United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Fore.

Compilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. online

. (page 35 of 156)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on ForeCompilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. → online text (page 35 of 156)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

posed to be, from his relations to the company, in fall possession of all
the facts that related to the administration of its affairs in Mexico.

In the examination of the witness, which was conducted by myself,
I became impressed with the fact that he was very reluctant to state
what he knew, and so expressed myself in one form and another on
frequent occasions during his examination. The papers which had been
in bis charge are not produced, and appear to be lost. No paper has
been produced here which was left in the city of New York at the time
that he went out of office as the treasurer of the company. The exam-
ination, therefore, was dependent very largely, if not entirely, so fbr as
the contents of those papers and books were concerned, upon his recol-
lection and upon his disposition to state what his recollection was.
Aft^r progressing with the examination until Mr. Exall returned to
New York, I endeavored to obtain from the witness a statement of what
Exall had said to him, bnt he professed to be unable to give any state-
ment of the language used by Exall on the occasion of any interviews
he had with him, either alone or in the presence of other members of
the corporation. He stated in a general way what I conceive to be his
conclusion of fact from what Exall had stated to him, or, rather, the
impression that Exall had made upon his mind in respect of the aban-
donment of the enterprise in Mexico and the cause of the abandon-
ment, and I labored assiduously to get him to make some statement of
what Exall said, using, as far as practicable, his language, or the sub-
stance of the language that Exall employed, and that was without suc-

The record of that examination has not yet been printed, and I under-
stand from the stenographer that he has not yet drawn it out from his
stenographic notes. Of course, in the course of so long an examina-
tion, it would be impossible for me now to recite what was the entire
situation of the examination as it appeared to me at that time. I con-
ceived that it was my right and duty to ask this witness leading ques-
tions because of his reluctance, and because of his relation to this
company, being largely interested in this recovery, having made con-
tributions of funds for the purpose of the prosecution of the case before
the arbitrator^ and having consented that his claim should go into a
judgment against the company June 8, 1867. I do not understand that
the Senate in calling a witness who is related as this witness is to these
transactions gives him any credit in the sense diat a witness is given
credit by a person who is a party to a private litigation and is called
as a witness to sustain his case, not any more than a grand jury wouUl
be giving credit to a witness whom they might call upon an investiga
tion of facts relating to some public crime or a coroner's inquest would
be in an examination in a case of homicide.

So that, the manner of the examination, if it was, as I claim that it
was, sincerely devoted to the purpose of bringing out the truth in this
matter, has very little to do with the case, as I conceive. After I had
turned the witness over to the gentlemen who are representing the
private interests in this matter, his examination was taken up by Judge
Shellabarger and proceeded with to a very considerable extent. I
thought I saw that the witness was quite willing to make any statement
of his recollection about matters which he thought would benefit his

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


Bide of this case. That was my impression, aiid I tkink the record
bears it out. I was surprised when Judge Shellabarger, in the course
of his exaniination, took some letters or copies of letters, which are
printed in this book and read from page 92 the entire letter.

Mr. FoSTXB. They are copies of original letters now before the com-

The Chairman. I know the originals lure here. He read fh)m page
92 the entire letter of Charles H. Exall to Granger, of the 15th of March.
1808, and, as I remember, the entire letter of June 15, 1868, by Exall
to Granger, dated in New York, and parts of the letter of May 8, 1868,
written by Exall to Granger. These letters, as will be seen by refer-
ence to them, contain statements in regard to the conduct of the busi-
ness at the mines and statements also of the situation of the mines at
the time that Exall was there, and up to the time that he left. They
also contain statements in regard to a prox>osition that Exall alleged
had been made by some person, whose name he did not give to Mr.
Garth, and a stockholder or perhaps stockholders— the letter shows—
to purchase these mines upon certain conditions which Garth mentioned.

