Year: 1868

referred to In the said questions, proponnded


substance that he had retained your petitioner IL his


professional capacity to prosecute certain measures


tne congress OF the unIon xu 70 e nnHc


good, be conducive TO his Interest," ana tnat sne ume


OF said employment there was an understanang, not
the said Shook make such reasonable and proper
advances might be in his power and as your petl-
tioner might deem essential to the successful con-
duct OF said business, and that said kilograms
mad reference to said business and were
taxing. and suggested the execution thereof;
said Shook having testified, and the privilege pro-


attorney and client being the privilege Of the client


and not Of the attorney, which the client may waive


in his discretion and thereby not only relieve the at
torney from the obligation not to divulge, but


render him liable to testify In regard thereto,


under due process, as any other witness,


disclosure, and your petitioner being advised by his


counsel that said Shook has by such Testimony
without violating any rule or law or profes siona


honor. answer the questions propounded by the COM


mittee he respectfully submits In answer thereto


To the first quesion-that he did send the despatch
OF the sth of May IN said question referred to, de-
signing thereby to request the said Shook to place
Co. the sum OF ten thousand dollars to be
used in such lawful manner as your petit
toner might deem proper In obtaining modification
OF that provision OF the Revenue law whereby the
amount paid the nformer upon seizures is gradua-


amonn %R 70 poascaon o 10 sSceeu at


amendment providing that in all cases and to the


entire extent Of the value moiety should be
the government and tho language in said
-despatch--"My business is compskedn-referre


your petitioner had ascertaned the sentiment OF the


committee. and that the committee was then ready


to report the bill though not In the desired shape


For the second cuestion-That he did


send the despatch or the 18th of May


the therein II ,.T Tefeea to the said shooS and


petitioner to obtain reduction OF the tax on whis-


key, in regard 10 which the said Shook was interest


versatioe between said Shook and your petitioner


without having arrived at any understanding as to


s he Would wns 5e aa S


In the prosecution Of measure largely


to his And as to the use Of fictitious


in said telegram your petitioner says that such pre-


cautions are absolutely necessary in communicating


by telegraph in order to avoid the disclosure OF pr


vate affairs to those who are seeking their discovery


He believes that the matters above referred were


said Sheridan Shook to have enabled him
to understand and tntelllgenty apply each


that said Shook did not so far your petitioner is
informed, act upon said kilograms or either of them
by making the deposit or furnishing the money they
called for. And your petitioner further AYERS and
asservates that said kilograms had reference to
any other subject than as hereinbefore FORTH and
no reference to the trial Of the President on the
articles OF impeachment preferred by the
House of Representatives against him, nor
ing thus purged the contempt charged against him
by answering the questions referred to in the resO-
luton under which he Is held in custody, might
thereupon ask from the justice OF the House to be
discharged without bringing to the consideration of
your honorable body any other facts connected with
his case but sense of justice to himself demands
that he should bring to your attention cir
cunstances OF wrong and, as he respectfully
made to suffer; and he respectfully submits that he
has suffered great injustice from the report of the
Managers m submitted u TO tne House on the sath Of May
different ways for 100000 drawn by him from of
the banks i'm this city.


The report sets forth that your petitioner account
ed for the disposition of said sum OF money as fol-
lows -


First, by saying that he expended it in his own pri.
vate business.


Second that he had paid it out on his clients busi-
ness.


Third that he had sent it to his client in Cincin.
natl by check on bank there, forgetting that |
sending ms own check on bank in ONO would not |
Washington.


Fourth, that he had paid between $4,000 and
dan Shook denies on oath. The report refers to
the statement made to the Hon. b. f. Butler
by your petitioner, he believes, on Tuesday the
10th OF May, when he first summoned by the
Managers Your petitioner has, several OCCASIONS
referred to that he might correct the same il he |
found 10 to be erroneous but such request has been
r. ,s FUSED W t4e e. Mana9ers ne submits that
statement as 1t was made by him. and he denies |
that he ever did represent or state that the entire OF
said sum was disposed OF in each Of the four several
ways specified in the SAID report. A portion of said
money was expended on his private business and
portion Of 1t paid out on the business OF his cli-
ent. He claimed that the pills in
Ia pocket were transmitted to Cincinnati by check
but he dill represent that part OF the money for
by one OF his cllens referred TO before the Commit
tee OF Managers Tue fact can be established by him
cus.on drawn by the MANAGERS accomplished. He
did state that he handed large amount
sheridan Shook and at the time he so stated he
believed the same TO be true. On the day after max
Ing NE SAID sta, ement-to w.t. on Wednesday the


Olh Of May-your petitioner some time in the morn
ing of thai day, met ransom Van Vokenburgh of |
the city of New York. with whom he had been on
intimate terms IN this CITY for some time and he in-
formed your petitioner that the convval party on
the preceding sunday, at whch time and occasion
he believed he had given said sum OF money
TO said SHOOK, that he Van yolkenburgh) had taken
the same and tlen had IT IN his possession. Your


eiti0ner was very much surprised and declined to
tl6e any moneg ana requested the said Van Volken-
burgh to retain II until his examination before the
Committee was over Your petitioner felt deeply ag-
grcVed at the course OF the examinations that had
cen pursued by the Managers on the preceding day
and believing that he was not required TO
anars In way connected with or |
relating to the subject which the committee had in
ter general or IRE evant questions and to refuse all
answer 10 such aud felt that he had committed a


which he had already been subjected Your pet TONER
il not thereby intend any disrespcct ~ this hon
jrabe body or To the Managers but he believed that
! crave principle of constitutional power and privi-
ged rgat was invO!v d, and tnat your honorab
,oiy would pass upon any question at issue between
he said Managers and your petitioner, that the sub
ect might be ceIry explained at the proper time II
ne House should not determine that II was egiti-
nate matter for investigation. lie deemed IL expe-


ent that there should be no change in the
ondition OF things as they then sood and
therefore, declined TO take sad money, and re-
uested that II might remain IN custody OF the said
fr. Van Volkenburgh. Your petitioner II es herewith
y part OF this petion the AFFIDAVIT OF said ransom
IAN Nolkenburgh, Robert '-trong, Cornelius Wendell |
nd Charles "a. shelley one OF tie propretors OF the
ne ropotan Hotel OF washington City, In which the


attending the disposal OF said money |
" your pettioner are fully set forth and explained
which said addayts are marked exhibits A, Is, @ |
md ID, and PRAYED to be taken as part OF this pet- |
ion. Your petitioner further says that he was ad- |


Used by his counsel that an view OF the position I'm
when he was placed and the absence oil any right |
n authority In the Committee Of Managers TO inves-
gate his priv ate affairs when he had clearly and ex-


iclty testified that the subject about which |