“The Presiding Judge. Did not this indemnity of twenty-five cents represent certain material expenses, certain disbursements, incidental expenses?
“M. Le Cesne. We could not admit these expenses; for we had an agreement with the American Federal Government, which had engaged to deliver free on board all the arms on account of France.”
Now I make no comment on this testimony except to remark that it is in entire harmony with the letter of Mr. Remington, and that beyond all doubt it was given in open court under oath, and duly reported in the trial, so as to become known generally in Europe. The position of M. Le Cesne gave it authority; for, beside his recent experience as Chairman of the Arms Committee, he is known as a former representative in the Assembly from the large town of Havre, and also a resident for twenty years in the United States. In confirmation of the value attached to this testimony, I mention that my attention was first directed to it by Hon. Gustavus Koerner, of Illinois, Minister of the United States at Madrid, under President Lincoln.
To this cumulative testimony I add that already supplied by our Minister at Berlin, under date of January 7, 1871, and published by the Department of State, where it is distinctly said that “recently rifled cannon and ammunition have been furnished to the French in enormous quantities, not only by private American traders, but by the War Department at Washington.” This I have already adduced under another head.[21] It is mentioned now to show how the public knowledge of Europe was in harmony with the other evidence.
There is another piece of testimony, which serves to quicken suspicion. It is already admitted by the Secretary of War, that, after refusing Mr. Remington because he was an agent of France, bids were accepted from Thomas Richardson, who was in point of fact an attorney-at-law at Ilion, and agent and attorney of Mr. Remington. But the course of Mr. Remington, and his relations with this country attorney, are not without official illustration. Since this debate began I have received a copy of a law journal of Paris, “Le Droit, Journal des Tribunaux,” of January 18, 1872, containing the most recent judicial proceedings against the French Consul-General at New York. Here I find an official report from the acting French Consul there, addressed to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, under date of August 25, 1871, where a fact is described which was authenticated at the Consulate, being an affidavit or deposition before a notary by a clerk of Mr. Remington, on which the report remarks:—
“This declaration establishing that this manufacturer caused the books of his house to be recopied three times, and in doing so altered the original form.”
The Report adds:—
“It is in this document that mention is made of the character, I might say criminal, which the name of Richardson appears to have assumed in the affairs of Mr. Remington.”
After remarking that the witness who has thus testified has exposed himself to the penalties of perjury, being several years of imprisonment, the Report proceeds:—