Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-09
fCommunicated.1
HOT SHOT FOB BAILEY.
PERTINENT QUESTIONS NOT An
HH SWERED.

He Opens Not His Mouth-Whys
ST am expected to answer to the public for
every act of my life. / am prepared to do
so, and / beg for no quarter"
This was the statement of John H. Bailey
in answering to certain charges made
against him. Notwithstanding this state
ment, the Democratic nominee has either
avoided questions put 10 him since then or
not answered them at all. On all occasions
he has been dodging the issue. In his an
swer to charges made against him in the
Graft Bennett g Co. assignee matter, he
states that no charges Of mismanagement
were made against him. However, one Of
the gravest and most serious allegations Of
record is that John II. Bailey, assignee, pc
titioned the Court OF Common Pleas No 2.
of Allegheny county, for decree authoriz-
ing and permitting him to sell at public sale
all the real estate Of Graf, Bennett g
Co., subject TO certain Membranes
only, and after due notice Of the sale that
John H. Bailey, assignee, sold all of the
real estate above mentioned, including the
rolling mills, blast furnaces, steel plants,
factories, dwelling houses, etc., to the "Syn-
dicate'' for the sum of S25, $50, grossly in
adequate price, and much less than its
actual value; that the said properties are
and were at the time of said sale worth at
least $500 900 over and above the incum-
DfaneeS subject 70 WHICH bQSV NsEt 5Olus
And the bill prayed for (among other
things) the notification and making void
of the sale and deeds Hereunder for said
properties and for the appointment of q re-
ceiVer in Bailey's place to enter upon and
take possession of said properties, such re-
ceiver eventually to be ordered and directed
to sell and expose at public auction the said
property for the benefit and advantage Of
the creditors Of Graf, Bennett & Co.
And yet, Mr.. Bailey, your answer il
most Significantly silent upon this transac-
ton. You do not even deign to notice it
Why?
Referring to the personal property, you
say ''No public sale of these effects was
| possibIe" Why? You say "a schedule
would have given no information more
than could have been obtained from the
| inventory on fle." At what did the in
yentorY value the remaining assets?"
Would the total of the inventory-S652,
6o5 94-less the real estate, $3.50, 900, Viz,
S3O2, 500 "a, be the appraised value OF the
same? Ii so. was not $4,000 ridicuE
ously low price for this valuable prop
But most marvellous of all is your state
ment:
81 could not ascertain their value be-
| cause had no means OF information that
was not possessed by the sworn appraisers,
who failed to learn the value Of great
many of them"
Does not this part of your answer empha-
size the allegation that you were derelict in
your duty?
The reason you could not ascertain the
value Of the goods intrusted to you to dis
pose of is not apparent. They were tangi-
BE property, a large portion of which, like
! mig iron, ore, etc., had a market value daily
and hourly. Did you examine all Of the as
| sets? Did you go into other counties and
States and look at and inspect the property
there? The syndicate had no trouble in
yaluing it, for the record alleges that it re-
sold eight out of the many items you thus
| sold it for SIT, 900 in a short time after your
sale of it. You were appointed to learn the
value of this property you were to sell 1t &C
something like its real value; you disposed
| of the property alleged by the records to be
worth S34f 600 for $50, 900 and defend your
action by saying you could not ascertain
their value" thus admitting that you sold
at private sale the assets of this company for
| a certain sum at time when you were ac-
tuaIly in ignorance of the worth of the same
would you so act with your own property?
Again you say: The Combination of
creditors comprised three-fourths in
amount of unsecured creditors, who tell me
that they solicited the others to unite with
them.
sSThe assets were not sold for $50, 900, but
have reason to believe cost the purchasers
$50, ,000."
You will admit you had no right to saeri-
fee Graf, Bennett g Co. property? Then
what difference does it make whether the
''eombine" included thfee-fourths or more
or less of the creditors? Of what avail is
this excuse2 Were you not bound to pro
tect the assignors (Graf, Bennett & Co. }
and the remaining one-fourth OF the credit
ors?
And Won have reason to believe the assets
cost the purchasers $3.50, 900, and they we're
not sold for $50, 900. Don't you know even
what YOU sold them for? But if the syndi-
cate paid $50, 900 for S341, 900 worth Of prop
| erty. and they have since sold eight items
for S277, 900, and have S119, 900 remaining,
who got the worst of the deal, the syndicate
, or Graf, Bennett & Co. and their creditors,
even if said syndicate did pay $50, 900, as
you have reason to believer
De you-a lawyer and once a judge-p-e-
tend to say that because an Indebtedness
was against this property no public sale OF
4 the same could have been made, or that you,
as assignee, could not have, by selling some,
| Maid off the indebtedness and thus held the
balance of the property clear? The records
allege that the syndicate has been marvel
4 ouslv successful in this regard, and have
sold, item by item, eight Of the pieces OF
said property, and have realized the hand
some sum Of S277, 900 for the same. Are
not the fruits Of these eight items more than
! you realized from the whole estate, real,
personal and mixed?
The record also alleges that you were in
formed that you could sell the ConnellsYille
: Coal and Coke property for So, 600 before you
sold to the syndicate, and you did not do 50.
and that after your sale to the syndicate it sold
to the same man this same piece of property
for $50, 900. If they could and did sell tor
! this figure, why could you not have done
the same?
Finally, was not one of the trustees of this
, svndicate. who were the benefciaries Of this
} deal upon which the syndicate has already
r realized so large profit, your own brotherS