Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-07-15
ATARTARF0R CHANDLER.
HENDRICKS DIssECTs THE SEC.
RETARY's LETTER.


Extenuation Because the Steal Began
in the Regime of a Predecessor
Knocked Higher Than GiIroy's Kite
Because it Continued for Twenty-one
Months Under the Present Admins
tration.
INDIANAPOLIS, July 14.-Ex-Gov. Hen
bricks has written the following in re-
sponse to the letter Of Secretary Chandler:
INDIASAPoLIs, July "A, 1884.
Hon. ". z. Chandler:
SIR-l find in the newspapers this morning
letter 10 me from yourself. written yester-
day and circulated through the Associated
Press.
You complain that did you Injustice in an
address to the people Of this city made on the
evening before. In that address urged that
we need TO have the books in the government
offices opened for an examination" and as an
Illustration l cited the case Of a fraudu-
lent voucher in one Of the bureaus OF
your department, and stated that
upon your testimony before the
subcommittee Of the Senate il appears that
the frauds amounted to S63.eOo. and l. not
every word Of that truey You were brought
before the committee and testified, as | stated.
You admitted under oath that the sum of
money lost amounted 0 S63, ,0O1, but YOUR de-
Tense was that the embeZzlement did not
wholly occur under your administration. but
that part Of il was under that Of your prede-
cessor. It seems to have covered the period
from June ~ 1850. down to Jan. %. 1881
Does that help your caseY You were at the
head OF the department a year and nine
months OF that period, and your predecessor
about one year and ten months.
CHANDLER's RESPONSIBILITY.
He was in Office at the payment OF the first
false voucher on June 81, 1850. and up to April
IL, 1882. when YOU came in and Won continued
thence until the last false voucher was paid on
Jan. y. 1884. The period was almost equally
divided between yourself and your predeces-
sOr. How much OF the $4,000 was paid out
under yourself and how much under your
predecessor, your letter does not show: but,
sir. upon the question that L was
discussing. does it make any
vouchers were paidg l urged that in a case
like this. when frauds are concerted in the
vaults or in the books of a department. the
only remedy Of the people is a change of
come under the examination Of new and dis
interested men.
NOT ANSWERED BY EVASION.
Do you think that am answered when you
say that l was mistaken in supposing that in
this case the frauds were al under your ad-
minlstratiOn, when in fact part OF them ex-
tended back into that of Your predecessor.
Why, sir, that makes your case worse for the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery defal-
talcatlon IS large. but a more serious
fact is that il could and did extend through
two administrations of the department, a
period of nearly four years, without detection.
But IL becomes more serious as YOU indi-
vidually concerned when the fact is cOnsid-
cred that YOU had notice and took no sufficient
action. The information upon which spoke
was from Washington on June 26 by AssO-
ciated Press the same that brings me your
letter. The Associated Press obtained its in
formation either in your department or from
the investigating committee. II you were
not correctly reported that was the time for
complaint and the correction.
THE DEFALCATION.
YOr testified that tho total Of tho euupf.i,,,.
vouchers discovered so far was about $63, 900,
and that the money fraudulently obtained
was in some instances divided between a
watchman in the department, Carrigan, the
chief clerk. and KIrkwOOd, in charge of the
accounts. Now, what notice had you? Ac-
cording TO the Associated Press report
OF your testimony: YOU received let
ter last year charging Carrigan, one
of the parties, with drunkenness, and after
that a man came to you and told you that
KirkwOod and Carrgan were engaged in
and investigation? You testified that some
inquiry was made, and the conclusion was
that while there were some suspicious circum-
stances they did not warrant the 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 government detective,
Wood. who discovered the frauds, and the
Associated Press report SAYS that Wood de-
ciared that he would have no further dealings
with your department, but would press an in
NeStigallOn OeIOFe congress. hndE IS your
next excuse?
WORSE EXCUSE THAN ALL.
Worse, if possible, than all before. You
say that a large number of Congressman,
including some gentlemen OF great influence
and position. recommended that the head of
the bureau, DIR. Wales, should be reappOnted.
The 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 did you reappoint him?
/ understand not Perhaps the
detective discovered the frauds too soon.
But DIR. Wales was not one of the three guilty
parties. He ne ther forged vouchers nor en-
bezzled money. His responsibility in the case
is Just the same as your own. He was the
official superior of the three rOgues
as You were of himself as well
as of them. Neither him nor yourself
exposed the frauds nor punished the parties.
| have not thought of nor considered this as a
case of politics. Addressing my neighbors
said this. and admOnish them TO demand
civil service reform In the removal of all from
Office who were not seen to promote it within
the sphere of their Official duty and author
ity. Respectfully, I. NJ. HENDRICKS.