The weekly Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1872-1887, 1884-07-27
hEnoRioKs REPlr 70 onAm.

former with unfRirness in his Indian
apolis speech: ''You complain thnt I
did you injustice in my address to the
people OF this city. made the evening be-
fore. In hat address I urged. 1--WE
need TO hare che books in tbs So=e.n-
ment Offices opened for examination
and. as illustration, ! cited the case of
fraudulent vouchers in one of the
bureaus Of your department. and that
upon your testimony before n sub-com-
mittee of the ScRate it appeared hat the
frauds amounted TO $4,000. Is not
every word of that true? You were
? night before the committee, and tesii-
fed as stated. You admitted under oath
the sum Of money lost amounted to $685.
600. but your defence was that the en-
bezzlement did not occur wholly under
Jour administration, but part Of it was
under your predecessor. It seems to
have covered the period from June 81.
1880. down TO January 25. 1884. Does
that help your case? You were at tbs
head Of the Department a year and nine
months of that period; your predecessor
about a year and ten months. He was
In ofhce at the payment Of the first false
voucher, on June 81, 1880, and up to
April IL, 1882, when you came in, and
you continued thence until the last falls
voucher was paid, January %, 1884.
The period was almost equally divided
between yourself and your predecessor.
How much of the sea, 900 was paid out
under yourself and how much under
your predecessor your letter does not
show. But. sir. upon the question /
vas discussing. does it make any differ
ence who was the Secretary when the
false vouchers were paid? l urge that
cases like this, when frauds are conceal
ed in the vaults or books Of the Depart
ment, the only remedy Of the people is
in change OF control, so that the books
and vouchers shall come under the ex-
animation Of new and disinterested men.
DO you really think that l am answered
when you say i was mistaken in suppos-
ing that in this case the frauds We're all
under your administration, when in fact
part OF them extended back into that Of
your predecessors Why, sir, that
makes your case worse, for the Bureau
OF Medicine and Surgery defalcation is
large; but the more curious fact is that
1t could and did extend through two adj
ministrations of the Department, q
period OF nearly four years, without de-
lection, but it becomes more serious; SO
far as you are Individually concerned,
when the fact is considered that you had
notice and yet took no sufficient action.
The information upon which / spoke was
from Washington on the 26th of last
month by the Associated Press, the
same that brings mo your letter, The
Associated Press obtained its informa-
ton either in your Department or from
n investigating committee. II you
were not correctly reported, that was the
time for the complaint and correction.
You eshfed that the total of suspicious
vouchers discovered so far was about
S63'OOO, and that tho money fraudul. mt
ly obtained was in some instances divid.
ed between the Waterman in the De-
partment, Carrigan, the Chief Clerk, and
HARDWOOD, in charge Of accounts. Now,
what notice had your According to the
Associated Press reports Of your testi-
mony, you received n letter last year,
charging Carrigan, one Of the parties.
with drunkenness, and after that a man
came to you and told you that Kirkwood
and Carrigan were engaged in frauds.
DID not that put you upon notice
and investigation You testified that
some inquiries were made, and that the
conclusion was that, while there yer.
some suspicious circumstances, they did
not warrant the conclusion of guilt. Az
ter the notice, verbal, andin writing, you
left the men in Office. You did not bring
the frauds TO light or the guilty parties to
punishment. 1t was Government Detec-
tive Wood who discovered the frauds.
and the Associated Press report says
Wood declared he would have no further
dealings with your Department, but
would press an investigation before
Congress. What is your next cxcuseY
Worse, II possible. than before. You
say q large number Of Congressman, in.
Guiding some men Of great influence and
position, recommended that the head OF
the Bureau, DIR. Wales, should be reap
pointed. The members Of Congress
knew nothing of the frauds. They had
no opportunity TO know. II was within
your reach and duty. You were his SUI
perior: but, in fact, did you re-
appoint him? l understand not. Per-
hops the detective discovered the fraud
too soon, but DR.. Wales was not II Of
the three guilty parties. He neither
forged vouchers nor embezzled money.
His responsibility in the case is lust the
same os your own. He was the Official
superior of the three rogues, ns you was
OF himself as well as them. Neither he
nor yourself exposed the frauds or pun
ished the parties. I have not thought of
or considered this o case OF politics. Ad-
dressing my neighbors. I said that this
AID like cases ndmouish them to demand
civil service reform in the removal from
Office OF those who will not seek TO pro-
mote 1t within the sphere Of their Off.
cial doiy and authority"