Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-26
CITY AND DISTRICT.
CONCERNING MIR. OLMSTEAD.
A.Card from Nr. IriIIyer.
70 the EDITOR Of The EVENING STAR:

missioner for this District has seen fit 10 90 into
print in defense of his character for integrity in
private business transactions. In so doing he
has thought proper to introduce my name and
To comment upon a certain suit now pending
In the Supreme Court of the District against
himself and others. in which | am one of
the complainants. He has thus opened the door
to newspaper discussion of the evidence in
this cause. While this would not he disagreed
bic to my feelings I shall certainly not avail my
sell of the opportunity. As the testimony IN the
cause Is now before the court for judicial hear
ing. think nv refusal to discuss it elsewhere
will be attributed TO a better motive than any
fear Of the result of such a discussion. In re-
spect to this suit of Mr.. Sunderland and myself,
to which he refers. / have only this to say: The
charges made are of the most serious character.
In various transactions they accuse the defend
ants of fraud and betrayal OF trust. IL they are
not mere base.ess fctons.
Mr.. oLNsTEAp Is TOTALLY UNFIT
for the office Of Commissioner or any other pub
lie Office. The cOmpainants have supported
these charges with proofs Of such character that
they are now ready TO submit them to a court
for its decision. Under these circumstances il
seems t. me little premature to appoint one of
these defendants TO a responsible public position
before hearing has been had. such appoint
ment Is in fact prej,nlGp,e1d Of the case IT is
true the defendants have plead not guilty So
have Brady and Dorsey. In each case innocence
j. presumed until guilt is proven. Bur there
would seem To me to be great propriety in re-
straining their ambition for public office until
judgment OF acquittai has been pronounced. 1t
would be very awkward thing for the people
OF this District To read in TIE STAR some eve
ming that one of their Commissioners fastened
upon them for three years had been, by the
judgment of court convicted of fraud and
breach of tIUSt. / warn them now that such
thing is not al al improbable
viii now notice one OF two matters referred
To by Mr. Olmstcad. not connected with the suit
In which | am interested. ami first the affair of
Nr. VIM. Reading. In reference to this Mr..
Olmstead SAYS:
day, think il was Wednesday. simply repetition
o, Th:t Tie ,a a e. rnished ten years ago IN re-
pTezent publ and the 20 rner is that
those charles weTe made sani kibonrn had n" i in
ter 81 wiateyerin The firm. IF kbourn & Latta.
MI resrousible fer any Of their acts whether they
fs.,t or VII l GO noi mss b{ mat to cast the
IkhieSt rehecCon upon the firm. 1 think they were
III 81 all the time"
Now, either what Mr.. Omstcad saws here is
untrue, or else both he and Mr.. Latta have
testified under oath to what Is not true. As
will appear by the papers set forth below. this
transaction of Reading commenced in the latter
part of May. 1871, and closed the 10th day of
June of that year. In the of KlbouTn Il
OlIDstead VS. Latta. commenced i'm the Supreme
Court of the District in November. 1877. equity
No. 1919. Gin which Kilbourn and OImstead
Charge Latta with fraudulentiy and secretly
taking for himself profits that belonged to the
hrni, Mr. Olmstead. examined as witness on
his own behalf. testified as follows plaintiffs
testimony, Vol. u:
th efG fh: S-"hen did sOn become member of
ISL. came ii'' the mr." the LIST OF January
In the same case Mr.. Iatta a " illness for HIM
self. testifies defendants testimony. vol d.
Questo 43.-''Nhen did Mr.. Olfns.esd if ever
beeine Interested i'll this rn. ana state what his inter
AZ Asp>yer-AIy recollection is that it va. in May.
rersp1 betre the thing was detl itely settled
sne arrangement having been made in May"
without quoting any more will say that the
record in this case (Kilbourn and Omstead vs.
Latta) leaves no doubt that the time when Mr.
