The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1876-05-02
The Bristow Investigation.

The BristOw Invesiigation.
WASHINGTON, May 1.-The Commit
tee on Expenditures in the Treasury De-
partment to day examined Webster Elms,
chief clerk in the office of the solicitor of
the Treasury. who testified he had charge
of all the papers in the Mary Merritt
case and wrote letter recommending
the omission of forfeiture. Never saw
Secretary Brlstow in relation to this case,
by conv ersation or otherwise.
Joseph II. Robinson. assistant solicit
or, testified to General Bristow appearing
IN April, 1874, before Solicitor Banfield.
asking that the case be examined on its
merits. Since General Bristow received
his appointment he had no connection
whatever with the case, so far as witness
knew.
Secretary Bristow then made sworn
statement to following effect: He had
no object with the Mary Merritt case
except in the capacity of friend OF
Feland & Evans, attorneys for the Trice
brothers, all of whom were his neigh.
bors at HopkinsviIle, and his personal
friends. 1t was the truth, as stated by
Mr.. Evans in his testimony, that that
gentleman had conversation with him
in Phlladelphia in relation to the case,
and that he declined to take any COM
pensation whatever for any ser
vice he might perform, and
that subsequently he went to the Treas
ury Department at the request of Mr..
IRELAND, who, though q good lawyer, wa,
unacquainted with the practice of the
department, and there presented the
question on legal grounds alone, being
satisfied that it was clear case tor re.
mission. On that occasion he expressed
himself earnestly against the practice Of
informers going before officers of the
treasury and resisting the power con
ferred upon the Secretary by act Of Con-
gress. He also expressed himself against
Hazelton, then member of Congress,
appearing there for similar purposes.
After he became Secretary of the Treas
ury he declined to have anything what
ever to do. with the case. He thought
Edward Z. johnson made q mistake in
saving the Secretary informed him he
was going to Philadelphia He was in
New York from the 18th to the 25th of
March, under treatment for his throat.
when the remIssioR of the forfeiture Was
granted. He did not think the case
came up at that time, and did not learn
that it was decided until some time
afterwards. Conant. during his absance,
WIS acting Secretary ofthe Treasury and
the papers in the case were brought be-
fore HIM. The par ties had right TO be
heard and his former position should not
have exc uded them from prosecuting
their case. The acting secretary never
at any time expressed to Conant or to
any other officer of the navy what should
be done with the case, although b Solicitor
Wilson approached him on the subject,
he declined to talk about 1t. He did not
refer the case to any one, declining
TO take any action whatever.
He did not wish to be understood as even
implying that any wrong was committed
in the settlement of the case, and he
wished to say explicitly that he had no
knowledge or informers in the case, as II
had been settled with before the investi-
pation was ordered. He had never ex-
amined the papers in the case until he
did so here in common with members OF
the committee. 1t was not true as stated
in the resolution, that one OF the attor-
news in the case applied to Secretary
Bristow for a remission OF the forfeiture,
and that he replied that he could do
n1ahing himself, but his private secreta-
~ could fix it up; and said the attorney
met his private secretary and had tne
forfeiture remitted. Did not believe that
sny of the attorneys ever met his private
secretary at all. Tne private secretary
was quite young man and acted as MS
amsn uensis and stenographer, and had
nothing TO do with the Transaction OF
public business.
G. +. Conant Assistant Secretary OF
the Treasury, testified that the offence IN
the Mary Merritt case was merely teen
neal. Witness further testified that ne
did not exchange one word with the
secretary before or after the decision Oh
the case. either directly or indirectly
nnt,l after its publication in the CONNER
.;,J T,m,,. There was no Intervention
by the attorney or other party
He decided the case altogether upon
his own responsibility. No money was
offered or promised to any member ol tne
Treasury, the question came up SIMPLY
on its merits - ~
E.F. Babcock, private secretary o,
Secretary Bristow, testified that be had
nsver heen called upon by any attorney
and therefore never spoke to anyone
.hout this case. He did not know OF
sny offer or promise Of reward to any
officer of the Treasury, ner did he know
% Ri +. johnson the attorney
~ the case. Solicitor Will
~, narrated the circumstances
under which the Mary Merritt case was
h,oue ht to his attention, and tesuned
that Secretary Bristow said it was ia'-
ro-s;hIe for him to take any action In tne
rsse for the reason that he at one time
rrsssnted it to Secretary Richardson, .no
Pss.nced certain considerations when
LIED for remission. The W"
ness ~ wa. positive that the secre..iy
.h,sw ont no intimation Whatever
:. IN how he would like the case dec,Hea
IN The contrary he expressed h'msei' ,l
= positive and psr-empeory manner .S
hsve nothing TO do With II ne Anes
nothine of johnson or others holoing ou
rsvards or inducements TO any oucor "
| a.. tre..urv 70 favor this case.