The Drachmans of Arizona
by Floyd S. Fierman
From: American Jewish Archives* Vol. XVI, No. 4 (November 1964), 135-160

The Drachmans, Government Contracting and Licensed Indian Traders

Both the Drachman brothers often concerned themselves with Government contracts and Indian trading licenses.

On June 1, 1876, Samuel, designated by the name of S. H. Drachman, was awarded a license to trade with the Papago Indians on their reservation at St. Xavier, Arizona Territory. He filed a $5,000 bond with J. H. Archibald and Chas. [Charles] N. Etchells as sureties. The license was issued for one year.⁶⁸

Bidding for Government contracts could sometimes involve the bidder in controversy. On one such occasion, Philip Drachman, Sam's brother, showed himself a man able to defend himself when his honesty was questioned. In a letter to the editor of the Weekly Arizonian, he wrote:

I find in a letter signed C. C. Bean, published in the Miner of December 25 [1869] a series of statements regarding the letting of a contract at Fort Whipple, and observing therein a species of shadowy allusion to myself and I hope you will permit me, through your columns, to reply . . . .

The 1st of November 1869 being the day named as that upon which proposals to furnish grain to the Q. M. Department at Camp Whipple were to be opened, I handed my bid for 500 tons at 6-1/4¢ per pound. Mr. Bean, for the same contract, bid as follows: 100 tons at 5-3/4¢, l00 tons at 6¢, 100 tons at 6-1/8¢, 100 tons at 7¢ and 100 tons at 7-1/16¢. Now in the statement published by Mr. Bean one of his bids is misstated and one omitted .... So soon as it was discovered that Bean, Baker and Co. were defeated in fact, the presence of intrigue became evident.

Unlike the straightforward manner in which the successful bidder is at once made known here [in Tucson], we bidders at Whipple must assemble at 4 P.M. to learn the result. I called but was informed that I could learn nothing before the next morning. Next morning I called again and was informed that the quartermaster had left town and that my informant, the clerk, can give me no information regarding the bids. Upon returning from the quartermaster's office in company with Mr. Parker, likewise a bidder, he remarked, "There's something rotten," and sure enough something was very rotten as I soon afterwards discovered. Not only had the quartermaster left town but so likewise had a special messenger, bearing the bid of Bean, Baker and Co. -- ahead of mail -- that it might be approved before exposure could be effected. Feeling that it became necessary to act at once and determinedly, if I would defeat this abuse of justice and position, I set out for San Francisco and upon my arrival called upon the Chief Quartermaster, who informed me that strict justice would be done in the affair.

The contract has since been re-let, which fact shows how much honesty has been blended with the proceedings under consideration.

The Miner, however, remarks that Gen. Wheaton was present at the opening of the bids, and that, consequently, no injustice could have been practised. Gen. Wheaton, I am aware, was present, and believe the fact may account for the removal of the faighful [sic] Baker.

These are the facts stated calmly and dispassionately. I am represented as feeling sore-headed, yet my statement betrays less heat of brain than does that to which it is intended as a reply. I regret that above my signature any term so rude and meaningless as "hurling stinkpots at people" should appear. I leave this style of explanation with the gentleman who sets it forth; he perhaps is worthy to employ it; I am not.
 

P. Drachman⁶⁹

There are six contracts listed -- between Philip Drachman and the Government, and thirty-five contracts between Samuel H. Drachman and the Government as suppliers for transportation purposes. They seemed to do well at the beginning. Philip was awarded his first contract on May 30, 1870, to transport supplies from Fort Yuma to Camp McDowell; Samuel secured his first in November, 1870, to deliver flour to Camp McDowell.⁷⁰ Philip, according to the records, stopped as a supplier in 1879, while Samuel continued to 1884, when he found himself in difficulty. Three contracts were involved, all of them signed on May 15, 1884:

Contract A. To supply 900,000 pounds of machine-cut gama hay to Fort Huachuca, A. T. [Arizona Territory, at 61.8¢ per l00 pounds. The sureties for the $3,000 bond were Leo Goldschmidt and Emil Loewenstein.

