New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-01
Mr.. DAVENPORT'S ACCOUNTS.
SECRETARY FOSTER AGAIN ANSWERS MIR.
FITCH'S CONVENTIONS.
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT CAN CORRECT
THE CorPr,s FINDINGS ONLY WHEN THEY
IRE CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Washington. ID. c. Nov 3O-Tle secretary OF the
Treasury to-day the following letter 10 Representa-
tive A. P. Fitch. chairman of the special Eiect'oh
Committee in regard TO the accounts of John l. Day
export:
Ashbsl P Fitch No % Nassau.st, New-York City.
Sir do desire continue this correspondence now
that quite understand each other on th' law III qo>
ton. take 1t that you are satisfied tha' you nave
right under Of February o. 1870 10 APPEAR III
court when Mr. Davenport presents has accounts a Chlef
Supervisor services at the recent election LOT eN
planaton and approval, and resist their allowance H. III
YOUR Judgment part Thereon are nc
caly charged against the United States "so .t
that Won are equally well satisfied that under the holding OF
the supreme Court OF the United states IN o'e jones
coso there is az serious dOr\ about ue fS' " ''
Dorarmct 10 review such accounts after tleE nav p''
allowed by the Circuit District Court except IN 'he case
=, ,.ar and uneouivoca the part OF he coort
FINDER such circumstances respectfully submit u Is 'he
uart Of nrudence wisdom u resort 10 t' COURTS " H
ars. instance Tho production Of papers ana te "'Dn'e
Of witnesses can compelled through the process oil
c,, which no doubt be necessary to an nVestga-
tion. 49,, .,,.,o, .A..
,-tb.r tnurv is dcmarded. or required 70 protect inc
I-,,oa St,t.s Will listen with great pleasure 70 any
suggestion. you may ut TO make looking 70 uat eho
and end that any fulther re'el 'H'' s''' III "
my power may be granted
10y t,on two dlsollowencc made in this Department
IN two accounts heretofore presented by MI Davenport
biased on ne evidence Of Mr.. FerreiD ana cohc'uOS
that p~snch Of your subject by ssEmE' !" suoe""oo
,bo, theso two cases with others, demonstrate that Tie
,,,,>s which 7 now tqke that ii the safest plan to
"a into court in OF the uncertainty Of inc lew on
tho subject variance with the 'p Sc1ce oil u's
Department The impression sought 10 DC co"N'!ou :"
this statement misleading. You seek 70 convey uo
ida that Is the pgactice OF this Dcps ruent 70 mNcsti
cate cases de novo and reach conclusion dincfeht rom
tho ono found by Such Is not the pacu'e anu
II IL were respectfully submit lhaO IL "ou4u NV w
Authorized BY law.
10 stated By M Ferreu, Mr. Davenport when no
presents his accounts for payment, dos produce ms
books papers vouchers to the end that the deahu
NAV be examined and scrunized by the accounting officers
h.fora navnen 10 the further the accounts or
any part thereof, contain clear and unequNocA PROOF
Of part Of the court such Item or lVfs
NAV be dsallowod Such examinations ore made by e-
pert officials and difficult to how any one rom
NewYork or elsewhere could rhed much light on such
On inquiry, even II tie law permitted his presence ana
invited his assistance No item, as you VIII ana must
bear IN mind under tn. holding Of Justice Lamar can
be- dsallowed in the absence Of clear and Wequivoca
nroof of mistake part OF the court II such proof
is not cear and unequvocal" it seems that the finding
Of the court conclusive On this Department 10
Illustrate fully
One Of the princfa items presented accounts OF
chief supervisors Of "eniering and index
ing" the records Of their offices For such service t9
statute allows fifteen cents per folio suppose mat ue
claim is for entering and indeXing 10000 'ios Oh uo
rccords the amount would be $500
If the should enormously put tp' sum at greater
amount say nine thousand dollars, the co-%to1
made and the right amount paul lh@ d1p'"N"'
Of such on account would be in legal eneet Chat The
work had been charged that It was necessary that
and papers the records OF the once Of 'ne
chief supervor that the and ndcNng requiFeI
80 900 folios for the work The supervisor was
untitled to Is cent, per folio making the slnn Of
$500 This Department would have rieht % say mat
the work done, that u was not necessary mat
the books etc. the records Of the Office onc
IL could and would the In calculation ana thc
like The colr nay erred in nn1nc mat the Work
was done tAat il necessarily done OF that 'he BOOKS
records OF the office Of The chief supervisor D''
doubt the right Of this Department 20 make correction
AZ that character; but IL certainly would have right 10
correct mi.colculason something of that kind
Take another Suppose the Chief Supervisor IN
the exercise Of discretion vested In him by section
oo26 Revised should require Of the supervisors
OF elections lists OF the persons who r1slster2d
and who voted or either, respective election d.
