Daily Democrat And News

Continued.

That this arrangement was made by Wendell for his own advantage; that he pretended it was done by the authority of the President, and that the President had nothing at all to do with it, is conclusively shown by the testimony of Mr. Baker, by the account stated by Wendell, and by Wendell's own confession. Mr. Baker testifies as follows:

Answer-In January, 1859, Mr. Rice was quite violent and indignant about not getting from Wendell what he supposed was justly due to him; this conversation happened while I was here in January, 1859; Mr. Rice said, when he was appointed the printer to print the post office blanks, that he had made an arrangement or contract with Mr. Wendell to do the work for fifty per centum of the gross receipts, and he contended that under that arrangement there was quite a large balance due to him; I was very desirous that Mr. Wendell should pay Mr. Rice, as I knew that he was in moneyed difficulties, the amount he (Wendell) owed Rice, and to ascertain that amount I called upon Mr. Wendell: Mr. Wendell said that Rice was not to get fifty per centum, but forty-three per centum of the gross receipts: Wendell also stated at that time that the money was appropriated to other purposes, and that he did not owe him anything, that the Philadelphia 'Argus' had received a portion of the forty-three per centum.

Question-Did Mr. Wendell tell you at that time by whom this was appropriated otherwise than to the publisher of the 'Pennsylvanian.'

Answer-He said he had directions from the Administration, or from high official source; I do not recollect his exact words.

Question-What did you understand by the 'Administration?'

Answer-I understood the President.

Question-You spoke of conversing with the President about this; what was that conversation?

Answer-I understood, in the fall of 1858-I do not know from whom or how-that the 'Daily Argus' was to receive 10 3-4 per centum from and after the 1st of August, 1858, and I inquired of the President whether he had given any directions for a portion of Rice's money, or what was due to Rice as printer of post office blanks, to be paid to the 'Daily Argus.' He said he had given no directions; but report said the net profits from the printing of these blanks amounted to about 20,000 per annum; and if such was the case, he supposed that Mr. Rice could afford to pay the 'Argus' out of his own profits or out of this sum. When Mr. Rice was first appointed printer it was thought the net proceeds would not amount to over $10,000 or $12,000, and when it was ascertained that it amounted to $20,000, as the 'Argus' was hard up, as it always is, it was given without any directions from him. It was supposed, under Mr. Wendell's understanding of it, that there had been a subdivision of it. It then became necessary to learn how much was received for the blanks from July 1, 1858, to July 31, of the same year, and from August 1, to December 10. I learned this at the Post Office Department. The amount that Mr. Wendell received on account of the blanks during the first period mentioned was $20,501.24, and for the latter period $14,766.82.

Question-Did you procure that information from the Postmaster General?

Answer-This document I received from the Auditor, Mr. Offut; he is the proper officer of the department.

Amounts paid for printing blanks used outside of the city of Washington from January 1st, 1859.

February 5, 1858, to Wm. Rice $4,748.77

March 1st, 1858, to C. Wendell, assignee of Wm. Rice 172.89

April 18, 1858, to same 1,582

May 14, 1858, to same 1,243.80

June 10, 1858, to C. Wendell, attorney of Wm. A. Harris 4,125.82

July 12, 1858, att'y of same 2,311.14

20,501.24

August 31, 1858, to C. Wendell, att'y of Wm. A. Harris $4,147.68

September 8, to C. Wendell, att'y of same 2,264.17

October 20, 1858, to ' att'y of same 2,338.97

November 10, 1858, to ' att'y of same 3,338.44

December 9, 1858, to ' att'y of same 2,677.55

14,766.82

From this testimony it is plain that while these parties were annoying the President in respect to the shares that should be received by themselves from the post office blanks, the President made no order and gave no direction concerning it. This is afterwards confessed by Wendell himself, contradicting all his previous assertions on the subject:

