Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-29
DENIED BY MR.. TYNER
REPLY TO THE LETTER FROM THE
WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY.
Declares He Never Favored Barrett's
Clients-Explains Safe Opening
Episode.

Mr.. James n. Tyner. formerly assistant
attorney general for the Post Office De-
partment. last evening gave out the follow
ing statement In reply to the one given
out at the White House yesterday:
II shall make no reply to the Presidents
letter; none is required. The charges of
the President that 1 was guilty of gross
corruption and of accepting brides were
susceptible of proof. He has no proof; this
he acknowledges. His labored effort of
many pages to Justify his conduct by COM
ment on extraneous matters Is palpably
unfair and unwarranted. And he misstates
the facts.
Il never asked my reinstatement in Of
fee The President had the power of re-
moval, however unjustly 1t was exercised,
and. besides. am physically unable to per-
form any service.
The statement that favored Mr. Bar
fett's clients is untrue: this especially was
the charge on which / was tried The rec
ords of the trial show that I'm about twenty
Instances where Mr.. Barrett presented
plans of business for ruling they were in
most cases passed on by my assistant and
subsequently, approved by the Attorney
General. Some of these companies are do
Ing business today under these same plans,
having recently been investigated by the
Post Office Department. Against most of
these concerns Issued fraud orders myself
when l found they were disregardinp the
rulings or the department. The evidence
at the trial showed that the present admin
fstration has followed these rulings Mr.
Barrett appeared before my office in only
SIX cases involving the issue of fraud or
derS In two cases the orders were issued
In the other cases my action was based on
the law and the facts. At the time of my
trial one of these concerns was using the
mails unmolested; and there was no evil
dence that the action in any of these cases
had been reversed.
The Arnold Case
''Fhe Presidents comments on the case of
Arnold & Co. are unwarranted by the facts.
This concern had been doing business in
st Louis for five years unmolested by state
or federal officials. The inspectors In their
report presented no evidence of fraud
Without this l could not act. They did not
even recommend a fraud order: they simply
advised that the concern be called on to
show cause. That my action was entirely
in accordance with the law and the facts
was recognized by the Post Office Depart
ment in requesting Congress at its last ses-
sion to amend the law. specifically stating
as reason for such recommendation that
the law was inadequate to reach such cases
"a Arnold az Co. II Mr.. Barrett had any
other business before my Office | do not
know of II. In such matters as he present.
ed he was treated the same as any other
attorney and that his clients received no
favors Is evidenced by the fact that issued
them
Opening MI Tyner's Safe.
ITO characterize my wife as having COM
mtted burglary in my Office is as I'M
manly as 1t is unjustifed Nothing in the
treatment accorded me is so unjust and IN
warranted and Indecent as the brutal at
tacks on my wife and her sister. ignored
the attack when made in the letter of the
Postmaster General announcing my re-
moval from office because / could not be-
the President would persist in his attitude.
My resignation had been presented to and
accepted by the Postmaster General. and
about five days before the same was to
take effect my wife went to my Office to
get my papers out of my private safe.
was bedrtdden and unable to 20. Her sis