Evening star., 1877-11-16
Com missioner Bryan and Ex-Disfriet
Attorney Btrney


OF y'steIday lind a letter over the signature
oi Thomas T. Bryan, purporting to have
oten - LIT 10 the Senaie CON miitee OF the Dis
lrlct OF Columbia, In answer TO charges
against him. To this letter / respectfully beg
ltave to make answer.
BiTSt MI RrNan admits in effect but not
clearly The q nth Of my charge against him.
/ Ct aIged him with having denounced I'm a
IuhliC jour- al one of the Congressional LdUs
which II would be MS statutory duty as
Commissioner 10 enforce. This was the
''peTSCHdi tar iCtr.' and IL is directly referred
"a IL The extract GuO;ed from his letter. Nv
charge diu not relate TO assessments for local
in pIOvtmeDts. These are lot laws, but acts
OftXeCutive Cfficers. Mr.. Bryan Gevo;es his
entire answer 10 the subject of "exCcrd ole
sssesSmei frauds carefully evadlng all
meItiOn of the pt trsoral tax Law whiCn /
charged HIM with having Denounced. Tais
IaTEcu ar law II i MS sworn duty to exc.
ca'e. He has denounced 1t publicly: have
the goods of a single delinq 1ent been dis
tlail cd stree Mr.. Bryan came into Office?
Second. With the second class of charges
TO which you invited Mr.. Bryan's attention
/ Eave noihirg TO do, q fact of which you are
well aware. some charges under this mead
were filed before had heard of their exist
erce' others were filed after mine by parties
WHO alone are responsible for them. know
LCthirg whatever personally of the fact set
forth in them. Mr. Bryan, without any basis
for the assertion, speaks of them as acting
der TID "te0deTShlp," an lnsinuatiOn calcu-
lated To prejudice my relations with Judge
before whom practice, and whose name Is
mentioned in the charges made by Albert
sisnally inhccurate in its statements. He
a. aLdOns The defence OF his own acts aud
makes very bitter personal attack upon
me. You will be ar me witness that 1 have
rot. in any communication TO the commit
lee, II ade any sta'emeUt, except touching
the conduct of Mr. Bryan an official. Hls
Attack uICn my personal character Is, there
tore, wholly unwarrauted. / teel that l owe
yCU an apology for following n IN upon Ibis
ground, but, as my silence on this subject
might be cor SJrEed into an admission of MS
"A W m yUt Ia
J IOint out some of the PtisTepres entatious
contained IN this part of Mr.. BIyan's letter.
lst. Mr. Bryan tnsinuates thar ] was dis
mIsstd nom me employment OF the Dis
tTlCt. This is not true III any sense. / be
1eVe Mr.. BTyan's colleagues sincerely re-
GREETED my resignation.
d. He InSiuuateS that the "facts" sta.eI
by him caused my dismissal. This is also
entirely Unwarranted, as you viii learn by
ITquil1Dg Of Mr.. BTyan's colleagues. None
Of these alleged facts, except my acting as
COUi sci for the market company, were ever
mentioned. do not think they were known
even by Mr.. Bryan, at the time of my resig-
nation. He has hunted them up fOf this as
sauit upon me.
ID. MIR. Bryan states that on the gth OF
July. 1874. / became the attorney for the
Washington Market company. So much is
near Inc Truth, but the statement that that
company has seer since been one of the par
ties having constant business relations with
The District government, and being, indeed,
one of its chief Htigdnts. - is not true. Al the
time in July, 1874, when / began 10 conduct
suits for the market company, there was no
controversy between that company aud the
District; nor was one probable. The
salary Paid me by the District was
small, and IN pursuance of custom
establis he'd for sixty years in this District, l
exercised my profession for private clients,
should rot clash with my duties to the Dis
tr1ct of Columbia. The market company
had just been plunged into a haIasSing lIti-
gallon, which bTauched out into numerous
GmniOX n
was Of public noIOriety. The Commissioners
knew ~. Seine time in the summer of 1874
psny and the District authorities about the
poor rent" About November, 1874, Mr..
Stanton cOusI lied me on The legal questions.
My engagements with tie company left me
free 10 answer. l gave an opinion favorable
10 he claim of the District and against the
company. That opinion was. at Mr stan
tons request, Incorporated in my official
report OF December /, 1874, and is published
AS Appendix Il of the report Of tn District
Commissioners for the year lS1i. Ar. an
ton began suit against the company NJ
have never taken any part ii il, for or
6gaiEst, and, from motives OF professional
delicaoy. stipulated with the District Com
misslOLtrs, tefOre accepting the Office of
attorney, that other cOusei should be em-
ployed t0 attend 10 that case.
in. Mr.. Bry an states also, If ! understand
his grammar, that received for my son and
myself two thousand dollars cIch as a
relaiEer from the market company" ] must
ca Ifess Iny surprise at this statement, as Mr.
Bryan knows well that neither my partner
nOl mykCii ever received any retainer what
ever from the market company, but THAI our
firm for several years past has received
regular salary from that company for traus
dc;if z for IL an immense amount of business, /
and conducting a large number of suits. We
lave fully earned IT. It's amount is not q
matter that concerns Mr.. Bryan or the pub
lie. For the prop rety and delicacy of my
conduct in this entire matter, | res pectfully
and confidently refer 10 Mr.. Bryan's col
les CUES.
5th. Mr. Bryan charges me also with having
asked ana received fees from citizens con-
sulung me about /" their affairs tcith the Dis
tTict." In support of this he refers 10 three
several cases. IL is true that, in these cases,
l ci Iged fees to the parties: but the blsi-
ress was not, as stated by Mr.. Bryan, with
the District, but with the United States and 1
other Iarties than the District (ommis-
sioneTs. My Office of District attorney did
not aid me; the commissioners could not
grant relief, ard did not ask them TO do so.
The cases were in my private practice. aud
wholly Independent of The District author
tiles.
Tie three cases were as follows: Mr. Ritchie
had claim for money lent to q firm and
wished 10 get security on claim due thai
firm, which claim was pehding before the
beard of audit. 1 drew all the papers and
my client got his money. but loaned 1t again
to TIE same party anG lost 1t. / argued the
care fully before the comptrOllers and was
defeated on the merits.
TIE other two cases were applications TO
the United States for wharf licenses on the
Potomac River front The District authOri-
tics had no more power TO grant the licenses
tEan 10 grant privileges on the Mississippi
River. ] was retained by the club in the
usral manner, drew al their papers and
aiCSG in obtaining the license from the
United States. My fee was known before
lard, was urgrudgingly paid, and the gen
tIemt OF the club have repeatedly since that
time tx,ei ded Couriesies To me. ! regret
ihst they should be dragged by Mr.. By an
into a controversy with which they have no
cor ceIn.
Tie character of Mr.. Bryab's letter fairly
Illustrates his peculiar uEfitness for the ad-
ninisfrative Cfiice which he seeks. 1t
atounds In the most exaggerated and intense
epitbets, showing its author TO be a man OF a
temperament too excita5le for leader in
public affairs. Ii is full also of statements
Inaccurate, Irrelevant and malicious, which
man of sufficient prudence, 10 be safely en-
trusted with high Office, would have omitted.
In regard 10 the plain charge which brought
against him, he is evasive; the other plain
charges to which you have called his atten-
lion he has rot answered, except Dy unsup-
loried denial or PERSONAL abuse.
nv chs rye against Mr. Bry an must be
taken as proved. He cOnfesses that nearly
three moths after he was sworn as Commits
sicner TO execute the laws OF this District, he
denounced one OF those laws over his own Sig
nature in a District paper OF large circulation.