There were several statements in these letters which it occurred to
me, and which I still believe, were not in correspondence with what Mr.
Garth had stated Exall said to him, or rather the substance of what
Exall stated to him. He did not state, and seemed unwilling to state,
what it was Exall did say to him ; professed to be entirely unable to do
it. Thereupon I cross-examined him, or rath^ I examined him, inter-
fering as I think I did with Judge Shellabarger's examination at the
moment, upon certain of these statements, and asked him a question,
whether Mr. Exall in his conversation with Mr. Garth made any state-
ment to reverse what is contained in these letters that Judge Shellabar-
ger was examining from. I do not remember precisely the same langfuage
of his answer, but I think it was entirely indefinite; to the effect that
be had already recited all that he remembered that Exall said, or the
substance of it, and had given his best recollection. Whereupon i asked
him if he had any recollection, and the matter went on in that form,
pursuing that course of examination. 1 followed on with another letter
which appears in this printed book, page 95, July 10, 1868, and asked
whether Exall had made any statement to him differiug from the state-
ment made in this letter from Exall to Granger, to which I have just
adverted, and that was the manner of that examination.

Pursuing it still further, I went back to the letter of Exall to the
political chief, page 85, a letter dated Tayoltita, January 7, 1868, and I
read that to him. In that letter is given an account of the arrest of
Exall and oi what occurred on that occasion, and of the nature of his
imprisonment; and I asked him further the question whether Exall in
his statements to him in New York had made any statement different
from this letter, and he said that- he had ; he had made a stronger state-
ment than that which is contained in this letter, of the fact of his im-
prisonment, stating that he had been imprisoned two weeks. I asked
him where. He said he did not know, could not tell, and, so far as he
could recollect, or by whom, he could not remember,exceptthathewas
imprisoned by the authorities. I asked him whether it was a personal
imprisonment or if it was an arrest which was considered imprisonment
l>ecause he was in arrest and under duress. He could not state that.

Now, that is my recollection of the extent to which this examination

Mr. MoDoNALD. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to ask if yon do
not recall that part of the examination which you now refer to occurred

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


while yon were making the examination-in-chief, and before the witness
was tnrned over to us.

The Chairman. That is not my recollection.

Mr. McDonald. I think it is.

The Chairman. I think it was after Judge Shellabarger had offered
his letters. I know I was surprised — I think Judge Shellabarger is a
very fine lawyer — and I could not understand his object in offering these

Mr. McDonald. I think you will find it in the record that your ex-
amination, as to what Exall said, and for the purpose of getting down
precisely to his statement after his return to New York, was ih your
examination-inchief. I know you regarded it important, for the mode
of examination indicated it, and so did we, to know what Exall had said
or represented to these parties when he came back ; and, as Mr. Garth
did not recollect the language, and could not very clearly state the sub-
stance, my remembrance is that you called his attention to that letter
to the political chief, and asked him if that did not embrace substan-
tially what Exall said, and if not, wherein it differed.

The Chairman. I know that I called his attention to other letters in
my examination-iu-chief.

Mr. Mc Donald. Well, that is my recollection; I may be wrong.

The Chairman. I made that line of examination, whether Mr. Exall
stated anything different to him after he got there than what is stated
here, or whether he stated these facts to him, assuming that these le^
ters bad been received, and desiring to refresh his memory as to what
the contents of the letters were.

Senator Dolph. I suppose Judge Shellabarger acted upon the pre-
sumption or proposition that those letters were, or would be, in evi-
dence on one side of the case, and was seeking to introduce evidence
contradictory of them from this witness.

The Chairman. I want to say about it in the direct examination, if
you call it such, or

Mr. McDonald. Call it examination-in-chief.

The Chairman. Well, I asked (his witness whether he ever received
any letters from Exall after the 10th day of October, I believe, which
was the date of the last letter Exall wrote to him.

Senator Dolph. That he wrote to Exall.

