New-York tribune., 1874-04-09
THE SANBORN INQUIRY.
MORE IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS.

QUESTION WITNESSES - EVIDENCE REGARDING
THE MANNER IN WHICH CONTRACTS WERE
AwARDED-soIJCTrOR BANFIELD CHARGES RICH
ARpsoN AND SAWYER WITH MAKING MIssTATE-
MKNTs DOCUMENTS STILL WITHHELD BY THE
DEPARTMENT.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l
WASHINGTON, April S-The session of the ways
and Means Committee very interesting today,
notwithstanding the fact that the Sapbom business
N becoming rather monotonous in its iniqulty Inc
interest of the session confined to Gen. Bntler
.and Solicitor Banfield The former showed sensl-
tiveness unusual TO him. and the latter showed
either a change of heart or an improved memory
Gen. Butler. who has such an inordinate
hatred of newspapers, gives daily evidence
of the fidelity with which he reads them.
lie loathes their criticisms but fails not
IN abuse of them-"he hates the sinner but he loves
the SIM He came before the Committee merely
because he read in THE TRIBUNE that his name - APP
peared in every stage of the proceedings IN the
Sanborn business and this was matter that must
not continue. He made his complaint In very
quiet dignifed, and gentlemanly manner-a man
ner so unusual to him when smarting under the
public lash-saying that he had had notice that
the Committee were engaged IN an inquiry
INTO his private affairs and as he knew more
Of them than anybody else, he asked the courtesy
of being present at such inquiry. His name could
not appear at every stage of the proceedings, he
said unless there was desire on the part OF the
Committee or certain members of it, to connect him
with the Sanbom contracts. IT witnesses were
ssked in regard to HIM. it easy to see that his
name would be prominent. Reference he said, was
made to the fact that money had been contributed
for the Butler election fund, and as he knew how
the wavs and means had been provided, he thought
he ought to be present to question the witnesses
He did not shrink from such inquiry, but he de-
maudcd the usual courtesy.
Mr. Roberts of the Committee thought that MI
Butler had no right to presume that he was alluded
to whenever the words prominent" or distln-
guished member of Congress-" were used, and MI
Dawes said there was intention OF dong hs col
league Injustice; that there had been nothing TO
impicate him. and if anything of that character
should be developed be would see to 1t that the
General should be sent for. Mr.. Roberts very
properlv suggested that such course would imply
censure of Mr.. Butler and that better plan, sub
seouently adopted would be to refer to Gen. Butler
ALI testimony relating to him for such action as he
might think necessary. The manner of the Essex
statesman was much subdued, and he seemed less In
a bnmor for controversy. His asking that he might
be sent for whenever his name was mentioned was
simply absurd as he would be sent for should his
wishes be carried out nearly every half hour while
the inquiry lasts. Mr.. Butler SAID he did not ald
Sanborn to get his contract, but would have done
90 had SaubOrn asked him.
FAvoRITIsM IN THE AWARDING OF CONTRACTS.
Two witnesses were examined before Mr. Butler
came in, named Waddell, father and son. Their
testimony was important only In showing what has
been so often shown before, that so per cent Tor col
lecting the legacy and succession taxes was simple
robbery. The elder Wadden said he would have
II II 4 3ha haln of 90
for ten per cent. His testimony was important in
another respect He showed first, that the Treasury
Department has vet in its possession important
paDers called for by the Committee, HUT which the
Secretary OF his officers have failed to forward to
the House: and second, that favOritism or some
worse influence was used in awarding contracts
M Waddcll was an experienced man and had spent
much time and money in getting together lntorna-
ton regarding the legacy and succession taxes
Within month after the law of May 8, l0I2, was
passed. authorizing the contracts, Mr.. Waddell
sent an application in due form, accompanied by
hundred ormore names of delinquent persons, for
contract but as in the case of COughlin he never
heard a word Of it, the Department not even ac-
knowcdging its receipt. Two months or more
passed by and the contract was given to John ID.
Sauborn and Mr.. Waddel from the circumstances
was forced to sell his information TO Sanborn The
Application OF MduOtl dc eSut W thO NO'AA
IDlttee.
Mr.. BANFIELD's CASE
Solicitor Banfeld came before the Committee in
order to lift the load Of obloquy off his shoulders
which Messrs. Richardson and Sawyer had placed
there Ii the Solicitor did not improve his own case,
be at least finished that Of the Secretary and his as
sstant Ii win be remembered that when Messrs.
Richardson and Sawyer were examined, they knew
nothing about the SanboIn contracts papers con-
nected with them. They said they signed the papers
relating to the subject q matter OF rou
tine and had not given the question much
consideration or examination. They referred
everything to Mr.. Banfeld, and left the
impression on tho Committee that they were both
unfit for their positions and tnat they had had less
TO do with the subject than they ought to have had
BY Mr. Danelds testimony it is clear that they had
more 10 do with the matter than they ought to have
had Mr. BaDfeld stated his position very clearly,
AZ NAV be seen from perusal Of his testimony the
tenor of which was to fasten the whole in
famous business on the Secretary's Office, and to
show that both Richardson and Sawyer in their
testimony, had to use a mild term, misstated the
facts.
Another very important fact, as showing Assistant
Secretary Sawyers unusual interest in the matter
was developed by Mr. Banfeld. He said that long
before the act of 1872 thought of the then Sena
tor Sawyer appealed to him to give previous law
broader Interpretation TO certain taxes
He was very earnest in his manner.
SOLICITOR BANFIELD'S TESTIMONY.
TIE FUNCTIONS OF HIS oFFICE-THE sECRETARY's