H. K. White Statement - Part 1

draft you simply drew a check in the London & S. F bank of the same date for $2614.72. Now you see that you were charging him with one amount, and paid him another amount. Therefore didn't you know that you were crediting him with an amount double that which he had paid out? You certainly must have known that.

A That is a sufficient explanation that there was a difference.

Q You knew that much?

A But as I said before I knew nothing about his arrangements with Sisson Wallace & Co in regard to the store.

Q But you receipted the bill all the same?

A I receipted the bill under his orders.

Q Do you remember who drew the check that went to Sisson Wallace & Co, whether it

[bottom left margin:] 71

was drawn by you or by Colton?

A That I cannot say positively, but probably it was drawn by me and signed by him.

Q Well, did he sign it?

A It must have been signed by him, because he was in the office at the time.

Q The check is missing.

A Well, I cannot say.

[left margin note:] Why did you not enter the 2614.72 instead of $5264.70

Q In the check stub book where this check for $2614.72 given to Sisson Wallace & Co was [come?] from, it reads "Sisson, Wallace & Co. Balance Chinese Labor R M C & I Co." Is that the purpose for which that original draft that you were then paying was given, do you know? A draft was brought to you for $5264.70 to be paid in cash, but you drew a check in payment of that draft for $2614.72 The stub book shows "Sisson Wallace & Co balance Chinese

[bottom left margin:] 72

Labor September $5264.72 That must have been the purpose for which the draft was drawn, was it, the payment for Chinese labor?

A Not the same draft of $5000. It must have been some other matter. The Chinese Labor matter must have been another draft.

Q I understand that the original draft was drawn to pay Sisson Wallace & Co for the Chinese labor furnished by them in September 1871 was not that it?

A Yes.

Q Then that account for the entry on the stub of the check?

A That must have been another matter.

Q Why do you say so? It seems to me to be the same matter.

A I cannot say unless I hardly think that the payment of Chinamen would have

[bottom left margin:] 73

been mixed up in that way with the store matter.

Q You do not appear to get the idea at all; What was that draft of $5264.72 dated October 31. 1871 drawn for at the mine in favor or Sisson Wallace & Co? What purpose was that drawn for?

A My understanding now is that the Company owned the store at the mine, which they sold to Sisson Wallace & Co that is they sold the invoice which amounted to so much. Well if Sisson Wallace & Co had paid the Chinamen for labor, of course they were entitled to the money back. Now if the draft was given for $5000 they would naturally get the difference between that and the $2650.

Q But that dont [don't] answer the question; Why did the Superintendent of the mine give that draft for $5200 to Sisson Wallace & Co? What had they

[bottom left margin:] 74

been doing up at the mine that entitled them to a draft in San Francisco for that amount?

A I cannot say of [crossed out]I have my own knowledge what they were doing.

Q You do not know what went on at the mine?

A No Sir.

Q You do not know why that draft was given?

A No Sir. I do not. That is the only explanation I can make of it.

Q The point that I cannot get from you is, why you did not make this entry charging Colton with $2650? That is the only point that you do not give me any information about. --- Why you allowed him to get the best of the Company to that amt.

A Well as I have told you heretofore with regard to other matters he would give me directions to make certain

[bottom left margin:] 75