Year: 1868

From theNsw York Worldl


Was General Grant a Cotton


SpecuiatOr?


We suppose it will not be disputed
that when a man consents to be candi-
date for the highest office in the Gov
ernment, he thereby challenges thorough
scrutiny into his public and private char
acter. IF he is FIT for that great posi-
tioh, his character will command more
esteem the better it becomes known; it
will be made to shine with new lustre by
all the atrition to which it is subjected.
But if there be anything in his history
which he has an interest in concealing,
he gives his countrymen right to know
it in all its particulars, when he asks
them to elevate hun to the chief post of
honor in the Government.


We find in a Western paper what
purports to be transcript from the rec
ords of the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
1t bears such strong internal marks of
genuineness that we cannot doubt that
it is truly copied; and if SO, it deserves
all the prominence which We purpose to
give it.-F the friends. of Gen. Grant
can prove it forgery, we will give
equal prominence to the exposure for,
although we deprecate his election, we
do not wish to see him degraded. But
this matter is too serious to pass unno-
ticed, and if his friends shall slur over or
ignore it, we shall assume that they
have no defense to make, and that the
alleged facts are true.


4 In the winter of 1923, Gen. Grant
was commanding in the most productive
cotton region of the Southwest, and it
appearssf from the judicial record, which
we will presently insert, that his father,
jesse R. Grant, was at that time Sc
cret partner in a cotton speculation
which was transacted within General
Grants military lines. Without invest
ing any capital, this Jesse r. Grant, the
father of the General, formed partner
ship with business firm in Cincinnati
for procuring cotton within General
Grants military lines and transporting
it thence to the Northern market
and this silent partner was to
render services of some kind which
would entitle him to one-fourth Of
the net profits of the adventure,
although he supplied no money,
and bore no part of the risk of what
must have been regarded as hazardous
undertaking. 1t appears that the SER
vice which he stipulated to perform was
to procure at the headquarters of Gen.
eral Grant, his son, permit to buy cot
ton and facilities for its transportation
The undertaking proved lucrative. Sc
large an amount OF cotton was procured
and brought off that the net profits
amounted to more than $4,000, and the
public would probably have never known
anything of the Grant family's compile
ity, if the firm which furnished the capi
tai had not refused to pay over the stip
ulated share of the profits. Jesse R.
Grant brought a suit in the Cincinnati
courts to recover his share, and by this
means the facts have come to light. We
copy the record as we find it:


SUPERIOR COURT.


General Term-Jesse R. Grant VS.
Mack Brothers. Judge Hoadley deliv'
cred thsaopinion. The case was reserv
Led from special term on demurrer to the
petition. The action was Instituted
for the settlement of a partnership &C
count.


The plaintiff AYERS that, in December
1862, he entered into partnership with
defendants for the purchase of cotton il
the military department of j. S. Grant
the condition of the agreement was tha
! defendants were to furnish the capita
and the men to purchase and ship the
. cotton, and the plaintiff to procure a
headquarters of General Grant permi
to purchase it, secure transportation, ant
such other facilities as might be consis
tent with the usages and interests OF tht
army. The plaintiff was to receive one
fourth share of the net profits of sales
after deducting from gross proceeds the
/, necessary expenses. The petition fur
ther states that there was a realized
profit in the defendants favor of not les:
than $4,000, and that they refuse tt
render an account or pay the plaintiff
his proportion. N5SE A1E 3


The defendants claim that the plain
tiff contributed, by his own showing
neither capital nor lawful service to tht
copartnership, and that their agreemen
to pay him share of the profits is
therefore, without sufficient considera
ton.


The Court cannot presume that th'
plaintiff intended to allege that he un
dertook that which was prohibited by
law. His acts and promises may have
been illegal. and the partnership one fo
a forbidden enterprise, but in the absenc'
of an answer so averring the Court can
not assume it, unless the averments ar,
inconsistent with any other theory.


The purchase of cotton in the military
department commanded by Genera
Grant was illegal unless carried on by
permission of the President, obtained
through the Treasury Department.


The plaintiff AYERS that he was to gt
to the headquarters of General Gran
and procure permit to purchase cotton
Whether this was expected to be OBJ
tanned from the General himself, from
some member of his staff. or Treas
ury agent at headquarters, is not stated
Whether the plaintiff was to procure il
as personal favor, or by the use of per
sonal influence, or in the ordinary mode
of business, is not shown. The Court
could not presume he was to get his per
NIT from an officer not authorized by Law
to give it, or that he was to procure il
as the reward of personal, political OIL
other illegitimate influence. They must
rather infer that he proposed to solicit
and procure permit in the ordinary anc
proper way, from Treasury agent hav
ing authority to issue it.


Again. 1t is averred that plaintiff
was to and did secure transportation