, 1876-04-09
THE MARY MERRITT CASE.
STORY OF WEISS, TIE OFFICER WHO sE1zED TIT


VESSEL
Special D1sndtch to TIE Ch1cnoo 1rib.ne-
MILWAUKEE. April Sin the attempt to
blacken the character OF Secretary Bristow, the
Commercial Times. of this city, bus made several
statements in regard to the statement published
in The TRIBUNE, which induced your reporter
asain to sock Mr.. Weiss, the gentleman who
alone can explain the circumstances OF the
transaction referred to- and who has hitherto re-
fused most emphaticatiy to have anything to Ray
to reporters.
Iii. weiss refused peremptori1y to make any
statements. He said that for weeks past he had
boon Interviewed By reporters. but he had lnVar1-
ably declined to CRAFTY their wishes, and that st
present, be could not change his courae. The
following colloquy ensued:
Reporter-Read,nq the story Of the Times can but
infer that you gave the information to that paper.
Heies-This inference is decidedly wrong. It Is
true that repeatedly asked by reporters 1nctud-
ing reporter from the Tt'a<1 for statement Of the
fused to furnish ouch statement to him to any
other reporter Here it nsuy be proper to say that
have no connection whatever With the story o. me
ITEMS, and that that paper has no authority to cay
that had documentary evidence Of positive value,
which would not give to any purpose ss than that
Of Congressional Committee, and that was willing
to give testimony fully aud freely.
Keportor-1 don't want statement or . history Of
the but it scens to ne that the pubic is entitled
nect1on viii The case viii yon giveit?
Wciss-As far ns my conue<:tfon is concerned.
have no objection to gay that In the Mary Merr1st
cise was the seiznR officer, and such entitled to
H1oety of the proceeds; that the vessel was prose-
cuted in the name OF the United States; that was
no party to the eit and that 1t is prepostesous to
s1a.k Of my withdrawal from the case;
Reporter-ln this connection. will read to you
passage from the Ilmes: s'The defcnse Of Bristow
doesn't say single word about the paying Of moiety
to Nr. G. E. Weiss, II he would withdraw hts osse-
How IL this7
Weiss-Well. hardly know what Brsstox's defsnse
could say abont the payment Of my moiety- This
1uotety Of mine became vested right and interest IN
and 70 the Judgment entered against The suretiea to
tho hoad, and the Secretary Of the Treasury had
no control over the same and no power
to remit It,, do not kaow nor do
1 think that Nj. Br1stow knew anything about the
settlement Of r7y noiet This settlement merely
accidental, and brought about by circumstances IN
which the Of the vessel was pscad by the work
about the speedy settlement than WIS. for the pro
ceedinRH under the execution hod taken turn which
Indicated final defeat Of the Government In cur sf
forts to collect the judgment. In addition to
ttlls. I must FAY that my interest IN tho case
was not Withdrawn, but that 1t was assigned
in writing to third party, aud that with this assign
ment ceased my right, had any, to object TO Or in
any way interfe1a with the final disposition Of this
casa BY tho Treasury Department.
Renorter-ual the Secretary OF the Treasury =
right dispose OF such cases by remission or Other
wlsc:
Wcisa-Certan1y. Under an act Of 1'y7 ths secre-
tary Of the Treasury has power to mitigate Or retni
penale5 and forfetuTea incurred under The Heeenue
and Navigation laHs.
Keporter-Was tho Mary Merritt case such case7
Neis*-Yes. The Mary Merritt was decIeed 3or-
feited for violation Of the Navigation laws.