The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-08-04
arn wns anv violation Of the statute e1cept


Three duties are thercupOn devoIyed upon
the War Department:
First, TO put thu Department Of Justice in
possession Of facts In order that If that De,
partner, finds the law to have been violated
i may take aaRpropriate measures Tor It's en-
fOrcement This will he done.
Second. TO direct the proper officer OF the
Department to demand repayment OF any
sum Of money which h9s been "adynnGSd
tion Of such contract" Strictly speaking.
no money has been advanced in consider alton
Of the contract. but the goods pnrGhnsnd
As recommonaod by the Judge Advocate;
General the opinion Of the Attorney-Gencral
will he asked whether. within the meaning
OF the statute, such payment constitutes an
advance for which n demand should be made
Third. to determine whether any onic"r
Of the army who was concerned IN the making
Of the contract was culpabe within the true
intent Of the law. Upon this | find no evil
dence that the facts known to the officers
any other relation between the firm OF Lit
tauer Bros. and the furnishing OF gloves
to the Government than the lawful relation
described at the beginning of this meinoran-
The contracts were all made in compliance
with the requirements OF law upon pnbic
advertisement, on awards TO the lowest
responsible bidder and each contained
declaration by the contractor that no member
OF Congress was Interested the prices appear
to have been reasonable; the Government
appears to have got full value for its money,
the. inspection appears to have been riR'u.
appear to hav" been enforced,
NonfinenC, and no motives except desire
10 attain he hest interests of III" G9vernment
appear TO have operated upon the officers
OF the army in tn" transactions.
ELfHr ROOT. secretary oil war.
GEN. DAVIS OPINION
Ia his opinion Gen. Davis reviews each
OF the cont rac;S made for gloves ana Eaunt"
let's and eliminates all but one as involving
a certain violation of the law. Of TINS
one hn saws.
1t appears from the testimony ina, on
Oct rs isos. n contract was awarded TO Lyon
for 5000 pairs of mllskrat gloves AT sl,5t per
pair ON Dec. 7, 1898. second contract Tor
?O.oOOs pair was awarded TO Lyon a, Si,Io per
pair, II stipulation being Inserted TO the eiiect
that deliveries under il could be increased 10
80 per cent n, the discretion Of the officer
making the contract
The Government took advantage Of the
stipulation and 3O08l pairs were actually
called for and delivered under the contract
OF Dec. T. lSJs.
SHARING THE PROFITS,
Some di st lssion having arisen ~ to the price
Ivon was 10 paw for gauntets delivered under
the contract OF Dec. T. an agreement was
entered into between Littauer Bros. and Lyon
to the effect that an accurate account OF me
cost of manufacture was to be kept, and il,
after the contract was completed, IT Shonld
prove that the cost of manufacture did not
equal 81 6j per pair, Lyon was To receive
There was a profit OF s3.537.O5. one-haf
of which was credited to Lyon on the books
Exhibit A at page ~ Of the record of tes-
timony. contains statement OF the account
between littan"r Bros. and Lyon. from
have been earned. which was equally shared
by Lyon and the firm OF Lttauer Rros.
the statute is clearly shown in the testimony
which in the opinion of this office charges
the nb in Y.h SS o the g"
that a demand an9 be made BY the Quarter
master General upon the firm of l,ittaner
is found to have been paid In consider ION
OF the contract Of Dec. I, 1903. with I" Il.
Lyon. as extended. In accordance with It's
terms by the Quartermaster' = Department.
II will he observed that sections 81 and 10 OF
the Revised Statutes require that demands
shall he made for the repayment OF any sums
Of money which may have been advanced on
the part of the United States in consideration
q any such or a ana tb s
amt shall be instituted efor the recovery
thus making an Important distinction between
those portions Of the consideration which
are advanced" and those which retain their
eIecutory character.
Having egard to the highly penal charac-
ter of the statute above cited which requires
IL to receive a strict construction at the hands
of the DEPARTMENT, II is recommended that
the opinion OF the Attorney General ne OBJ
tanned as to whether, in view OF the fact that
the contract has been completely executed
and that the articles stipulated Tor have been
delivered to and have become the property
Of the United States. the. whole or portion
OF the consideration shall be maze the SUD-
ieot Of the demand.
In another part OF his opinion, Gen
Davis tells Of a rejection last June OF a
contract awarded to Daniel Hayes Il Co.
for 5000 pairs OF gloves because Repre-
sentative l.. y. Lttauer was on Haycs's
bond. He saws:
On June Z. 1908. a contract was awarded
Daniel Hays & Go. for 5000 pairs OF buckskln
gloves. J.. y Littauer appeared as surety
on Hays's bond. Although the Attorney
General of the nited States. in case sub
mtted by the War Department in 1898. held
that n Member of Congress may lawfully
he IS n sTT "1 s,ee % was be
leved, in view of the right Of subrogatlon
which was recognized TO exist in behalf OF
the surety IN case 0i tnn a IN Oh c Enr
with it's terms. and. by so dong. become
entitled to any amount remaining due. the
traCtunl relation with the member which
il was the express purpose OF the statute
to avoid For that reason the contract and
bond were not approved by the Quarter
master-General.
That Mr.. Littauer did call at the Quar-
termaster { GENERALS office in behalf Of glove
manufacturers is shown by the following
extract from the report Of Col. CARING
ton:
On Dec. 5, 1900. II contract was made with
Leopold Wei of San Francisco, This con
tract was several times extended. once at
least or the ground that schwartz. Schisfer
( Co Of Gl0versville. who had agreed TO
make the gloves for him. had repudiated
The Hon. ]. VI. Ittauer called, in COM
many with rne Hays, at the Quartermaster-
GENERALS Office for the purpose OF protesting
rranted to Leopold Wiel on the delivery
Of buckskn guuntlets. Mr.. Littauer states
that the call was made AT the request of MIR.
Daniel Hays.
Mr.. Iittauer explained in his testimony
that he had called merely because Mr.. HAYS
was one Of his constituents. He admitted
that at another time he had called at the
Ouartermaster's depot in Philadelphia be-
cause certain gloves were rejected on the
ground that they were Off color.
Gen. Davis is of the opinion that the in
vestigation be continued and concludes
his opinion as follows:
In view of the Importance Of the testimony
OF the Rev. r. q, Thompson. the executor
Of the estate of william TOpp, who was alb
sent whe the inspector visited Gioyers-
vile, and OF the testimony Of h. I. Patterson,
The representative Of the Wanamaker ftrm,
who lie also absent, whose testimony Is OF
IN portanoe I'm connection with the state
mrnts made by Timothy and william keck
IL Ia recommended that the Investigation
be continued and that their testimony be
taken.
The sureties on the Lyon contract Of
Dec. 7, 1893, were William Littauer and Louis
I. Haber The contract amounted to $40
900 o5. The bonds of contracts are under
., o,J "a a r miro when the contract has been