Ofnstead became a member of this firm was
as he testifieS himself, January 1, 1871 The
style of the firm was never changed until it's
dissolution (January |. 1S77). but from the date
mentioned Nr. Oimstcad was silent OF secret
partner. He was not, therefore. as he SAYS in
DIS interview. a mere clerk at the time of the
Heading transaction, but full partner with a
oBe-fourth interest. | do not think any one
who reads what follows will wonder that Mr.
tlmstead desires to screen himself from re-
sponsibility in this transaction but they will
Perhaps. wonder how person who to shrk
This responsibility. is willing to state for plbli-
cation a falsehood should be selected as a Com
missioner for the District of Columbia.
THE READING CASE.
Now to the transaction itself: Mr.. VIM Read
ing IS a farmer residing about eight miles from
Washington. near Cabin John bridge Md He
Is man of Intelligence and his character for in
tegrity aud truthfulness is known and will be
vouched for by many of the most respectable
citizens of Washington. Mr.. Thomas ]. Fisher
for one. At my request he has furnished me
copy OF letter IN his own handwriting. written
by him TO NJ. Thornton Smith at the Iatter's re-
guest. in 1873 the substance of which was in
that year published in the New York Sun. that
being thasrticle referred to by Mr. Olmstead in
the eXtrfht from his interview above quoted;
also an additional statement of some facts not
mentioned IN the letter: also the original letters
and account of sale sent him by the firm of Kill
bourn Latta- They are as follows:
MR. EEADISG's STATEMENT
CFnAn GROVE. Nh. Nov. 10. 1s33-Thoraton
Inform you tina. the spring of 1s7i apped to XII
bourn Istta raj e,tate sents in WASHINGTON D. c.
had considered fifteen per square foot eoua to
s<a1,r by teIa Inst ii %al far to t arte va1 mas
but that they would do the best they could for me- and
which asreei '-'' ief cent e'innlissoh' to
On the 18Th Of May was informed by them by let.
foot were Offered for the lot one,hrd cash and the
s few days r eS 6 m ana ws Sa .ea ADVISED =
request to execute and bring in possible 70
WINCH OF ject by letter but offered 20 take IL cent.
erlo3t Tor II II the purchaser would a paving
tax which had been recently levied upon IT. Where
upon was informed by them by letter that the pur-
c1ssr ted assume the paving tax upon uHe laid
G.. II then laid '"'"
And after strenuous written AID verbal urging and
assurances tnat II Was good price, and that their
ithor was lived IN the matter. they had assured
tle would-te purchaser he should have it at cent?
aud that he had already paid SIS for OF
tle nte signed the deed prepared by them conveying
tne lot 10 j. Ieyard Hodge, without the consideration
ot aJ CONSIDERATION being written IN which proposed
70 Nr Iatta u DO at the time of delivering il 10 the
it Shs answered 10y him that il had better done by
Sf- o4instead. Their cerk (vho then absrnt) aud
who had pr pared the deed, which instantly aureld
Iaihkin2 that az future tine might what wo ID
be written In. ~
a lea days after received by mali their bill of the
e OF me lct 1t cents foot il amounted T. S6fy
O. accompanying their Dill the paving tax bill for
$40, marked PAID added, amounting in all to sSs5 Is
isi which was deducted si2 D. five per cent commits.
sion on the trhoe s. for si,e and s.amIs and the
paving tax bi. SIG and the amount of their ACCOM-
psIyli,- check for 1921. 10 e. balance.
DO- ut al satisfied the price had got for
IN OF and feared that had been shonestly dealt
H and Some months after, searching the records in
me reg1siets 5fhce found the deed recorded with the
colsd r@on written in. 81, 204 At. Under advice of
Counsel at once sOugn: the purchaser who stated
,i LIE had hrst bargain ed The lot az I5c par foot
Dart n tune, VIZ, az & and II months but fianaly
Iald All cash Ter small discount of about per cent rer
iAilth on deferred Payments aud learned from his
" 4 10 a.,