The daily sentinel., 1909-12-20
HENRY REPLIES
TO v. {. PAb0R
Admits That He May Have Uninten.
tionally Made Some Errors Con-
cerning References to Fruita.
Tribute to the Pioneer.
A MOST INTERESTING LETTER

Denver, Dec. Is, 1909.
Editor Sentinel
Grand Junction. Colo.
Dear Sir:
fear | have unwittingly piqued
my old friend, w. E. Pabor. for whom
| have the warmest friendship and
whose personal worth and financial
integrity | have always attested. /
wish / could say as much of many
others with whom | have come into
equally as close personal business re-
lations in the past.
l may have stated some "errors of
fact" In preparing the communication
he refers to- for 1t relates to matters
quarter of a century old and is one
chapter merely in the thirty or forty
irrigation and land projects i have
been identified with In Colorado since
that time. And besides, l took no
opportunity to refresh my recollec-
ton.
1t Is probably true, as Mr.. Pabor
states, that he himself and Lawyer
Pratt first introduced Matt Arch and
the Grand Valley canal project to me.
but they were then perfect strangers
to me and l certainly would not have
taken over the $4,000 loan in the
apoShNc VI PtlSolldl lHN HNtSllkdllOU
without some strong support which
would verify their assurances.
Gov. Crawford for many years was
resident of Kansas and we were par
ticularly close personal friends. We
served together on the Centennial
Commission in 1876 and on the New
York exposition Of 1888. had enter
tained MIN scores of times at my resi-
| Al ttf1,a hxFt., III
| might have made the loan in any
event, but certainly not in the man
her | did but for Gov. Crawford. OF
course. more than twice the amount
applied for was required to finish the
project. My inexperience and folly in
making that loan not only led to
vast amount of trouble and financial
loss, but it influenced me to get into
the irrigation business elsewhere over
the state. There have been whole
decades since that time during which
| have regretted that / ever saw the
Grand valley or the state of Colorado
! even, and yet | haven't the slightest
idea of censuring Mr.. Pabor or Law
yer Pratt!
Now as to Fruita. | have no doubt
but that the idea of planting a town
there originated with Mr.. Pabor. Ny
reference to which he takes exception
was brief and only general and was
not intended to rob him of any Just
credit or vaunt myself unduly before
the public. | merely wanted 1t known
that | had been instrumental in estab-
fishing Fruita,-as a partial defense
against the accusation of my being a
Nemesis to the valley"
II is probably true that Mr. Pabor
had third interest in the town. l
may be mistaken, but l think that |
furnished all the borrowed capital
invested MIR. Aldrich also had but
q small interest in the net financial
outcome. Perhaps l ought not to
have said l laid out" the town of
Fruita, but / don't think 1t would
have been laid out" by anybody at
that time but for myself. Mr.. Pabor
could not have been any more dis
appointed in the outcome of our ven
ture than myself. and certainly never
had as many headaches"
Probably too, ! am in error as to
the hotel, but as to the newspaper,
his statements add to my confusion.
The other day l sent an item to The
Sentinel intended to correct that mat
ter. At the time | had forgotten the
name of the party to whom | made
the loan. | think now it was Mr.. C.
w. Haskell. If | understand Mr..
Pabor's statement now, 1t would
seem that Mr.. Haskell's plant was
burned to ashes" If so, ii was not
the one I foreclosed upon. for | know
absolutely that the foreclosed plant
was shipped to Monte Vista. | am
tod that Mr.. Haskell. is now living
in the Grand valley. should be
glad If he would explain and straight
en- both Pabor and myself.
T. c. HENRY.