Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1868-10-01
ArrAcKs uPoN aRANr.

Leather Dealers" at Galena. Read
the proof:
ATTACKS UPON GRANT.
A Radical paper complains bitterly
of "the atrocious attacks of the Demo-
% cratic press on the private character
" and military record Of Gen Grant" T"
Now, it is simple fact, which we can
prove beyond denial, that of the seri-
Gus imputations now resting on the
Radical candidate, not one can be
traced to a Democratic source. When
the nomination of Grant was yet un.
certain, the Radical leaders opposed
it, Oh the score Of his personal habits
1t was Theodore Tilton, the editor of
the rabid Radical sheet. the Indepead-
enf, who led OF with circumstantial
charges Of intemperance, and Wendell
Phillips and Horace Greeley reiterated
and reinforced them. The criticism
OF Grants military success, as due to
the mere reckless expenditure of his
soldiers lives, which he had not the
talent or the humanity to spare or TO
husband, came from Radical sources.
The present Radical Senator from
Iowa, Mr. Harlan, was the first 10
impugn the military reputation of
Grant, in an elaborate speech in the
Senate. He said "The Iowa troops
A" have no confidence in his capacity
and fitness for the post he holds
" They regard him as the author of
the useless slaughter of their com
rades" [See Congressional Globe
Thirty seventh Congress, page 20O6.]
But the worst charge of all CONES
from a source nearer still TO General
Grant. Here no promptings of Demo
cratic hostility can be fancied. Grants
connection with the cotton speeula-
tions is proved by the oath of his own
father! Wewill give again the formal
record in this case. Its accuracy has
never been denied, since its first pub
lication, months ago, in this and other
journals Here we have the state
ment of Jesse Grant, the plaintiff, YER
flied by his oath, that he"at once and
faithfully carried out his agreement"
and that agreement was that "plaintifi
" on his part was TO go with the men,
&c, TO the headquarters Of General
Grant, and procure permit for
them to purchase cotton, secure
" transportation, &c" He had TO
prove this to show that he was enti-
tied to the profits be sued for. There
was, however, no doubt about the facts
The defendants, indeed, admit them,
hut demurs that the agreement, being
"contrary to public policy" should
not be enforced in a court Of Justice.
To all this the Radicals have as yet
framed no coherent answer. What
purports to be letter to his father
was lately published. in which Grant
is made TO say he would not give the
permits. But here we have old Jesse
swearing and proving in a court oI
justice, that his son did give him the
permits We do not know any worse
chapter of family history than this o
the Grants, contained in the following
record:
rHE SUPERIOR COURT or CINCINNATI, HArnro'
COUNTY, OSLO.
Jesse r. Grant
| Y.
Harman Maok, Henry Mack Petition.
and Simon Mack, partners
a. Mack Brothers.
The plaintia states that on or shout the SIKH
da, Of December. A. d. 1863, he entered into Al
agreement with The defendants for the purpose o.
partnership purchases Of cotton in the Mlitarl
Department commanded by General L. S. Gran,
the conditions Of faid agreement being a. follows
Defendants were 10 furnish all the money tha
might be required In Che said business, aui th
necessary uufabor Of men 10 purchase aud ship th
cotton they being allowed seven per cent. per an
nun for the money so employed during the tim
Il was necessarily used. Plaintiff on bis part, wa
to 70 with the men furnished as aforesaid by th
defendants, 10 the headquarters Of General Grant
and procure a permit for them TO purchase cotton
secure transportation and such other facilities n
might be consistent with the usssos and interest
Of the army. The defendants were to have th
cotton thus purchased shipped Immediately 70 Nr'
York and sold, and the net profits Of sales, afte
deduciing from the gross proceeds the neccssar
expenses Of buying freight and selling, except "a
wages Of the men furnished aforesaid by th
defendants, were to be divided among the parties
in the proportion Of thrccfourths 20 the defend
ants and onc-fourih 20 The plaintiff, the plaiuti
in no event being liable for any portion Of Dos
that might be Incurred. Plaintiff says that N
said agreement was ai once and faithfully carrie
out upon his part, and also was by the defendant
90 far the purchase Of cotton It's transporiaiio
to New York and sale was concerned, but defend
ants having broken said agreement In this, ihl
they have utterly failed and refused 10 render Z
plaintiff any acronnt oi such trnnsnsfons or 20 pa
over to him any portion Of his share Of the profit
arising from the same. although said account an
payment have boon repeatedly demanded by n
plaintiff. Plaintiff saws that under said contract
large amount u cotton was purchased, as many
three hundred bales or more, ai an average cost
from ffty 10 hity- cents per pound, and Whc
was sold In New York At such prices a. 20 rralii
a net profit Of forty thousand dollars or over II
exact number Of bales purchased, the precise prit
} Of such purchase. and ihe exact amount Of cxpcr
scs and Of proceeds Of sale. be Is unable 10 stat
the socount Of tlr same being in the possession
the defendants who refuse % furnish siaicmer
! Of u. But tho amount purchased, and the M
profits realized, arc not less than above staici
while the same may. and probably win exceed u
amounts before stated.
Plaintiff asks that an account may be taken hl
. tween himself and The defendants, and that n
; defendants may be ordered 10 pay over to BIZ
such On amount as may be found due to him fru
: them. under the agreement hercinbeiore set fort
and that al such other orders may he made in b
behalf a. be may be equitably entitled 70 in Il
PREMISE
/ lsignodl H. sSow,