National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-04-28
CAPITAL TOPICS.
tCpAiiased from Firsf Pogo

tCpaiiased from First Post.)
By Mr. Cochrsne: Did you always Indicate on
your checks the purpose for which they were
hnswer. Ibid not, sir.
Question. ind here . check paid 10 Q Mr..
Answer. He was clerk In MY once. The check
to him was TO pay the clerks under him in his
room witness s%p,cysd an Gle clerks but as they
pay Yves given TO him in bulk.
By Mr.. Conger: Did the President at the time
any time Thereafter in any shape or manner, state
that any portion Of this money was to be used FOR
political purpoeesf
TO be used in the detection Of frauds at election,
and to result in q faithful execution Of the laws.
When the plan was explained to Governor Fish
he said he had examined the plans to prevent
frauds in Paris, and he thought Mr.. Dayenport's
plan was better than any plan he had seen.
By Mr. Cochrane: q. Was this extra work done
Witness replied that afser an examination he
sary that one man should devote his whole stten-
ton to the subject for the purpose OF detecting
fraud, especially as three or four men were de-
He found it necessary to do this extra work, for
the law directed the detection Of frauds, but did
not lay down the plan.
you went beyond the laws Of ISL and ls72f A.
admit that the preparation Of these books and the
other extra work was not specifically contem-
q. was the work contemplated by any act of
Congress? A. No, sir. But It grew out Of the
necessities Of the case; deemed all those books
necessary. For instance, take Q convict book on
which had recorded the names Of all convicts,
the time they served psnitsniary and ether
In the case Of Terrence Quinn for instance, it was
found that he was convict.
ness going into that matter again in detail. He
had already told the committee Of Quinn's case.
Mr.. Conger thought the witness was answering
in proper way. He regretted the tendency to
stop the witness whenever he was going on to
show how he exposed frauds.
Mr.. Durham thought that remark was unfair.
He (MT. Durham) was as fair as any man, but he
would stop the witness whenever he wandered eff
from the question.
TIE witness produced What he called his con-
By Mr.. Coehrane is there any act of Congress
authorizing that book2
Question Then it is your own idea, and you got
it up because You thought IL necessary
Witness replied that he knew Of no law which
in precise terms directs the making of such a
book; but he found It necessary TO prevent frauds
He had also q book in which he recorded the
deaths Of males in New York. This was also to
bookf -.
Of persons registered and voted in the names of
dead men. 1t was therefore necessity, but he
knew Of no statute that specially authorized it,;
Q. Do You know of any statute that implicitly
Witness knew of no authority except tina, clause
Of the law which makes Il the duty of the COM
ton and prevention Of election frauds.
q. Do you know Of any statute that gives
commissioner discretion to prepare books like
Witness knew of no such law except such as was
implied. But the President, the Attorney Gene
thought that this extra work was necessary
By Mr.. Conger: Was not the appropriation out
of which this money was paid made TO detect
the discretion Of the Attorney General?
Witness replied that that was it, and i was be;
cause Of this discretion that the President and
In reply to Mr. Wait witness further said that
his books had accomplished the object at which
he aimed, and Democrats, aswell as Republicans,
Mr.. Durham wanted witness to name any Demo
Gratis who had approved of his mode of detecting
Fellows Isaac Sherman. (wbo was a Greeley
man, James NJ. Brown and Foster Dewey, late
private secretary 30 VIM: NJ. Tweed. Dewey told
in New York know what your system has done,
and If any one proposes to buck up against 1t; II
not pretend to say that the Democrats approved
of getting up the books. He had never told any
one that there was no authority for this extra
work. His death-record book prevented many
frauds.
Mr.. Davenport was going on to explain his books
at some length when Mr.. Durham objected on
the ground that he was proceeding to make
Mr.. Conger again objected to the interruption
of the witness. He believed it the duty Of the
committee to discover frauds, and he had never
seen so good an opportunity to have the means Of
fraud explained.
Inc COMMITTEES on Expenditures Of the Depart.
ment OF Justice resumed the investigation at $50
o'clock.
Mr.. Davenport's attention was called to let
ter written by him to Col. II. q. Whitley in 1871,
in which he asks Whitley for the 5000 which it
was agreed was to be sent to him In New York.
What he had reference TO was the agreement be-
tween himself and the President and the Attor
He did not get it all at one time but II was paid
in different sums and at different times The
whole amount he received In ISL was 5000. In
July, 1872, he received 5000 at one payment.
Witness understood that the money came out Of
an appropriation Of 10000 TO be expended by the
ment Of frauds. Witness had an interview, he
thought, but was not certain, on the subject with
the PRESIDENT also in 1872 before the Presidential
out the acts Of 1871 and 1872 the work should go
on, and he required more money, and he stated 10
the President that he desired the money 70 be
paid under the act for detection Of frauds There
was no alluEion made by the President or witness
to the fact that 1872 was the Presidential year.
1t would have been improper for either to allude
TO the fact. Besides the law had no reference
whatever TO a Presidential election. 1t referred
only to frauds perpetrated in Congressional
election.
Witness attention was called to the fact that
one receipt he gave for money received Indicated
that il was received in pursuance Of the act for
the detection Of frauds IN elections, while o re-
ceipt given for an amount subsequently, received
was for services stated to have been rendered. He
explained this discrepancy by stating that the
first receipt could not be found at the time, and
that the second was written from memory. He
here produced vouchers for payments from Janu-
airy TO April, 1872. One lot of vouchers aggre-
gated e, 637.22. which was for the pay Of clerks
for copying, and for no other purpose. This
amount was for work antedating July Is, 1872,
when witness received another Is 0oo. As TO the
amounts otherwise expended between April Q,
1872, and July b. 1877 that will be ascertained by
reference TO vouchers in the Treasury Depart
ment, which witness cannot reach to-day. The
application for the Is, 600 paid July Is was made
two weeks before that. Never carried a written
order from the President to Attorney General
Williams for the money. Mr.. Williams had stated
that to be thecase, buthe was mistaken. The only
objection Williams ever made to paying that money
was that Col. Whitley wanted the fund to be
used In the South If Mr.. Williams stated other
wise on this point, he was mistaken in that also.
Witness next received $4,000 on September 26.
dered and expenses incurred, but witness did not
know why this receipt differed from the first one,
as the money was paid for the same service as the
first payments were made for. 1t is possible that
Whitley objected to paying the $1,000 for he
wanted all the money he could get to use in Ku-
klux operations. Attorney General Williams
wrote TO Whitley TO pay witness the money, and
then Whitley's connection with 1t ceased.
All the vouchers for expenses between July 81
and September &c, 1872, are in the Treasury De-
partment, except perhaps few bills.
After further examination as to vouchers, the
committee at 4:3o O'Clock adjourned until to-mor-