The Chairman. That he wrote to Exall and Exall wrote to him. I
mean that.he acknowledged. I am going now upon his testimony as he
gave it, and I asked him the question whether or not he had ever written
to Exall after the 10th of October. My recollection is that he said he had
not, and I asked him the question whether he had received any letters
from Exall, as I remember it, after the 10th of October. He said that
he had not, if I recollect his testimony correctly. Later in his exami-
nation he stated that he had written to all of these men, Bartholow,
De Laguel, and Exall he believed, he said, by every steamer that went
out. First he said by every mail, and I suggested that he meant steamer,
and he said yes; the steamers went about semi-monthly. Well,tlie
contradiction in the statements made by the witness upon that propo-
sition, the freedom with which he stated the fact, in reply to the ques-
tion of counsel, that he had written these letters to them, impressed me
with the idea that Mr. Garth was willing to make a statement which
was not within his statement, certainly was not when I examined him,
if he told what was true about it in regard to writing and sending these
letters. I therefore thought it was my privilege and duty to try to re-
fresh his recollection by these papers, which he had the opportunity ot

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


reading since he has been here^I did not know whether he had read
them or not — containing copies of letters alleged to be from Exall to
this chief of police.

Mr. Lines. I think prefect wonld be the proper translation.

The Ghaibman. Well, prefect, a Mexican justice of the peace, I snp
pose. And it was in that attitnde and in that way that this matter
came up. Now it is proposed — and my action in that matter is qaoted
as a precedent for i^it is proposed to exaniine this witness apon a
deposition that has been given in this case by Exall in behalf of the
claimants, and, as I understand it, with a view to show Exall on that
occasion swore differently from what his letters indicate, and that he
then swore the truth and made a false statement in his letters. Now,
of course, this witness can read this deposition, and we can not keep
nim from it, if he wants to, for the purpose of refreshing his recollection,
or read anything else that comes to his attention for the purpose of re-
IVeshing his recollection as to what the conversation between him and
Exall was, but it does not occur to me that it is a proper form of exami-
nation to read ExalFs deposition to him after all that has occurred in
this case, and ask him now if he recollects that Exall stated to him
that thing in the form in which it is stated there.

I have no objection, as a member of this committee, for him to look
over this deposition to refresh his memory as much as he pleases, but to
answer from his memory, not from the book ; and I do not think that
anything that I have done in this case in the line of examination I have
observed is at all inconsistent with that course; or, if the geutlemen are
not satisfied with this and prefer the action of the entire subcommittee,
we will acyoum this question until Monday or such time as rve shall
meet again and have a full printed copy of all that has been testified to
by this witness, and I would very much prefer that course for the rea-
son that, as a matter of course, it is some embarrassment to me to be
required to state my remembrance of a long examination and when I
had no one to assist me. Of course my mind was not direCved to every
fact in the case as counsel's would be. I have some embarrassment in
such circumstances in trying to state what I think was the state of the
record, the attitude of the question at the time I put these questions to
Mr. Oarth. Senator McDonald and I difter now about whether that
reference to the letter written by Exall to the chief of police or prefect
was in the examination-in-chief, or whether it was an interpolation, or
rather, an interruption of the examination by Judge Shellabarger. I
think it was — ^that is my recollection — that I interrupted the judge and
asked him to allow me to bring that subject up, thoughl may not be cer-
tain about that ; that is my recollection. Now, Mr. Dolph, I believe that
as this matter stands — a critical question, a nice question, one of great
importance too— that we had better wait until we see the printed record,
and see exactly what it is, and have the entire committee here to discuss it.

Senator Dolph. I certainly have no objection to that.

Mr. McDonald. I wish to make a suggestion to the committee, that
the view I take of this question is this : that we have a right to ascer
tain, if we can, just what Exall reported, either verbally or otherwise, to
the witness and his associates when he came to New York after leaving
Mexico, and that in a cross-examination of the witness, if I may use that
term, we have aright to put to him the direct question of whether Exall
did not state so and so and so, and call his attention sharply to it and
to his recollection upon our statement of what we assume in that form
of examination, the statements of Exall were. If we have no right to
ask the witoess what may be termed leading questions, then, of course,

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


we have got to content onrsdves with asking him to repeat, in sub-
stance, if he can, the ftiU text of what Exall said to him, altliongh he-
has been asked to do ttiat on the examination-in chief. * As Senator
Dolph said, we may not be satisfied with his aosw^ron thatsnbject,
and we may etill fnrther test his memory*

Senator Dolph. No question aboat that.

