Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-01-27
SOAP AND FEATHER BUSTERS.
The Second Day Of M. j. W. Drew,s
Trial.

Hext examined. He testified that he mad found no
orders, entries, acquisitions, bills or triplicaie
vouchers In the files OF the office corresponding
with the alleged fraudulent vouchers. The wit
ness said that on June Is, 1884. he had seen Mr..
Drew at his store. He had found q voucher for
goods TO the amount OF 81 800 furnished by Mr.
Drew In the Treasury department. and went 10 Mr..
Drews store to ask him about it. Mr. Drew said he
mad furnished 500 $500 worth Of the goods 10 the
laboratory. A part OF the remainder represented
soap brushes busters and other articles furnished
money had to give p to osrrisan ca1r,rsn he
told MIN that they wanted TO use the money In the
bureau. He had given him $500 or $500 He knew
the Dill was made out for medicines, but all he
wanted was to get his money back.
ms testimony created quite a sensation IN court
fed ib aqq Use Dr. van predecessor test
could not recoliect their presentation to the de-
partment or any requsition being made for them.
THE TESTIMONY TO-DAY.
When the court assembled this morning. DR.. SAM
uei F. Cowes, medical director. U. S. n, who WAS
in charge OF the naval laboratory at BROOKLYN
from May. 1880, to April 1883, was called for the
government and testified TO the course OF business
followed in obtaining medicines The surgeon gen.
efal would notify witness that certain goods would
De delivered by certain parties So far as the wit
ness knew, all medicines and drugs ordered were
sent TO the laboratory. In January and February.
1881, MI. Drew had furnished medicines, hosplt al
furniture and other goods to the dispensslry The
Dill amounted to something under $1,000. Never
aIter that, during the witness term 10 charge OF
goods at ALI The witness was shown the bills OF
May 49, 1884, and December Is, 1889, for drugs fur
Msned oy MI Drew, ana stated that 1t was impos.
slo4e 1or sucn goods TO have been delivered without
tie witness knowledge. The witness was asked
about a conversation he had with the defendant
eoon w. Was 1os made fo tn me SS In ISL o.
that he wanted TO show that Mr. Drew then SAID
Ina, ne had lost money In that transaction and did
nfshiDg goods to the bureau. The court Sustained
The objection. The witness, referring to his book
sad the reQuisition upon which Mr.. Drew furnished
the goods In 1881 was dated December IL. 1880 This
did not show the amount, but the witness said the
amount was about 500 or $500. The goods were
delivered during January and February following.
VI. Deiavan Bloodgood, medical director, U.SN.,
VINO succeeded Dr. CoWes in charge or the Brook
lyn laboratory and stil has charge of that nsttu-
tons with MI. Drew. The bill for medicines dated
In August last was shown to the witness who said
MT Drew had never furnished any such goods TO
the laboratory. His name has not appeared on
the DOCKS since the witness took charge
Peter A. Joyce, storekeeper at the Brooklyn
naval dispensary since November LIST, 1882 and for
hteen months prior TO that packer In the insttu-
ton, testified that he had never while there re.
celVed or handled any goods sent by Mt. John W.
Dr rn,:,a During that time all the goods had been
goods called for by the first alleged fraudulent bill
would require 20 laboratory boxes 2S feet long IS
inches wide and about Is or II inches deep; those
mentioned In the second BILL 80 boxes and those In
the third, 70 boxes The district attorney offered
this testimony, he said, TO show that the goods
witness exhibited what said was the only bill OF
Mr.. Drew's on file at the laboratory. 1t was for
sass, and Gorresponded with the requisition de-
Scrlbed by DR.. Cowes.
On cross-examination by Mr. Williams, the wilt
ness said that the goods as usually packed by
chants would not require so many boxes
Mr. WOrthngton stated that he propoSed TO call
the surgeon In charge of each OF the naval hospi-
tails in the country TO show that these goods were
not delivered at any OF these hospitals.
Dr. Alired Z. GorgaS OF the naval hospital at
Chelsea, Mass; Dr. Bloodgood, VINO was ia charge
OF the New York naval hospital prior to April,
1885: Dr.. Van Eeypen, who was on duty at the
New York hospital before october, 1858; Dr. Bur
rows, Of the Philadelphia naval hospital; Or.
Adoiph A. Hphling, WHO had charge OF the naval
dispenSary In this city prior to February 1884, Dr.
