The San Francisco call., 1896-04-25
Refutation of the Claim That
Notice Of Acceptance Was
Not Received.
THE DEApLY PARALLEL DRAWN
Statements in an Exhibit Not Found
in the Original Correspond
ence.

against the Secretary of the Treasury in
which he claims that he was through the
unlawful and hostile action of the Treas
ury Department officials, prevented from
securing 81, 100000 of the recent issue of
per cent bonds, Mr.. Carlisle to-day filed an
affidavit showing his side OF the case.
The affidavit charges Graves with with
holding from the court full recital OF the
facts, and with attempting to create wrong
Impressions by false recitals and by gar
bling correspondence.
The main ground of the Graves com
plant is that he did not promptly receive
notice of the acceptance of his bid, be-
cause it was simply directed to him at
New York, and by reason of that refusal
of the Secretary to extend the time for de-
posting the first installment of gold he
was wrongfully deprived of the benefits of
his contract.
Mr.. Carlisle states that Graves bid
gave no other address than New York;;
that while in the body of the bid he
named two places for delivery of bonds he
gave no special address; that the accept
ance was mailed in Washington on Febru-
ary 8, with the address given at the head
OF his proposal, and that this was received
at the New York postoffice on February
10; that publications were made in the
New York papers and papers generally
throughout the country on February 8
showing the successful bidders; that Mr..
Graves knew on February 10 that he was
a successful bidder and sent a telegram
to the department on that day showing
this fact; that q duplicate of the notice of
no cny,f h i
his special address and was received bv
him February IL, which was four days be-
fore he was required to make any pay
ment; that on February 13 Mr. Graves
made an application for an extension of
time on the ground that the first notice
was mlsdirected, causing a loss of two
days, but stated distinctly in such appli-
cation that. Notwithstanding the delay, he
was prepared to make his deposit on Feb
ruary Is.
Mr., Carlisle's affidavit further recites
that Graves, after he failed to get an ex-
tension of the time for payment, or to get
the bonds sent to New York before paw
ment, made second bid on February Is
OF 113H for all bonds that the Secretary
might consider in default on that date. in
cluding those awarded him on his first
bid. 10 reference to this new bid is made
In his petition! 1t is further charged that
Graves filed as an exhibit to his petition
what purports to be copy of letter writ
ten by him February Is to the Secretary.
but which contains statements which were
not in the original letter and omits state
ments which were.
The letter exhibited with the petition
n rrytro 1,+c q
are printed side by side. The copy of
the original letter given in the affidavit
contains the following:
II inclose to Mr.. Mailer the sealed letter
from you that you may see it. Because of
this delay, caused by a clerical error.
could not get my gold from the Bank of
California, to whom 1 referred you, until
produced the letter of acceptance from
you; then honds went down, and 1 could
not collateral them at the price, and was
on the market as a borrower"
again: sDo not allow me to lose nv
good name because of my failure to meet
conditions over which / had no control
viz, the drop in values after your notice
came to hand. but on the other hand. give
me what you are in a position to do in JUS
tice. Allow and believe me-
Neither of these passages appear in the
letter as it appears in exhibit of the pe-
tition.
In regard to these statements the
affidavit says:
"It appears from the genuine letter that
he could not get the gold in the Bank of
California until he produced letter of
acceptance.from affiant; that at the time
he could not use them as collateral at the
price he had bid; that he was on the mar
ket as borrower, and that what pre-
vented him from complying with his bid
was the drop in value after your (my)
notice came to hand.'''
The affidavit states that on the 18th of
February Graves was insisting on his Sec
ond bid, having abandoned his first bid,
and that the facts in regard to his second
bid were suppressed in his petition.
The affidavit denies the statements in
the petition that Graves made tender at
the New York sub. treasury on account OF
his allotment and says that never at any
time was any tender made by or for him.
All OF the charges in the petition that
Graves was treated in any wise differently
from other bidders are denied, as is the
statement that bonds were sent to the sub
treasury at New York for other persons
before their deposits were made.