offering them par, with the provision that if in the meantin the offer, which was limited to February 23, a dividend cent, not exceeding that and up to that, were declared, it sho to the selling stockholder.

Senator TALIAFERRO. The theory being that the stock s the Government par?

Mr. CROMWELL. That is true; that it should cost the G par.

Senator TALIAFERRO. Have you bought any of the minc for the Government which did not cost more than par?

Mr. CROMWELL. I bought all of the stock, sir, at par, save only the six lots which I yesterday referred to.

Senator MORGAN. At par, less the dividend?

Mr. CROMWELL. No, sir; at par to the Government.

Senator MORGAN. That meant 105?

Mr. CROMWELL. That meant 105, in the sense that the 5 per cent was in lieu of dividend.

Senator MORGAN. Before we adjourn I want to ask you one question: All this arrangement that you have been testifying about this morning, predicated upon your circular letter, was agreed upon between you and Secretary Taft before that letter was issued, was it not? Mr. CROMWELL. Yes, sir; in substance, of course.

Senator MORGAN. That is all the questions I wish to ask this morning, Mr. Chairman.

(The committee thereupon adjourned until Monday, May 14, 1906, at 2 o'clock p. m.)

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C., Tuesday, May 29, 1906.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators Millard (chairman), Kittredge, Dryden, Hopkins, Ankeny, and Morgan.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM NELSON CROMWELL, ESQ.—Continued.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed if you are ready, Senator.

Senator MORGAN. Mr. Cromwell, on pages 3129 and 3130 of your deposition of May 10 you introduced a letter from the Secretary of War, in which he says:

"As you negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government, and have been general counsel for the Panama Railroad Company, you will doubtless have greater facility in reaching minority stockholders than anyone else who could assist us in that matter."

I asked you, and I believe you admitted, that that statement was true; that you had negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government of the United States. Is that right?

Mr. CROMWELL. That is not correct, Senator.

Senator MORGAN. Well, state it correctly.

Mr. CROMWELL. You have not stated it correctly, sir.

Senator MORGAN. I say, you state it correctly, then.

Mr. CROMWELL. I have no statement to make, sir.

Senator MORGAN. I demand statement of you-a correct statement. You say I have not stated it correctly. I demand of you, now, on your oath, a statement that is correct of that situation.

Mr. CROMWELL. The statement is true that I was general counsel of the Panama Railroad Company, and the statement is true that, as general counsel of the New Panama Canal Company, I assisted in the transfer of its property to the United States, and the consummation of its offer to the United States.

Senator MORGAN. Mr. Taft says that you "negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government." Is that correct?

Mr. CROMWELL. I have stated the facts correctly. The Secretary means the

Senator MORGAN. Is that statement of the Secretary of War correct?

Senator HOPKINS. Mr. Chairman, in court no counsel has a right to exact from a witness whether some other witness has testified correctly or falsely, and the same rule would prevail here. I do not think it is a proper thing to ask Mr. Cromwell to characterize the statement of Secretary Taft.

Senator MORGAN. The Senator is entirely mistaken. I am not viciously characterizing the statement of Secretary Taft or of anybody else.

Senator HOPKINS. But you are asking whether it is true or false. Senator MORGAN. I want to get a statement as to whether Mr. Taft's statement in that letter to him is a correct statement of the facts. Senator HOPKINS. I will ask the stenographer to read the question. (The stenographer read the question, as follows:)

"Senator MORGAN. Mr. Taft says that you negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government.' Is that correct?

Senator MORGAN. I say,

Senator HOPKINS. Yes.

Is that correct?

You are asking him to state whether Secretary Taft has testified truthfully or not.

Senator MORGAN. I had no such idea in my mind, and that idea. would not enter the mind of anyone but a suspicious man.

Senator HOPKINS. There is no suspicion

Senator MORGAN. I had no such idea. I want to test the witness's memory, and also his knowledge as to whether that statement is cor

rect.

Senator HOPKINS. But the point, Mr. Senator, is this: You asked him to say as to whether the statement of Secretary Taft is correct or not. Now, if he should say that it was not so, then he would be putting Secretary Taft in the lie, squarely; and one witness can not in any place be called upon to characterize the testimony of another witness. Each must stand on its own merits.

Senator MORGAN. Nothing is further from my mind, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, than to cast the slightest reflection upon Secretary Taft in respect of a statement that he has made officially to this witness. In that statement he says: "As you negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government, and have been general counsel for the Panama Railroad Company, you will doubtless have greater facility in reaching the minority stockholders than anyone else who could assist us in the matter."

I asked him if that part of the statement of Mr. Taft is correctas to his having negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government. Secretary Taft could not know that, because he was not in the matter. He was not engaged in the negotiations, and so stated in his testimony. He says that Cromwell did negotiate it. I asked him if that is a correct statement of the facts. Did you negotiate this sale?

Senator HOPKINS. You are predicating your question upon a statement made by Secretary Taft before the committee, are you not?

Senator MORGAN. Upon a statement made by Secretary Taft in this letter to Mr. Cromwell.

