The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-05-15

den's. Ho related what ne saw i"''o ""'
nealu ,rn,,,n ~ ,rma IL does not follow that the
bonds we're transferred TO blane, or tna' o.ew ,a
a detye ed them to him. Stewalt eays he ava
not, and 90 not intimate that hts Is the post
ton OF a man who has received a womans
favors, and feels hound to protect her name bv q
a NAL OF Der fraiity, nor do | comment upon
the conclusive nature ana value OF suon evi-
dence."
KNowLroN's STORY coRRoBoRATED.
Mr.. RIDDLE produces letters from three we'll
known newspaper correspondents, all tending
to support KDowlton's story. Gen. II. V. Doyn-
ton writes as follows;
In the fall OF 1879 MIR. Knowlton told me that no
Law stuien' in tne Once o. stewart Rdile 10 the
faToad transscons of stewart. "ers ' IN proSress
@ a % one ns. nsn Gs Wa Ss In s shs n room Sf
stewarI VINO wa, IN ms private room lie passed ,n,9
an hour when stewart came the room with what
noyfd to ps bonds 81
& M NO 10 s d s~ sewq dos ,hs Sns
noment, the latter passed out. Mr knoMton 90 not
or to have any othei knowledge oftne Transaction than
When the dispatch In The SUN appeared. MIR. Knowl.
ton was exceedingly surprised anu annoy d. snd con.
him = VI The very statement ne had previously
could he 10 tnis aud that ali haE AVOID
beng called before the mmittee IN regard 20 II. Tor
blaine and adnlrel MIN gee ty as politician and he
subsequently, he Informed me that Mr.. Blaine had
sent Tor hl,, and that he called ana made The same
sought e ecnynSe MIN that II was ns COUSIN, Gen Gsn
art Was f. he Office with Stewart The nisnl IN
question MI knowi on sa,d To- re ~ r,iaion 10 ne
case OF ms5sses senS ana tos. inyre M ct
not, yctii view OF the great embarr ssment that
YOU'D Ger AMY come boh to almsei and Mr. Bl, ne,
qua iac tioo he would be esd, II possible u let the
accsraoa when Sr Blaine snouid nske maj spi l. was
a niisa axe in Identity
WAS pIAINE EVER IN STEWARDS oFrIcEi
II ~ A ~ n lpll Al HI
Of knowlton in the law ofnce of Stewart &
hdule in 1866 writes IA follows to MIR. Riddle:
My acquaintance with Mr.. Knoolton formed when
We were students together continued after he became
journalist resident mere and had becn admi ted 20
oropped In % his ONCE on Fourteenth street
0nSS on Ga, IS ga h, ss ~, eSs % ne o ,sfea a me
ia the nice OF 5 ceart s RIddie to nave scen Mr..
iccted seeng MIN there 6ut coud not name any special
t1ea spcke Of the intaryiew between Mr. ssise ana
Mr. stewart. and sal that Mr Blame had deaied ever
Ths atervies referred to between MIR Blaine snd Mr.
Mr. cans ritn Mr. srcart one eyrniSr oIo Inc
COloniz itlon uu ing wnne knowltOu was at his desS
priya onice Ai,er spme VINE st~---. lame out an d
ashed k9S won 70 Ices" some rAhser' or as-
| tiSnmeht ~ me railroad nus, Viii ne did Sew.
~ thrh " nj uacA nto the private Oiee where bline
! Ths settlement he never changed or varied so far
as know nor Ola ue ever say tnat It had been made
say 70 you as 90 g EnowitOn tha, my reeollec
desS in your ciaee saw Mr. jams e. Bia ns Herc
and remember nis once asking whether Joe Stew.
this question. as remember II. put wnile
| the aNenue on tue wa' to tue capitol
Mr.. II. l.. Br' dgman. then Washington oorre-
| spondent Of the Boston Adutrtser, adds his
| testimony as 10 knOwlton's character FOR honor
aud truthfulness. aud says:
wouid say that Knowltons statement to me OF his
knowledge OF The Oond Transaction ortween Mr. Blame
pre- ise idcnici WITH his account u the sie mattei
toG-n. A. '. Beynton and resume to yourself also.
quent snd ear4es oisccssions ned tae matter
all against tn theory.
| EVIDENCE FROM THE SUPREME COURT RECORDS.
Mr.. Riddle next discusses the note OF Gen.
| Thomas Ewing. In wnich he said that John 4.
