...and without any outside collaboration than can confirm anything in the 1885 Beale Papers, everything in the job pamphlet can been questionale as "real".
“and with the exception of the two letters addressed to myself, and some old receipts, found only some unintelligible papers, covered with figures, and totally incomprehensible to me.”
“To systematize a plan for my workI arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first,...”
If the ciphers had already been numbered then why did he have to number them in order to systemize them? Obviously there would be no reason to do this as they were already numbered and systemized, this being clear in the clear text of C2.
If the ciphers were not numbered then how was he able to assign the exact same order to them that was assigned some 40 years earlier by a different hand, and then be absolutely sure that he had them in the correct order? Obviously again, there is no possible way he could do this and know for certain that he had unless he already knew what the clear test was for each of the ciphers.
The point in all of this is that no matter how folks want to keep trying to twist things around the bottom line as detailed by the author himself is that his own narration and provided details completely demystifies the fascination attached to the ciphers, a fascination that in either form cannot be true.
Also, nobody, and I do mean nobody, has even been able to establish that Ward was the anything other then representing agent. When asked about this his own daughter couldn't even reply in certain terms. And Button, owner of the Job Print, I believe he clearly pointed at Sherman. So when we deal in facts, and only the known facts, then there is nothing to even conclude with any certainty who the author was.
All we know for sure is that the author "had to know what the clear text of each cipher was if he was the man who originally numbered them." This is the only possible way that he could be certain that he had them numbered correctly. PERIOD!
The bottom line is that according to details offered in the pamphlet the author "was not telling the truth in regard to the numbering of the ciphers" and this fact is certainly consistent with the fact that he had to know the clear text of each cipher in oder to number them correctly. There's just no possible way around this cold hard FACT.
And one also needs to consider how the author knew that a missing unintelligible piece of paper was still required in order to solve what remained? Obviously, there can be only way in which he knew that there was still a missing paper and that it would be unintelligible to his readers.
The "agent" has said nothing as he isn't the one who wrote the Beale papers. The Beale papers states that the author decided to "remove his name from the publication" and that he had selected Ward to be the individual to which readers could direct their questions. So in essence Ward was just acting as the agent, he wasn't the author, at least as the story goes.
When the author claims that the papers were always on his mind "this is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM" and not before, so any reference to the cipher numbers by the pamphlet author is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM and not before. Your 1893 newspaper account actually contains an inaccurate quote from the pamphlet as that information was never stated in the original pamphlet. This, again, is just another example of how there is far too much inaccurate information in circulation regarding the story, and this isn't the only review that contains such errors. Just recently on these forums Jean posted another review containing inaccurate information. So best to stick to the original narration instead of placing trust in these other secondhand sources. There are several online sources that house copies of the original source.
When operating strictly from the original source you'll discover that everything I'm telling you is accurate. No possible way that the author could number those ciphers accurately unless he already knew the exact wording in them. And, if the ciphers were already numbered then the author clearly lied when he said that he numbered them so he could systemize a means of order for his efforts.
But the absolute dagger comes when the author of the original source states that his reason for turning the matter over to the public is that it was his hope that someone would have the required "unintelligible missing piece of paper." What completely slips by most people in these details is that the author is admitting that "he knows" the missing piece of paper is "unintelligible". Only one way he could possible know that a paper was still missing and that the missing paper was unintelligible.
So glad you posted that. Actually, this is "after he had numbered them." But what you have failed to recognize in this line of narration is that the author readily admits that after he had decoded C2 that he also had "little difficulty in mastering the others." If not the ciphers, that all of his work and efforts were being focused and the very subject of this portion of his narration, then "what others?"
This all leads back to those 19 four digit codes and that still "missing unintelligible piece of paper" that he was lacking. What he is telling his "targeted readers" here is that he has already decoded all of the ciphers only to discover that he still lacked that vital missing paper. What you just posted is one of those other bombs that I have posted before that folks like Jean have apparently missed. "Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others;" Clearly he is detailing his success with the decoding of C2 and the others, and the illusion of success that was encountered afterwards. So here again, and in the author's own words, we can conclusively establish that he already knew what was in each cipher clear text.
In bold, above, your question is yet another "exact" point being made. If he laid them out according to their length and numbered them then C2 couldn't be C2. This is why folks like Laf and others keep producing magical formulas to try to justify the author's obvious errors in his narration. In reality what it leaves is just more hard and cold evidence that the author was lying about how the ciphers became to be numbered 1,2,3 and his involvement with systemizing that order. The author is simply "leading his readers" to believe what he wants them to believe through the simple process of the power of suggestion. The letters, the interview with Morriss, etc., there is never any mention of the ciphers being numbered until the author's introduction of the clear text of C2, only then do we encounter (1) & (3). As a writer I can tell you for a fact that his narration is simply the result of "leading lines" designed around the common literary practice of "the power of suggestion."
It never says that he went back to the regular order. What he says is that he numbered them according to their length and that after doing this he eventually found success when mistake afforded him the clear text of C2, to which he now fully understood and had little difficulty in mastering the others, but that these successes proved nothing more then an illusion. Nowhere does he claim that ciphers were already numbered prior to his numbering them and nowhere does he claim that he had abandon his assigned cipher order. In reality you are fully recognizing the obvious discrepancies that exist in the author's narration but you're still trying to find an alternate reason for those errors instead of accepting them for what you already know they are...."simple author mistakes in his designed plot."
And since Beale makes these alleged claims in his letters then what does that tell you about his smarts as well? So if you believe in the accuracy of these letters then you are believing a proven liar. And if you believe in the whole numbering of the ciphers claim then you are believing an established liar as well. The fact that you believe that the author already knew all of the cipher clear text should also tell you that he was liar. Obviously, one needs to decide for himself just how much of the story details he is personally willing to believe on only the author's word after all of this. Me? I'll take nothing he has written for granted after all of this fact finding. 
