, 1874-05-11
WASHINGTON.
More Charges Of Fraud in
Letting Postal Con-
tracts.
The Committee Not Anxious to
Investigate Thoroughly.
4 Card from Senator Schurz
to the st. Louis Re-
publican.
Tho Fato Of Attorney-General
Williams Landaulct.
a Review Of the District Of
Columbia Investigation.
The Way in Which Mr.. 0hittenden
Was Bamboozled,
1lr. Kirkland Sll0rn Of Ills Possess
sions by mir. Ira Holmes.
Gov Shepherd Acquitted Of Corrupt
Dealings.
The Way in Which Mr.. Ohittenden
Was Bamboozled.
blr. Kirkland Sl0rn Of Ills Possess
si0ns by Mir. Ira Holmes.
Gov. Shepherd Acquitted Of Corrupt
Dealings.

UEdlluYS,
osTAL CONTRACT FRAUDS.
NEW NELE IN COMMITTEE.
Special Di.pafch to Tho Chicago Tribune.
WARRINGTON, May 10.-The House Post. Oflco
Committee, in tho mnttor Of the investigation Of
certain charges as to frauds in tho letting Of
portal contracts, arc pursuing course which
doea not ut oil comport with their ao-oxpreasod
desire to deal fairly md ascertain tho TRUTH aud
expose tho wrongs If any havo boon committed.
Alr. Stone, of Missouri, having submitted a list
OF witnesses that he desired to have summoned,
many Of them employees Of tho Post OlIico De-
partnlont, tho Committee sent him d note day
or two ago, slgned by their clerk, saying that:
?" Tho Postal Committee desire me TO inform
you that, according to their rules, it will bo
necessary for you to furnish them statement
OF what you desire to prove by my Witness,
before they decide MS to tho propriety or uecos-
sty Of calling any Of thom."
1t mover before was known, 1t ia asserted. that
q committee OF Congress had puraucd suoh a
course towards n1omber of Congress- who pro-
forrcd charges Of this Hort with IN honest de-
sire to have frauds upon tho Government un-
earthed, official dishonesty exposed, and
repetition OF auch onenBcs urd crimes prevented.
THE NOTE QUOTED
ia deliberate insult On itH face, md leaves
room for inferriDg desire on tho pnrt of tho
Committee to stido aud hush tho spirit OF hon.
oBt inquiry that haA actuated tue gentcmon,
Stone and Luttrell, In proferring the charges.
In response to this extraordinary and ipaolent
ul6ed couvnunicatfon, in which he declined 10
participate in any examination or investigation
under such restrictionH. Having submitted his
lfut Of witnessees in good faith, lie denies tho
right Of the Committee to assume, in ADVANCE,
ont any knowledge tlat they will DO able to tos-
tfy pertinently.
TIE SPECIFIC CHARGES.
Ho then submits list Of abuses. aH shown by
forth III au executive document Of the lust Con-
gress OF which tho following instances are sam
pies:
That bid for $4,000 for carrying on route
No. 7,6s7 was accepted, aud, subsequently, a
contract was made with T. 7. 6awyer for $751;
206. although Lo WAS not bidder, aud the otfors
Of responsible competitors we're rejected
That on route No. 1850, bid Of $4,000 was
accepted, but n contract WIS made with Sawyer
for 1000, although ho had offered to do tho
for.
bid Of s., 600 was accepted for route No.
1862, but q contract was made with Sawyer for
q 5oo, which waa more than other responsible
Gu route No. 1858, q bid of 81 400 wne accept
ed, but contract WAS nlado with Sawyer for
$9900 while other responsible contractors Offer
ed to do the work for much less money.
On route No. 1856 a bid OF 81, 500 was accept
cd, but contract was made with Sawyer ior
s27, 7,oo0, also largely in exccss Of other bids from
responsible men.
On route No. s,537 bid of s3.aoo WIS nccopt-
cd, but contract was made with Sawyer for
over 5l7, ,00o being over 81, GOO in excess of his
own bid, mud largely more than tue bid OF any
On route No. s,5ss n bid Of sss,7oo
| WIS accepted, while O. contract was niado
with Sawyer for eGl, $50, being 918,730 moro
responsible bid.
On route No. {, $50, q bid for $4,000 was &C.
copied, hut contract was nado with Sawyer for
| s8,170. which was the highest bid fled for the
| route.
On route, No. 7,C47, bid for 81, 900 WAS ao-
| ceptod, but . contract was mado with Sawyer for
SG,60o In this caae Sawyer WAS not bidder, aud
the rato at which the contract WAS lot was higher
| than any responsible bid put in.
On route No. 8,E40, bid for $5, 600 was ac-
copied, but q contract was made with Sawyer for
s44,225, tho highest bid madc.
On route No. $3.50 bid for 80, 400 was &C.
| cepted while q contract wa8 n,ado with Sawyer
for $4,000, although he wns not bidder.
| On route No. 1861 bid for $3,3 800 WIS ao-
| cepted but q contract was made with Sawyer for
$4,000, although he was not bidder, aud tho
num was larger than any responsible bid for the
route.
Hamilton was rejected on the ground that It WINS
| too high, and the postal authorities offered to
give it at II 200 this was rejected, and subBe-
quently contract was made with Sawyer for
1000, although ho wna not bidder for the
| route.
On routo No. 8,572 bid for 92, 200 WAS &C.
cepted, but coutraot vas made with Sawyer fol
sl3, 600, which was tho highest bid for tho route
On route No. 8,b75 bid for 1900 was ao'
! cepted, but coutract wnR made with 8awyor fol
$4,000, which waa 81, 900 higher than any othes
bid.
On routo No. 8,517, 4 bid for $4,000 WAS ao.
copied, while g. contract was mado with Sawyer
for 81, 500, the highoBs bid for tue route.
copied, wtilB contract was mado with Sawyer
for "a 500, although he waB not bidder Tor tAt
route.
On route No. 8,00s IBID for 600 waa ao-
coptod. but oontraot was maae with Sawyer
tor 41B.000, although la waa not bidder fol
the route and this sum was creator than any Blu
offered.
on route No. 500 = bid for o., 400 was ao-
cepted. but contract WAS nado With baw
yer for $7.500, the highest bid made for tl'
route.
On route No. 500 = bid for 81 900 was ac
coptod, but contract WAS executed with Saw.
yor for $1,000, tho highest bid made for th'
route.
On route No. 5000 bid for 81, 100 WAS no
ceptod bnt contract was matle with bawy.o
tor S00U0, although ha was nut q bidder for thu
route, and tho sum was groater than was nance
In any responsible bid.
On route No. B,848 4 bid for %, 800 was 10
oepted, but contract wn made With 6&Nye