The Placer herald. [volume] (Auburn, Placer County, Calif.) 1855-1991, 1868-08-01
A CASE OF COTTON SPECULATION.--
GRANT THE FATHER, AND GRANT
THE SON--.AN UGLY AFFAIR.

important Court case, as pupIlsueu "I 'ho
time in our city papers, and which created
much talk. 1t was the case of Jesse Il
Grant (the father of General Hiram Ulysses
Grant,, who sued the Mack Brothers on a
contract entered into between the parties,
December, 1862. The contract stipulated
that the plaintiff was to procure at the head
quarters of General Grant Qhen at Oxford,
Miss.,) permit to purshase cotton, secure its
transportation, and such other facilities as
might be consistent with the usages and in
terests Of the army. The defendants were
to furnish the capital and, Of the net profits
of the enterprise, the PLAINTIFF S share was to
be ope-fourtb. The plaintiff averred that
upward Of forty thousand dollars resulted to
The defendants from bis (the plaintiff 's) SER
vices under the contract.
Was it in view Of this arrangement be.
tween Jesse r. Grant and the Mack Broth
ers, and 10 order that it m gbt be as profia
bic to the parties as possible, that General
Grant issued his inhuman order Of December
II, 1862, requiring all Jews to be expelled
from his department CHAT Of IennesSee)
within twenty four bdurs from the receipt OF
that order by post commanders ? And did
Jesse Il. Grant comply with the regulations
of trade established 10y the Treasury Depart
permit And was be furnished at the pub
lie expense with transportation and other
facilities to get cotton into the loyal States
These questions might have found a solu-
iion had the ease not been compromised.
The plaintiff took few dollars and dismissed
the case. Its developments promised to be
an ugly affair, and not very credilable to the
Commander Of the Department of the Ten
nessee. 1t was Therefore, prudenty taken
out of Court. The following is the case as
reported and published in the city papers
May II, 1864
SUPERIOR COURT.
General Term-Jesse r. Grant as. Mack
Brothers. Judge lloadly delivered the
opinion. The case was reserved from spec'a
term on demurrer to the petition. The
action was instituted for the settlement OF
partnership account.
"Ihe plaintiff AYERS that in December,
1862, he entered intoa partnership with dc
tandanls for the purchase Of cotton in the
military department OF U. S. Grant; the con
dilion Of said agreement tha. defendants were
to furnish the capital and the men TO pur-
chase and ship the cotton, and the plalntlii
to procure at the head quarters of General
Grant permit to purchase it, secure trans
portaion, and such other facilities as might
be consistent with the usaees and interests
of The army. The plant If was to receive
onetour,b share Of the net profits OF sales,
after deducting from gross proceeds the
necessary expenses. The petition further
states that there was realized profit IN the
defendants favor of not less than $4,000
and that they refuse to render any account,
or pay the plaintiff his proportion.
The defendants claim that the plaintiff
contributed, by his own showing, neither
capital nor lawful service to the copartner-
ship, and that their agreement 10 pay him
share of the profits is, therefore,, without suf
icent consideration.
"The Court cannot presume that the
plaintiff intended to a!Iege that he undertook
that which was prohibited by law. His acts
aud promises may have been illegal, and the
partnership one for a forbidden enterprise,
in the absence Of an answer so averring, the
Court cannot assume it, unless the avernenls
are inconsistent with any other theory.
department commanded by General Grant
was illegal, unless carried on by permission
of the President, obtained through the Treas
uly Department.
"The plaintiff AYERS that he was to 60 to
the headquarters of General Grant and pro-
cure permit to purchase cotton. Whether
this was expected to be obtained from the
General himself, from some member OF his
staff, or Treasury Agent at head quarters,
is not stated Whether the plaintiff was to
procure it as a personal favor, or by the use
of personal Influence, or in the ordinary
mode of business, is not shown. The Court
could not presume he was to get his permit
from an oHioor uoL authorized by Law TO Sise
it, or that he was to procure it as the reward
of personal, political or other llegitima,e n-
fuence. They must rather infer that he pro-
posed 10 solicit and procure permit in the
ordinary and proper way, from IA Treasury
Agent having authority to issue it.
Again i, is averred that plaintiff was to
aud did secure transportation. This may
have been done by procuring from some
QuartermasLer or other officer controlling it,
the improper and illegal use of Government
holses and wagons from the people of the
country, and secured steamboat transporta-
ton 10 the usual way. The mere fact that
be was to secure transportation at the head
quarters of General Grant, is not decisive.
"The other item of service, the procuring
of such other facilities as might be consist
ent with the usages and interests of the
army is open to the same double reading.
These facilities, whatever they were, may
have been procured by honest or dishonest
influences.
"For these reasons, the defense suggested
must be presented by answer. The theory
that the employment Of the plaintiff was to
procure the illegal co operation of the mili'
tary in private enterprise must be alleged
by sworn answer If true it was equally dis
graceful to the defendants and the plaintiff
and, if proven, would insure the dismissal Of
L H.. Al.