The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-07-15
HENDRICKS REPLY
TO the Unealled for Chandler Letter
Of Yesterday.
SOMETHING TO PONDER OVER.
scathing Though Good Natured Re.
Duke, lnterspersed With Sarcasm
ana an Array of all the
Facts in the Premises.

INDIANAPOLIS, July II. Ex-Gov. Hen
orlcks has written the following in T.,
sponse to the letter of Secretary Chand
Ier, published in the Associated Pres,
papers this morning:
ln1dIhiaann9polis, July IA, lSSi--To Hon. w. f
Sir;-I find in the newspapers this
morning a letter to me from yoiir.
self, written yesterday and cirru.
lated through the Associated Press.
you complain that ] did Won
inJuStlce IN my address to the
people OF this city, made the
evening before. In that address |
urged that we have need of hooks in the
uoverhment offices, opened for exami-
li"Vloh, ana, as an Illustration. | cited
case OF fraudulent vouchers in
your department, and that mon
your testimony before the snh.
committee of the Senate IL anpenred
that the frauds amounted to 1868 900, and
Is not every word Of that true?
lou We're brought before the commit
zee anu testified, AZ | stated, that Won adj
lhltted under oath that the SIM oI
money lost amounted to $63,OOO. but
your defense is that the embezzlement
dld not wholly occur under your admin.
lstratlon, but part Of ii was under that
OF your predecessor. II seems 10 hovo
covered period from June II.
iSoo, down to January %, 1884
,!oes that help your caseY
\ lou were at the head OF the depart-
ment year and nine months of that
periou. Your predecessor held office
npoHt one year and ten months. He was
~ ~ o.,ice a at tlo time OF the payment OF
.ne hist false vouchers, June2, 1880, and
up To April Z, 1882, when YOU
thence until the lagt false voucher was
pald january y, 1884. The period was nj
lnost equally divided between Yourself
ana your predecessor. How much of
the $6S'OOO was paid ont under vourself
ana now much under YOUR predecrssor
your letter does not show.
but' SIR, upon the question that I was
discussing, it does not make any ditTnr.
ence who was Secretary when the fnlsc
vouchers were paid. I'urged that cases
IKE this, when frauds are concealed i'm
vaults or IN books of the department, the
ohly remedy of the people is bv n
chanSe OF control, so that
the, books and vouchers shall come
under the examination ofnew and dis.
Interested men. Do you think | am
answered when you say / was
nhiiis'aNen IN supposing that in
al under your administration
when part of them extended over into
that Of your predecessors? WHY sir.
mat makes your case worse, for the
bureau, medicine and surgery defalca-
Ilon Is large, but the more
serious fact is, that IL could
and did extend through twC
administrations of the department.
q period of nearly four years withonI
detection, but il becomes more serious
SO far as You individually are concerned
when the tact is considered that you h,.s
notice and yet took 40 sufficient
action. The information upon which
spoke was from Washington, the 26tI,
OF the present month, by the Associated
tress, the same that brings me your
l9'ter, The Associated Press
obtained its information eitL-
from the Investigating committee
II you were not correctly reported, that
was the time for complaint and CORE
tlon' You testified that 20 "total of sus
piclous vouchers discovered so far WAS
ABOUT SO5,OUl, and that the money fraudu-
lently obtained was in some instances
divided between the watohman i'm The
Departme 1t, Car,pgn, Chief Clerk, and
NlrkWood, IN charge of the accounts.
NOW, what notice had you? Accordinr
TO the Associated Press report Of
your testimony you received letter
last year, charging Carrigan, one
OF the parties, with drunkenness,
ah1 ai11 after that man came TO you and
told You that Kirkwood and Cnrrigan
were engaged in frauds. Did not thai
nut Non upon notice and investigation ?
lOu testlnod that some inquiry was
MADE ana the conclusion was that
while there We're some suspicious cir.
cumstances they did not warrant tho
conclusion of guilt After notice, ver-
bal and In writing, you left the men i'm the
Office. You did not bring the frauds To
light nor tho guilty par
ties to punishment. 1t was
government Detective Wood, who dis.
covered tic frauds, and the Associated
iress report says Wood declared he
would have no further dealings with
your department, but would press the
investigation before Congress.
What is your next eXcuseY
worse, If possible, than all before. You
say q large number of Congressman. in
Cluulng some gentlemen of great in
nuonce and position. recommended that
The head OF the Bureau, Dr.
Wales, should be reappointed.
The members of Congress knew nothing
of the frauds. They had no opportunity
to Know. IL was within your reach and
duty. They We're probably his
personal friends, You were his
Official superior, hut In fact
uld you reappoint him? |
understand not. Perhaps the detective
discovered the fraud too soon, but Dr.
wales was not one of the uuilly
parties. He neither forged vouchers or
embezzled money. His responsibility
IN the case is just the same as your own,
lie was the official SUPERIOR
of the three rogucs rs you were Of him
self, as well as them. Neither no nor
yourself exposed the frauds or punished
the parties. | have not Thought of or
considered this as case of poli-
tics. Addressing my nelghbors, /
sad that this and like cases admonish
them to domaud civil service reform In
the removal of all from Office who shall
seek TO promote 1t within sphere of
their official duty and authority.
Respectfully,
tSlpnpdl ~ IIp~rn,r,.,