James Suddard, who was IN charge of the Norfolk
hospital from 1880 to June, 1888; DR.. John r. ray
ior, Or. suddards successor at Norfolk Or. George
Beck, in charge of the Mare Island, CAL hospital
prior TO October. 1888 and Dr. Reuben L. Bates, In
Charge OF the Yokohama naval hospital for two
years prior to November, 1882, TESTIFIED that
they had never received any articles from MI.
Drew. They had received books and samples OF
medicines directly from the bureau These SAM
PIES were for trial. DR.. Van Reypen said they tried
them on any available patient DR.. HGhling said
he tried these new remedies on officers families
mere, and sometimes on himself.
MalSh u. CLARK, messenger In the bureau OF medi-
cine and surgery, testified that no goods had been
received at the bureau from Mr.. Drew: they had
never received medicines at the bureau except In
small quantities as samples. Upon crOSS-eX aLnina-
ton the witness said he was eightythree years and
six months Old. He said the store room WAS omen
TO anybody connected with the bureau. He had
known feather busters TO be bought one at time
for the bureau from grocer, MI. Brown. who also
furnished Wisps, soaps, backing and matches. Mr.
CaTigan bought the towels ana put them under
the witness charge. This grocer had not furnished
anything Tor Two years Since then Mr.. Carrigan
and Nh. kirkwood had purchased such articles.
Dr.. HUDSON testified that the surgeon in charge
OF the Pensacola station during the time covered
by these vouchers was dead. That station and The
Portsmouth station were very small He said no
medicines purchased were delivered directly TO the
bureau OF medicine and surgery,
DR.. Taylor, who Was In charge Of the naval hos
pital here prior toJune, 1888, and DrJaInes Gaines
who was In charge from June TO December, 1888,
testified that they had never received any articles
from Mr. Drew.
Henry Clay, colored, who was assistant messen-
ger In the bureau or medicine and surgery prior to
september, 1852, testified as to the method OF re-
celving goods In 1881 or 1882 large box contain
ing small bottles OF medicine Of different kinds was
received and the bottles were repacked In small
boxes.
GOODS FREQUENTLY DELIVERED BY Mr.. DREW
On croSS-eXamfnation the witness said he had
known boxes to be brought there from MIR. Drew's
store. Sometimes they would be opened and some
times, when small. they would be carried by Mr.
Carrigans directions into Mr.. Carrigan's room He
had Known Mr.. Drews porter to come to the bu-
reau time after time to bring boxes It was fire.
Quenu thing TO see Mr.. Drew's man there He used
TO bring things once or twice week. When he
had any parcel that he could carry himself he would
go right up 10 Mr. Carrgan's room, leave it on Mir.
CarrlganS desk and leave the bill with 1t.
On redirect examination the witness said that it
about the time that he leIt the bureau In 1882
that these boxes came. good many boxes were
coming in at that time. There was soap in the
boxes that came from Nh. Drew's and were carried
into CarriganS room. He had seen Mr.. Drew'S
man bring towels there. He had seen three boxes
Of soap at one time and two bundles containing
each one dozen towels. Drew's mans name was
Howard.
Brook Shaw, Henry Ciays successor as assistant
messenger In the bureau, testified that since he had
been there one or TWO small boxes of medicine had
been delivered at the bureau So far as he knew
40 boxes had come from Mt. Drew's store
A recess was then taken.
AFTER RECESS
Mr.. John Cook, OF the fourth auditors Office was
called, and identified voucher Tor 2OS, dated
March l6, 1881.
Objection was made TO introducing this paper as
1t bore no relation 10 the transactions complained
OF in the indictment.
Mr.. WorthtngtOn said this was introduced for the
purpose OF showing that the goods delivered, as
described In testimony, at Tie Brooklyn laDOra-
tory, amounting to S.a2, had been paid for, and
were not included IN any OF the alleged fraudulent
vouchers; and furthermore, that the defendant
had been engaged In a conspiracy with Carrgan
and Kirkwood for several years, and that the
vouchers complained Of were part OF the general
for S722 had been raised TO s1,722 When the audi
tor required an ttemized account Mr.. Drew had
gotten up wholly fictitious account and filed it.
Mr.. Moore objected that this transaction occurred
more than three years ago.
The court admitted the testimony.
Mr. jones' Umbrella.
HIS SUIT AGAINST THE PULLMAN COMPANY.
To nov in no rcuff I,Oro To- fhop