New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-07-08
ORESTES CLEVELAND AGAIN.
AN EXHIBITION OF UNPARALLELED IAPU-
DENCE.
FRANKLY AvowING THAT HE GAVE HIS wIFEs
STOCK TO SECURE HIS OWN DEBTS
NOW SHE WANTS IT BACK.

When The Tribune few months ago, gave In de-
tail tho history OF Orestes Cleveland's dishonest and
shameful acts in connection with the Dixon Crucible
Company, it generally supposed that this subject
had been exhausted and that the whole story had been
told II appears however. that such is not the case.
Another chapter has just been added TO the narrative
It Is one OF the remarkable that has yet been
told and presents the character Of the Mayor Of Jersey
City In more discreditabo light than ever.
The facts in this chapter of developments are
in substance as follows: When the company which
Mr. Cleveland It's president had wrecked passed into
the hands Of a receiver, Cleveland owed 1t large
Of money, about S6O, 00O-accrued through over
drafts. security for this Indebtedness, Cleveland
gave to Mr. Young, the receiver, in February, 1881,
number Of shares about 800 OF stock OF the company
This stock belonged TO Mrs. Cleveland, but at that
time there were rmors of criminal prosecution and 10
her husband from possible sojourn behind prison
bars, she, a loyal wife, Willingly according TO her
subsequent declaration made under OATH gave up this
stock TO her husbands creditors. At that time the
stock possessed little value Cleveland said So but
told Mr. Young to take it for what it was worth.
Through Mr. Youngs careful management OF the
company's affairs these shares now have a market
price. The company is more on paying basis
and this stock is selling at above par. No sooner
had this fact become known than Mr.. Cleveland with
unparalleled audacity, GANG forward and calmly De
mandcd that this stock be returned to him, alleging
that wife claimed 1t her property, and that he
had no power definitely to ALLEVIATE it, but was merely
authorized 10 II as collateral security for the
claims OF the company against him. when the re-
ceiver attempted TO sell the stock, as step toward
closing Mr. Clevelands account with the company, all
appeal to the courts was made In the name OF Mrs
Cleveland 10 prevent him from doing so, she declaring
that such sale would be Infringement upon her
rights since, she holds, the title Of the stock
is vested in her.
The trial of this case was finished in the NewJer
sey courts week, and the papers are now IN the
hands OF the Chancellor for decision. some amazing
admissions made by Mr.. Cleveland whue on inc
witness stand, where he was numerically cro'sques-
TONED by cx Governor Bede, counsel for the receiver
Mr. Young.
Among other things he drew out of the reluctant
witness the fact that the petition presented to the
Chancellor in September, 1882 and purporng 10 have
been signed by Jane H. Cleveland. was not signed by
her. and that the affidavit accompanying the petition
was sworn to by Orestes. The redirect examination
caused the witness to Say that the $50 shares which
Mrs Cleveland claimed d part OF her inheritance
from her father never transferred to her on the
| books OF the company before December -, leoo a
short time only before the company became insolvent
Governor Bede cross-questoned Cleveland further
and he said that all the that transferred to
his wife in December 1880 had been used by him and
for hi, purposes for several years.
! lie borrowed 1000 shares from his mother-ln-law;
he said and 800 shares Of that stock was part Of
That ', stock which was returned to him by Fowler,
Crampton Il CO.. 10 whom he loaned the 600 shares
/ which ne borrowed from Mrs. Dixon. Fowler, tramp
ton q Co. had the stock for several years. lie IN
| sisted that it was his mother n-law's stock.
! You borrowed from her a thousand sharesl" asked
! the Governor.
Yes that was my wite's Inheritance In the division
Of the property between her and her sister, was the
reply. Ia,
was this borrowing from your motherin-aw with
! the knowledge of your wife = .
can't say that now the answer. " | should
| hardly think II was-I should not think 1t was"
The thousand shares, he said, never came into
| the possession OF his wife in any way when he got
il from his mothernla law. He used It for his own
purposes. .,, 49,,
commenting the remarkable case. " The Jersey
CIV News saws The issue for the court 70 decide
seems to DO something like this, Was II possible
for Mrs Cleveland to authorize her husband 70 pledge
| her stock as security and stll retain in IL herself
an equity prior to that Of the secured party II that
| l. impossible then Mr.. Clcveland's position Is
! peculiar. for the lady she had no idea OF
finally alternating the stock. II the thing is possible
| MIR Clcvcands position Is stlll more peculiar, for
! them he seems 10 have given security which does
| not secure.