The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-22

public by the New York Herald, is a verv
curious one, and possesses especial interest
TO the people of this city, since Captain
Henry Rowland, who made the contract
on which the claim was based, was, and
We believe is, citizen of Chicago. The
contract reads as follows
OFFICE ASSISTANT QUARrERMAsTxR,
NASHVILLE. Marcn o. 1865.
thereby oblige myself as an officer of the gov
eminent, TO receive of T. T. Taylor, agent 1000
good, servceable mules that will inspect up tn e
required standard, said mules TO be delivered IN
Nashville, Tenn, on or before the 10Th day OF
April next a. the following prices-to wit, $3.50
: $780, and $l75 each, respectively, for fourteen,
fourteen and one-half, and fifteen hand mules.
HENRY Rowland
Captain and Acting Quartermaster.
1t will be observed that the contract is
peculiarly in this, that it binds the govern
ment, but does not bind Il. T. Taylor,
agent" 1t would appear that the con-
tract was illegal, since the law provides
that:
All purchases and contracts for Supplies or serv
ices in any OF the departments of the government
except for personal services, shall be made by au
vertising sufficient time previously for proposal:
respecting the same, tyheH The pubic erigencieS dC
not require The immediate deLtUery of the articles
or performance OF TIE serptce
AS the contract in question gave six
weeks in Lich to deliver the mules, it is
apparent that there was no public exigencJ
warranting departure from the strict
letter of the law requiring the publication
of an advertisement At that time, when
the government was in need of grea
quantities of army supplies, single adyer
tlsemcnt would doubtless have elected
many bids, and the time of the advertise
ment is left by the law to the discretion o
the purchasing officer. 1t appears tina
100 mules were delivered and paid 70
under the contract Nine years afterward
in 1874, John A. Thompson Il Co., o
Kentucky, appear in the court Of claims
representing themselves as the principa
of I. 7. Taylor, agent" as suitors tol
SlOS,750 damage sustained by the reason
of the failure of the government to keeT
its contract for the purchase of so mule
that is to say, Thompson 4 Co. declar
that they purchased $40 mules in 1865
and were ready to deliver them at $l67. 81
each, at the round sum of $I45,725; bu
the government refusing they were com
PEELED to sell them at $42 80 each, a rOun
sum Of $36,97j. whereby they lost $l2
each, round sum of $10S,750. 1t Wi
be observed that, according to ThOmpso
4 Co., mules declined almost four huRClre
per cent. General B. II. Bristow, then
private citizen practising his profession
now secretary Of the treasury, appeare
for the claimant, Attorney General Wi
liams representing the government throug
his assistant, Goforth. The court {
claims consisted Of five members: Drak,
chief justice; Mott. Peck, Milligan, an
Loring. The latter did not sit in the ca:
on account OF l'l-health. Mott, Peck, an
Millgan found for the claimant, Chic
Justice Drake dissenting. and filing a
adverse opinion. The Herald accour
says that on the most vital point in II
case the majority of the court said I'll
question was not free from doubt" WIZ
the legal point so made was is not state
The Louisville correspondent Of the Hcrd
further says:
1t il said, and az far as / know without cOntr
diCtion, that Mr.. Brstow had half the judgmeI
S5i,3I. for his fee, and that be got $4,000 ado
tional for preventing an appear to the supren
court and securing prompt payment of the claim
the treasury.
But this is denied by newspaper CORE
pondents, and it is alleged that Mr.. Bri
Tow merely received fee Of $40, 900. III
paragraph quoted above shows the re
point in the case. Why was the case n
appealed to the supreme court? This
the question tor ex-Attorney Gener
Williams to answer. 1t is evident tn
the case shoald have been taken TO Il
supreme court. What influences we
brought to bear upon Williams or h
assistant, GOiOrth, to prevent an appea