New-York tribune., 1903-11-30
IN TYNER'S OFFICE.

The administrative methods Of Tyner and Bar
rett are clearly illustrated in a number OF cases
which were passed upon by them
E C. LEWIs-E @. Lewis, of st. Louis. MO-,
was conducting what is known as an ehuless
chain scheme. Barrett ruled that his scheme was
a lottery. but no fraud order was issued ana as
an acknowledgment of Barretts henient treatment
Lewis presented him with a gold watch.
SAMUEL HARRIS.-Samuel Harris. Of New-fork'
published in the papers picture OF an eye, then
the letters D and A. followed by the picture OF
hoe. The advertisement announced that SIyO re-
rectiy sHs%er the name Of the State represented in
the picture When an answer vas was sem sen niles MI ' nf
the company It was necessary before a cash prize
SSio be given ier MN 10 eostin 20 Cents
After buying the package the victim was
that it became necessary to divide the o SO pnS pTTs
non aOgs eSceed effp two esori or three s ecnts
A fraud order was issued against Harris, DuI
ettorney had the fraud order revoked, and Harris
the same old business for months without IN
CASsIUs NJ UPToN.-Cassius NJ. Upton. pub
Usher OF cIsdp b ten PS the puzzIe plan
in one OF his schemes he submitted the initials
with the mes OF the roads spelled out: omittng Ing
mi Correct answers 10 the list The condition was
that IN order TO get q prize il would be necessary
5sfre,eS 10 sfT1 Weeklv The pTzzie was so Simple
that any one could answer ii correctly. The re re
Tided nn Until the winners would receive less than
hye cents each and this Upton failed to distribute
Assistant Attorney General Tyner protested
ea1sns ms tnr ie1erai over the protest Of
tie District Attorney, directed that the case be
+. NJ Uc1-sHMAN.-At the same time that Up
rubl'sher Of The Columbian" OF Boston. Mass,
& 2 o2d7ns nd IN 5Sg & Barrett 's
his sehvInes fraudulent stating that the case case
q view of his indictment Yet a short time before
actly the So nc offence was unwarranted-
BOND INVESTMENT SCHEMES.
when the Louisiana Lottery Company was broken
up by the federal government number of bond
oeT aos up N @ 'ns %eods of
assistant Attorney General Thomas declared in
1929 that:
bond Investment schemes are more dan
gerous to society than aycwed lotteries
Shortly after THner and Barrett were installed
IN Office eight of these bond investment companies
against which fraud orders had been issued bN
etaiiyes g1id m Tasbnrten for the purpose Of hav-
Ing these fraud orders revoked. 9. A Where. OF
on June q wrote the secretary Of his company as
follows:
have got the strongest that the soysrnneDt rs 0
Is our viii do all they can for US Beng sure OF
this wanted 70 return home out bulteTW9s. Set
and Tyaer himself tell me that must stay here' 'ha'
viii be needed.
On June 2S four days later. he again wrote;
Fad long interview with clerk very salts
5agto M He b.. Hss ssrrs ana he has charge Of this
expect suspension order by about Thursday
This letter was written on Monday. June 2s The
fraud order revoked on Wednesday. the SVth'
After the fraud orders against these Institutions
were revoked. bond investment schemes rnuiIple9
until there were several hundred in the United
FsTi1, in the year 1900 Barrett and J. Henning
Nelns an agent for a bond investment company,
made a verbal agreement TO enter into law law
Agreement Barrett announced that he intended to
render decision as to eed all oo9d q, necemSer
1900 and it held all bond investment concerns as
tIagoaien % os+ei qs Rarrett suggested that they
be given an opportunity
to make such viii eliminate all oeections6ie
merit in the direction Of dePrvng them Of the use Of the
mails.
And the same mail that carried the opiion with
this SUGGESTION to the bond investment concerns
also carried the announcement that barret bI s, nao
resigned and formed law partnership Win NT,.s. @
The result that many Of the e91cerns ri tba Ee
, olsg.S - Sa Of fben, written ten DAYS before he
retired from office, Barrett said;
believe ue can eliminate all objectionable features
n I'M me sst s2sSf s the sna ppovai pro- Of the department
would $1,000 retainer and 500 month tor Twelve
months.
4 number Of representatives of bond investment
companies were IN Washington during the hoiiday
week Of 1900 but they could get no satisfaction out
of Tyner But on December 81 after CLOCK s1 IN
the afternoon they pSI e tfeneT n the newt
day he presented the matter TO Tyner and had their
0gs50I-THFRY MUTUAL CoMPANY.-The South
en Mutual case Of Lexngton BY pronT ,;sr nUTs S
Nelrns tham any srsrS orser had been issued
against il by Assistant Attorney General Thomas
on January =. 1887, but was atterward revoked by
on december Il 1900, Neluns secured the. ap-
proval OF Tyner Of plan which enaole9 II It 10
which Parrett in his oninion had declared fraudu-
lent And on January following Nems wrote TO
Bowman. secretary OF the company:
val.r of
What stated to you and Mr. Bronston when you and he
be would approve the contracts submitted to him
The issuing Of this opin9n Of BaTTstts caused
fi5l HANS og ne AmeTicsn investment Companv
had employed ex-Secretary Carlisle as attorney to
repressnt sTan5 9 order n hF PuSm n Statement saws
that Mr. Carlisle advised him:
There ay two & %3 x. g. ss2s g8ai g. ths ie, Ts
perse az s5 600; second. employ Messrs Barrett
s S 5nr ps ocd 5 % @ To be done @ aoS he
would have nothing TO DO with H.
,Pulliam. however. was not so sensitive, He en-:
them 81 go a retainer. and further compensation
The iO Jocks of Barrett r. Nelms show that during
the first afty-xe & days Of their partnership they
Germs.
PHYSICIANS INSTITUTE.
The Physicians Institute. of Chicago, advertised
advertisement a symptom blank was sent TO be
cern claimed that the symptom sheet showed such
complication Of diseases that the belt alone
would render no service. and package OF special
medicine forwarded In connection with the
belt. by express. G. o. d. s. 50.
When investigation ordered the company
engaged the services Of Barrett, and paid him a
fee OF 5000 to represent them before Tyner. On
November l3. 1901, Barrett prepared letter and
sent it TO Tyner's home address. inclosing a note
Indicating the kind OF decision he would like. A
few days afterward the case disposed Of as
suggested by Barrett in this note
TURF INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
Z. J. Arnold s. Co, Of St Louis were conduct
ing what IS known a turf investment" scheme
On November -. 1902. the inspectors, having in