The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-03-13
PART u.
THE DEFALCATIONS OF WILLIAM M.
PRICE Hf.

!.
THE DEFALCATIoNs OF WILLIAM M
PRICE
The extent Of the defalcstions Of Mr. Price as dis
trct attorney 10 found 10 the testimony Of F. Butler
ESQ., his successor in Office TO be 72l24 06; subject
however, in all probability Offsets for the legal
services not yet rendered in the charges Of Mr. Price
The subjoined extract from the Testimony of Mr.
Butler presents the results Of his examination into
the subject. The committee is unable to comprehend
however, the praccabilty of any concealmenl by any
district Attorney respecting suits commenced, or suits
discontinued by payment otherwise from the know
ledge OF The Solicitor Of the Treasury, for any period
much exceeding the vacation between Of the dis
ct and circuit courts in any State, provided clerks Of
courts marshals and collectors, properly held up
discharge Of their respective duties by the Solicitor,
and provided due diligence is used in the Solicitors
Office in comparing the periodical and frequent returns
TO him required by law Of these several officers II is
unnecessary 10 recapi,ulae here the requirements Of
the law in these particulars and the duties Of the So
licor arising thererom, they will be understood in
the sequel.
Mr. Price untrue but all the returns required BY law
10 be made were not made and this fact must have
been detected in each at the Solicitors Office "
the comparison expressly required by law, of returns
made there, had been made with proper care. For
instance the case Of the United States Bancker,
paIticulsrzed by Mr. Butler must have been originally
and for many terms, certified by the clerk Of the
TO the Solicitor as a suit pending. When ceased TO
DO pending il ceased TO be certified, Of course and
then due diligence the part Of the Solicitor could
have detected the fact, and held the attorney mme
diately accountable.
The discharge of Tresdwell in 1895, on which Mr..
Price received $4,000, was made terms prescribed
by the Treasury Department; and it is presumed that
il must OF course, have been conducted through the
Solicitors Office, such is the requirement of law Is
it possible due diligence the part Of tho Solicitor
would have lost sight of order upon which it had
specially directed the receipt Of large sum,
though the attorney had neglected to report upon i'll
The same remarks equally applicable to each Of
the other cases. wherein Mr.. Price defaulter, and
wherein he omitted to make report TO the Solicitor.
II will be observed that Mr. Butler says, i, appears
that in January and February 1887 Mr. Price received
$9,646-O7, and in May, 1887; $6,05l IL, on CUSTOM
house bonds no part Of which has ever been paid.
The Solicitor OF the Treasury in his testimony says
The clerk Of the district court during the year 1897
reported two hundred and forty one bonds put in SUIT
by the district attorney. On comparison Of these re-
ports with the returns Of the district attorney Of bonds
put in suit so as 10 ascertain the legal proceedings it
appeared that judgment had been entered on all but
ltytwo bonds Of these, forty -four came within the
provisions Of the second section Of the Of 10Th
March, 1886, for the relief of the sufferers by fire. and
the suits thereon were accordingly discontinued OF the
remaining eight seven bonds are reported as put in
suit on the 25,h January, 1887, and one on the 9Th
April 1887 On these Fights bonds, the clerk does not
report that Judgments recovered by the district at
!orney, who, therefore, remains charged with them"
Now If the money received by Mr. Price in January,
February, and May, Of 1887, received on any Of
these last named eight suits, las, probably, it have
been, inasmuch the Solicitor says in his testimony
oil the bonds reported by the collector transferred to
the district attorney had been reported and account
ed for by the laer) is difficult to attribute the escape
Of Mr. Prices dealcatons for these to any thing but
negligence the part of the Solicitor of the Treasury
The suits having been reported as pending cer-
hed by the clerk Of the court must have been reported
pending certified in like manner, at each successive
term Of the court omitted altogether, because set
tied or otherwise, in the attorneys report The law
requires each report include suits pending as well as
suits concluded Ifthey reported as concluded,
vigilance by the Solicitor would have detected the fact
and held the attorney responsible for them at the return
day Of the execution not reported pending or
cluded, vigilance would equally have detected the
fact and sought an explanation. His defalcation on
these eight suits, and the Of information concern
ing them at the Solicitors Office are attributable there
fore, to negligent administration of the duties Of that
Office, the opinion Of the committee, and find no apo
logy in any defect OF existing laws.
Extract from, the testimony Of B. r Builder, Esq.
Having had no knowledge or information Of Mr.
Prices conduct as receiver Of public moneys, until
since his departure from the city in December last am
not able state the which led to his defacaon
nor have formed any decided opinion on that subject
but have become acquainted, since have been in
office, with some circumstances which appear to have
enabled him to receive and retain public moneys, with
out DclDg HaOe 10 ne calleu 10 prompt settlement
therefor, and which regard among the that
led to his defacaton. FIRST and principally, by the
circular Of the Solicitor Of the Treasury dated July ~
1880, district attorneys instructed, whenever any
obgor Of custom house bond shall desire to discharge
part, the whole, OF his debt previous to judgment, to
request him TO pay the money to the collector who de-
vered the bond for suit, taking from him and handing
over TO the district attorney proper receipts therefore but
~ instead Of paying the money the collector,
quested the obgor makes tender Of the whole
due the Government the district attorney, he is to
receive the same, and forthwith depose in bank
to the credit Of the collector who delivered the bond for
suit or If there be bank near in which Cove
deposes are made to pay the amount to such collector
Pursuant to these instructions understand that Mr.
Hamilton, the predecessor in office Of Mr. Price always
referred persons applying pay bonds received from
the collector Of this port to the collectors Office and
that Mr. Price generally pursued the same course until
time in the year 1887 II appears from his regis
ters that in the winter Of lS3637, he received nav.
ment in several instances bonds in suit in iudp-
men; and that, in the spring summer Of 1897 the
practice Of receiving payment at his Office custom
house bonds delivered to him for collection became
settled one. In this way public moneys, to a large
amount, were brought into his hands, and he was
posed to temptations, and they hazards, which would
not have existed had the former usage been kept up
especially as neither the collector the officers OF the
treasury Department could generally know, except
from Mr.. Prices reports what payments we're
made to him on this account More than two thirds of
the sum for which he is IN default consists Of moneys
received in this way This practice also enabled him 10
retain moneys in his hands for considerable time be-