New-York tribune., 1874-03-30


that no suit for the recovery of Internal
Revenue taxes shall be commenced unless the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue shall
authorize or sanction the proceedings ]"
while the contracts only call for the written
consent of the Secretary of the Treasury"
and ii is certain that Commissioner Douglass
was never consulted in the matter from first
to last. The suits instituted under the con-
tracts were therefore irregular, and we presume
the judgments, if any were obtained, could be
set aside.
1t cannot be pretended that these various
ilegalities were the result of oversight. More
than year ago Solicitor Banfeld's attention
was called to them by the United States At
torney in New York. On the 18th of February,
Mr.. George Bliss, jr., having been requested
by SanbOrn to take action under the contract,
ventured to bother Mr.. Baniield with few
pointed inquiries He wanted to know whether
it was really true that he was to begin suits
without communicating with the Solicitor OF
the Treasury or the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, and he also wanted to see copy OF
the contract Mr.. Banfeld is the worst man
about answering etters He put this interest
ing note into one of his celebrated pigeon
holes and forgot all about it as hard as he
could. But Mr.. Bliss was not to be treated IN
that way. On the 26th of February he wrote
again, and he made his second letter still more
uncomfortable than his first. He wanted the
contract cat Once.' He wanted to know
whether he was to begin suits without the
authority of the Commissioner required by law.
He wanted to know whether the money was
4 - Y. Al H. f.,nov 70
law, or through some other agency. He wanted
to know whether the Department wished
HIM to give notice to collectors not to receive
taxes embraced in anborn's schedule, and he
was cruel enough to explain that Mr.. Sanborn
was afraid that the persons assessed would
"make their return and pay their tax in the
"Ordinary course" as soon as they heard OF
the Governments demand. There was no evad-
ing this letter. Mr.. Banield delIberated for
month, and finally replied, on the 9th OF
March: "YOu are hereby authorized to insti-
"tute suit in any case presented to you by
"Mr. Sanborn arising under his contract.
1t il proper that notice should
abe given to the collectors not to
"receive payment in cases embraced in
"Mr. SanbOrn's contract. You will
received on suit. by compromise, or volun-
"tary payment, to Mr.. SanbOrn." And he fol-
lowed up this order by writing to a subordl-
nate Of the Revenue service, detailed to assist
SanbOrn O: "The manner of collecting the diff
ferences found"-that is, certain arrears OF
taXes-"1 not by an assessment through the
" Commissioners office; the payment must be
"made by check or draft, made to the order
"of the Secretary Of the Treasury" This
letter is not on file IN Mr. Banfelds
office, and he says it was not an "of1-
cial y communication, though it con-
tanned official instructions to an agent
of the Government 1t would appear that the
Solicitor defines unofficial letters to be those
which would not look well on the records.
Getting a copy of these instructions, however,
in an indirect manner Commissioner Douglass
demonstrated with MI. Richardson against the
gross illegaity of the proceedings. lie pointed
out the provisions of the statutes violated by
the Sanborn transaction he remarked, sit had
never occurred to me iii cases where such
person rendered assistance to Collector OF
"Internal Revenue in collecting an Internal
Revenue tax, or was employed to render
such assistance, that the fact of such en-
"ployment could relieve the proper officers
"of Internal Revenue from their respective
duties in assessing, collecting, OF prosecuting
for such taxes or penalties;" and finally he
asked for specific instructions how this money
was TO be collected. To this letter no answer
has ever been returned. Mr.. Richardson
turned it over to Mr.. Banfied and asked that
gentleman to get him out of the scrape. Mr..
Banfield replied, in diplomatic language, that
he would see the Secretary hanged first. Mr..
Richardson then said he would think about
the matter. Six months have passed, and he is
still thinking.
These facts are very important for they
show that the Offense of the Treasury Depart
ment has been deliberate, and they lead almost
rresistibly to the conclusion that SanbOrn
has had corrupt understanding with some
person or persons in high official position.
Between the trial in Brooklyn and the inves-
tigation in Washington it will be strange if
we do not soon reach some interesting dis
closures.