St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1888-12-20

entail democrat, after Mr.. Cleveland
came to the presidency, were in vain
On the contrary, the government took
the offensive, and, claiming shortage
of S253, 900 in Mr.. Bridgman's accounts
attached, in 1882, the property of the
bondsmen. Mr.. Bridgman's attorney
j. G. Hammond of Northampton, was
tireless in his efforts to settle matters
without expensive litigation, but in
January, 1886, the government brought
suit in the United States court at Bos-
ton against Sidney E. Bridgman OF
Northampton and the other sureties.
to recover the amount covered by a
bond of $4,000.
After an eleven days trial, verdict
was rendered for the defendant. Mr..
Bridgman summoned but one witness,
Colonel Watkins, the inspector who
would not obey Mr.. Hayt's behest. The
testimony of the witnesses called by
the government thoroughly confirmed
Mr.. Bridgman's integrity. Subsequent
letters to the department at Washing
ton from the Boston prosecuting attOr-
ney represented him as believing that
there was no ground for further pre-
tense that the government ever lost
one dollar by reason of anything Mr..
Bridgman ever did, or ever omitted to
do.
Even after all this, he was informed
that the government proposed to APP
peal the case, but at the expiration OF
the two years allowed for such action,
no move having been made, judgment
was rendered against the United States
in favor of Mr.. Bridgman and his
bOndsmen, showing that nothing was
due.
This ended the suit for the recovery
of $253,000. Another suit covering
similar claims, but for a smaller
amount, under another bond which
Mr.. Bridgman had been obliged to
give, has just been abandoned by the
government. Such action was taken
no, doubt, from full knowledge of
the facts, communicated by ex-Mayor
Prince of Boston, of the Indian Rights
Association. He made representation
to the new district attorney, Mr.. Gal
win, of the hardships of Mr.. Bridgman's
position and that of his sureties, and
after correspondence with Washington,
directions came about five weeks ago
to discontinue the suit.
1t should be stated that Immediately
after the verdict in January, 1886, offer
was made on the part of the govern
ment to compromise the case, provid-
ed Mr.. Bridgman would pay the ex-
claim for his salary. Refusing to do
this, he was approached with second
offer for release, provided he would
pay only the nominal damages of one
dollar, with the REIMBURSEMENT of his
unpaid salary, which salary was at the
rate of $500 year. But Mr.. Bridg-
mans sureties refused to consent to
anything which would by implication
leave a stain on his fair name.
So the end of this thOrny and tortu-
Gus way has been reached. The re-
lease is welcome but it comes very tar
Oily. 1t cannot blot out the memory
of these ten years of persecution. 1t
cannot bring back to life two of the
bondsmen whose death, it is felt, was
fastened by their anxiety over the
case. 1t brings no compensation for
the thousands of dollars paid out by
Mr.. Bridgman's sureties in lawyers
fees and in negotiations at Washing
ton. 1t does not atone for the untold
suffering experienced by him and his
friends. 1t is worth every thing, to be
sure, that his honesty has been vindi-
Gated, though he is poor today, and
that, too, with the government owing
him nearly 5000 withheld nine years.
But it cannot be wondered at that his
rejoicing and that of his friends is tenn
pered by a smarting sense of the in
justice done them. Who could believe
that great, free government like ours
could thus treat it's faithful servant,
and repay four years of hard service
for the Indians by ten years of wrong
like this? Behold the power of an
Indian ring!