Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1889-10-03
Campbell COrnpred.
How He Tried TO Buy Brewery
For a British Trust,
And to Receive 100000
For His Services.

| IN w Il DcNAAieu
Part in the Negotiations Extracts
From Court Records That Challenge
the veracity of the Democratic Candi-
date for Governor of Ohio
Governor Foraker took occasion in
his Xenia speech to refer to the variety
of trusts in England and their oppres-
sive character. He said:
They have some trusts in breweries in
England. and last night l received a paper
/ by mail that gives me prospectus of one of
these brewery trust organizations. want
to read you briefly from the prospectus, in
erder that may show you not only that
they have trusts in England, but that they
are recognized and protected by law.
This prospectus sets forth that a com
pany with capital of 500, 900 has been or
ganized for the purpose of buying the Mt.
Vernon brewery, situated in Washington
city, .. s. A.
want now to quit that, and that plank
of the Democratic platform, by simply say
ing to this audience, for the benefit of Mr..
Campbell, however, and the Democratic
party, that, if l be not misinformed, he, the
Democratic candidate, who stands on this
declaration that trusts are legitimate pro-
duct of the tariff, that he, directly or in
directly, was the representative and agent
in this country of that trust. Applause.
If 1 am incorrectly informed, Mr.. Campbell
can correct me, and l hope he will not delay
it too long.
In his Batavia speech Mr.. Campbell,
referring to this portion of Governor
Forakers speech, thus denied his con-
nection with this transaction:
He asked me question. He read pros
pectus of some brewery pretending to be
floating in the market which he says is
owned by a trust. don't know anything
about it, don't know nor don't care who
knows it. But he wants to know if Mr..
Campbell is agent, directly or indirectly, of
that trust. l will answer him that l am not
And then l will answer him further. You
may wonder why the governor of Ohio goes
so far out of the campaign issues as to ask
that question of me. 1t is because behind
that question is little dirty insinuation that
was whispered around the Dayton conven-
ton by Republican 'heelers" that were sent
there for that purpose. That is behind it.
And want the governor of Ohio, if he dare
to come out and father the story, that l
can brand them and the story as they de-
serve.
In view of this denial Mr. Campbell's
friends and the public at large will read
with astonishment from the records of
the supreme court of the District of Co
lumbia, not only that Mr.. Campbell
was principal agent in these dealings
with the English brewery trust, but that
the Washington property which was Of
fered to him for $3.50, 00U was represent |
ed to the trust to have cost twice that !
amount; and further still, that of this
excess in the supposed cost. Mr.. Camp
bell attempted to arrange to receive
$780, 600 for his own services in effecting |
the sale, and finally secured an agree |
ment that he should have S25, ,00O
The affidavit given below was made |
by the Washington owner of the Mt. |
Vernon brewery, and it will be noticed |
that the correctness of the document is |
certified under the seal of the court.
In the supreme court of the District of |
Columbia, Joseph B. Hughes VS.. Albert |
Carry and Wilhelmina Carry, his wife; |
John A. Clarke, trustee, and Barbara T. |
Jueneman.
In equity, No. II, ,S36.
Albert Carry being first duly sworn, de- |
poses and says:
I am a defendant in the above entitled |
cause. l was born in Germany in the year
1852, and emigrated from that country to |
the United States In 1869 In 1875 / was
naturalized. My business is that of |
brewer l carried on that business as super
intendent of large mandatory in Cincin-
natl, O., for fifteen years. In September, |
1885, removed to the District of Columbia,
and purchased the real estate mentioned in
the bill, with the improvements. 1 have
since carried on the said business on said |
premises. In February, 1889, l was ap-
preached by James E. Campbell to know
whether 1 would dispose of my brewery
property and 1 informed him would not
Shortly afterward and late in said month,
my brother, who had assisted me in the bus
iness, and was interested to the extent of
one-fourth thereof, left me and returned to
Germany.
After he left 1 sent word to Mr.. Campbell
that would consider proposition looking
to the sale of the property. He called and
told me that in a few days he would bring
to my place of business a party through
whom the property could be sold to British
purchasers, and a few days afterward, and
about the 10th of March he came again, bring
ing with him Joseph B. Hughes, the COM
plainant, whom heintroduced. had known
Mr.. Campbell for some eighteen months as
a member of congress from Ohio, but had
never met Mr.. Hughes. The latter was rep
resented by Mr.. Campbell to be the consul
of the United States at Birmingham, Eng
land, and a gentleman whose position in
business circles would enable him to find
English purchasers of my property at a fair
price. At this visit the brewery property |
was carefully examined by Mr.. Campbell,
but to very limited extent by Mr.. Hughes.
Both he and Mr.. Campbell said it was
necessary that Mr.. Hughes should have
limited option TO buy, whereby he could
control the property and sell it to the En-
glish parties. My terms were substantially
those stated in the exhibit filed with the bill,
about S250, 900, an inadequate sum. At this
time did not know of the act of congress of
March 8, 1887, making it unlawful for
aliens, or for foreign corporations to ac-
quire, hold or own real estate lin the Dis
trict of Columbia. l had never heard of
any such law, nor did hear of it until early
in June, when 1 was informed of it by my
counsel 1 do not know whether Mr..
Hughes or Mr.. Campbell knew of the law,
but if either did know of it he failed to give
me any information of it. In my ignorance
of the law l consented that Mr.. Hughes
should sell to English purchasers, and that
to enable him to make such sale he should
have the proposed option. The only inter
est Mr.. Hughes was to have was in any sur
plus after satisfying my terms. If he failed
to find English purchasers he was to be un-
der no obligation in respect of the property.
1t was arranged that we should meet
next evening at my house, and that in the
Mr.. Campbell should prepare
a written agreement.
The next evening we met, and by my in
vitation Mr.. John A. Clarke a member of
the bar of this court, and my attorney, was
present. The subject was again discussed, |
and it was perfectly well understood that
thd whole purpose of the arrangement and
agreement was to enable Mr.. Hughes to
make sale of the property and business to
English parties or an English syndicate.
The contract was then signed by me, and [
afterwards by my wife, who was at that
time i'll in bed. l supposed at the time the