'Gentlemen, about September-some time in the month of September- I suggested the stoppage of the payment to the 'Pennsylvanian,' on my own volition, believing that the money was thrown away there. I stopped it, I had two reasons for it. One was, I wanted some of the profits myself, for I was running into difficulties, and I thought I was entitled to some of the profits. I suggested it to the President, and without his direction I stopped it. He did not direct this stoppage. He did not direct it to be done, nor dissent. He would say this whole subject of the printing is a source of annoyance to me, do as you please. I suspended the payment, and Mr. Rice, of course, was highly indignant, and he made divers statements, which were caught up by the reporters, and this attack was made. Mr. Baker told me that the President wished me to make this statement. He brought it to me already written, and I signed it. It was, and is true, in every particular. I will read it: 'My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter to the New York Times of the 9th inst., in vague and general terms, that the President had caused certain money, justly due to some individual, to be used for electioneering purposes.' He never did. 'With this accusation my own name has been so generally connected in conversation, that I feel constrained, publicly and emphatically, to deny all knowledge or belief of any fact which can warrant it, and to declare that President Buchanan never did authorize, advise, or request me, directly or indirectly, to use either my own money or that of any other person for purposes like that mentioned in the paragraph referred to, or in any manner affecting any public election.'

C. WENDELL.

Answer-I presume it is.

The statement of account furnished by Wendell to Mr. Baker shows that his object in withholding from Rice the share due under their contract for printing the blanks was to secure for himself larger portion of the profits than had been stipulated between them. To accomplish that, he was willing to divide one-half of Rice's share with Severns, of the Argus. The foregoing confession shows that this was suggested by himself, and for the express purpose of securing more of 'the profits.' The President's positive denial that he had 'given any direction' for the payment of any portion to the Argus is also proven by Mr. Baker. Wendell was examined many times by the Committee. An illustration of what credit is due to him upon any subject concerning which he has testified is furnished by a comparison of some of his statements in respect to the distribution of the money arising from the printing of the Post Office blanks to sustain the Argus and the Pennsylvanian.

Comparison of Wendell's Statements.

March 22d.-Question. By whom was the arrangement made to take care of these papers (the Argus and the Pennsylvanian?)

Answer. It was done by authority of the President.-Record, page 4

April 8th.-Question. That arrangement (the payment to Severns, of the Argus) was dictated by whom?

Answer. By 'the powers that be,' sir

Question. By what powers?

Answer. By the President and the Postmaster General, one or the other of them; one acting at the instigation of the other, as we all inferred.-Record, page 13.

May 1st.-I suggested the stoppage of the payment to the Pennsylvanian on my own volition, believing that the money was thrown away. I stopped it. I suggested it to the President, and without his direction I stopped it. He did not direct this stoppage. What I did was of my own volition.-Record page 121.

Similar conflict may be found in Wendell's statements upon every subject concerning which he was examined. We have here on three different examinations, three conflicting accounts of the same transaction. On the 22nd of March Wendell swore positively and unequivocally that the arrangement by which a portion of the money which, under their contract was payable by Wendell to Rice, of the Pennsylvanian, was withheld from Rice and paid to Severns, of the Argus, for the support of that paper, by authority of the President. Two weeks afterwards he swore that it was done by the dictation of the President, or of the Postmaster General-'one or the other of them.' Four weeks later he confessed that it was done by his own suggestion, that it was not directed by the President, that what he had done was of his 'own volition.' To comment upon such testimony were a waste of time, and yet this witness was eight times examined by the Committee in order to criminate the President, and yet his stories disfigure a large portion of the record. As to the second point, the charge against the Administration was an imputed attempt to buy the services of John W. Forney, editor of a newspaper in Philadelphia, and this purchase was to be made by using the public printing patronage for that purpose. It was alleged that the Attorney General promised the printing of the Post Office blanks to Forney upon the conditions mentioned. All this was entirely and completely beyond the range of any inquiry that the committee were to make. The undersigned made no opposition thereto, lest his motives might have been misinterpreted. David Webster, of Philadelphia, was called to prove the charge, and he detailed a private conversation which he had with the Attorney General about two years ago. It was manifest that he himself did not regard anything in that conversation in any degree disreputable or improper, for he said, on his oath, that nothing occurred which Judge Black would wish to conceal.--(Testimony Rec. Con. p. 127.) The only thing which he said, fallible to his memory is, which even partisan malice could distort into evil, was a statement that the Attorney General had promised the public printing to Forney on condition that he would not betray the party to which he then professed to belong. But this statement of Mr. Webster, not supposed to be wilfully false, is untrue in point of fact, and for this opinion the undersigned proceeds to give his reasons:

