Gentleman,
Perhaps I use the term loosely, perhaps just the opposite. FYI – the second printing of the book is now out. I did not include enough new material for me in good conscious to call it a second edition. I had wanted to include more new information, but time and circumstances precluded me doing so. There is some new information in it, and what I would be most interested in is comments on the text at the bottom of page 290. Should anyone find these comments I would be most appreciative of their input. (It has to do with the Transmitting Draft on Accountable Warrant, and why would the family still have the original if it had to be turned in for the money? And, just what was a Transmitting Draft on Accountable Warrant? And why if Waltz was sending monies to his family in the Mid-West was it made out to Jacob Waltz?)
Thomas
Once Upon A Time In Arizona ...
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Accountable Warrant
Dr. Glover,
I think it is safe to assume here, that an "Accountable Warrant" was justified because the source of the funds was "gold ore". If the Treasury of the United States was the recipient of the ore, an "Accountable Warrant" would have been requuired to disburse the funds to pay for the purchase of the ore.
Those records should still be held by the Treasury Dept. It may be that they are public records. Since all of the pertinent information seems to be present on the document, I would imagine someone, like yourself, would be able to authenticate it.
"Transmitting Draft" seems fairly straight forward. In this case, someone is sending a written order for payment by means of an "Accountable Warrant" by the Treasury of the United States. They would be the ones holding Jacob Waltz's funds. I assume a document would be sent by Waltz to his sister, authorizing her to receive the funds in his name.
While all of this makes perfect sense to me, others may find it all a little shakey.
Let us know what you find out.
Respectfully,
Joe
I think it is safe to assume here, that an "Accountable Warrant" was justified because the source of the funds was "gold ore". If the Treasury of the United States was the recipient of the ore, an "Accountable Warrant" would have been requuired to disburse the funds to pay for the purchase of the ore.
Those records should still be held by the Treasury Dept. It may be that they are public records. Since all of the pertinent information seems to be present on the document, I would imagine someone, like yourself, would be able to authenticate it.
"Transmitting Draft" seems fairly straight forward. In this case, someone is sending a written order for payment by means of an "Accountable Warrant" by the Treasury of the United States. They would be the ones holding Jacob Waltz's funds. I assume a document would be sent by Waltz to his sister, authorizing her to receive the funds in his name.
While all of this makes perfect sense to me, others may find it all a little shakey.
Let us know what you find out.Respectfully,
Joe
once upon
Acountable warrant is money held in someones account, transmitting draft is money sent to someone. Tom I have some old warrants from the civil war and 1907 they stamped them when paid. In earlir times / colonial they cut a star stamp in them. You also have to remember that Arizona was still a territory at the time. I hope this might help?? Bill 
There is a treasury form number in the upper left-hand corner which means there would have been form instructions as well. I can't read the last number though.
Another interesting aspect of this document is the date. In both places where a date is recorded the year could be 1881. Writing a "one" with a upward stroke, then down, was pretty common around that time. Comparing the dates to similar aged documents reveals an almost perfect match for 1881. If one examines the other "sevens"in this document they are stylized with a loop and look nothing like the date sevens.
The only thing is, there are other "ones" in the document which are the standard single stroke variety....but mixing the two was also common.
Another interesting aspect of this document is the date. In both places where a date is recorded the year could be 1881. Writing a "one" with a upward stroke, then down, was pretty common around that time. Comparing the dates to similar aged documents reveals an almost perfect match for 1881. If one examines the other "sevens"in this document they are stylized with a loop and look nothing like the date sevens.
The only thing is, there are other "ones" in the document which are the standard single stroke variety....but mixing the two was also common.
Once upon a time in Arizona ....
xx
Last edited by Aurum on Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
THE Answer
Aurum,
That was THE Answer. If knowledge is power, than you sir, are SUPERMAN.
Perhaps the "person" you speak of, will give us a little more insight into this "Draft". That would be of great interest to all, I am sure.
Dr. Glover has done a good job of stirring the mental pot here. I doubt we have heard the last of this topic.
Respectfully,
Joe
That was THE Answer. If knowledge is power, than you sir, are SUPERMAN.
Perhaps the "person" you speak of, will give us a little more insight into this "Draft". That would be of great interest to all, I am sure.