Mr. McDonald. That, if the committee shoold decide that we can
not ask him leading qaestions, then I agree that we most put oar ques-
tions in such a form as obviates that objection, bat I think we are enti-
tled to ask leading qaestions. Now, on the other point, I am not mis-
taken. I .know that where a witness is assailed, either by i«oof of gen-
eral bad character or by proof of oontradietory statements made from
that which he gave under oath, he may be sustained by proving he
made the same kind of statements that are given, under oatii at other
times and to other parties. As sustaining testimony there can not be
any question on that subject, and if we have a right to sustain Exall,
we have a right to sustain him just in that way, if he is regarded as
in any manner impeached by these other statements or decdarations or
letters, or anything of that kind, as affecting his testimony given in
the case. Of coarse this is not a trial ; if it was a regular trial, at the
time this examination was being heard before the commission, there
could be no question about this; but I apprehend this investigation is
supplemental, so far as facts are concerned, to that trial, and that this
additional evidence is sought for the purpose of reflecting upon the case
as it was heard before the commission and before the arbitrator, and,
if that is so, we certainly have a right to sustain a witness who is im-
reached by undertaking to prove contradictory statements, by saying
that he made statements contrary to those made under oath.

The deposition is the testimony that is impeached here, or sought to
be impeached here, and it is to sustain that deposition that we have a
right to call this witness. We insist upon that point, or to call any other
witness who heard Exall make statements in reference to that trans-
action that support this deposition.

Senator Dolph. If you do that. Senator, would you say to him ^^ State
what Mr. Exall said,'' or would you say, ^^ Did Mr. Exall say so and so
to you f

Mr. McDonald. I say, if we have no right to ask leading questions
of this witness we must put them in legal form, but I insist we have
a right to ask this witness leading questions. The chairman has stated
the attitude of this witness correctly, I think. He is not the witness
of either party so far as I am concerned, and we do not claim that this
committee has given him any credit or sought to give him any credit by
calling him here as a witness, any more than if he was examined before
any other tribunaL As suggested by the chairman, he stands here as
a witness simply for investigation, and I think if he is to be cross-exam-
ined on the one side he is to be cross*examined on the other.

Senator Dolph. Now, there can be no question of your right to prove
what Exall said to this witness after his return to New York. The man-
ner in which you shall question him is the thing in controversy.

The Chairman. Or he can take that deposition to refresh his memory.

Mr. McDonald. Suppose you do this, and you can take the question
under advice. Now, I want to ask the witness^— I will ask him this
first question here^whether Mr. Exall, when he returned to New York
and made his report to yourself and your colleagues of the causes which
had induced him to quit the mines and come to New York:, did not say
tiiat tiie men under his superintendence working at the mines were com «

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


don the company's mining operations and
erenoe, annoyance, and molestation received
work rendered success in it impossible, and
;he work dangerous to person and property,
^lately impossible.
\ not in substance what he said upon that

that is substantially the same course of ex-
^ over with the other questions. Of course,
)e of examination we will go back over the
endless examination. I do not propose, my

make a suggestion. I do not want to inter-
Ty to get away. We claim that the repre-
, and which the company, as we say, acted
Qvestigation is concerned the company have
reference lo whether they were true or false
1 acted upon and believing them to be true
not denied that proposition so far as 1 am

mid show good &ith on the part of the com-

at is what we claim, that they have a right
lis representations and the company acted
\e representations were true or false is a dif-

call of the chairman.

Diaj^^^VnO OQ IC


Bv the committee:

Ordered, That the letters printed in Ex. Doo. H. R. No. 274, Forty-ninth Oongreea,
first session, from page 5 to page 96, be printed, and that the same be oompaied by the
olerk of the oommittM with the oriainal press copy-book, and letters whioh have been
admitted in evidence in this invescigatton and corrected and made to oorren>ond with
the press copies of letters and the orisinal letters on file, the paging of said Ex. Doc.
274 to be preserved by marginal unmbers in the new print.





