BARON GRANT BOBS UP AGAIN; TRIES TO GET EVEN ON MAN WHO EXPOSED
ONE OF HIS BIG STOCK SWINDLES.
_Alfred Rubery Brings Suit Against London Times for Libel and Is
Awarded £10,000 as Damages._
In the charges made by the London Times, it was not difficult to
recognize the handiwork of my old enemies, Baron Grant and the
financial editor, Samson. The accusation seemed to be an echo of the
old Emma Mine fight, when I warned the public against the exploitation
of a worthless property. That bubble had burst, carrying ruin to
investors, disgrace to the promoters and more than a decade of distrust
for every American security in European markets. But the sting of
defeat remained and the opportunity to retaliate was one not to be
overlooked.
Alfred Rubery, being a British subject in good standing, brought
the libel suit against the London Times. As my intimate and close
companion for nine months, covering the various incidents involved, he
admitted that whatever involved me involved himself as well. Although
the earth was ransacked for evidence to connect us with the fraud,
the defense absolutely failed to sustain the newspaper’s charges. Not
only that, but the proof I had gathered, as described in a previous
chapter showing the secret bond between Baron Grant and the financial
writer, was thoroughly exposed, ending in the ruin of both. Samson was
dismissed in disgrace by the London Times. Enough was shown of Baron
Grant’s methods to involve him in lawsuits innumerable that stripped
him of his fortune in the end. He did business under assumed names long
after, but never with his old success.
Heavy damages were awarded Rubery--the sum, if I remember right, was
£10,000. Years afterwards he moved to Australia, and as I never heard
from him after, I presume that, like the other actors in the diamond
field drama, he is dead. In fact, of all who were in any material way
connected with the historic incident--and there were many--I alone
survive.
For myself, I felt crushed beneath the burden of vague suspicion,
became disgusted with life in general and with business in particular,
and formed a determination to retire permanently from active affairs at
once. With this end in view, I offered my extensive California holdings
on a dead market and accepted bargain prices. My controlling interest
in the Montgomery Street Land Company I sold to Messrs. Ralston and
Sharon, so that they owned share and share alike. I sold a great
acreage of tule land to George D. Roberts, part of which comprises
what is known as Roberts Island, not far from the city of Stockton. A
large estate around Honey Lake I disposed of to various purchasers.
Scattering investments in San Francisco were cleaned up in a summary
way. I would hardly care to know what all these properties are worth
to-day.
[Illustration: MRS. A. HARPENDING
At age of 30, before leaving San Francisco]
In four months after the diamond fraud was exposed I had converted
into cash everything tangible I possessed on the Pacific Coast.
Although the sacrifice I made was enormous, I realized more than
a million and a quarter dollars, which was as good or better than
$5,000,000 to-day--a fortune ample to supply the most extensive and
up-to-date wants of modern times.
The great mistake of my career, entirely apart from monetary reasons,
was this hastily taken resolution to seek the shades of private
life. Had I faced the music, like all the rest--like Ralston, Lent,
Roberts, Dodge and one or two other original “dupes,” I would have
outlived every trace of suspicion just as they did themselves. And I
am glad to give evidence at this late date, long after all of them
are dead, that they were as innocent as children throughout the whole
transaction--were the unhappy victims of a costly confidence in men.
But as I took a pessimistic view of things in general and saw fit
to withdraw from public view, perhaps I have not so much reason to
complain because, in my absence from the world, Dame Rumor was busy
with my name.
Three alleged histories of San Francisco, which profess to give an
accurate narrative of events, devote much space to the diamond field
fraud. Considering the mass of documentary evidence easily accessible,
the misstatements of many facts and the omission of others is
noteworthy and may call into question the entire accuracy of all these
works. To go no further, they all agree that the losses of stockholders
were enormous, claim that they brought suit in the State of New Jersey
against Arnold and Slack, but never recovered a cent. Lent’s suit in
Kentucky, the only place where such an action could be maintained, is
not mentioned, nor the $300,000 which Ralston contributed to make good.
Under these conditions I should not feel hurt because they surmise that
the plot was conceived in the “active brain of Asbury Harpending.”
I returned to Kentucky, made considerable investments in agricultural
land and settled down to play the part of the country gentleman. My
estate was one of the finest in Southwestern Kentucky and became a
center of hospitality in its region. And there I made another grave
mistake--not to remain content with the finest existence in the world,
that of an independent owner and tiller of the soil.
It was while I was living in my new home in Kentucky, at peace with
all mankind and oblivious of the outside world, that I had a sharp and
vivid reminder of the unforgotten past when the papers told, one day
in August, 1875, of the failure of the Bank of California and two days
later the tragic story of my old friend Ralston’s death.
[Illustration: MY SISTER, MRS. O. P. ELDRED
Who is well known in the literary world]