New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-07-02
a|;;
thoroughly investigated by Orison Blunt, ESQ

LIANT Chairman OF the Riot Claim Committee wu1WsS
himself IN ACCOMPLISHED nauufaosrvr Of FIRE arms and
practically acquainted with even the minutest details
OF this business Tho investigation extended over
number Of dave and our foreman. Mr.. Keen. was sub
iected 10 most thorough examination by Mr.. Blunt
all points Connected with the manufacture.
When NJ. Blunt was preparedlo report on this claim
70 the supervisors Committee was invited as one Of
its members TO be present. At that meeting. which
was the first had attended, the claims Of NJ. Wake.
man aud others were first acted upon, the awsrds on
all OF which we're below the amounts eaimed In this
seton OF the Committee participated; but when the
claim presented By Mr.. FarEee reached. Iromnaed
the Committee that had an interest In the claim.
which rendered 1t improper for to share in their &C.
On upon It, and chat should therefore retire which
did. Before doing So however, remarked to tbe
Committee that had enjolned upon those who pre-.
prepared this claim to make accurate az possible
and no event to exceed the actual value Of the prop
erty destroyed which they assured mo they
had .donei bat this was q question for ns
COMMITTEES to Judge, that ] desired them
TO treat the claim with the iams
scrutiny and freedom that they had treated all Others
and H. ike Mr.. wakeuans and most others that they
had acted upon they found to reduce the amount
desired tina. II should be done. After ef the Con-
mittee took action upon the claim making the award
about ~ per cent less than the amount claimed. be-
ieysd thep and do still believe that this award was
less than the true value Of hs property destroyed aud
less than It's original cost. know that after nearly
eighteen months operations the Joint investment did
not yield profit Of more than two thousand dollars,
indeed there were shy PROFITS ct ALL all things corsd
cred. On the other hand. II the armory had not been
destroyed satisfied that the investment would have
yielded fair profit. 1917 flIf
such ars the msteris facts IN connection with this
matter all Of which sm prepared to estahkh by ths
cearest proof. And submit TO all fair-minded men
whether did net act with strict Official integrity and
sorupulous regard to personal honor.
Having TINS disposed Of the charge against my
onicisl probty desire TO touch upon come more par
sonsi charges 10 regard to the arrnory matter. The
charge that the OF e25 CO., received from he<oy
eminent was forgotten in making up the oIap,' a1d
the City therefore defrauded Of that amount Is utfefy
false. The dispute between Nj. Mcneil and mysef'fs
in process Of adjustment by the Courts, or rather
rosid b. had he sufficient confidence in his sasetono
ce Il for trial. II s scarcely necessary to cay that s
charge Of an attempt 10 deaud him IL, Ike al thefee
utterly false. .-L -
In reference to tie apparent variance between NJ.
Fsrlees testirony as publsed and the statemsnts q
NY answer in the Mcneil aut do not hold myself r.
sponsible for words imputed to Mr. Faree espeeiayk
was not present when HE testimony was given. aud
have no recollection Of having heard the
IS HE testimony aa,n the time Of Mr.. Weeds letesss
I will say however In Justice to Mr. Farlee that 10
was not until the Mcneil suit was Commenced in De-
cembe 1888 and it became necessary 70 put In an an
swer that took legal counsel in The meter and was
then sdyssd that the relations bstWteen M neNsB.
Mr.. faries and myself IN the conduct 81 tfe ArscTt
constituted legal partnership, stleAst Is between g
selves and 90 sverred in my answer think that ny
business will Peel surprised that in regard 20 claims
ny against third parties. Mr. Farlee should ecnsider
himself the only nominal party in interest II was simi-
lar to the case Of special rssssesshir where rvgcF
sral partner conducts the basiness exclusively b
own name and slwsys suss In hs own NAME hut where
The special partner has the largest pecunafy n,sfess
With regard lte Mr.. Weeds scufrilous fsharfs ib
reference to my transactions with Gen. Fremont IN
connection with the Marposs estats, u WI bst stisyt
10 say TIA. Gen. Fremont propdsed 20 myself aud ot
ere 70 take q interes. in that estate On terms Which,
after careful investigation and eonsIderstUn We -
eepted and faithfully carried ont. Nothing peHt,eJ
wss embraced In the offer OF acceptance, u ives cpd
vsse business transaction between Gen. Fremont ED
ourselves, in which no others have any concern Wbe6
Gen. Fremont complains Il will be time ehoaghM
answer. .t-e .r-G 80 70 M..iGl
The charge that sold the office Of Surveyor of thp
port for SO o Is false IS the rest IEss not MINE
TO be.tow The appointment was with the President
to whom never 30 much as recommended The ,esptsf
man appointed. No Mr.. Weed You must hook nearer
homo il you wish 10 whose business it irt0bdy
and sell things which the law forhids aud which Az
cOHtlsban3 u the domsis Of !eg.tpste com.
norge because yous 6wa virtue 10 ''szs's
does not follow that all Other men ara
rcsnes Il is not unlikely that ron had promised p
dispose Of the Office you refer to ct price Panes
but as in the case Of Harlem stock you hsdsod whst
you did pot possess and consequently ssad yesree IN
able to delivey ~ n
never had bale OF blankets rejected IN New Yssss
and never sold bale in Philadelphia &. ,,@s
With regard to my alleged connection with wB1ssS
Allan Butler in certain contract, and with Mr. CAf
hart in Others 1t is not pretended that committed ny
wrong. These allegations, therefore, may By pass
over in silence. GEoReR OPpYhx n
4