The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-10-26
DODGE OF 1880
RE-ENACTED.
Despicable Work of the Demo.
cratic Committee.
Its Chairman Challenged to Produce Genuine
Letter of Markham Such as He
Claims to Have.

produce certain letter puTporting to have
been written by II. IL. Markham, the Re-
publican candidate for Governor. No pre-
tense, however, has ever been made to ex-
hibt this false and fraudulent letter to Mr..
Markham, though he has been twice in the
city, nor to the Republican State Central
Committee, which has been authorized to
stamp it and has denounced it as a forged
and fraudulent document. The Hon. Chair
man of the Democratic State Central Com
mittee has bargained without his host,
for Chairman Irwin c. Stump of the Repub-
lican State Central Committee, spurning the
intervention of committees or agents, has
made an unequiyocal proposition. and it re-
mains to be seen what the reply to the same
will be. Mr.. Stump's letter is as follows:
MIR. sTUMP's REPLY.
SAN FRANCISCO, October "a, 1890.
To the Hon. Russell j. WttSon. Chairman
DEAR SIR: For some days You have been ad-
dressing letters 10 parties, asking them 10 name
a time and place where you could submit 10 me
a letter purportng 10 have written by the Hon.
II. II. Markham. and which letter you have had
printed in The papers under flaming head lines.
Permit ME 10 say, my dear sir, that no other
than myself has the disposition of my time or the
authority 10 specify IA place where may be con-
suited. l desire to inform you thai L shall be
during the coming week, as have been during
State Central Committee, Room %, 4l9 CalifOr-
nia street, where you could have seen me at any
hour from O'Clock i'll the morning until 10
o'clock at night, and where Will be during The
coming week during The same hours.
You have had letter, which you knew Mr.
Markham had pronounced forgery, in your
possession for some weeks You knew during
all that time that could have been seen any
hour OF lHe day and The letter submitted 10 me.
city on two different occasions aitekihe letter
was In your possession, and yet you have had
Issued thousands OF copies OF this same letter,
which you knew MIR. Markham and this com
Iniiiee had declared forged and fraudulent
document, and after scattering them broadcast
over This State you make u newspaper showing
of desire TO submit the same 10 me and to Mr..
Markham. Is this honest politics?
CLAUSES THAT WERE OMITTED.
This same document that you have issued,
which mains THIS false and fraudulent letter.
contains also what you alIege Is the finding OF
the court in a certain case OF Hallock, Cougar
and others against Markham, Ia which you say
that The court gave judgment In favor Of Hal.
lock against Mr.. Markham for $1,000 and costs"
Why did you omit the following clanse:
''And it is further ordered, adludged and de-
creed that plaintiffs .. IL. Cougar, John Colds
worthy and John w. Potts. administrator OF the
estate OF William Clancy, deceased, take nothing
by this action, and as 10 them, to wit, said Con
gar 6oldswoflhy and Potts, administrator, Tie
defendant do have and recover his COSTS therein
taxed at the sum OF s429 so. Done in open
III. X. 5. O'MELvENY,
Judge Sunerior Court"
And why did you omit 10 state that Mr.. Mark
ham Appealed from the part Of The decision
quoted by you, and that The plaintiffs did not
appeal from The decision in favor OF Mr.. Mark
ham against Them? Why did you say concern
balance OF stock owned by them, about 440
shares, was transferred to him ostensiDiy as a
sale to him, but under the circumstances of mis-
representation fraud and undue advantage that
they were entitled to treat II rs 10 sale and to
hold him their agent In the subsequent sale
by him Of said stock to the Milwaukee parties,
optf a M nd an .np o.
that the Court said:
s'And II is not tue that upon said statements,
or any thing OF the kind, any representation Of
The sort, made on his tMarkhan's} part. or trust.
ing to OF believing any statement OF The kind, tile
said individual plaintiffs transferred and as
signed 10 him the balance of their stock amounts
ing to 44O shares, Oh any part thereof, III Febru-
ary 1882, or at all.
WHAT THE COURT ALSO FOUND.
1.-THE court further fluids that II is not true that
10 the negotiations for tie residue OF this 40
shai OF stock Markham was their agent In any
srnse. That he was stakeholder IN The COM
pauy Is true, but The court finds that they dealt
with him as an individual, at arms length, with
tsil&nowiedge OF The value of the property and
, sto3kt0 as great an extent as Markham or any
other person, aud that each and every sale was
made ON their own individual Judgment, and
each consented for himself for the considerations
agreed to be accepted or taken, for the respect
i've shares OF stock 90 transferred by each of
theni."
