Transcription of February 16, 1861 Mountain Democrat

More about Telegraph Masters
Letter from F. A. Bee, Esq.
Placerville, Feb 1st, 1861.
To the Stockholders of the Placerville and Humboldt Telegraph Company, and those interested in matters of no interest to them:
Stockholders: Your late Secretary (and, permit me to add, per parenthesis, the late did not come too soon), has, in retiring from the position, published what he terms a "statement of facts." I quote one, and, after a hasty glance at the communication, I believe it stands alone.
"F. A. Bee became your President at your first organization – a position he has retained all the while; and for about the first sixteen months, he also acted both as collector and disburser of the funds raised – on subscription of stock. No objection ever being made by you, he assumed the entire management and control of the enterprise."
From the above, you are reminded that I have always been President of your Company, also collector, disburser, etc. And some of you, yes over two-thirds, have but recently done that which I regard as "extremely flattering". And some of you may not know from what causes I became "chief cook" it may be well enough to enlighten you. I commenced the organization of this Company in the Summer of 1858. All the requirements of the Statute having been complied with, an election of Officers took place in September, everything was done that was necessary for a thorough organization, etc. Expecting to have the cooperation of the officers-elect the work was commenced; but I had counted wrongly – I soon found that the whole management of the affairs must be done by myself, if done at all; therefore, I became solicitor, collector, disburser, buyer, pole-setter and wire joiner in addition to acting as Treasurer, Board of Directors, Secretary, and, officially, President. Under this state of the case, only of two things could be done – stop the enterprise or "go ahead". How zealously I worked, from time to time, to get the Board, or a quorum together, is patent to your "late Secretary", as well as to the members themselves. Time and again, Messrs. Editors have I asked of you to give one half-hour to the Company’s affairs, and hear my report; and now to the Stockholders, one for all. Whatever other errors I may have committed, under the peculiar circumstances in which I was placed, I regularly, as often as possible, in order to get a hearing from your first Board, submitted a full report of all my transactions connected with the affairs of the Company, and in every instance these reports were legislated unanimously – copies of several of which reports I have now in my possession. The report made in September, 1860, was left, as all previous ones had been, with items of expenditures, in the hands of the acting Secretary at such meetings. I think the idea that, after the Board had passed upon my accounts and reports, (as they did from time to time), I should be called upon for a complete statement of all transactions, going back to the setting of the first pole, is simply ridiculous – yet such a demand was made, in a note from the Committee, giving me until the following day, barely twelve hours, for a full statement of expenditures, receipts, etc., connected with the line; but Washoe wrought great changes. This request I undertook to comply with, and succeeded in collecting together vouchers to the amount of $6,001.21, and items from my memorandum books, amounting in all, to $12,332.72. I had sold stock amounting to $13,200, on which there was due $370, showing a deficit of $497.28. I directed the attention of some of the Committee to several items in the report which I desired to have more time to arrange, and also to collect accounts of parties with whom I had bad dealings, feeling confident that I could easily produce sufficient to make up the deficit; and particularly did I call attention to the vouchers of J. D. Lord & Co., of whom I had purchased a large quantity of wire. I could not classify all the different bills sent from time to time as I ordered wire, but gave them to the Committee as I received them. The Hubbard & Strong string your "late Secretary" tries to play upon amounts to nothing at all, only J. D. Lord & Co. were the consignees of the wire I bought; their clerk probably billed my order, made out the bill in the name of Hubbard & Strong, and receipted it; but all those facts no one knew better than your "late Secretary". To show you his fairness, whlist he makes a flourish of an overcharge, let us turn to the final report of this name Committee of Investigation. Your "late Secretary" gives one side of the commencement, and has not the least desire to publish the following:

Exhibits
Exhibit A – Full amount bills		$6,001.21
Exhibit B shows amount small bills principally for repairing line		$325.83
Exhibit C shows accounts, no vouchers		$3,988
Exhibit D – Bills, but not receipted		$1,741.76
Total		$12,056.91
F. A. Bee's bill as rendered	$12,532.72
Corrected in posting	12
Additional vouchers	461.67
Sub-total	$12,807.39
Deduct overcharges Lord & Co.	$751.86
Total	$12,055.52

The above shows that I expended and disbursed that sum, collected from $13,200 of stock sold. The deficit has been more than made good since the foregoing investigation. Your "late Secretary's" report indicates that your line been built for: "By expenditures on line, as per voucher, $6,001.21." T. P. Shaffner, who is a good authority, says it takes 250 pounds of No. 10 wire to the mile. Your line is 156 miles in length –all of the material I bought from the funds collected as above – the average cost per pound, preparing for use, transportation, etc., is fifteen cents – in round numbers, $5,625.

