New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-03
INST TIE DIFFERENCE.

When the Committee in Pursuit of KnOwl-
edge under Difficulties discover, as we hope
they will some day, clerk, or messenger,
or an employ6 of some sort in the Treasury,
who knows little about the business of the
DEPARTMENT we recommend them to inquire
why such a marked difference was made be-
tween Sanborn and the other contractors in
the execution of the law. A number of per-
sons applied for contracts under the act OF
1872 and at least five of the proposers were
accepted, but Sanborn is the only one OF them
all who was allowed to make anything out of
the lob. Mr. Kelsey, the first contractor, tells
us that the Supervisor in Philadelphia would
not help him. and that when he appealed to
Washington he could get no favor from either
Mr.. Boutwell,, OF Mr.. Richardson, or Mr.. Ban
field, so that he gave the business up
1t now appears, from some OF the
documents which the officials of the Treasury
have not yet found time to hand to the Com
mittee. that Kelsey and his immediate sue
cessor, Campbell, were placed from the start
on an entirely different footing from SanbOrn.
Mr.. Richardson had gwen Kelsey letter, adj
dressed "To whom it may Concern" certify
ing that he was employed by the Secretary
and conditions to assist the proper officers
"of the Government in discovering and col
"lecting moneys belonging to the United States
withheld by the several street railroad COM
| "panies in the City of Philadelphia" Upon
| the strength of this credential the Commits
sioner of Internal Revenue wrote the follow
| ing letter, which is not among the documents
submitted to the Committee of Ways and
Means:
OFFICE OF IsTERNAL REVENUE, July ~, loI2>
Mr. TUITION. Supervisor:
| The bearer Mr. Kelsey. late NJ c. from N. Y. has
from the Secretary which will explain itself
Please confer with him. and when necessary exercise
your authority under the law to recover all unpaid taxes
| due the Government. Yours respectfully,
]. W. DOUGLASS.
This ia very different thing from the
letters given to SanbOrn. Mr.. Douglass re-
quests the Supervisor to "cOnfer" with Kelsey,
| and to take his information. but instructs him
| to collect the taxes himself in the mode pro-
| yided by law. Mr. Douglass afterward gave
similar letter of introduction to Malcolm
| Campbell. But as soon rs SanbOrn came upon
the scene there was a great change. Mr.. Doug
lass was not allowed to interfere, or to know
| anything about the arrangement. The Sec
rotary addressed note over his own signature
"To Supervisors and Collectors of Internal
| Revenue" instructing them to assist John
| I'D. Sanborn :" and Mr. Banfeld went so far
| as to cause notice to "be given to the col
electors not to receive payments in cases en-
braced in Mr.. Sanborn's contract" Observing
this difference. we can understand why!Sanborn
should have made fortune while his prede-
cessors failed. Mr.. Douglass tells us that oil
these taxes were in course OF collection through
the regular channels, and there was really
nothing for the contractors to do. But when
| the taxes were taken out of the regular chan
mel and handed over to Sanborn, the collectors
| and supervisors made his subordinates, the
records of the revenue Offices placed at his
disposal, and fraudulent commissions given to
his detectives all the business which would
naturally have flowed through the courses
| prescribed by law was turned aside so that
this favored contractor might levy tolls upon
it as it passed.
| Mr.. Richardson explains that he knew moth
| ing of the deeds that were done by his
authority, and had not the least idea that he
had signed away nearly 100000 to this farmer
of the revenue. Mr.. Sawyer testifes that he
was equally ignorant. But common sense
insists that corrupt design must be discover
| able somewhere in the Department. Favors
of this sort do not 60 by accident.