St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-15
GOV. HENDRICKS.
His Reply to the Letter OF Secretary
Chandler, Published Yesterday.
A Scathing Rebuke, and which Places the
Secretary in an Awkward Position.

INDIANAPOLIS, July 14.-Ex-Goy. Hen
bricks has written the following in response
to the letter Of Secretary Chandler, published
in associated press papers this morning:
INDIANAPOLIS. July 14-To Hon. w. E.
handler-Sir: I find in the newspapers
this morning letter to me from yourself,
written yesterday and circulated through the
associated press. You complain that l did
you an injustice in an address to the people
of tbs city made the night before. In that
address 1 urged, ssWe need to have the
books in the government offices
opened for examination and as an
illustration, l cited case of fraudulent
vouchers in one of the bureaus of your de-
partment, and that upon your testimony be-
fore the subcommittee of the senate it APP
peared that the frauds amounted 70 S63, 900
and is not every word Of that trues You
were brought before the committee and testi-
fed as stated You admitted under oath
that the sum of money lost amounted to
500, 00O but your defense that the EN- bezzle-
ment did not wholly occur under your adj
ministration. but part of it was under that
of your predecessor. 1t seems to have COW
cred period from June 81, 1880, down to
January %, 1884. Does that help your cases.
You were at the head of the department one
year and nine months of that period. Your
predecessor about one year and ten months.
He was in office at the payment
of the first false voucher June
81, 1880, and up to April IL,
1882, when you came in and you continued
thence until the last false voucher was paid,
Jan. %, 1884. The period was almost
equally divided between yourself and your
predecessor. How much Of the S63, 600 was
paid out under yourself and how much I'M
der your predecessor, your letter does not
show. But, sir, upon the question that l
was discussing, does it make any difference
who was secretary when the false vouchers
were mades Iargued that cases like this,
when frauds are concealed in the vaults or
in the books of the department the only
remedy of the people is by a change of con-
troll, SO that the books and vouchers shall
come under the examination of new
and disinterested men. Do you
think / am answered when you say
l was mistaken in supposing that in
this case the frauds were all under four adj
ministrations, when in fact part of them
extended back into that of your predecess-
or's! Why, sir, that makes your case worse,
for the bureau of medicine and surgery de-
falcation is large, but the more serious fact
is that it could and did extend through two
administrations of the department, period
of nearly four years, without detection. But
it becomes more serious SO far as you are in
dividually concerned, when the fact is con-
sided that you had notice and yet took no
sufficient action. The information upon
which spoke was from Washington the 26th
of last month, by Associated press, the same
hrfr
Associated press obtained its information
either in your department or from the inves-
tigating committee. If you were not cor
rectly reported that was the time for the com
plant and correction. You testified that the
total of suspicious vouchers discovered so
far was about S63, 900, and that the money
fraudulently obtained was in some instances
divided between a watchman in the de-
partment, Corrigan, chief clerk, and Kirk
wood, in charge of aeeountf'' Now what
notice had you. According to the the Asso-
ciated press report of your testimony,you got
letter last year charging Corrigan, one ~of
the parties, with drunkenness, and after
that a man came TO you and told you that
Kirkwood and Corrigan were engaged in
frauds. Did not that put you upon
notice! And in the investigation you testi-
the conclusion was that while there were
some suspicious circum stances they do not
warrant conclusion of guilt After notice,
verbal and in writing, you left the men in
office, you did not bring the frauds to light
nor the guilty parties to punishment. TWAS
Government Detective Wood who discovered
the frauds, and the Associated Press report
says Wood declared he would have no further
II
press an investigation before congress. What
is your next excuses Worse, if possible,
than all before. You say a
large number of congressman,
including some gentlemen of influence and
position, recommended that the head of the
bureau DIR. Wales, should be reappointed.
Members of congress knew nothing of the
frauds. They had no opportunity to know.
1t was within your reach and duty. They
were probably his personal friends. You
were his official superior, but in fact did you
reappoint him. i understand not, perhaps
the detective discovered the frauds too soon,
but Dr. Wales was not one of the three
guilty parties. He neither forged vouchers
nor embezzled money. His responsibility in
the case is just the same as your own. he
was an official superior to the three rogues, as
you were of himself, as well as them. Neither
he nor yourself exposed the frauds or pun
ished the parties. | have not thought of or
considered this as 4 case of politics, address
ing my neighbors | said that this and like
cases admonsh them to demand civil ser
vice reform in the removal of all from Office
who will not seek to promote it within the
sphere OF their official duty and authority.
Respectfully,
7. A. HENDRICKS.