Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-10-13

MORE OF WARDS FIGUREA-
Mr. Tobay ls-Frea. GrantS' Dental
Here Ab0at Gen. 0oraou's Mine.
Ferdinand Ward continues his revelations In
the New York Herald to-day. II Is insisted
that the accounts of"Buck" Grant, made pub
lie last week, were seen and corrected by that
gentleman himself, 50 there can be no mistake
about them. Ward was asked how he account
ed for the denial OF Mayor Grace In respect Of
the partnership suggested by Mr.. Grace with
Grant Ward, and how he explained the a..
sertions Of Mr.. Grace-nrst, that he had made
no money out Of his transactions with Grant
4 Ward, but Was = loser 70 the extent OF
&c, 1000. and second, that he had never heard
q any suggestion in reference 70 the partner
MI. Ward said: IAN can say about that is
this. Here IL our letter book, showing multitu-
tons 70 ss: or nom Mr.. Grsce. and Il WoaiS us Is
very strange II In all these communications
relative TO money transactions, every one OF
conclusion. THIS letter alone should be the one
he never reoeived. amply because IL treats OF
matter he might not now like 70 have brought
In his letter book Ward showed a copy of the
letter relating TO the partnership. which he
claimed 70 have sent to Mayor Grace. Ward
Mayor Grace out OF his loans to the iirm.
Among these tranSactions was one by which
ss ss month"; 70, sse USE G
ginal papers in these transactions, Ward
claims, are In existence and can be produced
Ss ano1aeT Ssn S
81, S636Q The Mr.. Tobey who appeared In
the Grace transactions, Ward says, was a clerk
In Mayo. Grsce. office and acted ,a,sdr a., as
his dealings with Grant & Ward. Tobey
obtained small percentage on the
Grace. He also invested money on his own
hook with the firm, altogether receiving from
them an aggregate of 81 33, 329, As.
previous statements regarding his accounts
Ward said: He means what he says, viz:
that he did get what say he got, what the
checks and accounts show tie got. He was de-
ceived I'm believing there were government con-
tracts, and he was therefore wrong when, being
SO deceived, he said he never heard of any such
thing q government contract, and as IL was
with him, so IL was with the Others. They were
deceived, but they thought they knew, and SO
long as they profited they were willing to par,
tlcipate In what they now say they never heard
OF"
''Col. Grant alludes to O rumor, and, by the
the Heratd's story being published October =.
that you say Gen. Grant took S2O6,o 900 from
the firm over his investments. How about its"
II never said SO. The public eye very likely
would not detect the discrepancy in the date,
but you are right. The letter OF Grant is dated
OCTOBER 2. and nobody knew anything OF IL
until after the HerdldS story of October = was
published. have never intimated. much less
his Investment What / nave said The books
show, and that is that, as matter Of fact, he did
receive, according to the undisputed accounts.
Just what the Herald published the other day.
His share of the profits as a member of the firm
OF Grant Ward were SIG, 80: profits
which paid him were $40. 5000; stock losses
2,O79.57."
MORE ABOUT GORDON AND HIS MINE
"Did Gen. Grant and his sons pay In all the
money for the Belmont miner"
''Of course they did not. Fish and paid our
member OF the arm paid his proportion, and,
a. q matter OF fact, that all the cash put In the
mine was put in by Grant Ward. Therefore
mine was great deal Of q fraud"
'But your brother examined it,"
Certainly he did, and, by the way. am glad
gineer, and he was sent tn examine the mine
as to the quality and quantity OF its coal. He
was not sent to investigate anything about its
finances. He would not have been competent
to Investigate them If he had been sent to do SO.
He relied upon Gen. Grant Gen. Grant relied
upon Gen. Gordon. My brother reported that
quality of coal. He knew nothing about the
debts, about the difficulties in the way OF get
e
the point to which his mind was directed as a
mining expert. AS matter of fact Buck
Grants attorney, burlington, subsequently
went down and examined the mine also and
was paid for his services"
"Gen. Gordon thinks that the mine was worth
81 ,O00,O 900, and that he got nothing for it,"
swell, think We can afford to let that tub
stand on its own bottom. He made representa-
tions TO Gen. Grant. Gen. Grant made the rep
presentations to Grant 4 Ward in good faith.
We, desiring to please the general, did precisely
what Gen. Gordon asked him To get done for
him, and we lost il all.'
"Gen. j. B. Gordon admits that he sold the
mine to Grant 4 Ward through Gen. Grant lie
says that the cause of the failure of the mine To
pay was that it was put under the superintend-
ness, and it was operated in the most unskilful
manner.
at would seem as IL Gen. Gordon, having
sold Grant Ward the mine, and being its
president and living as he did on the ground
and being interested-as he seems to want the
public to think he was-in its welfare, would
Grss Ward sbout f The way bin ana
on. Mr.. Otis was an army officer, and the
Grants put him there, suppose, from a desire
to help him along, but Gen. Gordon should
GAS to the $4,000 loan Gen. Gordon SAYS:
About that time 1 needed money, and bor-
rowed $4,000 from the Marine bank. did
not get the money on the Endorsement OF Grant
Ward, but on my personal note and those of
my associates II the Herdids readers will
refer to the letter written to me 10y Gen. Gordon,
dated April %, published In the Herald OF the
9Th, they will readily see that Gen. Gordon had
to get the consent of Grant & Ward before he
could get the loan, and thus Grant d Ward
became morally liable for 1t, and were com
PEELED TO take IL up and pay the bank 81 {, 900.
Gen. Gordon was frequently called
upon by the bank to pay it,"
In regard to the bonus OF $4,000 that Ward
declared he had paid to George ID. Morgan, of
the Equitable Insurance company, for a loan of
$3.50, 600 from that concern, the receipt
Of which bonus was denied, Ward reiter-
ates his former statement, and showed his
check book 70 substautiate It.
His check book also showed that the total
amount loaned by Mr.. Warner to the firm OF
Grant & Ward was $6,232, 525 95, and the
amount returned to Mr.. W arner %, 76S s74 10
showing profit for the latter Of 81 ,534, 1853 ga
Regarding the allegations that he himself was
interested In these profits OF Warner, Ward
said:
1.-THE fact IL simply this:-Mr Warner. taking
Of me, squeezed me In that midnight
meeting, leaving me absolutely nothing, strip
ping me "a naked as was the day was born.
never wish to see him again and never ex.
pect to. He IL now being sued by my assignee
Mr.. George c. Holt. and without me these VOL
luminous accounts could never have been
proven. gave testimony OF my own free will
These numerous sheets of debts and credits
showing in detail the transactions OF Mr.. War
ner with the firm were refused admission by
the referee unless they could be proven by some
one who could explain and interpret them. l
was the explainer and interpreter. could
have refused to answer, and what could
they have done to me but to bring me where
ami"
A Suit About s'Shin Plasters..
rrNvry a