Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-11-30

| OF the concerns Immediately sought his
| services, In a letter to the secretary
OF one Of them, written ten days be-
| fore he retired from Office, Barrett said
| II believe We can eliminate all the
| Objectionable features In the contracts
| and put them In such form that they
| VIII meet with the N"7fOYal Of the de-
| partment, Our fec - u!d be $1,000 re-
tainer and 800 a loath for twelve
| months
A number of representatives Of bond
| investment companies were in Wash
| ington during the holiday week OF 1900,
but they could get no satisfaction out OF
| Tyner. Rut on the 3lst OF December,
| after o'clock In the afternoon they
! met Barrett by appointment and
employed him at their attorney. On
| the next day he presented the matter
| to Tyner and had their certificates APP
| proved.
Southern Mutual Company-The
| Southern Mutual case, of Lexington,
KY, probably more clearly illustrates
| the scheme OF Barrett. Tyner. and
helms than any other, Nelms was the
| attorney for the company A fraud
order had been issued againt It by
| Asst. Atty.-Ge Thomas ON Jan. 81,
| 1887 but afterwards revoked by Bar
| rett.
on the 2ist of December. 1900, Nelms
| secured the approval OF Tyner OF
| plan which enabled ii TO operate its
| business according to the old plan.
| which Barrett In his opinion had de-
| clared fraudulent And on Jan. o fol-
lowing Nelms wrote Bowman, secre-
tary Of the company
Il wish you would state TO your
board of directors Just what ! stated
TO you and Mr. Bronson when you
and he agreed to pay me $1,000 fee to
get Gen. Tyner to say he would
approve the contracts submitted TO
him"
The issuing of this opinion of Bar
retts caused panic among bond-in-
Ventment concerns. X. G., Pulliam, OF
the American Investment company,
had employed ex-Secy. Carlisle as at
torney to represent him in his efforts
TO prevent the issue OF a fraud order.
Pulliam In statement says that Mr..
Carlisle advised him.
There are only two ways Of accom-
plshing this First, To take the mat
ter into the federal courts at likely
expense Of $4,000; the second to en-
ploy Messrs. Barrett & Nelms, new
~ organized law firm, who stood close
to the Tyner crowd but II II was to
be done this way he would have moth
ing to do with IT,
Pulliam, however was not SO sensi-
tive. He employed Barrett & helms
and contracted to pay them $1,000 as
a retainer and further compensation
| Of $500 per annum In monthly Install
ments.
The books of Barrett & helms show
| that during the first SO days of their
| partnership they received $500 from
| these ondinyestment concerns,
PHYSICIANS INSTITUTE.
The Physicians institute, OF Chicago,
| advertised a magnetic belt free To
| anyone answering this advertisement
| a symptom blank was sent to be filled
| out and returned. In every case this
| concern claimed that the symptom
| sheet showed such a complication of
| diseases that the belt alone would rem
der no service; and package of spec
| ia medicine was forwarded in connec.-
| ton with the belt, by express, c. o. d.,
| Sc so.
When an investigation was ordered
| the company engaged the services of
| represent them before Tyner. on
! Nov. l3. 1901, Barrett prepared let
ter and sent 1t to Tyner's home address,
| incloslng a note indicating the kind
| of a decision he would like. A few
| days afterwards the case was disposed
| of as suggested by Barrett in this note,
TuRF-INvEsTMENT COMPANIES,
Il. J. Arnold & Co., of st. Louis,
| Mo-, were conducting what is known
as a urf-nyestment' scheme, On
| Nov, 20, 1902, the inspectors, having
| investigated the company, recommend
| ed that a fraud order be issued against
| IL, In the meantime the company had
| employed Barrett as its attorney and
| paid him fee Of $4,000. And instead of
Issuing a fraud order Tyner gave the
company letter of commentator,
] Two days after Tyner wrote this letter
Barrett received check Of 81, 900 as an
additional fee. The company failed in
February, ls03-assets, $4,000 liabili.
ties, s9,120,776
j. j. Ryan & Col. j. Ryan & Co., OF
Sa. Louis, was kindred institution to
Arnold h co. In October, 1902, the in
spectors recommended fraud order
against this company The company
was given hearing by the assistant
attorney generals office and another in
vestigation by the inspectors was re-
quested. In the meantime ]. NJ. Johns,
an attorney at Rockville, Ind, made a
proposition to Ryan that for a fee OF
5000 he could help him. through his
friend d. V. Miller, of the assistant at
torney-general office. After some ne
gotlatlons II was agreed that $500
would be paid to Johns by Ryan II he
1erlst a ftaIA IA 80 h..
postoiiice department. This Johns
agreed to do, and Miller secured ia
vorable ruling for Ryan & Co., which
he sent to Johns. As result OF this
transaction Miller and Johns were in
dlcted.
RIFLING OF THE SAFE.
on April q, 1903, while the investiga-
ton of the assistant attorney generals
Office was In 'ogress, Mrs. j. N. Tyner
In a clendestino manner admitted Mrs
Barrett and Mr., Hammer, a safe expert,
into a private room OF the assistant
Encouragement office, where he UNI
locked the same and took out all Of the
contents, which Mrs. Tyner carried off.
What was In the safe no one knows but
the Tyners, Mrs. Tyner stated that she
went into the office and secured the
contents Of the safe under the direction
OF her husband which statement he
confirmed, AS a result OF this episode
Tyner was summarlly removed from
the Office OF assistant attorney general
and Chrstlancy resigned,
For six years under Tyners admins
tration certain favored frauds and lot
terles We're given free Use OF the mails.
Barretts scheme to resign and practise
before the office, and Tyner's part In
that scheme as set forth In the body
OF this report, was the climax Of oft-
cial perfldy, more evil In Its results and
more demoralizing 10 the public con-
science than outright embezzlement or
open theft
Tyner and Barrett were indicted on
Dot Z No a.. a.. nj