New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-11
LITGAUER APPEAL FAILS
hROr Makes Public Documents an
-frmy GI0Cc Contract Case.

Washington. NOV IO-Attorney General Knox to-
CAY made public recent correspondence which
passed between himself ans Rogers, Locke & Nil
burn counsel for Representative Litauer. relative
the rcopeninE % the matter OF the latter's al
legged connection with the contract awarded 20 T.
r. Lyo- Cor furnishing the army 3o,eo pairs OF
gauntlet gloves.
In the course OF his letter dated October 81 1905,
1ohn 6. Milbarn says that the accusations AGAINST
Mr.. I-ttauer which were investigated by the War
Department. were TO The effect that, being mem
hor o. tho firm O. Lfttauer Brothers. manufacturers
~ gloves. he had violated the statute prohititns,
under civil and criminal penalties. a member o.
congress from directly or indirectly contracting
7gith The government. Though tho firm OF Littaner
brothers has for many years sold its gloves 10 IN
s,iiuais and concerns having contracts with tho
government. & might lawfully do. the judge &C
no,ate general states his report that there was
l,o evidence 81 any violation OF law in connection
With those transactions excepting IN single m
sfarce, which is the contract Of r X Lyon WIN
ste government OF December = 1893 for the FURNISH
INK % 5000 pairs OF muskrat gauntlets Thus the
sole issue is as to whether that transaction was
violation o. the statute the part Of Mr. Littauer
: may add that the issue is not complicated by any
Joss TO the government as the Secretary OF war
distinctly states that the Lyon contracts were mace
s compliance with the law. upon public advertise
lnent. r.avards 20 the lowest responsible BIDDER
that the prices were reasonable: that the govern
-uoat got full Yalre for its money; that the inspeo
-ion rigid, ane that the requirements o. INC
solicitations were complied with.
r have advised Mr. Llttauer throughout. after
careful study Of the whole situation. and I insist
s,renuously and without a particle OF doubt IN my
mind. that that transaction was not viola
lion OF either the letter spirit o. the statute on
his part
WOULD WAIVE STATUTE or LIMITATIONS
IL is upon his entire innocence OF even q techni-
cal breach OF law thai VIC take our stand. regard
loss Of civil criminal remedies or technical de-
fences. He has not invoked. and does not invoke,
81 o. limit nd
waive st il he had the privilege.
L sincerely hope that VOC viii be able % soe
your way reopen the case. that Mr.. Littsuer and
may be heard the subject I have indicated"
IN the Of his reply. declining 10 reopen the
&c. tie Attorney General says:
In ny reply I advised the Secretary OF War that
>" part Of the consideration in question could he
sscotereo. the contract harlnE been executed aId
tho government according TO his statement having
Jeceived tul value for Us money his Was an The
secretary or " ar asked nc 20 DECIDE ne cues
1ion whether Mr.. Littsuer was interested in the
contracts under consideration was not submitted
Tor decision. and ] did not pass upon IL directly
Nor was II necessary FOR me TO determine that
fact, as in any view OF the case. IN my opinion
In reoos,sre5 hscl In 5isposng Of this question
statute Of limitations had no hearing whatever
rotary OF War transmitted certain testimony and
data relating 20 the principal transactions between
1ittauer Brothers and Lyon. the contractor for
such further action. as ] might deem proper No
further action could have been taken by this de-
Tartent IN the premises unless the data transmit
ted disclosed case Tor criminal prosecution under
IN examining The record We were met al The
threshold with the fact that the transactions under
consideration were closed more than four years
ago. which fact would operate bar to any
prosecution. even il the statute had been violated
A. every familiar with judicial procedure
knows. when il appears on the face that prosecu-
for an alleged violation or law Is barred by
Limitation, the question whether there has IN fact
heen 2 breach OF law IS never gone into. II would
bc vain 10 do II therefore / had done so in
this IL would have exposed me. and justly, too
] am disposed to think. the charge Of having
accorded Nj. Littauer What has been and will
he denied ohers-that Is. OF having made. in his
favor. exception 10 the established rule and
precedent Of my of1cC-a rule sound in theory.
successful in practice and fundamental IN the ad
ministration Of justice. as. OF course, you know.
NAY APPEAL TO CONGRESS.
must. therefore. in harmony with the uniform
practice OF this Office. decline 10 reopen the case
YOU request, since TO do 50 would be TO enter upon
a inquiry in which. matter what might be my
conclusion upon the facts. ! would have Official
duty 10 perform vain. extraordinary proceed
ing. without reason or precedent TO support it.
I may add. IN conclusion. that l am unable TO see
how Mr. Littauer can feel aggTieved by my action,
s i have already said plainly know how.
and repeat, that have not passed upon or
considered. directly indirectly. the question
whether he interested. in the sense cOnten-
plated ny the statute, Lyons contract with the
government. In fact. IL I had done So / would. as
already pointed out, have gone beyond my duty in
he