The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-09-16
The Attempted Defence Of Bn ker-Fur-
Their and more DamnIng Proofs.


the Theatre, of JAMES H. BAKER, a default
ing, perjured. and dishonest man, as an offset
to the sworn testimony of dsinterested
parties, and the public records of the coun'
try. The policy of attempting to get
BAKER out of his unfortunate predicament.
by assailing REMELIN, MORGAN and EDGER-
TON, who exposed his rascalities, is as old as
villainy itself. 1t destroys what little SYM
pathy the public have for rascal of BAKERS
abilities.
AS specimen of the Minnesotian's at
tempt to clear BAKER, we quote the follow
ing concerning LUDLOW, the agent of H. A.
JOHNSON & Co., in securing the award of
the loan, and the man who "greased p"
BAKER to the extent of $4,000. Speaking
of LUDLOW, the Minnesotian says:
"This Mr.. Ludlow,-a great scoundrel, by
the way, as all admits we'll known in Ohio
to have hated Mr.. Baker, because he (Baker)
had opposed making his Trust Company the
New York Depository of Ohio State FUNDS. VI
the three Fund Commissioners, Wright and
Kmball voted for making the Trust Company
such Depository; but Baker UOted against IT.,
not deem.ng it a safe or honestly conducted in
stituion, as the resulty finally proved. But on
account of this vote, neither Ludlow nor the
Trust Company were EVER THE FRIENDS of Mr..
B."
Now, this man, who the Minnesotldn
states, "hated" BAKER so virulently, was the
endorser of BAKERS note by which he got
the $4,000 "grease." We quote from the
testimony of S. J. BRoADwELL:
''The following is copy of the note above
referred to:
''NEw YORK, Oct. 3, 1856.
son demand we promise to pay Edwin
Ludlow, or bearer, four thousand dollars, for
value received.
'(Signed) J. ID. BAKER,
F. NJ. WRIGHT.
The dbOue note is endorsed Edwin Lud
low Testimony, page $751;
The Minne<Otiall's statement seems very
reasonable, don't it, when compared with
tie evidence? At another time, so the
books of the Trust Company show, LUDLOW
"hated" BAKER so badly that he got him
81 100 additional "grease" from the Trust
Company. LUDLOW probably despised
BAKER, as any man would scoundrel he
could purchase to perform an illegal act.
The testimony Of Hon. STANLEY MAT
THEws, of the law firm of WoRTHINGToN &
MATTHEWS, of Cincinnati, is about the
strongest evidence against BAKER. He is
a gentleman we'll known in Ohio, and as
talented and estimable man. Yet the Mn
nesotian annihilates his testimony, at one
fell swoop "He is a Buchanan Demo-
crat !" Of course that renders Mr.. MAT
THEws an unreliable witness, most sapient
Minnesotian!
On page $50 of the testimony, CHARLES
SETsoN,- President of the Ohio Life and
Trust Company, states that BAKER was
written to on the subject of the $4,000
"grease," and that he "made no reply"
One of the most convincing proofs of
BAKERS knavery, however, is to be found in
the. following extract from Matthew's testi-
mony, now first published
Ludlow also gave me an account of the Cir
cumstances of an interview which had taken
place at his house the eUening previous to the
opening Of the bids, at ,chich he said, himself H.
H. Johnson, F. M. Wright and j. III. Baker,
,rere present. He said that he had invited these
gentlemen to dine at his house at seven O'Clock,
but that Atwood, who had been DIGGING the
fund commissioners about the loan, had got
hold Of them in the afternoon, and they could
not get away from him, till finally they told
Atwood they had an engagement up town and
must go when Atwood, to their surprise, in
sisted on going with them. The hour had long
since passed for dinner when the doorbell rang,
and he ludlow opened it himself, and found
the three there; that he let Wright and Baker
IN, and slammed the door in AttcOOd s face. The
nert morning, the bids haring been opened and
the loan awarded to III. Il. Johnson E. Co., IT.
,cOod, and Wright, and Baker, tcere in the II ust
Company office in conversation, ,chen III. II.
johnson came IN, and tcas about to pass them
,cith an appearance Of surprise, and asked him
if he ,cas not acquainted ,cith Mr.. Wright and
Baker, the fund commissioners of Ohio, acho
had Just a,carded to him the Ohio loan. Mr..
JOHNSON THEN ADVANCED, AND WAS FORMALLY
INTRODUCED TO MEssRs. WRIGHT AND BAKER
Ludlow told me nothing of what had taken
place, by conversation or otherwise, on the
previous evening at his house; except that
Johnson, Wright, Baker and himself were pre-
sent, and he laughed heartily at the self-posses-
sion with which Wright and Baker permitted
themselves to be introduced to gentleman with
whom they had passed the previous evening"
1t was at this interview that the whole
matter in regard to the award of the loan,
and BAKERS interest in the profits of it,
and the $4,000 preliminary "grease," were
determined upon, over nuts and wine, we
suppose. Having thus spent an evening
with JOHNSON, the next morning the loan
was awarded to him at loss to the State
of Ohio of $4,000, and gain to Mr..
BAKER of several thousands. But appear
ances must be guarded. 1t would not do
for the fact to be known that BAKER and
JOHNSON were acquainted prior to the
award. So the next morning, Messrs.
BAKER and WRIGHT were in the Trust
Company's office, and Mr.. JOHNSON entered
and was formally introduced. The scene
was laughable. The facetious LUDLOW
"laughed heartily at the lf-possession soth
whieh Wright and Baker permitted themselves
to be introduced to a gentlemen acith achom
they had passed the precious evening"" The
reason for the introduction is obvious.
1t is useless in the Republican papers to
attempt to defend BAKER. No honest de-
fence can be made. He is scoundrel, and