The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-04-01

recollection OF his interview with Simmons in
Boston, in which Simmons said he had been in
srructed to aid Sanborn but he did not question
the correctness OF Simmons statement in that
connection. lie was examined at some length by
members OF the committee, but could give little
further enlightenment on the Sanborn matter than
is embraced IN the foregoing synopsis SO little did
he appear to know OF the matter that one OF the
members OF the committee (Mr Beck remarked,
in the subsequent proceedings that he had not
pressed the Secretary further because he was
ashamed of the ignorance which the Secretary
manifested.
Mr.. Douglas, Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue., was next examined by the committee. He
stated that he had never been consulted by the
Secretary or the Solicitor OF the Treasury In
gard TO the law, or the contracts given under IL,
and knew nothing OF the latter unless they
came incidentally TO his knowledge in the course
OF the proceedings. He stated that the delinquent
income taxes and the legacy and successive taxes,
and the taxes on railroad dividends &c. which
are embraced in the Sanborn contracts. all
being collected through the regular Offices of the
Internal Revenue Bureau, where these contracts
were made; and when the Instructions were
issued by Mr. Ban1eld, Solicitor Of the
Treasury to Mr.. Bliss, United States Dis
trlct Attorney at New York, and to the
supervisors and collectors of internal revenue,
directing the latter not to receive payment In the
cases embraced within those contracts. Those in
structons had not been issued through him.
had they ever been communicated to him unless
az he learned about them casually. He had them
the Isl OF October, 1873, written letter to the
Secretary OF the Treasury in regard to these in
structions. That latter referred by the Secre
tary to the Solicitor Of the Treasury and had never
been answered by the latter. The Solicitor had
told him subsequently that the letter had got
into min hnln hnn rtotnf
been referred to some subcommittee, SO
that he (the Solictor) had not attended
to it. and had not answered 1t, and that he did
not know how to answer 1t. Mr.. Douglas also
stated that according to his view OF the law no
suits could be brought for recovery OF internal
revenue taxes except By his authority. He did not
consider that the Solicitor OF the Treasury had any
right 10 instruct Mr.. Bliss to bring suits as he had
done In regard to matters under the Sanborn con-
tract. He tMr. Douglas) had never given such
authority and had no knowledge OF suits having
been commenced until this investigation had de-
veloped the TACT. He was very positive in the
belief that there was no difficulty in having all
these dereilct taxes collected in the regular
OF business and as to ascertaning the
unpaid legacy and succession taxes. he
exhibited to the Committee book in which
assessors were required to keep records OF all
estates of deceased persons that were liable to
taxation. He knew nothing personally OF John ID.
CoughIin, who had been Assistant Assessor OF the
County Of New York. but II that official had done
his daty faithfully and kept such book correctly,
all the information in regard to unpaid legacy and
succession taxes was in his hands ana IN the hands
OF the Internal Revenue Bureau, and there was no
difficulty about it. He did not believe in the policy
OF the law under which the Sanborn contracts
were given ont. 1t gave monopoly to three per-
sons, and thus intensified the meanness of the in
former and spy system. He had never been con-
suited about or asked to recommend the passage Of
such a law, although he had been under the impress
sion that he had been called upon by Mr. Sanborn
and that General Butler had recommended him.
Still, since having Mr.. Sanborn lately, he did
not appear to be the same person whom he had in
his mind Mr.. Douglas was very frank and ex-
plict in his statement, and appeared to have made
very favorable impression on The committee.
Frank NJ. IN, ssSM = Mr.. SanbOrn's agents.
! who operated among the Western railroad COM
panies, was recalled by Mr.. Foster, who read
letter from J. NJ King. acting collector Of the
| Indianapolis district stating that Green had re-
presented himself there as a special agent OF the
Treasury Department, and had denied all know
| edge Of the SanbOrn contracts. This Green again
positively denies.
L. 7. Mitchell was called to prove that Green
had OF one time stated that his letter from the
Secretary OF the Treasury was obtained by the
influence Of General Butler, but he could not re-
member any such statement.
| The investigation is to be resumed tomorrow.
The Howard Investigation.
To-day was the sixteenth day Of the Howard in
vestigation. II. c. Harmon and Edgar G. Benz an,
clerks in the Second Auditors Office, were ex-
amined. The former testified that there had come
to the second Auditors Office between TO- 600 and
10000 complaints from white soldiers OF bounties
\ md mt iron hn tn
the present time, and about 1900 complaints
from colored soldiers. In illustration OF the mis-
takes that were made In the payment OF dues case
was given where the voucher recepting for the
money was signed by mark, and the letter OF
complaint from the soldier to whom the money
rightlully belonged subsequently written, was
signed by himself with his full name.
Mr.. Beman testified az to the great difficulties
often experienced In Identifying the claimants.
The Duty Importations of Alpaca
Goods.
The following concerning the duty on importa-
tions of alpaca goods, has been issued from the
Treasury Department.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
WASHINGTON, March 81, 1874.
SIR am in receipt OF your letter of the Sd inst,
submitting the appeal No. 742 of Messrs. A. A.
Maoinnis sons against your assessment OF duty
under the act Of March 2, 1867, on certain alpaca
goods imported by them per State OF Alabama
from Liverpool January Ia, 1874.
The importers claim this merchandise to be
dutiabe under the act OF July IA, 1870 as manu-
facture of hair, which act imposes duty at 80 per
cent ad valOrem on hair clotn known as crino-
line cloth, and on all manufactures OF hair not
therein otherwise provided for.
From an examination OF the goods given by the
officers at New YORK there seems TO be some doubt
as to whether they are composed OF wOrsted, as
reported in the letter Of the Appraiser ut your
port, dated February 10. or whether they are
manufacture OF the hair OF the alpaca goat or
other like animal. If they dutiable under the
act oil March 1867, the question OF TACT would not
have any bearing upon the case, as manufac-
turers OF worsteds and those OF hair OF the alpaca
goat and other like animals are therein subject to
the same rate OF duty. Upon the general subject
connected with this appeal have to say that the
department has not heretofore regarded the act OF
July d. 1870, affecting the rate OF duty imposed
by the act OF March 2 1857, while the fleece OF the
alpaca goat and other like animals Is, in
the act of 1867 mentioned as hair ! under,
stand 1t assmilates quite as closely to wool
20 laIr and In determlnlQR