Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1835-02-02
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

On1ce department again d'u aCIS anu c'eh Soii
mands public attention. The abstract ofthe Re-
port of the Majority of the Senate's Committee
and the debate in the Senate, already published
in the Gazette, show some of the facts Of the
case, and the state OF feeling in one branch of
the legislative body consequent thereon. We
have, in the Globe an abstract of the report Of
the minority of the Senate's Committee, which,
though we cannot say it ''nothing extenuates,"
yet, certainly, "sets down naught in malice."-
This, in order to show both sides of the ques-
ton, We shall publish Immediately.
In the meantime We feel constrained, and we
we do it with regret to refer to the situation in
which the recent examination of the affairs Of
the Post Office Department has placed the Chief
Clerk Of that Department. We had hoped that
the rumors and insinuations which have lately
been afloat, with regard to that officer, would
have been eftectuay contradicted and silenced.
Our readers will recolect the statements of the
majority of the Committee. We looked to the
abstract Of the Minority's report, furnished in
the Globe, for excuse, explanation, or, perhaps,
denial. Instead Of these, we found the follow
| ing-defence, we were about to say-but, in
truth, the minority do not advance it as such -
| The conneXion or interest which Mr.. o. b.
! Brown, the late Superintendent of Mail Con
| tracts NAV have had in mail contracts, has been
! Investigated. and il appears, that in January,
| 1882 he advanced $500 dollars to Mr.. Edwin
| Porter for an interest in the Orleans and Mobile
route, reserving the right afterwards to elect,
whether it should be considered as money loan
ed or advanced for an interest in the route
! Mr. Brown stated, when he advanced the mo-
ney, that it was the money of DR.. Jackson, his
step-son, and Mr.. Brown states in his testimony,
| that the election reserved, was 20 be exercised
| by him. and the whole transaction for his benefit.
! 1t also appears from the testimony Of Mr.. Por-
! ter that MIR. Brown afterwards advanced 4, 800
dollars, which he said belonged to DR.. JackSon's
estate, for an interest in the route from Freder-
icksburg to the Natural Bridge, in Virginia: that
at the end of the first year after this money was
| advanced, Mr.. Brown suggested, that he had
concluded it was wrong for him, in any way, TO
! be concerned in mail contracts, and therefore,
The would consider the money first advanced as
loan and Mr.. Porter paid him 1000 dollars
| for the interest in last named contract and the
use or interest OF the money for one year, and
Mr.. Porter gave his note for the $500 dollars,
dated back at the time when the money was adj
vanced, and gave his note for the 1900 dollars,
| taking no account Of the one years interest.
Mr.. Brown admits the advances of the money,
but says it was entirely for the benefit Of Doc
tor Jackson, and after his death for the benefit
Of his heirs, that these transactions took place,
and that the 1000 dollars paid to him by Porter
was gratuity for the benefit of Doctor Jack
sons heirs, and has been so applied by him.
| The committee are Of opinion that all such
transactions, whether for the benefit of the in
dividual himself or others, are wholly improper
and inadmssabe, and their repetition cannot
be too rgidly guarded against, and Mr. Brown
| himself appears to have come to the same con
! clusion from his testimony.
| In the account Of James Reside, he appear.
ed to be credited with the sum of $40, 900, on &C
count of a draft drawn by him on the Depart
ment, and accepted by it, for the purpose OF
raising money for its use There was no cor
responding charge against him in the account
furnished. In the investigation of this subject,
! Mr.. Brown, uuintentionaly no doubt, stated in
| his testimony, that the draft was for six months
and that the time had not arrived when the &C
count was made out, when the charge could be
properly made against Reside, the draft not
having been paid by the Department He af
forwards voluntarily corrected his error, and
produced the original draft, which was payable
! at three months instead of six, and stated that
! there were two drafts of the same date, and for
the same amount, each-one drawn by Reside
and endorsed by Stockton, and one drawn by
Stockton and endorsed by Reeside-and that
in making the original memorandum from which
the entries were made in the books, he had made
/
had stated Stockton's as Of mos. instead of
Resides, and that the 100000 was charged to
Stockton instead Of Reside; and that he had
caused the books of the Department to be cor
rected on the Gay Of giving his testimony. The
committee think that the error was unintenton-
al; yet, while a subject Of that kind is under in
vestigation by committee of Congress, no
change or alteration should be made in the
books; and explanations, showing the errors,
and how they should be corrected, ought alone
TO be relied on.
We repeat, that We are really sorry to see
such an exposition made, and the explanation
amount to so "lame and impotenta conclusion"
In connexion with this subject Of the Post Of
flee Department, we subjon an abstract of the
details Of the Bill reported by the Senates Com
mittee, for the future government and regula-
ton of the Department.
Substance Of the Bill to change The organisation
Of the General Post Office reported by the
Committee Of the Senate on Post Offices and
Post Roads.
ltprovides for the appointment, by the Presi.
dent, with the advice and consent of the Senate