of toll
in this behalf, and many fruitless efforts
in various directions my labOrs were
| rewarded few days since, by the re-
ceipt OF letter from a friend In Nash-
| vile, covering the object Of my search,
which reads as follows:
"Received, June 1Ith, 1870, Of William
Thomas eight barrels or tphisky contain
ing three hundred and forty-eight gall
Ions on deposit, for which We are not
responsible for unavoidable accidents.
This June l1th, 1870.
(Slgned) Harvey a. Gilmore.
No one contends that there was
more than one deposit of whisky made,
nor more than one receipt given, and Il
was admitted that this receipt stated the
correct number of barrels thus deposit
cd The original receipt, together
with other receipts and letters em braced
in this article, are In my possession and
may be inspected by any person max
ing proper application. The receipt oi
Harvey & GilemOre las above copiedl
, is In the handwriting Of X. ii. Harvey
of the late firm OF Harvey q
, Gilmore, and the same whose hame
{ is frequently referred TO in this rtlcle
{ rs witness In behalf of the Government
{ In the suit referred to against me.
s / make these statements In Yiudica.
: ton Of my own personal reputation and
| not with a view Of uniustlY iEIurine
5 any individual ] have Ia my posses
{ sion reliable evidences of undue preIu-
2 dice that was entertained against me
7 and Of some oppressive influeRee
brought To bear during the inyestiga
: ton OF the case against me ia tbe Fed
efal Court ana OF tI9 l4e9Jrectuess d
testimony INTRODUCED, aud received a
, important IN the trials ei both OF thesl
2 eases ia the Federal Court, As well a
IN a former action In this court agains
said Smith and Davis and Sykes seen
rites for deficiency tax claimCl
i. against this noted distlliery, (Which ~
; ton. however, WIS not sustained By th
: Jury in consequences Of the suppression o
I Important facts which might possibly
4 II given TO the public, place some O
n those who might be interested in an IN
Il enviable position Uncertain quarters san
? therefore / shall withhold the Dnbliea
I tion OF all other matter herewith con
E nected, unless it shalt bseome appareH
= that interested parties are dissatisiie
i with the disclosures already made, !
which event 1 shall endeaYOr 70 cor
( vince them that ! an prepared TO fuFth
/ er enlighten the public or this some
what important question. il Is ht
!, justice to say that y. Ii. Harvey and v
: &. Davis were witnesses only IN the eH
q case against me and " one term Gf th
e Court. Respectfully
= WH. b. CHAFFIN.
y Lawrenesburg June l3, ls7G.
49, ---=-s-s e-s------~-
s-af..s-t.,.~. e..