Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1874-05-08
The president aud the s"nbOrn Dust,


tcrdav presented TO the House careful
aud compact report Of the facts In the San
horn business. The general conviction
will be that II should make IL impossible
for Nessrs. Richardson and Sawyer TO re-
main longer in charge Of the Treasury Dc
partment. The report leaves but two iudg-
ments TO he formed of the conduct OF these
gentlemen-that ii was corrupt, or that II
was inexpressibiy negligent and careless.
The committee say, in regard TO Mr. Rich
ardson, that they find nothing TO impeach
the integrity of his action, and they COM
DO. us to accept the alternative conclusion.
They make no distinct declaration Ms TO
whether we are TO condemn him on one or
the other count; but that he is TO be con-
demncd they leave no doubt at all. We
shall not describe in detail the facts pre-
scented by the committee, but call attention
to few of the most important facts, which
show condition of things in the Treasury
Department that cannot bc ignored with
safety.
In the first place, the committee find that
the contracts with SanLorn cover taxes to
the amount of several millions, all in the
internal revenue. Bearing in mind that
the contrasts surrendered one half Of all
taxes included in thCm, for the sake of get
ting the remainder, aud il becomes plain,
beyond any rcasona Lle doubt, that the
Treasury Department took no precautions,
before signing away millions OF taxes due
.thc Government, to ascertain whether such
action was at all necessary. Aud ii is also
plain that the Secretary ignored evidence
that was presented 10 him that the Govern
mcnt was being robbed.
There was the sum Of S437 900 collected
under the contract with Slnborn, Of which
that enterprislng gentleman received one
half. at is the opinion Of The committee
that very large percentage, If not all, of
this amount Hcucr wds property a subject Of
contract under the lar; and that these tax
es should and would have been collected
by the Internal Revenue Bureau in The or
binary discharge of their duty The
committee specify some Of the grounds for
this damaging conclusion. One hundred
thousand dollars Of the collections was for
taxes on legacies and SUGGESTIONS. Ofthese
the law requires a list to be made from the
various fDCul SnIIpAhAGS. Offices, anu 10 lt
kept in the Internal Revenue onlces.
Where this was done the contractors made
no progress, and could make any only
where the negligence, or worse, Of the Fed
eral officers opened the way.
Ten thousand dollars were shared with
Sanborn for taxes collected under schedule
&C., of the Internal Revenue law. This
amount was actually collected by Super
visors Hawley and Simmons, and the COM
mlttec do not find that Sanborn had any
thing to do with lis collection. Oae hun
bred thousand dollars were collected from
the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western
Railr Dad Company. Sanboln aid not col
lect or assist in collecting it, But he re-
ceived one half of the amount, on the
strength Of a letter notifying the depart
ment of the remittance of 4 check from the
company, and claiming share in IT, lie
was enabled to write this letter by the aid
OF some one in the Treasury Department,
as is shown by tho fact that he mentioned
the number of the check then in the Treas
urv, and no ono outside of the department,
save the Treasurer Of the railroad compa-
ny and his clerk, could have known the
lumber. This fact was disclosed in tho
testimony weeks ago.
Again, it appears hom the committees
report that Sanhorn had in repeated in
stances the entire services Of officers paid
by the Government to observer" delin-
gu ent taxes. Of which lie then proceeded to
get one INA If for having "discovered" them
himself.
But the fact which most completely cstab-
fishes the worthesSnCss, If nothing worse,
OF the methods ur doing business in the
Treasury Department il that, though the
committee have had before them all the
officers whose names can be traced directly
or indirectly in connection with these
'maraadiug contracts" they have been on
tirely unable TO find out who i RESPONSE
bl c for their origin. This point l. entirely
clear, and though we can readily conceive
that the Secretary cannot lie held directly
responsible for all of even the important
acts done in his department, he must
know who is responsible, or he guilty OF
! gross negligence and inexcusabe incapac
| ity.
These, then, are some Of the leading feat
ures in this Sanborn affair. To US they arc
both disgusting and discouraging, and they
call for immediate and thorough treatment.
That treatment cannot now come wholly
from Congress- That body can repeal the
la " that occasionod this miserable bust
n esS, and can annul the contracts, which
| Ought long since TO have been annulled by
| the Secretary. But they cannot immedi-
| aleiy cause the resignation Of Messrs. Rich.
ardson and Sawyer. That lies, at present
in the power Of the President only. II hC
values the good name of his Adminstra
ton, and that Of the great party which it
represents, as he ought TO value them, he
will lose no line in exercising his power.
". Y. Times, 5th inst