Contract B. To supply 240,000 pounds of machine-cut straw to Fort Huachuca, A. T., at 60.9¢ per l00 pounds. The sureties for the $1,000 bond were Frederick L. Austin and Emil Loewenstein.

Contract C. To supply 150,000 pounds of straw or hay to Fort Bowie. A. T., at 64.44¢ per l00 pounds. The sureties for the $500 bond were Frederick L. Austin and Emil Loewenstein.

Samuel found himself in trouble with deliveries at Fort Huachuca, but only to a trifling degree at Fort Bowie. He explained his difficulties on August 30th, in two letters to the quartermaster at Fort Huachuca:

In response to your telegram, I address you regarding the contract existing between the government and myself for the delivery of hay and straw at Fort Huachuca. This season is one of unexampled drought and there has been a total failure in the growth of gamma [sic] grass. The truth of the statement is borne out by my personal observations in Pima and Cochise Counties, for I have made it my business to make a thorough search through said counties with a view of ascertaining whether by any possibilities I should be able to find grass in quantities sufficient to cut under my contracts. Not only have I examined for myself, but have made persistent inquiries from cattlemen and dealers in hay with the same result . . . .

. . . . There now remains but one question, when the government upon this showing and under these circumstances will not feel itself justified, in itself cancelling the contract, rather than take advantage of my misfortune by declaring a forfeiture on my part and involving myself and sureties in default.

I most certainly feel that the presidence [sic] heretofore established in the class of cases justify the action, which I suggest on the part of the government.

On July 13, 1885, the Chief Quartermaster of the Military Department of Arizona, Major A. J. McGonnigle, reported to the Quartermaster General of the U. S. Army Samuel Drachman's failure at Fort Huachuca as well as the minor defection at Fort Bowie. Drachman would supply hay for Fort Huachuca to the amount only of $103.98, which meant that the Quartermaster's Department would have to buy hay and straw in the open market to satisfy the fort's requirements. The average cost to the Government of hay so purchased was $1.44 per 100 pounds, instead of the contract price of 61.8¢ and 60.9¢, for hay and straw, respectively. Had Drachman been able to supply the required hay and straw to Fort Huachuca, the cost would have been $8,529.39, but now the cost would come instead to $19,980.77 -- a loss to the Government of $11,347.44, allowing for the $103.98 hay load delivered by Drachman. The situation at Fort Bowie was less serious. Drachman was unable to deliver the 150,000 pounds of hay contracted for, and Government purchases were made in the open market for $975, as compared to the contract price of $966.60. The loss amounted, therefore, to only $8.40.

The Government decided to sue Drachman and his sureties.

On October 9, 1885, Leo Goldschmidt had asked for himself and Emil Loewenstein release from their bond "in penalty of $3,000" on the ground of the prevailing drought in Southern Arizona and the absence of a provision in the contract (Contract A.) to supply any other kind of hay. On the following day, Frederick L. Austin, on behalf of himself and Emil Loewenstein, had made a similar request for release from their obligation under bond of $1,000 (Contract B.). Both requests were refused, but a compromise was reached in 1887, when Goldschmidt and Loewenstein were required to pay only the court costs of $186.95.

The other two cases dragged on until 1890, when, after much correspondence, the remaining two suits were settled for $200. Thus the Government lost $11,355.84, plus the total costs of litigation, minus $386.85 paid in settlement. Austin, in addition to five years of anxiety, suffered because for a time the Government withheld payments due him in connection with contracts of his own. ⁷¹

Following this experience, Samuel Drachman appears to have terminated his career as a contractor, for no record of any agreement of his is found after May 15, 1884.

next Lost in the Desert

Contents | Arizona Jalapeños | Philip Drachman | Samuel Drachman | Government Contracting | Lost In The Desert