Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-09-17

Ja.aes H. Daker ana shas $4,000 Note
--ths whole Testimony.
The Roaesr cannot forego the precious
electioneering morsel concocted in Ohio by
the Breslin Democratic defaulters to screen
themselves against j. H. Baker, the Republi-
can nominee for Secretary of State.
Though completely disproved, and shown
to be base SANDER, yet on Saturday last it
reiterates the charge, and affects to present
additional proof of its truth. What is this
additional proof? Let US examine.
First we take the statement of Chas. Reem-
lin, Of conversation between him and H. A.
johnson, in New York, Nov. Is, 1858. 1t is
as follows:
TESTIMONY OF Mr.. JOHNSON.
"H A. johnson told me that he made the bid
for the Ohio State loan of 1886 alone and on his
own hook-that he had no partner in it before it
was awarded to him-that he ascertained, in his
own way, without getting any information from
the Fund Commissioners, or the transfer agency,
the bona ide bids, that were likely to be made,
and from what parties.and that ne haa ascertan
that he could resell to these several parties
600 of the loan and 81 OOO, 900 to English capital
lists, and that he would have no trouble in selling
the remainder to Ohio banks and other persons
be bidders for a considerable sum. 49,
90 He also told me tAat he neuer paid Audttor
Wright nor Secretary Baker anything for getting
the loan, and that he had no agreement, or under
standing or eyen conversation s0ith either Of them;
and that he acas introduced to them both only after
to auard aoas made. That Ludlow had told him
afterwards once that these Western officers always
came poor and wanted money, and that he had
lent two of the Commissioners money, say "a, 0o0
That when told of this, he, johnson, expressed to
Ludlow, or to some one else at the time, fhet k%
low was too often fool enough to q ease the wheels
when it was not accessory"
Above we have third-handed hearsay tes-
timony, as to what Mr.. Ludlow said about
his lending $4,000 to two Of the Fund Com
missioners.
Mr.. johnson testifies that he had no part
ner"-that he "got no information from the
Fund Commissioners" he "never paid
Auditor Wright nor Secretary Baker any,
thing for getting the Loan"
As to the conversation with Ludlow, he
plainly says that in his opinion his loan (from
the Ohio Life and Trust Company, of which
Ludlow was Actuary or Loan Agent,) was
"not necessary" 1t should be kept in mind
that the Ohio Life and Trust Company was p.
Company whose business it was to loan mo-
ney to everybody who would pay interest for
it, and could properly secure it FROM loss.
TESTIMONY OF AUDITOR WRIGHT.
Next let us take the sworn testimony of
F. NJ. Wright, Auditor Of State who. was one
of Mr.. Bakers associates as Fund Commits
sioner. He swears, Feb. z, 1859, as follows ::
"There was no business transaction of any kind
between Ludlow, johnson or ourselves at the
meeting at Ludlow's house; no money loaned; no
note drawn nor was there then, nor at any other
time, any agreement, tacit or otherwise, that or
Mr.. Baker, or both of us, were to be partners with
H. A. johnson, with Ludlow, or both, in the
loan or any p" t of it, nor for any profit therein,
contingent or otherwise"
Then again, Mr.. Wright further testifies
"The 81 900 note, signed by myself and Mr. Ia
| ker, copy OF which is now shown to me, as at
| tached to the deposition of S. j. Broadwell, was
gwen in New York city, on the evening that we
| started home, g the Astor House. 1t was loan
| of money from Ludlow to Baker and myself, in
tending to 20 into an operation with Baker, which
| he then &C emplated, buying school lands in
| Wisconsin,, which l, however, did not 80 into,
but the nature of which do not now fully recol-
lect. 1T was to have been transaction ia land"
"The Note had no connection wi the State
Loan, no. VS. it given 10. cry ptOfts Die derived
| from tat transaction; nor Ecuit any, however re-
mote, connection with any act or acts OF the bund
| Commissioners in the matter of the osate Loan
nor was the $1,000 in any manner a. consideration
my bid maze to the State, for That loan; nor was
ever, by any understanding between myself, OF
Ludlow, or Baker, or any person else, to become
the recipient OF any portion Of the expected prof
| it's"
THE TESTIMONY OLA BUCHANAN OFFIcEHoLDRE
The Pioneer r.ext gives with great parsi
the TESTIMONY of Stanley Mathews, at presen
a Buchar.an o6iceholdsr, in the capacity Of U
S. D: strict Attorney for the Southern Distric
l",fOho. 1t appears that this nice gentleman
was one of the Attorneys of the Ohio Life an
Trust Co. When it exploded, so disastrous
ly and fraudulently, and assigned, he wa
found to have borrowed from Mr.. Ludlo'
some 81, OOO, APPARENTLY in consideration OF Gel
tain services in securing the election OF one
B. Keyes, as Trustee who helped to msma'
age the concern.
To clear his own skirts this Buchanan Q
fice-holder details lot of hearsay testimon,
of Mr.. Ludlow, as to the 81 900 loaned to M
Baker and Mr.. Wright.
This Mr.. Ludlow great scoundrel, /
the way, as all admit we'll known in Oh
to have hated Mr. Baker because he Bake
had opposed making his Trust Company Il
New York Depository Of Ohio State Fund
Of the three Fund Commissioners, Wrig
and Kimball voted for making the Trust Coz
pany such Depository; but BAKER DOT
AGAINST it, not deeming it safe or honest
conducted institution, as the result final
proved. But on account of this vote, Meth
Ludlow nor the Trust Company were er
the friends Of Mr.. B.
Yet, it is this Mr.. Ludlow, whose seco
and third-handed talk is the sole reliance
his prosecutors to sustain the case against
Baker about this $4,000 note.
But,with every inducement, through hatr
and dislike, for injuring Mr.. Baker, this sal
Ludlow, when his own direct testimony
given, says distinctly as follows:
GAS to the 81, 600 Wright and Baker note,
said it had 10 connection with the loan OF 1855
l that it was money loaned to Wright and Bak
4 and not to Baker alone-that the money was d
honestly due, and that it was unpaid. The 81,
| due from Baker never was put in a note-it \
an opel book account Ludlow expressed a
sire to testify, so that false impression as
Wright's connection with the loan might be
~ moved. He spoke of Baker as a "trihing, wor
~ less fellow" and that the word I" dare" in his
ter had reference to a transaction between
Corwine, Bake-, etc., in which Baker tried to II
of some matters which Bull knew, &c, etc."
In the abo~e the hatred of Ludlow to
Baker sticks out plainly.
,, Yet while abusing him-saying that Ba
. had once ''tried to trick him." &c.,-he
8 testiies that "As to the $4,000 Wright 6