The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-07-08
LIITAUER GLOVE CONTRACTS.
IF LYON WAS NOT AN AGENT HE
COULD NOT ENBEZZLE.
General Denial OF the Congressman Does
Not Cover a Number Of Other Points
brought Out In the Documents Re-
IatinG 10 Army Glove Contracts.
lEtnn TIE SUM

latin6 10 Army Glove contracts.
,From THE SUM
( WASHINGTON, July o. 80 Representative
James 8. Sherman Of Utica was in Washing
ton to-day and called at the War Depart
meDt, presumably TO see Secretary Root
In regard to the proposed investigation
of Representative Littauer's connection with
the Lyon glove and gauntlet contracts.
Mr.. sherman was told that the Secretary
of War was out Of the city and would not
return before to-morrow's morning. He
then called upon Judge Advocate General
Do rs and discussed various features of the
Littauer cnSe.
Mr.. Sherman was OF the opinion that
Representative Littauer's interest in tho
glove contracts was only that of a manu-
facturer selling to a iobber and that he had
not violated the spirit of the law,
Representative herman ia an associate
of Representative Littauer in various BUSH
ness enterprises.
In investigating the Littauer 81 we con-
tracts, two entirely separate questions are
before the Secretary of War First
whether Representative Littauer was in
terested in any of the Lyon contracts,
and, second. whether any army officer
awarded any contracts to Lyon with knowl-
edge of Littauers interest therein.
As to the latter of these questions, there
is nothing tending to show any such state of
knowledge by any army officer, in the testi-
mony and documents which have been
published, although perhaps some of the
facts should have aroused suspicion in the
mind OF an alert and vigilant person
But upon the question OF Mr.. littauers
guilty interest there is on his side only
his general denial Of any interest in the
contracts. He has not yet explained, speci-
fically the facts appearing in his published
letters.
Representative Littauer says that his
firm of Littauer Bros. had no interest in
Lyons contracts to furnish army gloves;
that Lyon was an independent contractor
with the Government, and that sometimes
the Littauer firm made gloves for him, to
enable him to fill his contracts with the
Government, Having declared and re-
iterated that the Littauer firm had no in
terest In the contracts, MIR. littauer then
goes on, in the same statement to admit
that In one instance the muskrat gaunt-
lets) his firm had direct inter- st in Lyons
profit In that particular case, he says,
Lyon had bid lower price than the
Littauers' price to him, and thereupon
Lyon and the Littauers agreed to divide
the profit, being the difference between
Lyons bid price and the Littauers' cost
of manufacture. The law forbids any
Member of Congress directly or indirectly
to hold or enjoy, in whole or in part, any
contract with the Government.
Among the published documents there
is an account of certain muskrat gloves,
dated Jan rs, 1900, rendered by Littauer
TO Lyon. This apparently relates to the
same contract which Littauer refers to in
his admission. In the account, Littauer
says, -we received lLittauer Bros,l for
the muskrat gloves S54 PODS" From
this sum he deducts $50 1888 90, which the
ence, s3hs705, is the profit on the contract
He credits Lyon with your share of one
half" 81 1888 81, and with some other items,
in all amounting to $2,973,9s He charges
Lyon with several items amounting to
S., so2 rs This leaves Lyon with "a OF asa al
This account treats the whole TRANSACTION
as that Of Lttauer Bros, in which Lyon
acts for them. II does not say you re-
ceived s54 ,22Oe5. out of which you
have paid our cost of 5O,6s36O, and our
share of the profit, 81 78s52.'
The testimony of Lyon and the docu-
ments published in The Sun all tend TO
show Littauer's true relation 10 the trans
actions, better than his unverified denial.
Lyon testified under oath that Littauer
Bros. were ain with" him on contracts.
Littauer's letter to Lyon, from Washington,
dated May IS, 1893, says: The 900 pair
special contract will be delivered" Il
have done everything can to fix our ar
rangements 30 that we can meet the re-
quirements Of the Government not con-
tract requirements with Lyon, but Gov
eminent requirements. at does not pay
us to express goods to Philadelphia Ito
the arsenalI for the cost by freight is less.
ut H. al
will say that IL his contract was with Lyon,
for fixed prices, and if Littauer Bros.
had no interest in the net result, Repre-
sentative Littauer need not have been
anxious about transportation charges, and
might have accepted Lyons shipping
Next, I'VE have ourselves stock on hand
| horse hide enough for 10000 pairs OF
gloves but if a greater quantity were de-
manded, tpe might be in hole II pe could
not take advantage Of this option for big
additional lot of horse hide Lyon might
be in a hole if the contract were Lyons.
But If Lyon was an independent contractor.
I'VE" would not be in hole. But if I'VE"
were Interested in the profits and Losses
I'VE" would be in a hole, if Eve" could not
supply the orders And finally: "Do you
think it advisable that | should call on
Quartermaster Generall Ludington in ref
erenoe to any other than the standard
gauntlets?"
Next, though Littauer Bros were
only filling Lyons orders, Littauer pre-
pfred instructions for Lyons use in making
A0s, in such words as these: Divide profit
over this figure, sl55." Profit ought
TO be Is per cent. over sl,57," ave sic
not feel satisfied with less than n profit of
10 per cent. over Sl.55.' Littauer's inter
view does not attempt to explains such words
as these, nor why Littauer's brother and
brother-in-aw were always sureties on
Lyons bonds. Littauer SAYS in these
bankruptcy proceedings that Lyon was
short in his accounts. He opposes Lyons
discharge. And yet he furnished sureties
for Lyon on every contract.
Representative Littauer made against
Lyon in 1900 charge Of embezzl'ment
in connection with these same transact ions.
Lyon then owed Littauer Bros. some
$4,000 on the account, and Mr.. Littauer
threatened to have him arrested as an
"embezzer," which threat he could have
based only on an agency, not then treating
Lyon as a contract debtor, but as an en-
ployee short in account.