The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-03
sCHENCK's DEFENSE.


counsel Tor General ScnenCK, laid before
the committee statement of the facts
connected with the Emma mine, its sale to
the Emma Silver Mining company of Lon
don, aud its subsequent history and pres
ent condition, prepared for the use of the
committee on foreign affairs in the investi-
CATION of the connection OF General
Scbenck with said company. Mr.. L. E.
Chittepdcn, the other counsel for General
Schencl, said this statement was prepared
before they knew exactly what would be
the course of procedure before the COM
mittee.
Mr. Faulkner, on the part of the COM
mittee, asked Mr.. Schenck whether the
statement laid before the committee on the
2Sh inst, by him (Scbenck) contained al
legations of facts within his own personal
knowledge.
Mr.. Schenck replied that the draft of the
etatcment was submitted to him by his
counsel, and, after several changes made
in it, he adopted II. All he knew of the
testimony before the committee before he
lett London was paragraph or two in the
London newspapers OF the LIST or % of
March, when he Immediately announced
his purpose of coming to Washington to
appear before the committee. When he
arrived here and saw fuller detail of the
testimony of Lyon, it seemed that il was
connected with Lyons difficulties and
Quarres with others, but all intended to
bear on the question colaterally against
him (Schenck) and he was advised that
there was much testimony to show his
transactions in light different from Lyon g
representations.
q. Is 1t true, as contained in your state
ment, that the sale of the Emma mine was
fair. honest and aightforward, without
falsehood and fraud A | believe it, but
| know nothing but what l have disclosed
of my personal knowledgc.
In answer TO the question, SIS it true of
your own knowledge that James E. Lyon
and II. A. johnson are Infamous and un-
worthy of belief" General Schenck said
that he proposed to produce unanswerable
proofs of what he had stated, he being sat-
isfied that he could do so on the representa-
tions which had been made to him.
Mr. Faulkner asked General SchencS
whether in making the statement prelimin-
airy to the examination it was his purpose
to break down the testimony of Lyon and
johnson, the statement having been pub
|
General Schenck answered that the OBJ
ject of the statement was TO present the
course of examination that ought to be pur-
eued and that the reply should be as broad
as the attack.
Mr.. Faulkner Intercepted Gen. Schenck
as to whether he had heard any OF the Or
lginal stockholders charge fraud in the sale
of the stock.
General Schenck, in the course of his re-
ply, said he had received numerous letters,
the writers asking them what they should
do he never advised them to hold ON to
the stock, but said they must act for them
selves this was after he ceased to be q
manager or director in the company the
difficulty did not spring out of want of
confidence on tho part of those who origin
ally purchased stock and became directors,
etc.; they were well satisfied with the re-
port of the English directors, but the diff
Guilty originated In the acts of those who
subsequently obtained the management OF
the company, including McDougall, who
had no interest in the company at its forma-
ton but afterwards bought stock AT very
low price or deprecated price.
Mr.. Schenck, in reply to question, said
he considered that he had suffered large
pecuniary loss. The contract he made
with Park for the purchase of 800 shares
| was executed and delivered to Park on the
| day it purported to have been made. He
was aware that the English laws required
| a stamp TO be placed on all such papers
| but he did not know whether or not the alb
| sence of stamp invalidated the contract
| The question was asked whether Park, in
making the contract, was not solicitous oil
| having the name of the American minister
to England among the list of directors
! Mr.. Schenck replied: Every possibly
| such desire existed in Parks mind, but
what Park may have desired had nothing
| to do with my reasons for entering into the
| contract with Park" He thought he was
making bargain for himself he felt con
| tidence in the property all the time, and in
vested his money as a permanent invest
ment be considered the subscription t.
| that he permitted his name to be used as
director, but when he became satisfied il
was improper he resigned He repeated
that he was convinced he made mist axe
he neither concealed nor proclaimed to the
world his contract with Park, it being of a
private nature "a private transaction.
Mr.. Schenck was INTERCEPTED at length
about his transactions, his testimony being
| manly explanatory of previous statements
The question was asked Mr.. Schemes
whether the board of directors would havt
| treated him as they did in the allotment oil
| 300 shares if they had known that he haC
made private arrangement with Park fol
| 500.
Mr.. Schenck replied that this arrange
| ment was of no concern to the directors
| Park wanted to do liberal thing for him
and he (SchenCk) wanted TO secure q gooC
bargain.
Mr.. Faulkner asked whether good faitl
did not require that every one coming into
the company should stand ON an equality
Mr.. Schenck answered in the affirmative
but so far as Park and himself were con
| cerned, Park guaranteed dividend of
per cent. month as an inducement for hin
to take the 500 shares of stock.
In reply to the question whether his resig
nation as director did not cause the fal
in stock, Mr.. Schenck said 1t was his ser
ious belief that those who invested in tn,
stock placed less reliance on the fact thai
he was a director than on the communica
tons of Englishmen and others from Sail
Lake, representing the richness of the mine
| Shares continued to be bought and sole
after his previous connection with the com
pany had been pretty much forgotten. Hi
was director only four weeks. If tht
stock fell on its becoming known that hi
had ceased to be director, 1t was because
those bearing down the stock made false
representations that the Emma mine stock
WAS worth nothing, as Schenck had aban
| doned it.
Mr.. Schenck was asked whether he knew
OF his own personal knowledge that thu
| character of III. A. johnson was so in
famous that he was not worthy of belief
| as he had asserted before.
Mr.. Schenck said proofs would be fur
nished to this effect. His impression as t.
Johnson's character for truth was unfavor
able, because he had woven statement
intimating great deal that was false
This was as far as his personal knowledge
extended, but his information from var
Gus quarters regarding Mr.. Johnsons char
acter was not to the same extent az it wa.
in relation to Lyon. He was amazed a
two things, first, the general statement at
tributing to him a fraudulent connection
with tho Emma mina tranaoctiano an.