The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-12-06
Skipped With the Cash

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-From present ap,
pearances Edward Silcott, cashier of the
sergeant-atarms of the House of Repre-
sentatives, has fed, carrying off So, 900 OF
the funds entrusted to his care.
Silcott was a trusted employee who came
here from Ohio. He was appointed by
Leedom six years ago. He had good bust
ness qualifications, and soon possessed
himself of the unlimited confidence of his
superior. Last Saturday he notified Lee
dom he was going to New York and would
be back Sunday A message was received
from him, dated New York, Monday morn
| ing, saying that he had been detained but
would return that night. A similar mes
sage reached his wife that night. As he
did not appear Tuesday Leedom feared he
had been overtaken by some accident, but
to satisfy his rising suspicious he began
investigations. The information that Sill
colt had drawn his bank balance deepened
these suspicious, and the inquiry was pur-
sued. The enormous office safe could not
be opened for the moment, as Silcott had
the combination, butwhen an entrance was
finally effected it was found that some
thirty thousand dollars set apart for the
use of the paying teller was intact The
next inquiry was made at the Treasury de-
partment, where Leedom was informed
! that Silcott had called there Saturday and
had drawn about seventy-two thousand
dollars. 1t was possible for him to draw
this large sum without comment, as he had
for a long time been charged with collect
ing the money with which the salaries of
Representatives are paid. Silcott is under
bonds in the sum of $4,000. This, how
ever, is the indemnity bond given to the
sergeant-atarms, and Leedom, who is
himself bonded to the extent of $4,000, is
directly responsible. Leedom says Silcott
could have taken $3.50, 900 just as well
Silcett came fran Youngstown, Ohio,
where he was merchant for many years
Mr.. Leedom says he seemed to have one
more than the ordinary mans share of
vices and was one of the most economical
men he ever knew. Persons who know
Silcott's habits, however, do not give him
good name. 1t is said he was intimate
with disreputable woman going by the
name of Louise Barrett. whom he had sup
portnd for some time. 1t is asserted that
she is now his companion. This, however,
is open to question. He also had the repu-
tation of playing on the races steadily, and
of lending money to his associates at the
capitol to back horses. Silcott leaves a
wife and three children behind. The
Oldest is married son, employed in the
House document room.
the habit Of keeping individual deposits
with the sergeant-at-arms and their losses
when ascertained may swell the sum total
considerably. Later information is to the
effect that the paying teller's funds, al
though in the same safe where Silcott kept
his money, were protected by separate
lock and steel door. This may explain
their preservation. What concerns the
members of the House most deeply is
EUhathar in oivipp ciCnad carti to tho
sergeant at arms, on which he obtained the
money from the treasury, they haveRot re-
leased the government from liability for
.eir salaries. Opinions on this point
AIRY.
The object of Silcott's visit to New York
Saturday, it is said, was for the purpose of
collecting $4,000 from Congressman
Paige. of Ohio, which amount SilcoJt had
loaned him out of the funds in his custody.
Among the Congressman who lose personal
deposits are Rife, of Pennsylvania, $500;
Taylor, of Ohio, 5000; Boutelle, of Maine,
$500; Bayne, of Pennsylvania, $1,000;
Butterworth, of Ohio, 5000; Hermann, of
Oregon, s., 300; Picker, of North Dakota,
5000; Parnell, of Nebraska, 2,l00; and
Owen, of Indiana, 5000.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-Several Congress
men had left their salary liz the sergeant
alarms hands for nearly year, and these
are the heaviest losers. Mr.. Turner, of
Kansas, said the question of the members
losing their salaries would depend on
whether the act creating the Office made
the sergeant-at-arms government repre-
sentative or whether, as seemed probable
from the fact that the members signed
authorizations, that he was representa-
tive of theirs. In the first case the gov
eminent, and in the second the mem bers
themselves, would be the losers.