Daily globe., 1883-07-30

| suit for damages as matter of specQla-
ton. In view of this he could see no rea-
son why alimony should be granted. hTe
motion was taken under advisement.
THE ILGES COURT MARTIAL.
Conclusion of the Testimony for the De-
fense-Delegate MaGinnis' Evidence in
Behalf of the Accused-The ColoneTs
Statement In His Own Behalf.
The court martial trial of Lieut.. Col
Ilges, of the Eighteenth infntry, charged
with duplicating his accounts, was re-
sumed in Mannheimer block yesterday
morning. Judge Advocate Capt. John R.
Myrick conducted the trial and all the
members of the court were present.
The defense was conducted by Col. Ilges,
the accused, and the testimony was taken
OF the Hon. Martin McGinnis, member of
congress from Montana.
The following questions were PROFOUND
ed by the accused
Question-Please state your name, occu-
patton and residence?
Q.-Were you a member of the last ma
tioual congress, the session of which ex-
pired in the summer of 1882?
Q.-While you were such a member of
congress did you, during the session of
1882, become cogniZant of the fact that a
bill passed both houses and became a law,
authorizing the payment of certain sums
of money by the United States treasury to
myself and some twenty three co-claimants,
officers and soldiers of the United States
army?
Q.-Do you remember the source from
which the money emanated?
Q.-Do you remember how many wears
this money was kept on deposit in United
States treasury and withheld from myself
and co-claimants?
Q.-Do you remember the amount of my
claim?
Q.-Have I drawn this amount?
Q.-Please state how long you have lived
in the territory of Montana?
Q.-Please state how long you have
known me. personally and by repata-
ton?
Q.-During your residence in Montana,
and with your acquaintance in the COM
munities through the whole territory, have
you been enabled to form an opinion of
| my general reputation as an officer and a
gentleman?
Q.-Whst is my general reputation as an
officer?
Q.-What is my general reputation as a
gentleman?
The witness first testified to having been
| member of the national congress which
| expired in 1882, and to the passage of a
| bill at that session authorizing the pay
| ment of certain sums of money to the &C.
| cused and some twenty three co-claimants
| officers and soldiers of the United States
! army. So far as the witness could recol-
lect, the money represented by the claims
had been kept back since the war. The
| amount of the claim held
by Col. Ilges was $4,000, which still
remained III the treasury department sub
| ject to his draft. Witness had known Col
! Ilges since the advent in Montana of the
Seventh infantry about twelve years ago
| His general reputation as an officer stood
| very high and ne was very much endeared
TO the people of the territory, who honored
him for his gallant services in the Indian
campaign, and who held him In the great.
| est possible esteem.
Before leaving Montana the witness had
received Numerous letters and teIegrams
from prominent men of the territory, ex
pressing the warmest regard for Col. Ilges
| Witness had also been handed a petition
from the citizens of the territory, address
| ed to the president and expressing sympa
| thy for the accused. In response to 6
| question witness explained that the reason
why the claim OF Col. Ilges had not been
| paid was on account of the attorneys fee OF
| $500, which had been considered exorbi
tant, and that the money would be paid as
soon as the government was satisfied that
the fee was proper.
Col. Ilges was then sworn and made the
! following statement:
| l desire to put on record IN Ter oath that
the sum of $2,091, due me by Nashville
| Chattanooga Railway company, for dam
age sustained by the burning of train at
Murfreesboro, Tenn, in 1869. has been
withheld from me and kept on deposit IN
| United States treasury since the early part
of the year 1870. The money was deduct
| ed from the amount due the company for
army transportation, and l was debarred
from bringing suit for damages by order
Of the secretary of war, who assumed the
collection Of the claim. After eleven years
| OF labor and expense of many hundreds OF
dollars on my part, the national congress
in session during the summer of 1882
passed bill, which became a law, author
izing the payment OF amotnt of my
claim, S2,091, and the claims of my CO
|
Through disagreement between Lay
attorney in Washington and myself il re-
gard to the excessive amount OF fees
demanded by the former, he claiming $500
this amount OF money ($2,091), still re
mains IN tins United States treasury, sub
ject to my draft, whenever I satisfy tn;
department that the fee Of the attorney ha:
been protected.
1 state under oath that I have not exc
cuted any power or powers of attoTroy, Oh
other authority, to any one to Draw this
money from the United States treasury.
This amount still remaining in United
States treasury, which had every reason
to thing available since September, is tht
very money, which was to pay Mr.. Scheffe1
for the loans of money granted me. Sc
expressly stipulated in my various letters
to that gentleman. At no time did ash
or authorize Mr.. Scheffer to accept my
August and November and December,
1882, pay accounts at their face value, aud
at no time have I asked or authorized hin
to present these pay accounts for collec-
ton. These pay accounts to the contrary
were left with him by me as a persona
security for Mr.. Scheffer, as their redemp
tion at some future day was fully insured
by Mr.. Scheffer's entire belief In nv honor
and intention of feir dealing.