Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-12-14


The developments in the case Of the shortage
In the sergeant-at-arms' Office of the House,
while they do not fix dishonesty upon anybody
but Silcott, show astounding looseness in
the financial transactions throughout that
office. There seems to have been very little re-
gard for fine points Of proprIety. As the testi-
mony appears TO members of the committee
making the investigation Mr.. Leedom simply
neglected the financial affairs of his Office,
leaving everything to Silcott 1t appears that
some members Were in the habit of discounting
their notes on their salaries before they were
due, and that some members had overdrawn
their accounts. As far as Mr.. Leedom himself
is concerned the evidence before the committee
indicated that he neglected to count his cash
and attend to the financial affairs of the Office.
THE DISCOUNT BUSINESS.
Members of the House criticise him for this
and for the alleged fact that he discounted
members notes out of the public money, and
the thing that they condemn him for is that,
as they say, he was perfectly aware of the bad
habits OF Sllcott. and yet trusted him in the
face of this knowledge
Mr.. Leedom and Mr.. Silcott were both fond
of attending the races and betting. there
fore Leedom knew of this habit OF
hls cashier, and it is alleged that he knew that
Sllcott was leading fast life in other respects.
This was known, of scourse. to a number OF
members also and the habit of discounting
notes appears to have grown out OF the rapid
pace at which certain members of Congress
were going, to some extent it is thought in
company with Mr.. Silcott
THE MORAL ATMOSPHERE
within certain circles in intimate association
with the sergeant-at-arms' Office does not ap-
pear to have been clear. While the thirty-fivs
notes referred to in The STAR some days ago
are alleged to have been fOrgeries, there are q
lot of notes in the safe of the sergeant-at-arms
which are genuine, and this loose discount busi-
ness appears to have been going on for wears.
While members have perfect right TO give
out their notes against a sum to fall due them
III the future, there is a question as to the pro-
priety of their conducting their
business with the disbursing officer of the
House. when il might be fair assumption
that the money advanced came from the pub
lie fund. The committee are under the i'm.
preston, as indicated in this report and by
some Of its members in discussing this matter,
that these advances were made from the pub
lie fund, and that if Mr.. Deedom was not aware
of this fact it was because he knew nothing
about the state of his own or of the public
finances in the hands of Mr.. Silcott
Mr.. LEEDoM EXPLAINS
On this subject Mr.. Leedom stated to o SrAR
reporter that the discounting during the session
of Congress was done with his own money or
with private moneys deposited with him, not
out of the public funds, and that when Con-
gress was not in session the discounts were
negotiated with the banks.
As to the presence of a check of u. 600 of his
there against a deposit of less than 600. which
the report refers To, he says that he kept an ac-
count there, and that it an overdraft such
as might occur in bank. He explained that
Silcott had in his part of the safe a sum of
money belonging to him Leedom) and that he
deposited his salary with the paying teller and
checked against ii. When he was notified by
the paying teller that he had overdrawn be
simply got the money out of his own fund in
Silcott's part of the safe and made the necessary
deposit In the case of the 81 900 check, he
says that when he found he had over
drawn he found at the same time that
Silcott had taken away the envelope contain
ing his (Leedoms) private funds, amounting
in notes and money TO about $4,000 He at
once raised the money to deposit against the
note and still held it in resesve for that pur-
pose. In other words. he says that he actually
had more than the thousand dollars in the safe
when he drew the check, but that it was in Sill
colts possession, and not in the paying teller's
fund.
ovERDRAwN ACCOUNTS.
II appears from the books of the sergeant-st.
arms that Mr.. Adams, who is the chairman of
the investigating committee, has overdrawn
his accounts TO the amount of $40; that ex-
Speaker Carlisle has oyerdrawn his account to
drawn his accounts to the amount of Ell 934
Other oyerdrafts are: Cheatham, $500; Goth
ran, 81; Forman, S4l6; Clifford, S5; Heard,
SSa6i Houk, sS4S; Lee, Il, and spinola, s4ls.
In the cases of Carlisle. Reed, Forman and
Houk the vouchers have been fled
SPEAKER REEDS CASE
STAR reporter made an investigation of the
case Of Speaker Reed and discovered that ia
was not, in fact, an overdraft, at least not as
far as Mr.. Reed himself knows. Mr.. Reed
placed his certificate i'm the sergeant
alarms Office on the 4th of December,
when the money was due, for his additional
salary as Speaker, and authorized the procur-
ance of a draft for the amount on New York:
day or two afterward he got the draft Hn
certificate should have been taken 20 the
Treasury, the money drawn and the drsft pro-
cured 1t appears, however, that the money
was not drawn from the Treasury, though tne
proper sum was paid to Mr.. Reed This gives ses
appearance of an overdraft
THE sPEAKER's STATEMENT.
A star reporter spoke to MIR. Reed about ths
matter this morning. az have never over