Senator HOPKINS. Which the Secretary made a part of his testiinony?

Senator MORGAN. No; the Secretary does not make it a part of his testimony. Mr. Cromwell makes it a part of his testimony. He brings it forward.

Mr. CROMWELL. It is a letter of the Secretary addressed to me. Senator MORGAN. Yes. Mr. Cromwell brings it forward, and I ask him, in explanation

Mr. CROMWELL. But the letter is the same, no matter who brings it forward.

Senator HOPKINS. The way that question is put it is a clear question of characterizing the statement of Secretary Taft. The question itself is predicated upon an alleged statement of the Secretary, and then the witness is asked, in substance: Is that statement true or false?

Senator MORGAN. I have disclaimed any intention of that sort. There is no intention of that sort implied from my language. I am in the pursuit of a fact that the witness knows, and that Mr. Taft does not know, and has shown in his testimony that he does not know; and I want the testimony of this witness as to whether or not he did negotiate that sale.

Senator HOPKINS. But, Senator, can you not get that in some other way, without bringing Secretary Taft in?

Senator MORGAN. I am not here for the purpose of molding my words to suit Secretary Taft or the Senator from Illinois.

Senator HOPKINS. Very well, then

Senator MORGAN. I am here for the purpose of putting my words in shape to extract from the witness statements of fact.

Senator HOPKINS. Well, I made my suggestion in the utmost good faith and friendship to the Senator from Alabama. If he resents that suggestion, I shall insist upon my objection, because one witness is not brought here for the purpose of characterizing statements of another.

Senator MORGAN. He is not brought here for that purpose. He brought himself here with this letter and put it before this committee, and I ask him, in explanation of it, as to whether Secretary Taft is correct in his opinion, or judgment, or whatever it may be, that he did actually negotiate the sale.

Senator HOPKINS. I will ask the stenographer to read the question again.

(The stenographer repeated the pending question as follows:) "Senator MORGAN. Mr. Taft says that you negotiated the sale of the property of the New Panama Canal Company to the Government.' Is that correct?"

Senator HOPKINS. Is that correct? Is that statement of Secretary Taft's correct? That is the question.

Senator MORGAN. Shall I put it "Is that true?"

Senator HOPKINS. Well, I can not put your questions for you. Senator MORGAN. Or "Is not that a fact?" Did you negotiate the sale? I will put it in any form that will suit the delicate sensibilities of the Senator. I will put it in any form he thinks

Senator HOPKINS. The Senator's delicate sensibilities are not aroused, so far as he is concerned, on anything. All I want is that

if the examination proceeds it shall proceed in accordance with wellestablished rules of evidence. That is all I ask. I am not going to throw any obstacles in the way.

Senator KITTREDGE. It seems to me that with the Senator's disclaimer of reference to the Secretary there can not be any objection to the form of the question.

Senator HOPKINS. The disclaimer does not affect the question. If the Senator did not mean what his question imports, he should put a question that does express his meaning. You can not adhere to a question and say that you do not intend what your question imports. The only way to correct that is to withdraw the question and put one that does convey the proper meaning.

Senator KITTREDGE. As I understand the purpose of the question, it is to ascertain the fact as to whether or not this witness did negotiate the sale of this property to the United States Government.

Senator MORGAN. That is all. That is the object of putting the question. Now, Mr. Cromwell, will you answer that question?

Senator HOPKINS. I object to the question in that form, for the reasons assigned.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, of course, is not a lawyer, but the Chair can not see any impropriety in the question and can not see why there should be any objection to the witness answering it.

Senator MORGAN. If that is the ruling of the committee, the witness will answer the question.

Mr. CROMWELL. I think Secretary Taft uses the expression in a broad and general sense. I so interpreted it, for the facts are matter of record that the New Panama Canal Company made an offer on January 9-11 to the Isthmian Canal Commission to accept $40,000,000, the figure at which the property had been valued by the Isthmian Canal Commission.

Senator MORGAN. Do you propose to recall or modify the statement you made before this committee on your last examination in regard to this same subject in any respect?

Mr. CROMWELL. As to what feature, sir?

Senator MORGAN. As to the subject of the negotiations that you assisted in conducting in part and conducted entirely in part, as you have stated it, for the sale of this property to the United States? Mr. CROMWELL. The testimony does not so read, Senator. Senator MORGAN. Well, I will stand on the record about that. Mr. CROMWELL. I am willing to stand there, too.

Senator MORGAN. Do you make any modification of your statement as the record shows it?

Mr. CROMWELL. I do not care to make any modification. I merely make the statement that the record shows, and as the fact is, that professionally I assisted in the completion and consummation of the offer thus made. In all respects I acted in behalf of the New Panama Canal Company and at no time and in no manner acted for or on behalf of the United States.

Senator MORGAN. You, then, do not find it necessary to make any change in any statement that is recorded as a part of your testimony on this subject?

Mr. CROMWELL. I have not refreshed my recollection by reading it, and I do not know, therefore, any occasion to change it.