Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1876-04-01
LATE rELEoaAMs.
NATTER n.


TT"
rAs Emma niae Iavessigation.
WASHINGTON, March 3i.-Ex.Minister
Schenck was before the Committee on
Foreign Affairs to day. when his counsel
laid before the committee n statement oil
facts connected with tho Emma mine.
It's sale to the Emma Silver Mining Com
pany OF London. and its subsequent
and present condition. prepared for the
use OF the Committee on Foreign AZ
fairs In investigating the connection oil
General Schenck with the said compa-
NY. The statement was prepared before
the counsel knew exactly what would be
the course Of proceeding before the COM
mittee.
Faulkner proceeded to PROFOUND ques-
tons 10 Schenck. He asked whether
the statement laid before the committee
ON the 2sth instant by Schenck contain
ell allegations Of facts within his WI
personal knowledge.
Bchenck replied that tho draft OF a
statement wns submitted TO him by his
counsel. md after several changes were
made In II he adopted IL. All he knew
Of the testimony before the committee
before he left London was a paragraph
in the newspapers OF the lst or I'd OF
March. when he at once announced his
purpose OF coming to Washington to AZ
pear before the committee. When le
arrived here he saw fuller details OF the
evidence OF Lyons difficulties and quar-
rels with others. but all was intended to
bear upon the question collaterally
against him (Schenck) and he was nd
vised that there was need OF testimony
to show his transactions In q light differ
ent from Lyons representations.
Question-Is II true, as contained in
your statement. that the sale Of the mino
was fair. honest and straightforward.
without falsehood AMI frand? Answer
Il believe IL; but ! know nothing but
what l have disclosed OF my own per.
sonal knowledge.
In answer TO tho question: ''Is II
true Of your own knowledge that Lyon
and A. A. johnson are infamous and
unworthy OF belief" Schenck said he
proposed to produce unanswerable proofs
Of what he had stated. he being satisfied
that he could do 30.
Faulkner asked him whether. In max
ing his statement preliminary TO exam
nation. II was his purpose to break
down tho testimony Of Lyon aud John
son
Schenck answered that his object was
to present q course Of examination that
ought to be pursued and that his reply
should DO NJ broad Us the attack.
Faulkner Intercepted Schenck ~ to
whether he had warned any Of the orig.
inal stockholders OF the charge OF fraud
in the sale Of the stock.
Schsnck. in tho course Of his reply.
said he had received numerous letters.
the writer's asking him what they should
do. lie never advised them to hold on
to the stock, but said they must act for
themselves. This was after he ceased
to bs q manager or director in the com.
pany. The difficulty did not spring ont
Of want Of evidence on the part OF those
who originally purchased the stock and
became directors. ttc.-thoy were wei
satisfied with tho report Of English Ill
rectors = but the difficulty originated in
the management Of the company. in
GLIDING McDougall. who had no interest
In the company or its formation. but
afterwards bought tho stock at a low
price.
In reply TO o question. he said he con-
sidered he had suffered large pecuniary
loss ON the contract no made with Park.
The question wa asked whether Park.
in making tho contract, was not solicit
GUS OF having the name OF the Minister
to England among the list Of directors.
and Schsnck replied that very possibly
such q desire existed in Parks mind;
but what Park may have desired had
nothing to do with his (Schsnck's) rea.
sons for entering into the contract with
Park. Ho thought he. was making q
bargain for himself; he felt confidence in
the property all the timo. aud invested
his money rs q permanent investment;
be considered the subscription TO the
stock a. bona fde; he regretted only that
no had permitted his name to be used az
q director; but when he became satisfied
il was improper, he resigned. lilo re-
peated that no was convinced he had
made a mistake. He neither concealed
nor proclaimed 10 the world his contract
with Park. 1t being OF a private nature.
A question was asked whether the
Board Of Directors would have treated
him as they did in the allotment II they
had known no had made q private ar
r.noement with Park for 900 shares,