Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-21
The DistiIlery Charges Against See
rotary Brfstow.
LETTER or CHAIRMAN CAULFIELD TO THE
SRCRETARY.

LETTER OF CHAIRMAN CAULFIEID TO THE
SECRETARY.
Hon. b. G. Caulheld, chairman of the Com
mittee on Expenditures 10 the Department
OF Justice, has written a letter tn Secretary
Bristow, dated yesterday, concerning the
testimony of Judge BARLEY before the COM
mlt;oe OF which he is Chairman. He says:
The testimony of Judge Barley made no
charge against you, but was simple hearssy
as TO what he claimed had been told him by
;. j Suit. Ii contained nothing upon which
a cross examination by yOu seemed 10 be
demanded. We felt there was no necessity
o. apprising you Of 10 until we cOuld procure
The attendance OF MI. Suit, and ascertain
rom him, under oath, the exact facts OF the
case An officer was Immediately dispatched
Tor Mr. Suit, who could not be found at his
place or business in Washington. AS he
lived Some few miles in Maryla and his at
tendance was not procured until last Mon
Day. lie testified before the committee
IN the most earnest and emphatic man
ner, utterly denying the truth of any
charge implied in Judge Bartley's testi-
mony as having been made by him against
you. AS matter Of course, there was moth
Ing further for us 10 investigate as far as
you were concerned. and we felt that no
charge bad been made and none proven
against You. II was, however, agreed that
one OF The committee should communicate
10 you what happened. A gentleman OF the
committee accordingly called on you the
next morning Tuesday and apprised you OF
the foregoing circumstances. You Informed
him that you had already heard that these
TWO witnesses had been before the commit
tee. Under these circumstances the subSe-
quent publication OF the article you enclose
from lie Baltimore Gazette can hardly war
rant you in saying: 81 must promptly meet
the SANDER as | find it In public pr nts. ,rel
at The TtSh ~ appearing 10 reflect upon the
/ fhodS Cf yOtT committee" AS TO further inves-
tigation which you demand, the committee
Will Willingly accord TO you il you still de-
sire IL. But we consider IL wholly uuneces-
saIy, as there are no charges made or proven
against, and you stand before US with the
fullest eX0neratfOn OF even q suspicion.
LETTER OF JUDGE hartley.
letter, dated yesterday, on this subject,
was addressed to Chairman Caulfield by
Judge Barley. He says:
Secretary Bristow, in his letter to you OF
yesterday, which appeared In the newspa-
pers OF this morning, implicitly represents
your committee and detailed rumors against
his official Integrity. Permit me 10 inquire
whether Mr.. Bristow had not been Informed
prior TO The date of his letter, by al least one
member of the committee, that my appear
ance had been required bylegal process, and
that the Information as TO the subject upon
which the committee desired 10 examine me,
although requested by me, was withheld I'M
III alter was sworn and on the stand. Mr..
Bristow represents me as having testified
against him on rumorS and belief. You know
that did neither, and he complains that al
though he could have been reached By infor.
nation in few minutes, he was kept in ig
noTance of the exact character of my testi-
mOny for nearly week, and without oppOr-
tuni1y 10 meet the charges &C. Permit me
TO inquire whether Mr.. Bristow had not been
committee touching my examination in a
short time after ii took place, and whether
the exact import of my testimony had been
Wlthheld rom him or was not at all times
within his reach. He represented that /
testified, upon Information and belief" IN
substance, that while he was United States
District Attorney ia Kentucky a number of
distilleTics were seized at his instance and
that soon after, upon an offer OF a large sum
OF money; he resigned and procured the APP
pOintment Of It's assistant as his successor
al = I arr
dc. You know, and my testimony will
show, that deposed TO no such fact on in
formation and belief He makes an err1-
ne0us assumption as TO the import Of my
testimony, and then prOEounces II unqualf-
1edly false, This may be ingenious, but 10
is neither fair nor true, and l most respect
fully ask TO be Informed whether Mr.. Bris-
tow was denied an opportunity TO know the
exact tenor OF my testimony. You viii bear
me witness that after ] had stated that L
had no personal knowledge OF the matter
you required me 20 state what another per-
son bad stated to me on the subject, but That
did not vouch for the truth OF that mere
hearsay statement II instead OF perversiOn
OF my testimony, Mr.. BTlstow viii show TO
your committee by record evidence that
there were no seizures of distiileries pending
in court at the time he resigned, which were
subsequently dismissed, he will put an end
TO all rumors and hearsay statements on the
subject without bringing the Judge aud the
officers of the court on here 10 testify-per-
sons who would not be very APT tn know the
fact Of any such disreputable transaction
having taken place
DISPATCH FROM LOUISVILLE SAYS:
A C01ujeT- journal reporter visited Colonel
q. {. Wharton, United States district attor-
ney, and called his attention TO the testi-
mony OF w. BARLEY before the Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of JUS
tice, as published In numerous papers. The
statement OF BARLEY was that s. +. Suit had
paid Mr.. Brlstow large sum of money after
the Secretary had resigned his position as
district attorney OF Louisville, 10 procure
the release of certain distillerieS belonging
10 Suit, and seized while Bristow was dis
trtct attorney. Colonel Wharton said that
Eo distilleries were seized while Mr.. Bristow
was district attorney, and he (Wharton) was
certain that no distilIeries of Mr.. Suit have
been seized since Mr.. Bristow resigned; that
upon careful examination OF the records of
the court he finds no case against either dis.
tineries or whiskys in which Suit was a
claimant or had an authority.