Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-10-12
GRANT q GORDON.

An Explanation with Respect 60 the
Loan Which Gen. Gordon Obtained
from Grant & Ward ON the Belmont
Goal Mine.
In our dispatches Friday, appeared an
extract from a statement of Ferdinand
Ward, respecting the affairs OF the late
firm OF Grant s. Ward. In that state
ment Ward said that Gen. Gordon had in
duced Gen. Grant to invest in coal
mine in Alabama, known as the Belmont
mine, which investment proved loss to
the firm OF Grapt q Ward to the extent Of
about $150,000. In Saturdays New York
Herald, Gen. Gordon's sOngin the absence
of Gen Gordon, made a statement in re-
ply to that OF Ward, of which the
following is an extract; "Mr.
Hugh Gordon said be would prefer that
his father should make statement Of
facts concerning this transaction, al
though he was himself acquainted with
being absent, be would reply for him lie
said: 81 know enough about this affair to
know that Mr.. Wards lntimatiOn that
his firm was led to make a disastrous in
vestment through the representations of
Gen. Gordon is false. Before this trans
action was cOnsummated | was at the
mines myself, associated with imy father
and my uncles. l know that during that
whole period the demand for our coal far
exceeded our capacity 10 supply 1t. In
addition to the demands from private
buyers we had then contract to furnish
coal for the use OF the Memphis and
the mines were located, and the
railroad took so much of il
that we had very little for private
sale. So In order TO increase our facilities
for mining on larger scale, this increase
OF capital, 10 which Mr.. Ward refers, was
sought, and the enterprise was brought TO
the attention OF Grant a. Ward. Before
making the investment a competent at
torney was sent down 10 examine the
titles 70 the property, and Grant IL Ward
themselves sent Mr.. william Ward
Ferdinand Wards own brOther-to ex-
anime and report upon the value and con-
dition of the property. he examined it,,
returned to New York and made his re-
port-a favorable one / assume--to the
firm. Upon that report Grant Il Ward
made the investment. From that day
until the mines closed they had absolute
control of the mines, managed and
operated them, and the property was
wholly in their hands.
81 see, again, that Mr.. Ward says, thus
IL WAS that, although when the firm pur-
chased the mine Gen. Gordon said there
was not over $4,000 % 100000 indebted
ness on II, they had spent up TO the time
the mine was shut down some 100000,
besides having 10 assume the debt Of Gen.
Gordon 10 the Marine Bank as loan on
this stock which cost him nothing? In
using this language Mr.. Ward does not
make any direct charge, but be has en-
deaYored 10 create the impression that
they had spent upon the Indebtedness or
the mining company Sl30,0O0, instead Of
the S50,0 600 or 100000, as represented BY
Gen. Gordon. The truth about that Is
that the money put into the mine In ex-
cess Of the $4,000 or $50, 900 was spent by
Grant & Ward in operating the mine
alter 10 came into their control, COW
ering a period OF about one year. Az
20 the loan OF $4,000 II h 10 be pre-
sumed that my father considered the 1900
shares OF stock as ample collateral for the
loan which the company asked, and IL
must have been so considered by Grant e
Ward and the Marine bank, else why did
they make the loanf And in the settle
ment Of this loan they took the $500, 600
face value Of stock certificates and thus
became the owners OF the whole property
j think Mr.. Wards inferential statement
that Gen. Gordon induced Grant q Ward
20 make a losing investment looks both
false and absurd, in view Of the fact that
they had the report OF an attorney as 20
the validity OF the title. and that the ex-
animation Of the property itself was made
and fayorably reported on BY Dir. Wards
own brother"