Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-03-11

]
| 900, or $50, 200, 600 more than 1S72-73.
I He said he had demonstrated beyond
the chance of a mistake, that the sink
/ ing fund was included in all figures
I given for the expenditures of every
| year since 1870, and he said Mr.. Dawes
had done wrong in taking back, at the
request of Mr.. Garfield, what he had said
in regard to the sinking fund. Hehad no
doubt that Mr.. Dawes was glad to be
relieved. Mr. Garfield, in order to shield
his party, and newspapers, had taken it
no aud showed how thegentleman.f from
I Massachusetts, had been slandering his
own party, and the gentleman from
Ohio was again the hero of the hour.
while the facts and the books showed
that the original statement of the gen.
tlen1an from Massachusetts, was tue.
Mr.. Dawes said tlat the gentleman
from Kentucky did not quite do him
justice. He Dawes1 had admitted on
the floor of the house that the gentle
man from Ohio [Garfield] was correct;
he had since examined the figures, and
was still of opinion that the gentleman
from Ohio was correct, with this excep-
tion, that the gentleman from Ohio had
accidentally stated the sinking fund TO
be forty-three million dollars, while ii
W rs only twenty y-nine million; he, there
fore, was glad of the correction; he did
not think, however, that the gentleman
from Ohio was correct in this other
statement in regard to his comparison
of expenditures from year to year. The
gentleman from Kentucky Beck was
brrect in that respect, and while he
DaWes] should be glad to have it the
other way, he insisted that the figures
did not carry that gentleman out in re-
gard to the sinking fund.
Mr.. Beck denounced the Sanborn cor
tracts, the law for which, he said, had
been engineered by Mr.. Garfield, and
then passed TO the question of unex-
pended balances, and charged that the
officials were Withholding the So, ,000,-
600 UneXpended balances, and drawing
upOh them without the authority of con-
gress, and against the law. He said that
S3l9,000,O00 had been appropriated for
the current fiscal year, and that this
amount was an excess OF $50, 900, 000over
the preceding year, and of still larger
sum over the year before that; and that
the expenditures had been increasing
every year from 1871 up.
Mr.. Butler Mass. said that if he were
convinced that the secretary of the
tICdSuIy hdu tllONCO DlOii6y W DO uTdNu
from the treasury on these uneXpended
balances, in violation of law, he would
introduce tomorrow a resolution for his
impeachment. He went on, however,
to explain the circumstances, and to ar
que that the law had not been violated.
Reverting to Mr.. Beck's intimation
about the SanbOrn contracts, he said he
did not know who had engineered that
bill; if it was the gentleman from Ohio
Mr.. Garfeld], that gentleman had not
done badly in that respect; he
had seen it IN the public prints that he
[Butler] had engineered it. They did
him honor overmuch. If he had en-
gineered that bill in the interest of San
born he would have seen to it, that San
born would have got the contract first.
He had examined the voluminous cor
respondence sent to the house on the
subject, aud his own Butler name was
almost the only name of a member
which did not appear in it.
He had never recommended that
SanbOTn should have the contract,
and did not know anything of it until
Sanborn had got it; if Sanborn had
asked him about taking the contract, he
would have advised him against it, be-
cause there were enYiOus men, malicious
men, and lying men, who would insist
that he had done wrong; that he would
be abused IN the newspapers, and that if
Re was sensitive at all, he would
never get money enough to
compensate him. But he had never
asked his advice. The administration
had been attacked in this matter by a
corrupt press, urged on and paid by ev-
cry man who h&d cheated the govern
ment out of its taxes. He went on to
give the history of the law, and the rea-
sons for giving out such q contract. The
object was to ascertain the cases of de-
lnqUent taxes from railroads, from whis-
ky dealers and from rich SUGGESTIONS.
Among other things, the Erie railroad
had been brought to the book for half q
million back taxes.
Mr.. Foster asked Mr.. Butler how
much had been collected from the Erie
railroad.
MIR. Butler replied that none of it had
been collected yet, because the Erie rail-
road company had set the newspapers
on Sanborn in order to get the law re-
peale1 and get up a row in congress over
it till the time for collecting these delin-
quent taxes had run out.
Mr.. Beck asked MIR. Butler whether
he supposed that he Beck had referred
to him in connection with the Sanborn
contract.
Mr.. Butlef-By no means. On the
contrary, / thank the gentleman from
Kentucky for giving me an opportunity
of stating what l could not otherwise
have stated.
Mr.. Beck-I certainly have never
connected the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts with such contracts. For if
there is anything on earth that is appa-
rent, it is that these contracts, from
their reception to the present time, are
buoyant with corruption.
Mr.. Precisely as corrupt as l
suppose the secretary of the treasury
was fraudulent in spending these
balances. 1t is easy to say
corrupt. If you show me anybody who
has been called upon to pay taxes that
he did not owe, / viii beg his pardon,
and beg the pardon of the gentleman
from Kentucky, and that will be hard
enough. Laughter 1 stand here not
to be frightened by hard words on this
matter. If any man can controvert one
single word 1 have said, / will be ready
to meet him anywhere under an ire
sponsibility.
Mr.. EIdridge asked whether it would
not have been more in coDsonanee with
republican institutions and republican
ad Illustration to have removed the
offic 9 who failed to do Their duty, and
put in their stead good men, who would
have executed the law so as not to He-
cessitate any such proceedings.
Mr.. Butler replied that the ques-
ton was, in effect, whether it would not
be better for every man to do his duty.
He argued that it was; but these dere-
lict taxes had been concealed, and never
would have been collected but for the
efforts of contractors.
Mr.. Foster, a member of the commit
tee on ways and means said that he had
offered a resolution under which the re-
port about the Sanborn contract had
been made; he was also authorized by
the committee on ways and means to
report a bill TO repeal that law. He un-
dertook to say that three-fourths of all
the collections made under those con-
tracts would have been made by ordi-
nary internal revenue officers.
Mr.. Hawley IConn. related the case
of George w. Williams & Co., of Hart
ford, who had, under pressure, paid back
taxes under this Sanborn contract, al
though the collector and the commits
sioner of internal revenue had decided,
both before and after, that they were
not liable for those taxes. The law
might be Just, but the execution of it
was infamous-ltw was blaekmalling.
Mr.. Butler was glad to have one case
specified, and what was 1t? 1t was the
case of a patent medicine dealer who