The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-07-29


Mr.. Ewing's defence states that he. Mr. Ewing. did,
'Ohsn IN Ohio. AVER that his purchases wsre ALL srps oas
OF t'0O made Of large dealers that he enjoyed an
agent to purchase up arrants that he made seryi large
part Of has purchases from son-n-av Of the senior ed
itor Of the UHion; and that haze aissd the record
by emitting insrmsdate assignments. and thus bringing
the name Of Mr.. Ewing in the eonnsrion Of immediate
assignee from the original parties This is the sum and
substance OF Mr.. Ewing's defence.
The first table published was, as we stated taken
from the Globe. Since that time have examined the
report of Mr. Forward and find that it alsies every aver.
men Of Mr. Ewing, and every statement made by him or
for him in the Republic. That report il win be remem-
bered exhibits the amount Of certificates Of scrip issued
the Virginia land warrants, their date the persons to
whom they issued. and the persons 10 whom they
were assigned. Mr. Ewing should have made the report
when he Secretary Of the Treasury but he failed to
do SO, and that task fell on his successor Mr. Forward
After careful examination Of that voluminous doc.
ument as circumstances would permit. we now say
that the name Of "THoMAs EWING" appears as first
assignee (tsre being no iniermediae assignmsnD in
euery item whih zoe haze charged him NTH for the
year 1881, being twenty.four in number, and amount
ing IN the aggregate to $23,s7i Al; that the name
of"THoMAs EWING" appears first assignee (tare being
1882 and 1888, except three items; and thai those rss
amount TO only $3.43a 33ileavng for the three years
forty-four stems IN sghieA tie mana Of THOMAS EWING
appears as immediate assignee. (here beng no inteme
date assignment) amounting the aggregate 10 $751;.
992 90 And yet we are charged with falsifying the
record and that same "THoMAs EWING" AYERS shat his
purchases cere all, except 0o, made Of large deal
ers-not from the original holders And say further
tom 6oJ
Mr. Ewings purchases; and not one dollar Of these did
he obtain from son-nliasc Of the senior editor Of TIE
"Union." The assertion made by or for Mr.. Ewing in
this behalf is singulary unfortunate for hm for it ials
fes the remaining averment which he made in Ohio to
wit: that he had nepsr employed agent 70 purchase up
parYants One Henry Sanbery, Of Ohio. was here with
Mr. Ewing during his speculaons, making excursions
Virginia, hunting up the revolutionary soldiers and the
widows and children Of such as were dead was be.
lieyed and charged at the time that this Henry Stanbe
was the agent Of MIR. Ewing. This charge, i seems
Mr. Ewing, when he returned to Ohio. Gcered to be
true And now the effort OF Mr.. Ewing to drag the name
of private gentleman who has never been connected
with the legislation Of the country into this controversy
proves that his averment falss for the only pur
chase which we find in the record made of son-inaw
Of the senior editor Of the Union purchase Of only
tsoo hundred and fy dollars; and asat Purchase 1a
made by Henry Stanberry, and not by IA0mas kvng
This purchase Mr. Ewing noU caims as ms otcn And
unless his claim be utterly false, Henry Stanberry acted
as his agent Indeed there can be no doubt OF the fact
Mr. Ewing has ncautiousy admitted it. II is interesting
therefore to inquire into the transactions OF Mr. STAN
berry as agent of Thomas Ewing By reference to the
report of Mr. Forward, mentioned above, we lind The
name of Henry Stanbeny as first assignee here being
1 = : - r. ~-.,s~ Az.