Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-09-28
Charges Against a Postmaster.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27.-The house committee
on accounts to-day began an investigation into
the charges preferred ag ainst Postmaster Wheat
OF the house in resolution introduced by Mr..
Enioe. The charges are in effect, thai Mr..
Wheat required a contractor who carried mails
from the house to the postoffice to pay him 81
month from contract prices, also that the
postmaster has on his roll of employees at 0C
government printing Office, and that Bradley
pays sy5 OF it TO Mr. Wheat's son.
Mr.. Boothman, member OF the committee.
asked to be excused because of the existence OF
certain relations with the postmaster. he being
a tenant of Mr.. Wheat's. His request vas
granted.
The committee first took up the charge relating
to the letting of the mail contract, and called
Wheat to the stand to make statement. Con-
corning the contract entered INTO, he said that
he in December last made a contract with Gull
bertson az the rate of $1,000 per year of which
sum Culbertson was to give him $50 per month.
Some time after the letting of the contract he
learned that it was being talked of by dis
charged empIoye, as
NOT BEING A PROPER THING,
The charges subsequently appeared in the
newspapers. he then talked the situation over
with other persons and came to the conclusion
that the contract was violation of law. He
then wished to return the money ne had received
vised that it did not belong to him but to the
government He wen: to the treasury depart
ment and deposited tire money ard received a
receipt for il. He had received no more since
from Culberson under the agreement.
Replying to Mr.. Enloe the postmaster said he
had Consulted the clerk of the house of repre-
sen'atives, Caswell. the speaker and others
about the matter. He was asked if his son.
Walter, had not gone to the contractor, AIR.
Culbeison. telling HIM there was likely to be
AN INVESTIGATION,
and asked him to put IL Q $50 with third marty,
He declared he knew OF no such conyers alton.
Subsequently the contract was taken away from
Mr.. Culbertson and given to Mr.. Deash ct 5000
per year.
In answer to question as to how he came to
fill the hrst contract 1T 5000 per year witness
said when he was sen to Washington the Office
was new to him, and he simply had the contract
was all right. He also found the appropriation
allowed for that purpose $1,000 per year. Mr..
Wheat said further that number OF persons
had spoken to him concerning the perquisite OF
$50 per north before the contract had been
entered into, but their names he did not recall.
Harry Culbertson, the contractor who carried
the mails, was then sworn and identified the
contract. He had carried the mails for Mr..
Dalton, former postmanter, for six
years previous to December last.
5000 per year. Witness declared he had NOT
made similar previous payment of $50 per
was that the present transaction came about.
Mr.. Wheat had asked him to coms to
his room. Mr.. Wheat asked him at first for
contract. Witness said he could not give him
that, but made counter proposition to give
him $50. This. he said, would require him to
do the driving at starvation price.
Mr.. Dillon called in as witness to tue
affair. He did not pay any part of his contract
money to any person during the six years of
Postmaster Dalton s administration. In reply to
member of the committee witness
said he was Mr.. Dalton's father-in-law In re-
ply to further questions he said that after he
allowed to keep the $50 for one month to buy
harness. Witness said he had paid money to
Mr.. Wheat's son. Walter. One day. when it
was apparent that an investigation was proba-
10 In HIM nd tfr,rt 20
have the money, $50, handed over to third
party, but this was not done. He had received
notice subsequently of q desire to close the con-
tract, but there was q months pay still due
him.