First. It is directly contradicted by the Attorney General himself, the other party to the conversation, who swears that he made no such promise but that, on the contrary, he distinctly cautioned Webster not so to understand him. This contradiction alone would be enough to settle the question of fact against the party asserting the affirmative. The burden of proof lies upon the other party. There is oath against oath. Common justice, and the universally admitted rule of law, requires the point to be decided in such case against the accusing party. But Mr. Webster's oath is not entitled to the credit which may be fairly claimed for that of the Attorney General. The latter comes to the Committee with no imputation upon his character, save that which is implied in this single accusation; and, if that be unfounded, there is no imputation; and whether it be true or not is the very point under examination. Webster, on the other hand, accuses himself with assenting to all that he

having and southern friends under the action Forney. He was the true. very man knows that when the testimony of a particeps criminis is offered to criminate others, it is uniformly refused all credence in courts of justice unless corroborated. If, therefore, there was anything criminal in this conversation, Mr. Webster was not competent to prove it by his own oath. If, on the other hand, the conversation was innocent, and had nothing in it dishonorable to either party, then those who wantonly dragged it before the public, who, regardless of the sacredness with which, hitherto, society has looked upon private correspondence, published before this Committee private letters-they, and they only, are guilty of an offence against good morals, and must bear the burden of the just censure, which, sooner or later, shall, by all good men, be visited upon them. Again: Mr. Webster's testimony from beginning to end shows that his memory is treacherous and unreliable. He fails when he attempts to give the contents of his own letter deliberately written out. What reliance can be placed upon his recollection of a desultory conversation, of three or four hours in length, which occurred more than two years before! He himself seems distrustful of himself. Instead of giving the Attorney General's word, he says: 'Judge Black gave me to understand.' &c. It is clear that the whole conversation underwent a transmutation in the mind of the witness, between the time that he heard and that at which he swore to it. This is not to be wondered at. He who hears a conversation, private and confidential, from one who trusted in him, and then goes forth and repeats it to those who have an interest to pervert it will soon, insensibly learn to pervert it himself.

Third. If the Attorney General had been dead: if this attempt to blacken him, like that upon the late Postmaster General, had been made when he was in the grave, the written evidence would of itself have been sufficient to relieve him from all suspicion. Mr. Webster's own letters furnish a triumphant refutation of his testimony. They show that the Attorney General made no promise and gave no pledge; and they show further that Forney refused to do what had been suggested, for the very reason that he and Webster could not succeed in getting a promise of patronage from the President or any other member of the Administration. The transition from this matter to the charges brought against the President, which are embodied in the narrative of Mr. Forney, is natural and easy. But the undersigned has not yet been able to see what possible connection there is between them and the resolutions of the House. It does not concern the Philadelphia and other navy-yards, or the Chicago or other postoffices. It does not concern the public buildings or other public property. It does not involve the expenditure of money in carrying elections, save in the respect of the total expenditure of all of Mr. Forney's means and exhaustion of all his resources, which he alleges happened to him in securing the election of Mr. Buchanan. Nor does it relate in any degree whatever to the remaining three of the seven branches of investigations, that is to say, whether the President has sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the passage of any law by corrupt means, or whether any officer of the Government has attempted to defeat the execution of any law by corrupt combination, or whether the President has failed or refused to execute any law; but it sets out simply with a narrative of alleged merits on one side and alleged ingratitude and unfaithfulness on the other. With all of this what has this House to do? It degrades itself when it lends its high name and exalted authority to the resentments of individuals, and surrenders itself a willing instrument to wreak the vengeance of disappointed seekers for office against the authorities of the Government, in whose hands, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the dispensation of patronage has been placed. But the colleagues of the undersigned deemed it a proper subject for consideration, and respect for them leads him to treat of it. Mr. Forney up to the 1st of January, 1858, although he had commenced to break with the Administration on the Kansas-Lecompton question, had not indulged in personal rancor against Mr. Buchanan. His anxiety had been to come to Washington as the editor of the organ, as it is called, and of course in the hope of enjoying the public printing. Before the inauguration of the President the latter told him frankly that such an arrangement could not be carried out. Mr. Nicholson, the owner of the Union, had communicated to the President his intention of not disposing of the Union to Colonel Forney, in consequence of the objection made thereto. There was among Southern gentlemen a decided opposition to Mr. Forney, which the President was bound to respect, and the difficulties in the way were insuperable. With regard to the printing of the Post Office blanks, Mr. Brown testifies to the President's desire and his intentions to give that contract to Mr. Forney, who was a practical printer. But the President had determined not to interfere with the printing until Congress had assembled, prudently determining not to forestall any action Congress might take in the premises. Sincerely anxious, as the whole evidence tends to show, to benefit and provide for Mr. Forney, the President repeatedly offered him the most lucrative offices in his gift at Philadelphia. When these were refused he proposed to give him the consulate supposed to be the most lucrative and desirable, that of Liverpool. That it was an honorable place Mr. Forney testifies since he declares it had been held by a number of distinguished gentlemen. To make it more desirable the offer was accompanied with pecuniary advantages. The income was to be increased by an honorable compensation as foreign editor of the Union. The President's desire was, and so he expressed it, that time might soften the asperities of Southern gentlemen towards Forney, and his return to the place he coveted be secured. What was there dishonorable in all this! Had Colonel Forney in fact put a price upon all his exertions for the election of Mr. Buchanan, and did he conceive himself entitled to.

