Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1884-07-15

lowing III TtSpouso W tuo lcVlSl VI Se0ielaiy
Chandler, published yesterday:
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind, July II, 1SS4-HoN.
W. E. CHANDLER-iSir: find in the news
papers this morning a letter to me from
Yourself, written yesterday and circulated
through the Associated Press. You COM
plain that did you injustice in all address
to the people of this city made the evening
before. In that address l urged that 1--WE
need to have the books III the government
Office opened for examination" and as an
| illustration l cited the case of fraudulent
| voucher in one of the bureaus, of your de-
partment, and stated that upon your tesi.
mony before a committee of the senate ii
appeared that the frauds amounted to SOB,
900, and is not every word of that true:
You were brought before the committee and
| testified as I stated.
You admitted under oath that the sum oil
money lost amounted to 500, 00O but your de-
| fenss was that the the embeZZementd did not
wholly occur under your administration, but
| that part of it was under that Of your pre-
decessor. 1t seems to have covered the Pc
Rod from June q, 1850, down to Jan. %,
1854. Does that help your case? You were
| at the head of the department year and
nine months Of that period, and your prede.
cessor about one year and ten months. He
was in office at the payment of the first false
voucher, on June 81, 1880, and up to April
II, 1882, when you came in, and you contin.
ued thence until the last false voucher was
paid, Jan. 25, 1854.
The period was almost equally divided be.
tween yourself and your predecessor. How
much of the 500, 900 was paid out under
yourself and how much under your prede-
cessor your letter does not show. But, sir,
upon the question that | was discussing
does it make any difference who was sec
rotary when the false vouchers were paid
urged that in cases like this when frauds
are concocted in the vaults or in the books
of the departm ent, the only remedy of the
people is change Of the control, so that
the books and vouchers shall come under
the examination of new and disinterested
men.
Do you think am answered when you
say was mistaken in supposing thatin this
case the frauds were all under your admin
istration, when, in fact, part of them ex-
tended back into that of your predecessors I?
Why, sir, that makes your case worse.
For the bureau Of medicine and surgery
the defalcation is large, but the more seri.
Gus fact is that it could and did extend
through two administrations of the depart
ment, period Of nearly four years, with
out detection. 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, the Goth of last month,
by the Associated Press, the same that
brings me your letter. The Associated
Press obtained its information either in
do rtr frnr rnafi tlrn
committee. IF you were not correctly re-
ported that was the time for complaint and
correction. You testified that the total of
the Suspicious YOU, hers discovered SO
far was about So 600, aud that the money
fraudulently obtained was, in some in
stances, divided between q watchman in
the department, Carrigan, the chief clerk,
and kirkwood in charge of the accounts.
Now what notice had you? Accordngto
the Associated Press report Of your testi-
mony you received letter last year charg-
ing Carrigan, one of the parties, with
drunkenness, and after that man came to
you and told you that Kirkwood and CARR
gan were engaged in frauds. Did not that
put you upon notice and investigation?
You testified that some inquiry was made
and the conclusion was that while there
were some suspicious circumstances they
did not warrant conclusion of guilt. After
a notice, verbal and in writing, you left the
men in Office. You did not bring the frauds
to light nor the guilty parties to punish
ment. 1t was Government Detective Wood
who discovered the frauds, and the Asso-
ciated Press report says that Wood declared
he would have no further dealing with your
department, but would press an invesiiga
ton before Congress.
What is your next excuse? Worse, if
possible, 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. Mem
bers 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 bis official superior. But, in fact, did
you reappoint him? unde and not.
Perhaps the detectives discovered 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. He was the official SUI
Derior of the three rogues as You were of