The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-03
BY TELEGRAPH
Gen. Schenck's Case.

Gen. Schenck was before the committee
on foreign affairs to-day. Representative
Hewett placed In the hands OF Schenck the
original letter he sent to the chairman OF
the Emma mining company rcsigning his
position as director, and also a copy of it in
the handwriting Of Park. Ilewett said he
was going TO ask Park whether this was In
his handwriting, but did not do 30 because
the gentleman admitted 1t. Schenck said
he did not think that much explanation
was required, but expressed his satisfaction
that these papers were retained Since
December l, 1871, before his resignation,
which took place Dec. 6, he had not been
in communication with the directors and
shareholderso Of the Emma mining company,
| as such, aud had no access to their papers.
His letter Of resignation, seat to the
company, was all in his own handwriting
date, body, signature and all. 1t was
his own composition, written at his own
suggestion, without anybody's help. In
writing out his resignation from the orisi-
nal draft, it seems that he interpolated
the words ''In consentlng to become u
director, | knew that ] but exercised
4 privilege and individual right in no way
incompatible with public or official duty,
but / prefer to take away from some who
have criticised me even prctext for their
comments or attacks Gen. Schenck said
81 e,,t,,, Al Lt, ,nl
to be q copy of his resignation In Parks
writing.
SENATOR Combines PROMPT REPUTATION.
The examination of Schenck was sus-
pended 10 permit Senator Conkliag to
make a statement. He called attention to
the letter of J. E. Lyon, dated New York,
May 30, 1871, which was addressed to
"Dear Tom," saying: 81 have Conkling
of New \ orl, Stewart and Noah Davis to
assist me here, but do not tell soul but
John. | will have them both out, and
Marshall, too, unless he goes straight, but
think Patrick Ia all right. am bound to
have a trial or receiver at once" Mr. Con-
king said if the Conkling mentioned in
this letter meant him, ne had only to say it
was without foundation in fact. He had
no recollection of ever hearing of Lyon un-
til recently, when he read his name in the
newspapers as party in some way to this
investigation, and he had never received
any communication from him. He never
was engaged or retained professionally or
otherwise in any matter pertaining to the
Emma nine. or in the matter of the re-
moval of any judge of Utah, as referred to
in the letter.
MIR Parks TESTIMONY.
Mr. Park being recalled, was shown a
letter of Gen. Schenck, dated December 6,
1871 re-igning his position as director IN
the Emma mining company and stated to
be in his handwriting, together with inter-
linealions therein. lie did not recolect
he circumstances under which the copy
was taken, but thought it was made for
some one else. He was under the impress
sion that he saw the draft of letter of
resignation and also the original letter, but
was not certain.
Schenck's attention being called to Nc
| Douglas letter of the eth Of March, say
ing in confirmation of Lyons testimony,
II have the original draft of Schenck' 3
letter of resignation in Mr. Parks hand
writing" he said il was utterly false that
the paper transmitted by McDougal was
not the original draft of his letter of resigna-
| ton il was a lie. Gen Schenck then ex-
hibited the original draft itself, repeating
tina, what McDougal sent WAS merely a
cory with the exception of two words in
terlned in the original draft. His letter
of resignation was altogether in his own
handwriting and corre.ponded with the
letter he sent in, with the exception Of it's
being extended by the insertion of a Sen
tence and some slight modification of the
| language.
the committee, after consultation, decid-
| cd that the two letters from Fisher to Dun
can, the banker, relating to Gen. Schenck,
and which were part of the papers sent
to the committee by McDongal, should not
| be put in evidence unless with the consent
of Schenck's counsel. This question was
subsequently, discussed and Schencks
| counsel strongly opposed the putting in
| evidence of these letters. The committee
reserved their decision, and adjourned un-