The Portland daily press., 1871-01-20

=
frankness, minnteness aud candor, and all |
the main points of his testimony harmo-
nize with his published account of his con-
nection with these transactions and with |
such other evidence as we have collected.
The only considerable discrepancy, that |
occurs to us, is in that Mr.. Pike states that
these men were enlisted in the District of
Columbia, and bases his claim to obtain the
credit of them for towns in Maine in part
upon the fact that they could not be credit
ed to any other State, whereas it appears
from the data Obtained from the Navy De-
partment that only 81 of these men were
being enlisted in philadelphia, Chicago,
Boston and other cities. Our abstract
shows only 1874 of these men disposed of
by Messrs. Pike 6 Colby, their agents and
ass'gnees. 1t is not likely however that the
number was less than 400, as Mr.. Pike
would have no disposition to exaggerate
the number. The rest of them must have
been sold to some other towns, whose off,
GERS we have not been able to put ourselves
in communication with, or who, being con-
tent with having them count on their QUO
tas, made no claim for disbursement to the
Equalization Commissioners, aud so no
clue is furnished as to their disposition.
GRAND TOTAL.
Surprising the list sent to the Adiutant
General by John T. Hall to have contained
GOO names, and the list managed by Pike
& Colby to have contained 400 names. and
adding the PSI list, we have a pretty
definite record of 1851 names; but besides
this. there was the list of Marine Corps
men, brought to Auguta by one Higgins
and sold to G. P. Cochrape in January,
1865, and out of which Cochrane previous
20 hioc hod al cho
towns. The rest. numbering about ITO,
were left in the Adjutant Generals office,
and the sale and distribution of them was
managed by parties unknown. That is to
say, we conclude they were sold, because
there was special order of the Provost
Marshal General to assign them upon the
quotas of towns, and IN the eagerness of
towns at that time to procure men they
would not be likely TO remain in the
market. Then there was still an
other list of 200 names in possess
sion of Delany at the time of
his arrest, which he says were disposed of
by Major Littler anda percentage upon the
sale OF which amounting to 1904 was paid
to him. Delany names among the towns
to which this lot was disposed of, Noble
boro, Waltham and Mariavlle, and we
lind that the town of NObleboro made
Ia
not named, which it is presumed were &C :
quired in this way. These together make
an aggregate of 1880 names after deduct
Ing the u! said to have been gratuitously
distributed by the Governor from the
''General Credits" for which the towns
| must have paid to private persons not les )
than half million dollars.
| THE SOURCE OF THE FRAUD.
| We shall not have fully discharged our
duty, unless we indicate in some general
way the conclusions we have unavOidably
arrived at, as to the persons upon whom
the responsibility for these unauthorized
credits rests. When the Provost Marshal
General III his letter of July 8, 1864, ap-
pointing Governor Cony and Major Gardi.
ner to the naval Commission, instructed
them that lin determining the credits the
State of Maine and different sub divisions
OF it were entitled to, the Secretary thinks
1t will be fair to assume that the State in
which Naval enlistments have been made
is entitled to credit for the enlstments
unless it shall appear by more direct evi
dence that the credits belong elsewhere
he seems to us to have transcribed the re-
quirements of law. The terms and intend
ment OF the act were to throw the burden
OF proving residence upon the towns
the effect of the instruction was
to assume tle residence to be al
Inc place of enlistment and throw the
burden OF disproving it upon the town
making an adverse claim. The instruction
from the same officer to Governor Cony
and Major Ii tier of Dec. 10, 1864, authoriz
ing the crediling of the 25l naval recruits
is OF the same force, and refers to the fore.
going instruction. The mere private en-.
dorsement upon the Marin. Corps list In
the hands'oI Messrs. Pike & Colby, author
lzlng credit of the names it contained
to districts and sub-districts of Maine, and
the similar instructions authorizing line
credit OF about 200 names upon list held
Dy u. +. COchrane to districts and sub.dis.
tricts in the State of -, does not seem
to us to have had the slightest prelext OF
law or propriety to vindicate ii. OF the
nrst list, the proof shows that only two
thirds Of the names thereon were genuine
and there Is no proof that any of the names
| upon the last list were genuine. There
was no safeguard against an indefinite
| supply of names, or against the same
names being sold and credited indefinitely
to any number of States. As to how these
orders were procured, we do not deem
the proof we have collected sufficient
| IN Quantity and quality TO express, official.
| ~, an opinion. That high officer actedout.
side OF oar jurisdiction if not of our criti-
cism and his conduct is a matter more fiji
| LOT congressional than State Legislative
investigation.
The testimony gives many details which
the report passes over without special re.
mark. 1t is evident however from the
language ofthe commissioners that the in
vestigation in their opinion, leads at every
point, directly to the Provost Mar
shall Generals Office in Washington
Delany, one of the witnesses, testfies ex
plicitly that he drew $1,000 from the bank
| and sent that sum to General James B
Frye by confidential messenger, as con.
sderatiOn for the order autholiz ling the
names on his list to be credited. He saws
also that he believes this sum was received
by General Frye, and that at one time, he
had receipt. signed by that officer, for the
amount. His partner, DR.. Yates, says
this sum was charged among the expendi
lures of the firm, and that he paid his part
of it ON settlement. The commissioners
do not appear to have attached full Gre
dence to the statement of these witnesses,
but there is good foundation here for a
Congressional enquiry, which seems the
more necessary, as the commissioners
were unable to get any satisfaction from
ashingtoa-possibly because the clerks
who were cognizant of those transactions
six years ago are still in office; possibly,
because the records have been purposely
mutilated.