The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1871-07-05
S43O,74s

XII AtN III "oA II
Second payment in full, ii years
after the war 227,17e
Third payment IN full on said
claim IS years after the close of
the war 61S,362
Total s1,SS6,2s6
Total amount of original claim S45, 346
The Government paidmore than
original claim 4s0, $40
That is, Massachusetts was paid over
four hundred thousand dollars more
than her original claim, and nine
hundred thousand dollars more than
was due
1t is only just that 1 should say,
citizens, that these fraudulent claims
were denounced in both branches of
Congress by Republicans rs well as by
Democrats, but the stubborn fact must
also be stated that there was n Re
publican majority of two thirds in
both branches of Congress.
DEFALCATIoN OF TWENTY MILLIONS
IN ONE DEPARTMENT.
The defaulters and their allies seek
to divert the attention of the people
from the condition of the treasury by
crying Ku-Klux, but the cheat is too
shallow to deceive any one, even were
he blind.
The Secretary Of the Treasury con-
cealed from Congress and the people
the fact that balances amounting to
many millions stood charged against
Collectors of Internal Revenue who
had been removed from office. The
House of Representatives, alarmed at
this concealment, called for the facts
one the 21st day Of March, 1870, and
executive documents 267, I'd session,
41st Congress, which I hold in my
hand, vas the result. During the
canvass Of last year, | called attention
to this matter and denounced the at,
tempt to any defalcation rs a
grave offense against the people. To
avoid odium, Mr.. Senator Sherman
and othor distinguished persons leagued
in defense OF the abuses which every
one knows exist, declared that the
defaulting collectors were Democrats
who had been appointed by President
Johnson. This fimsy defense was a
confession ofgnilt. What greater alb
surdity could be uttered than to say
that a Republican Secretary Of the
Treasury concealed ~defalcations, and
because the defaulters were Democrats;
and that for the same reason the de-
faulters we're not sued on their bonds ?
To you, my fellow-citizens, what
odds does it make whether the thief
who steals our taxes is q Republican
or q Democrat? The fact hat he be
one or the other is no defense for q
robbery, and be he the one or the
other, he should at least, be sued on
his bond The learned Senator is
remarkable for his skill, but in this
case the dodge did not do him justice.
To test the matter, on the 18th of
December, 1870, the following reso-
luton was offered and passed the
the House:
ResolUed, That the Secretary of the
Treasury be and is hereby directed to
furnish this House a statement of the
balances due from collectors of internal
revenue who are not 10Y in Office, and
the total amount of balances 80 due
as they appear on the books of the
accounting officers of his department
On the 30th day of June, 1870, and
that he further inform this House what
amount of said balances have been
paid, and in detail, by whom since the
second day of May, 1870; the names
of the collectors sued on their bonds
since their removal from office, with
the cause of removal in each case by
what President said collectors we're
appointed, and by what President they
were removed.
Notice, taxpayers! This resolution
passed the House on the 18th of Dec.
December passed, and there came no
answer ; January, 1871, came. and
went, and no answer. On the last
day of that month Mr.. Winchester, of
Kentucky, again offered the resolution
ofDeccmber 18th. with the following
additional clause:
Be it Resolved, That the Secretary
of the Treasury be directed to report to
this House the cause of his non-com-
p~liance with said resolution.
Mr.. JUDD-I object.
The Secretary of the Treasury had
failed to comply With the House reso-
luton, and when called upon for the
reason of his noncompliance, Mr..
Judd, a leader of the Administration
party in the House, by his objection,
prevented the resolution from coming
up for action. The Secretary of the
Treasury, still refusing to reply, on
the 18th of last February, / brought
the matter to the attention of the House
and after referring to the question
rropounded by the House, I said:
"These, sir, are vital queries. 1t is
due to the country. and it is due tc
the persons charged with large balan,
ces against them on the books of the
Treasury, that the facts should be fully
and fairly made known. Strange to
say, more thar two months have gone
by since the passage of that resolution,
and the Secretary of the Treasury
has not yet deigned to reply. Why
!, were these three hundred collectors
removed? IF the balances are still
unpaid, why have not the collectors
t been sued on their bond?
"Mr. Speaker, 1 would do no one
injustice; but L believe that this Gov.
eminent is rotting out at the very core,
and hence 1 perform this unpleasant
duty, in the hope that the Secretary
t of the Treasury will fairly and most
t explicitly report to the House the fact:
sought for by these resolutions. Sir.
this is not the only instance in which
the Secretary of the Treasury ha:
failed to answer resolutions of inquiry,
/ 1t is systematic both in the House and
t at the Treasury to conceal important
facts from the country. These wrong: