The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-08-18
THE BROOKS BROTHERS. CLOTHING CONTRACT.
Reply OF the Inspectors to the Report OF
tho Select Committec-The Responsible
lity Placed on the Military Board-Thc
Contract. Sc.


The Military Board determined to earn an I'M
cnviable fame in connection with this matter 1t first
makes sgracefu contract and then attempts asen
upon others the responsibility Of its acts The re-
port OF its select committee lately published is abored
and most disingcnuous effort to excuac the Board and
to prove that Brooks Brothers and the Inspectors the
guilty parties. The effort will not succeed The material
facts too easily established and point clearly to
the cupabilty of the Board to be perverted or even
obscurcd by any amount Of special pleading or mis-
statement
The undersigned have already published card in vim
dication Of their official conduct inspectors of tho cloth
ing furnished under this contract Ia that card they
made no charges against others but confined themselves
simple statement of the facts connected with their
duty, and the manner in which it was performed
Conscious Of the entire truulness of their statements
they could not anticipate that any one and least Of all
the Military Board, would venture TO challenge its
rectness by renewing against them the charge Of un
iaithiuness. In this they were mistaken. The Board
has less fairness and less prudence than they gave it
credit for In the report of its select committee the char
ges distinctly made that the contract not faith
fully executed and that the inspectors cupaby
miss in the performance Of their duty.
These charges, thus renewed in official document,
cannot pass unchaIenged. The inspectors know them
to be grouncess and they it to themselves TO place
before the public the evidence Of that fact If this owl
dence Shall prove injurious to the reputation OF Tue Board
it must charge its publication to the unfairness and in
discretion Of its select committee The inspectors pre-
sent it in selfdefence, and as due to the public
copy of the contract with Brooks Brothers is here
with submitted also certificates from their foreman and
from highly respectable commission houses who furnished
them the goods complained Of These documents alone
completely excupate the inspectors from the charges Of
the select committee They prove beyond cav that the
contract called for various styles and qualities OF goods
all at the price Of SO so per uniform that the contractors
furnished the identical goods they agreed TO- and that the
uniforms were well made, and the workmcn literally
paid therefor In word, they prove that the contract
faithfully executed and the goods properly inspected
Here the matter might be safely left to the Judgment
of an intelligent community But the inspectors feel
called upon to probe the subject deeper. There is
general and well grounded conviction that wrong
has been committed on the patriotic volunteers IN
public should know through whose nstrumentality it
has been DONE The following facts known to the Select
Committee but not frankly and fairly stated in their re-
port will it is believed furnish the needed Information
On the 23d day Of April the Military Board published
notice Inviting bids for 10000 uniforms Without wait
ing for the connection that such notices intended
elicit the Board the following day accepted
the bid Of Mr. Robert Freeman made in behalf Of Brooks
Bros for the whole number of uniforms at $40 SO EACH
To be made Of all wool kcrscy, Of the style and quality
used in clothing the United States Army.
Brooks Bros upon being informed of the acceptance of
this bid proceeded to purchase all the army kerseys then
the market and, finding the quantity largely deficient,
at appriscd the Board of the fact The Board
sponded by appointing of its members Mr.. Dorshei
mer n committee to confer with them on the subject
The conference took place Mr. Dorsheimer being aided by
the Inspector General and, to extent by Mr.. Thur
low Weed 1t resulted in the selection and adoption Of
eight different styles of goods, as follows, viz:
Like sample No. / 200 dark blue kersey jackets.
Like sample No. s, 2 100 dark blue felt Jackets.
Like sample No 3, 800 cadet mixed satinet jackets
Like sample No. 1900 dark blue kersey trowsers
Like sample No. 24oO light blue kersey trowscrs
Like sample No B. 200 cadet mixed satnet trowsers
Like sample No. 4, 4, 900 brown mixed overcoats.
Like sample No. S ! 800 blue petresham overcoats.
Like sample No 2, 1000 mixed kersey overcoats.
Like sample No 6, 1000 cadet mixed doeskn overcoats
lhcftt al nil arrlNy
cloth which the bid Of $40 SO per suit was predica
ted Mr. Dorsheimer entered into written contract for,
without asking any abatement Of price; and the Board
approved his action although its members might have
learned from any dry goods clerks that the material thus
contracted for had little than half the market value
OF that on which the bid was made Styles Nos and 4,
Of which there We're Is 500 garments cost less than half
the price Of army kersey So any acquainted with
dry goods could have told them that felt cloths"
unfit for army clothing
Thcscacity Of military goods at the time this contract
made may afford some for the adoption Of these
infer qualities but cannot be offered in Justification Of
the Boards agreement to for them the price asked for
the best Here precisely where the wrong the volun
tcers was committed The Board contracted for good
medium and inferior goods all at price that would have
been b raj for the best, and it got precisely what it bar
gained for. If the Select Committee will address itself to
the task Of giving satisfactory explanations Of this prince
" beray Of the Board at the expense of the volunteers
il will do itself more credit and be more likely TO meet
public expectation, than by vain efforts through star
chamber proceedings to ascn others the public odum
Justly excited by the misdceds Of the Board.
The public would also like an explanation of the commit
tees for emitting TO state tie important fact that
the Rard had already compromised with Brooks Brothers
by their agreeing to furnish gratuiously $50 additional
sus--not for any unfathfulness on their part in exc
cutting the contract but because the beraty Of its pro-
visions enabled them to afford II, and because
the Board threatening TO repudiae it's
tract they could not otherwise obtain the ba-
lance due them In word, why ID the Sekct
committee recommend that the ga 900 due Brooks Bro
theirs should be withheld. when it knew the Beard had
already compromised with them for less half that sum
II will not venture to say that the report pub
lshed or fully written ont before the compromise was