The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1882-08-23
Correspondence New London Record, Aug. 16-l
Horr, Warner & Co., and the John
Clark Failure.

Ou Jul OOuSAOccAOhoA
near the close of which you somewhat
seriously reflected upon the character of
our townsman, Mr.. c. W. Horr. Il is not
my purpose to discuss the propriety of
bringing thus publicly into notice the
name of man who is not engaged in this
political canvass, even for the purpose of
explaining the reason for feeling of op-
position that exists against his brother, for
feel assured that you would not inten-
tioually do an innocent man injustice, and
must therefore conclude that Mr.. Horr's
reputation in your section is such that there
would seem TO be no impropriety in speak
ing of him as " the cunning cheese specu-
lator,'' man against whom so much has
been said " that a dislike has arisen of the
very name-so suggestive of greed and
gain ~-that nothing odious or disgraceful
that can be said of him could possibly ex-
ceed the truth. 1t is well known that the
feeling against c. w. Horr in your section
grows out of the John Clark failure; and
ii NAV as well be said at the outset that
any dishonesty Mr.. Horr is guilty of, at
taches equally to every member of the
firm of Horr, Warner s. Co., each one of
whom were cognizant of every portion of
the contract and every item of business
transacted, and gave their consent thereto.
And here we may raise strong presump-
tion against the truth of the charges con-
cerning Mr.. Horr, on the ground that
whatever he might be willing to do, the
wellknoHn character of s. S. Warner and
E. F. Webster, two of the principal part
ners, and the latter the book-keeper of the
firm, is such as to preclude the supposition
that they would consent to a scheme to
overreach John Clark or his patrons. No
man can be found who has sufficient ac-
quaintance with those gentlemen to be
competent to judge, who could be made
to believe them capable of such compile
ity. In the beginning of their business
relations the reputation of Mr.. Clark for
solvency was such as to put the firm of
Horr, Warner & Co. ON their guard, and
they wisely, as the sequel proved, resolved
10 take no risk which might involve them
in loss in case of his failure. They handled
the product of his factories on commission
several years, and up to the time of his
failure. They had no business relations
with his patrons except that in the year of
the failure they guaranteed few of his
contracts with some of his patrons who
were unwilling to sell him their milk
without security. They loaned him large
sums of money, taking security either on
real estate, factories, fixtures, or the names
of other men, and retaining proceeds of
sales to provide for any unsecured balance.
On Mr.. Clark's failure his patrons charged
that he had covered up his money by col.
lusion with Horr, Warner s. Co. The
best legal talent was employed, among
whom were Judge Geddes, p Grosscup,
Judge Curtis and Mr.. Lehman, and at
four different times every transaction be-
tween Clark, and Horr, Warner & Co., from
the beginning of their business relations
until the end, was examined, and not one
cent of Clark's money was found to have
been dishonesty appropriated. No one of
the lawyers on either side, so far as is
known, has ever suggested that there was
any crookedness on the part of the firm,
and Judge Geddes said after the conclu-
sion of the investigations that the whole
case was as clear as the sunlight-there
was not one scrap of evidence OF circum-
stance to create a suspicion of fraud.
Would it not appear reasonable, if there
had been such stupendous fraud as has
been alleged, some trace of it would have
been found; and does it appear reasonable
that those who have not given the case a
days examination should still insist that
there was dishonestys Mr.. Clark, the
man who lost everything, does not and
never has charged this firm with unfair
ness and dishonesty, and will the candid
reader stop and think that he is the only
man whose business relations were such as
to give him right to criticise their treat
ment or business methods The patrons
sustained no such relations to Horr, War
ner & Co. as would make it possible for
them to be defrauded except through John
Clark, but the evidence is conclusive that
said firm never had dollar of his money
for which they did not render an equiv
alent
Notwithstanding the prejudice growing
out of this affair against this firm, they
have gone on every year extending their
business, taking in some of the patrons of
the factories formerly owned by Mr.. Clark,
having their confidence and being believed
in and trusted by them until their sales
largely exceed those of any other similar
house in Ohio. In every instance where Mr.
C. W. Horr has made the acquaintance of
hose prejudiced by the Clark failure he has
won their confidence. Those who have
aad most intimate relations with him, and
hose who by ability and experience are
pest qualified to judge, believe in him
and not few would trust him
With every dollar they have in the world.
Mr. Horr is not a man who is regarded by
hose who know him as having such
character as to damage the prospects of
lis brother in his candidacy for Congress,
Tor as to justify the estimate voiced in the
ditorial mentioned. He is, on the con-
rary. an able business man, having the
ull confidence of his patrons, his business
ssociates and his acquaintance, and who
5 indebted for his success not TO cunning,
nut to strict integrity that fulflls every |
ontract in a most liberal spirit, TO caution |
hat takes no risks and allows no opportu- |
itv for loss that human foresight can pre-
emf. 1t is 10 these qualities he owes his
erv marked success, and it is TO his sue
ess that he is largely indebted for the !