The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-05-05
THE INDIANA STATE SENTINEL. TUESDAY May s 1874

lernal revenue bareau, as well as the entire |
machinery OF the government for the
collection OF taxes, was placed at the
disposal Of sanborn, by letters from
the supervisors and collectors OF the Internal
Revenue 70 assist him in the examination of
that some OF the agents Of Sanborn who We're
not employees OF the government, We're without
authority Of the law Furnished by the secretary
and assistant secretary Of the treasury with
special letters to the supervisors ana collectors
throughout the country calling upon the said
onire. 10 addition 10 this, the more completely
arm him with power, two of these same agents
were furnished with the secret service 80 q
evo DETECTIVE COMMISSIONS. ss1
OF the solicitor of the treasury. IL is the opin-
ion of the committee that a very large per cent
age II OF all OF the 1857 900 Of taxes coec ed by
sanborn, were not proper subject of the con-
tract under the law and these taxes should and
would have been collected by the officers of the
internal revenue bureau, I'm the ordinary dis
before the committee that a bout $1,000 were col
looted by supervisor Hawiey and Simmons from
tsxss by schedule Of the internal
any one else. Nevertheless sanborn
cent? thereof The commitsse eises the case POI Of
the Delaware, Lackawana & Western r. r. Co.,
goes on to say that theory OF the law, as admin
Istered, is completely reversed, and instead Of
three persons being employed to assist the pro-
GERS OF the government have be- n made TO assist
them. 1t Is certain that the continuance OF
extent 10 the demo.aii9aiioS Of the en
tire outside working force engaged un-
der the internal revenue bureau in
fee ing alarmed at the apparent looseness with
which the law had been administered, was de-
sirious OF ascertaihing where the responsibility
rested. 1t would seem TO belong somewhere in
the treasury department.. The committee has
had oefort II the secretary, Assistant Secretary
rotary gave but little information and exhibited
an extreme want of knowledge as to the manner
or OF the provisions of the law ITSELF
His only connection, so far as he
could remember with those transactions was In
70 him rs mere matter OF Office routine, with
ont knowing their contents: The assistant sec
the law or the Contracts. and he in Ike maSne e
affixed his signature as matter of office routine.
The secretary and assistant secretary, by their
by the solicitor, thus indicating that the respon
sibility was upon him. The solicitor, in turn,
the treasury department. and the subondinate
OF the secretary of the treasury, without
any po~er in regard TO the administration OF
this law, except that expressly given by the
secretary, that he had been consulted in every
Instance by the secretary or assistant secretary
Of the treasury; that he had In all cases simply
obeyed the directions of his superior officers aud
mat the contracts and various orders of the
department were well known to the secretary
and assistant secretary.
THE DIsAGREEMENTs AND CONTRADICTION
given respectively by these gentlemen. as APP
pear from their testimony, is a matter greatly
deplored by the committee, as by It
they unable 10 fix upon any
one or any where the responsibility for the
maladministration of this law, and they look
with serious apprehension upon The apparent
Left M IA he
responsibility, each from himself to the other.
While the committee, therefore, is unable to
members could not, in Justice to themselves
ignore the fact that these three persons deserve
| severe condemnation Tor the manner In which
mlnistered. While the committee thus severely
criticize the officials OF the Mreasury Depart
ment directly charged with the administration
of this law, IL finds nothing Inn peaching the ia
| tegrity of Secretary Boutwells or Richardson &
the secretaries, or any of their associates, were
influenced by corrupt motives. 1t is due to the
administration Of the Treasury department by
Secretary Guthrie, such contracts were made fol
the collection of moneys due the United States
was continued up to the time when Mr.. Bout
well became secretary of the treasury. Wher
ne came mo once ne Iouna 3 NUMBER o
HECTOR testified that. after thorough
aid exhaustive examination, he found no author
| i y in law permitting them to be made, and thu
secretary of the treasury at once annulled them
and that nothing of consequence was ever col
lected from this class of contracts. Under thu
act of 1870, number of contracts were made b,
Secretary Boutwell,, and although IL was repre-
sented to the secretary that large sums were du
contracts professed to be able to collect wha
was due, the amount collected was very small
treasury department in the Contract bushes
here referred 70 is due to the fact that officers
we are told, concluded that the parties propos
1872, would fail to make collections in any con
siderable amount, and this fact may account 70
the apparent neglect OF this department TO care
fully and strictly enforce the law, and 1t 1
further due to
THE PRESENT TREASURY OFFICIALS
to say that not only was this law enacted Will
the predecessor ofthe present secretary was II
office, but that the first contracts wer
made by him and the genera
policy of the administration, subsequent
pursued. determined on while Mr.. Boutwell, wa
secretary of the treasury. The committee is o
the opinion that any system OF farming cut tn
collection of any portion of the revenues of tn
. govern ment Is fundamentally wrong, that n
: necessity for such a law exists for the reaso
that the secretary of the treasury and the hea
cred by law to make all collections OF lakes, in
Guiding taxes due on account OF repealed law
The internal revenue bureau Is possessed q
full knowledge Of the laws relating to the collet
the the machinery for the fun and complete en-
VI 10 nav ar dscreion tor in
formation, congress making appropriation
therefor. Amy law that provides for any ofhe
method of collecting the taxes, the duty {
which collection is imposed on any department
of the government, is, In fact, reflection on th
department charged with that duty, The com
mittee, in view of the facts presented, be
lieve the law of May s, 1872, should be II
pealed, and that the contracts made there
also believe: that for every service rendered b
| these contractors an exoroitant reward has bee
, made; for every thing in equity which the
might claim more than enough has already bee
paid; for every legal claim settlement ha
been perfected on the most liberal scale. II
some cases the committee is satisfied tina
moneys have been paid to the contractor, {
which he was not entitled under The law. No,
when the whole subject has been investigated
in order to end forever all demands agains
The treasury ON this account, and to avail
the danger that the tax administration unde
carless officers may at some fu fure time affon
a new opportunity to assayl the treasury unde
the color of these contracts. The statute shoul