The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-07-27

ing that he had bsen heavily reinforced. It
seems to us this settles the question of Grants
generalship.
Was General Grant Cotton Spectator!
From The ". Y. World.
Wesuppose it will not be disputed that when
man consents to be a candidate for the high
est Office in the Government, he thereby cha-
lenges thorough scrutiny into his public and
private character. If he is fit tor that great
position, his character will command more
esteem the better il becomes known; it will be
made to shine with new lustre by all the attr.
tion to which it is subjected. But if there be-
anything in his history which he has an in
terest in concealiug he gives his countrymen a
right to know it in all its particulars when he
asks them to elevate him to the chief post OF
honor in the Government.
We find in Western paper what purports
to be a transcript from the records of the Su-
peror Court of Cincinnati. 1t bears such
strong internal marks of genuineness that We
cannot doubt that it is truly copied; and if So
it deserves all the prominence which we pur-
pose to give it. II the friends of General
Grant can prove it q forgery, we will give
equal prominence to the exposure; for, al
though we deprecate his election, We do not
wish to see him degraded. But this matter is
too serious to pass unnoticed, and if his friends
shall slur over or ignore it, We shall assume
that they have no defense to make, and that
the alleged facts are true.
In the winter of 1923 General Grant was
commanding in the most productive cotton
region of the Southwest, and it appears from
the judicial record, which we will presently
insert, that his father, Jesse r. Grant, was at
that time secret partner in a cotton specula-
ton which was transacted within General
Grants military lines. Without investing any
capital, this Jesse r. Grant, the father OF the
General, formed partnership with a business
firm in Cincinnati for procuring cotton within
General Grants military lines, and transport
ing it thence to the Northern market, and this
silent partner was to reader services of some
kind which would entitle him to one-fourth
of the net profits of the adventure
although he supplied no money, and
bore no part of the risk of what must have
been regarded as a hazardous undertaking.
1t appears that the service which he stipulated
to perform was to procure at the headquarters
OF General Grant, his son, permit to buy
cotton, and facilities for its transportation.
The undertaking proved lucrative. So large
an amount of cotton was procured and brought
off that the net profits amounted to more than
$4,000, and the public would probably have
never known anything of the Grant family's
completely, if the firm which furnished the
capital had not refused to pay over the stipu-
lated share of the profits. Jesse K. Grant
brought suit in the Cincinnati courts to re-
cover his share, and by this means the facts
have come to light. We copy the record as
we find it,
SUPERIOR COURT.
General TeTm-Jesse r. Grant vs. Mack
Brothers, Judge Hoadly delivered the opiniOn.
The case was reserved from special term on
demurrer to the petition. The action was
Instituted for the settlement of partnership
THE plaintiff AYERS that in December, 1862,
he entered into a partnership with defendants
for the purchase OF ltun in the military de.
partment OF U. $. Grant; the condition OF the
agreement that defendants were TO furnish the
capital and the men TO purchase and shin the
cotton and the plaintiff TO procure at head
quarters OF Gene raj Gran a permit TO purcnase
IT, secure TRANSPORTATION and such other ia cii,
Tic S as might be consistent with the usages and
interests OF the army. The plaintn was TO
receive one-fourth share OF the net profits of
necessary expenses. The petition further states
thai there was realized profit in the defen-
danrs lavor of not less than $4,000, and that
they reuse to render an account, or pay the
pantih his proportion.
The defendants claim that the p'ainud con-
tributCd by his own showing, neither capital
nor lawful service 10 The cOpaTLnerShip, and
that their agreement TO pay him share of the
pTohts is, therefore, without sufficient conside-
ration. &c.. ..,,o, ..,,,, .,,.,.,-.,,,
intended 10 allege that he undertook that which
was prohibited by law. His acts aud promises
may have be- Illegal, and the partnership one
for forbidden ent nterprise, but in the absence of
an answer soaverIinA, Lne Court cannot assume
1t, unless the averments are inconsistent with
';Ihe purchase of cotton in the military de.
parlment commaL ded by General Grant was
Illegal unless carried on by permission of the
President, obtained through the Treasury De-
parment.
"Tre plaintiff AYERS that he was TO go to the
headquarters OF General Grant and procure u
permit 10 purchase cotton. Whether this was
expected to be obtained from the General him
telf, nom some member of mis- staff, or Trea.
suIY agent at headquarters, is not stated.
Whether the plaintin was TO procure IL rs a
personal favor, or by the use Of personal iutlu-
| ence, or in the ordinary mode OF business, Is
| roi shown. The Court could not presume ne
was TO get his permit from an ottiCer not auJho.
rized y law to give II, or that he was to procure
IL Gs HE IeWard OF personal, political, or other
inegitimate influence They mu rather lnfer
! thai he proposed TO solicit and procure per.
nit IN the ordinary and proper way, from
| Treasury agent having authority TO issue IL.
"Again. II is averIed that plaintin was to
anu diu secure transportation, This may have
| been done by procuring nom some quarter
master, or other officer controlling 10, the inn
| proper and illegal use OF Government horses
| and wagons, or steamboats,; or, he may have
| hired horses and wagons from the people Of the
| country, and secured steamboat transportation
| IN the usual way. The mere fact that he was to
| secure transportation at the Headquarters of
! General Grant Is not decisive.