, 1883-01-27

scrip which he had located upon said land
The fifth charge is to the effect that wm.
H. Reed and his brother Edward n. Reed,
entered public lands in violation of circular
from General Land Office, dated August %
1876.
The right to make entry appears to havs
been affirmed By letter from General Land
Ofioe, dated March Is. 1879. VIM. Fl. Reed
was Lot in the employ Of the local land office
and bis relationship to the Receiver could
not extinguish his rights under the Law.
Right or wrong there is nothing in the tes-
timony which connects Alex. Reed with this
transaction
The sixth charge is to the effect that the
RsceivCr allowed his son, Wm. II. Reed,
while occupying table in his Office, TO deal
in all sorts Of land scrip: tha. he offered
them, also certificates Of deposi: for surveys,
to pre-emptors to pay their claims with.
There is nothing in the testimony which
connects Alex. Reed with these Transactions.
There is nothing which shows corrupt prac-
tlce. either In the character Of the scrip
offered. or in the sale CT it to those wishing
to purchase. Both scrip and the certificates
OF deposit were receivable as money. Their
sale or use cannot be regarded as wrong
Others were engaged IN the same business
The only objection, therefore, against these
transactions must he found in the manner
and place OF sales The use Of the land office
for the disposal Of scrip or for the transae-
ton OF private land business OF any kind by
outside parties is improper. /. should at all
times be discouraged but as no corrupt
practice has been established, l do not re.
gard this charge as sRfiicien. for the removal
of the Receiver unless It is shown that he
shared in the profits OF the business. This
is not shown nor can it lie fairly inferred
from the testimony submitted
The seventh charge is TO the effect that
Alex. Reed allowed his son, while occupying
4 table in his office, TO swear witnesses as
notary public. to write the proof for apph-
cants TO purchase timber lands, and this for
a less fee than charged by law in such cases,
thus defrauding the revenue of tie United
States
ln the absence OF proof to the contrary, it
is far to assume that Wm. H. Reed was a
duly authorized notary. There is no Law re-
qmring applicants to have written proof
prepared by the Land Office O.fic:a's $. Il
they can hlve the work prepared elsewhere
for less fee than the officials are required
TO exact IN case they are called upon tn do
the work. they have the right TO have i. SO
done What is here charged as defi auiing
the United States WAS simply the exercise o:
an individual rigit resulting in saving to
the settler.
There Is nothing in the testimony con-
Meeting tie Rec, irrr with the work nor
with any Of the profits which MAJ have been
derv d ii erefrom.
The igtth charge is 10 the effe;t that
Alex Reed caused / is sou to publish IN the
Democrltic paper at Walia Na'la tthe
STATESMAN a letter pu:Portins to come
from the Commissioner Of the General Land
Office, giving to VIM. H. Reed rights pro-
h bite2 by otiice circular OF September lst,
1879. thus leading u the belief that Alex.
Reed, Receiver, etc, and his sons were be
ing specially provided for by the Interior
Department.
There is nothing IN the testim' NJ showing
that Alex Reed caused the publication itself
IN question. There was nothing in the pub
IicatIon itself ohjec,iGnib!e or improper.
The right of VIM. H. Reed TO enter lands
had been questioned III the Walla Walls
Union. The publication of the letter was
the best answer to the charge thus publicly
made. The letter was a genuine ore, and
its publication right possessed by Nm. ii.
Reed
Tie ninth charge Is TO the effect that the
Receiver had given his son information IN ad-
vance OF others in relation to the canceila-
ton of homestead and other entries, which
said Wm. II. Reel used to the injury and
damage Of other parties.
THIS is the most serious Of the charges. 1t
is made in general terms. There is nothing
in the testimony to establish the truth OF
this charge, nor is there anything that fairly
shows that any such Information was ever
given to Wm. II. Reed by the Receiver. 1t
Is denied by both father I'd son in very pos
ltive terms, and their evidence Is corrohora-
ted by the statements o' others who We're
CHARGED with having been benefited by the
information in question.
This much for the charges. There is
nothing IN the testimony establishing cor
rnption On the part OF either father or son.
The Receiver wouiG have shown better
Judgment of the proprieties Of his office II he
had kept his sons private business out OF H.
The son wouli have shown to better advant-
oUa and escaped criticism if he had never
gone in. ,u IT
While some OF the transactions OF Wm. II.
Reed are open TO criticism, find nothing IN
the testimony which established dishonesty
on his part. His relationship 10 the ke'
ce;yer and the belief entertained by few
individuals that because OF his relationship
he had peculiar privileges granted him. ap-
pears t. have been the cause oil the conf
plants.
The testimony does not establish the fact
that any special advantages were allowed
him. The father denies ever granting such,
,hc SON 3enies ever receiving them. and their
testimony has not been in,peached-
Whether the actions OF the son we're rlsht
or wrong. the father should not he held re-
soops;h!e, unless the testimony connects HIM
nth the transactions complained OF. ln my
opipion If ioes not, and for this reason am
romnellrd to differ with Agent Clark anu
the conclusion OF the Commissioner, snd 10
Owe it as my Judgment III It there Is nothing
n the case as presented TO warrant the re-
,noy,l IL the Receiver, Alex Reed.
INV - Very respectfully.
A. BELL, Assistant Secretary.
r.,,,,... S-cCE In the studd OF DT.