The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-11-30
Startling Condition of Affairs Shown to Have Existed for
Many Years in the Department and Several
Officials Charged With Bribery.
How Various Worthless Devices We're FOSto Upon the Government by
Servants the People Being Given Stock the Concerns Having
Them for Sal0---Ndm0S of the Guilty Ones.

VIII eliminate all Objectionable fea-
lures before further action is taken by
this department i'm the direction of
T.. depriving them of the use OF the
mails"
And the same mail that carried the
opinion with this suggestion to the
. bond investment concerns also carried
the announcement that Barrett had re-
signed and formed a law partnership
with Nelms. The result was that many
+ or the concerns Immediately sought
Z his services. In Il letter to the secre-
tdry of one of them. written ten days
before he retired from Office, Barrett
said:
I believe we can eliminate all the
objectionable features in the contracts
and put them in such form that they
VIII meet with the approval Of the de-
partment. Our fee would be 81 600 re-
tainer and 800 month for twelve
months"
A number of representatives of bond
investment companies We're in Wash
ington during the holiday week of 1900
but they could get no satisfaction out
OF Iyner But on the 51st of Deem
Der, after 4 O'Clock in the afternoon.
they met Barrett by appointment and
employed him as their attorney. ON
the next day he presented the matter
TO Tyner and had their certificates ap-
proved.
Southern Mutual Company.-The
southern Mutual case of Lexington.
Ky, probably more clearly illustrates
the scheme OF Barrett, Tyner and
Neims than any other. helms was the
attorney for the company. A fraud
order had been issued against it by As
sistant Attorney General Thomas on
Jan ~, 1897, but afterward revoked by
Barrett.
on the 21st Of December. 1900. Nelns
secured the approval of Tyrer of a
plan which enabled it to Operate it's
business according 10 the old plan.
which Barrett in his opinion declared
fraudulent. And on Jan. 5 following
helms wrote Bowman, secretary Of the
company;
II wish YOU would state to your board
of directors just what I stated to you
and Mr.. BrOnstOn when you and he
agreed to pay me Loco fee TO get Cen
eral Tyner 10 say he would approve the
contracts submitted 90 him"
me issuing Of this opinion of Bar
retts caused panic among bond-in-
Nestment concerns X. G.. Pulliam Of
the American Investment company had
employed ex- Secretary Carlisle as at
toTney to represent him in his efforts
70 prevent the issue of a fraud order
Fulliam in a statement says that Mr.
Carlisle advised him:
There are only two ways Of accom-
iplishing this: First, TO take the matter
into the federal courts at a likely ex-
pense Of $4,000; the second. to employ
Messrs. Barrett & helms. a newly or
garized law firm. who stood close to the
Tyner crowd. but If IL was to be dore
this way he would have nothing to do
with IT,.
Pulham. however. was not so sensi-
tive He employed Barrett & helms
q fr-ra.- 4 60, l. o
retainer. and further compensat ton Of
$500 per annum in monthly installments.
The books of Barrett & helms show
that during the first ffty-ive days Of
their partnership they received $500
from these bond-investment concerns.
Physicians Institute.
The Physicians Institute Of Chicago
advertised a magnetic belt free" To
any ore answering this advertisement
a symptom blank was sent to be filed
out and returned. IN every case this
concern claimed tha1 the symptom
sheet showed such a complication of
diseases that the belt alone would rem
der no service; and package Of spe-
clal medicine was forwarded i'm con-
Eecton with the belt, by express. c. o.
D.. $3.50
When an investiga ton was ordered
the company engaged the services of
Jarrett and paid him a fee OF $4,000
TO represent them before Tyner. on
Nov. 49, 1901, Barrett prepared a letter
and sent il 10 Tyuer's home address
iinclosing a note Indicating the kind Of
a decision he would like. A few DAYS
afterward the case was disposed Of as
suggested by Barrett in this note.
Turf Investment Companies.
z. J. Arnold & Co. Of ST. Louis. Mo-.
were conducting what is known as 4
'turf-investment" scheme. On Nov 25.
1902, the inspectors, having investi-
gated the company. recommended that
a fraud order be issued against it. In
the meantime the company had en-
ployed Barrett as it's attorney and paid
him fee Of $1,000. And instead of is
suing a fraud order Tyner gave the
company a letter of commendation
Two days after TyneF wrote this letter
Barrett received check Of $1,000 as an
additional fee The company failed in
February, 1903-assets. $4,000: liabili-
ties. S3.120.776
!. j. Ryan & Col. J. Ryan & CO.
of st. Louis was a kindred institution
to Arnold & co. IN October 1902 the
inspectors recommended a fraud order
against this company. The company
was given a hearing by the assistant
attorney generals Office and another
Investigation by the inspectors was re-
QUested. Tn the meantime j. NJ. Johns.
an attorney Of Rockville Ind. made a
proposition 90 Ryan that for "a fee Of
$1,000 he could help him. through his
friend d. v. Miller Of the assistant at
ltorney generals office After some ne
gOtiauOns IL was agreed that S45OO
would be paid TO Johns by Ryan III he
would give him a clean bill' before the
postolnce department This Johns
agreed TO do. and Miller secured a ia
vorable ruling for Ryan & Co. which
he sent to Johns. As a result Of this
transaction Miller and Johns were in
dicted
Rihing Of the Safe.-On April q.
1903, while the investigation Of the as
sistant attorney generals office was in
progress, Mrs. J. n. Tyner. in a clan
destine manner. admitted Mrs Barrett
and Mr. Hammer. a safe expert. into a
lpiivate room of the assistant attorney