, 1876-06-09


GItEEN's TEsTlMON1.
Sptcfa! Dtspatch to The Tribune.
WARRINGTON, D. c., June 8.-Green, one Of
tho attorneys who had personal knowledge OF
the transaction In question, was examined for
several hourR to-day by the Judiciary Commit
tee relative to the kansas Paeitlc RaiIruad, and
to what have been known ~ the Blaine bonds.
This story Is, In different shape, from tho old
Knowlton story. The evidence Of the witness
WIS voluminous, and Of very technical charac-
ter. II consEatcd to n great extent Of tho rca.l-
ing Of Court records md statements Of facts,
and OF infcrcnccs In connection Herewith. The
witness Otter argued rather than testified. Tho
following L. an attempt at MI analysis
Of tho Testimony. The Testimony was devoted
To three points: First, ti,e chnrnctcr Of the
transactions; sccnnd, the lctter Of strwnrt to
tho Railroad Company, showing that James
Blaine Obtained SIG, ,O00 Of tho bonds which have
bccn c1ltcd
THE CORRUPTION FUND;
third, Of ap effort to show that thc power Of nt-
torney by John r. Blaiuo to james B. Stcwart
to collect certain old cinims due John +. Blaine
was an entirely different trnnsactton from
TINT In which the $4,000 went to
Jnmcs G. Bluinc. 1t will BE- remembered
that, according 10 the various statements which
uNFH BfEH nHUH6lGu MI VI WH4Cn HuUAI0Ht4llf
agseu To the record facts In original letter Of
.1osrph d. Stewart to John Perry then President
Of tho Kanras Pacific, there was an entry that
afteun 81, GOO bnnds were patd to james Ulaine.
The original copy of tho letter HuhnlIttctl to tile
Court had tho words 'D1alne--1itecn, without
Christian namc The Court having demanded the
original tnrtcad Of copy, the original let
tor Of StewRrt waa presented containing tho
namo Of lanes blaine. Tho witness Green testified
les all 1nft tt.& T1.
speaking of B!ulno, always spoke Of him a. James
Eloine, or a.
TIE non. JAMES BLAINE,
while tho witness himself, In conversation with
Stewart. always spoke Of him ~ Congressman
Blaine. or Speaker Blaine. Green did not testify
that Jnulcs u. Stewart had aver saf,l that Tho
tIoseph Blaine mentioned In hta aletscr waa JaceG
Blaine. Green simply owore that Stewart netl,re
affirmed nor denied that 1t was James q. Islalnc.
The purpose Ut Mr. Dlaine's counsel waB to show
that theFa honas were given to John +. Blaine,
brothcrof Jaucs u. Blanc. account Of 210, 900
In stuck of tho old Leaycnworth. Pawncc & West
err Railroad Company. Whrn this old taIlroad ,vaa
tod to the Kanras g. Pacific Company. John Il.
l5lane gave Joseph Il. Stewart ppwer Of attorney
to COLLECT h!e clntm from thu new company The
drift Of tho evidence OF the witneaa Green In nn-
swcr to this statement on tho part Of James q.
nla!ne was that the records which no produced
HAS NO CONNECTION IN ANY MANNER
with thu subject matter Of the 1oscph o, Stewart
au!t, tn which the facts In connection with tho
$15. C00 H1hfne bonda became known. This ant
OF Joecph .. Stewart against the Kansas Pacific
1tailroad Company. which wns appealed to the
United States Supreme Court, rhere The record
which Stewart a!tcges b purchased, and which, Il
Is alleged, were placed In his hands by TlIumaa G.
purant apon ths Credit. hob!!er organization for
s gree" sg'saass:s ;ss''f s :ssypf
ali the debts and aarct& Of thr Company. ln that
schedule M etai!n in fAy1r ot John +. niaine IL
Stewart N THU auit to show that H1aine, 1Taaes.
the Lcusenworth, pa~uee d Westera !tAlroad Ia.
Stewart further, In h!s recorded testimony, states
Ica BY ~ dGarcn: ' paries asa*t i It. id 'tse Go
rany. nna that this power Of attornny.
which l. published IN ists recent letter to thc New
IL COLLECT of thcse n0nlna! clatms Stnwart iii
Different place III his record testimony sayb that
the sla!tas " we're entlrs'y nominal, practeai'y
!9w;t et s.tte1aey y trom John ia!as. an4 tl.s
rcfe!sne. whatever 10 tho si5 ooo Of tho Kaa4as M ~
Pacific Construction Company bonds which wcso
GlfRN TO jAMEs nEAINK.
Green maintained that II IL not 1,Uatbc that these
two subject matters shun!d baunt An tic san,r, OF
have any rc!ntt0n II each other, IN tho Stewart
au!t proceeds uun tusire!y tIaerent hasI., The
company obtained The tonds ftutu D1runt, while
the fl0weF OF attorney ~ only power given by
Juhn L. blaine twelve years ago to collect cla1,
of the old Lcaycnworth d FAwnce Railroad Com.
rany on!y. Grren arguyd Futtsr r. than te"s!doa
from Tho bonds involved IN this Topeka suit he
wnull hase paid John K. 1laine out ot hts
owll pocket instead Ut from The Railroad Com.
pany, and that a full understanding OF The nature
u the suit ndlnLta af no other Interpretation.
lircen xHid tl,at Stewart did nut claim tu hare
paid the John +. nlgfne claim himself: nude ,p
al1rglI!on In hln rarAa!ngs thai he paid 1t, and
Ihlt 1t laH hing "llHteyef ~ DO with Stswart'S
suit. Tie report which VIVA tnads by Stewart to
john y: Ferry WIS mads prior 10 the con'mcssco'
u,cnt Of the suit,
The tlofenae, nn Characterization,
Dln NOT ATTEMPT TO lMrsAcH THE WITNESS.
Iart OF court records and lnferent!Al arguments
iherefr0m. Erecn htAtcs TINT SteHan's statement
docs not At all explain tue nature OF the $lI, 010
Hlatnr bond transaction: that EwIhB's letter dues
no better; and that NlAlHe'd statement In tts
House waA founded upon the lctcrs Of these twu
Disappeared in the hunda Of Joseph u. Stewart twu
years before this Hutt WIS begun.
tireen EN this and some Dihrr rfSpcca. attcmRsrl
tu ,prach tho explanatory letter Ut Jus Stewart In
tho New York Tribune, May 20: In Tint letter
Stewart said Thai all these bu,as in question wesu
Special Master Il. Topeka Eansas. Green tenti-
hel that OH last Monday hu examined Will, this
Stcca! Master nli the bonds In l,OsscssIu,. uf The
lattur, and TINT only S7 toO Of ilu 3i74, oD wtrc
dlea with the aastst, TheESa azc' therefore: nIsa'
b1 Al II 4 tlhf hx