The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-07-17
POLITICAL.
SOATEING LETTER FROM HEND-
KICKS TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY.
Chandler Completely Wound Up
on the Subject of Official
Corruption.
Carl Schurz Heading the indie
pendent Republican
Movement.
Thurman Delivers q Talk to
His Friends Characteris-
tic of the Man.
HENDRICKS TO CHANDLER.

A Letter Whose Contents are not Agre
able to the Secretary.
INDIANAPOLIS, IND, July 14.-E2
Governor Hendricks has written tn
following in response to the letter c
Secretary Chandler, published in tn
associated press papers this morning
INDIANAPOLIS, July IA, 1884.
To lion. w. E. Chandler,
Sir-I find in newspaper thi
morning a letter from yourself. writ
ten yesterday and circulated through
the associated press. You complain
that l did you an injustice in an ad
dress to the people OF this city mad
the evening before. In that address
1 urged that we have need of books il
the government offices opened fol
examination, and as an illustration !
cited d case OF fraudulent vouchers il
one of the bureaus of your depart,
ment, and that, upon your testimony
before the SUBJ committee of the sen,
ate, it appeared that the frauds
amounted to $63,000. And is not
every word of that true? You were
brought before crmmittee and testi-
fed, as 1 stated. You admitted that,
under oath, the sum of money lost
amounted to $4,000; but your defense
is that the embezZlement did not
wholly occur under your administra-
tion, but a part of it was under
It seems to have covered the
period from June 21, 1880 down to
January Is, 1884. Does that help your
case? You were at the head of the
year and nine months.
That was the period of your predeces-
sor, about one year and ten months.
He was IN office at the payment of the
first false voucher, June 2l, 1880, and
up to April Z, 1882. When you came
in you continued thence, until the
last false voucher was paid January
15, 1884. The period was almost
equally divided between yourself and
your predecessor. How much of the
$63 600 was paid out under yourself.
and how much under your predeces-
sor, your letter does not show; but,
sir, upon the question that l was dis
cussing, it does not make any differ
ence who was secretary when the
false vouchers were paid. l urged
that cases, like this, when frauds are
concealed in the books of the depart
ment, the only remedy of the people
is by change of control, so that the
books and vouchers shall be examined
by new and disiutere5ted men. Do
you suppose | am an3w cred when You
say was mistaken in SuppoSlng that,
n this case the frauds were all under
your administration when, In fact
/ part of them extended over that of
your predecessors Why, sir, that
makes your case worse tor the bureau
If medicine and surgery. While the de-
falcation is large, The more serious
fact is that it could, and
lid, extend through two ad-
OF the depart
ment-a period of nearly four years
detection; but it becomes
more serious, so far as you are lndl-
yidually concerned. when the fact is
that you had notice and
yet took no sufficient action. The in
formation upon which l spoke was
from Washington, the 26th of the
present month, by the associated
press-same that brings nae your let
ter. The associated press obtained its
either in your depart
ment or from the investigating COM
mittee. If you were not correctly
that was the time
for complaint and correction.
You testified that the total of suspic-
ious vouchers discovered so far, was
about $4,000 and that the money
obtained was, in some
instances, divided between the watch
uan in the department, Carrigan chief
clerk. and Kirkwood, in charge of the
accounts. Now, what notice had you
according to the associated press re-
port of your testimony, you received
q letter last year charging Cafrlgan,
one of the parties, with drunkenness,
and, after that, a man came to
you and told you that Kirkwood
and Corrigan were engaged frauds.
Did not that put YOU upon notice and
You testified that the
sams enquiry was made and the con-
clusion was that, while there were
some suspicious circumstances, they
did not warrant a 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. 1t was
detective Wood who dis
covered 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 excuse? worse, ii posi-.
BILE, than all before. You say a large
number of congressman, including
some gentlemen of great influence and
position, recommended that the head
of the bureau, DR.. 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 supe-
rior, but, in fact, did you re-appoint
him? I understand not. Perhaps
the detective discovered the FRAUDS
too soon; but DIR. Wales was not one
of the guilty party. He neither forged
vouchers or embeZZled money. His
responsibility in the case is the same
as yours. He was the official superior
of the three rogues, as you were OF
himself, as well as them. Neither he
nor yourself exposed the frauds, OF
punished the parties. | haye moi
thought of or considered this as cas'
of politics. Addressing my neighbors
/ said that this aud like cases admon
ish them to demand civil service re
form in the removal of all from offic'
who shall seek to compromise it within
he sphere OF their official duty, ano
uthority. Respectfully, (signed):
T. A. HENDRICKS.