The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-02-02
DEBATE In THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.,
FmDAY, December 81, 1888.
SPEECH OF MIR. WISE,
." he subject Of the late defalcat,ons.
CONTINUED
DEBATE In THE

| "NEw YoRk, Aug. !, 1885.
SIR Mr. Reckless having transmitted to you the
ahdavts intended TO be defence against the charges
preferred by me, think it my duty to submit 10 you
aud through you TO the President some remarks upon
them IL is little singular that he should have been
upwards OF three months preparing his evidence, which,
on inspection Of the accounts submitted, and upon
which he relies for his exculpation he must if they are
correct and true, have had in his possession more than
year; and one would naturally ask why, with those
means OF defence, If such they are in his power he had
not been little more expeditions in endeavoring to
clear himself from the very serious charges against him
But these accounts are not true they have been pro-
cured, and made TO bear date in certain quarters for
| the purpose OF covering the amounts frauduently
charged IN the revenue boatmen's receipts for those
quarters Will mention one OF those cases. which can
be proved not to have been incurred in the first quar-
ter OF ls3i-tha Of J. +. She'll for stationery under
date oil 3lst March, 1884; assert that none Of the
articles IN that bill had been received in the coec
tors office prior to the 7h May, 1884 up TO that time
me stationery was purchased at New Brunswick. The
bill OF j. c. Smith, in the quarter for articles
which were not for the Office the bureaus for his
own private use, of them never in the Office but
was sent to his house in Monmouth county, and TO
his private lodgings in Amboy, and old put in
the office very recently One of the book is not
and never was in the office, and the chairs in that bill
are a: his private lodgings The gas lamp was not
needed for the office, because it never open the
evening, and never had be, | after dark | point out
these cases to YOU not because it can make any manner
oil difference IN deciding the merits OF the question, but
for the purpose Of showing that he has attempted
tain his frauds by false documents. contend that he
has no right to claim any credits in his accounts for
articles not chargeabe. He knew this from the fact
that the same items now produced for the second and
third quarters OF 1888 had been charged before in his
accounts Tor those quarters, and had been rejected by
the Comptroller and he then informed that they
were nadmissble In consequence Of this information,
he determined to charge ITO the United States sum
he mo than he
pald) IN the revenue boatmens accounts and fraudu
lently obtained from them their receipts to it
The testimony OF his proves this, and fully susains
that of Mr. Brnley, on this point 1t cannot be posi-
BILE that either you the President will permit him to
do indirectly, and under cover of false vouchers what
the law and the usages of the Department will not per-
init TO be done openly and directly. That charge is
folly and completely sustained in all its parts, and no
comments Of mine it make more plain aud palpabe
as premedtatcd fraud
"The charge of not crediting the Government with
the money received in july 1888, in the OF the
Pacific, is also fully sustained, well by the evidence
Of Mr. Briney Mr. Maurice, Mr.. Parker, as by the
ceipt of Messrs. Secor The receipt proves that when
he received the money he knew the amount Of charges
TO be deducted from the sum received he then knew
the amount then legally chargeabc against the money
received and his fraudulently obtaining from Mr. Mau
rice receipt dated 30th December 1884, only goes
fully establish his whole conduct to be dsho-
nest will make remark upon one of the receipts
he produces in this case, but specified his receipt
to Messrs Secor-that of c. d. Wall, ESQ, the Unit
ed States District Attorney for New Jersey for pro-
fesslonal advice IN this case; apprehend that Mr..
Wall had legal claim against the colec the Co.
yernment for adrice in this case; he had salary from
the United States for the express purpose of paving
him for ddrcc TO the public officers in his State and he
cannot, legally make charge while receiving salary,
except IN where costs suits instituted
defended 1t is little singular that Mr. Wall appeared
for ham has counsel tho examination of the wit
thnI
States.
"You will observe the sweeping manner in which
young Reckless swears, He says that all the articles
furnished, as well from April, 1888, to May, 1884,
all others since that time, for the OF the colec
tors office and necessary How can he know
this, when he also swears that he into the Office
only in May, 1884 He could kao,o that the arti-
Giles were furnished for the of the office,
needed; and the rule OF law, as well Of common
sense, is that man who will swear to wha, he cannot
know, ought to be received witness very cautiously
as to any thing he may say will forciby apply to him
You will also observe, that on his oss-eaannaon he
unqualfedy said that of the bills he then produced,
and which he referred to in his direct examination, had
been ever charged III any against the United
States. Knowing / did, the absolute falsehood OF
the statement, (because had copies Of the accounts
for the second and third quarters Of 1882 informed
him he incorrect, and should prove so. He then,
at the suggestion of his fathers counsel qualified the
statement by saying he did not knoao of their having
ed him, his affidavit would have gone forth with pal
pable falsehood on its face
"Mr Parker in his letter to you, under date Of the
2Sth utmo which have seen, SO fully analysed and
destroyed the whole of Mr.. Reckless defence, that
will not add thing further on the subject The affidavit
Of MI Lyon is unlmportant if 1t proves any thing, 1t
only goes to show that Mr. Reckless had forgot
that he had received the money from Secor but at the
time Reckless made the inquiry Of Mr. Lyon, he was,
no doubt, aware that he would be charged with the
fraudulent omission to credit the amount received
as understand that the fact OF withholding it had been
previously mentioned by Mr., Parker to than one
person by whom it would most probably be commune
Gated to Mr. Reckless, and particularly to Mr.. Wall,
who his counsel at the taking OF evidence in
Amboy.
OF the President. cannot permit myself for one mo.
ment to think that he will retain in office man prored
dishonest permit him TO obtain, by false and iaudu-
lent vouchers and by ENLIGHTENMENT, money he is NOT
and cannot be permitted to receive by an open and d.
rect course.
al shall be glad to hear from you soon as this case
is decided upon
al am, sir with respect, your humble servant,
"WM. VAN HOOK.
1.-THE Hon. LEVI WOODBURY.,
Secretary Of the Treasury, Washington"
September l6, 1895, Reckless wrote letter to Mr..
Woodbury. in reply to the last letters Of Parker and
Van Hook. of which the Secretary had notified him,
closing an affidavit of John Arnold, dated 18th Septem
Der 1885 in relation to desk and small lamp in his
office, which he proves had always been there, &c
Such sir, were the charges and proofs in thsNase,
pretended abstract Of them was made out inthe Urea
sury Department What do you suppose was the dec
sion of the President in the On the abstract he
endorsed this Judgment
"First chargc.-Disproved
Second ehargc-Mr Briaiey, acknowledges, on
oath that The manner of Reekiesss accounts 'eere made
agreeaby to tho usage of the office before he came IN
to it,
+" Third chargc-Disproved II was irregular to
charge incidental expenses in boatmens accounts but
no proof of corruption that any was charged but
what had been dsbursed
Sir how could such decision be made in such
case Mr. Parker aud Mr. Van Hook told the commit
/ TOO hoo :