The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-07-24

They admit that Mr.. Luckenbach had
letter of Introduction to Ernest Seyd
and on several occasions dined at his
or his brothers house; and they say if
any such conversation occurred it must
have been in jest. But they maintain
that 1t is impossible Ernest Seyd could
nave worked as an attorney to demone
tie silver, because he was such friend
OF silver. Their statement is not sworn
to, and is made by interested parties to
protect the reputation of Ernest Seyd the
elder, from infamy, and the really i'm
portant part of this statement is that the
book of letters received by the firm of
which Ernest Seyd was the head, shows
from memoranda, claimed to be in his
hand writing, that from October, 1872, to
March, 1873, there were no breaks in the
dates Of these memoranda long enough
to have enabled Mr.. Seyd, in any interim
to have visited the United States. as al
legged in Mr.. l.. s affidavit, and thereupon.
they deny that Ernest Seyd was in the
United States at all after the year 1856
Ernest Seyd, the elder as head of the
firm, was accustomed to make entries up
on the letter book, but in his absence
that duty necessarily devolved upon
some other member of the firm, or upon
some cerk, and the difference between
these formal entries may have been Sc
slight as not to have been recognized in
long years after. It must be borne in
mind also, that whether Mr.. Seyd was or
was not in the United States in the win
ter of 1923 does not in the slightest
manner affect the veracity of Mr. Luck
enbach, who only swears that Mr. Seyd
TOLD HIM such was the fact Never
theless, the statement of the son and
brother of Ernest Seyd as to the letter
book, which is the only circumstance al
legged and upon which they rely to prove
that Ernest Seyd had no personal COM
munlcation with the American congress
in the winter of 1928, is strong cir
cumstance impeaching the affidavit of
Mr.. Luckenbach, but Fortunately for the
cause of truth and justice, there is abund-
ant evidence from numerous unimpeach-
able witnesses that Ernest Seyd was in
Washington at the very time he is alleged
to have been in the affidavit.
The Cast Paul Bankers Reporter. No.
Z, published monthly at st. Louis. Mo-, for
September, 1898, contains the speech of
John Sherman, of Ohio, upon the repeal
of the Sherman act Senator Sherman
recognized that the affidavit of Mr.. Luck
of the money power, both of England
and of the United States, and he attempts
to dispose of that matter as follows:
Pretending not to know the name of
Mr.. Luckenbach, he says: "Mr. Presi-
dent, suppose senators have often heard
of the story of Ernest Seyd. Some fellow
some man, I might call him, for it
might insult him to call him fellow
whose name I do not recall, made an af-
fdavit that he knew Ernest Seyd; he had
often met him at his table, had often
dined with him, and at one time, when
they were in conversation, he said that
the parliament Of Great Britain was COR
rupt. Mr.. Seyd then said that they are
nothing like the congress of the United
States: that was the most corrupt body
that ever existed He then revealed
that he Seyd, had used 100000 in bribing
the American congress in 1873 to demone-
tie silver, but pledged him not to pub
fish this while Seyd was living"
Senator Sherman then undertakes to
prove, and does prove, because it is true.
that before 1878 Ernest Seyd had pub
lished several works in favor of bimetal-
lism, but it does not follow from that
fact, as Senator Sherman argues, that it
was not possible that Mr.. Seyd
should act as counsel for the Bank of En-
gland to procure the decentralization of
silver in the American congress. Mr..
Seyd was employed by the Bank of En-
gland to work for the interest of his eli
ents and to obey their orders-not to act
on his own judgment, or to dictate the
policy Of the bank The private views
of Ernest Seyd upon bimetallism had
nothing whatever to do with his action
as attorney for the Bank of England to
procure, through corrupt means, the de-
monetization Of silver by the American
congress.
And yet Ernest Seyd, Jr., Richard Seyd.
the New York Voice and John Sherman
to prove the falsity of the Luckenbach
affidavit, mainly rely upon the fact that
Ernest Seyd had published a book in ia
vor of bimetallism, and had written a
letter dated February II, 1872, against
the demonstration of silver.
Senator Sherman characterizes the affi
davit of the fellow whose name he can
not remember" as "a story that would be
hooted by any lawyer or any honest
man" And he adds, Fortunately, this
man, as all rogues are apt to do. gave
himself away, for in the end of this let
ter (affidavit?) he decvlares himself an
anarchist, opposed to all government and
all property, and yet he made an affidavit
of this kind, which had no legal force or
effect"
What Senator Sherman means by this
statement it is impossible to conjecture.
Mr. Luckenbach never declared himself.
and never was IAN anarchist" or opposed
to all government and all property, and
he never made any such affidavit nor any
statement in substance like it; and he