Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1875-12-10

story of the SuEg Fort
Claim-WhO He
spOnsIble
from the New York SUM-
| WASHINGTON, Dec. There are
some very peculiar thugs about the
investigation ordered by Secretary
Bristow as to certain alleged IRE gular-
tiles in the Second Comptrolier's and
Third Auditors offices worth consider
ing. The Sugg Fort claim was allowed
and a warrant was drawn for the amount
thereof four hours after the close of
Office hours on the Both of June, 1874,
and the draft of the United States
Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer
at New York for S23, 1913 so was paid
on the following morning to Roderick
e. Butler of Tennessee. Secretary
Br1stOw's attention was called to the
fraudulent character of the claim on
the I'd of July, the day following its
payment, aud while the claimant, Fort,
was still in Washington with the bulk
of the stolen money in his pocket, and
yet Secretary Bristow did not appoint
the special agents to examine into the
validity of the claim until the 21st of
| October following, thus giving Fort
| over three months in which to cover
up his tracks, and put hisproperty be-
yond reach. Then, Instead of refer
| ring the matter 10 The Solicitor, the
| law officer of the Treasury, after his
! attention had been called to the fraud
| ulent character Of the claim, the Sec
rotary called upon the laird Auditor
the officer who allowed the claim, and
recommended its payment to the Sec
oDd Comptroller-to defend his action
in passing this claim.
Under date of July %, 1874, the
Third Auditor makes long report or
statement i'll regard to the claim of
Sugg Fort" to Assistant Secretary
Hartley, in which he argues first that
the claim arose under contract, and
not under seizure, aud places the Com
miss iOnary General In an attitude that
he not only did not occupy, but one
that was in itself absurd. The Third
Auditor says that the Commissionary
General first declined to entertain it,
not because of any want of merit, but
because he regarded it as a seizure of
property which he could not entertain,
as 1t bad not been presented prior to
the act OF March 3. 1871, the act cre-
ating the Commissions of Claims, but
when the claim was again presented TO
uiIu uo SfIuSutlJ CuaHSOd LIS OpLulOu
upon that point, for he entered it, and
having determined that it was just, and
that the climant was loyal, transmitted
to the accounting officers for settle
ment in the sum of S23, 723. so. And
the Auditor adds: ellis latter opinion
upon this poiut seems to have been
correct" Now the truth is and
this was well known to the Third Audi
tor when he wrote this report to Score
tary iar.ley-that the calm Vas orig
inally presented to COmfnisSiUnary
General Eaton, who, uuder date of
March %, 1873, returned the claim to
the attorney Of Fort on the ground that
the COMMISSIONER Generals office had
no Jurisdiction OF tho claim.
WHAT WAS CoSCEALED.
The fact that the claim was examined,
allowed, and recommended for pay
ment by Commissary-G General Shiras,
who had succeeded Gen. Eaton, was
studiOuslv concealed, and the bold as
sertion was made that the Conmissa-
ry-General had changed his mind |
about the claim being one for seizure |
of property, aud had decided that the |
claim arose under contract, which last
opinion the audi or says WAS correct"
from the letter of Commissary- General |
Shiras to one of the special agents,
dat Nov, 13, 1874, that when the !
Hon. r. r. Butler, accompanied by
Sugg Fort, called upon him on the
Oath of June, the act of March 3, 1871. |
was discussed; that he told them that !
he had not time to examine it; that in
a few days he had the opportunity to
examine said act, and that he concluded |
that he had jurisdiction over the claim.
thus reversing the decision of his pred |
ecessor and the entire previous prac-
tics of the Office.
Gen Eaton never raised the question
Of '.scizHre Of property" at all. He
simply decided that he had no jurisdic-
ton of the claim, aud returned it to |
FOri's attorney. Gen. Shiras could |
not, therefore, have charged his mind |
about It's being claim for Seizure of ,
property and decided that it arose !
under contract" for he had not had |
anything to do with tue ca4s until it |
was presented to him on the Doth of |
June, 1874.
This statement of the Auditor there
fore was q gross falsehood. intended to |
deceive Assistant Secretary Hartley |
and Secretary Bris:ow, aud apparently !
did deceive them.
The Third Auditor then attempts to !
make Il point that i vas the duty of |
the Clerk of the House of Representa-
Jives TO certify the whole casa; that is, |
that ne should have stated what action |
if any had been taken on the claim by |
the House or a committee thereof. |
Inquiry Of the Clerk of the House |
shows the absurdjty Of this. When |
ever copies of certain papers on the !;
files of the House are desired by any |
person the Clerk furnishes such copies, |
duly certified, upon payment OF the |
fees fof transcribing the same. But |
if the head of any department Or bu
reau of a department desired any pa
pers on the files of the House he was
furnished with either the originals or
certlfit d copies of the same, and in |
the latter event, complete copy of
the case endorsements and all, was
made.
The Auditor then lays that if the
accounting officers had known that any
committee of the House had consid-
cred the case they would have declined
to take action on it. There is reason
TO believe that the third Auditor did
know that the case had been rejected
by the committee OF War Claims, and
that clerk in that Office will SO testify
under oath, and that it can be estabs
iiahed in other ways. If he did not,
then he was and is unit to be Third
Audiror. He knew that the case was
pending before that committee, for he
had furnished it or a member of 1t
with Information In regard to the same.
That member had only a month pre-
vions asked to be informed whether
or not the i'll and records of the Third
Auditors Office showed that the -four
I of Sugg Fort for which he claimed
| compensation was taken aud used by
the army, asking specifically as to the
accounts of certain officers on duty at
Nashville at the time, which would
have shown thal fact if the flour had
been taken Iu reply thereto the
! .nL Ii A,,altc,,: Lad f,lrr,ishcl lie com