The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-03-18

10ent 70 Indiana, ne and Senator Pratt
had sent IN the name of Gen. Veatch
for nomination with the understanding
tnat was to have time to make my
defense to the charges preferred
against me; but that the Commission
er then said that nothing ] could do
would prevent my removal, and that
he would take my papers, and ifithey
bore him out would write letter to
the Associated Press vindicatibg ny
integrity.
The Washington correspondent of
the Cincinnati GGzstte, states, IN a
communication to that paper, that
''the removal of Colonel Lewis, as
Collector of Internal Revenue of the
First District of Indiana, does not In
any way involve his integrity. =
was for a violation of the law, which
seems to have been the practice of
his predecessor for the convenience
of those who had tax to pay, but
from which it is not known that any
loss has ever resulted. The Depart
ment, however, determined TO break
mp the practice by the removal of Col.
Lewis.
After having perused the foregoing
statement [ have no doubt but that
the reader will agree with me in T :
nouncing the proceedings not only
summary, but very extraordinary /;
but when / inform them that in a
letter to the Commissioner dated jan
uary 18th, 1870, / informed the De-
partment myself, that1 had been fol-
lowing the practice Of my predeces-
sor substantially as set forth above,
stating that it was great convenience
TO the distillers, and that if it was not
disapproved Of | would willingly as
sumo the responsibility, but that if it
(the practice,) violated a principal
that would work injury to the service l
woald cheerfully carry out the letter
and spirit of the instructions as | un-
derstood them, or as the Commission
er might see proper to explain
them" and that to this letter the
Commissioner replied on the 223 of
January as follows: In reply l have
/ to say that in no case has the practice
reported by you been authorized, and
In every instance it has been required
that the tax paid stamps and the en-
tries for withdrawal shall be filled out
in the Office of the Collector signed,
very respectfully, etc." they will be
ready to characterize it in much
stronger terms. The following queries
will naturally sugge9 themselves
Why was the practice per nitted under
my predecessor? Why did not the
Commissioner In his reply to my letter
of the 18th, reporting my practice,
instead of mildly replying that the
practice was not authorized" say
at once that for this irregularity ?
you shall be made a public example
of, in order that the practice shall be
broken up2 Why did be determine
to break up" the practice when re.
ported BY Mr.. Williams, when he and
/ Mr.. Williams both knew that on
receipt of the Commissioner re-
| ply to. my letter the practice was
promptly discontinued? If not
promptly Febnked and removed when
reporting the vlolatlOd myself
why so summarily and so unceremo'
niously removed when reported bJ
Supervisor Williams2 These queries
cannot be satisfactorily answered, bu
the inference is clesr that some othel
influences have been brought to bea
upon the Commissioner, other thar
those exeTted by the charges mad
against me in the Supervisor ; a0rttte1
report. What the character of thest
influences were, or by whom exerted
1 know not; but an intelligent public
will not be long in giving the prope
credit where it belongs.
Respectfully.
ANDREW LEWIS.
March 10Th.