597

fact of taking it out of the bundle, in the Department of War, the story is in itself so improbable, and contains so many internal evidences of fabrication, that the committee feel bound to reject the papers presented, as forgeries.

It appears that Major Vandeventer had gone to New York to prevail upon Mix to consent to the transfer to Goldsborough, and had succeeded in that object, by personal communication. It is quite likely, therefore, that he used all the arguments he could suggest, in the conversations he had with Mix on the subject, previous to obtaining his consent; and it is particularly to be presumed, that, if he had any thing confidential, he would have communicated it verbally, and not in writing. Nothing can be more unnatural and improbable upon the face of it, than that he would have formally reduced to writing, and sent to a man who was in the same city with him, confidential matter, which he must have previously stated in conversation, if the whole be not a fabrication. In addition to the improbability of the story itself, the papers presented as copies of the confidential letter, have internal evidences of their having been fabricated by Mix. He swears that they were all taken from the original whilst in his possession. If he had merely taken copies from the original, it would have been much easier to take a true copy than an incorrect one, and all the objects of copying would be defeated by not making the copy accurate. Now it is found that all the three copies taken, as he says, from the same original, differ from each other, in the construction, composition, and arrangement of the sentences.

But the most conclusive badge of forgery stamped upon the papers themselves, is their composition. They are evidently composed by an illiterate man, who does not understand the art of writing good English, and corresponds, in this respect, with the general character of Mix's composition. On the contrary, from the letters of Major Vandeventer, it is obvious that he writes correctly and grammatically. Moreover, it is highly improbable, in the nature of things, that Mix should have taken three separate copies, unless we suppose he had a foresight of its loss, and even if that had been the case, he would have taken one correct copy, instead of three incorrect ones. The story relative to the loss of the original, is equally improbable, and is accompanied by palpable contradictions. He first stated that he lost it previous to the 13th of April, 1821, and afterwards that it was five or six months or a year before Mr. Calhoun left the Department of War. That he should have left the papers with Mr. Calhoun to be deliberately examined and returned, and asked for them in five or ten minutes, can only be accounted for upon the supposition that his object, from the beginning, was to give a plausible face to the story he was inventing.

The whole of his evidence relative to this letter is contradictory and suspicious. He stated, in the first instance, that one of the copies was nearly correct, but that the one he then had with him was so inaccruate that he would not present it. The next day, when he produced all three of the copies, he could not tell which was the most accurate, or whether the one which he had refused to give up, as being too inaccurate, was less accurate than the rest. That copy, in fact, contains all that the others contain, and is at least equally as full as they are.

598

The next portion of the testimony of Mix which the Committee think proper to notice separately, is the letter of Major Vandeventer, of the 17th of October, 1820, which he produced on his second exami nation, with the accompanying testimony given by him as to the execution of the second bond. Major Vandeventer had stated that the second bond was executed a short time after the first, to wit: some time in the early part of the Fall of 1818.

Mix produced this letter of the 17th of October, 1820, written by Vandeventer to him at New York, in which Mix is requested to "attend to the bond." Seizing upon this expression in Vandeventer's letter, to give color to his story, he swears that the bond was executed in New York about the date of the letter, and that the reference in that letter was to the executing of the bond. After repeatedly swearing to this fact, in answer to several questions, he was asked if he distinct

recollected to have signed the bond, and to have seen the sureties sign it, in the latter part of 1820. To this he answered, that he distinctly recollected signing the bond, but not in the Fall of 1820. He then admitted that the second bond was executed a short time after the first. Major Vandeventer states, that the request in the letter of 17th of October, 1820, about the bond, referred to the procurement of the certificate of the Recorder as to the sufficiency of the securities: and General Swift swears, that the second bond was lodged in the Engineer Department in the Fall of 1818, before he left the office of Chief Engineer. It is evident, therefore, that the whole of Mix's testimony, relative to the execution of the second bond in 1820, is wantonly and maliciously false, and intended to discredit Vandeventer. The last piece of the testimony of Elijah Mix, upon which the committee deem it necessary to pronounce a separate and specific opinion, is the letter of Major Vandeventer of the 3d of August, 1818, with the accompanying explanations. His letter was produced at the close of his second examination, after he had repeatedly stated that he had no other letters of Vandeventer in his possession. The letter was multilated in several places by cutting out words, and as these mutilations render the letter unintelligible, to a certain extent, the committee feel it their duty to express their opinion, both as to the person who made them, and as to the object for which they were made. They have no hesitation in saying they were made by Mix, for the purpose of exciting suspicion against Mr. Calhoun, and that he is not to be credited when he says it was done by Vandeventer. That the House may have the means of estimating the character of this witness, the committee have thought it expedient to state briefly and distinctly the circumstances connected with this part of his testimony. Near the close of his last examination, he voluntarily stated to the committee, that since his first examination Major Vendeventer had come to him and requested to know whether he could find the letter of the 3d of August, stating that he desired permission to cut out or erase certain words that were in it. That he, Mix, found the letter the next day, and carried it to Vandeventer, at the Department of War, who requested him not to speak about it there, for that they were watched and would be overheard, and proposed to go to the house of Mix that night to converse with him on the subject; that Vandeventer came to his house accordingly, and prevailed upon him, by importunity, to permit the letter to be mutilated, and that it was

599

mutilated accordingly, by Vandeventer. In answer to repeated questions seeking to ascertain the words cut out, he always answered that he did not know any thing of them; yet stated that the words cut out in two separate places were, he believed, the same.

Major Vandeventer, on being recalled, stated that he had never seen the letter in question since he wrote it: that Mix never had been to see him at the Department of War, since his first examination.

