The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-05-07

this connection It may be proper to add
that the officers of the treasury department,
including the secretary of the treasury HIM
self, seem to have no recollection of this
fact as sworn to before the committee by
Sanborn in reference TO the list of rail-
roads included in his contract.
LARGE SUMS ILLEGALLY COLLECTED ny SAN
BoRN
1t is the opinion of the committee that a
very large percentage, if not all, of the
$437, 900 of taxes collected by Sanborn
were not proper subject of contract
under the law. and those taxes should and
would have been collected by the Internal
Revenue Bureau in the ordinary discharge
of their duty. 1t is clear that legacy and
succession taxes should not have been made
a matter of contract. OF this class of tax
cs about 800. 900 has been collected Under
these contracts. II is shown by the evil
dence before the committee that about
$4,000 was collected Ivy Supervisors iIaw.
ley and Simmons from taxes imposed by
Schedule G of the Internal Revenue laws,
| for the collection of which no contract was
made with SanbOrn or any one else. Never
theless. Sanborn claimed and was allowed
| iifiy per cent, thereof. BY the testimony
| of Mr. Odell treasurer OF the Delaware
| Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com
pany. and that of Supervisor IIawley, il
very clearly appears that the sums collected
from the Delaware. I.ackawanna and
Western Railroad Company, being abou,
100000 were well known 90 the internal
revenue officers and were collected by
them, which collection should have bee7
made in the ordinary discharge Of thcii
duties. and without cost to the government
WHAT MIST FOLLOW ~ THE LAW Is N0T RE
pEAGEp.
II this law is not repealed and these con
tracts are to remain in force. the contractor
armed with the power that he now possess
cs. will collect all the taxes due the g9y
eminent under repealed laws. These take!
amount to several millions of dollars, ant
this misplaced power will take il all out o.
the hands of the proper officers of the gov
eminent. virtually displacing them by th'
creation of new bureau for the collection
OF this class of taxes, with some such per
son us one Of these contractors at its head
and At the cost of 0nc-half of this large
sum.
The theory of the law as administered i
completely reversed. and instead of thest
three persons being employed 10 assis, til,
proper officers of the government, the prop
cr officers of the government have beer
made to assist them
BY the terms Of the contract. and by tht
orders of the treasury department. the tax
es collected by Sanborn could not be paiC
through the officers of the internal rcvenu,
department, as required by law. Whilt
the committee have no direct evidence thai
any internal revenue officer has had a cor
rupt connection with Sanborn in the col
lection of taxes. vet the circumstances are
such as to show that certain internal rev
enue officers were willing to obey the order
of Sanborn, and in doing so. did not com
municate the fact 10 the commissioner o
internal revenue, and through their agency
very large sums have been collected.
1t is certain that a continuance OF thi
system must work, to a greater or less ex
tent, a decentralization of the entire outsid,
working force engaged under this bureau
in the collection of the revenues
CONCLUSION.
The committee, in view of the facts here