This confession made on the stand, under the strain of cross-examination in a civil suit in which he was a witness, startled the country with its first hint of the real cause of the failure of the great tax case, and led to an investigation by the Legislature of Pennsylvania.[330] The first payment was $7500. This was paid, not in a check, as is the usual method between business men in legitimate transactions, but in bank-notes--$500's or $1000's.[331] That this method of payment was inconvenient and unusual was shown by the statement of the recipient, that he went to the Chemical Bank and got a bank certificate for his $7500 of bank-notes. "Of course I did not carry that amount of money around with me.[332] Bank-notes and bank drafts, not the company's checks, were used in the succeeding payments also. "In sending him money to Titusville, where you had a bank account, why did you not send him a check on your own bank or draft?" "Well, there was nobody at Titusville who had any knowledge of the matter. It was not necessary to acquaint them with it," said the "trustee."[333] This representative of the company was diligent in business, as he understood business, and was always forehanded. He made the first moves and kept the lead. He went all the way to Harrisburg to meet the Attorney-General. He got control of the case by making the overture to volunteer testimony. He called first on the lawyer sent to New York with notice of "attack," called first on the State's expert in Philadelphia and New York, made the first suggestion for "peace," and got it "cheap."[334] But after he had bought "peace" the next interview is at the company's office. The other man must walk now. When put on the stand, the purchaser, of course, denied that this "purchase of peace" had anything to do with the case against his company, or with the suppression of the only expert in the employ of the State in that suit. "With reference to the tax case," he said, "the payment of this money had no bearing whatever." "Then why did you pay him the money?" "Well, I have already said, two or three times, that I paid him the money for the purpose of having him desist from further malicious attacks upon our company." The man of whom he had bought "peace" was not then engaged in any proceedings against "our company," except the tax case. He had been engaged in nothing for two years, since the proceedings of the Producers' Association in 1880. There were no other movements in prospect. The only war, actual or contemplated, was this tax war. Pressed through several pages of cross-examination, and challenged to name a single instance of war by this man upon them, at the time of the purchase of "peace," or since 1880, which would account for their willingness to pay him so large a sum, he was finally forced to say: "I cannot do it."[335]