Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-02-07


Joseph Cooper 25s John ". Erwin -... Zs5
" ] Jackson irS- n c c
james ahn F9sf4 e. IS 4ohh L P"q6s p ~ aa
Henry Pierce. .......-...42TS
The Committee examined the following wit
nesses:
L. P. Defrees, of Piqua; William j. Jackson,
of Napoleon; John Boyle, of Cincinnati; P E.
Roach, of Lancaster; S. R. Lawder, of Piqua
Jonathan Richmond, of Butler county; Alex
G. Conover, of Piqua; Samuel E. Brown, of
Piqua; Jamuel Gordon, of Piqua; Richard Page,
of Columbus E. S. Hamlin, of Hamilton coun-
| ty; William H. Gibson, of Tiffin; Jos. Cooper,
of Hamilton county; Alex. P. Miller, of Butler
county.
The testimony is voluminous and suggestive,
that of Messrs. Hamlin and Gibson especially
So The Committee found that the Company
received, for the sale of surplus water, SI4,223
IA, to which was added S574 interest These
sums were to be charged against the Company,
leaving due on account of construction $780,
100 65, which the Committee determined was
the sum which, with interest from the 2Oth of
August, 1858, to the day of payment, the un-
dersigned would, if nothing further had appear
ed, at once have offered to pay" We add what
further appeared, as contained in the closing
portion of the report.
TRANSACTIONS OF WILLIAM H. GIBSON AND Z. S.
HAMLIN, As REPORTED By THE COMMITTEE.
In the course of the investigation, the fact
was elected that E. S. Hamlin, ESQ.,, then not
only stockholder in and Director of the Com
pany, but also one of the Committee (of which
Joseph Cooper and J. G. Young were the other
members) )LaPpointed by it to raise money, had, in
December, 1856, borrowed in the name and on
bshalf Of the C0mpany the sum of tlcelve hous-
and dollars from VIM. H. Gibson, Esq, then
Treasurer Of the State, for the payment Of which
the paper of the Company, payable to the or
der of the aforesaid committee, and by them in
dorsed il blank, was given to Gibson. This pa
per, which consisted of two notes of six thous-
and dollars each, had, it seems, been previously
b u As Be GeRRaP aud Ya& &feIeFsd lily Stf f.
members of the committee had conided the me-
gotiation to Hamlin alone subsequently,, but
at what precise date, the testimony does not
disclose Hamlin, still standing in the same re-
lation to the Company, borrowed of Gibson, ,oao
also still Treasurer, theturtkcr sum oftluelre
thousand dollars, for which he (Hamlin) then or
at some subsequent day gave to Gibson his
draft on his brother (E. V. Hamlin) of New
York;" payable to the indiUtdudL order of Gi5- |
son.
Notwithstanding the form of the transaction, |
this last loan was in fact made for the Compa. |
ny, and the whole sum of twenty -four thousand |
dollars thus borrowed from Gibson was paid /
over by the Company and applied by it to the
construction of the enlargement.
In the testimony given by Mr.. Gibson before
the undersigned, he affirmed unequivocally that
excepting the sum of thpe thousand four hun
dred dollars-which he States was afterwards
reimbursed by him to the State-no part of the /
loan consisted of funds entrusted to him as
Treasurer, but that it was made with moneys
partly held by him as guardian of certain named
minor children and administrator of certain
specified estates-and partly as attorney for
certain undisclosed principals.
But in the testimony given by him before the
Treasury Commission, of which extracts were
furnished to the undersigned, and are to be found
in the papers herewith transmitted, he states
that all the money loaned, except four thou
sand dollars, which he admits belonged to the
State, was either his own property, or that of
he heirs of Richard Williams and Jacob FIem-
ing, of whom he was guardian, and that he zen
tered upon his memorandum of accounts that
he money loaned Hamlin was the money of !
Richard Williams and Jacob Fleming, and that Q
he drafts of Hamlin represented their interest.
'r were their property
The accompanying transcripts of his settle
nents as such guardian of the heirs of Williams
md Fleming filed in the Probate Court of Sen =
,ca County, show, however, that at the time of :,
his transaction,hc could not hare had IN his h1nds
more than about sir thousand dollars belonging i,
o these heirs, l1liIe the sum loaned on HamlinS h
ratS, lohieh N the extract last cited he says be-
ongcd to them, loaS tloel5s thousand dollars Il
Omitting further comment upon the testimo- ii
y bearing upon this point it is sufficient here
0 say that after a most anxious consideration
f all the evidence, the Undersigned have been
nable TO resist the conviction that the uhoIe >,
um of fl0eHtytOur thousand dollars thus lent ci
y Gibson, 11aS the proper money Of the State, so
iat TO the extent of this sum the Company lcas th
a effect charging to The State its otcn moneys, e'
nLatcflLlly taken from the Treasury. OF
There is, however, no evidence to show that
ny of the officers of the company, save Hamlin
nd Cooper, were advised that any part of this Al
loney had been borrowed of Gibson, and indeed a.
I of them save the two mentioned who were sv
xamined, denied any such knowledge until the pc
1rrender to it duly cancelled ofthe two notes of ra
le company, as hereafter stated. Whether this ch
'nora1ee On the part Of some Of the officers ofthe or
,spany concerning the act of its o,0n authorized co
gents can dDdH the company, IS question Gu
hich may for the present remain undetermined
But Hsmlin testifes that he was assured by
ibson, and always believed, that the money
aned was Gibson's own property, and hence ,
was said that whatever the fact might have 3,
zen, the transaction, so far as the company or
amlin was concerned, must be regarded as
ade with Gibson in his individual, and not Of
,ial capacity; and thereupon evd ,nce was =
,oduced by the company BY which it appeared
at in the month of June, 1857, it had furnish. !
Hamlin with means consisting partly of vi
oney, and partly of stockholders notes, se- =
Ired by pledge OF stock Of the company suf-
:ient to pay this loan the officers of the com. abe
my, with the exception stated, still being g- nv
,raut that the loan had been made from Gibson; =
consideration of which Hamlin undertook TO
ocure the discharge of the company from any u
litigation for the loan-and that in the month Y
December, 1857, (t1hich be it noted tcas long mi,
ter the default IA the Treasury had been made
.blie,) Hamlin made some arangement-the =
ecise nature of which is not very clearly sta
with Gibson, or with Charles J. johnson,
$ assignee, by which he procured the surren- =
7 of his own drafts, and the two notes of the
mpany negotiated by him to Gibson for the
st loan of twelve thousand dollars, which
tes were then Cancelled and returned by him
the company pursuant to his undertaking
Upon this state of fact it was insisted by the