The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-03-23

L
other returns made TO the Secretary, or by compa-
rison with The quarterly returns made TO The Audi
tor.
Question g. In your first answer TO my inierroga-
| tory, you say Mr. Swarwout's own accounts, up TO
| March %, 1888, rendered TO the Treasury De-
partmeni, required no new debit 10 include against
him all moneys for which he was In fact indso'edio
the United States. either as tonnage duties. for
fe,lures,p Treasury warrants" ONCE expenses"
| or cash to be refunded 10 merchants.
Inyour second answer, you say thai, notwilhsland-
/ ing his whole Indebtedness thus made 10 appear In
his quarterly accounts, he failed 10 render an ac
count of said items as cash In bis weekly returns 10
the Secretary Of the Treasury, and thus kept their
amount out Of the view OF the Secretary as cash on
/ hand.
Will you now state, II the Secretary OF the Trea-
sury be the accounting officer OF the Treasury 10
adjust and settle collectors quarterly accounts, how
did any such deception by Swartwout, as you have
described made In his weekly cash returns 10 the
Secretary, enable him 10 become a delauer tor said
items with The accounting officers, inaSmuch as the
amount of said items appeared In his quarterly ac-
counts that were returned TO such accounting Off
ceTs2
| Answer. The failure to return the true amount Of
money received by the collector to the Secretary Of
the Treasury 10 The weekly returns, does not affect
The settlement 0f the quarterly accounts The quarterly
accounts may exhibit The true state Of his accounts
up 10 the end of the quarter, notwithstanding has
Heeky returns madet0 The Secretary may false And
II the weekly returns made were false, and did not
contain true account OF the moneys he had actually
count at the close of the quarter
II is, then, in every way established, that 10 the
neglect of the accounting officers OF the Treasury
Department, equally asto SwartwouIs OVID iD6deliy,
The loss Of the public money, by swartwouls defalca-
tons, has occurred
The following examinations will still further elu-
cidate this position:
Mr.. Fleming examined By Mr.. Hi@.
Question 81 Were not vouchers for all debts and
credits returned with weekly and quarterly accounts;
pnha No Mr. Ssror linda oInA-S .f
time be ascerlained each lem of forfeiiures,"
&c, from theml
Answer Vouchers for all debts and for all credits
where vouchers were proper, were always returned
with the quarterly accounts; and Mr.. Swartwouts
Indebtedness at any time upon each item OF forfeit
ures," &c. could have been ascerlained from them.
Mr.. Fleming examined By Mr. Smith.
Question 81. II an examination had been made at
the Treasury Department Of the collectors quarterly
returns and the accompanying alphabetically marked
explanatory abstracts and vouchers would II not have
been easily determined whether any OF the cash items
credited IN such returns constituted component part
the item of cash retained part ofthe item of
suspended or unsettled accounts; and do or do not
the explanatory abstracts and vouchers that accom-
panied each of Mr. Swartwours quarterly returns
contain full and explicit information TO enable The
examining officers at the Treaiury Department to
determine into what general item Of the recapitula
tory explanation at the foot of each quarterly return
each particular item Of credit has been entered1
Answer. To the entire nterrogatory ! answer,
yes.
Question 100 Had the Treasury Department at
any time required information relative 10 the items
Of Mr. Swartwoul's (" unsettled and suspense ac-
counts as sci forth in his quarterly returns would
not the manner in which he had accounted for said
sum of ,29l ~ have appeared distinctly
Answer. think it would.
Question IS. Could the large Of $50, 100 3d.
described in your last answer retained by Swartwout
in 1886, have become defacalion, il the Treasury
Department had not lost sight of il la the examina-
tion OF his accounts inasmuch as you say in your
last answer that i was retained with the knowledge
of The TreasuryW
Answer. II could not.
But no call for explanation was ever made upon
Mr., Swarwont by any Of the accounting officers.
The subjoned testimony establishes this fact.
Mr.. Fleming examined By Mr.. Smith.
Question 80. WIS Mr. Swarwout at any time
within your knowledge, required by the Treasury
Department 10 explain or furnish a bill Of the items
upon which, FROM time TO time he reported his balan
ces due the Government under The general head OF
" amount Of unsettled and suspense accounts"
Answer. Mr. Swartwout was never, to my know
ledge, since July, 1886, when l became auditor re-
CURED to explain or furnish any such items,
Mr. Underwood eraminedby Mr.. Curtis.
Question II. Do you know that any call was at
any time made prior to your visit to New York in
November last either BY or under The direction Of
the Auditor of the Treasury or any other Treasury
officer, for an explanation from Mr.. SwartwouI OF
the nature Of the terms embraced under the designa
tonS of protests" deposites for unascertained du
ties, (" unsettled aud suspense accountsf If yea
state when and by whom such call made.
Answer. had heard that Mr.. Swarwout retained
large sum to meet the payment of duties under
protest !" but knew nothing Of any proceedings
instituted by any Treasury officer in relation TO said
"proests" "deposites for unascertained dulles, or
unsettled and suspense accounts" prior to my visit
to New York in November last.
George Wood, clerk in Comptrollers o6fce examined
on Mr.. Smith.
Question 5. Was any call, within your knowledge
ever made upon Mr.. Swarlwout, BY the First Comp
troler of the Treasury, to explain what items were
contained in his suspense account which has, from
time to time, made part Of the aggregate of his
quarterly accounl2 lfyea, state when such call was
made.
Answer. ! have no recollection of any such CALL
Jesse Miller, First Auditor, cramined By Mr.. Smith
Question 81. Was any call, within your know
ledge, made upon Mr.. Swartw out at any time, from
your Department, before the expiration OF his term
of Office, TO explain what items contained in his
suspense account as debed to himself uniformly in
his quarterly accounts Ifyea, when was such call
made
Answer. know of no such call prior to the time
alluded TO- but have understood that there some
investigation in relation TO these accounts at the time
Swartwours last nomination was before the Senate
In the settlement of his quarterly accounts after CIV
ing him credit for such payments as he produced
vouchers for and the bonds, the balance, believe,
has generally, il not always in the statement and
report, been designated as cash on hand
Question 80. Was the letter marked M, and dated
August l3, 1885, contained in House document b.
p. los, the only letter sent from your office calling
upon Mr.. Swartwout for rendition of his last quar-
ly accounts II nay, please copy of all that
preceded or succeeded said letter on the subject
Answer. believe il was II is the only one found
on record to him in relation to that account. When
stated in my answer TO some other nterrogatory,
that he had been repeatedly called on had refer
ence TO the calls from the Complrollers Office as well
as my own.
j. N, Barker, First Comptroller examined by Mr..
Smith.
Question 10 Was any call, within your knowledge,
made upon Mr.. Swartwont, al any time before The
expiration of his term of Office TO explain what