Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-09-29

goods was paid 1920 fo1 travelling expenses;
lighthouses and the most costly furniture ex-
haustei many thousands of dollars; carpenters
and masons were paid $40 per day, and two
masons were allowed $3.50 for expenses from
Dahlonega, and 800 for time spent in the pas
sage, being $410 for these expenses, against
S36O 1or actual work, for paving the yard with
fagstones and wood and for four lighthouses
and seven baths, $4,000 were paid III one
quarter; the spittoons cost 81 each, and the
paper weights SIS each, and many of the heaviest
items were unaccompanied by vouchers. When
the imagination of the officers failed to account
10Y expenses in any other way, large sums were
set down as paid to labOrers in the yard. These
laporers had apparently worked in that yard
every DAY for the past four years. Their names
were reported as John Kenny, John Carroll.
John Rlchard, &c. This list is memento of
one OF the most barefaced swindles by which
the Government ever suffered. No wonder that
IL cost SO much to coin dollar; no wonder that
the committee became Disguised and favored
the abolition of the mint. They contented
themselves with few words in denunciation of
the reported expenses, and then printed the
list SO that it could speak for itself. This was
Democratic simplicity and economy under Van
Buren,
Under Jackson and Van Buren,, persons en-
plOYed by the government were allowed to sub
scribe for and buy, at public expense, newspa-
pers, periodicals.. and other publications. The
matter was referred, in 1S42, to the house COM
mlt-ee on retrenchment, which committee
dellcately suggested that it was ''an irregular
and indirect mode of increasing the pay per-
qulsites of those in office" The committee
reported that the employees in the department
had already taken advantage of the privilege to
the extent of buying novels, poems, illustrated
works on American and Canadian scenery, and
such costly works as "The Birds of America"
The clerks in one department-and they we're
not very many in those days-had spent $500
for such works in less than year. all of which
the government had to pay for. Said the COM
mittee " This species of official patronage may,
| II not checked, be carried to any extent which
the taste or caprice of those in charge of public
offices may dictate" After pointing out the
cost of newspapers bought for the members of
the house of representatives, $4,000 per year,
the committee remarked: "The expenditure
for these objects in the various departments at
the seat OF government and throughout the
country forms an aggregate which deserves con-
slderatlon, as the money thus disbursed is be-
heved to be not the greatest evil attending the
system" and then reported bill to discontinue
the practice
A case which shows the 1ooseness with which
the public business was done under Van Buren,,
and one OF the ways in which the public money
was lost, is that of Capt. R. D. C. Collins. The
committee on public expenditures made a re-
port upon the case in 1912. The report begins
as follows:
The committee public expenditures, in the dis
charge OF their duties, have had their attention
drawn to of fragrant unfaithfulness the
part OF disbursng officer of the government, and
which exhibits, in glaring light, the want of proper
vigilance in those officers of the executive depart
ments whose duty it is to guard the public treasury
! and to hold such intrusted with public money
strict and rigid accountability. The alluded
to is that of Capt. R. D. G. Collins. a dsbursng Off
Ger or agent of the government at Little Rock Ark
who, it appears, received from the treasury more
than half million Of dollars after it manifest
~, IoT,
d'ed thousand dollars.
Dlsbursing agents were by law required to
render quarterly accounts and make settle
ment once year, on October /. The second
auditor very coolly informed the second CONTROL
er OF the treasury, January IS, 1889, that Col
| Inns acc UNITS had been received up to the end
of the year 1887, and would I" be settled as soor
! as convenient" Collins failed to render his
quarterly accounts, and failed to make his an.
nual settlement October 1, 1888. After thai
time he was, under the law, defaulter and
should have been regarded as such. There was
balance of S215, 900 in his hands unaccounteC
for. Did the officers of the government treat
linn as defaulter and force settlement? By
no means; they at once sent him more money
within the space of two months. giving him il
SIX cOnSlgments no less than 1923 290. The
committee says:
/ After the 10Th of March, 1889, no further remit
! lance was made to him, but he was continued il
IN.
Upon final adjustment of his accounts q balance
was ascertained against him of the of S25 1863 Is
for which he was in default, which believed to be
total loss to the government. The committee vii
refrain from all comment on the transaction. Tht
facts speak for themselves. That a disbursins
officer who, the LIST of October 1885, became de
faulter with large balance then in his hands
should afterward have received in advances from thu
treasury more than 100000, and be suffered to re
tain his office for nearly year. are facts of them
selves sufficiently startling.
The appended correspondence shows that the
Second Auditor, William B. Lewis, had not re
ported the condition of Collins accounts unit
nine months after Collins had shown that hi
was unfit to retain his Office. On the contrary
Lewis perslstently concealed Collins's defalca
ton. and reported that no officer had failed tx
comply with the law Collins was visited by
special agents, who endeavored to get him tC
refund some of the money, but he refused anC
proudly declined to have any correspondence
with the treasury on the subject. It appears
| that this dlsburs1ng officer who received from
the treasury in three years 81, 848, 1876 Is. haG
never been required to give bonds
| Ihe government entered into contract will
Capt. Simeon Buckner, of Louisville. KY, in
1886, under Jackson's administration, tc
carry the Chickasaw Indians from Menopbis
certain allowance being made for each Indian
and for each hundred weight of the Indians
baggage. For carrying 1901 Indians he was
paid $108, 50. The house committee on
| puDHc expenditures nad this case under cOnSid-
GRAFTON, and made an interesting report in 1912
The following extract lets some light upon the
! transaction:
An examination of the vouchers on file will show
that the only evidence upon which this large sum OF
| money was paid by the disbursing agent consists
hrst OF receipts given by the conductors of the In.
dams as to the number of Indians and the amount
of baggage; and, second, the certificates of the
clerks OF the steamboats, to the time the different
boats were detained. The committee are not pre-
pared to say that it is the general practice of the
discussing agents of the government to make paw.
ments of the public money upon evidence so little to
be relied on; but as it has been done in more
than this one, the suggestion may be worthy of
consideration whether, in all similar cases. higher
evidence should not be required than the con-
science of an Indian conductor or steamboat
clerk: The necessity OF the obligation of an
oath In all such cases will, think be manifested
by examination of the various items of the above
account especially of that in relation to the amount
OF baggage, being 1:064 tonss and charged with
fre1ghtage to the amount of s54, $50. With the
! knowledge that the stock of the Indians had been
driven across by land, are at loss to conceive
what items of Indian property could have consti-
tuted this large total of baggage. They must have
carried an unusual amount of paints and blankets
Inc regulations of the Indian department, in other
cases. have assumed that 80 pounds per capita was