The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-08-05

er Interpretation has come up in only
three or four cases. The question arose
whether a member OF Congress who had
held government contract prior to his
election was compelled by the law TO
abandon all connection with the contract
thereafter. 1t was decided that he could
continue the contract up 10 the time OF
the oath OF office-not later
The question OF a member going on
the bond OF a contractor for the govern
ment came up in Cleveland's administra-
ton. IL was determined by Attorney
General Garland that this was proper
Last June, however a similar question
came up with regard to Mr. Littauer as
surety for Daniel Hayes, a glove con-
tractor, and Judge Advocate General Da-
Wis recommended that the bid be rejected
on the ground that the contractor for
any reason failed 20 fulfill his contract
the surety would be expected TO make
good and thus step into the position OF
contractor with the government.
These questions have all come up on
points of Interpretation. 1t never has
been found necessary to proceed against
member OF Congress for participation
in government contract and there is.
therefore, a complete absence OF prece-
dent for the department OF justice.
The officers of the war department are
inclined to regard the offense charged
as technical Ii Is admitted that the con-
tract between Lttauer and Lyon was
entered into with the object OF saving
Lyon from as heavy loss a he would
tract stood and had he been compelled
10 pay the Nttauers the regular mar
ket price OF the gloves.
TO SAVE LYON.
Lyon, according to Littauer's state
ment, had contracted TO furnish the
gloves at a price which would have left
him no profit after buying the gloves,
from the manufacturer at the regular
price. In order to save Lyon, therefore.
Littauer agreed TO let him have the
gloves at price OF 10 cents a pair below
the regular price. with an agreement
that the profits coming 10 Lyon at that
rate should be equally divided. In other
words, the Littauers were 10 relieve
Lyon, so that Lyon might make a small
profit. instead OF none at all.
II the Ltttauers had allowed Lyon 70
buy his gloves at the regular price they
would make 5 cents a pair more than
they did make and at the same time
would not now be adjudged guilty or a
technical violation of the law. The ques-
ton for the department 10 determine IS
how to proceed TO collect the money sup
posed to be due the government under
II Is supposed that proceedings will
be instituted Individually against every
body who was connected with the con-
tract Suits will be brought against
both Lyon and Littauer for the full
amount OF the contract. and as Lyon is
the whole expense must ultf-
mately fall on Littauer If the suits go
In favor OF the government At the
same time II Is acknowledged that Lit
tauer's lawyers can put up a very plausi-
bic defence and that the government VIII
not have an easy task in securing the
money which the secretary seems TO
think Is due.
The fact that the contract was carried
out and that the government received
the gloves complicates the situa ton The
original intent OF the law. II Is believed.
was that is case 4 was a s-overed dur
Ing the pendency ~ n contract that a
member OF congress was interested. the
contract should be annulled and any
money paid out by the government
should he refunded. II was not conceived
that the question would arise after the
contract had been fulfilled However.
the law does not make this clear. and
THIS is one Of the points which the courts
will have 20 pass upon in case the aues-
lion comes before them