H. K. White Statement - Part 2

paid them the first check which also reads "balance of Chinese labor for September."

A Yes.

Q If you have any further explanation about that as there charged by you, you might as well do it.

A Well I cannot explain any further, only it must be the difference between currency and gold.

Q On the $2650 the Store invoice?

A Yes Sir.

Q That had been deducted in gold and it should have been deducted as its value in currency? A Yes.

291.50 [left margin]

Q Well, the payment of this amount of $271.50 in currency made on the 14th of November 1871, which is 14 days after the original settle ment, tends to corroborate the fact of this $2650 being deducted by somebody from the original draft, does it not? The payment to Wallace

[bottom left margin:] 104

is entered November 30th. It should be November 3? Was the date when it was paid the stub of the check shows that it was drawn November 3 1871.

A Well, they must have claimed that that money should have been in gold, and this $291.50 must have been the claim, the difference between the currency & gold

Q In other words the goods in the store were sold to Sisson Wallace & Co for currency?

A Yes.

Q There draft called for gold? A Yes.

Q So that when you deducted $2650 from their gold draft you deducted 11 per cent more than you ought to have deducted. You deducted the value between gold & currency. At that time being 11 per cent, you deducted just that amt. more than you ought to have deducted, and this check of

[bottom left margin:] 105

$291.50 is just the difference?

A Yes sir: That is the way I understand it. Having paid the other amount in currency and they claiming that it should be in gold.

Q No, having paid the amount in gold when they claimed it should be currency you have got it wrong. Let us see if we cannot get this to your mind. The draft drawn by the Supt. of the mine in favor of Sisson Wallace & Co was for gold?

A Yes.

Q The contract they made with Colton evidently was that the goods in the store should be taken by them at currency price, and therefore when you deducted the currency invoice against the gold debts you deprived them of just the amt. of this check $291.50 and this check is drawn to make it up, is that not it?

A Yes Sir.

[bottom left margin:] 106

Q The payment of the check is simply a verification of the original transaction, is it not? A Yes.

Q Does not that bring it to your mind more fully?

A Yes.

Q Who told you to draw the check for $291.50?

A Colton himself.

Q You remember that?

A I recollect that.

Q Then why when you drew this check to make up the difference of $291.50 or on amount which had been deducted as gold instead of currency, why didn't you then call Colton's attention to the fact that another check was being drawn against the Company, when the Company itself had received no credit from the original transaction? The check of $291 of course, if paid by anybody might to have been paid by Colton, as he received the amount of the original in=

[bottom left margin:] 107

voice. Why then was that amount charged against the Company? If the company had recovered $2600 then it would have been all right for it to have paid that $291.50.

A I cannot give any explanation why I did not.

Q You understand this: You are coming here as a witness principally to defend yourself from the charges which these men are making against you. As the expert says they are in consequence of your absence making you their scape goat. Now there must be some reason given by you to intelligently explain to the Court why it was that you allowed this transaction to be entered up without some protest or some question, against the company when you knew it referred to a matter of which the Company had received no benefit at all. You have got to explain yourself about this

[bottom left margin:] 108