The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-07-11

complaints of Evans and his partner
Fisher. The Tribune article may have
had something to do with it. The next
time / saw the Secretary after the publi-
cation of the Tribune article, he asked
me if l had q contract with Evans.
told him yes. asked him who be
thought was the instigstor of the article
and he gave the name of Gen. Hazen
Witness said he presumed the Secretary
knew where the money was coming from
that was being paid him. Witness
made the first payment to Mrs. Belknap,
now deceased, in November, 1870; sent
it to her by express; the package was sd-
dressed to Secretary Belknsp, and inside
was another package containing the
money addressed to Mrs. Belknap.
Mr.. Carpenter asked that an attach
ment be issued for John s. Evans, post
trader at Fort Sill.
1t was shown that he had been sum-
moned by telegraph, and after discussion
it was ordered that subpoena be
issued tor him to attend Immediately.
Mr.. Carpenter said the examination OF
this witness had been rather peculiar; he
been escorted around the case two or
three times, and as many times had been
brought close to the border of it.
Counsel for defense desired TO examine
his testimony closely before entering
upon cross examination, and he asked
permission to waive a cross.exsmination.
till tomorrow, which was so ordered.
Marsh, in reply to the questions of the
managers, further testified that when
Mr.. Evans wanted favor he wrote to
him (Marsh), and it was forwarded by
| him to the Secretary OF War.
Brevet Major General Bazen. Colonel
of the 5th Infantry, was sworn and ex-
amined by Mr. Mcmahon. Witness
was interrogated in reference TO the ar
ticle published in the Tribune in 1872,
but objection was made by counsel for
the defense to him testifylng as to who
furnished the information for that
article, and the objection was sustained
O. Did Secretary BelkDsp go to yen
about this matter, TO ascertain as to the
truth OF the article after it appeared in
the paper2
This was objected to by the defense,
and after argument the Senate by vote
of 10 TO. lS, decided TO admit IT. and Gen.
Hazen answered: He did not. Z
In answer to question, the witness
testified that he was in Washington after
the article appeared, and testified before
the Committee on Military Affairs, but
had previously written to the War De-
partment about all matters pertaining
to the farming out of post-traderships.
Mr.. Carpenter njected to such testl-
mony, saying that if any such letters
were on file in the war department, let
them be produced and not take the state
ment of the witnsss.
Mr.. Laphsm said that was just what
they could not do, as they were semi
official communications, and were taken
away from the department by the defend
ant, General Belknap.
Mr.. Carpentar-Not al ALL not at all.
After consultation among the mana
gers, the question was withdrawn.
Upon cross examination, witness SAID
| he testified before the committee be-
cause he did not believe the Secretary of
War would pay any attention to his COM
munication.
Mr.. Carpenter asked the witness if he
wrote letter to the Secretary of War in
September, 1875, marked confidential.
The witness replied in the affirmative.
Q-Are you willing TO have the conf
dence removed and allow the letter TO be
read? Al AIN willing that the letter
should be read.
The letter was handed to the witness,
who read 1t as follows;
(Confidential.l
FORT BUYogD, ID. T., Sept. II, rs.
My Dear General Beikndp:
As mentioned to you while here,
wish, in perfect trankness, 10 express
what think is duty TO myself. To
do it, It is unnecessary TO discuss the fact
that have thought that you have felt
unfriendly towards me for n long time
past, and have no doubt with apparent
good occasion. For three years before
YOU became Secretary of War,
|. with Others. did what we could 10 do
away with what we then thought, and
still think, TO be unyise and pernicious
to the army, that is our system OF suttler-
ing, now called pos .radIng, with view
to substitute the plan employed in nearly
all other respectable armies, Of supplying
articles necessary 10 the officers and men
ut cost, by one Of the branches OF
the army itself This was finally accom-
plished, and IL law passed requiring the
ommissary department to perform that
duty. That department was opposed To
the law, and upon the representation OF
no special appropriation, were excused,
the first year, from executing the law.
Other reasons were afterwards found for
a similar action, the commlssary general
making no estimates for it, till finally =
law was passed giving US our present
system, which is by far more
Objectionable than original plan. l have
al alwsys believed that this law for the
post-.raders wss put through Congress
under false representation, rs It's purpose
specified. One text makes 1t for the
benefit of the travelling public, while it
gave US back the OLD sutler, in which the
travelling public is not Interested the
ninety part; that the solder has
also acted 10 have law causing
the army itself 10 turslsh these articles
a dead latter. Seeing that we we're de-
feated and the army encumbered again
with the old system, which is nothing
less than n system of leeches applied 70
the pockets Of the army, although per-
sonally the present suffers are not sbiec.
tionable men, and that the objections Of
the commissary department virtually
| blocked any action in the matter and
would defeat any attempt OF the army
/ itself, looking towards the correction |
endeavored 70 call the attention Of Con-
gress 70 the subject through my old
friend General Garfield. / naturally
gave the worst instances Of the workings
| Of the law ] knew OF, and there were in-
stances of farming out business AZ heavy
rates, which were, Of course, q tax 20 that
amount. upon the gsrrisons. Ia this
there was nothing whatever inteEded 70
be personal 70 the Secretary Of War,
bu, merely examples made Of what
l.i;.raA sp oiins law had