The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-09-01

ter, the additional facts which have
now come to light will compensate for
reviving the whole.
HOW THE SENATOR FILED THE CLAIM.
March 12, 1867, Senator Hendricks
called at the Office of the Quartermas.
ter-General and wrote long application
for the settlement of this mule claim,
which he signed ''Wm. Henderson. "
The opening and the close of this letter
We're as follows, the rest being state
ment of the ground upon which he
based the claim:
QUAR'MAsTER- -GENERAL's OFFICE
WASHINGTON, ID. G.. March II, '76
''TO the QudrtermGSt-G General:
''Sir-I have the honor to hand you
voucher, No u, for ninety mules at
SS7 each, furnished in April, 1863
under il contract made between the
United States and E. A. Smith, as
stated on the back of the voucher by
Gen. Eakin. The mules were, in fact,
furnished by Charles w Hall, of Indi
annapolis, and the voucher is assigned
by Smith to said Hall by Endorsement
thereon. Mr.. Hall failed in business
last fall, and this claim was by him as
signed tome. Please address
me at Indianapolis, Ind, and send
the Treasury warrant or to the Hon.
L. a. Hendricks at Indianapolis.
With great respect,
'WM. HENDERSON"
This paper, signature and all, is in
the handwriting of Mr.. Hendricks, who
further explained that he made the
application for Mr.. Henderson, who
desired him to obtain the payment of
the claim.
One curious feature of the case is
that, although its collection extended
through four years, and was several
times before the Departments and Con-
gress, no papers appeared in Mr.. Hen
derson's handwriting. Everything
puporting to come from him, and bear
ing his signature, without any indica-
ton that any one else had signed l..
are, signatures and all, in the hand
writing of Mr.. Hendricks. To this
there was one exception in u single half
sheet, where Mr.. Henderson's name
appeared as signed by one of the Hen
bricks law firm.
On the 18th of March Senator Hen
bricks was informed by letters from
the Quartermaster-Gener Office, Civ
ing n review of the case, that the claim
could not be. allowed. Thus in three
days, so plain was the matter, Senator
Hendricks had obtained an adverse
decision. This shows two things, first,
the advantage, on the score of prompt
ness, i'll securing the services of q
United States Senator as a claim
agent; and second, by implication, the
weakness OF the claim, since Senators
are not peremptorily dismissed from
any Washington departments if they
have the least basis for case.
Other letters from Senator Hendricks
in the Third Auditors Office, and in
the Quartermaster-" "eneraPs office
show that he had be- carefully pre-
pairing his ease through ebruary and
the first week OF Marc;i The replies
to these letters were addressed to him
as n Senator.
THE SENATOR'S CONSTITUENT"
Hendricks next appeal to Secretary
Stanton, claiming that the Quarter
master Generals decision was hard
one:
''WASHINGToN, April 3, 1867.
''HOn. Il. il. Stanton. Secretary Of War:
''SIR-In behalf of my constituent,
lave the honor to request that this
claim may be sent to the Board of
Claims, organized by yourself for the
examination of claims. l think the de-
cision hard one will be glad if all
the papers in the case, together with a
letter addressed to the Quartermaster-
General, Le sent with the case to the
Board. T. A. HENDRICKS.
The Board of Claims made full ex-
animation of the case, but failed to
recommend its payment
HE WRITES LETTER FROM HENDER-
son TO CONGRESS-.
Senator Hendricks next undertook
the claims in congress, aud on the 22d
of January, 1869, he wrote the follow
ing petition, and. rs was his custom.
signed it ''Wn Henderson" and then
obviously to cover his tracks, induced
Senate Van Wrinkle to introduce it:
$50 the Senate and House Of Repre-
SentdticeS::
1.-The petition of VIM. Henderson,
of indianapolis, Indiana, shows that in
the year 1856, one Smith, of Cincin-
natl, Ohio, contracted with the proper
officer of the Quartermaster's service
to furnish about 500 mules for the
public service at a fixed price-that
Charles w. Hall, of Indianapolis, un-
derto DI to furnish for said Smith a
part of the mules, and at once proceed
ed TO surnish the same for the proper
officers, and did deliver about ninety.
worth at the agreed price about SS, 600.
The mules so furnished have not
been paid for, because the residute of
the 500 were not furnished under the
contract. The petitioner shows that
Immediately after said contract was
made, the Quartermaster at Indianap-
oils went into the market for the pur-
chase of mules ut the rate which made
il impossible for the contractor to com
ply with the said contract. This
petitioner further shows that he is the
assignee of the claim for the price of
said ninety mules, and he prayes Con-
gress to authorize the payment thereof.
WM. HENDERSON.
As Mr. Hendricks was then in at
tendance upon the Senate, this slip
ping his claim in under cover of Mr..
Van Winkle is sufficient proof that he
felt himself engaged in a transaction
which it would be better TO conceal.
Failing before the Senate Committee
OF claims, his term of service in the
meantime having expired, Mr.. Hen
dricks made application at the War
Department, December 6, 1870, to
have tie claim again considered, which
request was granted. Hendricks, Hord
& Hendricks then entered the case as
attorneys, though ex Senator Hen
bricks seems to have conducted the
chief part of the correspondence.
Mr.. Hendricks, having had his atten-
ton recently called to the above