TayolUta, Jamuiry 11, 1866.
Jos. G. RlOB, Esq., San Dinuu:

Deab Sir : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of this day's date, and in
compliance with its request I send yon per bearer a small quantity of bacon, pork,
batter, and pickles. I am out of coffee entirely, have perhaps ten pounds suear ana
^ pound tea. Like you, I have an order in Durango for all supplies, which I expect
by i^th inst., and Don Juan Castillo is doing all he can in Mazatlan to get these ar-
ticles for me from Mazatlan, and I learn that some of them are now at Bainillo, but
none as yet have arrived at this hacienda : hence I cannot send as much as I would
like to do, without failing to supply my own men. I have spared yon all I can at
this time; will let yon have the balance as soon as my supplies arrive.

I have planted all the potatoes I brought up ; consequently have none on hand. I
did not even permit a single one to be used on the hacienda.

If nothing interferes to prevent, Dr. Hardy and Mr. Kirch will accompany Mr.
BordweU and n^self on Saturday to your place.

My kind reffatds to Bir. Walters and others of yonr friends.
Yonr friend,

Th. J. Barthoix>w.

6 25 lbs. pork and bacon, atbOo $12.50

8 lbs. pickles, at 25o 2.00

16i lbs. butter, at 75c 12,37

To yonr debit.

Haciknda, La Abra Siltkr BCinino Co.,

TayolUta, January 11, 1866.
Gborob F. Gbiffith, Esq., Bainitto:

Mt Dbab Sir : I am in receipt of your fi&vor of the 9th inst., from Sn. Ignacio, and
in reply beg to say that I am pleased thas far with the repoi-t of vour progreas, but
my experience is that little reliance can be placed in the promises of men in this
country, and if yon cannot get them to go along with you it is unsafe to rely upon
them. Yon may buy com at $10 and dried beef at I— and 3, deUv0red to the amt. of
100 cargas com and 25 cargas latter. We are baying beans from the direction of Du-
rango at $14 almost daily, and in this view I think it not our interest to buy beans
below at over these rates ; but yon may buy at this price $14 to the extent of 20
*%rgaa, and cheese £rom |6.50 to $7.50 to the extent of three to five oargaa.

Digitized by VjOOQ IC


I bftve had the riyer hetween hero and La Perla greatly Dr. Hardy and

Stanishkos hma been at work on it with a number of hands, and now it is quite pass-
able; packa are coming over it daily, males andjaokasaes.

I re^i that Mr. Gracy has been arrested ; I fear it will have the effect of exciting
Huspicion against all other Americans doing business in thie section. Keep yourself,
out of all such scrapes, attend to the business of La Abra Co. and nothing else. Write
fully and as often as yon can. I am informed that we have at Bainillo candles and
other goods, purchased for ns by Castillo ; these, as yon are aware, we need badly :
let all of them, if possible, or an assortment at least, come by first train, and at the
same time the tools and other articles wanted by Bordwell.

Tonrfiiend, Th. J. Babtholow.

Hacdenda, La Abra Silvxr Min'g Co.,

TayoUiiaf January 16, 1866.
Heasra. Eohbgubak, Quintana A Co.,

Masatlan :

6KKTI.K1CBK : I am in receipt of yonr esteemed favor of lOth inst., and have noted
its contents. For yonr kind attention in receiving, mailing, and forwarding my cor-
respondenoe, I beg to return you my thanks.

In the lot of letters received by Mr. Correll I have two from our mutual friend Da-
vid J. Garth, esq., treasurer of La Abra Silver Mining Co., New York, in which he
says that the credit of the company shall be at all times full^ maintained, and that
my drafts for such amounts of funds as are necessary to vigorously prosecute our
works to an early completion shall at all times meet with due honour.

I am nnder obligations to my friend Don Juan Castillo for his kindness in aasum-
iug the charge of my Atlantic correspondence, and should you have occasion to writo
to him during his absence please have the goodness to express to him my thanks.

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. Senate. Committee on ForeCompilation of reports of Committee ... 1789-1901, First Congress, first session, to Fifty-sixth Congress, second session .. → online text (page 35 of 156)