The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-10
Postal Investigation -Danforth's Tes
timony Contradicted.

The house committee on postoillces and
post roads to-day examined j. l.. Sander
son, of the firm of Barlow & Sanderson,
formerly Barlow, Sanderson & Company
western mail contractors. He testified that
he had always attended personally to the
xtcution of their mail contracts, and the
running of their various stage lines, while
Barlow attended to the firms business in
Washington. Witness knew nothing of
the details of the letter. He never made a
straw bid, never caused one to be put in
and had no knowledge that any member of
the firm had ever made one He also swore
that he never paid any money or made any
presents TO any postofilce official never
authorized or suggested any, and never
knew of any member of the firm doing any
such thing.
Being questioned with reference to the
testimony gwen by S. A. Danforth of Chi
cago, Sandcrson declared that nearly all of
Dantorths assertions were absolutely false.
Witness had never been q roommate of
Danforth never told Danforth that it re-
qured money to grease the officials in
Washington never said anything Of this
character nothing Of the kind had ever
SutGINu Dlb tniuu utNCT tOlu Ian
that Kansas member of congress had
backed them in their mail bids as mat
ter of TACT there was no such backing he
never told Danforth that the firm paid one
department official 1000 quarter or that
presents or payments were made to others.
Witness allowed Danforth to occupy
part Of their Office buildings in Kansas
City at the request of the railroad COM
pany, for which he (Danforth) was agent
but never talked with him about the firms
business, except possibly ii may have been
10 become a bondsman of some bid about
the year 1870; IN May, 1875, Danforth
showed witness in st. Louis letter from
the postmaster general asking him DAN
FORTH to furnish information about their
contracts, and asked witness what he
should do witness replied that he ought
to go on TO Washington and tell anything
he knew, adding that he (witness) had no
objection thereupon Danfor,h said he
had no money for expenses, to which wit
ness rejoined that he had none to lend or
give him.
Sanderson was then Intercepted concern
ing Danfofth's statement that they had
burned their books He explained that
large lot Of papers, books, etc relating to
the business of the old firm had accumulat-
ed up to the year 1850; that the old bust
ness had all been settled, and a new set of
books opened when the firm changed, and
that, their office being small and frequently
moved as the railroad terminus advanced,
bookkeeper suggested that the old rubbish
should be disposed OF. He therefore told
the bookkeeper to do what he pleased with
the accumulation, and subsequently, was in
formed of their destruction. These books
and papers contained nothing that he want
ed to conceal no had no thought of any
such thing witness paid no attention TO
the bookkeeping In Washington he had
entire confidence in his partner, Mr.. Bar
low, and, indeed, never looked into his own
books when he wanted to know how he
stood he asked his bookkeeper, and got the
desired information from the slips of paper
which the latter would then hand him.
In conclusion witness averred most posi-
lively that he never knew, until he read
the newspaper report of Mr.. Barlow's tes-
timony before the committee, of payments
made by Barlow for buying off other bid
ders nor of the manner in which the firm
had been blackmailed. lie and his partner
reposed unlimited confidence in each other
and each attended exclusively to his own
department of the firms business. Mr..
Barlow had, however, repeated to witness
the statement contained IN his (Barlow's)
testimony, that he had never paid any
money or made sny present, directly or in
directly, to any government officer -
Washington Dispatch.