St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1880-10-08

ness with her any further 2" Was not
the depositOr entitled in simple justice,
to her principal ? And does not the
whole business point to an intention of
bull-dozing other depositors through
this magnificent refusal to renew the
relation in order that no one may dare
to display such want of confidence
again
But further, if there is a great chari-
ty fnnd-and if there is not the deposit
company is a manifest swindle-why
were the heads and officers of this ''la-
dies deposit company" selected as the
| almoners of the charitable founders of
the fund Who are these heads and
officers No one as far as we can dis
cover is able to answer fully this very
important question. Mrs. Z. G.. Howe's
name appears at the top of the "note"
or acknowledgement given to deposit
ors In the form reprinted from the
J Courier in yesterdays Advertiser. Now
who is Mrs. E. c. or Emily c. Howe ?
She is, we believe, the wife of Mr.
Florimond l.. Howe, who is put down
in the directory as painter, and for
merly, but not for several years past,
has worked at his trade of house paint
ing in this city. Mrs. Howe now lives
at No. East Bookline street, where the
deposit company receives its patrons.
Last year she lived at No. 2 Garland ST.,
and the year before that at No. 10 Gar
land street in a very modest home,
where the Ladies' Deposit Coz first
saw the light. In 1877 Mr.. and Mrs.
Howe were not in the Boston directory
at all. In 1876 (Mr. Howe being still
house painter, but apparently not
working at his trade), the couple yet
lived in a modest way at No. 1882
Washington street. Mrs. Howe, previ-
GUS to her connection with the deposit
company, was not probably well known
outside the circle of her personal
friends, but this much is certain that in
September, 1875, this same Mrs. E. c.
Howe-this time under the name of
Sarah E. Howe--was complained of in
the municipal court of the city of BOs-
ton for criminal business for the offence
of "unlawfully conveying mortgaged
property" pleaded "not guilty." was
convicted, and appealed to the superior
court for criminal business in the coun-
ty of Suffolk. In the superior court on
the 18th of November, 1875, Mrs. Howe
was tried, and according to the record
of the court was ''fouud not guilty by
reason of variance.n Now these facts
are technically consistent with belief
in Mrs. HOwe's innocence of the offence
for which she was complained of, and so
are the further facts, that Mrs. Howe
afterward settled in money with the
lady who made the complaint under
which the trial took place. But does it
look as if Mrs. Howe was the sort of
person who would he intrusted with
the disposition of a great charitable
fund?
Let no depositOr comfort herself with
the argument that the Ladies' Deposit
Co. has already existed for three years,
and therefore may exist forever. 1t is
well known that gigantic swindles Or
ganiZed on scheme similar to that of
the Ladies' Deposit Co. have existed in
Russia, Germany and Spain, and lived
for years. That which f1OuTished in
Germany lived for fifteen years, and
when the fraud was exposed scarcely
| five silver groschen were left in its
treasury. The explanation is perfectly
simple after it has once been made and
understood. Where such an enterprise
as this gets the favor of the credulOus,
| principal pOurS in for a time so fast
that the preposterous promises of inter-
est can all be redeemed at first. Here,
for example, suppose the deposits in
| the Ladies Deposit Co." distributed
through the first year were $4,000, the
second $4,000, and the third year
100000; at the end of the third year,
assuming that the deposits were made
in the usual proportions for each period
of the year, and the principal was very
rarely called in, there would still be
something over, even if every depOsitor
had drawn her eight per cent interest
in advance. The bottom drops out
when the immense deposits cease, or
when there is a general calling in of
principal. Probably if every depostor
should demand her principal of the La
dies Deposit Co. to-day, there would
not be one-quarter enough to satisfy
their claims.
But,-a yet more important consider
ation-what are the claims of the de-
positors We doubt if they have any
claims in law at all. Against whom
could a claim be made, anyway? !?
Against the company? Is there then
such company7 If so, who are its
members Is it Incorporated Who
can be sued7 1t is evident that
there is no such company which can be
put in the position of a defendant.
And in fact the obligation which is
given back to the depostor is not even
the promissory note (as every lawyer
knows) of any body company or cor
poration, unless it is the individual note
of j. A. Gould, Agent. And who is she
or he, for the head ones of the compa-
ny do not give Christian names, by
which even their sex can be certainly
determined.
From another source: 1t is said that
the woman who is carrying on the
swindling "Ladies Deposit Banking
Co.," at Boston, which for three years
has been gulling the poor seamstresses
and working women of New England
while no hand of police power or legal
restraint has been put forth to stop the
wretched business-has had most dis
graceful career, and is now supposed to
be in league with gambling house in
!, New York, and perhaps with others in
Boston. She was born at Providence
in 1924, as she says. While yet child
or little more, she eloped with one John
J Solomon, colored man, calling himself
an Indian doctor, and was married tC
him at Rehobeth before 1910, when oul
; laws forbade the intermarriage of white
and colored persons. She abandoned
Solomon some time before 1S48, and il
November, 1848, as she says, was mar
, ried in Providence to William B. Lane
Tor Chase)--having borne sometimes
one name and sometimes the other
r After his death, as she says, she mar
!, ried Florimond l.. Howe, a native O
(, | Non, To- OF Soon Nc nf FIJI,