The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-19
THE BRIsTow MULE CASE.

To THE EDrroR aERALD:-.
The air In Washington Is full OF rumors and asser-
tions about what known the 'Brstow Mule Case
II win be remembered that this claim was for $40
mules which John A Thompson ct al, Of Kentucky,
claimed to have had deliver TO the govern
nent st Nashville, Tenn, In the spring OF 1885, and
which the government declined TO receive by reason
OF the war closing IL claimed that the mules fell
In price from $l67 SO per head to $40 So entaing
loss Of $l25 each mule In all 3l0S. 750 and tho
whole sum was awarded by the Court OF Claims. II
is said that the Is undergoing very thorough
but private investigation by democratic members OF
the House of Representatives, and that the intention
Is to keep tho results very close until 10 whether
Mr. Brisow, who the prncpa, counsel In this case,
is nominated Cincinnati and that n he Is the whole
matter will be brought out before the public Whether
this Is true IL would well for Mr. Bristow 10
mako public complete, authentic history OF the case
and hs relations to IT, and to explain clearly certain
rumors which current and the details which are
hero gwen
Ffrsf-That the originally presented
claim before Congress and Il was then Tor only $50 0O0
and was based on alleged verbal contract with
tho Quariermastor's Department 1t was with
drawn from Congress aud reappeared In the
Court Of Claims, with demand for siOs .oo sup
had been depot quartcrmaste at Nashville This looks
suspicious, and particularly because IL Is said that
missed from the army Howland's written contract
wns, Il Is said never heard OF until years aer
the war closed and there Is said 10 be trace what
ever OF on the dies or records Of the Quarermasters
Department
Second-That the case was never presented, either
before Congress or tho Court OF Claims, until amer the
death OF General George H. Thomas and General Dom
aldson, the two essential witnesses Tor the govern
menL
TAird-That when the claim appeared in the Court
OF CLAIMS having then somewhat grown, from $780, 600
to Sos 100 the statute OF Limitations ecctually barred
General He and Secretary BclKnap had II isr
morcd, some correspondence about the claims and
the result oil this correspc that the statute
Of limitations was waved in this The precise
official action OF Mr.. Bristow in this matter has
Fovih--Soon after Mr.. Brisiow resigned the once
of Solicitor General because connected with the Texas
attorney for the muc claimants in whose favor
the statute OF limitations had been waived while he
was Solicitor General There s now law, passed
within few weeks only after Mr.. Brstow thus ap
pcared which prohibits any appearing against the
for period OF two years after he has re-
signed government Office Mr.. Brstow did not vio-
hate law, because passed after he resigned
and appeared on the mule case but II was directed
against just such acts as hts
FVfh-Tne case was tried in the Court Of Claims
when only three out OF the i've judges were sitting;
Judgment was rendered by two, the Chief Justice,
Drake, dissenting in . powerful opinion which tore
tho case pieces and exposed Its weakness Never
thecss and in the face Of this appeal was taken to
70 have been pushed TO nnal Judgment within thirty
days. the shortest possible time IN which even the
,yirfh--It rumored TO account Tor this extraordt
nary course Of things that Mr.. Brstow letter
10 the Attorney Generals office asking that appeal
be taken 10 rumored that the index Of letters In
the Attorney Generals office shows the receipt Of such
letter, or at least, OF letter from Mr. Brisow ut
that tme but that tho letter Itself has disappeared
the nles and cannot be found since the has
under investigation. This matter ought certainly
10 be looked into and cleared up by Mr.. Brstow's
friends.
Seoenth-After judgment was entered against the
government and after the Attorney Generals office had
1
appropriation from which the claim could
lawfully be paid. The usual and, indeed, universal
In such known to every lawyer and which
must have been known TO Mr. Brlstow, who had been
Solicitor General was for tho claimant to wait until
Congress had made an appropriation to cover II or the
general class under which IL came But In this mule
claim what happencds Secretary Bclknap with whom
Mr. bristow had originally correspondent about waving
the statute Of limitations IN the now stepped for
ward aud drew his warrant for the amount APP
preparation made Tor entirely different purpose.
Esghkl-Porsons who profess to be famllar with the
history Of the claim assert It 10 rumored that IL was
entirely manufactured one; that IL rested wholly on
fraud forgery and iasehood and that the assertion
that mules fell IN value at the close Of the from
Sl67 so 10 $42 SO per head Is absurd Instead OF TALL
Ing, mules rather advanced IN value in 1861 owing
large demand created by the reopcnng Of the cot
ton States
Nintt-lt is said that in case tried not long since
! In Clarke county, kentucky Howerson Burbridgc,
was clearly proved that the John A. Thompson mulo
claim fictitious and fraudulent The testimony es-
tabishng lis bogus character - said to DO within reach
when any competent authority may demand IL and Il
ought TO be got II IL Is there.
TenM-Here, then, is u case which, If these rumors
are true surrounded and tainted with all the signs of
fraudulent orlgln which first brought before Con-
gross tor $50 600 verbai agrecmcnt;' which next
appears tho Court OF CLAIMS Tor $l0S $50 on writ
ten agreement where the statute OF limitations Is
waived aiter correspondence between So
llcor General BrIslow aud Secretary Beknap; where
the government just mystcrously declines appeal
though Tho decision Dy only judges 10 court
consisting Of i've. with the Chief Justice
I openly against IT, and where, finally, Mr.
! iBristow, being the counsel and receiving
money It Is illegally ordered paid by secretary
| Bcknap out Of an appropriation made for different
i purpose. There here certainly points which Mr.
brstow's frcnds ought 70 be In haste 70 explain and
clear up. Thcy ought to produce the Congressional
record Of he claim they ought 10 make public has COR
rcspondence about Il with Secretary Bclknap; they
ought explain why l. was that he, beng Solicitor
General did insist the right VI the government
to bar the claim under the statute OF lntaiions they
ought to produce any communications he had alter
/ ward about II with the Attorney Generals Office, or
show that there none; they ought TO explain by
what chance he came 10 accept payment IN such case
from appropriation and IN manner which he must
have known legal II Is rot pretended that all
these things cannot be explained consist
ent with secretary Bristows integrity. But certainty
his ends ought to see that they are explained SIM
4 pie denial IA hardly enough. DEMOCRAT.
WASHINGTON, Nay To- 1870
| JnR pRTNTEng, TRnT1RT.EC