THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. SCHENCK.

Evening Post, Volume XIII, Issue 136, 10 June 1876, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. SCHENCK.

The American correspondent of the Melbourne Argus writes :—: — When I wrote you last, Mr.'Schenck had just returned from England. He says that he came home to meet the charges against him. He really came because the President, alarmed by the recent scandals connected with his administration, was not inclined to defy public opinion any longer by keeping Schenck in London. If it were conceivable that Schenck did return to defend his reputation, he jnight 'better have, remained where he was. He has been before a Congressional Committee, and told his story. It is a very lame one. He says that he believed that the Emma Mine was a good investment. It is possible that he did. He also says that he atoned for his mistake by the loss of some 65,000d01., but I cannot see that he has ever lost a cent. In the first place, be " bought" the stock of an American speculator named Park, at a nominal price of £10,000, and gave his note for this amount. On this note he afterwards paid £500 in cash, received from profits on the sale of part of the stock. He had credited on the note £1894, which he says was the profic on certain speculations which he knew nothing about, which he did not furnish the money for, and which Park credited to him on his own motion. Next he received a further credit of £2000 for "commissions" on certain sales by Albert Grant, though why he should receive Albert Grant's "commissions" he does not explain. By these credits his note was reduced to £5606, and for the balance he gave to Park certain bonds and shares, which he has a right to "redeem" within a fixed period. But meantime he drew for some 30 months from 1£ to 2 per cent, per month dividends from the company, which would amount to at least £5000. There were further speculations in the stock,, which, so far as Schenck described them, resulted in nearly balanced profit and loss. That Schenck has made no money is possible, though not certainT That he allowed himself to be put in a position where he expected to make large amounts of money on stock for which he paid nothing, and for which the compaay received only the compensation afforded by the use of the name of the United States Minister as a director, is quite proven. The most peculiar circumstance in the case is that Schenck declares that he cannot see that the Emma Mine people expected to make anything by their liberal treatment of him, or that this was designed to obtain the use of his name. Yet Mr. Schenck explicitly declares that he does not desire the reputation of a dupe and a fool. It is the only alternative, I fear, to his accepting the reputation of a knave.