New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-02

on the broad back OF MT. Dahheiu, VIM o0
the official packhorse of the Treasury Depr 'l'on'
He had not even looked at the papers, althoush Sio
reference to Mr. Banfeld bore his signature Az WIS
point Mr. Beck became indignant at the reekieSs's'
that was 40 freely confessed and said rather
sharply that the whole testimony showeu 'laV ','o
Secretary and Assistant Secretary were extremely
reluctant TO read their own papers MI ono,uo,
vas unable to understand how it was that Sahoorh
GOT all the best contracts. and while others were
losing their expenses he was making large ior-
tune. He thought it was tine duty of the Secretary
IN examine statute before he executes 1t. ana that
therefore Secretary should examine or become ln-
formed of the various changes in executing It, but
Mr. SAWYER did not give any satisfactory eXpiana-
ton. His examination throughout was miserable
failure He knew nothing about important matters
but was voube enough on lmmateral ones
THE WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS.
With reference to the charge that the Depart
ment had withheld papers, Mr.. Sawyer got very req
in the face and some hot words passed between MI
Rock and Mr.. Foster on the one hand and Mr.. saw
yer ON the other 1t seems that when the resolution
nassed the House. calling for all the papers, Mt
SAWYER demonstrated with the two gentlemen, and
did not want'to furnish them. rs they might place
innocent people in an unjust position ne 'non
characterized the resolution, according to MS own
admission as Legislative outrage" out accoIulis
TO the other gentlemen he characterized the ACT Oh
the Housed as infamous" However, inc papers
were subsequently furnished.
The suit in Brooklyn against Sanborn having
terminated, that gentleman to-day telegrapheu "
his lawyer that he would come here at once as IL
,vos his desire to have the inquiry over soon as
possibIe. He is expected tomorrow morning. III
was said in the Committeeman to-day by mem
in nrooklvu W. a fOrpCOue con-
cusion; that they expected nothing else, aud that
the Court could not do otherwise; that under the
extraordinary orders of the Treasury Department
Sanborn could not be blamed for what no had done
that the fault is all with the Department.
sBMIOFFICIAL DETAILS
GENERAL PRESS DIsPATcHJ
WASHINGTON. Apul 1-Fredcrick A. Sawyer, As
sistant Secretary of the Treasury, made his state
,nent this morning before the Committee on ways
and Means. He gave his recollection of the manner
in which the provision authorizing the Sanborn con-
tracts was embodied in the Legislative Appropfla-
tion hill last wear. He was then a member OF the
Senate APPROXIMATION Committee, but had no per
sopal connection with the offering OF that
amendment in the Committee. He believed
he voted for it, as he also did Afterwards In the
Conference Committee. He denied with some feel
ING the newspaper assertion that the provision hau
been struggled into the bill. On the contrary the
same proposition had been made at several previous
sessions. and was openly discussed In the Appro-
priation Committee in the Conference Committee,
in the Senate and in the House. lie de-
clined to give any opinion as to whether
the Sanborn contract was or was not
in compliance with the terms OF the law
Tint was technical legal question. The Solicitor
of the Treasury Department was the proper oihceI
to frame these contracts, and he presumed be had
done so with proper care ard attention. lie had no
personal knowledge of Sanborn. Presbrey, or
anv of the persons connected with the contracts,
and all ms official acts in reference to them were
merely formal and done in the regular course OF
business.
He defended the Department against imputatlons
of having withheld important papers from the Com
mittee and maintained his personal recollection ana
account of an interview with Messrs. Beck and Eos
ter of the Committed regard TO the papers, against
the recollection and account given OF 1T by those
gentlemen The point at issue, however,
was not very important one. and was merely
question of a difference in understanding what the
agreement between them was. He declined to give
an opinion as to the propriety of repeating, amend
ing. or continuing the law it is, on the ground
that that was legislative question which was TO be
decided by the Committee and by Congress-