The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-01-14

hearsed now as throwing Q broad Light
upon Mr.. Pendleton.
The President Of the Kentucky Central,
Mr.. Bowler, was Pendleton,s brother.in-
law, and he was also the principal owner
Of the road. When he died Pendleton
became the administrator Of his estate,
including the rejected claim, and after:
wards was elected 70 gil the deceased
BoWler's place In the Presidency Of the
Company. Pretty soon he went TO work
to reopen the claim. Belknap was Secre-
tary OF War, and living In his house was
Mrs. Bowers, the sislehin.law Of Belknap
and subsequently, lis wife. Mrs. Bowers,
Mrs. Bowler, and Mr.. Pendleton had been
mixed up In close personal and social
relations in the West, and the latter I'M
derstood the influence that Mrs. Bowers
possessed over the Secretary Of War. 1t
Ia disaRreeable TO bring her name into
this connection, butt must be recollected
that Il was fully shown in the Congress
sional investigation that she had been en-
Gagged IN the post.tradership intri'
CUES, and had accepted money as a
consideration for : : procuring appoint,
ments from Belknap both before and al
Ter she became his wife. Mr.. Pendleton
proposed 10 make good use Of that infiu-
ence, and by approaching Belknap
through Mrs. Bowers the obstacles that
had previously blocked the passage Of the
claim we're removed; il received the APP
prevail Of the Secretary Of War, was
rushed through the departments in one
day, with the word Special" on the pa
pers to hasten their speed-and The
amount drawn, as above stated, was Sl4s,-
$50 SO. i has been widely stated that
Mrs. Bowers was heavily feed for her work
in getting the claim resurrected and
passed, but that did not appear IN the
evidence. It'll was not true, the easiest
method for Mr.. Pendleton to have related
it would have been 10 summon the lady
TO the stand a. witness, but he neglected
to take that step for his yindication.
The inchoate Senator from Ohio bore
in mind the maxim that dirty work
should be we'll paid for. The committee
Of investigation failed to make him tell
what the sum Of the award was, or what
portion OF It he received. On both oil
these points be was clothed with the
gift Of . convenient memory, but
there were other sources OF infofma-
ton attainable, and 1t was re.
yealed that the amount vas OBJ
tanned by him in three drafts, one tor
$4,000, one for $4,000, and one for $685..
SIS so, all dated June 18th, 1871, and all
drawn TO his order. II came out that the
last named draft comprised all that was
turned over to the Treasurer Of the Ken
lucky Central, and that Mr.. Pendleton
consequently pocketed the snug sum oil
$4,000, or much more than so per cent
OF the claim. Perhaps the dividend to
his female partner was $4,000, the cir
cumstanee that seems 10 indicate this
being that the draft for those figures was
transmitted TO a different bank from that
in which he kept his own account, and
was also distinguished by q peculiarly
In the endorsement.
This is the briefhistory Of the achieve.
ments as a claim agent Of the person
whom the Ohio Democrats have "hon.
ored" with an election to the United
States Senate. 1t must be noted that in
the first place the claim was unjusti6able
and had been twice rejected after a fair
examination; secondly, that 1t could
never have been passed except through
secret and Legitimate means; thirdly,
that twas rushed through the depart
ments without examination; fourthly,
that the exposure Of Belknap's action
upon 1t helped to drive him into disgrace
and obscurity; and filthy, that Pendle.
ton grasped an amount Of the award that
would never have been allowed in any
transaction honest In itself and honestly
conducted. The election OF Pendleton as
Senator by Ohio Democrats could only
be paralleled by the choice Of Belknapto
4 similar post by the Iowa Republicans;
aud what would the country say should
Belknap appear in the United State
SenateI