The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-09-23

Childs rs.son. thm. Th e ,s's y, oounon, Coiones
was public and Il is therefore imnos 'n, m =, ~
toba dealers ~ pu .ho .ho,,d 49,, - ~, ~, 'uo
ed of IL N '' "s'e oeen iniorm-
To this re.soning bav. evs obisct;o,s ,o or.
Port is nor . tohanoo a..I..' % VI soueri VA.
from puebls on ina oo,h -, Ma ,ss, 80 sosene
which the sale of the tohacs wss os1st ,"e Jay on
vbsn tbs ssia vas md. hw ca,; ~ Nu ~, ot way,
wsns. and bs was mor.oysr SSant n 70 Ia mar
Ira .hsn tbs tohsc.o was ,oId aa, ,, ,S.u oi
Domsr m"e" u' pors ,hn o;ah AMI nenvsred 20 VI
,.nt 81 n too .siss M ds ~ Ct, ~ Da' e9 quo
g. Nj. Port afrms that he hal privsta raIa-
against This animation. 4 NJ port who ,str u.os.s
Puebla In The beginning Of Aurnst su, an 70
since tbat tima rsnds,ad mora tho ON. sa, "n"
the American army ouitted Pu.bla .gai. q, ths ,o,b
Of ssntamhsr 1sa9 pd "a M, ranrn n,,, ,h IN
Of 0n,ohar ,s,- r. go - ,h. t"sa.a "o io.a
tia o, ~ ,e,, 80 $500 10 .oo"ooo "~s saver
return and ne coua thspsfors has, had o,,
h 70 enter INTO any arrangrns ts as to this sale
the letter from Capt Webster 20 the Secretary of War;
DARED February 20 is4s proves that Cot Guilds
tary, Wepeierski addressed Captain Webster, aud
declared to him that he would hias-lf purchase tho
tobacco mt s22 the bale Port hought 1t a. s2l and
there could In consequence havs been no collision
between NJ. Port and Col Chid's secre,ary because
they were both bidders and one overbd the other It
Is hot to discover what could have been object
Of such manonvre In the case In question
To ol'nel Chids second allegation that VI. Port
owed 81 600 to WeDgerski the time Of the death
Of the latter | answer in NJ Ports name bv formal
denial aud Col Chids Ia summoned to demand that
sum Of Port provided that he can establish the in
debtedness OF VI Port to Wepsterski
Such, Mi Secretary are on the one hand the afls-
cations Of Col Chids and, ON the other, the
Allow me, t'r In concluding tn remark upon the
strangeness OF me position assumed BY Col Childs.
Inc Legation OF france cannot snd VIII not make it
self the echo of the reports more or less we'll founded
whien nave pc cmrien. VIII regard 20 Col Chdss
him which IL wons be- facts
t. prove tnsn ne oond prove toe ensrges brought BY
himself me Legsuop oI France mas no concern with
these allegations dVeted OF proof against the honor
OF man whose good isl,n should not Dc questioned
would however De very easy a. any time to get rid
Of contract and TO put down just claims II nothing
more were necessary Tor the purpose than to reply to
the claimant by Insult ava defamation
pray you again to examine this that you will OBJ
tain from the GoVsrnmen. ot tne nted states de-
more mat ws,n y1S have
| accept .,r pray you 'ne Sas"tances Oh my very
| high conhderauon' .,,,,,, r,, ,,,.u..,
| "oH-LHoMf' TELL fOtSSiN.
| THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO II pousuS
| DEPARTMENT UPSTATE WASHINGTON April 10 1als
ss -. have had the honor 20 r.ceiv. ypur n,ts
the 3otb ultimo in rsply to that If IN. 2sth
~ Nj Port Ersncb ,itizen srs'net th s"s o,S
ment Of the United States You are correct n, AZ vir
that ala net set forth length the reasons which led
| me 10 the copcluson comm unicsted in that MT. -
This hevever must be Imputed to no donbt m ~,
mart AZ TO the adequacy Of those rea son hnt N ny
that Won would uso.ssa rilv ARR 90 ~
conrInsio, n Won bestowed upon the doc.msn,s mi
examination In the correctness of most M m. r.sts
stat.d I'm yo.r breyiate of the case .rti,ai, $500.
but Won mention enc which can nowbers "a mh
,,apated by the evidence aud to which II ia i'm .ort
observe aMr Port was in fact NOT ivno,.n, th., ~.
