Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-07-15
MIR. Hendricks Hits Back.
REPLY TO SECRETARY. CHANDLER-THE NAvA

The letter OF Secretary Chandler, published In
yesterdays STAR, In reply to statements made by
Ex-Governor Hendricks In his speech Saturday
night, in Indianapolis, relative to the frauds In the
Navy department, has elected response from Mr.
Hendricks, which was given to the press last even
Ing In the form Of open letter addressed to Sec
retary Chandler. Mr.. Hendricks states that the
secretary complains that injustice was done him I'm
the Indianapolis address, but that the Secretary
While admitting that s63 600 was stolen OF the pub
lie 1unCS. asserts In defense. that the embeZeenr
did not wholly occur under his administration.
1hls Is not sufficient defense, Mr. Hendricks
claims, for during the period covered by the false
vouchers Mr. Chandler was at the head OF the de-
partment year and nine months and his rrede-
cessof year and ten months. thus almost equally
dividing the period between them.
Continuing, MIR. Hendricks says: "But SIR uron
the question that / was discussing. does it make
any dl1erence VINO was Secretary when the false
vouchers were paid? Judged that In cases like
this when frauds are concocted in the vaults or in
the BOOKS or the department., the only remedy OF
the people is change OF the control so that the
books and vouchers Shall come under the examina-
ton OF new and disinterested men. Do you think
l am answered when you say / was mistaken in
suppoSing that in this case the frauds were all
under your administration, when. In TACT a part
of them extended back into that OF your predeces-
sors? Why, sir, that makes your case worse. For
the bureau OF medicine and surgery the defalca-
ton is large but the more serious fact is that 1t
could and did extend through Two adminiStra tionS
OF ,1ha Inc department period OF nearly four years
after notice, verbal and written OF the frauds the
Secretary concluded upon inquiry that while
"there were some suspicious circumstances they
did not warrant a conclusion OF guilt, and so the
men were left in office and the fraud was not
brought to light. 1t was Government Detective
Wood" continues Mr. Hendricks, "who discovered
the frauds, and the Associated Press report says
that Wood declared he would have no further
dealings with your department, but would press
an investigation before Congress"
The excuse that DR.. Wales reappointment was
urged by members OF Congress, Mr. Hendricks
says. Is no excuse. "MemberS OF Congress knew
nothing OF the frauds, they had no opportunity to
know. IT was within yourTeach and duty. They
were probably his personal friends; you were his
Official superior. But, in fact, did you reappoint
him? understand not. Perhaps the detective
discovered the frauds too soon. But Dr. Wales
was not one OF the three guilty parties He
neither forged the vouchers nor embezZed the
money. His responsibility in the case is just tie
same as your own He was the Official superior OF
the three rogues, as you were OF himself, as OF
them. Neither he nor yourself exposed the frauds
or punished the parties have not thought OF or
considered this as a case OF politics. Addressing
my neighbors said that this and like cases ad-
mOnish them TO demand civil service reform In the
removal OF all from Office who viii not seek to pro-
mote 1t within the sphere OF their Ofc ial duty and
authority