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

We have not failed to keep our readers
made in reference to the doings OF " the
contractors marauding upon the public
sury by virtue Of that class of con-
8, known as "Sanborn contracts. We
not hesitated TO give our own opinion
lie facts disclosed. Our readers under
that these contracts. the action there
r, and the connection of high officials
with, have been the subject of a pro.
,..>ted investigation before the House com
mittee on ways and means. A semi-ollicial
report of the testimony, as given before the
committee, has been presented to the coun-
try from day to day. The press and the
people have had substantially, the same
facts upon which to form and express an
opinion in reference thereto, as have the
committee. Notwithstanding this; not
withstanding the fact that the majority of
the newspapers of the country, without dis
tinction of party, were daily presenting the
testimony to their readers, and. in comments
thereon deploring the disgrace thereby re-
Elected upon the whole country, mere
handful OF newspapers, from fear, n sup
posed but not real devotion to party or
from other causes which are understood
without mention thereof, suppressed the
testimony-although it was tclegraphed as
a matter of news, and it was news indeed
and refrain from all comment thereon.
We recall one paper that, upon attention
being called to this omission, defended it.
self by saying it was "waiting for authentic
information" Authentic information
indeed The press and the people had the
same g authentic information" which the
committee had. The committee having
now made their report, we wonder, but
care not, whether it will still remain like
sheep before the shearers, dumb and not
open its mouth. We claim no particular
credit for the fact and it is a fact, that our
opinions and conclusions drawn from the
testimony are precisely the same at which
the committee have arrived, because no
honest man could come to any other con-
clnsion. Although the views expressed by
the committee are the same us those which
we had heretofore enunciated, we. ut the
risk of firing the patience OF the reader,
propose to make some extracts from the
reports with running comments thereon.
1t will be rendered that the law. under
which these contracts were supposed to have
been made, was passed by the forty second
Congress as clause Of the legislative, ex-
ecntvc and Judicial appropriation bill hut
there is another fact of some significance
which is not generally known. The con-
tracts, as made, applied exclusively to the
collection of internal revenue taxes. Prior
10 the meeting of that Congress law was
in force which extended the system of spies
informers and moielies to the collection of
internal revenue taxes, substantially as it
now exists in reference to custom duties
One of the first acts of that Congress was
to repeal that law, and thus in effect, to
declare that thereafter, there should be no
spies, informers or moietes in connection
with the collection of such taxes as came
under the direct supervision of the depart
mcnt of internal revenue Now mark the
inconsistency. The same Congress restored
these privileges, but limited them to three
persons and John d. Sanborn has thereby
pocketed over two hundred thousand dol
lars which ought to be in the national treas
ury. Is comment necessary? Does any
sensible person doubt that sinister infu-
ences were at work in that Congress with
direct reference to the pecuniary benefit of
John ID. Sanborn, or of some other tool of
some one in power?
We have already, upon two occasions at
least, published the exact words of the law
in question, but, in connection with this re-
port, 1t may not be out of place to quote
one clause thereof, intended to be limita-
ton upon these contracts, and to prevent
the marauders from filching too much.
1t provides that ono person shall be en-
ployed under the provisions of this clause