Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-06-14

of their trips weekly, as to prevent their taking
in fill load Of passengers on those trips; by
which it would seem that the department, after
paving for the transportation Of the mail on this
route, something more than 10000 dollars, was
also held bound to pay the contractor extra for
whatever expense and inconvenience the trans
portation of the mail might occasion him. Or
rather to give the transaction its true charac-
ter, this ten thousand dollars year was GIFT
out of the funds of the department. to these con-
tractors; and there are some further clrcum-
stances attending it, which, on the most careful
inquiry by your committee, are not satisfactOri
ly explained.
The evidence shows that Rreeside & Stay
maker represent two companies, which share
equally in the profit and loss on this line. The
money accruing for transportation, is received
by Reside & Slaymaker, moity each, and
distributed by them to their respective compa-
MES. This extra allowance OF ten thousand
dollars was received by them on the 5th OF May,
1888, and no part of it has been paid over by
either of them to their partners, or entered upon
any account book Of the companies Reeslde,
on his examination, stated, that they had kept
this back to pay some old debts OF the compa-
MES which they supposed had been provided
for. but which wereu nexpectedly found to ex-
coed the sum appropriated for their payment;
but being specially Intercepted, he stated that
this unexpected deficit did not exceed 1--we thous-
and dollars in the whole, and that 1t was not
discovered to exist until about three months al
ter the first ten thousand dollars OF this extra
allowance was received by him and Slaymaker
the whole amount so received and so retained
by them, on this account, appears to have been
sixteen thousand, six hundred and sixty SIX dol
lars sixty-siX and two third cents. The allowance
of this money and its application are alike re-
markable. There were also certain peCunlary
transactions of private nature between these
contractors and some of the officers OF the de-
rtn w uD0pr the QOtlcR
committee, which, in their opinion, merit con-
sideraton.
Some time in the year 1882 o. B. Brown ap-
piled to Slaymaker for a small loan OF money,
(S300) which Slaymaker accordingly lent him,
but took no note, and made no memorandum OF
the transaction, qrlich took place IN the presence
of no one but themselves. At another time Mr.
Brown asked Slaymaker if he could lend him
three thousand dollars, at the usual rate of in
tereSt. This also was promised, and some time
after, about the first of January, 1888, Mr.
Brown renewed his request, and said he had
made purchase of the property of Doctor
Temple, on the faith on the promised loan. The
witness stated before the committee, that at
that time he had not the required sum OF mo-
ney at command, but undertook to raise it, and
accordingly did raise it by means Of drafts.
These drafts were two in number, for fifteen
hundred dollars each, drawn by Samuel R. Stay
maker on O. B. Brown, and endorsed by James
Reside, and payable at ninety days date
They were negotiated at the Western Bank in
Philadelphia, and sent to the Patriotic Bank in
Washington city, for collection. They were
paid at maturity by the proceeds Of draft
drawn by James Reside on 0. B. Brown, for
three thousand dollars, at ninety days. This
draft was suffered to pass day or two beyond
its maturity, without payment, but on the 18th
of July, it was paid out of the proceeds OF a
draft drawn by Samuel r. Slaymaker, on James
Reside, for two thousand dollars in cash paid
by Slaymaker, and O. 3. Brown, at the same
time, drew on Reside for two thousand dol
lars, which drafts were sent to tile Bank of Ma
ryland for collection. 1t appears that neither
Reside nor Slaymaker made any charge or
kept any memoranda of these transactions;
that they have no note or acknowledgment of
Brown showing his liability to them, unless it
be the drafts which were taken up, which Stay
maker says he thinks he preserved, but of which
he does not profess to be certain He never
theless denies absolutely, that it was intended
as douceur or gratuity to Brown. Reside
states that Brown paid him one thousand dol
lars in part of this loan But this transaction
is the more remarkable when taken in conneX-
ion with another, testified to by Edwin Porter,
which will be found in another part of this re-
port. In that case, Brown was shortly before
and shortly after this transaction, the lender Of
very large sums Of money to Porter on inter-
est.
1t appears that in the spring or summer Of
1881, MIR. Barry applied to Reside, in Phadel-
phia, to assist him in negotiating an acceptance
for $1,000, to raise some money for his (Mr.
Barry's) individual use. Instead of doing this,
Reside advanced him the 81 900; and he stat
ed before the committee that Mr.. Barry paid it
by his acceptance at short date, which he
(Reeside,) negotiated in the Schuylkill Bank.
On inquiry Of the cashier of the Schuylklll Bank,
we find that no such acceptance was negotiated
there. Your committee having colIated the evil
dence touching these transactions, leave them
without comment
In some of the contracts above examined, and
many other that passed under the notice of your
committee, very heavy sums of money have
been paid by the department. for the establish
ment OF second, and sometimes third, daily
line on the same route.
When the contracts for regular daily mail
have been advertised and let out pursuant to
law, your committee can look upon these ex-
penditures in no other light than that of enor-
nous waste of the public funds. Take for ex-
ample, the case of the contract from Philadel-
phia to Pittsburgh, and from Pittsburgh to Wash