Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-09-30
POSTMASTER WHEAT AND SON.
The Precious Pair Found Appropriating
Public Moncy-Their Examination.

Try telegraph 10 tho DispAtch.)
WAquNGroN, September ~. The investi'
cation of the charges against Postmaster
Wheat. Of the House of Representatives,
was continued by the Committee on Ac-
counts 10 dav, with Mr.. SpoOner (chair-
mani presiding. Before any witne ses were
examined Representative Casweil, Of Wis
consin. representing Wheat. called the at
tcutIOu of the committee 10 theact maklng
appropriations for the House post-oihce,
and contended that IT'S phraseoiogv gave
10 the Postmaster an absolute right TO the
600 appropriated for carrying the mails.
The phraseOlogy had been changed lew
wears ago. he said. so that the Postmaster
WAS allowed 90 use the whole amount or so
much as might be necessary.
Mr.. Dalton. Postmaster IN the Forty
eighth. Forty ninth. and Fiftieth Congress
es. was present and desired 10 make astate-
ment Hosaid that when he entered upon his
office - contract was in existence Tor carry
ing these mails. but the person doing the
work going into other business he entered
into q contract with Henry Culbertscn igr
doing the work al 5000 per year. lie
never. directly or Indirectly. received any
part of this money as a perqWsite oil ms
Office When CuibertsOn took charge ne
did not have any money. 80 the witness
lent HIM the monev 20 buy an outht ana
bad been reimbursed.
lu answer % MIR. Hayes the witness de
MED having made - statement 10 wheat
that Culbcrtson could afford togiye wheat
any money for keeping OF contract. IN
answer to Postmaster Wheat, the witness
denied having said TO hun wheat that
Culbertson could give INN = 100 per mohth
and DO would be all right. To Mr.. Grimes.
the witness said be never had seen Wheats
son before TODAY: that ne never, during
SIX wears. had cot a cent out of the con-
tract with Culbcrtson, and that no never
told Wheat about any OF the perqulsitles
Of the Office.
TIE matter If Wheat's son drawing a
salary for which another mans name was
carried on the rolls WAS then taken up
The gist of the testimony IL that vacancy
occurring IN the pO~t-oIIice. young wheat
asked William L. Bradley 10 permit his
name TO 20 upon the rolls and 10 sign
voucher. for pay at the rate OF 500 per
month. of which Bradley was 20
nav Wheat $50 per month. retain
ING 50. In addition 10 this, the
Whcats. father and son, obtained
Representative Caswells endorsement
upon lIradlcv's application for a position
m theGovernment Printing Oftice. when
that vacancy was filed another had oc-
CURED and the abOyc-descrbed arrange
meut was continued as 10 this one, except
That Bradley retained so TINS time not
withstanding threats of the withdrawal OF
CaswcIs name from his recommends
tiuus.
On behalf Of young Wheat il was ex-
plained that he actually did the work OF
thetwO positions. his own and the substl-
flutes. with occasional help from his IA
thor. the hours OF the two places being such
that lc could DO so.
Bradley testified that Postmaster Wheat
was present when the settlement was made
between himself and young Wheat, aud II
was the elder Wheat who suggested the
withdrawal of Caswrll's endorsement. Sub
-eouontlv Postmaster Wheat had spoken
of the improperly of tins substitute ar
raneomont aud had discharged Bradley.
Tie other testimony Indicated that POST
master Wheat is personally unpopular
with some OF his employees. some de-
eor,hine him as overbearng; also that "a
feeling existed that young Mheats at
tempt 10 do the work of two positions had
increased the labors of other employees.
on behalf of Representative taswell
vounr " neat testified that Caswell had no
knowledge of his arrangement with Brad
lev when he lCaswell signed Bradley
papers at Wheats request. Wheat IS con-
stitueut of Caswclls.