Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1897-12-03
INTERMINABLE CONTROVERSY

INTERMINABLE CONTROVERSY.
EDITOR STANDARD:
In your issue of Nov. 10, you have
what is called, "a Plain Statement"
that purports to tell the facts; but in
reading it over, find that it needs
some corrections to give the reader a
proper understanding of the facts.
In the first instance where certain
property was deed to Mr.. Phillips, as
trustee to pay certain debts, it was so
decided with Il clause in the trust deed,
insisted on by General Stevens, that if
it sold for more than the $4,000, the
Overplus should belong to the Com
pany. We got Il purchaser for this
property, but when they had the title
examined, their attorneys advised that
the deed was merely mortgage, and
without release from the Trust Com
pany representing the bondholders, it
would be necessary to foreclose their
interest, and by reason of this flaw in
the title, we lost the sale of the
property, the Trust Company having
refused to release it, and have had to
meet the obligations assumed with our
individual property, and General Ste
vens found the bugaboo OF a judgment
that he proceeded to demolish with the
assistance of the directors.
The statement that: al also soon
discovered that the Company owed
the Edison and T. II. Electric Com
pany some $4,000 in addition to the
Indebtedness which they had previously
acknowledged to me-" of this, that
part stating that any part was owned
by the 7. II. Company, General Ste
vens knows to be false, but it
answers his purpose to hit at me
when he knew that it was with the +.
H. Company, that had been dealing
with, and the old Olympia Light and
Power Company had been dealing with
the Edison Company and of the in
debtedness owing to them he had as
much knowledge as had.
the next paragraph gives what
purports to be personal agreement
with Messrs. Chambers and Frost, you
will see that, 5. The lower falls were
to be purchased by the Company.
This was never done. Although Mr..
Frost and l made out the deed to it
and awaited the carrying out of this
part of the agreement; but according
to Gen. Stevens idea of justice that was
not necessary, but he goes ahead and
gets an engineer to prepare plans and
specifications for an improvement on
this property, that was never owned
by the Company and sent us bill for
81 100 and because we did not feel dis
posed to pay for specifications for the
improvement of other peoples property
we are to be everlastingly damned.
The same paragraph speaks of the
salary drawn by me as manager, but
myself or my family never received one
dollar of this; the whole amount be-
ing used to pay interest on money used
by the Company, and more than one
half on notes that was not on either
as principle or endorser. The state
ment that the floating debt was
different from what had been repre-.
sented, will say that Mr.. Faulkner
made all such statements and do not
believe that Gen, Stevens ever got a
false statement. The proposition of
the stock holders putting up their
stock to pay the indebtedness,
heartily co-Operated in, but when it
was proposed to pay only one half and
leave the balance for the endorsers to
pay, rejected this and have not rea-
son to regret my action, and proposed
this to Gen. Stevens, as l was the
heaviest creditor of the Company
among the stockholders, that 1 would
agree to lose all the Company owed
me and all the others agreed to the
same, save and except, Gen. Stevens /;
had he done this it would have paid
the Allen claim in full and the other
claims as they had agreed to accept
them, and there would have been no
occasion for the grand rescue he per-
formed.
He speaks of the valuation place on
the plant by me; it reminds me of
his testimony in the case of Stevens
vs.. the Portland & Puget Sound r. r.
Company; wherein he was suing for
the value of the right of way, through
some up town property, after tele-
graphing that he would donate it, and
the people Of Olympia had guaranteed
the right of way, and the next case
WAS where the same party was resisting
the collection OF the taxes on the same
tract of land; in the one case the lots
were worth from 500 to $500 each in
the other from $40 to $50 each. The
gentleman was under oath in each
case. Which will you believer
The proposition that we suffered the
loss of one half the upper falls is
simply ridiculous, as we urged the
Trust Company to allow the purchase
of this, but they refused. So we got
the wrap because we were unable to
save this to the Company but it will
be all all right if Gen. Stevens can
make his little scheme work and get
the people of Olympia to buy it for
him. In regard to the assignment of
the income to get money to pay the
bond interest we got of the First Ma
tional Bank, did that to secure the
payment to them of money advanced
to pay bond interest after getting 81, )
100 out of Stevens and putting up 81. !
600 myself, that had no security for,
or chance to get.
Another slap directed at me was
charging me with the failure of the
First National Bank. / will herewith