feeling against the President. Nay, in the fall he had, in commenting on the President's letter to the forty persons, indulged in excessive laudation of him through the columns of the Press. Mr. Forney declares that he never applied to the Administration for the printing of the Post Office blanks, and that the charge that he ever asked for it or took any step to secure it is untrue. He had intimated to his friends that he would accept the printing of the Post Office blanks, but he says that was prior to September or October, 1857. He, however, knew the errand Webster was running, and confided to him full powers, since he says 'he committed his honor to his keeping.' But the evidence shows that Col. Forney is mistaken. Mr. Cobb says Mr. Forney was extremely anxious to get the printing of the Post Office blanks. He frequently pressed it upon Mr. Cobb, and Mr. Cobb pressed it upon the President. Every time he met him it was talked over, and this was frequently. It was the subject of very earnest conversation. Judge Black says Mr. Forney's friends and he himself urged his claims very strongly. He wrote and spoke to the Attorney General very often. During the summer he spoke impatiently and bitterly of the delay. His appeals to Judge Black to get the printing, were coupled with strong assertions that he meant to be true to the President. Mr. Forney, by his own admission, came to Washington very anxious to be on good terms with Mr. Buchanan after the Post Office blanks had been disposed of, (Testimony, Lecompton Constitution, page 204,) and that was the 31st December, 1857. Nothing occurred, so far as has been proved before this committee, after this time, to induce a change of feeling towards the President. Both the President and Forney had taken their ground on the Kansas question. Forney had refused the former offers of patronage, and his new political attitude did not warrant the just expectation of any other offer, or, indeed, a repetition of those which had been made. Forney was aware of the value of the post office blanks. Under the Administration of General Pierce he had shared in this patronage. Nicholson, then editor of the Union, held the patronage, and Forney shared one-third or one-fifth of it. Again: Mr. Forney says that at no time did he ever express a willingness to take the Liverpool consulate when coupled with the pecuniary offer. That he was desirous of accepting it appears from Mr. Cobb's testimony, who says that Mr. Forney appealed to him to use his influence to persuade his family to consent to this arrangement. It is difficult to see why the proposition to connect the consulate with the honorable post of foreign correspondent of the Union, for a generous compensation should have been considered dishonorable. Mr. Forney says he considered it a dishonorable proposition, and a degradation to him-the offer of the consulate-because, he says, he looked upon it as sending him out of the country, away from his friends; and he says it was so regarded by all his friends.- Yet, with these views, he was unwilling to submit to the dishonor and the degradation. Wendell says he did not regard it as a dishonorable proposition, nor did Forney, as appears from the following extract from the testimony:

Question. And you say that Mr. Forney, among other reasons, declined on account of his financial difficulties, which would prevent his leaving the country?

Answer. 'Yes, sir.'

Question. Did Mr. Forney ever make any objection to this offer of money as a dishonorable proposition: Did he treat your proposal as a dishonorable one?

Answer. No, sir;

Question. Did he get indignant, and say 'I consider your proposition a dishonorable one?'

Answer. No, sir; he treated it as a business negotiation.

Question. He said he could not go on account of his financial affairs?

Answer, Yes, sir; and I agreed voluntarily to advance $10,000 to meet that objection.

Question. What did he say then?

Answer. He in a measure agreed; and for some ten or twelve days I thought he would go.

