The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-10-03
Maj. HAWKES. WAS PROMISED A
WAR DEPARTMENT JOB AS
A REWARD
GEN. CoRBIN ON THE STAND
Testifies That Hawkes. Used His
Name and That of Mr.. Allen
Without Their Com
sent.

|
stance of an interview with Gen Corbin
! concerning the settlement. Hawkes., it
| appears. desired an appointment with
more pecuniary remuneration in the way
of settlement. Gen. Corbin told him (Mc-
! Jntyre) to see Assistant Secretary Meikle-
john. The latter. disclaiming any con-
nection with the hemp combination, said
he would be glad to do something for
Hawkes. The details of the settlement
effected, according to Mcintyre, included
! the appointment of Hawkes. to civil po-
! siton. Mcintyre wanted a promise tat
Hawkes. should be retained in the office.
but Mr.. Meiklejohn had said that he
| could not give such assurance.
Assistant Attorney Boyd, at his IN
| stance, had Endorsed hawkes. for the po-
sition, but Mr.. Boyd had said nothing
to him about the Heistand-Ha set
Element. He added that nothing was ev-
er said by Mr.. Meiklejohn indicating that
the appointment was made as con-
! sideration of the settlement.
| At the conclusion of Mr. McIntyre's
| examination, Maj. Hawkes. was recalled
and questioned regarding the bill of eX-
| penseS he had presented and concerning
! copies of letters written by Hawkes. To
| HeiStand demanding a settlement. and
| one which acknowledged the settlement
| made by Heistand's attorneys on Jan. l,
1909. The originals had been turned over
at the time of the settlement. Witness
said he had no knowledge of copies hav-
| iTa been made at that time.
| These copies were made by a friend
who had the papers for time, without
! his knowledge. Senator Harris question
| ed him closely concerning the letter he
| had written to Col. Heistand, which con-
| flicted with his present statement. He
! declared that his present statement was
| correct. Witness had written James E.
| Boyd, of the company, tina witness had
! no claim against him. ne released Boyd,
| he said, because Boyd was the personal
! friend of the witness.
| Maj. Hawkes. also said that he never
learned from any Of the parties named.
Boyd, Allen, Corbin and Meiklejohn, that
| they were in the company, all such re-
! reservations coming from HeiStand.
Capt. w. R. Wharton testified concern
! ing a meeting in Dudley and Kitchener 8
office, when the two attorneys, Heistand
and Hawkes. were present. The talk
! was upon the subject of the profits of the
hemp deal. He heard mention of the
names of Boyd and Meidejohn by Heis-
tand and Hawkes., but in WAT connection
he could not say. He had no recollection
that Col. Heistand wrote the list OF
names Of persons who were in the COM
pany, as a reply to a question put by
! Maj Hawkes.. Heistand did hand
Hawkes. a paper, but the witness could
not testify as to its contents.
CORBINS EVIDENCE.
Gen. H C. Corbin, adjutant general,
who was named in the resolution as one
of the parties to the deal, testified that
Col. Heistand made a general statement
to him concerning the organization Of
company, and asked him if he would
like to invest in it. He thought favorably
| of the concern, but two or three days
| later he told Heistand that he had no
| money to invest in any company. Some
time afterward. Assistant Secretary AL
len came to him and said .4lat man
| named Hawkes. was using both their
names to float some scheme. He told
| Allen that Hawkes. had no authority to
use his name. Neither Boyd nor Meikle-
john ever talked to him concerning the
organization of the company lie had
never discussed the matter with Hawkes.
! He knew of Hawkes., as he was appoints
! ed in the volunteers, and subsequently
! applied for another appointment. The
| papers for the latter place were with
drawn. Later, Hawkes. came to him with
a claim against Heistand and he had
sent it to Heistand. That was all his
connection with the matter. He wanted
| to state, he said for the honor of his
country, that he never heard it init
mated before that the war department
could be used for any dishonorable pur-
poses.
BOYD DENIES.
Judge James E. Boyd also denied any
connection with the company Judge
! Boyd said he never talked with Corbl1,
Meiklejohn, Allen or Heistand concerning
the proposed company. He had known
! Hawkes. fer several years and helped to
get him a commission in the volunteers
| Hawkes. came to him W. the letter
known as the ITO Whom Tt May Con-
Germ" letter. He did not remember it's
contents, but it was a general testimo-
NAL.
Witness had a desire to help Hawkes.
and signed the letter for that purpose.
No suggestion ever was made that he
! (Boyd) was to receive stock in the COM
pany for nothing. Hawkes. came to him
later and presented a subscription
paper and wanted him TO take stock,
which he declined to do.
| Maj. Hawkes. was recalled to testify
concerning the ito whom it may con-
Germ letter. The original draft was diff
ferent from that first presented to the
committee The titles of the men sign
ing the letter were not upon the origi-
nal draft Maj. Hawkes. could positively
remember but one unimportant change in
the letter before signing, but was con-
fdent that very material alterations
had been made, among them the final
clause intimating that his appointment
would be wise one from departmental
point of view, fact which he contend
ed called for titles to the signatures
He repeatedly asserted that the full
titles were affixed to the letter signed
Counsel for Heistand, in an elaborate
cross examination, endeavored to estab-
lish the fact that the several papers in
| the case had been copied in Hawke s
office, but the replies admitted only that
the copies had been made by Maj How
ard.
TRIED TO SELL IT.
The night before the agreement was
entered into, Maj. Hawkes. said he had
! endeavored to sell the whole story to
| New York papers, and likewise had un-
successfully offered to sell to the Demo-
| cratic national committee prior to the
election, for $500, land other considera-
| TONS"
The offer was not accepted. Hawkes.
said he then withdrew the papers upon
! assurance from a government official
that his case would be taken up and sat
| isfactorily settled
Lawrence S. Holt, of North Carolina,
and offered to hush up the case for a
| consideration of $500. This question was
asked at the suggestion of Col. Heis-
| tand, and was noted by Hawkes. who
replied in heat that $500 would not hush
up anything. ANY man that saws SO
1 II a T x,f1 CT 1nro I,{.--