National Republican., 1884-05-14
The Court Occupied the Entire Day With
His Testimony.
His Story Of the French Claim and the
$4,000 Due Bill.
He Denies That HO Agreed 10 Surrender the Due
Bill TO Bateman, as Alleged.
On Cross-I1x xamination His Memory Be
comes Somewhat Defective.

the reading and correcting of tho record OF
Monday, aud much Of the time during the
remainder of the session In tho disputations
of opposing counsel Mr.. Calkins, in con-
tinuing tho direct examination of Gen.
Swain, offered to put in evidence tho latter's
bank book at tho National Metropolitan bank
of this city, and a statement from Morton.
Bliss & Co., of Now York, showing the
condition of Swaims accounts with those
concerns at the time he gave
the 81 900 check on Bateman & Co. to j.
Stanley Brown. Gen. Pope thought this was
Unnecessary, as the witness had testified to
tho condition Of his accounts at those banks.
Con. Socket said he wonld like to know
whether Swain had that amount OF money at
Bateman & Co.'s bank at that time, to which
Mr.. Calkins responded that that was what
they were trying to show. The witness then
detailed conversations he had had with Mr..
Bateman at the time ho (witness) sought TO
obtain statement of his accounts that
these conversations was that Bateman
thought the statement prepared by Swain
of tho condition of his (Swalm's)
accounts was entirely unlike tho accounts
as kept at the bank, and Gen. Swain
could not understand the statements fur
nished kim by tho bank. A time was fixed,
witness stated, when they could get together
on Sunday afternoon and go over the ac-
counts, but though witness was at the place
OF meeting within ten minutes of the time
fixed, Bateman did not appear. Tho witness
was questioned as to the investment in French
claims. He said that Mr.. Bateman told him
D'Autrui had some claims before the French
and American claims commission, some of
which had been passed by the commissions that
he wanted to raise 81 600, aud was willing to
pay good interest on tho loan, if he could
get it, and to put up as collateral the certificate
of award of one claim by tho commission.
He (witness) had sent O check for ST. 900 to
Bateman & Co., and authorized them to pur-
chase tho certificate of award for him, and to
get the necessary papers. Some time after
ward he called at Bateman & Co.'s and asked
TO be shown his securities. He was handed
the papers showing the purchase of a claim
of D'Autruis pending before the commission.
This he took away, but afterwsrd returned it
to the bank with tho statement that II did
not belong to him. He had never had pos
session of the paper afterward.
With respect to tho assignment of the due
bill for $4,000 to Bright, Humphreys & Co.,
witness testified that having made repeated
efforts to secure an adjustment of his accounts
with Bateman & Co.. without success, and
having this due bill in his possession, he de-
termined to push the question to q settlement
in the only tribunal that he knew of where
1t could be properly decided. Being indebted
to Bright, Humphreys & Co., he transferred
tho uuo pui W tncui, IOr bHcu 10 COlleCU
whatever was due on 1t, knowing that If he
owed Bateman & Co. anything on any account
that that indebtedness would be an offset to
the due bill. He transferred the due bill
rather than bring suit upon it in his own
name, because he didn't want tho notoriety
or suit In ihis own name involving tho
settlement of the accounts he had with Bate
man & Co. His understanding with Bright,
Humphreys g. Co. was that they were not TO
bo ut any expense in the prosecution of a
suit on the due bill, If it were not paid upon
presentation. When it was reported to wit
ness that payment had beon refused he had
directed suit to bo brought, but instructed
his attorneys not to begin proceedings until
the last term day, because he thought that
Bateman would come to him and make some
proposition as to an adjustment of their differ
onces. After the suit had been brought, the next
he heard in relation to it was that charges
had been filed against him in the war de-
partment by Bateman. lie then told the
story of the meeting with Bateman, the day
after the charges were made to fix up mat
ters. Mr. Parker, in whose office tho meeting
was held, he said, asked, why don't you go
to work and settle up your differences ~ He
(witness) answered, II have been trying to
do so. l have offered to leave tho question
of our accounts to friends" Witness said
that Bateman then said, II am willing to
leave it to anybody, and / will put up q GER
tilted check for $4,000 against your due bill.
Put it in anybody's hands to settle it," To
this he (witness) replied, "That's what
proposed to do long ago"
1t was then determined, the witness said
to loave the matter to tho arbitration of Mr.
Butterworth, and he (witness) signed an
agreement to get the due bill from Bright,
Humphrey & Co. and place it in the hands
of Mr., Parker. He said further that Mr.
Bateman then said that since they had had
this talk he had concluded that witness had
not intended to defraud him, as he had
learned that he had tho Same offsets against
the due bill in suit brought on it, whether
it was in the hands of Bright, Humphrey
& Co. or the hands of witness, and that he
would withdraw the charges he had made
against the latter. Witness said he then told
Bateman that the latter must exonerate him
(tho witness) from all accusations of fraud ;
that he asked him, do you believe that
would defraud you out of the value of Il
centW That Bateman replied that ho did
not SO believe, and that they thon fixed up
the letter which Bateman sent to the score
tary withdrawing the charges.
Mr. Calkins read to the witness an extract
from the comments of the secretary of war to
the President, on the reply made to the lat
ter by Gen. Swain by Endorsement on tho
letter of the secretary referring to the charges
made by Bateman and asked him if he had
any statement to make to tho court with
reference to his (tho witness's) reply to tho
secretary.
Mr.. Chandler objected, and the court room
was cleared while the court considered tho
question. On reopening tho doors Judge
Advocate Scott stated that the court had
decided that in this explanation the witness
should be confined to an explanation of his
Endorsement to the secretary without refer
ence to the remarks of tho latter upon it,
Witness then stated that in his Endorsement
upon the sccretary's lettor he had intended
to deny absolutely and completely every ac-
of knowledge of, or connection in any possible
manner with, tho negotiation of fraudulent
pay accounts. He said he had thought that
the most positive denial he could make was
to state the facts a. ho remembered them in
all the transactions, rather than to content
himself with plain denial His indorse-
ment was thus, he thought, specific denial
Witness then testified to another cOnversa-
tion with Bateman aitor tho publication Of
his (witnesss) reply to the secretary OF war,
in which Batenan had said that tho whole
thing had TO be gone over again. because he
(the witness) had said in that reply that
Batemans accusations wero false. To this
he (the witness) had replied that ho (Bate-
mani had said the same thing in his letter
withdrawing tho charges, whereupon Bate
man had said no (Batcman) would have to
make a statement to the press contradicting
tho witness.
Witness also denied at this point that he
had in tho talk about arbitration agreed to
surrender the due bill to Bateman, as asserted
by the latter in his testimony, and no also
denied another statement made by Bateman
in his testimony-that he (Bateman) had con-