« AnteriorContinuar »
Q. Was that before or after the seizure of the vessel by the Government? A. Before.
Q. How long before ? A. I cannot tell the time, but shortly after he arrived in this city.
Q. What was the occasion of the introduction of Mackenna to you by the Chilian Minister ? _A. It was entirely social, as I understood it.
Q. He came to your office in Exchange Place for that purpose ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you or Mackenna, or Asta Buriaga say anything together about the Meteor ? A. In this interview with Mackenna ? No, sir.
Q. And that interview was entirely social ? A. Entirely social; we had no business relations whatever.
Q. Do you know Rogers, the Chilian Consul? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see Mackenna after that interview ? A. I saw him several times.
Q. At your place of business ? A. No, sir; never at my place of business. I saw him at my house. Q. Did
have any conversation with him in regard to the Meteor ? A. No, sir, never.
Q. What conversations you had were with Asta Buriaga ? A. I never had any conversation with Asta Buriaga after the Chilian war began ; my conversation with him was some time previous to the war.
Q. What time did you visit the Meteor as she lay at Jersey City ? A. It was some time previous to the arrival of the news of the declaration of war between Spain and Chile.
Q. What month was it that you and Buriaga visited the Meteor together? A. I cannot tell.
Q. Was it in the month of November last ? A. I cannot tell you; my memory is very poor about dates.
Q. Was it in the month of October ? A. I don't know.
Q. Was it in the month of September ? A. I don't know the month.
Q. What year was it ? A. I should think it was in the year 1865.
Q. Have you any doubt about its being in the year 1865? A. Very little.
Q. How long was it before the seizure of the vessel ? A. Well, I cannot tell; several months.
Q. When you use the expression “several months,” how many months do you mean? A. Well, I cannot say how many; I should say over two.
Q. Is that as near and as definite as you can be as to the time? A. On reflection, I should say it was three instead of over two.
Q. Is that as near and as definite as you can be as regards the time? A. Yes; I cannot tell you any exact dates about it.
Q. When was the vessel seized ? A. That I do not know. '
Q. She was seized on 230 January, 1866; how long before that was it you were with Asta Buriaga on board the vessel ? A. I do not recollect dates. If you wish to fix the time, I can give it positively; it was some time before the arrival of the news of the declaration of the war.
Q. When was the news of the declaration of war? A. That I do not know.
Q. When did you first hear of it? A. I heard of it the next morning after it arrived here by the Aspinwall steamer.
Q. How long ago was it ? A. I do not know ; I cannot give the date.
Q. About how long was it ? A. Some time in the year 1865.
Q. Is that as near and as definite as you can be, that it was some time in the
1865 ? A. You asked me when the news of the declaration of war came ; I am positive it was in that year.
Q. Is that as near and as definite as you can be, that it was some time in 1865? A. No; I can bring it down, I think, subsequent to the first of July; I would not be perfectly positive of that, but I think so.
Q. I understood you to say that your visits to and by Mackenna were purely social ? A. Entirely ; I never went to see Maekenna ; I think I sent a formal card of invitation.
Q. Did you ever have any negotiations, directly or indirectly, for the sale of bonds or for raising money for the benefit of Chile ? A. No, sir.
Q. Were you ever applied to by anybody? A. No, sir.
Q. Your business is wholly in Wall Street, as a banker and broker ? A. Yes, sir; my principal business.
Q. You have no connection with ships as a matter of business? A. Not directly.
Q. You may have investments as a ship owner, but never been connected with the business of managing ships ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever call upon Mackenna at all ? A. No, sir.
Q. And have a 'social acquaintance with him ? A. Yes, sir ; I have known Mr. Asta Buriaga a number of years ; he always calls on me when he comes to town.
Q. What are your habits of intercourse with him, either in Washington or this city? A. I am quite intimate with him.
Q. And have been for how long ? A. A number of years.
Q. And, socially, when he is in this city you see him ? A. He always calls on me.
Q. And receives hospitalities from you at your house ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said that you met the minister on board the Meteor by previous appointment. Was that appointment made the day before or the week before ? A. I cannot recollect that.
Q. Was it made soon before you met him on board ? A. It was very soon before ; I cannot tell but that we went right over the same morning ; I merely asked him to look at the ship.
Q. How long had the ship been for sale ? A. She has been for sale ever since the close of the war.
Q. Since about a year ago ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anything else between you except that he was to look at the ship as a matter for sale ? A. That is all.
Q. To see whether he would buy it? A. I don't think he had much intention of buying it anyway ; we went over there ; I wanted to see the ship myself; I never had been on board of her.
Q. Was there anything but the sale talked of or suggested on either side ? A. No, sir.
Q. The sale of the ship as she lay? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you and Asta Buriaga make this appointment to see the ship ? A. I don't know.
Q. Have you any recollection on the subject that is at all definite A. I have not; it was not an event that fixed itself
very particularly in my mind.
Q. I understand you, on your direct examination, that he wanted to buy the ship ?
Mr. Evarts objects, that the witness did not use that language.
Q. Did I understand you as stating, on your direct examination, that the Chilian Minister desired to purchase the ship? A. No, sir.
Q. What did you say in regard to that matter? A. I said, I asked him to go and look at her.
The stenographer, Mr. A. F. Warburton, was called upon to read the witness his testimony.
Q. Do you desire to change your testimony in that respect, or is it correct ? A. Not exactly; I am recorded there as saying that I asked him there to see if he would buy her.
Q. In what particular is your testimony incorrect? A. I could not expect him to buy her, because he had no power to buy her, as I understood; the ship was for sale and I wanted him to look at her; perhaps he might recommend her.
Q. You say you did not expect him to buy her? A. No, sir. Q. Because he had not the authority to buy her ? A. No.
Q. Who did you suppose had the authority to buy her? A. I did not suppose any one had at that time: I thought the occasion might turn up.
Q. How did you know he had not authority to buy her? A. I did not know. Q. What did you mean when
did not suppose he had authority to buy her ? A. I simply did not suppose he had.
Q. Who did you suppose had ? A. I did not suppose any one had.
Q. Why, then, did you ask the Chilian Minister to look at the ship? A. Well, I thought the occasion might turn up that he might want to buy her.
It is admitted by the counsel for the claimants that a fast steamship, like the Meteor, would run from here to Panama in about sixty days.
Counsel for Government then rested.
Ninth Day, April 9th, 1866. The Court met pursuant to adjournment:
Mr. Evarts, counsel for the claimants, called upon the representatives of the Government to define clearly their position. The counts against the Meteor were six in number, and he wished to know, before entering into the defence, upon which of these the Government intended to rely.
At the suggestion of the Court, and in compliance with the request of counsel for claimants, the District Attorney consented to define the position taken by the Government; in other words, what they claim to have proved by the testimony given during the hearing of the case, and the proof upon which they rely for a conviction.
Mr. Evarts stated that it was not his purpose to advance any testimony, being satisfied with that given by the witnesses called by the Government.
Mr. Webster then rose to state the position of the Government and that which they claimed to have proved.
1. That certain parties were knowingly concerned in the fitting out and furnishing the vessel.
2. That these persons were so concerned with intent that the vessel should be used in the interest of Chile to cruise or commit hostilities against Spain.
Following these propositions come the proofs in evidence :
First, — A letter from Robert B. Forbes, describing the Meteor as a vessel-of-war, and giving in detail her prodigious power for destruction. There is no pretence that she is or ever was designed to be a vessel of peaceful commerce.
Second, — The evidence of the Secretary of State that war existed and does exist between Spain and Chile, and that the United States are at peace with both these nations.
Third, — The evidence of the Secretary of State that Rogers