The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-12-06

of Justice, to-day, chairman Springer read let
ter from j. j. Barker, a former Treasury cork,
reiteratng the charges mado by him some time
ago against the management of the Office OF the
First Comptroller Of the Treasury Department
In explanation of the charges, Barker said he
called the attention of the Comptroller to what
he considered Illegal allowances Of uer diem. lie
said he had written decision On the same sub
ject, and told him his dec.sl0h hpt not reached
the Fourth Auditors Offices. The Comptroller
told me that one bill for per diem was outrageous
and should not be allowed. But ii Was allowed
In other cases objected to payment Of claims
as illegal, but they were allowed J called the at
tentiOn of the chief of tho division TO several
irregular vouchers, and no replied that it was
none of our business. There were other
counts for FL eco that we're the result of tho
star route trials. / told the Comptroller they
were illegal; he said he had signed them without
examining them. l told him ne could not afford
to sign them, and he replied that lie could afford
to because he had already done so. ! think the
Attorney general influenced the Comptroller to
allow the $1,000 l went to the chairman OF
this committee, and to Senators Van Wyck and
Harrison, and attempted TO have these things
corrected, but found every obstacle thrown in
my way"
Referring to the First Comptroller, Barkei
said Il believe Judge Lawrence TO be honest,
but he was so exclusively engaged in the pro
duction of his decisions that he had not time to
attend to the details of his Office.
Judge Lawrence, in relation to testimony be
lore IHe committee, says tlle Complaints nearly
all relate to accounts of district attorneys,
clerks and marshalS, These are all sworn to
by these officers, then submitted to and ap-
proved by the court in the presence OF the
district attorney, whose duty it is to object
to any false or illegal item. These
accounts were all approved by the First Auditor.
The complaint is, therefore, against the officers,
their oaths, the court, the auditor, and lastly,
the comptroller's office. 1t is more likely that
one should be mistaken than all these. As
to the expenses in the star-route cases, they
eral, whose approval is conclusive,
As to deputy ma1shals at elections, they were
only paid for half the time allowed by law The
accounts were sworn to, and approved by the
court and the marshal had sole control of the
time they should serve But one man in the
United States has ever said | allowed illegal or
extravagant charges, and he says l am honest.
l have found many men who have complained
that | refused to allow claims which they re-
garded as just and legal"
Before adjournment the committee directed
the chairman to appoint ubeommittee to in
vistigate the matter referred to by Baker
a resolution was adopted requesting the Sec
rotary of the Treasury to furnish the committee
copies of all vouchers on file in the Treasury De-
partment concerning payments to United States
Marshal Wright and other court officers of the
Southern district of Ohio, for general and specia,
deputy marshals at the congressional election in
October, and for statements of the amounts al
lowed and paid on account Of their services.
\ resolution was also adopted directing the
chairman to request the Attorney-gene to
spondence between his department and United
States Marshal Wright in reference to employ
ment of United States deputy maTshals at the
same election.