American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1872-07-27

court He came to Congress in 1870. Con-
gress passed another law for his benefit, re-
ferring the matter to the Postmaster-General,
with authority to settle with this man Choir
penning. How did he do it, He had an
Assistant p os tmaster- General. The first As
sistant was the law partner of Mr.. Creswell,
his name was Earl. After Congress passed
this law, he only claiming 100000, this law
partner of Mr.. Creswell resigned his office
as First Assistant Postmaster General, and
became the attorney of Mr.. Chorpenning, and
Mr.. Chorpenning's claim was brought to Mr..
Creswell. He had only claimed 800, 600 in the
Court of Claims. How much did he allow
him More than 100000? Now l don't
say that this law partner of Mr. Creswell
was the means of that, l don't say that the
Postmaster-Generalw was corrupt, don't say
that. You may think what you please. l
give you the facts. Congress assembled
this was done in vacation-somebody hap
pened to hear of this transaction, and a bill
was passed prohibiting the Secretary of the
Treasury from paying this money. And Mr..
Chorpenning has not got his 100000, and
Mr.. Earl has not got his pay. The same
gentleman is Postmaster General now.
What do you think old Jackson, Adams,
or any of the earlier Presidents would have
done in such a case as that Would you
suppose that any Committee of Congress
could have been found to pass such a rcso-
lution9 \ committee organized of the
friends of the Postmaster-General passed a
resolution, in which they said the Postmas-
ter-General was not TO blame at all. l have
tary of the Navy, who paid claims that had
been satisfied. The Secretary of the Navy
after the passage of law and payment
of claim under it, paid 100000 or 100000
Secretary of the Navy. The majority of the
committee justified that on the part of the
Secretary of the Navy.
Now, fellow-citizens, why are such trans
actions as these tolerated? 1 know you are
surprised. l have got here four official docu
ments. The report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, the report of the Treasurer, the
the Register of the Treasury, and the report
of the Secretary of War. Would you be
prised that the amount expended in the War
Department differs by millions in these re-
ports The Secretary of War says the ex-
penses in his Department was $40 900;
Gen. Spinner says $4,000. 900; the Register
of the Treasury says 5000 900 The Secre-
tary of the Treasury in one place says they
were $4,000, 0O0 in another S44 ,O00, 900. Gen.
Logan has published speech of his, setting
down the expenses at S35 O00, 600 less S16,-
000, 900, which he says were expended on ac-
count of the war On account Of a war
closed seven years ago. The army thought
had finished putting down the rebellion
when Lee surrendered in 1863 1t seems they
have been fighting the last year, some of them.
Now, fellow citizens, don't you think such
things this ought to be inquired into. We
want to inquire how it is that these accounts
differ in this way. l don't know tonight
how much money was expended in the War
Department last year. Why? Because the
accounts differ so, / have detected one or
two errors in the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury. He sets down in one place
81, OOO, 600, and when he gives the items, it
foots up to 81, 600, 600. I found out how
that difference was. The difference occurred
in leaving out $4,000, 600 that the War De-
partment had received from the sale of arms.
Now fellow citizens, have 1 stated enough
to you to show you that your finances are in
confusion? that from the manner in which
your accounts have been kept you cannot
tell what has been done with your money?
Have stated enough to show you that in
the Post-Office Department, claims over
500, 600 beyond what the claimants had the
face to ask were settled and allowed?