But, for fear I may be asking too much, Messrs. Editors, I will not go into details, however interesting they might be to the public, as those interested will soon have full particulars. I might have answered this communication of your "late Secretary" by asking a question – and I now proceed to prove that your "late Secretary" did not get turned out any too soon.

M. R. Elstiner became your Secretary at the annual election for officers, September, 1859, (see report), and was re-elected at the last annual meeting, September, 1860. The earnings of your line for eleven months, during the administration of said Elstiner, (and, in the language of his late eloquent advocate, "had the entire management and control of the affairs of the Company during my absence", etc.) after paying other lines, was the enormous sum of $21,008.92; and not an entry or statement could be found on the books of the Company, at the end of the eleventh month, of what had become of this sum, and I know of no satisfactory having as yet been made of where it went to. These figures I obtained from operators' reports, which I ordered to be immediately made and sent to me, as soon as I returned. Would it not interest you to know of your "late Secretary" what has become of this enormous sum? You see, by reference, that he has drawn of your money $600 for services during that time. This claim of $600 for services was brought before the Board a few weeks since, and, as he could show nothing that he had to entitle him to pay, the claim was rejected, by the following members of the Board voting against it: F. A. Bishop, H. A. Cagwin, A. H. Spence, Levi T. Carr and Lewis B. Harris, of Sacramento, men capable of judging between right and wrong. I should say. I don't really it now the legal form for the act, but let it suffice that your "late Secretary" filled out his own draft and draw the $600 from the Treasurer, and unblushingly published it in his account of expenditures, etc. Further comment seems to be unnecessary.

In concluding this article, I would call your attention to the charge against me of $19,500 of stock. This was surely the shares printed in blank numbers, no date - worth only the paper they were printed on – and our capital stock being only of $15,000; and he admits no over-issue. What does it amount to? Just as much to an unprejudiced mind, as the balance of his statement, nothing at all. Whilst your "late Secretary" brings prominently before you one overcharge, he fails to mention that the Investigating Committee allowed nearly five hundred dollars that I undercharged. "To crush Bee out," and get control of the line, was a tempting bait for him, and worth any means to accomplish. Has knowledge that "some" friends of mine would attribute his statement to feelings of malice and revenge, and denying such to be the case, is truly refreshing. If there are those connected to the Company who desire information, I suggest that they call at the Secretary's office and see who has squandered your money. I have worked honestly, faithfully and energetically. The cost of building your line is without a parallel. I worked it successfully for ten months before leaving for Washington, and demonstrated successfully that the Sierras were no great obstacle, with an altitude of nearly 8, 000 feet – leaving no debts but were amply secured. For all – for which I have never been paid one dime- I and those connected with me are dragged before the public. If you want my voucher, look at the line, for the earnings of that line, $21,005.92, for eleven months, it seems, as the matter now stands, is of no importance whatever.

Hoping this may be the last time I shall be called upon to defend myself in this public manner, and thanking you, Messrs. Editors, for extending the time-honored usage of the press, I am, etc. F. A. Bee.

Letter from M.R. Elstner, Esq.

