The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-04-13

would seem that he [Cooperl had infinitely
more cause to com plain than any one else.
and that he had not the slightest RESPONSE
bility therefor. Witness. needing assist
ance. employed Hersey at s20 per month,
after learning that he was considered COM
petent and reliable and gave him the neces-
sary authority TO use MS name on congress
sional-call slips. During most OF the
time Hersey worked for him attor-
neys could examine their cases. Ont
OF town attorneys. however nad no method
Of learning the status or their cases except
by calling TO their aid mem Der of Con-
gress corresponding with the bureau.
Thousands of complaints had been received
that the letters OF claimants ana attorneys
were wholly ignored by the Pension Office.
and he submitted letters complaining tnat
the whole system was being worked Tor the
benefit of Washington attorneys. Recent
~, he understood, the order had been mod
lded so as to prevent attorneys anu claim,
ants from looking at their cases. he had
no excuse to ma Ike for any one VINO abused
the confidence of q Congressman TO supply
for pay the demand for information about
cases, but the policy pursued by Commits
sloner Raum TO bank up al THIS business
In the hands of Washington attorneys
among whom are his son and lndorsers
of his notes, he submitted, Is much
more of O crime and q more harmful de-
bauchery of the public service w natever
Mr.. Hersey had done in the way OF selling
pension information had been done with
out his Mr.. Coopers knowledge or con
sent. as had already been testln ed. lhe
Commissioners knew as early as September
last that Hersey was abusing witnesses
confidence. and in January the Commission
er had asked witness If Hersey was author
lied to sign witnesses name. thing he al
ready knew, and vet instead OF telling him
witness of his suspension, he had done
every thing in his power to have Hersey
bribed. and In the hope that he might en-
trap witness had spread a net over two or
three States and called his spies and In
formers into requisltloD.
GREAT SHOW OF HONESTY.
The first information witness had that
Mr.. Hersey was receiving paw for work
done over his signature was when he re-
ceived the letter from Morgan Inclosing
SIS, which witness returned in letter tell
ing Morgan that Hersey could not take pay
for work done as q part of witnesses con-
gressional duties It was untruethat he had
told Mr.. Morgan that Hersey would work
for him for pay, and witness desired to
make the declaration that he had never,
directlyaor indirectly. asked or accented q
cent for any service growing out OF his con-
nectlon with public affairs.
Mr.. Raum had introduced great deal of
correspondence between Hersey and Mr..
Peet. and charged that Peet was related to
witness. Mr.. Cooper said Peet was broth
Maring & Slusher. pension attorneys. Mr..
Peet had told him that he intended to GO
into business in Kansas, and wanted q
partner. At Poets request witness recon-
meDded Peet to Hersey. he believed an
honorable pa-tlarship was contemplated.
and never sf.e. V ards thought or heard of
the matter.
Mr.. Cooper then referred to the charge
that he had authorized Maring * Slusher
to print his signature on thousands of iml.
tation conRressionsl-call slips which had
been thrown In the wastebasket by Com
missioners Black and Tanner. Mr.. Cooper
said Maring had been mentioned for the
Republican nomination In his ICoOper's
district, and when witness became a men,
Der of Congress in 1889 Mr.. MarinG. who
had an extensive pension business, came to
him and said he desired TO use witnesses
name In calling mp cases of the boys"
Witness knew nothing of pension laws at
the time, and on Mr.. Maring's representa-
ton that 1t was usual thing and the ex-
hibition of o call signed by Senator Turpie,
gave Marlng consent, but with the under
standing that the privilege was to be used
only for soldiers in witnesses district. Wit
ness afterward learned that Maring was
calling up claims all over the country. and
then wrote to Commissioner Tanner and
told him that while he had authorized the
use of his name he had expressly limited
that privilege to soldiers of his district.
Commissioner Raum, for purposes which
would be perfectly plain. had either de-
stroyed or in some manner suppressed the
whole of this correspondence. If that let
ter and witnesses other correspondence with
Commissioners Tanner were produced
Raum's criticism would be answered in ad-
vance. The recklessness of General Raum,
Mr.. Cooper said, was shown in his submit
ting an affidavit of David l.. GIFT that
Commissioner Black had thrown five
thousand of witnesses congressional call
slips into the waste basket W hen the record
showed witness did not become Congress
man until General Black went out. In his
desire to injure witness Commissioner
Raum had been guilty of a deliberate
falsehood for he had called attention to
Hersey having used witnesses name on call
slips and said he had made no discovery
that Hersey had used any other member
name than that of witness when the very
papers he filed as exhibits showed five
cases IN which other members names were
used
1t has been stated. Mr.. Cooper said. that
forty thousand call slips had been printed
in his name. whereas the printer testified
that only five thousand had been printed.
The witness produced letters between him.
self and ex-Commissloner Tanner. They
showed that he himself had Enclosed a
sample congressional call slip. printed in
Indiana, to Commissioner Tanner. called
attention to il. and asked if it were proper
or improper Tor him TO give permission to
MarIng Il Slusher to use them. Commits
sioner Tanners reply said most assuredly
the slips cannot 60" and that the offce
could not permit the printing presses all
over the country to send out these slips.
Mr.. Cooper next put in a letter directing
Maring IL Slusher to discontinue using
the slips.