Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-05-08

unanimous report of that committee in the
Sanborn matter. The report consists Of q
brief analysis of the testimony, and a COM
prehensive summary of the conclusions of
the committee
The committee find that Kelsey, u mem
her Of Congress from New York, who was
the first contractor. was mainly instrument
tai in securing the passage of the law. They
find that the information furnished by the
paid officers Of the government on which
collections were made was placed at the dis
posal of Sanborn, who, availing himself OF
information paid for by the government.
obtained contract for the collection OF the
very claims thus brought to light. 1t fur
Their appears from the testimony of Sanborn
that when he applied for his railroad con-
tract he furnished a list of alleged delin
quent roads, taken from a railroad guide,
comprising the names of 592 railroad COM
panies, being substantially the entire list
Of railroads within the United States; that
he had knowledge Of the delinquency OF
only 100 to $50 of them, and that he had
no knowledge whatever of the delin
quency of the remaining 400 or $50.
Ii also appears that when he 50 represented
1t to the officers of the treasury department
he was there told that lit didn / make any
difference. and to put them all in. The
committee find that the whole power OF the
internal revenue bureau, as well as the
entire machinery Of the government Tor the
collection of taxes, was placed at the dis
pOsal of SanbOrn.
1t is the opinion of the committee that
very large percentage. it not all of the
Si31 900 of taxes collected by SanbOrn,
were not proper subject of contract under
the law, and these taxes should and would
have been collected by the internal revenue
bureau in the ordinary discharge Of their
duty.
The committee bear testimony to the
fidelity of single Supervisor, Tuition of
| Pennsylvania to the best interests of the
government he was sworn to protect. In
his district. owing to his energy and yigi-
lance, these contractors, marauding upon
the public treasury, were unable to take
these collections out Of his hands, though
all of them attempted it, He steadily re-
sisted them, and, through his own efforts,
aided by his subordinateS, he during the
| continuance OF these contracts succeeded in
collecting large amounts of taxes of the
very class of cases for which contracts have
been made.
While the committee have no direct evi-
dence that any internal revenue officer has
had any connection in the collection Of taxes
with SanbOrn, the circumstances are such
"a to show that certain internal revenue
officers were willing to obey the orders of
Sanborn, and in doing 50 did not commune
| cate the fact to the commissioners OF inter-
nal revenue. and through this agency very
large sums have been collected. The Off
GERS referred to are Supery iSors lllwlcy and
Simmons Of Massachusetts,
The committee conclude
The committee. feeling alarmed at the
apparent loOseneSs with which the law mas
been administered, were DESTROYS of ascer-
! tanning where the responsibility rested.
where it would seem to belong. somewhere
in the treasury department. They have had
before them the secretary, Assistant Secre-
tary Sawyer, and the solicitor of the treas
ury. The secretary gave but little ini0rma-
| ton, and exhibited an entire want of !
knowledge a. To the manner of making the |
contracts, administering the law. OF Oi the !
provisions of the law itself. iii. only con- !
nection, 80 TAR a. be could remember. with |
these transactions, was in aiiixing his sigma /
turc II the various papers present. /
ed 10 him. as mere matter OF I
Office routine. without knowing their con- /
tents. The assistant secretary di>claimed /
any particular knowledge of the law or CON /
tracts, and he, IN like manner. affixes his /
signature as matter of office routine The /
secretary and the assistant secretary by /
their testimony show that the papers were /
prepared by the solicitor. thus indicating
the responsibility upon him. The solicitor
in turn testified that he Is simply law officer
OF the department. and subordinate Ofthe .
secretary OF the treasury; that he had in all
eases simply oheyed the directions Of his
superior officers, and that the contracts and
various orders Of the departments were well
known to the secretary and assistant secre-
tary. The disagreements and contradic-
tons given respectively by these gentlemen,
a appears from this testimony, Is a matter
greatly deplored by the committee, as by It
they are unable 10 fix upon any one or any
where the responsibility Tor the mai admin
istratI0n of this law. and they look with
serious apprehension upon the apparent
efforts of these gentlemen 10 transfer the
responsibility each from himself o. the
other.
While the committee, therefore, are IN
able TO determine where the responsibility
rests, they cannot, in justice to themselves,
ignore the fact that these three persons de-
serve severe condemnation for the manner
in which they have permitted this law to
be administered. While the committee
thus severely critlci>e these officials Of the
treasury department directly charged with
the administration of this law. they find
nothing impeaching the integrity of Sccre-
tary Boutwell, : or Richardson action. and
the testimony does not prove that the >ccre-
taries or any Of their associates were inlu-
enced by corrupt motives and il IS due the
present treasury officials 10 say that nOtoniy
was this law enacted while the predecessor
of the present secretary was in office. hut
that the first contracts were made hy him,
and the general policy of administration
pursued determined upon
while Mr. Boutwell, was secretary of the
treasury. The committee are of the opinion
that any system Of farming the collection OF
any portion of the revenues Of the govern ,
ment Is fundamentally wrong that no ne I
cessity for such laws exists, for The reason /
that the secretary of the treasury and the :
head of the internal revenue bureau are full 9
ly empowered by law to makeall collections
of taxes, including taxes due on account Of
repealed laws
The committee. in view of the facts. be-
lieve the law of May ;, ls72, should be re-
pealed, and the contracts made hereunder
should be revoked and annulled They also Il
believe that for every service rendered by /
the contractors exOrbitant reward has been
made; for every equity which they might
claim, more than enough has already been l.
paid; for every legal claim. settlement has :
been perfected on the most liberal scale. In
some cases the committee are satisfied mon
,ys have been paid to the contractor TO &
which he was not entitled under the law. :
md the statute should in terms exclude all 4
urther claim on their part =