New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-01-09


specification It stands In the vibrant in this ease
Mayor CO seems TO me to be q sufficient lnitatOn
GROSS ABUSES OF POWER BY AGENTS
"oma you deem It proper that the personal CORES
poue"cc OF tho members OF the flrm should DC S'an'
taken possession Off A. should not.
W "oul" you not consider that gross abuse OF inc
power conveyed A. should, most certainly.
u "ouu you consider that there was any possible
nc r3f bursting open safe by detectives without
e. h o'utr from he COURT A. would say that II
na9 Oo@n 'atey decided in In Boston when war
called "n nsatd for books and papers 10 marshal WHO
iuSgd 10 90 H. and the marshal then sent for lock
n"Wef VINO opened it, tho court ruled that he had that
% iIa, was whore the books specified in the warrant
o. WIe ~ u TO nave been In the safe A. Yes: 49,
-, w. TT pef.On says he Ia willing that the Secretary
safe is noi n ~ should send some one TO examine ms
marshal IL at hilhclenti A. should say that when
I'm no loci hed win power 10 execute process, ne ~
b u ~ sense bound to consult with the party against
modr i, 10 De executed and allow him to dictate tho
do 10. f'"H W "Pch TUG saic nc mas d Iisii' W
a IRE Examination OF the books and papers been
A. Co ,o IN the ordinary way how long would Nayor
should say t nave been deprived OF their use A.
tbst dy' IN mat case, being limited 10 three invoices
this casr "a'o Dccn far bricfer than has been IN
Iect Necessary for warrants 70 20 through the Col
notice 70 n a Since this transaction have given
plic9tioD ~. tho officers that will present any APP
rom tI 10 the Court IN cnse except upon letter
N'"'Ctor himself requesting me TO do 1t.
THE BEARE CASE.
" How about tine case OF Smith & Bear which was
by The payment of 4OOOl A. In that
'n'e was an allegation against that house Of having
o,,''ru smngged goods II was claimed that the goods
-,e' iau Dcen brought, by persons employed on the
amounijb mo this port in email quantities at a time,
we're instth e aggregate to some $4,000 proceedings
tbos. ana criminal warrant issued against
,t parties; an examination was bad before Com
prohibitlno "u suit commenced under the statute
gIu,Eglty The slnt Commenced in NAV LAST and in
promise the c proposed to pay $1,000 TO com
n @ to the case; examined the evidence which
II US .aEen before the COMMISSIONER and found that
mont. .Suuleqt TO Justify the finding of indict-
~, ,n"', III u w0ld be impfaoticabIe to bring home
Sod IT, parties the aliegatiod OF having Snug
,rl vas no testimony that would warrant me in send
a i6 6 e 70 the Grand Jury that II they found bill
vcv r. ho,, 1u5tan W. then examined tne Sse WIN q
WY ~ Io" much we could probably recover IN civl
ac,o py evidence that would show that goods actually
iouIL nay we person whOmade the complaint cOnu 0hB
Sldc hal ny Misunderstanding between him and MI Bear
INC packages were TO be left ana carry them " tnen
store IN some Instances lac saw the contents OF th5e
siEc s"ous, on no could be found who could give
me n o. ne person who left the goods at me saloon
no count th,y were smugged but It could not De
proved We seized about 5000 worth or these goods nut
/ wa, satisfied that our recovery would be limited To
Sip0 OF $500 M heat. thcv offered TO compromise by
paying $4,000 stated the facts Ia me secretary OF the
treasury, ana a. ms opinion tIat ~ was Ior t me
best interests of The United States That theu proposition
sLonld bc accepted; tney came TO the same conc 9n
aud authorized me To compromise II Tor sliVO' anu
did 30 49,, -. .ho
Q. l. there anywhere a record which shows the
grounds UUon which this coEpronisc was inauc ~
Yes Sir my letters, and The secretarys lettcis WHICH,
all in Office. 5000 ,
cannot that bat has ever come theIe 10 III
quirc IN relation a that have not trecly SHOWN
them TO him have never had an application from me
editor ~ any newspaper whatever FOR the purpose VI
disclosing the facts In any case.
@ II an officer detects fraud ami compromises suit
fOI certain OF money is IL Is Il not irregular
4. do not thing he has any such lower.
O. What would you say OF an officer who detected a
fraud dInountiug $4,000 and offered TO compromise II
Tor S-DOy1l a. / sIOud say he was abusing ms
authority.
q Would not say it net Of fraud on tne part
Of the Offer! A. That would depend upon what ne III
tended Co 90 with the money.
O. Would f. not be o breach Of duty for him 70 make
The Office A. He has power to conclude such an AZ
r.L-CMeHt
Adjourned 10 This morning at 10! O'Clock.