New-York tribune., 1874-03-21

paid directly. who this somebody WIS can only be
Inferred Me Frederick A. SAWYER who managed
an iis passago In the senate the Law which makes
these frauds possible, was ~ ths timo Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury. That be sometimes y
uot hahitually advised Mr. Sanbon 81 such receipts
q shown hy tho report tsolf Case o. page aR illna
tratrs ths u1r of thc swindlng method, ana proves
Whist q. ssil above of MI sawyer On jan 10 lNA
VT NahfI. Treasurer of thc Indianapolis lrtn
n~d Cfir1eo Railroad Company, rcmii'nd sf' lo io
w. Nchsrlson. as tax certified to mvo he dis.
covered to ho due hy Frank n 6rcn. n p \.
Tr,eirv Department" ON ia1. 'i NJ bichlfh'on
d.no.ite1 30 af Washington Tho nrSt l'1 N'Ni"
wrote slnborn word thli the amount had NOT boon
d. .rihni.d anl would mot hA until N'nhnfh Co.
uno.iri it ON Jan. g1. sin'on wrote that Tho
Company had plil him tho tay. nni asking u1 di'
tIinutIun.
WHO ann gnrrv. uonrnv .vn rursHunYf
Thtn,nr, of Frank M Grocu. e. NJ Horton, nnd
OIs D. p.tshrry vail probably appear a.anro p
masi f.ilrft 100 connection with ihis ninir lhff fr
port credits thcm with ihe collection ~ tho f1m'
placed opposite thc.i namot AMI also tells who thr'
arc On ntnooasos. $50. q rago r nul 40 7 lase
In. Horton sIans himsdf R'yonuo Af'nt. ana
crrYhes directly to thc Secretary of tho Treasury
,he eorrecirc.. ~ Gao accounts which be- had col.
l.c,sd IN tho latter named case sanhorn actnowl'
eiges his indebtedness, e. Horton. whom ho ealla
Revenue Aeeut' Ous F prcshury w1r and prob
aLls sII a solicitor of Claims. and doubtless was
in the cnplny ~ siubum. Hat the Information
Ilpsi hy him in the two cases cited was previously
tn the possossun oi Reyonuo Collector lold ana oi
IN UrfrIpk, Supervisor oi Internal R.Nenu' in
Iowa. m appears by Tho letter oi OommF
sioncr Douglas. paao oi the supplementary fcpht
prspefly the money in rresbufy- casc' should p"
credited Go Collector Todd. bus tn pat hin ih iho
lnt with simmons. Bliss, jr, and liawlr'' w"nld
hIs position. Frank NJ Green u re-
poatsdly drscuDod in The report as nn cmplplo "i
tho Treasury Department ON page 40 L. y. ilace
s,,rcttr, of the Cedar Rapids aud Missouri River
Railroad. writing a. Mr. Richardson. speaks Of Nj
Cr,en "of m, Treasury Department and who n
ewploved by yonH &c. ON ptgo $50 Grown signs
bio,srlf, me- "s a. 4. Treasury Department y aud %
1nl. further ON page 9,3 90 $. Auditor lfensuV
DEPARTMENT" :" and etil later lpagc ''. ho sg1s in
f,Il special state Agent Treasury Department
since tbo exposures hy IW TRIBUNE of the ont
rnepous character of the Stuborn job the 0''i'l'l
~ Che Treasury has attempted 10 rcpudiai' al
official knowledge of hun. aud hns wntton lrur
A., "A uembsf of the WAYS and Means COMMITTEE
dcu,.nr responsibility for his artt II r rather
llr to do this In August 1873. Secretary ilr1ald-
son know That Green was representing lnmsrii to h'
in the employment ~ The Treasury Department.
The official report lpago l'ol contains ample rN-
dence that such protcusons on tho part Oi Green
ver, made known 90 Mr. l.ichard7on; bat II con
llins mo- evidence that such pratnsious were denied
R.peat,dly after that date Green iudors' q various
tax estimates IN the official capacity claimed hy him.
For SIX months before THE TnHUNE's exposures lac
WAS allowed an the advantages and The power oi the
Trcasur, Department; fortnight aft the expo
sures were made his right b. exercise that power
wal denied. Tho Secretary OF the Treasury now
says that Green was an employo OF 0anboin'
There IL no evidence of any connection with san
born. except The fact that Sanborn always shared
the fruits Of tho discoveries Of this Treasury Auditor
or Agent
Tho small amount collected by judge Noah Davis
ia pfamincntly citod IN the above table chiefly 20
c,ll attention 70 tho fact that it Is the only clearly
honest collection in the entire list II happens TO
he the FIRST case In tho report and tho only ono In
which judge Davis acted. 10 was the only one IN
which suit was actually begun 40 Sauborn's request
aud tho report takes pains say that Mr. DAVIS de-
ducted ouly his legal two per cent a. DstuctAttor-
ncy. when Sauborn requested DtltnctAttorney
Davis e. collect This sum by suit ho made hun a
propn.itun to collect others, and onHfod him hVe
o.r cent of what Dee collected. Mr. Davis examined
the contract reld II carefully returned II next day
10 s,nborn with plain intimation That the contract
was fraud upon the Government aud declined
further 20 consider his proposition
sauborn. nothing daunted by Mr.. Daviss refusal
returned to thc attack Of tho Di'tric'-h Attorneys
office ~ .oon as Mr.. Bliss installed IN Office
offered him hyo per cent on hs collections
aud with what success tho table above indicates.
MIR Bliss has received five per cent on all the coloc-
tons made hy him. a. his books show, and a. lac does
not pretend 90 deny. When the suits were began
against navloy. N,nderwerkon, aud sanborn. In
BROOKLYN. Mr. Bliss explained bis arrangement with
sanhom 10 Mr. A. W. Tonnoy. tho United states
District. Attorney In Brooklyn. showed him his
books and receipts explained tho whole system OF
deroy by which tho taxes were collected without
.utt being brought. assured Mr Ienney that ho had
been nnintenuonnlly overlooked Cy neglected by
Mr. sanh0rn. aud foe that gentleman tendeIed
htm the same advantages which he possessed Mt
Teunuy 10 s hardly necessary 10 state. declined the
Nnttofihg offer. A brief calculation viii show that
in less than eight months. during which Bliss and
sanbnrn havo been working together MI Bliss re
cciVcd ns his percentage ON collections amounting 10
.l..t fuf frtf 4 t,. mo- La m ~ |,