New-York tribune., 1875-11-27
THE EMMA MINE SCANDAL.
GEN. sCHENCK's TRANSACTIONS.


LONDON JOURNAL ALLEGEs THAT BE WAS BRrBBD
his REPUTATION GREATLY cIOUDED - HIS
SHARE IN THE AFFAIR UNEXPLAINED
lFRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT TRIDUrR.l
LONDON. Nov. 13.-The fact mentioned in my last
letter, that Mr.. Park, vendor Of the Emma Mine,
lent Gen. Schenck. American Minister and trustee for
the vendees, $4,000, and guaranteed him in
writing, unknown to his colleagues, g per cent
his stock, was one Of n number Of facts which were
stated officially to the shareholders of the Emma
Mine. They contained in q letter from the solc-
itOr Of the Company to the Chairman and Direct
OTIS of the Company. This letter was for
warded by order of the Directors to the
shareholders, inclosed in q communication to
them from the Secretary, marked private. The Sec
retary was instructed by the Directors to acquant
tho shareholders that the information contained in
the solicitors letter had been obtained from each in
dividual oath, and from the signed depositions Of
each party referred TO- 10 the light in the nan-
cial columns of The Hour, Conservative daily paper
published in LondOn accompanied by the remark:
"We do not understand why this circnlar has been
sent out to the Emma shareholders marked private.
This is not the sort Of thing which ought TO be kept
private" The statement is made in The Hour that
upon evidence received oath-besldes other per-
named" the American Minister az the Court Of
ST. James, upon the strength of whose name many
extent Of $4,000"
am far from meaning to adopt this as correct
description of the transactions in which Gen.
Schenck was engaged. repeat once more that in
such comments as have had to make most reluc-
family from time to time on this unhappy business,
have desired to believe, and have assumed that
the current reports about Gen. Schenck were untrue
exaggerated. The fact that there were such re-
ports and that other people believed them, was
quite enough to make him unfit to represent
the United States as Minister. The appearance
of the present statement, with such comment upon
it, does not improve the situation Gen. Schenck is
certainly entitled TO such credit may be due to his
voluntary appearance before the Commission 10 tes-
tify. His diplomatic position would have shielded
him, had he preferred to refuse l fear il must be
said that-judging by results-he would have done
better to refuse better than to give evidence tend
ing to create such impression is quoted above.
This is so far as know the first time that the
sation of bribery has been brought against Gen.
Schenck in an English newspaper, based on .
solicitors letter. which itself purports to give tho
result Of legal proceedings.
1t is due also to Gen. Schenck to state that therc
are peope-or, at any rate, there is newspaper
which takes "a very different view of the loan TO him
by Park. 1t thinks Gen. Schenck "victm,n IN
deed the chief victim among all those which "the
undertaking incosed in its net" This IL The Anglo
american Times. But this-like the contrary view
taken by The Rour-is the statement of an mpres-
sion. No explanation is offered of the undsputed
facts. No effort is made to meet the inference drawn
from the awkward circumstance that Park was the
vendor of the mine; that he stands accused
of efecting its sale by gigantic fraud; that one
means he used TO get the stock taken to adver-
tse Gen. Schenck's name as United States Minister,
Director and Trustee, and,that the he used 10
enlist Gen. Schenck in the business a loan 10
him of $50 600 and secret guarantee to him OF 10
per cent interest on his stock Let test the mat
ter by simple question. Suppose the English
men who were induced by the presence Of the
name of the American Minister on the list Of
Directors and Trustees had been told tho
actual state of tine relations between Gen.
Schenck and Mr.. Park, would they have in
vested their money! Would they have believed
their interests safe in the hands of Trustee who
was under direct pecuniary obligation to man
whose interests were hostile to theirs ? Even now
the transactions between Gen. Schenck and Mr..
Park are not fully disclosed. The documents which
passed between them were not produced Instead
of tho documents the most that could be extracted
was a promise that they should be produced when
the suit against Park comes on for trial. May We
suppose that they would prove interesting to the
State Department. Or is the State Department con-
tent to see its representative at the most important
court in Europe publicly accused Of bribery by .
journal possessing the confidence of the Government
TO which Gen. Schenck is accredited c. w.. s.