New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-16
THE sANBORN JOBBERY.
THE EANBORN JUBBEhI'
AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
sAwYER-HE RELIES TO AND CMTIcIsEs 30
IIC1ToR BANFIELD's TESTIMONY.

WAsuINGToN, April 15.-Tbe session of the Ways
and Means Committee to-day wasa very stupid one
and nothing of Importance was elected regarding
the Sanborn matter that was not already khoWh'
Assistant Secretary Sawyer was present with man
useript speech, which he read to the Committee,
thus avoiding, doubtless, some of the troublesome
side questions which are occasionally asked by Mr..
Beck Mr. Sawyer's statement was in frank, good
tempered tome and while he spoke earnestly he was
nevertheless more patient and less venomous than
previously. He confined himself very closely to
the statements mado by Solicitor Banheid'
for it was to deny Mr. Banfelds statements
that he came before the Committee. lie made
specific and general denial of the correctness OF all
of Mr. Banfeld's evidence that related unfavorably
to himself and that about all there was In the
Assistant Secretary's statement to-day. lie did,
however, make a very good point on Mr.. Banfeld,
by quoting portion of a sentence from each OF the
letters signed by Messrs Boutwell,, Richardson. and
himself directing Supervisors, Collectors, and other
officers to assist Sanborn and his men. He said the
bad grammar in the letters the errors appear
ing in each showed that they must have been pre-
pared by the same hand; that they all bore the
initials of Mr.. Banfeld: and that no (Mr.
Sawyer) never saw the letter bearing his name
until after it was signed. Mr.. Sawyer argued
TO show that Mr. Banfed was properly
in charge of all matters relating to the contracts,
and that he had general management OF tho busl-
ness Mr. Sawyer had no doubt that the compensa-
ton paid Sanborn by the contracts was too liberal
Ii will be remembered that Mr.. Coughlin offered to
collect the legacy and succession taxes for Is per
cent, but his letter was never answered. Sanborn,
a few days before had obtained contract for so
per cent The Secretary reserved the right to can
Gel a contract at pleasure, and although he could
save the Government 35 per cent, he did not even
answer Mr. Coughlin's letter. Mr.. Sawyer's state
ment contained little that was new and was wholly
confined to a review of the previous testimony of
Mr. Banfield.
H. Lelpold. who is at the head of what is known
as the Independent treasury, made explanations re-
garding the failure of the Department to send all
the papers called tor by the Committee, the effect of
which was to show that the SanbOrn papers were
scattered all over the Department. and that very
defective system of bookkeeping is practiced IN the
Treasury.
Supervisor Tuition of Philadelphia made state
ment of some length with reference to contracts III
that city, and showed that he had collected three
quarters Of a million of dollars Of the class OF
claims which Sanborn collects and that he (Tutton
had done this in the regular line Of his duty In his
district, at least, there use for Sanoorn and
Kelsey. Had Simmons in Boston, and Hawley In
X,
Tuition, Sanborn and his harpies would have Jared
badly instead of pocketing over quarter OF mil
lion of dollars of Government money
UNOFFICIAL REPoRT-MR. sAwYER's STATEMENT
IN REPLY TO SOLICITOR BANFIELD-EYIDENcE
REGARDING THE WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS
BY THE TREASURY
GENERAL PRESS DIsPATCH.l
WASHINGTON. April 15.-Assistant Secretary
of Dpnartmpnt aDDeareQ before
the Committee on Ways and Means this morning Hisat-
tenon having been called the statement last made by
Mr. BanAeld Solicitor OF the Treasury TO the Committee,
he had sought this opportunity to make few comments
upon that statement. He did this in justice TO himself
for there TO be some discrepancies OF statement
between Them They matters due TO the imperfec
tons memory, but he quite certain that in
case in which he made statement he was substantially
correct. Mr.. Banheld, he said, testified as follows:
will say further, that never have prepared any
paper be IL contract, or be II letter. involving the
signature OF the Secretary OF the Treasury except by
his direction, either written verbal or by the drec
of his assistant 1t is impossible that should do
in the nature and course OF the business unless 1t can
be shown that am usurper OF the powers OF the Dc
partment, which think am not Every one of these
letters been prepared in that and OF course
have from time to time prepared great many letters
that bear tue signatures .. tn9 secreaty dnaI IS IN
know what letter he wants written until be tells me
he wants. and en is prepared as best can to
meet Is views.
Assistant Secretary Sawyer, after further quoting
from Mr.. Ban6elds testimony, said:
In the first place Mr. Banteld had not read my tes
as u was or TO@ he mo. a pSa n se
that in the Summer had any conversation with him
about a letter to DR.. Presbrey. certainly do not
member having had any conversation with Mr.. Banield
or Dr. Presbrey about such letter IN July, 1873 IL ii
called TO my attention, certainly did not under
stand then as did later occasion, the relations or
rather want of relations, which Dr. Presbrey had with
the Government. There Is nothing mandatory in the
letter 1t Is simply request; but yet it n request
which should not have thought proper TO make II 1t
an agent Mr. SanbOrn and not agent OF the Govern
ment. am convinced, therefore, that If Mr.. Btnfod
must have been in cursory manner, and that signed
the letter bore the check OF the Solicitor whom
which justified IL. / did not know until very recent
period that DR.. Presbrey agent Of Mr. Sanborn,
though did know long since that he had been in the
employ of the Government as Supervisor OF Internal
Revenue.
In this connection Mr.. Sawyer called attention to
the internal evidence that theletters OF Introduction to
supervisors and collectors OF internal given by
Messrs Boutwell, and Richardson, and this one OF July
q, 1873, signed by Mr.. Sawyer, have origin
There question whatever that the letter OF Oct
49, 1873 purportng TO be signed by Mr. Richardson was
written In the Solicitors Office for 1t bore his check and
the letter OF July a. 1873, also bears his check. In
further review OF the evidence Of Mr.. Banfed, Mr.
Sawyer sad
act OF 1870 could fairly bear construction which would
Snsu oSts,nea nnder the atteT law pevar std s NJ
BAYFIELD, IL construction broad enough 10 cover
II. The only foundation Tor such statement on the
part OF Mr. Baned Is the fact that Mr.. Kelsey made
suggestion that reading OF .tbe act possible by
which such construction could be given to n-
ciude not In the States lately in instruction.
prepared TO state that did not say there ought
TO be a law under which taxes not accessible by the
ordinary means OF collection could be reached when
withheld by powerful corporations from the Govern
ment.
Mr.. Sawyer further quoted and commented the tes
timony Of Mr.. Banfed, refutng the position OF the
Solicitor. He said the general tendency and effect
OF the Solicitors recent statements before the
Committee are 70 convey the impression that