The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-12-19
Butler and Russell.
Continued from Third Page.)

w
knowledge you had is not privileged under
the law, and I ask you to state whether
you had such knowledge prior to that
date?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
A. Oh, I don't think had such knowl-
edge until about that time, either about
the time when I accepted the employ
ment from Mr.. Ricaud, which was about
March. 1901.
Q. Have you no personal acquaintance
with Congressman Burk, Of South Dakota?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant.)
A. Yes.
Q. When did you form his acquaintance?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
q. Whilst you were Governor or after
wards?
A. Oh, think 1 first met him along
about the spring or summer of 1901,
possibly the fall
Q. Then you did not know Mr.. Burk
before you were employed in this case?
(Same objection On part of counsel for
complainant)
A. l don't think I did.
@. Is Mr. Burk a lawyer?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant.)
A. think he is. but l am not sure.
Q. Did you ever talk with Senator
Butler at any time with regard to this
suit, and if so. when?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
A. Oh, yes Sir l think l have had
a lie oh ~
and 1902.
Q. Did you talk with Senator Butler
in regard to a suit against North Caro-
lima to recover these second mortgage
bonds, prior to March, 1901?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant
A. 1t is possible that l did. or there
abouts, possibly in February, or along
about then possibly
Q. ask You if you did not acquire in
formation from Senator Butler prior to
! the time you were employed as counsel
to this case, that it was in contempIa-
ton to so place some of those second
mortgage bonds as to give some State
an opportunity to sue the State of North
Carolina in the Supreme court of the
United States, under the Constitution
another to recover these bonds?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant.)
A. No do not think he ever gave me
that information.
q. Did you, prior to March. 1901. re-
celVe information from any source what
ever that it was in contamination nv anv
parties whatever, to so place some of the
second mortgage bonds as to enable one
State or some States to sue the State of
North Carolina to recover the second
mortgage bonds?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
| complainant.)
A. We'll L cannot undertake to give mar
tlcular dates, say generally in and about
March, 1901,-it may have been February
1T may have been April. | have already
said that l was employed as counsel in
this case in and about March, 1901
may have meant by that that l entered
into an arrangement with Mr.. Ricaud.
had an understanding with him about
that time which gave me employment as
counsel with him as his associate about
that time. Well, that may have been in
February-it may have been a month be-
fore, March, 1901. The reason why I say
4
recollection of going to New York in or
about 1901, and being there, and going
| there for that purpose, that is why I say
March, 1901. The employment may have
been before that
Q. Did you have any information from
any source whatever, from any parties
whatever prior to the time you were en-
ployed as counsel for any of the holders
of the second mortgage bonds, that it was
in contemplation by any parties or per-
sons whatever to so place a portion Of
the said mortgage bonds as to enable
some State to bring action or a suit in
the Supreme Court of the United States
against the State of Norh Carolina to re-
| cover the said secon' Jrtgage bonds?
i (Same objection Oh part of counsel for
complainant)
| A. Oh. l might have heard some such
talk, the matter was discussed, l remem-
| Der having some talk with Mr. Busbee
| about it, well l guess that was in March,
| too, or April 1901.
Q. Do you know at whose suggestion
a bill was introduced in the Legislature
of South Dakota in 1901 to enable that
State ito accept or receive a gift of any
! of the second mortgage bonds, or of
any bonds and what the purpose of that
| bill was?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
| complainant.)
A. Oh, I think heard Colonel Stewart,
| of South Dakota, and possibly Mr.. Burk
say that they had the bill introduced, or
| that one of them had introduced it, or
| something of that sort.
Q. l will ask you if you did not at the
same time learn that the chief purpose
Of that act was with a view to receive
| from the Schaeffers a donation of the
| bonds now in suit, and with view of
| bringing a suit against North Carolina
to recover?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
| A Oh, it is not improbable that such
an inference was made, it may be that
such conclusion was inferential from
what they said
| @. Did You know, Governor, that the
| bill was going to be introduced in the
| Legislature of South Dakota before it
was done?
| (Same objection)
A. think I did hear it mentioned.