The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-04-27
SUIT AND BARqLEY.
Their Conflicting Stories in the New
Charges Against Mr.. Bristow.

CnarBeS ASdllsV "li' ~
WASHINGTON, April 1S,-s,T. Suit, once
the head of a whisky ring, and the asso'
ciate of W. j. Huntington and fellow
named Turk, in many other swindles, has
been working up case against Secretary
Bristow, which the whisky ring thieves
think very damaging. They got Suits
lawyer, II. w. BARLEY, formerly Lieut..
Governor of Ohio, and brother-in'law Of
Senator Sherman, to go before the Com
mittee of Expenditures in the Depart
ment of Justice on Friday last, and tell
the scandal, as follows
He was asked whether in a profession,
al capacity he had ever been employed
by S. T. Suit. He answered he had, and
repeated what Suit had said to him in
1870. His law firm then was BARLEY y
Stanton, and B. II. Bristow was United
States District Attorney at Louisville
Suit had entered into gigantic speculla-
ton to make q corner in Kentucky whis-
ky of a certain grade, when, unexpect'
edly, on the information OF BrlstoW, sew,
en- or eight distilleries were seized, and
his business operations crippled NO
sooner had the seizures been made and
the information filed, than Bristow re-
signed the office of United States District
Attorney, and became member OF a law
firm under the name of Harlan, Brlstow
& Newman. Bristow, however, succeed
ed in having his assistant Wharton made
District Attorney.
In this favorable condition Of affairs,
Suit was told to employ Bristow as his
attorney if he wanted the distllleries re-
leased, though he would have to pay a
large fee. Mr.. BARLEY did not remember
the amount, but it is said to have been
$4,000. The cases were all dismissed
Suit claims that he and his associates had
been the victims of extortion. Accord
ingly, he laid all the facts before Mr.. Bart
lev to ascertain whether legal proceed
inps might not be instituted against Bris-
tow to recover the exhorbitant fec
BARLEY told his client that however
questionable Bristow's proceeding might
have been, there was no ground for legal
redress. Bristow had been employed to
do specified duty, and having fulfilled
his agreement there was no ground for
action.
However, to satisfy Suit, BARLEY, at the
urgent request of his client, called upon
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
then Columbus Delano, and presented to
that Official a Hypothetical case, SO as not
to involve Bristow's name. Delano re-
piled that he did not see what acticn
could lie against an eX-ottlcial, and SO
the matter rested for several weeks. Suit |
had whisky seized in Baltimore, wherein
BARLEY & Stanton were enabled to Sc
cure the release. Bristow also knew OF
this transaction; and as he came to Wash
ington then in behalf of the government
it occurred to Delano that Bristow would |
make good licitor-General, and upon |
his representation Bristow was appointed |
to that office in 1870. Shortly after this,
SIit called upon BARLEY and told him
not to further consider the matter of at
tempting to institute proceedings to re-
cover the fee paid to secure the release OF
the distilleries, as Bristow was now So |
licitor-General, and his friendship would |
be invaluable to him in his whisky spec
ulations. The matter was dropped and |
nothing thought of it until last summer,
when distilers were annoyed in every |
part of the country except Kentucky,a and |
then it was rumored that Bristow's con-
nection with questionable business by |
Louisville distilers explained the hands
Off policy pursued in that State.
Mr.. BARLEY had no charges to make
against Bristow. He merely reCited what
Suit had tod him, and consequently he
knew nothing of the facts or the truth OF
Suits story.
S. T. Suit was yesterday examined by
the committee, and pronounced the state
ment of BARLEY entirely devoid of truth
in every particular, except that he was
interested in Kentucky distillerles. The
committee questioned and Cross-question-
ed him, but he denied absolutely and un-
equivocally that he ever said anything to
Mr.. BARLEY upon the subject. The COM
mittee, therefore, had no other alterna-
tive but to ascertain which of the wit
nesses had perjured himself, and to this
end the statement of Judge BARLEY is to
be investigated. He was not stranger to
Suit, having been employed to transact
important business from time to time,
and it is absurd to suppose that he in
vented the story in 1870 which it Was
for his interest to deny in 1876. Either
Barley or Suit has sworn falsely, and it
is the resolution of the committee that
the guilty party shall be presented for
perjury. To do this the evidence of Bart
ley, and the information which will be
to corroborate Suits statement
in 1870 to BARLEY, will have to be produ-
ced before the House.