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

allowed at that time. think that Mr..
Henderson afterward wrote to me to
have the claim presented to Congress,
and think l wrote his petition for
him. do not recolIect what, if any.
action was taken in the Senate upon il,
but | suppose it was referred 70 an ap-
propriate committee. I had no interest
in the claim whatever, and never
thought of being employed as an at
torney. Such a thing was not sug-
gested to me. 1 thought the claim a
just one, and that Mr.. Henderson, as
assignee, ought to be paid. had an
impression that he was assignee for the
benefit of creditors, and / think so
stated to the War Department, but l
do not know how i got that impress
sion. The claim was for ninety mules,
as near as l can now recollect, which
had been furnished upon contract for
a large number, and so, after the con-
tract was made, the Quartermaster
at either Cincinnati or indianapolis
changed the mode of buying from the
contract system, and went into the
open market, and made purchases at
higher prices, while it would be impos-
sib;e for these parties to purchase with
in the price that they were to receive,
or even to obtain credit to carry the
contract.
'"The ninety mules had been received
and no part paid on them, but
thought. under the circumstances, it
was not equitable to enforce the for
feiture contained in the contract, as
their inability to comply was the re-
suit of a change in the mode of buying
by the Quartermaster.
''That is the understanding had of
the case, and it was upon that equity
that l thought it should be paid. l
knew nothing further of the case until
a year or two afterward, when Mr.
Henderson consulted one of my law
partners, who advised him that the
claim ought to be allowed, as l under
stand, upon the legal ground that the
government had not taken steps ne
cording to the contract to enforce the
forfeiture of the pay for the mules re-
eeived, that had been forfeited, and
think brief was prepared by him, but
of that am not positive. That was
the first employment that myself or
our firm had in the case. The claim
was subsequently allowed on that
ground, and not upon the ground /
thought the equity rested upon.
"Mr. Henderson and / have loBg
been warm personal friends. and We
are relatives. What / did during my
term as Senator was done because l
was requested to present the claim,
and because thought the claim just,
and with no thought of any compensa-
ton or of any personal interest what
ever in the claim. frequently, when
| was Senator, filed claims for per-
sons, and verbally, or in writing, made
suggestions concerning them, which 1
deemed proper, but never as an at
torney"
IN LIFE NOT SEPARATED.
Fortunately his constituent" Mr..
Henderson, was with him on his politi-
cal mission to Saratoga, and was called
in to indorse the above statement. The
next day Mr. Henderson authorized a
publication in regard to the case, and
Mr.. Hendricks certified that it was cor
rect. 1t is to be hoped that these gen
tleman, will travel together till the
close of the caIngaign so that neither
may be at loss for a witness to
promptly prove the mule claim honest.
THE CONFESSION CoNTRADICTs THE
FACTS.
The facts, as they appear in the
record, affored the best commentary
upon, and are complete answer to,
Mr. Hendricks statement.
The contract for the mules in ques-
ton was made April 4, 1868. Under it
eight hundred mules were to be de-
livered at Indianapolis, by or before
April oath, at SS7 per head, and in case
of failure the contract made tie fol-
lowing provision:
In case of failure on the party of
the second part to deliver the mules
within the time, and in the manner
specified in this agreement, the party
of the first part is authorized to make
good the deficiency by purchasing in
the open market at the expense of the
said party of the second part"
Ninety mules were furnished, and
then the contract was dropped. The
failure was reported by the Quarter
master May 30th, and on June 81, the
Quartermaster-G General ordered the de-
ficiency to be supplied at the expense
of the contractor. This was done, at
a cost to the government, as finally ap-
peared, of S27, 900 over and above
what the expenditure would have been
under the broken contract. Besides,
the government was then in great need
of mules for pending important mill
tary operations, and aside from the
pecuniary loss, the delay in providing
military transportation was IL serious
damage. Nevertheless, after three
years, in face of the stipuiations of the
contract, and the fact that the govern
ment lost nearly four times the amount
claimed for the ninety mules furnished,
Mr.. Hendricks set out to collect this
properly rejected voucher
He set up the false claim for Hen
derson that soon after this contract
was entered upon the Quartermaster at
Cincinnate changed his methods of
purchasing in such a way as to raise the
price in Indianapolis beyond the ability
OF the contractor to perform without
great loss. Upon this point alone Mr..
Hendricks pushed the claim during |
two years of his Senatorial term.
Quartermaster- General Meigs, how
ever, showed the unsoundness of this
position by the following statement
made to the Board of Claims upon this
very point:
"'At the same time Smith received his |
contract another narty SiIas Rark