The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-09-01


Special Correspondence Cincinnati Gazette.
WASHINGTON, Aug. Is.
Mr.. Hendricks defense of the Hall
Henderson mule claim is in flat con-
tradiction of the record. The grounds
uLon which he seeks to excuse his own
connection with it are also utterly nm
tcnable- 1t was tainted in its origin
by surroundings OF gross fraud. 1t
came into the hands OF Henderson, MIR.
Hendricks cousin, by assignment from
a contractor sentenced to the peniten-
tiary for participation in these frauds.
Mr.. Hendricks, then in the United
States Senate, became the active at
torney in collecting the claim, and, in
so doing, violated the whole spirit, if
not the exact letter of the law, prohi-
biting such action on the part of mem
bers of Congress.
Before proceeding to show, by ex-
tracts from the record, that the equi-
ties which Mr.. Hendricks set up in this
case, and upon which he now basis his
defense, never existed, it will make the
whole matter clearer to re state the
main points in the history of this
claim.
SENATOR HENDRICKS CLIENTS AS DE
FRAUDERS.
In October, 1868, Military Court,
sitting at Cincinnati, convicted Charles
w. Hall, of indianapolis, and f. A.
Smith, OF Ohio, of gross frauds, as
contractors for furnishing the Govern
ment with mules and horses. Hall
was sentenced to six months imprison-
ment. and fine of so, 600, and Smiths
sentence was double this time and
amount. Each was to be imprisoned
till their fine was paid.
The frauds consisted in collecting
unsound stock, and bribing Govern
ment Inspectors to receive it. When
purchasing they sent one agent in ad-
vance of another, the first rejecting
stock, and the second buying it at low
figures. Animals presented by other
contractors and rejected were purchas-
ed by them, and passed i.y the inspec-
tors, whom they controlled.
At the time these frauds were in pro-
gress, but undiscovered, Smith, on
April 4, 1868, contracted with the gov
ernment to deliver 500 mules, at SS7
per head, on or before the 2ith of April,
the condition of the contract being
that in case of failure, the Quartermas-
ter was to supply the deficiency in open
market at the expense of the contract
or. Hall was a partner with Smith.
After 80 mules had been delivered,
Smith dropped the contract, and the
government completed it at cost of
S27, 900 above what it woGld have paid
Smith, had he executed his contract.
In the face of the stipulation in his
contract, and of this damage to the
government by reason of his failure, he
filed a claim 81, $50, the contract price
for the ninety mules, which, of course
was promptly disallowed.
SENATOR HENDRICKS AS CLAIM
AGENT.
After the conviction of Hall and
Smith for fraud, and the full nature of
their crimes had become a matter of
public notoriety. Smith assigned this
mule claim to Hall, who in turn assign
ed it to VIM. Henderson, of Indianapo-
lis, a cousin of Mr.. Hendricks. The
latter then undertook to collect it, and
for two years used his position as
United States Senator for the purpose.
After three failures, one in the Quar-
termaster Generals Office, one before
the Board Of Military Claims, and Que
in the Senate, his connection with it as
Senator ceased, on account of the ex-
pfration of his term. He then contin-
ued to press it as private citizen, and
after one more failure in the Senate
and one in the Treasury Department,
he finally succeeded in obtaining the
money through the War Department.
As the papers in the case were widely
scattered through three departments