New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-08-04
ACASE AGAINST LITTAUER
ROOT REFERS 1T TO KNOX.
Prima Facie Eyidence of TioIation of
Las Found.
IFRoM TIE rsIsrxE nrnEAr.l

iFRoA TuE TRIBUNE BUREAU.l
Washington. Aug IA pima facie case. IN
volving violation OF the statute PROHIBITING
member OF Congress from sharing in the
pI ohts Of a government contract has been
found by Secretary Root against Representative
Lucius y. Littauer. Of New-Torlz, and referred
TO Attorney General Knox for Adjudication. The
announcement OF this conclusion was made BY
Secretary Root this afternoon in statement
which completely exonerates the army officers
who awarded the contract. The statement o.
the secretary IS accompanied by a review os
the case by Judge Advocate General Davis.
Secretary Root says:
suppose there is no doubt that nlanufact-
uring firm, one member Of which happens to ne
a member OF Congress. has a right TO manUfGct-
ure ana sell goods 20 JObbers who are filing
government contracts, and that they do not
come within the prohibition OF the statute 40
long as the contract between the firm and the
Joooer IS separate and distinct transaction
from the contract between the jObber and the
government There appears TO be no evidence
IhaI IN the manufacture OF gloves by Littauer
Brothers, to be used in filing government con
tracts made by Lyon and others there was
any violation OF the statute except in one
case, the contract Of December = 1885. II is not
the duty or the right OF the Secretary OF War 20
adJudicate that case, or TO determine whether
the statute violated. except IN
so far as II may be necessary for him decide
what action, II any. should be taken by the
War Department, in view OF the facts disclosed
PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE OUT.
think the indications OF an interest by the
manufacturing firm in the jObbers contract
with the government are sufficient TO require
me TO proceed upon the theory that there is a
priIna Tacie case OF violation OF the statute
Three duties are thereupon devOlved upon the
War Department:
Ffrst-To put the Department OF Justice IN
possession OF the facts in order that II that
department finds the law TO have been violated
Il may take appropriate measures for its en-
/ fCrcement- This viii be done
SecOnd-TO direct the proper officer Of the
department TO demand repayment OF any sum
OF money which has been advanced on the part
Of the United States in consideration OF such
contract Strictly speaking. no money has been
advanced IN consideration OF the contract but
ue goods purchased py the government were
paid for on delivery. As recommended by the
Judge Advocate General the opinion OF the
Attorney General will be asked whether within
the meaning Of the statute such payment con
stitutes an advance for which a demand should
be made.
Third-To determine whether any officer OF the
army who was concerned in the making Of the
contract was cuIDa HE v-ftbfn the true intar-
OF the law Upon this ! ind no evidence that
the facts known 10 the officers Of the Quarter
masters Department indicated other reia-
uon between the firm OF LittaUer Brothers and
the furnishing of gloves 10 the gOVsrnment than
the lawful relation described at the beginning
% TINS memorandum i ne contracts We're az
iil4Oe III compliance with Ine requirements or
law upon public advertisement on awards TO the
/ lowest responsible bidder, and each contained a
Ceclaratlon Dy the contractor that no member
of Congress was interested: the prices appear
10 have been reasonable; the government ap-
pears TO have got full value for its money; the
inspection appears to have been rigid and the
requirements of the Specfhcations appear 10
have been enforced. No influences ami no no
tfVes except a desire to attain the hes interests
OF the government appear 20 have operated
upon the officers of the army in the transactions.
ELIHC' ROOT. Secretary OF War.
DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION
The statute violated requires restitution OF
money which has been advanced on the con-
tract, and the question OF determining the
amount that may be considered advanced" on
he CONTRACT in Question &c ovTv-
one submitted 20 the Attorney General Should
the Attorney General find that the whole
amount involved in the Contract was 'ad-
vanced. or amount less than the whole.
should he determine that no advance had been
made in view OF the fact that the gloves We're
delivered before being paid for. he is 20 report
such finding 10 the Secretary OF War. who.
der the statute. is required TO make a demand
for restitution in the sum named by the Attor-
ney General. II restitution is not made within
a reasonable time, it VIII then be the duty OF the
Secretary Of War TO refer the matter again 10
the Attorney General for suit
In explanation of the peculiar wording OF the
statute in question. particularly that portion re-
ferring 10 the advance OF money on contracts
it is said that at the time of its passage at the
beginning OF the last century. there was little
money in the country and it was not IN
usual thing for the government 10 advance a
portion Of the contract price os its purchases
before the goods we're delivered The statute in
question is. however. regarded by the legal au-
thorities as highly penal" and therefore COM
peUing a strict construction. This construction
IS now asked from the Attorney General
General Davis. in his finding the case.
draws the following conclusions: The amount
involved in the contract in question was slightly
in excess Of $4,000 The profit in fulfilling the
contract is said at the War Department to have
been about s.: 800 which is not regarded as sx-
cessive in view OF the fact that the capital
quired had 70 be lied Up az least six months
The explanation accredited 10 Mr. Littauer in
TIE case IS that he believed the contract could
not be filed without loss at the price sub
raitted by Lyon & Co. He decided. however. TO
20 ahead with the work with the understanding
that il there was any profit all he would
simply share Il with the contractor i Mr.
Littauer had named price for furnishing ths
gloves TO Lyon & Co. he would not have come
into conflict WITH the statute now invoked
against him
GENERAL DAVIS'S OPINION
Colonel Darlington OF the Inspector Generals
Department under Secretary Roots directions.
investigated the case. taking testimony and sub
nitting report as to the facts The report
and the testimony were referred 70 Judge Advo-
cate General Davis, who made an extensive re-
view. and submitted opinion 20 Secretary
Root IN his report and opinion General Davis
says:
II appears from the testimony that on Octo6ar
10 1SgS a contract was awarded 10 Lyon IOE
5000 pairs OF UluskFaJ gloves az 81 - a paLfs
on December :. IoSSs second cohlA - -
2OOOO pairs was awarded 10 Lyon al 81 80 a
pair stipulation being inserted 70 tAe e5-eS
that deliveries under II could Oe !Ilclst-,st - -
per cent a. the discretion or t1e oineeI InAAlns
the contract The government took l aaNal.t-.ss
OF the stipulation. and SA.Uo1 pairs .- 49, 49,
eIIv called for and delivered under the contract