Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-07-15
CHANDLER HIT HARD.
aE WOKE UP raE WRONG uUsromER
Caadidats HendricRs Keiterates Hts oharse
OF criminal Negiigence Agsinst the

Caadidats Hendricks Keiterates HIS Oharse
OF criminal Negiigenoe Ags,nst the
Head OF tn. nsvy Department..
Ex-Governor Hendricks has written the
following in response to tho letter OF
Secretary Chandler, published in the
associated press papers Monday morning !:
INDIANAPOLIS, July IA, 1854.
Hon. W. Z. CHANDLER
SIR l hud in the newspapers this
morning letter to me from yourself writ
ten yesterday and circulated through the
associated press. You complain that l
did you injustice in an address to the
people Of this city made the evening bo'
fore. In that address | urged that we
need to have the books in the government
office opened for examination and ss an
illustration cited the case Of a fraudulent
voucher in one of the bureaus Of your de.
partment aud stated that upon your testi
mony before a sub committee OF the Senate
il appeared that the frauds amounted To
sO3 GOO aud is not every word OF that
true You were brought before the
committee and testified rs | stated.
You admitted, under oath, that the
sum of money lost amounted to s65.-
900. but your defense was that the em-
excitement did not wholly occur under
your administration, but that a part of 1t
was under that Of your predecessor. IL
seems to have covered the period from
June, 1880, down to January 25, 1854.
Does that help your case You were at
the head Of the department year aud
nine months of that period aud your pre-
decessor about one year and ten months. lie
was in otlice At the payment OF the hrst
false voucher on January 81, 1850. and up
to April IL, 1882, when you came in, aud
you continued thence until the last false
voucher was paid, January %, 1884 The
period was almost equally divided between
yourself aud your predecessor, How
much of the s63, 900 was paid out under
yourself and how much under your pre-
decessor your letter does not show but,
sir, upon the question that was discuss
ing, does il make any difference who was
secretary when tho false vouchers were
paid ? urge that in cases like this, when
frauds are coucocted in the vaults or in
the books Of the department, the only
remedy of the people is q change of the
control, so that the books aid vouchers
shall come under the examination OF new
and disinterested men"
The letter goes on to point out that the
secretary was notified of these frauds last
year aud yet took no action and LETT the
accused men in office until Government
Detective Wood brought the frauds to
light and they were published through the
associated press. The excuse that DIR.
Wales reappointmeut was urged by mem
bers of Congress, Mr.. Hendricks says, is
no excuse.
Members of Congress knew nothing of
the frauds, they had no opportunity to
know. IL was within your reach aud duty.
They were probably his personal friends :
you were his official superior. But, in fact,
did you resppoint 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 embezzled the
money. His responsibility in the case is
just the same as your own. de 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 case of poll los.
Addressing my neighbors said that this
and like cases admonish them 10 demand
civil service reform in the removal of al
| from office who will not seek to promote /
within the sphere of their official duty anC
| authority"