Pioneer And Democrat

Read The Evidence

Another Letter From Warren Gove.

NISQUALLY BOTTOM, July 4, 1859.

Mr. Editor—Low indeed must be the depth to which a man has fallen when he has no word to say in his own defense in answer to such charges as I have made against Wm. H. Wallace. From the time those charges were put in his hands until now, during which period he has made some five or six public speeches, he has not dared to deny one of them. Some of his friends, indeed, among whom I notice O. P. Meeker, (who had better keep his shirt on), comes out and denounces those charges of "malicious lies." Mr. Meeker is so well known in this county that it is not necessary to deny anything he asserts or swears to.

Mr. Keach says, however, that he paid me for the coat I gave to the Kanaka. I never said he did not: and a pretty fool I would have been to make a present of a coat to Col. Wallace. This has nothing to do with my charge. I said he took the coat from the man to whom I gave it, and I say so yet; and furthermore, I never thought of asking for pay for it, until I knew who had it. This Mr. Keach knows as well as I do, and he also knows that Wallace would never have offered to pay for it, for had he intended to do so, he had plenty of time in five months: that time elapsed before I got a cent for it.

As to whether Mr. Keach had a discharge or not, I only had that gentleman's own word for it.—I certainly heard him say he had, and very merry he was over it. He was sure of his pay, for he had been mustered into regular service. And further, Mr. Keach and Lieut. Moore did not compare their statements before they presented them for publication, for if they had done so, I do not think the thing would have looked quite so mixed, and some persons might have believed both of them. As it is, one or the other must be wrong. Keach says Wallace positively refused to give him a discharge, showing by his own statements that he (Keach) meant to be dishonest, but his friend Wallace would not sanction his knavery.

A very ingenious production is the statement over the signature of J. M. Bachelder, and I think the Capt. must have had legal advice and assistance ere he was delivered of it. He thinks it his duty to correct my statement, and to attain this end, he dodges round the main charge of dishonesty, and merely says that the widow is not interested in the estate, and "that the whole matter is now in a fair way of being settled amicably." Capt. Bachelder's ideas of honesty must be very vague. A few weeks ago he made assertions directly opposite to what he now states. The veracity of the gentlemen whose signatures are attached to the accompanying statements cannot for a moment be doubted, nor do I think the Captain will in direct terms contradict them. And though he has not exactly published a falsehood, yet he has sent forth to the world a statement calculated to give false impressions, and also much beneath the dignity of a gentleman. He stretches the truth dreadfully, and I fear knowingly, too, when he says the widow is not interested in the estate, for no one knows better than Capt. Bachelder that this estimable lady has written to say that she will give up her pension that she receives from government until every cent of her gallant husband's debts are paid. Is she not then interested in the estate? Is not every cent of her means that we have any right to know of, given to liquidate her husband's debts, when there is an ample sufficiency to pay all demands fraudulently held by this man without a soul, who is shameless enough to get up in public and say that he has no objection to the world's knowing all this; that he has become so thick skinned and case-hardened that trifles like these don't disturb him in the least?

These charges, Mr. Editor, are grave ones, but they are true nevertheless, and the duty of exposing this man has been forced upon me by his unwarranted attacks, which, he said in his speech at Olympia, was all in a joke. I however have not had my sense of shame or my conscience seared with the same iron that this gentleman has had applied to his, and consequently I do care for my fair fame, and while I have a tongue to wag or an arm to lift in defense of it, I will wage war to the death with the man who attempts to traduce me.

"STEILACOOM, W. T., August 22, 1855.

"This is to show that W. A. Slaughter has paid to W. H. Wallace the sum of Two Thousand Dollars, for which amount the said Wallace is to make a deed in fee simple for a house and lot in the town of Fairfield, Jefferson County, Iowa, and for forty acres of Land situated in the county and State aforesaid.

(Signed,)

"W. H. WALLACE,

"W. A. SLAUGHTER."

The above is a true copy of the agreement entered into between Wallace and Slaughter. Dare Captain Bachelder deny that? H. A. Goldsborough was administrator on the estate of Slaughter before Bachelder was, and he succeeded, after eighteen months skirmishing, to get Wallace to make the deeds specified in the above agreement. This precious document was forwarded to Mr. Wells, the father of Mrs. Slaughter, who sent it to Iowa to be recorded, and here is the answer of the recording officer:

Recorder's Office, Jefferson Co. Iowa,

Fairfield, June 22, 1857.

