New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-08-05
LITTAUER,S ANSWER,
HIS Explanation of the GIove Con-
tract-No Violation, He Says.

Congressman Littauer yesterday issued the
following statement regarding the glove contract
case. which has been referred to Attorney Cen
eral Knox for adjudica ton:
I am, of course, surprised and disappointed at
the decision Of the Secretary of " ar hat there
may exist even prlna facie case Of VOCATION
or statute The decision only creates an IN
QCiry whether a technical vioiat of law has
been committed, and removes from the case en-
tHeiy any suggestion OF dishonesty OF u-sl1oII-
orabIe action on my part, and OF any improper
use Of my influence as Congressman in regard
to any glove contracts
l can ask more sweeping and complete vim
dicaton of my honor and business n eg lty than
the findings of the Secre, airy, who says:
Il find no evidence that The facts known TO the
officers of the Quartermaster's Department IN
dicated any other relations between the firm OF
Littauer Brothers and the furnishing of gloves
10 the government than the lawful relation de-
scribed at the beginning of this memorandum Ia
relation of a manufacturer furnishing goods 10
jObber, who is filling government cOntractS).
The contracts were all made in compliance with
the requirements Of law upon public advertise
ment, awards to the lowest responsible bid
der, and each contained a declaration by the
contractor that no member of Congress was in
terested; the prices appear to have been rea-
sonable; the government appears to have got
full value for its money; the Inspection appears
to have been rigid and the requirements of the
specifications appear to have been enforced NO
influence and no motives except desire TO at
tain the best interests of the government appear
TO have operated upon the officers OF the army
in the transaction"
the Attorney General, I am at a loss to under
stand how any question even of the most re-
fined technical nature can exist as TO the per
feet propriety and legality of the contract OF
December l. 1898. The unContradicted evidence
concerning this contract develops these facts:
Mr.. Lyon was a general contractor to the War
Department, furnishing not only gloves, but
caps. cottOns, ducks and various other articles
There was awarded to him a contract for three
thousand muskrat fur gaUntlets, which he pur-
chased from US at the price of 81 81 pair.
This price, ascertained during the process
of manufacture too low. informed him.
subsequently Mr. Lyon DID, and MS DID vas
accepted for twenty thousand similar gloves,
with a privilege to the government of requiring
80 per cent more which the government took
advantage of. After the acceptance of the bid
he called upon me to furnish him with the goods.
I informed him that would not furnish them
at the price that the three thousand pairs had
been furnished, we having sustained a loss in
the transaction, as l had previously informed
him During our conversation took a sheet of
paper, and in my handwriting calculated the
price of the goods which with - per cent
profit to my firm would have amounted to 81 81
a pair, which the price at which 1 had pre-
viously offered to make the gauntlets During
the discussion I reduced this anticipated profit
TO 10 per cent making the price 81 73. Mr.
Lyon, who furrier, familiar with the
terial that entered into the manufacture of the
fur part of the gloves, insisted that I had over
estimated the number of skins that would enter
into the production or a dozen gloves, and sub
joined to my memorandum in his handwriting
his estimate of the cost, which he fixed after
correction of his previous figures at 81 4612. 1
and he would not acquiesce in :line He inpor-
tuned me, however, not to leave him in the lCrCh,
as he had already contracted to furnish the goods
to the government at 81 90 Git turned out that
in fact he h IL contracted for them at 81 20. al
though I did not know it, and he finally bought
the goods at 81 90, but I conceded that if ii
should be demonstrated after the actual manu-
facture of the goods that they had cost me less
than 81 80 his account would be credited with
one-half of the difference between the actual
cost pair and 81 TO- at which we had sold the
goods to him This difference was ascertained
to be $3531 %, and he credited with this
rebate, which amounted TO 81, 1913 % Our books
give evidence in detail Of this transaction. Mr..
Lyon was charged for the gloves at 81 10
pair, and his account subsequently credited
with the rebate referred to.
If as the Secretary says, there is doubt
that a manufacturing firm, member Of
which happens TO be member of Congress, has
a right to manufacture and sell goods to iO66ers
who are filling government contracts, and that
they do not come within the prohibition Of the
statute so long as the contract between the firm
and the jobber is a separate and distinct trans
action from the contract between the jObbeT and
the government I fail to see and I am sure
the community will fail to see, how even a
technical or legal violation of any statute or Of
any code of moral commercial prOr!iety or
any invidious criticism or Censure can be found
ed upon this transaction.