Dr. Glover has done a good job of stirring the mental pot here. I doubt we have heard the last of this topic.
Respectfully,
Joe
once upon
Dr glover; You must have read my thoughts last nite after I went to bed. You put them on paper ahead of me this morning. All I can add is if he sent it by wells fargo, the money was insured!! If there is an old wells fargo office museum around there I bet that one might go in and see a draft like this? or part of a draft. I have old paper money from the colonial times thru the early 1900,s and the quality of paper in the 1800,s was usually made to last a life time if it was good quality it was made from rags. I have some arkansas warrants from the civil war that are poor quality. BUT my 1814 and the civil war papers are rag paper and in good shape. The good rag paper last forever. They do not brown and crumble up like my WW1 newspapers. The chlorine acid and dust mites eat them up. Why did someone keep them? MY dad kept old receipts from paid bills 20 plus years after paying them, the packrat sindrome. I seen old John E. Johnsons estate after he died, He was 1st sheriff of seqouyah county. He had all the cancelled checks and bills and every business transaction I guess he ever did from sheriffing, farming and all. this was 80 years after he was the sheriff, packrat. Some people did not thro away thank god.... Bill
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Early Bird......
Billiam,
Let that be a lesson to you. Had you just got up a little earlier this morning, it would have been you I said all those nice things about.
The early bird.........
Respectfully,
Joe
Let that be a lesson to you. Had you just got up a little earlier this morning, it would have been you I said all those nice things about.
The early bird.........
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Who's Signature?
Dr. Glover,
One other point of "Accountable Warrant" information. For many years the treasury was required to submit an "Accountable Warrant" for every penny it paid out. Each of those documents had to be signed by the Sec. of the Treasury. Around 1900 that was changed because of the number of signatures required. The signature on the document in question, is not a Sec. of the Treasury. Since this document is dated 1881 or 1887 it should be of interest, as to who signed it.
My personal oppinion is that the document fairly shouts LEGITIMATE!, as I doubt the average person (perp.) would have been familiar with the terminology that was used.
I am still at our shop, so don't ask me for my source.
Respectfully,
Joe
One other point of "Accountable Warrant" information. For many years the treasury was required to submit an "Accountable Warrant" for every penny it paid out. Each of those documents had to be signed by the Sec. of the Treasury. Around 1900 that was changed because of the number of signatures required. The signature on the document in question, is not a Sec. of the Treasury. Since this document is dated 1881 or 1887 it should be of interest, as to who signed it.
My personal oppinion is that the document fairly shouts LEGITIMATE!, as I doubt the average person (perp.) would have been familiar with the terminology that was used.
I am still at our shop, so don't ask me for my source.
Respectfully,
Joe
once upon
Joe; I will try harder for your praise. 
NOW; Tom I have some old document that have the 1 made like the seven too BUT I know it,s a 1 one. I have it on several bank and old indian land allotment deeds from the government. I think this was a commonly taught script in school back then. Like the old seven F seven european seven the iranians still teach this method of numbers. Hope this helps?? Bill
NOW; Tom I have some old document that have the 1 made like the seven too BUT I know it,s a 1 one. I have it on several bank and old indian land allotment deeds from the government. I think this was a commonly taught script in school back then. Like the old seven F seven european seven the iranians still teach this method of numbers. Hope this helps?? Bill Once upon a time in Arizona
xx
Last edited by Aurum on Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
once upon a time
Aurum; I think that there were probley 3/4 stages to the paper 1 for waltz 1 for the wells fargo office, 1 for the receiving bank Kansas, and possibly 1 for sister waltz. I might add that in the 1840,s there were quite alot of german imigrant,s in arkansas and into texas. There were some pretty good size community,s of them there and still are there, altho scattered now. They had a big rock beer brewry in ft. smith and a big church,s, YOU can still see their feild stone rock work today, they were good builders. They operated the dairy,s too. Bill
Once upon a time in Arizona
xx
Last edited by Aurum on Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Aurum has made what I consider a very true and accurate statement in other topics; that is that we all come to the Dutchman search down different paths. What the search means to each of us, how we approach it, and such is different for us one from another. For many the meaning of the search even changes over time. I come from an academic background and as such I almost compulsively ask questions and look for verification. I am not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. But, when presented with something that can be examined and tested it is my inclination to do so. Much in our chosen area of interest can never be really tested. Sometimes it never could have been, and in many other cases time and its effects have removed any chance of verification or testing. But, understand there is no meaning here about trying to be a spoilsport, only to try and understand.
