The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1876-08-23
HENDRICKS sLANDERED.
A Pitifully Weak Invention of
A. ~ l the Enemy.


The Cincinnati (O.) Gazette having
charged that. Gov. Hendricks, while
in the Senate during the war. lob
bied through fraudulent claim for
ninety mules, he made the following
statement, on Wednesday, to ANEW
York Herald reporter:
GAS to this statement that this
claim had been rejected in 1868, |
have no recollection of its ever hav-
ing been rejected except that it was
disalloWed by the quartermasters.
1t is impossible for me to recollect
very accurately the particulars.
suppose Mr.. Henderson sent me his
assignment of the claim, which L
fled with other papers in the case in
the War Department. l don't rec
ollect what action was then taken on
it. The claim was not allowed at
that time. / think that Mr.. Hender-
son afterward wrote to me to have
the claim presented to Congress,a and
/ think wrote his petition for him.
/ do not recollect what, if any, ac-
ton was taken in the Senate upon
it. but suppose it was referred to
an appropriate committee. l had no
interest IN the claim whatever, and
never thought of being employed as
an attorney. Such athing was not
SUGGESTED to me. | thought the
claim just one, and that Mr.. Hen
derson, as assignee, ought to be paid.
I had an impression that he was an
assignee for the benefit of creditors,
and / think / SO stated to the War
department, but / do not know how
I got that impression. The claim
was for ninety mules. as near SIS |
can recollect, which had been fur
nished upon a contract for large
number, and SO, after that contract
was made, the Quartermaster at
either Cincinnati or indianapolis
changed the mode of buying from
the contract rystem, and went into
the open market, and made pur.
chases at higher prices, while it would
be impossible for these parties to
purchase within the price that they
were to receive, or even to obtain
credit to carry the contract. The
ninety mules had been received, and
no part paid on them. but thought,
under the circumstances, it was not
equitable TO enforce the forfeiture
contained in the contract, as their
inability to comply was the result of
a change in the mode of buying by
the Quartermaster.
{. That is the understanding / had
of the case, and it was upon that
equity that thought it should be
paid. / knew nothing further of the
case until year or two afterward,
when Mr.. Henderson consulted one
of my law partners, who advised him
that the claim ought to be allowed,
as / understand, upon the legal
ground that the Government had not
taken steps according to the con-
tract to enforce the forfeiture of the
pay for the mules received, that had
been forfeited, and 1 think a brief
was prepared by him, but of that l
am not positive. That was the first
employment that myself or our firm
had in the case. The claim was
subsequently allowed on that ground.
and not upon the ground that 1
thought the equity rested upon.
''Mr. Henderson and have long
been personal friends, and we are
relatives. What 1 did during my
term as Senator was done because I
was requested to present the claim,
and because thought the claim just,
and with no thought of any compen-
sation or of any personal interest
whatever in the claim. [ frequent
ly, when was Senator, filed claims
for persons, and verbally, or in writ
ing, made suggestions concerning
them, which 1 deemed proper, but
never as an attorney
Mr.. Henderson, who was stopping
at the hotel as Mr.. Hendricks, was
sent for by him, after he had made
his statement. Mr.. Henderson. on
being introduced to the reporter, and
hearing Gov. Hendricks statement
read. corroborated it in every par
ticular.