The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-30

low ana q relative OF lyueT = vile. his
name is Barrett and he has charge of this
matter of ours and is conducting the inves-
~tigation. / expect a suspension or
der by about Thursday This letter was
der was revoked on Wednesday, the Both,
one day earlier than Villere expected.
After the fraud orders against these in
stitutions were revoked bond-investment
schemes multiplied until there were several
hundred in the United States.
Early in the year 1900 Barrett and j.
Henning helms, an agent for a bond-in-
vestment company, made a verbal agree
ment to enter into a law partnership Jan. 1.
1901. Shortly after this agreement Barrett
announced that he intended 20 render a de-
cision as to all bond-investment schemes.
This opinion was rendered on Dec. ., 1900.
and ii held all bond-investment concerns as
fraudulent. But while declaring them in
imical TO the postal laws Barrett suggest
ed that they be given an opportunity to
make such changes as will eliminate all OBJ
jectionable features before further action is
taken by this department in the direction of
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 resigned and formed a law
partnership with Nelms. The result was
that many OF the concerns Immediately
sought his services. In a letter to the Sec
rotary of one of them. written ten days be-
fore he retired from office, Barrett said: i
believe we can eliminate all the objection
able features in the contracts and put them
in such form that they will meet with the
approval of the department. Our fee would
be $1,000 retainer and 500 a month for
twelve months
EMPLOYED AS ATTORNEY.
"a number of representatives of bond
Investment companies were in Washington
during the holiday week of 1900, but they
could get no satisfaction out of Tyner. But
on the 3lst of December, after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon, they met Barrett by appoint
ment and employed him as their attorney.
On the next day he presented the matter to
Tyner and had their certificates approved.
The Southern Mutual case of Lexington,
KY, probably more clearly illustrates the
scheme of Barrett, Tyner and helms than
any other. helms was the attorney for
the company. A fraud order had been is
sued against ii by Assistant Attorney Gen.
eral Thomas on Jan. p, 1897, but afterwards
revoked by Barrett. On the 21st of Decem-
Der, 1900, helms secured the approval by
Tyner of a plan which enabled IT TO oper-
ate its business according TO the old plan,
which Barrett in his opinion had declared
fraudulent. And on Jan. 3 following helms
wrote Bowman secretary OF the company:
i wish you would state TO your board of
directors just what l stated to you and Mr..
Bronston when you and he agreed to pay
me $1,000 fee TO get General Tynef TO say
he would approve the contracts submitted
to him. The issuing of this opinion or
Barretts caused a panic among bond-in-
vestment concerns. X. q. Pulliam, OF the
American Investment Company, had en-
ployed ex-Secretary Carlisle as attorney to
| represent him in his efforts TO prevent the
issue of a fraud order: Pulliam in a state
ment says hat Mr.. Carlisle advised him:
There are only two ways of accomplishing
this: First. to take the matter into the
federal courts at a likely expense OF $4,000;
the second, TO employ Messrs. Barrett &
helms, a ne-wly-organized law firm, who
stood close to the Tyner crowd, but If 1T
was to be done this way he would have
was not so sensitive. He employed Bar
rett & Nelms and contracted TO pay them
$1,000 as a retainer, and further compensa-
ton of 5000 per anum in monthly INSTALL
ments. The books of Barrett & helms
show that during the first fifty-five days
of their partnership they received $500
CASE OF PERRY S. HEATH.
The name of Perry S. Heath. former first
assistant postmaster general, is mentioned
several times by Mr.. Bristow. When a COM
pany with capital stock of 100000 was or
ganized to manufacture the Montague in
dicator, a device attached to street letter
boxes, George w. Beavers wrote a personal
letter to d: S: Richardson, of San Fran
cisco, dated Feb. 20, 1901, saying: yours
of Feb. 6, with inclosure, duly received. /
will hold the papers In your name for the
present until something decisive is known.
1 am glad to know that the matter prom
ises so well. / have not seen Mr.. Heath,
but will make another effort to-day. He is
mighty hard to locate just now, being busy
Oh national committee matters"
In August, 1902, Beavers again wrote to
Richardson as follows: Our friend in Salt
Lake wants the inclosed stock drawn in the
name of Edwin B. Bacon. Kindly issue new
certificates and have these destroyed. For
ward same tC me by registered mail"
Mr.. Bristow says: These letters were Sc
cured from Richardson by the inspectors.
On the face of the last letter is Endorsed in
lead pencil In the handwriting of r. II. E.
Espey. secretary Of the company: Editor
Salt Lake Tribune and on the back, '12I
s.. West Temple and 9th z. and Brigham,
the first being Perry S.. Heath's office adj
dress and the second his home at that
time. The 'inclosed stock referred to in
the last letter consisted of 1000 of the
shares given to Beavers on Dec. q. 1899.
Edwin b. Bacon is a citizen of Louis
Vile. KY, Heath's uncle by marriage, and
said to be one of his most intimate friends.
This 1000 shares issued to Edwin b. Bacon
was returned to the company
in a blank envelope after this investigation
began. Bacon states that he never saw
the stock, and did not know that it was
in existence. Heath refused to make a
written statement, but stated verbally to
Inspector Simmons that he never heard
of the stock, and had no interest in the
company. directly or indirectly.
CANCELING MACHINE CASE.
In the Doremus canceling machine case
the name of L. T. Kitchener is mentioned
as one Of the promoters of the concern.
H. j. Truesdell, a member of the company
before he quarreled with G. E. Green, told
the postoffice inspectors, according to Mr.
Bristow, that before the second order on
June 80, 1900, was given for 100 machines
Green told him he had transferred to Perry
s. Heath, first assistant oStmast gen.
eral, 10000 worth of his stock, In consid.
Grafton of receiving an order for not less
than 800 machines. Truesdell states" con
tinues Mr.. Bristow, that he contributed
s., 900 worth of stock to Green as his share
of the amount given Heath. He also stated
that Doremus transferred 5000 worth OF
his stock in the same manner Doremus
denies any knowledge of the stock havine
been given to Heath, but stated that ne
did contribute fifty shares, par value s., 600
to Green to be used for the best interests
of the company. Doremus admits that
Truesdell told him subsequently that the
stock was to be transferred to Heath ir
consideration of receiving a large order fol
machines. Ida z. Crowell. TruesdelTs sec
rotary, who was a boOkkeeDer i'll the EN-
ploy of the Doremus Machine Company
from Oct. 8. 1900, until August. 1901, con.
firms many of Truesdelfs statements.
Heath refused to make a written state.
ment, but said verbally to Inspector Sim
mons that he never received any stock
from the Doremus Canoeing Machine Com.
pany, or any remuneration or any KIND
directly or indirectly.
."Truesdell further stated that on all ma.
chimes sold to the department after the
order for 100 of model No. / the company
was required TO pay Beavers SIS on each
| machine, which Beavers stated was to be
divided with Heath.
ION Oct. 5, 1903, indictments were found
against Green, Doremus and Beavers fol
| conspiracy to defraud. The evidence