San Francisco, February 11, 1861

Editors Democrat: In your last issue Mr. A. W. Bee gives a card which is an attempt to reply to certain portions of the report I made as late Secretary of the Placerville and Humboldt Telegraph Company, and published in your paper of 2d inst. His allusions to the weakness of my report and the ignorance displayed in regard to the affairs of the Company, are matters of no consequence to myself or to interested parties. I am satisfied to submit the report and reply to those whom it may interest, and abide their judgment. In my report I say:
"As it has been intimated that A. W. Bee would present a bill for services rendered, it may not be improper, perhaps, to say a word or two in regard to his connection with the Company. It is claimed by both himself and brother (F. A. Bee) that he has been the Agent of the Company for two years; yet there is nothing to be found on record or on file that will substantiate the fact. His name appears but twice within the hds of the books. The first time is where one share was issued to him; the other and last, when he was made a Director in 1859. The one share of stock which he appears to be the owner of, has, according to the books of the Company, never been paid for. I understand that A. W. Bee has on one occasion been appointed by the President and Secretary of the Company to perform two special acts. One in 1858, authorizing him to sell stock for the Company. The other in 1860, to put in a bid for a contract with the Government. Neither of those appointments was ever ratified by the Board, and no report has ever been made by him to the Company giving the amounts of stock sold by him, or report of any kind. Had he been the legally appointed agent of the Company, with such powers as it is now claimed he has held, why the necessity of sending him the special authority the last Summer? In 1859, A. D. Waldron was appointed by the Board of Directors to act as their Eastern Agent, and none other. There would be more consistency in his coming back and demanding a salary, than there would be in A. W. Bee's for two years services. "
Mr. Bee publishes the following with the hope that it may prove the above statement of mine as incorrect. The letter of instruction, as published by him, says that the same was passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors:
"Moved by Mr. Raymond, that A. W Bee, be appointed a special agent of the company at the East to attend to the business of the company, and that the Secretary is hereby authorized to notify Mr. Bee of the appointment. Carried.
P. M. Lovell, Sec'ry., December 17, 1858"
The records of the Company show nothing of the kind; and for the purposes of ascertaining whether any proof of its passage could be gathered on the outside, I at once called upon Mr. Park, who is now in this city, and was a Director in 1858, and he states that he never heard of the motion before. I then requested Mr. Park to telegraph to Mr. Raymond and inquire of him if he ever made the motion. Here is Mr. Raymond's answer:
Placerville, Feb, 10, 1861:
"A. D. Park: I never nominated A. W. Bee as General Agent of this Company. Waldron was the only authorized General Agent of the Company to my knowledge. G. W. Raymond."
Mr. Bee says that he has the documents, as published, in his possession. There is certainly something strange in this, as I am convinced that there cannot be found one Director of 1858 who ever heard of such appointment being made; and I confirm that I am ignorant as to when and how the letter came into the possession of Mr. Bee. As ignorant as I may be, I so far understand myself as to know that a regular meeting of the Board of Directors could not have been held on the 17th day of December, 1858, and it would probably be well for Mr. Bee to exercise a little caution when giving figures and dates, until he becomes better informed as to the affairs of the Company. Mr. Bee will also understand with all my ignorance in reference to the business of the Company, that I am sufficiently well posted so as to know that his brother (F. A. Bee) has charged the Company with funds paid to him, (A. W. Bee) on account of salary! Yet he coolly says in his communications that he has never received one dollar for his services. Now this makes an issue between the two brothers, and one that they my settle to the satisfaction of the stockholders. But it is only one among any others that requires explanation and settlement.
Thus my reasons for referring to matters of similar character in my report.
Mr. Bee is in error when he says that I have filled the position of Secretary of the Company almost continuously since the Company has been organized. I was elected Secretary for the first time in September, 1859, a short time previous to the departure of his brother to the Atlantic States; and the matters now in controversy all occurred prior to that date.
As to my removal, the influences that brought it about and the object, will, at the proper time, and occasion receive due notice.
Mr. Bee speaks of receiving a letter from the Company signed by F. A. Bee, President, M. R. Elstner, Secretary, and A. D. Park, Director, authorizing him to bid for the contract in the name of the Company. This is the same as mentioned in my report, and requires no answer. It is explained in my report.
Mr. Bee further says: "The publication of the statements M. R. Elstner has imperiled the interests of every stockholder, and may snatch from their grasp the fruits of my two years' labors.
If I have injured the interest of the stockholders generally, and darkened the prospect of a connection of a Telegraph communication on the Central route, I regret it. But if I have snatched from their grasp the fruits of Mr. B's two years' labor, then I am content. M. R. Elstner.

P. S. –Since writing the above, I received the following dispatch from P. H. Lovell, Secretary of the Placerville and Humboldt Telegraph Company for the year 1858, in answer to references to the appointment of A.W. Bee, as published in your issue of Saturday last. M. R. Elstner.

Carson City, Feb. 11, 1861.
A.D. Park: F. A. Bee wrote the letter to A. W. Bee, appointing A. W. Bee as Agent at the East. I copied it and sent it to A. W. Bee. The first I saw of it was in S. J. K. Handey's office in Placerville. The matter was not, to my knowledge, ever brought before any meeting of stockholders or Directors. P. H. Lovell.