Question. But at the end of nineteen days you say he declined going?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Further, Wendell says: He renewed the proposals, and after several conversations it was agreed that the compensation should be raised in the mode alluded to. Among other objections, Mr. Forney stated his inability in a financial point of view to leave, and it was finally agreed that Wendell should advance 10,000; and he raised it, and had it in possession for nineteen days, when Forney totally declined. There is a remarkable discrepancy in the testimony of these witnesses which the undersigned will not attempt to reconcile, but will only add, except their conflicting statements, there is not particle of evidence against the Administration. To the undersigned it is perfectly clear, from all the testimony, that Mr. Forney was an urgent and anxious applicant for the printing of the post office blanks during the whole spring, summer and autumn of 1857. He had been the recipient of it under the previous Administration and knew its value, and he thirsted to receive it again. The President's determination not to let it out until Congress met prevented the arrangement, and provoked his resentment and stirred his anger. The present feelings of Mr. Forney towards the President, and in what light his testimony, influenced by such feelings, should be received, is plainly exhibited by Mr. Forney's public speech in Washington on the evening of his election as Clerk to the House of Representatives. In that speech, which Mr. Forney admits to be correctly reported as set forth in the record, and published in his own paper, Mr. Forney, among other things, said:

'But I, as one man who is resolved to stand by the rights of the South, who is resolved to see the fugitive slave law executed in the letter and the spirit, I am resolved, for one, to protest against such an act. [Loud cheers.]- This hang bi her, & pobler and lontier' destiey be- ford in thoahe ion of slavery.

it frankly, that istence. Ieal Ifeel; ad ee I see all the poa of this Cover aent exercised for th protectiond rpet uation of that utitu an, I anudpro test against it. Cheere.l I bave seen, for the last eigbt weeke, men, Northera meu, and I was asbamed to see them lendiog.theinselves to tbe depravity, f I may be perinitted to u:e tbe teri, but certaisly-to the-degredation-of-codors: irg sucb pr.nciples as these. But, gen- tlemeo, to bring as I said before, these desultory remarks to a close, let hanke'jor this demonstration. You may romem- ber thid pameage in : Maseppa' my friend, Ht. Jackson, of Kentuckv, will also remember-wben Nazeppa (I cao- not repeat the exact words is bound to a wild steed, which is turoed nff, and whicb flow with him over mountains, pursued by wolves, sbouts back to his tyrant and persecutor that some day be would return to pay bim. [Ioud cbeers.] 'Some day I will retorn,' said Mazeppa. 'to thank you, couot, for this uncourte- ous ride.'. Geotlemen, I have bad the ride for the last two or three yeare, floud cbeers.] but bave also, Mazeppa-like, come back, to settle witb the tespectar ble and venerable gentleman at the other cnd of theaveuue lor that r dd. I am returned to pay my reapeeta [Cheers. A voice, 'give him h-I; be hae no riends.'] I have returned to settle acoounte with him. [a voice 'don't spare bim; he shot us down like dogs, with marines.] If he is now sit- ting in his easy chair at bome to-oight be wust bear our loud and hearty cbeers, and thev will remind bim tbat bis old feiend Ferney, had come back to settle tbe old debt witbhim. [Loud cheer and laughter.] Mr. Forney, once more thanking the assemblage, retired from the wiudow, loudly cheered.

Question. You spoke of lettera from Mr Buchanan.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Have you those letters?

Answer. Yes, sir, I have.

It will be observed that Mr. Forney here proclaims that his hour of revenge is at hand, and his audience shouted their sympathy. The poetical illustration was not inapt, nor were the ruffian exclamation of an exulting mob an unfit accompaniment. Mazeppa, we are told in the story, betrayed the confidence of his patron, and brought grief and shame upon his benefactor. Justly banished and sent forth to the desert, by a strange turn of fortune he came into power and then returned to work a desperate revenge. By a turn of fortune no less strange, Mr. Forney, being elected Clerk of the House of Representatives by a dominant party whom all his life he had opposed, seems to have cherished in the moment of his victory the savage thought that 'If we do but watch the hour, There never yet was human power That could evade, if unforgiven, The patient search and vigil long Of him who treasures up a wrong.' How Mr. Buchanan's Administration has been 'searched,' and how Mr. Forney's hopes of revenge have been treasured up,' the records of this committee painfully exhibit.