Why did you say that che represented that the
600 shares sold only for s3l 900, when In fact
tuc1 ooiu Aoi Sf-tSNNt "HNu l0e HaO" sHs
Court said:
1.-THE Court finds that it is not true that
the sand plaintiffs ascerialned and learned
for the first time about Twelve months prior 10
the commencement OF this action OF the sales Of
said stock at said prices. Nor did he (MaIkham
receive S42 900 for the FIRST 600 shares sold, nor
any other or greater sum in cash. at the date of
their respective settlements, than $4,000
therefor"
Why did you say that che represented that the
$50 shares sold for $4,000, when, In TACT he sold
them Tor S9OOo.' when you knew the Court
land further, that Cougar and Halock knew
that the $50 shares were sold TO Mr. Sanger at
the time 1t sold, about the 1st OF January
1882, and know about the amount, II not the ex-
act amount, paid therefor, and know also that
they and Markham were the owners OF It,"
AND WHY DID YOU SAY THIS.
"why did you say That plaintiffs had only
he received for the said sale of stock within
Twelve months before bringing the suit.
THAT They had only learned OF the false and
fraudulent representations by which they were
induced by defendant 10 part with the balance
of their stock. Within the last twelve months be-
fore bringing this suit" When you knew the Court
said:
"Ihe Court further finds as a matter of fact on
the evidence that the plaintiffs and each OF them
had ana acquired full knowledge from DR.. Miner
aud TIL ough MIN of the facts relating to this
transaction, OF the purchase OF the residue OF
plaintiffs stock as early as tie year 1882, and
that they did not acquire their knowledge OF this
transaction or their information OF II, as they
have charged in their complaint, about twelve
months prior to the commencement of this ac-
ton; but, on the contrary, they were informed OF
IT, so far as relates 10 the sale OF the stock TO
Sanger OF the residue of their stock, prior 10 No
yember, 1883.
1.-THE Court;iurther finds that the plaintiffs and
Clancy were never imposed on, or trusted or be-
lieved any such statements, nor Is II true IL any
such representations had ever been made that
they did not know that they were entirely ground
less until twelve months before the commence
ment OF this action. November II, 1886. And
from the evidence and correspondence between
Cougar and Haliock and Miner and considering
The eyasive lack of memory OF these witnesses In
relation to tile dates they acquired information
OF these things, l am convinced, and l so find,
that between these dates they acquired knOwl-
edge OF the facts they allege in their complaint
ana deny knowledge Of"
WHY NOT HAVE GIVEN THE TRUTH?
Why did you say 1.-THE defendant was Treas
urer of the company and the financial manager
OF It's Affairs" when you knew the Court said:
g But That the truth Is that during all Inc time,
and UP to The 14th or 10Th day of February.
1882 the said Cougar was President and chief
Superintendent oil said company aud mining Gp-
efations and the said q Oldsw0rihy was the Sec
retaiy thereof and that said books and papers OF
said corporation were under their control and in
their possession from the organization OF said
corporation until ABOUT Inc LON DAY OF teDru-
1.-THE Court further finds that it is not true that
the financial affairs of said company had always
been under the exclusive management and con-
troll OF defendant (Markham); on the contrary,
the moneys OF SAID company were, 10 great ex-
tent, disbursed,under the direction and MANAGE
ment OF DIR. Cougar and Hallock; and finds fur
ther, that all parties relied upon the Judgment.
supposed experience, and representations OF
Cougar as au expert in mining AS to the value Of
their mining property, :. but that he was mis-
taken. and did not have such knowledge or skill,
and that lie misled his associates"
How can you explain the action of your State
Central Committee In issuing document plainly
and unequlvocally lalsiiying a document having
the sancilty OF court record, aud how can you
sanction such despicable work?
MAN AND MONEY READY.
/ have waited patiently for week that you
might, II you desired, show me the letter in ques-
tiOn in accordance with your unpublished de-
sire. Il have had no other information OF such a
desire on your part
am aware that You have never permitted a
Republican TO see the letter, and do not believe
you intend TO do so. l believe 1t Is simply the
"Morey" dodge Of 1880 re-enacted.
have implicit faith in the integrity Of Colonel
Markham. l have never known man whose
recollection OF past transactions was more eX-
act. He has pronounced the letter a forgery.
You claim to have the original
There Is no necessity for the Intervention be.
tween you and myself OF committees or agents.
1 make the following direct proposition to you:
AS Chairman Of the Republican State Central