National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-01-06
rnr NAVY rrAup CASES.
Resumptloniof the Trials orLoOai Busi-
meas Men.

ness Ihens
Augustus Burgdorf was yesterday arraigued
in the criminal court for alleged completely In
the false voucher frauds I'm the bureau OF medi'
cine and surgery, Navy Department District
Attorney WorthlnEton and Assistant District
Attorney Coyle appeared for the government,
and Mr.. JEFF. Chandler for the defendant Burg.
dOrf. TO save time and expense the court di.
reotcd the consolidation of the TOUR cases aud
their trial as one, and nolie pros. was entered
i'm each case as TO Kirkwood and Carrigan.
The defense accepted the first twelve men as a
Jury TO sit in the case, but one OF the panel
having served on the grand Jury which found
the indictments, another was taken N nus
place, and they were then sworn. DIr. Coylc,
in his opening of the case in behalf OF
the government, claimed that there
were four bills presented by the defendant
to the government which were false in that
none OF the goods were furnished rs charged,
and that 1t was n violation of the statute upon
which the indictments were based. Mf.
Chandler said that he preferred TO make MS
statement oftheir defense to the jury At that
tine. lie stated that Mr.. BurgdoTt had bccn
doing work for the department for upwards OF
twenty years. He had always. made an item.
lied bill for the material furnished or work
PERFORMED, ana either carried or sent II to the
department. These bills the department
would reconstruct on blanks acceptable 70
themselves with which MIR. Burgdori hn1
nothing to do except TO collect his money unnn
them. lie always accepted the vouchers With
out question or examination aud went ana re-
CATION into the workings of tho bureau of med
iCine and surgery began and the Indictments
followed, Mr. BurgdOrl claiucd that he had
furnished material and labor for the amount
claimed in his bills and asked that inquiry be
made as the charges made against him were
inIuriug him In his business, DIR. Van RyDen
gentleman of experience and oonVersant
with the bureaus was designaletttO make the
Investigation. After thorough examination
that officer wrote letter to the effect that Nj.
Burgdorf had furnished value for an money re-
ceiyed BY him, and If there had been any, ,yy lo'
lation Of law It was merely technical with
this statement in his possession the counsel said
they were still in court defending against inc
prosecution.
''Now that you have stated that much outside
of the case" said District Attorney Worthing.
ton, suppose YOU state the rest-thc visit TO the
Attorney General"
Certainly, Il you desire It," replied Mr.,
Chandler "Aftcr this state Of facts in Mr..
BufcdorTs case had been ascertainUd went to
the Attorney General. laid them before him,
and requested That the prosecution be aban.
doned. lie wrote 10 the district attorney upon
the subject aud that official opposedit ImalSo
the statementfu for the benefit ofthe district ut
torney."
MIR. Chandler returning to the case, reviewed
all the circumstances connected with tho case
and promised to show that there had been
neither violation of lawanor criminal intent;
that NJ. Burgdorl received oniy the money
showing this they would claim that they were
entitled TO n verdict
Thcblis in. contest arc as follows: Jan. I,
| lSS3, cases. tables SC, 1851 90: June 80, 1888,
| model case. sl62 %; June |, 1888 three tablei.
5000 June 30, 1883. two diponsary cases, $50.
The first witness called was Edwin Salter.
| Of The fourth auditors Office, who, e'euted
| the original vouchers from the files OF that
| Office.
F.V. walkcr.' chief clerk of the navy pay
office, recognized the vouchers, and checks
| given in payment Of them and tic signature
| of the defendant to the receipts.
| Dr. Philip s. Wales, who was chief OF the
| bureau when the bills In question were paid,
testified that Mr.. Burgdorf did great deal OF
| Of contracting for the work called for In the
| bills. He knew that Mr.. BurgdOrf equipped
the laboratory and museum and other depart
| mcnts, but 1t would be impossible for the wit
| ness totell what was furnished or the dates
| when the furnishing was done. DR.. Brown
had charge of the bureau, and 1t would be i'm
| possible for the witness to tell any special arti
cles furnished. Upon the vouchers being sub
| mittcd the witness pronounced his signature
lothem, showing that the goods had been dc
livcred, us genuine. He then eSplainoi how
1t was obtained, repeating the statement pre-
yiously made that they came TO him folded
showing the place for signing without showini
what the bills were for. The first would show
the amount, and, supposing the two benoatl
were duplicates and trlpilcatcs, he woulC
attach his signature without further inspection
lie relied upon the integrity of Carrlgan anC
Rirkwood, and did not deem II necessary 4
| make closer examination.
On crosseNamination the witness stated tina
II was the custom of the contractor to present al
itcmized bill and the flnanclalclo In makini
upthe voucher from the bill would condensca nI
use his own language. lie could not of his owl
knowledge say that Mr.. Burgdorf ever pre-
sented bill to the bureau in excess of wOr
done or material furnished.
VIM. i. Stidham. of the fourth auditors oil
fee, testified that during the preliminary heat
ing nj the police court. in the clerks Oflc(
Mr.. BuTgdorf denied the gcnuincncss OF hi
signature to n voucher shown him.
Waller u. Reynolds who was apOthccary a
| the naval hospital up to July, 1881, testified {
being In charge of the dispeisary, and that n
dispensaTy cases were furnished while he wa
there.
On cross.examination the witness admtte
| that hlr. Burgdorf did furnish wlcdrobes, boo
cases, lounges, bureaus, bedstoads, mattresse
| and other things. lie had no knowledge an
would not say that Mr.. Burgdorf put items 1
his bill fgoods that he did not furnish.
Medical Director John w. Brown, who ,hd
been In charge of the museum OF hygiene sine
october 1887, testified that Mr. Burgdorf ha
furnished articles TO the museum, but nothin
since March, 1883. During the time he SUI
piled the museum Mr. Burgdorf received SON
Sl0,EOO
At the conclusion of The examination Of tn
witness the trial was adjourned until this NOR
ing.