The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-10-31

fact I never rsYu1Iated q ssnxse claim.
thouxh os1stazsd Neither DO COZ, but
have raid them IS fast as sas able 20 do
%, and viii coafsnue % 20 90.
Ii 10 absolutely untrue snas oar Lffns
Van de- yanter a Berger. or either OF as.
acid eux Of oar propsrty ~ prices less
than cost. OF in any vsy sought 70 in1afe
eur creditors.
do uos feel that this statement 10
needed % these Who have personsIy
known me here, bot make X tnaf tns sen-
srsl public may undsTssaad insI' afro
i doc btiess pas unfortunate. yes vas nos
dtshouest A 7. Vas N SAsTxR
HIS srArEnxsr cosYIsaxp.
ro-tun.tslx Mr.. Van &c vsn,sr's state
nents can Be oorroborated in every par
ticular, and can 10 corroeoraisd y per-
sons who lived in La Grange and sturgis
as The time Of his failure. bat who srs nov
residents Of this state. James H. "izton.
formerly Of La Grange, oct nov OF sum
nsr. Pierce county. makes the following
statement:
State Of Washington. eoaniy Of King
-ss.:
James II. wIg,on. being first daily sworn:
on oath says: That be ~ a resident Of
euraner. Pierce county, state OF Washing
ton. snd 10 there engaged In the business
Of farming snd the raising OF iruit;
that ks 10 now and has been az BIS
life q Jeaersoriaa Democrat; that bs
isved I'm the town OF La Srsnss.
"A the state Of Indiana for the period OF
twenfy years. and left there 10 come 70 the
state Of Washington In the yesr Isss; ihAi
during bis residences in the saie town o.
Is Grange he Has personally ana Nsa
acquainted With A. I. Van de santsr. the
Espub lican nominee for sheriff OF Atng
connty, and was also acquainted Win
his partner, Carl Berger. That Tor H.
teen years affssnt ran large coopef
ohon IN the town Of La Grange ana
kneg said Van de Fanter and his sa1s
partner while they were engaged IN the
AGRICULTURAL implement business ~ the
said town Of Ia Grange; that when SAID
Van De Eanser vent iBto said business ne
had quite little money. good credit ana
was about twsuty-.s 20 years ci age, DIT ~
experienced IN said line 81 business. and
from ssJians's personal knosle8ge OF TIE
business OF said Van de kantsr. as
that drummsrs and large msnuiac-
turing corporations overloaded SAID
Van de Fanfer With the goois Ia which he
was dealing a. the time Of bis failure IN
bus.Esss, aud that many q the goods SOLD
20 said Van de Nanter did not contain
modern or tha latest improvements. ana
that the above facts contributed as much
the time OF the failure Of Van de Nanter &
Berger this asisaa;, for the creditors OF
ssid firm, took charge VI and set up
and prepared for sale and removal
the stock of goods then remaining
ON hand in the store OF said Van
de Vanie- & Berger; that affians
ts we'll acquainted with Charles
Back. whose name Is mentioned In the Sc
attic telegraph and 20 whom u - charged
Wan de Nanter Il Berger sold their entire
stock Of goods. as Sc. forth in the BIZ OF
sale Ia said newspaper; that said Charles
Bucks bill Of sale covered between $50
and 81 900 worth Of property; that after
said Buck removed the stock
Of machinery sold 10 him under
said bill Of sale. there yet remained for
the creditors OF said Van de Fanter &
Berger several thousand dollars worth Of
property. that the said Charles Buck
mentioned Ia said affidavit and to whom
IL 10 chsrged the said Van de Vanter fraud
uIsntly sold said property. Is man OF
high character and standing in the
community, and . man OF large means.
That nobody in the said town Of La
Grange questioned the sale OF said prop
erty to said Charles Buck, but the same
Was considered q fair aud honorable sale.
for security purposes. as II was we'll known
that Van de Vant<r had been borrowing
money from ssid Charles Buck TO
keep up his said business. That
the partner of the said Van de yanier.
Carl Berger, took 20 drinking and gam
bling, and contributed very materially 20
the destruction Of the business Of said
Erm OF Van de yanter 4 Berger; that the
failure Of said firm ~ said town was gen
ersllv regarded ~ due to the mex perience
OF Van de Vsnter and the dissoluts
habits Of his partner. and the
overlooking upon said firm by large
manufacturing corporations OF the goods
&4A In. h4&A kEv1 a ttxxr
that during the year 1854, mp 10 the year
isse, this sf.ians lived next door neighbor
81 Charles l.. Carter. sheriff Of said La
Grange county, Ind: that affiant at no
time ever heard that said A. 4. Van de Van
ter bad been indicted or charged with the
commission of any ofIsnse whatever; that
II he ever was Indicted Ia SAID La Grange
county the matter was kept q perfect
secret: that this asfiani and said Charles
L. Carter. sheriff OF said county, we're close
and Intimate friends and neighbors,
and sfflaat believes that II anything of the
kind had existed he would have heard
something about IL: that this sifiant saw
aud oonvsfsed wIth A. I. Van de Xanter
in the town OF Ia Grange. Ind, during
tae months OF November and December.
1s7i. I've years after the failure:
that said Van ae vanter spent
about week or ten days in sad
toan dnFing said time. aud was
trsends and sequsintances. and nobody
ever arrested or attempted 20 arrest him,
or chsrge him with any ofsense That
when A. !. Van de NRnier left the toxn
&c Ia Grange. he did not so far as afsian
knows ows any Of the residents of said
togn, bns his Indebtedness Was confined 70
manufacturing corporations, who had
sold him their machinery. as aforesaid
and that he had the reputation in that
fosn OF having paid up all bis debts owing
ia the town In Which he resided, and that
be left the town openly and sbovehosrd.
J. III. wfaros.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thls
soth day OF October, iS.a
knwAKp BK.nY,
Notary Public ia aud Cor she state Of
Washington. residing at Seattle. Wash.
Mr. Wigtcn Is . wsll-so-dQ farmer OF
Pierce eounty and 3 man of frFcpgcseha-
bic character. His testimony cannot 20
,mpeached. AID IL additional testimony
we're necessary Il will bs found In the fol-
lowing affidavit made ey hsnFy E. kin-
me-.
kSorHEs wErSEss TEsrgriKs.
State Of Washington. county Of King. -:
Henry +. klmmel, being nrst dnly
ssegn on eatn says; That he is resi-
Gent OF sumner. In tho county Of Pierce.
state If Washington, and Is there en-
rsFed in farming aud hop-Faising.
and that athant Is lifelong
Dsmocrat Taat seHAnt resided IA the
town 81 Ia Grange, In the state % Iuds-
saa, for about ten wears prior 10 the year
1s9}, y han - came 10 the state Of wash
taFton; that during has resideacs IN tie
toNa 81 Ia 6rABgs. state Of Indiana afore-
saaG. 10 sss wel seqastnte3 with A. r
kSa Sc NAntef, the pFescnt nominee Of the
Republican party Tor sheriff uI King
"a a