Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-06-08
Blaine Wants. Knott to Tell All he Knows
About that "CaldWeIl" Telegram,
Etc., Etc,

tnat ne saw IL.
Mr.. Blsine-Do you know why Knott
did not lay it before the subcommittee?
Mr.. Hunton-You will have to ask
Knott about that.
Mr.. Blaine-I did ask but could not
find out.
MIR. Frye submitted the motion that
the subcommittee Iequest the dispatch
for publication win the testimony.
Mr.. Hupton said it would be taken
into conslo srstiOn by the sub-commit-
tee.
Ber. f. Rice, Of Little Rock, and Ma
tns.nlel s, Rice, Of Hsverbill, Masss-
snusetts, were examined, but their tes-
timony was unimportant.
Mr. Blaine said he would like to look
at the record to ascertain when the SUBJ
com mittee was appointed.
Mr.. Hunton said that Frye or any
other member has as much right to
look at the book as the sub. committee.
Mr.. Blaine-Then If Frye can look at
1t will. Blaine looked over and took
the book saying question Of verscity
had arisen between Knott and himself
and he regretted that Knott was not
present. He wanted to exhibit to the
world that the records show that the
subcommittee was appointed May I'd.
Tarbox's resolution passed May q,
while Knott had stated in the h,u Q he
appointed the sub committee long before
Tarbox's resolution passed.
L. A. Green was then sworn, where
upon B aine said he understood that the
committee were now going into another
brauch OF the investigation.
Mr.. Hunton-How do you know it3
Mr. Blaine-YOu 80 stated to me your
self.
Mr.. Hunton-WeIl, If you say did, 1
presume 1t is so, though do not re-
call it.
Mr.. Blaine said he had seen In the
papers that this witness was going to be
examined in relation to transactions of
himself rBlaine1 with J. B. Stewart. He
desired 70 have Stewart present when
the witness testified.
Mr.. Hunton-Do you wish Stewart
summoned?
Mr.. Blaine-Yes, sir.
Mr.. Hunton-Very well; it shall be
done.
The witness then testified that he re-.
sided in st. Joseph, and wss acquainted
with the ous1ness OF the Kansas Pacific,
railroad.
MIR. Blaine c1geoted to the examina-
ton unless DIR. Stewart was present, but
Wlthdr.sw the objection on the witness
stS.,lng that he would remain in Wash
ington as long as Mr.. Blaine or the COM
mittee sheuld desire.
In the course of the colloquy growing
out Of the objection to the inquiry, Mr..
Blaine said: "I want to show that 1t Is
aimed at me, and that for a purpose"
Mr.. Hunton replied: 81 want to say
that when you charge that this investl-
CATION was Get on foot for purpose
against you, you state what is not so.
want to make it thoroughly, and, at the
same time, as kindly rs it can be DONE"
Witness then continued: In 1854 the
eastern division of the Union Pacific
railroad made q contract with Sam
Hallet to build the road, and agreed to
give him all their bonds and stock, and
whatever else he could obtain for the road
in the way of subsidies from congress.
Hallet took in as partner Perry and T.
G. Durant in October. In 1854 Hallet
turned over two hundred aud fifty thou
sand dollars Of bonds to ]. B. Stewart,
the latter acting as counsel, and was
author of the tenth section Of the act Of
July 4th, whereby the credit OF the road
was strengthened.
Mr.. Hunton called on both gentlemen
to cease interrupting each other, as both
would have an opportunity for explsna-
ton.
Mr.. Knott explained how he appoint
ed the subcommittee, and the members
verified his statement, but 1t did not, for
some reason, appear on the record. MIR.
Blaine was right according to the record,
and Mr.. Knott was right in the matter
Of the facts concerning the time when
I. ,,sk, S1-o5
While the witness was testifying,
Knott entered, and q spirited eolloquy
took place between him and Blaine.
Blaine interrogated Knott, wishing to
know Why he had withheld the telegram
to this time, several days having
elapsed. Knott answered that he wished
TO verify it. Blaine said that could be
done by teIegrzphing to the London Of
flee, and expressed his belief that il the
telegram had contained auythiUg g against
him, Knott would have given 1t to the
public at once, to which Knott said,
with much earnestness, advancing to-
ward him, "What do you say, sir; what
do ycu ssy? Do you mean to say that l
would have done you an injustice" To
which Blaine replied, retaining his seat,
s'I believe IL the dispatch had contained
anything damaging to me, you would
have speedily made it public; that is
what say"
After further colIoquy, Mr.. Hunton
stated that before the Ta-box resolution
was introduced in the house, two wit.
uesses had been summoned by the COM
mittee under the Luttrell resolution.
Mr.. Lynde said: "I will state the day
when that telegram was received by
Knott. 1 presume it was on Thursday,
as stated by Knott. When be came to the
house he said to me: Il have received
q telegram this morning, which l
want to show yon; he took telegram
out of his pocket and showed it to me and
I read it, whether it was in this room
! or in the room OF the managers don't
recollect, nor do I recollect who was
present; there were others present. l said
| to him when read the telegram, this
is not evidence before committee or a
| court, oc anywhere in the shape that
/ 1t now comes. 1t is necessary that you
! should ascertain whether this dispatch is
genuine, and you ought to ascertain
! whether Mr.. Caldwell is Ia London, OF
where he is, and whether it is genuine
| telegram. That, / think, was about
all the conversation that passed
! between me and Knott. At sthe time
| my attention was called to something
else. II the telegram had been in reply
to the one sent by Knott, after the COM
mittee had instructed Knott to telegraph
to Caldwell the fast that it was in reply
to telegram addressed to Caldwell, it
would have been sufficient, In my opin
ion, to have il introduced before the
committee as testimony; but lin the SHAPE
in (which it was, thought Knott had
no right to make Use OF 1t before the
committee or any where else until be
had some evidence Of Its authenticity
That was my impression at the time and
ii is still my impression, and believe
1t IL In accordance with the principles @
the law Of evidence.
Mr.. Blaine returned to the charge
saying that Knott had never done any