The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1876-04-01
BRISTOW'S MULES.


the name of the Immaculate Brlstow has be
come mixed up grows backer and blacke
with every new Development. 1t was Marcl
9th, 1865, within two months of the close o
the war, that Henry Rowland, acting quar-
master at Nashville, Tenn, made a contrac
with T. T. Taylor, "agent," to receive of hin
1000 mules at Sl60. $i67.5O and $l75 each, t.
be delivered in Nashville at the end of 81,
weeks. The contract was Unlawful in two
glazing particulars: in the first place, it bount
the government and not T. r. Taylor, "agent;
and secondly, il violated the law which re
quired that in all cases where supplies are tc
be purchased for future delivery proposals
must be advertised for and the contract lei
to the lowest bidder Under the above con
tract 1870 mules were delivered and paid for
when the events at Richmond showed that the
government would need no more mules, and
further operations under the contract were
stopped.
Nine years afterwards John A. Thompson
s. Co., of Kentucky, who claim to have been
the principals of whom #. r. Taylor was
"sgent," presented claim in the court OF
claims at Washington for $l08,750, alleging
that under the contract with Rowland they
had, IN March 1855, bought $40 mules which,
in consequence Of the government refusing to
receive them, they had been able to sell for
but $50, 975, whereas at the price the govern
ment had agreed to pay they were worth
$l45,725, so that they had lost the aforesaid
$l08,75 by the operation.
Now, curiously, up to few months before
the presentation Of this claim Bristow had
been acting as solicitor OF the U. S. Treasury
For some unexplained reason he suddenly
resigned that position, and few weeks later
appeared as attorney for Thompson & Co., to
push the above bill in the court of claims
Attorney General Williams, by his assistant
Goforth, opposed the claim on behalf of the
government and Bristow fought it for the
claimants. 1t was admitted, to start with
that the claim was outlaweG by the statute OF
Limitations, but the attorney general mag
unanimously" waived that point. The case
was duly argued, and then three of the five
judges who constitute the court of claims
agreed TO allow the claim, the other two pro.
testing, and the former agreeing that "tAe
case was Lot free from doubt" thus virtually
suggesting an appeal to the supreme court
Yet for some inscrutable reason, Attorney
General Williams took no appeal, and the
claim was paid.
How much BristOw got for his cable and
adroit" management of the case seems to be
In dispute. The New York Herald detective,
however, by whom tho case was first dragged
into light, is very positive that Bristow's tee
was one'hslf the judgment, or $54,374, and
that he got an additional $4,000 for "per.
suading' Attorney General Williams not to
appeal the case 10 the supreme court; but
other newspaper correspondents say Bristow
got but $4,000, being, possibly, the lat
ter $4,000 referred to above. s a aars
The case certainly has an ugly look rs il
stands, and is very-very sad, IN the light of
its killing of another candidate for the pres.
idency who but few weeks ago seemed to
be floating on the top Of the popular wave.
Thus they 60. Third term is dead; Morton
Is dead; gentleman George is dead and now
they are beginning TO write "hte jdeet" over
Bristow. II this blasted investigating bust
ness don't soon stop we shall have no eligi.
BILE timber for presidential candidates left.