So when I first say a copy of the warrant I was intrigued, and I must have believed it based on itself and the source who showed it to me. Otherwise I would not have referred to it – even obliquely – in the first printing of the book. But, back then the Warrant was not mine to really examine; in fact, it was suggested that others were working on it and I left it alone. But, with it being made public knowledge and an image publicly available my interest was rekindled.
As Aurum and Bill have said (in effect) the devil is in the details. Absolutely, that is root of my query. It is in understanding just what these details were and the mechanics of how they were used that intrigues me. So in this vein I contacted the bank, the US Treasury, the National Archives and the Arizona State Archives. What surprised me was I hit a wall everywhere I turned. I have not been able to find a source for what these were and how they were used from the Library at the US Treasury or their historical association. The National Archives did not know either, but they did have and index by number of drafts and warrants – but the numbers on “Our Draft” were not there. From the Internet came the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WARRANTS FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY
The warrants for the payment of Federal funds are of two classes, viz., settlement warrants and accountable warrants.
The former are direct payments in settlement of sums due individuals on claims that have been settled by the Federal accounting officers. When a claim has been reviewed and the sum due has been ascertained, the accounting officers submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a statement that discloses the sum due. The Secretary's warrant is executed, countersigned by the Comptroller, and is paid by a check drawn by the Treasurer in favor of the claimant.
The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Now my curiosity got stirred a little. It is a US Treasury Document, but why would it be an Accountable Warrant, as those seem to have been used for federal funds? It could be that Waltz’s gold/monies entered the Federal system and then were paid back out of that system? I do not know, but I would like to find out. If the gold was converted to money or a draft at Wells Fargo (a private company) would it – the funds not the gold – became part of the Federal system? I don’t know. But, for me the devil is in the details and the quality of the information supplied by the members of this forum has exceeded what I have so far been able to access through more conventional channels. Thank you.
There is a larger issue that may come out of this discussion and that is the mechanics of just how gold was converted to monies, how those monies were paid and who did it. We have all heard the stories of Waltz shipping vast amounts of gold. The serious researchers I know have discounted most of these stories. Perhaps out of this research and our discussion will come a means of checking those stories.
As a closing note the $7,000 referred to in the warrant is a significant amount of money. There are several ways of trying to convert a sum of money from the 19th century into an equivalent sum today. There are so many factors that influence such a conversion that no one method is probably absolute. However, two that are used are the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Unskilled Wage Rate (UWR). Using the CPI that $7,000 is $125,000 in today’s money, and using the UWR it is $800,000 in today’s money. If the Draft had to be turned in for the money I am suspicious, if not or if there was some way to cancel it once cashed in (perhaps it is stamped on the back?) then that is a different matter.
So when I first say a copy of the warrant I was intrigued, and I must have believed it based on itself and the source who showed it to me. Otherwise I would not have referred to it – even obliquely – in the first printing of the book. But, back then the Warrant was not mine to really examine; in fact, it was suggested that others were working on it and I left it alone. But, with it being made public knowledge and an image publicly available my interest was rekindled.
As Aurum and Bill have said (in effect) the devil is in the details. Absolutely, that is root of my query. It is in understanding just what these details were and the mechanics of how they were used that intrigues me. So in this vein I contacted the bank, the US Treasury, the National Archives and the Arizona State Archives. What surprised me was I hit a wall everywhere I turned. I have not been able to find a source for what these were and how they were used from the Library at the US Treasury or their historical association. The National Archives did not know either, but they did have and index by number of drafts and warrants – but the numbers on “Our Draft” were not there. From the Internet came the following:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WARRANTS FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY
The warrants for the payment of Federal funds are of two classes, viz., settlement warrants and accountable warrants.
The former are direct payments in settlement of sums due individuals on claims that have been settled by the Federal accounting officers. When a claim has been reviewed and the sum due has been ascertained, the accounting officers submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a statement that discloses the sum due. The Secretary's warrant is executed, countersigned by the Comptroller, and is paid by a check drawn by the Treasurer in favor of the claimant.
