The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1884-07-17

MS REPLY TO CAANDLER's LETTER,
Bearing on the Recently Developed Frauds
IN thu. Navy Department, which
the natter Failed TO un-
earth aud Punish.

the natter Failed TO Un-
earth aud Punish.
-
INDIANAPOLIS, IND, July l4,-Ex,Goy
ernOr Hendricks has written the follow
ing In response to the letter OF Secretary
Chandler, published In the Associated
Press papera this morning!
lNDIANAPOLls, July III 1881,
To Hon. W. n. Chandler' sir-l nnd IN
tho newspapers this morning q letter TO
me from Yourself, written yesterday ana
circulated through the Associated Press
You complain that did you Injustice In
an address 10 the people OF lhls clty,
made the evening before In lhat u i
dress urged, I'VE need have the books
In the Government Offices opened for
examination" and M an illustration, |
cited the cases Of fraudulent yOncher
In one VI the bureaus Of your depart
ment, and that, upon your testimony
before the subcommittee Of the Senate,
ID appeared that the frauds amounted
10 $G3CO0 aud 10 not every word OF That
true2 ..
You were brought before the commit
tee and testified aB | stated. You Hd
mllted, under oath, that the sun OF
money Lost amounted TO $1,000, but
your defense that the embe2zlement dil
not wholly occur under your adminla
tratiOn but part Of II was under thai OF
your predecessor, II seems TO hnye
covered q period from June u, 1850.
down TO January %, 1884. Does That
help your caseY You were NJ the head OF
the department O year aud nine months
OF That IaTiOd aud your predecessor
about one year aud ten months, lie
was In office at the payment OF lhr
first false voucher, June 2lsh
1880, aud up to April l7th, 1852,
when YOU came In, and you continued
thence till the last false voucher was
paid, January %, 1884, Tho period was
almost equally divided between yourself
and your predecessor How much Of the
$4,000 was paid out under. y0utSelI ana
how much under your predecessor youi
letter does not show
But, sir, upon the question was dis
cussing, does II make any difference
who was Secretary when the false
vouchers were paldY
urged that case like this, when
frauds are concealed IN the vaults, or "a
the books Of department, the only
remedy Of the people ~ by u change OF
control, 30 that the books and vouchers
shall come under the examination OF
new aud dlsinterested men. Do you
think am answered when you say
was mistaken In supposlng that IN case
the frauds were oil under your admin
istratlOn, when In fact u part OF them |
extended back into that OF your prede-
cessors? Why, sir, that makes your
case worse. For the Bureau OF Medicine |
and Surgery the defalcati0n ls large, but |
more serious Is the fact that II could |
and did extend through two admlnistra.
tlons OF the department, u period of
nearly four years, without detection
But II becomes more serious, no FAR ~
you are individually concerned, when
the fact ia considered that you had no.
tice and yet took no sufficient action.
The information upon which spoke
was from Washington, the 2Gth Of last
month, by Associated Press, lhe same
that brings me your letter, The Asm'
ciated Press Obtained its information
either In your department or from the
investigating committee, II you were
correctly reported that was the time for
complaint and correction, You testile
that the total Of suspicious vouchers dis
covered 80 far was about $4,000, Nnd
that the money fraudulenlly obtained
was In some instances divided between
a watchman In the department. Carr
gan, the chief clerk, ana kirkwood,
In charge OF the accounts" Now,
what notice had your According
10 the Associated Press r.
port of your testimony you
received q letter last year charging CaI
rlgan, one Of the parties, with drunken
meas, and after that man came TO you
and told you that kirkwOod aud CARR
gan were engaged In frauds, Did no
that put you upon notice and inyestlga
tlonY You testified that some Inquiry
was made, and that the conclusion was
that while there were some suspicious
they did not warrant the
conclusion Of guilt. After notice yorhu
and In writing you left the men In Oill'r
You did not bring the frauds TO llRht
nor the guilty parties to punishment II
was Government detectly0-W Wood
who discovered the frauds and the as,O
ciated press report says Wood declare
no would have no further dealings wit
your department, but would press an ~
vestigation before Congress-.
What is your next excuaeY Worse, II
possible, than all before, You sNy
large number Of Congressman, includ
ing some gentlemen OF great influence
and position, recommended that the
head of the bnreau-Dr. Walea-sh0ud
90 re.aprointed, Members OF Congress
knew nothing Of the fraudsi they hud
no opportunity 10 know. II was Within
your reach and duty They were prob
ably hIa personal friends, You were his
official superior. But, IN fact, did yOu
himY understood not. Per
haps the detective discovered tho frauds
too soon, but DR., Wales was not one OF
the three guilty parties. lle neithet
forged vouchers rOr embe2Zled money,
Hia responsibility In tho case IL just the
same as your own, He was the Official
superior OF three r0gnes, as you were Of
himself as we'll IN them. Neither hp
nor Yourself exposed the frauds or pun
iahed the parties, have not though
or considered this NJ case OF politics,
Addressing my neighbors, ] said that
this and like cases adponish them 10
demand civil service reform In the fe
moyal OF all fr0m office who Will not
seek 10 promote II within the sphere OF
their official duty and authority.
naanaalfullu