The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-07-16
THIRD EDITION.


In reply TO what was said In the
ID moe n ic papers yesterday, Frede-
ri K e. Bach says:
Il see by the Evening journal that Its
business manager and owner Is play
ing hispArt in the conspiracy to charge
IN. with a base crime, and he thus un-
Willingly dropped into my trap. AS /
indicated yesterday / was getting a
clue to a matter that could not solve
before. Edwards no doubt gives the
whole story of Pat Neary's transac.
ton with the Journal, but he puts my
name in the place where his own name
ought to be. think understand the
whole matter now. Neary called on
me to get the journal to support HEX
man.
He evidently found me too inexpe-
RE ICED to talk too freely and so he
turned to my partner Edwards, who
stared the Journal by swindllng me
and the rest OF its stockholders out of
$4,000, was more susceptible than i
had been. SO deal was begun. My
editorial on Every Evening was mop
Fortune for tho Edwards end of the
Transaction, and hence his wild look
and curses on the day the editorial APP
20 red. To complete this conspiracy
Nary ought to produce the old
check with my endorsement on il.
''Neary and Edwards are nice pair
of seoundreis, indeed. Neary went
into the collectors oillce poor. He
came out rich. Comment Is needless
Edwards is one of the few unconvicted
erimin lis that walk our streets to-day,
and he will not walk them much long.
er. OF the pair ho Is the greater
scoundrel, for it was undoubtedly he
that suggested the conspiracy to
kfufsk O.rip
sion, II vas Neary and Edwards who
engineered the transactions In the fall
OF lSSS, cy which the Evening journal
beoame this apologist for the long list
OF Democratic maladminstrato rs IN Of
hce. and Democratic embezzlers. that
Aapers entire and entirely disreputa.
~ history being traceable TO the
moment when Neary found that
could not grasp his suggestions.
ut Is very likely that ! would have
attacked Negry, as have done again
m again, II had been the object Of
a. hiibe! II Is likely, too, had / beer
thus veral, that j would have refused
Edwnrd's insulting but earnest anC
ri Id invitation in January, 1889, t
go With him into the Democratic camp
ali though had then more than 81, 0NC
ct stake, al of 1t absolutely in hi.
power.
SIN conclusion | wish to say that !
never received dollar from Pat Neary
was never offered n dollar or anything
else by him. / never had any business
" ,ilsaction with him, other than pay
tng my Tux to him. l never had any
Interviews with him anywhere or or
anything, except Oh the one or two
ote slons at my house, which ] re
ferred to before, and which he forced
upon me. Both his assertions and Ell
wnrds's, so far as they seek TO involve
me, are absolutely false
In r}iersnca tn what Charles Baird
should have said about the case rep
resentative Of the RErUBLIcAN calleC
on hin this forenoon and asked hin
what he rCcollccted:
Mr. Baird said about the time tn,
chauge was made the paper after the
election Of 1873 he and other taril
Stockholders took exceptions to tn,
change, as they understood that The
paper was TO advocate protective
tariff. 1t was then that Mr.. Edward.
referred to Mr.. Bach as having sole
out to Patrick Neary Tor 800 to elect
Mr. Hickman to the Levy Court.
when Mr.. Edwards called yesterday
70 see II / recOllCcted the conversation
he us'ted me ii did not hear him su,
ttai When e spoke to Mr.. Bach abOu
IL thai lie, Bach, gave him 500 am
afterwards gave him check for an
other sl01 but" sal Mr.. Baird "a d,
not fecollcct lie details OF the CONVEX
RAtion. MIR. Edwards, however, cer
tainly got the money" Mr., Baird il
giving his own views of tho matte
says he docs not believe Mr.. Bach re
ceiycd aisymoney from Neary
There is general concensns o
opinion amongst Republicans ami lni
minded Democrats that Nh Bach die
not take any money from Patricl
Neary,
Said q leading Democrat to n REpun
xicAS reporter to day: Erred Bach i
not fool enough to allow a man L
b9ibe hirn and then criticise that ma
IN public, That Is too thin for bri
berry case