The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Now my curiosity got stirred a little. It is a US Treasury Document, but why would it be an Accountable Warrant, as those seem to have been used for federal funds? It could be that Waltz’s gold/monies entered the Federal system and then were paid back out of that system? I do not know, but I would like to find out. If the gold was converted to money or a draft at Wells Fargo (a private company) would it – the funds not the gold – became part of the Federal system? I don’t know. But, for me the devil is in the details and the quality of the information supplied by the members of this forum has exceeded what I have so far been able to access through more conventional channels. Thank you.
There is a larger issue that may come out of this discussion and that is the mechanics of just how gold was converted to monies, how those monies were paid and who did it. We have all heard the stories of Waltz shipping vast amounts of gold. The serious researchers I know have discounted most of these stories. Perhaps out of this research and our discussion will come a means of checking those stories.
As a closing note the $7,000 referred to in the warrant is a significant amount of money. There are several ways of trying to convert a sum of money from the 19th century into an equivalent sum today. There are so many factors that influence such a conversion that no one method is probably absolute. However, two that are used are the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Unskilled Wage Rate (UWR). Using the CPI that $7,000 is $125,000 in today’s money, and using the UWR it is $800,000 in today’s money. If the Draft had to be turned in for the money I am suspicious, if not or if there was some way to cancel it once cashed in (perhaps it is stamped on the back?) then that is a different matter.
Something else to think about. How much gold ore did Waltz have in his possession to convert it into $7000 in 1881 AT?
If the ore was 50% gold (and I am just guessing here it could have been 90% for all I know) and gold was approximately $18-20 per ounce. That would mean $7000 / 20 =350oz x 2 (50% ore/gold conversion rate) = approx. 700 oz or c. 43 lbs of ore. This of course could have been more or less depending upon the ore content.
Dont know if it means anything, but thats just about the amount of weight a fellow could pack out of the mountains on his back (yes, I know he had a burrow(s)) comfortably. (I've packed in more, but I wasnt comfy one bit...)
TGH
If the ore was 50% gold (and I am just guessing here it could have been 90% for all I know) and gold was approximately $18-20 per ounce. That would mean $7000 / 20 =350oz x 2 (50% ore/gold conversion rate) = approx. 700 oz or c. 43 lbs of ore. This of course could have been more or less depending upon the ore content.
Dont know if it means anything, but thats just about the amount of weight a fellow could pack out of the mountains on his back (yes, I know he had a burrow(s)) comfortably. (I've packed in more, but I wasnt comfy one bit...)
TGH
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Perhaps I Was Wrong.
Dr. Glover,
"I have my doubts that Waltz ever (directly) sent his ore anywhere. There were plenty of buyers locally, and most of the old timers would not trust sending their hard won pokes off any distance for payment. Getting an assay done in Arizona and having your ore bought on the spot was the norm. Large commercial mines, different story."
Perhaps I was wrong when I made this statement.
What if, because of the amount of ore (fifty pounds) and the fact that the sale was not for Jacob Waltz's immediate needs, he shipped this ore directly to a mint? That would have saved some money and lessened the public exposure that would have been created locally by the sale of that kind/amount of gold.
That would also necessitate the generation of the document in question.
At this point, Wells Fargo does not appear to be in the funding loop.
"The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury."
I believe that is very close to a direct quote of what I have read from, probably, the same site.
Waltz's gold is not money or funds. He sends it to the Mint. They assay the ore and assign a value. At this point it goes through the above procedure, and the "officer" directs a payment to be made to Jacob Waltz or his assignee. The final step, which we don't see, would be the voucher issued by the "officer".
All of the above, and five bucks, will get you a fair cup of coffee.
TGH,
Kind of interesting how your figures approached the fifty pounds of ore referenced on the "Accountable Warrant".
Respectfully,
Joe
"I have my doubts that Waltz ever (directly) sent his ore anywhere. There were plenty of buyers locally, and most of the old timers would not trust sending their hard won pokes off any distance for payment. Getting an assay done in Arizona and having your ore bought on the spot was the norm. Large commercial mines, different story."
Perhaps I was wrong when I made this statement.
What if, because of the amount of ore (fifty pounds) and the fact that the sale was not for Jacob Waltz's immediate needs, he shipped this ore directly to a mint? That would have saved some money and lessened the public exposure that would have been created locally by the sale of that kind/amount of gold.