trcts and should the names q thos" on Sch 7
whose right register vote honestly eono'cu' u
m verified by proper inQurv and examination at te re-
specyo places assigned their residence ana lH'' III
furtherancc Of Instructions the aAPfVios u e'
tions should make list and inquire ana repor, teH
c,.,s,lv In " tng 70 tie chief supervisor and suppose
o. the hearing the Circuit or District court on ipi'
eaton % have account approved the court shouu u
that the has be- necessarily conc ana O'' '
rcorts OF the election supervisors. with the Ist U INC
of sunerysor the official report q one ohcai u an
ctbor when 'rocords Of the olce Of me cn
,urorv.or and that TO- cnterng and inceN!ne e"cH
records the CHIEF Supervisor entitled 10 10 cents per
,oo under Section 2O3l, Revised St'lut~s; WONG any
,orrer he authorized 10 hold under the -ela'd drl'
sons OF the courts, that this department would nave ~
High. 10 say such reports and list 30 l''N upon
-, ,ho court wee not "rccor1S" o. tho omcc 81 che'
super,1sori Would any ore contend mat thH' qo'"''
could be reviewed by the accounting ONO"
certainly think Tot and ! feel this Department
ro-o assume no such authority whore such r2ht 10
make such a ruling challenged OF even DIousnV J"
oues,ion or where attention called To the fact Inc
suggestions Will suffice 70 illustrate tne pi'c'l'' u
which YOU s1ea which has Teen followed n th.s Ic
rarren. since the rendto Of the opinion b. Ju-''e
Ir.- p,io~ n that time investigation OF account was
much more liberal and far-rcachine. As am informed
u,r n, the Government protected by hearings IN
.oro, court 81, which the u regard as sahi-
cirnt really DO not know. II You have 'ounu 'a'e
vbcre sueh practice IN your judgment IS insufficient
,ercst that YOU invite the attention oil inc court "'
has the power make the coiicc'"h Ut Inv N'l"'
., Iustce which ha. control Of district attorneys 7" TIE
subject Such suggestion might result IN graf 'ool 10
1o ,,,hic s,rv5oe As l not adyisd u the manner
in which district attorneys examine ana ,G'"'i.1r ~
accounts q officials Tor services 'e"U'''-' ~ ~
cuss the question with YOU
Yam trt.na,on that the account, Of Mr. Davenport have
heretofore been allowed paid in Che dai@' + without
foundation 70 far they apply 70 tas department" io
evidence wa before YOU h'y ar a. i1iY ''"u"''u
when they r-oc. this Department a. the IA" VIII ie''
you viii also remember that then payment. h'4' ''u
manner aud the amount the eof ha' frequently Dec" i'0
a matter Of Congressional Inquiry io"gr'-'o''l H.
yosoaton was had # Mr.. DayenpoFt's accounts among
-, ,, rner,i.or. Of elections. growing out OIL the
Presidential election 81 IN" Hon = = cox hen''
tcr O, Congrfs, from %owYor@, oi Marrh D. IN''. 'D
nhttd report tine House Of K'!'e'ch'al''' i'""
the select committee eqc! .r1niuht 'f'u''lo' anu
,ou1,,c,t voting In the ct,s OF Ncw-ioiH, Philadelphia
Droodiyn and jersey clpy," in wh''h he aid
Whatever may be sud about the Until STAG. Law a., a.
o whste'er nay BE- a , q, to ts it 81 S aid ha
u aimni. "a, o. Of tac lay BY toa.i-si1,'r &
tsrr suS,dioat. was emlncay Just and VIZ, and con-
dgetve TO fair publ ao 's st lntas o.. 10. .,i"ony
u@J3ai b sAG9' t ana ,cd ais Commissioner he
Soutncrn Ds;iict Of NV Yor j. lsn2rspr , , NJ
IS