Dom.rco had tsd that ne was the owner of the tohs
co on the dsy before. (2eth October Not ssipg aha
70 md apy proof Of this ststem.pt must n. .iio-.S
10 ssorbet either to an oversight on vonr mart nv -
de.ign to convey an impression that Mr. port vss
not aware that Mr. Domercq vas the owner Of the to-
hscco until that time No sucb imnra.sin. a.
warranted by tho testimony On III. trial ~ tn o..s
before the military court at Puab,a ur Domsrco NJ NJ
Ports own request vas examined wines. in hi, he
b.f The foiloviro e. a mater,s, mart ~ ne. .an,
ton
.Queptiou Did 7 not on several .cca,,ons inform,
Won tIst intended 10 buy IN, tobacco Ansv.r tn
rst time ever ard anything on the subject "a, one
dsy when Port called in my hearing on tbs sor ~ ~
Spspsb Consul and nsked HIN, ~ he 6a MT vy.h -
ior him In the purcbsss 81 the tobacco, tn. r.,iv
TO which was Mo- for IL IL the propertv of f,isnX
ssS Won VIII mahe voursef Liable to r..s n.s,c,'
some dsv or two after Port told vytnsss he Ma n,-
chased 400 bales Of IN. tob,eco and stsI Mir, ,fh~
aid NOT wish to oin him In tbs nnrrb..s 20 -h,.h 10
r,nlied In the evstjve for he ala NOT eth % M NJ.
en- rronstv pnr, snswrsd ,h., S,sn 20 ouy MS
that he could always int erpo-. hi. claim.
Nov n seems 70 me air thai hi. hu.h.. q, a..
most positive and irrrfrsg,bIs manner ths fact that
pror TO the sale OF the T. baceo ts him und., ths
iboritv Of the United states MP Port "a. 49,
that the tobacco was private and ths, Az
sale was about 10 be made in Ignorance ~ that
fact This Testimony IL CONFIRMED nv cirenmst.rc.s
mentioned In the testimony OF Colonel Childs in
III. exsmipatiop before the .,m. cour, a.r.ihis
snrsrep,lv OF IN. ,mnoytapc. ~ ,bo~,n. M NJ
Port when IN. Tobacco Vas sold IN hi,. AVA nat
INV that the limited states Yer. v,tbout t,,. 20 a.
Won ,pd,ayor to ipva,dats ths testimouv nj CoIons
Tbilds nv asserting that ,Sy port eould h,,. h.a ~
knovle6 r. OF the prsyinu. sse Of tn. ,ob,cco
n. vas not I'm Pu.bls Al IN. tim. NJ ~. al. -. NJ ~
COWS or IN NJ pom. ,eo. that n. l.s, ,h.. "a. ~.
Iotb Sen,smh.r Isar ara dsa 80 r.,rr 80. -" s ~
Oc,sh.r the dsv before the sdy.rt,.rmsnt 90 ~ 81
~ vhi.h n. rr,.h.s.d Snrno.,.w ~, ~ sA.e
n. trus ana A. No, o,ss,,pn ,b, w., 70
IL strange that NO proof Of them was adduced BEFORE
| The military count NJ Pueblo U.a ,h,s nssn a.. ~
e.nn"t ne Sonh,sd ,h., ,h' .m,s Issa done IL
on the statement 81 no witness IN oonsderfns the tss
uhohy am unoer the necessity OF Rejecting them
urely
. fon siso oeny tno assertion OF Colonel chds that
MI Fort vns tobacco dealer BY THU yos doubtless
intend to rspel the presumption that ne could
TAKEN speh an interest IN the transactions Ia that
uele N ,veos a. must nec'.ssriy have led to know
sdgs oi we previous aes ., tobacco 10 may be that
tracing m tobac~o va not VI Forts sole business but
The yer. fact Of b., purchase aud se in this instance.