Blaine Was the owner of $4,000 stock OF the l..
W. and r. X H.. anu tn IT this was tho only Interest
that any member Of the Blaine family ever eld
Thomas living. In his testimony at pase Lla
says that he was to receive ten of the construc-
ton bonds from Stewart for services. This ar
rangement was made in 1855, for which he took
the aooye order lhat, In fact, ne never got any
bonds Of any kind. re urn to the two last SEN
teDces Of the above order: have heretofore
in land grant bonds OF tpentV fpe Of said con
struction bonds. This oruer now being given,
the holder OF the former order, on presenting it,
viii be entitled to the equivalent In land grant
bonds OF Wteen OF said construction ponds In
% s,ead Of .wenty-nye:' Teis ~ IE InEnarently mean:
delivered to some man whom he ooes not care
10 name twenty nve OF the construction bonds.
That thereafter be delivered to sid Ewing for
tnat man an order on the company for Lar
grant bonds, whicn order that man still held.
aud Ia referred to as the holder Of tue former
ordet.' Whoever he was, Stewart took the iio-
erty OF setting OF ten OF his construction bonds
to Thomas Ewing. wn. .ch said HOLDER would
not submit to, and Ewing got none"
Now no was this unknown In letter from
Stewart To the President OF tie road. quoted on
page 1sj Of the record OF the case, he says:
In compliance with your request. VIII state that the
,9is CLAIMS me tor any p9ft On OF the Unon P-cinc
Ihomas Ewing Jr......lo j. p; Usher. .........
JAges Blnn-. W. J. keeler.............
II. q. Fant ............ al Total
WHO Is THIS JAMES DLAINE1
Mr.. Riddle goes on TO say WnO u this James
| Bl linei In the absence OF ANYTHING We yet
| seen, think ne was the man VINO received the
| twsnu-nve conjunction bonds. and the holder
| Of Stewar.'s orGer for their equivalent In land
grant bonds. mentioned in Stewards order TO
Ewing. ana this IN face OF distinct stipulation
IN refe ence To j. +. Blane's fifteen bonds, given
| on page W Of the record.
"fist-B Because stewdrt In bis letter says that
the parhes named there We claims on hIm for
| construction bonds, and although b. the stipu
| latlcD these bonds had been returned ny j. 4
| Blame 10 stewart, vet Stewart swesrs that he
| aiterward returned them To j. T.. Blne (ltec
| y 6,6-i,h 20 tDat at that time j. Il. Blame had
no cain on hiul for any bonds.
| "Stcpnc-J. f.. Blaine received fifteen bonds
| ana only fifteen, in 1864 He did not receive
| twenty i've, holding ten for somebody else and
Ewing had no bargain Tor bonds TIL 1919, and it
| Is apparent, from tue 10 ition of the names IN
the above letter produced oy john ID. Perry. on
the order Of the court, that the two iist repre-
sent the twenty-five honds meLtOned Ia Stew
al. IS order OF oct, 1863.
| "lnitd-Ne know tnat John Z. Blaine Is not
| the iau re erreo to In this letter because j. L
therein, s-ys mat II Was James Bl Inc. Had
| there occurred the bunaer now cl i'm ed, Stewart
anu all the rest would have made NV fest haste
| = correct II. lie must have been app He'd when
he saw that he mad ven ured 10 write simple
James, but ne Vas mute have Oeen all
others. 80 far as ex lanatiOn was concerned.
there Is mucn more than TINS, and more in
explicabe. he necessities Of stewdrts case
| conn elleu bin 20 put in II copy Of this me
| letter months before the compulsory production
| Of tne original In this copy, while he gave the
| ull name OF all the other men named In the
| origin letter he dropped the James nd
merely wrote Blame 1his copy may be found
| on pal $50 II the record IL reads thus:
In comp pisnce with your request will state that the
tott Gains for auy portion OF the Union Pachc
Ialruad. Eastern DIVISION construction bonds,
| follows;
Thomas Ewing Jr. ......lO J. p Usher.............
| Balne....... ....l5 W. D. keeler. D
| c. ]. sherman. ........2Ol
IL. q. Faut............ Al TOtal................ so
| "Why did he do this1 That II was by acct
| dent-anotner mistake In the same name-no
man will believe. Had James been originally
| written by inadve-tency. wny not now give he
| ifue name ana eX lain by proof. II necessary,
| how the mistake aIOsef This omission WIS /, ,
| design-purposely made, without word OF ex-