The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-27
DAyrvpoRrs CORRUPTION rOxD.
Congressman Fitch shows Secretary Foster
How the Treasury Doe. Business.

In reply to my communication OF the 2lst. In
which I asked that when the bills OF Mr.. Dav-
cnport. the Chief Supervisor OF Elections In
this district. aro presented at tho Treasury
Department. payment OF the same may DO
suspended until the accounts can 10 verified
and examined.
Your letter recites tho wording OF section
$40 Of the Revised Statutes Of tho United
States. the an, en- i'm emit OF Fob. 30. 1870 the
Conrad case reported in the fifteenth Federal
Reporter. pnGe Gal. and the decision In the
case OF tho United Staios against Jones. re-
ported In tho 134th United States Supreme
Court Reports. page 4S3
From the language OF the statutes. and OF
the two decisions mentioned above. you In
form me that you are led to conclude:
First-That the act Of Feb. ~. 1875. contem-
plates a hearing in oren court on the question
OF tho accuracy OF the accounts OF the Chief
Supervisor. when the District Attorney or his
assistant Is present to look utter tho interests
OF tho Govern mont. and that this affords sui.
nclent protection to the Treasury. and
Second-That tho finding O.; the court allow
ing tho Claim Ia SO far conclusive upon the
Treasury Department that you would not b
warranted in suspending payment until tho
committee OF tho House has had an opportunity
to verify and examine the accounts.
The statutes and the decisions quoted BY
you are not new to me. They are we'll known
to all the members Of the House committee.
They were fully considered whom the resolu-
ton Of inquiry was drawn. they were the sub.
ject Of discussion when II was adopted By the
House and they have been read and inter.
pretcd and discussed before tho committee
through weeks Ut committee meetings and
Attorney for the Southern district OF New
Nil n dss 1 Is: Fsi S Ssssy
ordinate Charged With ths psrticaisr matter.
OF the Treasury Department before the com.
mittee In answer to Its subpoena served on
Tho difficulty Is that your statement In, your
letter OF the praotits In your department IN.
% h: syss By s tss b sGs N S.
whom you sent 30. before the com mittee: :. 81.
evidence before the comm i!teo. found on mage
II OF It's minutes. testified as follows: or
cause sa cor ss
practice: that his work was sent to. to Washing.
he account are examined and check cd in the
Repn.tmcnt before any payment ne Is
maks any personal examination as to how
much these charges am ountsd to altogether2"
And he answered. on rage ~; That i. .
Treasury Department"
How lar the Government is protected by the
District A;torney whiei YOU regard as SUM- m
cient. may be seen from the EVIDENCE given
Attorney. MIR. ALram j. Rose: who was present
10 court reGrefHenting NJ Mitchell. when tho
eenrs room exespt IL. judge
ana himself: that Mr.. Davenport then pre-
" hat he L new about the accounts. and he said
he knew nothing at oil about them. that he
Judge thereupon signed the certificate ap-
proving the account and that the whole mat
ter was transacted in five or six minutes. Mr.
duced no witnesses. and he got on that :" hear
ing and accounting. which your letter claims
t. pc binding on your department. the sum OF
That until my letter to You. and your rep!v
no not the wcH yo
that such hearings and certitlcation as that
described above we're cons sl upon the
S before ths som 81 This septlsma1 test:
Of these large sums to Mr.. Davenport on such
serned as foows ' u S state sH tSss %1
Davenport has been required IN each instance;
TO- at S
commttee appointed by The First omptroller.
The witness last mentioned above. MI. Fer
and has held his place ever since He testified.
COMMITTEES. viii state That sSer since have
been connected with tho department. Mr.:
has a been to Al Of
partmsnt for examining tion.'
Such an examination as that claimed BY
every Instance" is what asked permission TO
he allowed IN o nv letter to you Tn. sEsfes:
In Wsshnston a ys the stimon9 u yonr
own representative, and was based upon tho
belief that perhaps tho examinations in your
in New York who are fam liar with Mr.. Daven-
answer that Jou have no power to make any
examination at oil. -.
II wish ahs IT tSs f
department claimed and exercised the right
to examine. and suspend. and cut down Dav:
them. until / asked permission to take part In
such examination. you will find it IN tile dies
Iiyou VIII call for Report No. lis, s54 you viii
a na s o Ia
h' sent i to thu fst Ole S
on Jan. =. 1890, tho account was before tho
Conn troller and was examined by him: that
sligo q f was sd iI thas M Bs s.,
the amount deducted On tho back OF Il . re-
port Is the endorsement Of the First Comp
trolier' snspending the account. and annexed
planning and threatening to fight for HIS
rights rights ,.o In this case Enn .usnsnded an &c;
ard scEt him to the courts for tho balance
This was oil under tho present hdministra-
lion. and fifteen years later than the passago
Of the act 10 which you refer me.
Now. when | nsl: a short suspension and
urn helpless
You will further I'm! on report No. 100, 800
n your oiIlce tho ptoof that alter 1t had been
r;i. royet ~ oren court. in tho presence Of the
coGnts was redug ed hy your department 10 the
oN.ent o, s01o.,0. This WAS on July 70. 1891.
| not much over n yoarng
IheSS two cases. with many others which
y,u WIZ hiu. cclonstrRt that tho position
Wnirn ,, ynu TOW t4kc While undoubtedly iden-
nhholntriy at variance with the practice OF
your own department hitherto
All tint desire Is tia, IL tho District Attor-
ney n this district. tho Judge to whom the Sc.
counts , inny 10 Presented. and your depart
again allow, in tho dark. without hostile AZ.
I t N -