Independently of the established infamy of Mix's character, and the positive denial of Major Vandeventer, this story has all the characteristics of a fabrication. Nothing is more improbable than that Major Vandeventer should have placed himself completely in the power of an enemy who was using every effort to destroy his character; and if he had ever done so, he would rather have obtained possession of the letter and destroyed it, than have left it in the hands of his enemy, just so far mutilated as to excite suspicion, and no further. For it is to be remarked that the word "the" is artfully left immediately preceding two or three of the excisions, with the view, no doubt, of making the impression that the word "Secretary" existed in the space cut out; though Mix repeatedly said that he did not know what were the words cut out. The committee, therefore, cannot entertain a doubt that the mutilations in the letter were made by Mix. This contract, though formed on the 25th of July, 1818, between General J. G. Swift, Chief Engineer, on the part of the United States, and Elijah Mix, for himself, for the delivery of one hundred and fifty thousand perches of stone at the Rip Raps, in Hampton Roads, was, soon afterwards, divided into four parts, as will be shown by the letters of Major Vandeventer, bearing date the 3d and 7th of August, 1818, in the manner following: One-fourth part to Mix, one-fourth part to Vandeventer, one-fourth part to Jennings, and one-fourth part to a person whose name was to be kept secret.

The only explanation on this part of the subject which it is in the power of the committee to give, is, that they believe the erasures and excisions in the letters of the 3d of August, 1818, and the 17th of October, 1820, contained the words "the General," or "General Swift," as at the time of writing them, Major Vandeventer believed General Swift was concerned in the contract; which impression he now swears was made by the representations of Mix, and was retained until pending the investigation in 1822, when the General made oath that he never had been interested in that contract. Mr. Jennings also swears, that he was informed by Mix, that General Swift was interested in his contract. Mix also admits that he might have told Vandeventer so.

Immediately after this contract was closed, a bond was given for the fulfilment of its conditions, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, dated the 5th of August, 1818, and signed by Elijah Mix, George Cooper, Samuel Cooper, and James Oakley; sealed and delivered in presence of John Martin and Simon Hillyer. To which is attached the following certificate of the Recorder of New York:

"The sureties having been by me duly sworn, I do hereby approve of them, as good and sufficient.

New York, 5th August, 1818.

R. RIKER."

Upon this bond's being received at the Engineer Department, an advance of ten thousand doll the contract was made to Mi

600

by a draft upon the Branch Bank of the United States at New York. After this period, it was discovered that there were two errors in the bond: first, that it was for the delivery of one hundred thousand perch of stone, instead of one hundred and fifty thousand, which the contract called for; next, that the name of George Cooper was placed in the bond, as one of the contractors, when Mix alone was the contractor. Some time after the date of this bond, it was cancelled, and one formed to suit the provisions of the contract, in all particulars, and was forwarded to the Engineer Department, which second bond was dated the fifth of August, 1818, the same day on which the first was dated. At what precise period this bond was received at the Engineer Department is not known; but if the testimony of General Swift and Major Vandeventer is correct, it must have been early in the Fall of 1818.

The sum of ten thousand dollars was drawn from the Treasury, it is supposed, upon a verbal requisition, as there is nothing written upon the subject; this however, previous to the date of this transaction, was sometimes the case, as appears from the testimony of General Swift, and from the communication of the Secretary of the Department of War, to the Committee, dated the 10th day of February, 1927. The Committee think it further necessary to state, that the certificate of the Recorder of New York, which was attached to the first, or the cancelled bond, is not attached to the second or new bond; but that when a copy of this bond was sent to a committee of the House, in the year 1822, the copy of the certificate of the old, was attached to the new bond, and certified by an officer to be a true copy. The manner in which this irregularity happened, is accounted for in the testimony of Captain Smith. It does not appear in any part of this inquiry, that the United States sustained any injury, although there were some irregularities.

After taking all the testimony which could be had, calculated to throw light on the subject, the Committee feel it their duty to state to the House, that there is nothing in the evidence warranting a belief, or that tends to induce even the slightest suspicion, that Mr. Calhoun was, either directly or indirectly, concerned in any contract made with the Department of War, whilst he was Secretary of that Department, or that he participated in the profits of any such contract, or that he connived at any such participation, in any of his subordinate officers; and that, in their opinion, there are no grounds for any farther proceedings.

Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 42d Congress, 1873, on Inquiry as to Impeachment in Credit Mobilier Testimony (Regarding Schuyler Colfax, Vice President of the United States)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

42d Cong., 3d sess. Report No. 81

INQUIRY AS TO IMPEACHMENT IN CREDIT MOBILIER TESTIMONY

FEBRUARY 24, 1873.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. B. F. BUTLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the resolution of the House passed February 20, 1873, in the words following: Resolved, That the testimony taken by the committee of this House of which Mr. Poland, of Vermont, is chairman, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire whether anything in such testimony warrants articles of impeachment of any officer of the United States not a member of this House, or makes it proper that further investigations should be ordered in his casehaving fully considered the matter, pray leave to submit the following report:

It is apparent that this resolution brings before the House subjects of the gravest moment, involving most important considerations of fact and law thereto applicable. There can be no more delicate and some3 times painful duty devolved upon the House of Representatives and no higher prerogative is given to it by the Constitution than its power to be exercised as the grand inquest of all the nation by presenting articles of impeachment against civil officers of the Government. The very fact that one is accused who has so far possessed the confidence of his fellow-citizens the Executive, as to have had the interest of the Government confided to his charge as a civil officer of the United States, brings always before the House derelictions of duty, which, if found, involves consequences to the individual, as well as to the country, of the most serious character. Wherefore, your committee have entered upon this subject with the intent to give it the fullest deliberation possible to us, in the waning hours of the session, and for that purpose they have deliberated upon it in special sessions.