If, as you maintain that the Beale Papers is a work of fiction because the real story has nothing to do with the job pamphlet's presented tale, the "authors reasons" as explained in the manuscript would also be considered as fiction.
But then again, you still think St. Louis is in Virginia and that Richmond is in Lynchburg so you may as well keep trying to keep everything local. 
Why would the author's reasons for selecting an agent be fiction?
Uh......Ward's name even appears on the copyright application, yes?
This practice also not being out of the ordinary for agents.
And as far as I know, you're the only one who keeps insisting that the entire tale and all of it's details must be deemed fiction if not everything in that story is true exactly as depicted, even though the publication wasn't filed/copyrighted as such. Again, you're trying to discover the possible alternate solution by researching everything "local" many years after the presented period of 1817-1821/22, obviously still in denial of the strong possibility that Ward was only the agent just as the narration details and just as the copyright application suggest.
Bigscoop, you do realize that the "author's reasons for selecting an agent" is part of the story, in an final attempt to lure the unwary reader.
According to what I read in my copy of the narration the author simply selected Ward to be the agent, there is nothing in my narration claiming he did so "in a final attempt to lure the unwary reader." Are you sure you're reading the right narration? 
Oh, wait, you're borrowing quote from somebody else again....I should have known as much.
....as just with all of your post you continue to put words into the narration that aren't there, at all. The following was your statement: "Bigscoop, you do realize that the "author's reasons for selecting an agent" is part of the story, in an final attempt to lure the unwary reader." And per more example; "Obstinate in your misrepresentations"....just as usual, you continue to call yourself out with every post, just like this one. 
And, "to lure the weary reader" was the opinion of who? We both know these aren't your own words and where they came from and it ain't you, is it. I was paraphrasing your question on post #442, for it seems that as an unwary reader, you don't realize that his seeking an agent for his manuscript, is PART of that manuscript and has he included himself into the narrative story, he has also included his "chosen" agent into the story.
And "yes", I've been awaiting an appropriate moment to flip that around on you. The point is that is was created as entertainment for profit.
....no, and that's been even more enjoyable, for me at least, and a few others......as that connection is there and has even been directly referenced on more then occasion. Don't blame me because you're still in denial and refusing to go there. So let me lead you towards it again....."Thomas J. Beale"....."important business affairs in Richmond."
Not sure why you feel my reply to ECS was directed at you and Rebel? Actually, there are several folks I know of who have/are searching beyond the local, ECS just isn't one of them.
It is very possible that Bigscoop has gone so far from the story in the 1885 Beale Papers, he hasn't been able to create a "connexion" and so he once again resorts to posting quotes from the job pamphlet("important business affairs in Richmond") to insert the good Jackson Ward Alderman back into this historical grab bag theory.
