The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-09-28
THE DOODLE CONTRACTS
INVESTIG ALTON OF POSTMASTER
WHEAT BEGUN.

He Received a Rebate of $3.50 from q
Contractor-Got Scared and Depos-
tied the Money IN the Treasury-rhe
Rebate Not Paid to the Former Post
master-WitnessesE Exami ned.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27.-The House COM
mtttee on accounts to-day began au
investigation into the charges preferred
against Postmaster Wheat of the House in
the resolution introduced by Mr. Elloe.
The charges are, in effect. that he required
the contractor who carried the mails from
the House to the postoffice to pay him $3.50
month from the contract price; also that
the postmaster has on his roll of employees,
at 500 per month, a MIR. Bradley, who
works in the government printing Office.
and that Bradley pays sos of it to Wheat's
son.
The committee first took up the cha rye
relating to letting of the mail contract and
called Wheat to the stand to make state
ment concerning it. The contract was
entered into, he said, with Culbertson at
the rate of 5000 per year, of which sum
Culbertson was to give him $3.50 per month.
GOT SCARED.
Some time after the letting of the con-
tract he learned that it was being talked of
by discharged employe as not being a
proper perquisite. The charge subsequently
appeared IN the newspapers. He then
talked the situation over with other per-
sons, and came to the conclusion that the
contract was in violation of the law. He
then wanted to give the money he
had received from Culbertson-S750-ba
to him, but was advised that it did not be.
long to him but to the government He
then went to the treasury department and
deposited money and received receipt for
it. He had received no more since from
Culbertson under the agreement.
WHO HE CONSULTED.
Replying to Mr.. Enloe the postmaster
said that he had consulted the clerk of the
House, Representative Caswell. the speaker
and Others about the matter. He was
asked if his son Walter had not gone to
Contractor Culbertson, telling him there
was likely to be an investigation. and ask
ing him to put the $3.50 in the hands of a
third party. He declared that he knew Of
no such conversation.
Subsequently the contract was taken
away from Culbertson and relet at S4 900
per year.
Wheat said further that a number Of
persons had spoken to him concerning the
perquisite of $3.50 per month before the
contract was entered into, but their names
he didn't recall.
Harry Culbertson, the contractor who
carried the mails, was then sworn and iden-
titled the contract He had carried the
mails for Dalton, the former postmaster
for six years previous to December last
| He had received as compensation s., 900 pc
T, year.
HAD NOT MADE PREVIOUS PAYMENTS.
Witness declared that he had not mad
| similar previous payment of $50 per month
| to the postmaster. He explained how i
| was that the present transaction had oc-
| Cured. Wheat had asked him to come Il
| his room. Wheat asked him at first TO
| $500 per month in return for the contract
| Witness said he could not give it, but made
| a counter proposition to give him $3.50
This, he said, would require him to do worl
| at a starvation price.
A Mr.. Dillon was called in as a witness
He did not pay any part of his contrac
money to anv person during the six years o
Postmaster Dalton's administration. In re-
ply to member of the committee, witness
said that he was Daltcn's brother-in-la law
Witness said he had paid money to Wheat'i
| son, Walter.
APPROACHED BY wHEAr's SON.
One day when it was apparent that al
investigation was probable, Wheat's sor
came to him and sought to have the money
$3.50, handed over temporarily to a third
person, but this was not DONE He had
received notice subsequently, Of desire to
close the contract, but there was months
pay still due him.
Edward Mcpherson, clerk of the House,
was next called to tho witness stand. He
testified In effect that Wheat had come to
his Office with Richard j. Bright to see him
some time in May last. Wheat
showed him certificate of the
payment of $3.50 into the United
States treasury He also testified that
when he learned of the conditions of the
contract he refused to 81 n receipt for the
June payment to the contractor, as he did
not regard it as legal. Witness had spoken
to several persons about the matter.