Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-11

the nero OF the House. Willie ire Alt~e0 e--N
books showed that the original statement OF
| the gentleman from Massachusetts was
| true.
Dawes Retraets His Retraetion.
Mr.. Dawes said the gentleman from
Kentucky did not quite do him justice. he
| Dawes had admitted on the floor OF the
House that the gentleman from Ohio Guar
field) was correct. He had since examined
the figures and was still of the opinion that
| the gentleman from Ohio was correct with
this exception: that the gentleman from
Ohio had accidently stated the sinking
fund TO be So, 100000 while it was szs,
100000, he therefore was glad of the cor
rection. He did not think, however, that
the gentleman from Ohio was correct IN
his other statement in regard to his COM
| parison of the expenditures from year 10
| year. The gentleman from KENTUCKY
| (Beck) was correct in that respect, ana
while he Oawes) should be glad to have 1t
the other way, he insisted that the fSires
did not carry that gentleman out IN regard
to the sinking fund.
Mr.. Beck denounced the Sanborn con
tracts, the law for which, he said, had been
determined by Mr.. Garfield. He then
passed TO the question of unexpended PAL
ances, and charged that officials were with
holding
$4,000, 900 Unexpended Balances,
and drawing on them without authority OF
| Congress and against law. He said that
| S3l9,000,000 had been appropriated for the
current fiscal year, and that amount was
an excess of 30,000,000 over the preceding
year, and of a still larger sum over the
year before that, and that expenditures had
been increasing every year from 1871 up.
Mr.. Butler, of Massachusetts,, said If he
were convinced that the Secretary Of the
Treasury had allowed money 10 be drawn
| from the Treasury on their unexpended
balances in violation of law, he would in
troduce tomorrow resolution for his i'm
| parchment. He went on however to ex-
plain the circumstances and to argue the
| law had not been violated. Reyerting to
| Mr.. Beck's intimatiOn about the Sanbon
contracts, he said be did not know who had
engineered that bill. If it was the gentle
man from Ohio Mr.. Gariield) that
gentleman had not done badly
in that respect. He had seen in the public
prints that he (Butler) had engineered 1t.
They did him honor Oyer-much. If he
had engineered that bill in the interest Of
Sanbon he would have seen to it that
Sanborn would get the contracts first. He
had examined voluminOus correspondence
of the Senate and House on the subject,
and his own (Butlers) name was almost
| the only name of member which did not
appear in it. He had never recommended
that Slnborn should have the contract, and
did not know anything Of it until SanbOn
had got it. If Sanborn had asked him
about taking the contract he would have
advised him against it, that there were
malicious men, lying men, who would in
sist that he had done wrong; that he would
be abused in the newspapers, and that If he
was sensitive at all lie would never get
money enough to compensate him. But
he had not asked his advice. The admin
istration had been attacked in the matter
by a corrupt press, aged on and paid by
the very men who had cheated the govern
ment out of its taxes. He went on TO give
the history Of the law and the reasons for
giving out such contract. The Objec,
was to ascertain cases of delinquent taxes
due from railroads, from whisky dealers
and from the heirs Of rich SUCCESSORS.
Among other things the Erie railroad had
been brought to book for half million Of
back taxes.
Mr.. Foster asked Butler how much had
/
Company.
Mr.. Butler replied that none had been
collected vet, because the Erie Railroad
Company had set the newspapers on san
born in order TO get the law repealed and
get up a row in Congress over it till the
time for collecting delinquent taxes had
run out.
Mr.. Beck asked Mr. Butler whether he
y-aal to n
connection with the SanbOrn contract.
| Mr.. Butler-By no means. On the con-
trary thank the gentleman from Kentucky
for giving me an opportunity Of stating
what could not otherwise have stated.
Mr.. Beck certainly have never con-
nected the gentleman from MaSsachu-
sets with such contracts, for if there is
ANYTHING on earth that is apparent it is that
these contracts from their inception to the
present time are
BuOyant with Corruption.
| Butler-PreciSely- corrupt as l sup
pose the Secretary of the Treasury was
fraudulent in spending balances. 1t is
easy to say corrupt. If you show me any
body who has been called upon to pay taxes
that he did not owe, / will beg his pardon,
and beg pardon of the gentleman from
Kentucky, and that viii be hard enough.
| TLaughter.l l stand here not to be fright
ened by hard words in this matter.
Mr.. Eldridge asked whether il would not
have been more in cOnsOnance with repub-
lican institutions and Republican adj
ministratiOn to have removed the officers
who failed to do their duty, and put in
their stead good men who would have exc
cuted the law so as not to neceSsitate any
such proceedings.
Mr.. Butler replied that the question was
in effect whether it wouldn't be better for
everybody TO do his own duty. lie agreed
that it was, but these derelict taxes had been
concealed, and never would have been col
lected but for the efforts of the contractors.
Mr.. Foster, a member of the Committee
on WAYS and Means, said that he had of
fered the resolution under which the report
about the Sanborn contract had been made.
He was also authorized by the Committee
on Ways and Means to report bill to re-
peal that law. he undertook to say that
Three-quarters of all the Collections
made under these contracts would have
been made by the ordinary internal revenue
officers.
Mr.. Hawley, of Connecticut, related the
case of Geo. w. Williams * Co., of Hart
ford, who had under pressure paid back
taxes under this Sanborn contract, although
the Collector and Commissioner 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;
it was blackmailing.
Mr.. Butler was glad to have one case
specified, and what was it? 1t was the
case of a patent medicine dealer who had
not paid his taxes, but who, after having
had time to take counsel, paid them under
these contracts. 1t had not been charged
that any penalties had been inflicted.
Where was the infamy in that? He (Butler)
failed TO see it. If the tax had been
wrongfully paid, it could have been re-
turned by the Secretary of the Treasury,
but this firm had never applied for it. He
supposed they had not got over their scare
yet.
Mr.. Dawes protested against this discus
sion now.
VOices-Let it 60 on.
Mr.. I Oster said that the law had been
that, instead of these contractors assisting
the revenue officers in the discovery OF back
taxes, thefevenue officers had been assisting
them, for which the contractors had Ie-
ceived $4,000. a large amount OF taxes