JOHN WELLS, ESQ—Sir: Yours of the 16th ult. has been received. In examining the records I find that W. H. Wallace has NO TITLE to Lot No. 2 in Block No. 22 of this place. He is the owner of the S. E. 1-4 of the N. E. of Sec. 12, Township 71, Range 10;—no encumbrance upon it. The probable value of it is about $2 50 to $3 per acre. It is not a very desirable piece of land. Hoping all your questions are answered satisfactorily, I remain yours respectfully,

THOS. B. SHAMP, Recorder,

Per Geo. E. Wilson, Deputy.

When the facts set forth in the Recorder's communication to Mr. Wells became known here, suit was brought against Wallace in our courts, and his answer was that he had fulfilled his contract—that he had given the deed, and it was not his business to know whether there was a house and lot belonging to him there or not. This deed, this worthless piece of paper, is all that Col. Wallace has ever given towards the fulfilment of his agreement, except the forty acres of land, worth, at the maximum valuation of the Recorder, one hundred and twenty dollars! This land was represented by Wallace to be very valuable. Now Messrs. Meeker, Keach, Moore, Bachelder & Co., where are the "malicious falsehoods"?

WARREN GOVE.

STATEMENT OF GOV. MASON AND GEN. TILTON.

OLYMPIA, W. T., July 2, 1859.

We have read with great surprise a letter signed by J. M. Bachelder, in the Puget Sound Herald, dated June 30th, to the effect that Mr. B., as administrator of the estate of the late Lieut. Slaughter, thinks it his duty to correct the statement of Mr. Warren Gove relative to the so called "quirk" by which Col. Wallace has held a portion of the estate of Lieut. Slaughter.

Capt. J. M. Bachelder informed us that Col. Wallace did have certain property of Slaughter's in the town of Steilacoom, by virtue of a transaction designated to us by Capt. B. as "damned dark." He stated that it would greatly injure Col. Wallace if the facts of the case were known;—that it would probably lose to the Col. the vote of the county of Pierce. That all the administrators of the estate of Lieut. Slaughter had tried in vain to get justice from Col. Wallace by referring the matter in dispute to arbitrators, and that the estate would have been solvent, and able to pay all its liabilities, had Col. Wallace acted as a man of honor, and given back the property in Steilacoom which he obtained from Lieut. Slaughter, by giving Slaughter a deed for property in Iowa, which property he had previously conveyed to other persons, and thereby the estate of Lieut. Slaughter lost the sum of about two thousand dollars, besides the interest on his liabilities for the several years which the matter had been in litigation. In a word, the impression made upon us by the communications of Capt. Bachelder, were to the effect that Col. Wallace had availed himself of the delays and "quirks" of the law to unfairly hold the property belonging to the estate of our gallant and lamented friend Slaughter.

C. H. MASON.

JAMES TILTON.

STATEMENT OF T. F. McELROY

On the 28th of May last, Capt. J. M. Bachelder related to me the history of the transaction between Lieut. Slaughter and Wm. H. Wallace. He stated that on the 22d of August, 1855, Slaughter paid to Wallace Two Thousand Dollars, for which amount Wallace agreed to give a deed to a house and lot in Fairfield, Iowa, and forty acres of land in the same county; that Wallace refused to comply with his part of the agreement after Slaughter's death: that he gave a deed for a house and lot in Fairfield which did not belong to him: that the deed was sent back as worthless by Mr. Wells, Mrs. Slaughter's father; that Wallace persistently refused to do the honest thing—would not refund the $2000 nor give its equivalent in property; that the transaction on the part of Wallace was as clear a case of swindling as had ever come to his knowledge, and that he believed Col. Wallace to be a damned scoundrel: that Gen. Geo. Gibbs had advised him to publish these facts; that he (Capt. B.) intended to write out the whole history of the affair and send it to the Pioneer and Democrat for publication. Capt. B. seemed anxious that the public should know the facts.

T. F. McELROY.

Will our friends in all the counties send us the election returns of their respective counties at as early a period as possible?