Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-08
LOommunicated.1
BAILEYS REPLY DISSECTED.
HE RELIGIOUsLY DODGEs THE
ISSUE.
The Democratic Candidate Ignores Material
Parts of the Graf; Bennett q Co.
RecOrd-MUre Pertinent Ques-
,ions for Him IN Answer,

The Democratic Candidate Ignores Material
Parts of the Graf; Bennett & Co.
RecOrd-MUre Pertinent Ques-
tions for Him to Answer.
John H. Bailey, assignee OF Graf, BEN
nett & Co., the nominee of the Democratic
partv for Mayor of Pittsburg, published in
the newspapers of Friday his answer to the
charges against him in the Graf, Bennett &
Co, assignee matter and prefaces it with the
remark that he is expected to answer to the
public for every act of his lIfe-that-he is
prepared to do it and begs for no quarter.
So be it. Mr.. Bailey is hereby guaran-
teed calm, dispassionate discussion from
the records as to this matter-that his answer
to the Mcintosh, Hemphill & Co. ct al. bill
will be published, and that no assertion not
made by or fairly inferable from the record
will be used, and he on his part is expected
to fully and fairly answer such matter in
plain, unequivocal language acknowledging
as true such as he admits and designating
specifically such as he denies.
One of the greatest and most serious allie
cations of record is that John II. Bailey,
assignee, petitioned the Court of Common
Pleas No. of Allegheny county for decree
authorizing and permitting him to sell at
public sale all the real estate of Graf, Ben
nett & Co., subject to certain incumber-
ances 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 Syndicate for the sum of $50, ,050, a
grossly inadequate 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-
brances subject to which they were sold.
And the bill prayed for (among other
things) the notification and making void of
the sale and deeds Hereunder for said prop
critics and for the appointment of receiver
to enter upon and take possession of said
properties, such receiver 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 is
most Significantly silent upon this trans
action. You do not even deign to notice it.
Why?
Referring to the personal property, you
say, "No public sale of these effects was
possible" Why? You say, ga schedule
would have given no information more than
could have been obtained from the inven-
tory on file." At what did the inventory
value the remaining assets?" Would the
total of the inventory-S652, COS 94-less the
real estate, $3.50, 900; viz, $3O2, sos "a, be
the appraised value of the same? If so,
was not $50, 900 ridiculously low price for
the same?
But most marvellous of all is your state
ment.
81 could not ascertain their value be-.
cause I had no means of information that
was not possessed by the sworn appraisers
who failed to learn the value of a 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 tangible
property, a large portion of which, like pig
iron, ore, etc., had market value daily and
hourly. Did you examine all of the assets
did you go into other counties
property there? The syndicate had no
trouble in valuing it, for the record alleges
that it resold out OF the many items you thus
sold it for S277, 900 in a short time after your
sale to it. You were appointed to learn the
value of this property; you were to sell it at
something like its real value; you disposed
of property alleged by the records to be
worth $341, 900 for S50,O 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 certain sum at time when you were
actually 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 the unsecured creditors, who tell me that
they solicited the others to unite with them.
The assets were not sold for $50, 900, but
have reason to believe cost the purchasers
$3.50, 900.
You will admit you had no right to sacri-
fee Graf, Bennett & Co.'s property. Then
what difference does it make whether the
combine" included three-iourths or more
of the creditors? OF what avail is this ex-
cuse? We're you not bound to protect the
assignors (Graf, Bennett & Co. and the re-
naming one-fourth of the creditors?
And you have reason to believe the assets
cost the purchasers S150,OOO, and they were
not sold for $500 Don't you know even
now what you sold them for? But if the
syndicate paid $50, 900 for s341, 600 worth
of property, and they have since sold eight
items for $277,0 ,00O and have $119, 1000 worth
remaining, who got the worst OF the deal,
the syndicate or Graf, Bennett & Co. and
their creditors, even if said syndicate did
pay $3.50, 900, as you have reason to believe?
Do you-a lawyer and once a judge-pre.
tend to say that because an Indebtedness was
against this property that no public sale of
the same could have been made or that you,
as assignee could not have by selling some
paid off the Indebtedness and thus held the
balance clear? The records allege that the
syndicate has been marvelously successful
in this regard. and have sold item bv item,
eight of the pieces of said property. and
have realized the handsome sum of S277, 900
for the same. Are 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 Connellsville
Coal and Coke property for $4,000 before
you sold to the syndicate, and you did not
do so, and that after your sale to the sYndi-
cate it sold to the same man this same piece
of property for $50, 600. If they could and
did for this figure, could you not have done
the same?
Finally, was not one of the trustees of
this syndicate, who were the benefciaries OF
this deal upon which the syndicate hes al
ready realized so large profit your own
brother?