That would also necessitate the generation of the document in question.
At this point, Wells Fargo does not appear to be in the funding loop.
"The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury."
I believe that is very close to a direct quote of what I have read from, probably, the same site.
Waltz's gold is not money or funds. He sends it to the Mint. They assay the ore and assign a value. At this point it goes through the above procedure, and the "officer" directs a payment to be made to Jacob Waltz or his assignee. The final step, which we don't see, would be the voucher issued by the "officer".
All of the above, and five bucks, will get you a fair cup of coffee.
TGH,
Kind of interesting how your figures approached the fifty pounds of ore referenced on the "Accountable Warrant".
Respectfully,
Joe
once upon a time
Well boys gold is currently going at 448.00 per ounce times 700 comes to 315,000 in todays money. I got my gold figures from the NY stock exchange. To compare in 1876 my great grand father wealth listed on the census at about 3000.00 dollars and that wasn,t a poor man in Okla. territory. Tom could there have been a revenue stamp on the back of the warrant? my old documents have them. I beleive some way that only the warrant sent to the bank could be cashed in, that the others were only receipts in case of lose that a claim could be made. Bill
TGH,TGH wrote:Something else to think about. How much gold ore did Waltz have in his possession to convert it into $7000 in 1881 AT?
If the ore was 50% gold (and I am just guessing here it could have been 90% for all I know) and gold was approximately $18-20 per ounce. That would mean $7000 / 20 =350oz x 2 (50% ore/gold conversion rate) = approx. 700 oz or c. 43 lbs of ore. This of course could have been more or less depending upon the ore content.
Dont know if it means anything, but thats just about the amount of weight a fellow could pack out of the mountains on his back (yes, I know he had a burrow(s)) comfortably. (I've packed in more, but I wasnt comfy one bit...)
TGH
43 lb is close to the amount of ore Waltz had under his bed when he died (48+ lb?). Dr. Glover, in his book (which I don't have handy) gave some figures as to how much money Dick Holmes came into immediately after Waltz's death and his subsequent sale of the ore. That should provide some rough estimate of the gold content of the ore, given that all the ore being discussed came from the same source.
once upon a time
Joe joe joe; Who transported the gold to the mint? I think the mint charged 10% for refining cost? They do not refine for funnies? The Jake would have hammered off all the rock quartz that he could before carrying it out of the mountains to lighten his load. To send his ore or money anyway other than wells fargo, who could have handled the whole transaction A to Z for him it would not have been insured? I think he would have used the mint and wells fargo to keep his business private and not have it talked all over town. Remember he already had certain parties keeping an eye on him! YOU think these greedy people wouldn,t have tortchered him for his secrets if they knew how rich the mine was? It wouldn,t have been the 1st time murder was used for money... At 20.00 per ounce he would have had 35 pounds of gold for the $7000.00 figure talked about....I do not think the jake showed his gold to anyone other than who needed to see it, I think the others jumped on the band wagon after the fame, SO how would they know what the gold looked like? What is their qualifications for knowing about gold ore??If you listen to what some were saying the Jake run around showing the gold all over the place. I showed you evidence that disputes that theory Joe. The people didn,t know diddly squat about the Jake Joe. Bill
At 20.00 per ounce he would have had 35 pounds of gold for the $7000.00 figure talked about....
Bill
I think your math is off a tad. 35 lbs of gold x 16 oz = 560oz. Then, 560oz x $20 one would get $11,200. I think you neglected to convert the 35 lbs into ounces (and then left out a zero)while doing your arithmetic.
Bill
I think your math is off a tad. 35 lbs of gold x 16 oz = 560oz. Then, 560oz x $20 one would get $11,200. I think you neglected to convert the 35 lbs into ounces (and then left out a zero)while doing your arithmetic.
Once upon a time in Arizona
xx
Last edited by Aurum on Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
once upon a time
TGH; Man you are sure right. I got distracted when I was figuring I guess. Bill
Once upon a time in Arizona
xx
Last edited by Aurum on Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think your math is off a tad
Gentlemen, I believe gold is measured as 12 oz per pound not 16. 35 pounds X 12 oz X $20.00 = $8,400.00 and I also believe gold was priced something less than $20/oz back then. I could be wrong.
Grayhair
Grayhair