New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-01-26


Seooad-Tho accused Agent had resigned IN eoh'e-
ouence of a report made by me upon his agency. l
knew but one of the contractors, having met MIN
casually few times only.
Third-As to the reported interview between sec
rotary Schurz and Mr.. Smith, wherein the iai'er y
quoted as saving that he thought my retention Vi
these papers was a sufficient ground Tor "y us
missal l am authorized by Mr. Smith 10 say tha'
hoopo,ifed that by adding nness there was some
satisfactory explanation" had not. at that tine
rected TO Mr.. Smith the facts, but as PROOF that
offered him satisfactory explanation" SUBMIT
the following extract from his affidavit lie maze
this affidavit in November last subsequent TO his III
tcrview with Secretary Schurz, and gave II TO me
for lse before the board. quote:
have 70 say that during all my official inter
course with you never knew anything OF any natute
your conduct which led me to believe or SUSPECT tn SGn
10 shield any person cnnfged WIN iauu III
the Indian Service.
This affidavit. however, the board refused to re-
ceive on the ground that the order requiring my
answer did not contemplate anything except my
| individual statement The board is very careful
not to say that the successful prosecution OF 'hc
parties involved was jeopardzed by my delay
This oversight being the one chosen for my diS-
missal is therefore the worst of omission or
commission disclosed in busy and perplexng Off
ca record of eighteen months by an investigation
extending in limo over seven months, and III degree
TO the seizure of my private papers. lhat
error amounts to this: That /, acting
in entire good faith, overlooked for some
weeks certain papers charging fraud III
an Indian Agency. which frauds occurred under an
agent whom had forced out of the service White
ms matter of fact the delay neither Jcopardlzed
the prosecution Of the offenders nor involved my
personal integrity. This is the only case OF IFS kihd
against me. Other charges against other agents ana
contractors were left in my desk. but were left
there hy the order OF Commissioner Smith and the
gentleman then the law officer of the department.
who directed such disposition to he iHado Oh 'he"
and under whose orders acted implicitly.
II is more than probable that, the Pawnce matters
failing Secretary Schurz who has sanctioned tliis
IRE 2ular investigation would nave ba-eu my us
miSsa other real or alleged errors oil Jnhiheilt q,
tcmncT in administering bad system Oh lnperit,t
methods should be the last 10 clam that my olh
cia record is not open TO criticism uhde'htahH
Secretary Sc!urZ claims That once Sih'in
that Commissioners Smith returned from !ht
last annual lettings IN Ne"-l0rk IN DIES,
mi irnorance of what was done there. II
ever made any such statement, which was ~ Us
wOrs; n chance phrase. hastily THROWN OIL MAJ ~
in retelence the details OF numerous ana nirGae
purchases there made whose records were SIM IN
New-York. and which few men conih a.
scribe without those records. ihoSc rec3rdN
of awards, when received were tui! ana cnhlpi'~'
and all details needed 10 supplement 'hc t',"-
misSoner's general recollection were furnished b}
Them In all these lettings, i'll all important matters
i'll the general conduct ot me service, ,u ~ iea
mcnt the Commissioner knowledge and decision
were full and controlling. His supervisor was
searching and extended 10 all parts OF the Once an"
service. This alleged statement OF mine ln' Seele
tarv uses against Mr. Smith just ~ he USED AGAINST
me partial report OF MI. Sihths coh'ciS"i'"" ~
garding the Pawnee papers. "
Schnrz's discretion. His jurisdiction over his SUD
or,linates * as lac claims, under EXISTING law nm
limited The country, however, looks 20 MN for lie
practice of Civil Service reform, ana II reform -
administered IN his department supplies no heller
means Of ascertalnng the truihoi charges preferred
against public officer by Swlndiihg claimants
whom he has defeated than to turn MAT
officer over, bound hand and foot, as was done
10 my case 10 board which the secretary de-
cares is not a judicial body and whose
President promptly informs that officer that ne ls
"no rights before IT," that system may perh3p' he
criticized as imperfect i'll theory, and unjust III
practical OPERATION
THE CHEkOkEEs.
have previously referred TO the order OF TIE
board informing Inc that answers to certain OF
the charges weuld he received" The charges thus
falling of their own weight included all those pre-
ferrcd by Taylor These related to the business of
the North Carolina Cherokees.
This order prevented me from showing iayiors
character and record. and from contrallcting any OF
MS random statements and yet the board which
IN October 10 acquitted OF all his charges in its
report of Decenber3l. convicts me in the gnis' of
q" an official of the Irdiau Bureau" no opportunity
70 answer being granted. OF one Of those charges
in regard 10 which Taylor alone testified accusing
me and no other person Of the act complained OF. this
sIfcontradcton of the board may he dine 10 careless
ness SOLELY though carclcssncSs III such natcTsiSi!t
tie less than crime But the persistent refusal 10
allow me TO show raylors character and that of
other of my assaauts: the accepaucr az foundation
for criticism of his unsupported testimony without
yorifcatiOn by official records or confederation, al
show that the board gives hun more consideration
IL.
of the Office which received evidence TO his char
acrr That administration a. least dcirr.r, ere 10
fOl an attempt male and carried out under me al
vice of the law officers oi the department I" h"d IN
even hand between the two factions ~ these In
dians. II favored neither. ana - Tar a. possible
recognized neither. II 10 did not restore peace be-
tween them, it at least prevented further waste OF
their funds by either % them.
Without further discussing Iaylors position be-
fore thi. board the Department., ! note ~ a CO.
incidence worthy OF 'nehtIon. tha' all or nearly an
of the clerks who were active in defeating IayorS
schemes have ground or the other. been
discharged, while clerks not originally III sympathy
with hIIn remain III the service.
THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE OFFICE.
This the board has condemned in terms more
sweeping than Just. OF the ccnsuTe ! receive my
full share. may therefore say somewhat upon il.
The methods of investigation were the same rs
those used in examining the specific charges
against me. With my answer to those charges
however, all previous pretencc of impart-
ality ceased. The board retained all evidence
taken by itself. Such as did not relate
TO the charges the board refused opportunity 10
answer by combining my answer 10 those charges
1t refused to give Mr. Smith an opportunity to an
swer because there were no charges against him
ut least Secretary Schuz repeatedly so as
sured him. Testimony of disappointed con
tractors, of disaiiccted clerks. OF notorious
swindlers. of anybody with grievance
was welcomed. without examination az to the
aninus Or credbIity of the Witnesses That test-