New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-01

contract justified them in doing that very
thing, and an examination of the instrument
reveals the astonishing fact that this answer
is strictly true. Sanborn. for instance, filed an
application for leave to collect taxes from two
or three thousand persons or corporations.
According to Mr.. Banfcld's testimony no at
tempt whatever was made to ascertain whether
the claims alleged in the application were wen
founded, or whether the taxes were III course
of collection by the regular officers. 1t was
assumed that everything was right because
Sanborn said 40. When Pendery applied for
a contract under the same law, Mr.. Baniield
reported against his proposal, saying, "suf-
"ficient evidence has not been presented to
satisfy mo chat a case would be made our {;
90. experience in this class of contracts
"shows that the Government Is liable to DC MIS-
"lcd by acting upon err parte representations !;
SO" | sincerely think that the Govern
"ment should not proceed i'll so serious mat
I" ter rs this upon merely presuinptive testl-
"mony :" but when Sanborn sent in his lists
of two or three thousand names no such eau
ton was observed. The contract was granted
at once. 1t covered every name that ne pre-
sented 1t embraced. as we showed some
time ago. the names of a number OF persons
who had paid their taxes in full. And what
are its terms7 1t authorizes SanDorn 10
"proceed to collect the said taxes so al
"leged to be due,n and it provides that
. "wlenever am money shall be collected from said
"persons upon said claims, either by tegat pro
cecdiagso or BY settlement as compromise % SaIa
claims" one-half tho proceeds shall be PAID
to Sanborn. Remark, it is not required that
Sanborn shall have done anything whatever
TO collect the taxes, or to AID III
their collection. The proper officers OF
the Government may have discovered
and assessed them in the ordinary way; the
debtors nav have come forward of their own
accord. stated their liabilities, and offered
payment. No matter If the names are on
| Sanborn's list-a list which District Attorney
Bliss calls q "a drag net" made up at SanDorn $
own pleasure never revised, verified, or checked
in any way by the Governmcnt-one hall the
| taxes, however collected, must go to the con-
tractor.
| And now Mr.. Richardson comes before the
| Committee of Ways and Means, and tells them
that he had no particular knowledge OF the
| Sanborn contracts when they were made Che
has always tried to convey the impression that
| they were concluded by Mr.. BoutwelD, and
| that he believes the law ought to be repealed
We know not which to wonder at the more In
the Secretary of the Trcasury-his eflrontery
| or his ignorance. Two contracts were made
by Mr.. Boutwell,, one with Kelsey Ill June,
| 1872, and one with Ebert i'll November, 1877 !;
all the rest, namely, two with Campbell, one
with Clark, and the three or four contracts
and extensions with SanbOrn, were made by
Mr.. Richardson, either as Secretary or Acting
Secretary. And during all this time it has been
| in Mr.. Richardson's power to break up the
whole business by stroke of his pen. The
law does not instruct, it only empowers him,
to employ persons to assist i'll collecting the
revenue 1t does not command him to pay hfty
per cent for the service; it leaves the compen-
sation to his discretion. Every contract
that he has made contains Clause
which reads, "This contract may be revoked
cat any time at the pleasure d the Secretary
d" of the Treasury" Yet the contracts stand.
| The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has
demonstrated. The istrict-AttOrney at New
York. with characteristic indirectiOn has taken
| pains that Richardson should act with his eyes
wide OPEN Even ex-SupervisOr Simmons pro-
fesses to have entered a gentle protest. Yet
the Secretary of the Treasury persists in CIV
ing away fifty per cent of the taxes which
Commissioner Douglass tells us were all in
course of collection, and now tells Congress
that the only way to stop his malfeasance Is
to repeal the law