Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1893-12-06
About Ernest Seyd.

|
1873, in answer to letter published by
the Cresset purporting to have been
written by Seyd's sons. The animus
or the letter, as will be remembered,
was that Seyd had not visited this coun-
try after 1855 and therefore could not
have taken the part ascribed to him.
We proceeded to show by the records
that Ernest Seyd did have hand in
the affair, simply because the Cresset
wished us to do so, and not because it
makes any particular difference who
was connected with the job. The OBJ
ject was accomplished, and we are suf-
fering the results.
In its issue of November oath the
Cresset publishes two and half col
umn article, attempting to yindlcate
Seyd from the charge that he was in
this country or had anything to do with
the matter at that time, also seeking to
prove that he was silver man. The
fact that the Cresset takes such an in
terest in defending English bankers is
IN itself suspicious; but we are willing
to take issue with it on that line as in
behalf Of the American people.
The Cresset evidently did not like
our assertion and proof that the de-
monetiZation act was struggled through
sponsibilty of denying records wrote
three letters in the hope of impeaching
our authority. One went to the clerk
of the supreme court of Colorado, en-
genuine and who the man was. The
answer came that Luckenbach had
sworn to the statement as published in
the INDEX; that he had made the af.
fdavit before the clerk of the supreme
court, and furthermore that he was
known in Denver as man of reliabili-
ty and truth. With their dismal fail
ure to impeach the only sworn state
ment in the case came their failure to
establish any of their points, for the
Luckenbach affidavit stands out in
bold relief against all their mere I'M
substantiated assertions. But the Ores
set editor has plenty of brass to carry
him through and he casts the affidavit
aside for the palpable lodges of slip
perry John Sherman.
Another letter was addressed to the
editor of the Evening Post, the paper
that published the denial of the Seyd
sons. The editor of course stated that
the letter was genuine and came from
the sons of Ernest Seyd. Had we writ
ten him we should have expected the
same nature of an answer. The same
! assertion was of course made when the
article was published, and, as the Ores
set says, a communication addressed
to the Post was only matter OF form
The Post may have received such let
ter, but that does not by any means
prove its genuineness. The letter from
the Post editor concludes as follows:
Moreover it is not true that the Banker!
Magazine ever contained the paragraph which
, the INDEX quotes. Senator White, of Califon
ia, was misead into quoting it as genuine
short time ago, acknowledged afterwards. il
} debate, that it was not I'm said magazine anC
that he had been misinformed.
q 1t is true that Senator White quoted
+ the article we took as coming from thu
Bankers Magazine, but we had no
heard of his acknowledging it being ;
mlsinformation. 1t has been referred
to causually several times but was i'm
9 mediately hushed up; ostensibly on &C
B, count of the stigma cast on the mem
i bers of that body. They are slow t,
j. make public such crime occurring il
: their assembly, even those not com
:. plicated. 1t is very reasonable to sup
+ pose that they would attempt to kee
t the egregious SIN covered up. Blu
}. where there is so much smoke Their
must be some fire. In a speech delIv
cred in the senate May "a, 1890, Sena
tor Daniel of Virginia made the follow
ing remark:
~ take from the Bankers Magazine of Au
e gust 1873, u little extract. 1t says: In 49,;
| silver being demonetized in Germany, Eng
= land and Holland, capital of 100000 $500
q 000) was raised, and Ernest Seyd, OF Londor
was sent to this country with this fund as tn
o agent of foreign bondholders to effect tn
@ same object"
This is from one of the most respeC
table organs of the money power in tn
: United States, and it announces tn
fact that England and Holland furnish
ed fund of half million dollars am
a sent an emisSary over to America t
e procure result which was effected il
the manner stated. Page 543S, Rec
= ord of May 1890.
!. The attention of the reader is callet
: to the language of Senator Daniel
g where he says he took the extract from
the Magazine. Why did not JOIN
r Sherman get up and pull Senator Dan
j iels' hair at that time? Why was i
< not denied? Why has not the New
York Post published a Seyd letter Ion,
time ago upon so monumental charge
Reason tells us that is because the par
Elephants in that dark deed have trie(
!, every means to conceal it until driver
to the wall, when to acknowledg
would be pleading guilty to treason
In snch an extremity is it natural tina
theyiacknowledge or deny? Only thos,
: few suspected have denied, and moth
ing else was suspected of them. In thu
light of the proof we have offered il
this and our previous article the Pos
O editor seems to be badly mistaken.
f Last of all comes John Sherman also
d 1--WE spare the title of honor the Crosse
# abuses.l He says in his letter:
q The affidavit of Luckenbach is demonstrate
!. to oe a falsehood from beginning to end /
has been denounced as such in the senate an
no man pretended to support it. He ought t
u be arraigned for perjury, but presume unde
n the laws, as the affidavit was not a legal one
l. he could not be punished as he ought to be
s As is shown by the papers sent you the mint
age law was prepared in the treasury depar
ment, was pending during four separate Sc.
+ sions of congress and was finally passed lunar
l. imously with the vote of every senator fror
,r the mining states in its favor