The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1900-05-03
MOREEVIDENCE
in CARTER CASE
Convicted Captains Father-in.
Law UnboSomS Himself.
HIS. STATEMENTS SENSATIONAL
Denies That He Furnished Any
Money to His Son-in-Law and
Throws Light on Conspiracy.

Monday mornings issue presented the
additional evidence in the Oberlin NJ.
Carter case and the latest facts found
that connect indisputably with the
gigantic swindls B. D. Greene and
John F. Gaynor, the contractors in
dicted in Savannah, Ga, and who
have since found refuge in the decision
of New York judge.
The tremendous import of the new
evidence may be slightly estimated
when it is stated that there is now in
progress in congress bill the result
of which, if passed, would be to PM
Greene and Gaynor within the pale of
the proceedings instituted against
them in Savannah.
yhe additional evidence in the case
Of Carter, who is now serving bis
sentence, is the statement of his
father-in-law, Mr.. Westcott, now made
public for the first time. Nr. West
colt says positively he never gave one
cent of money to Garter.
The new evidence in the Greene and
Gaynor case is the result OF the splen-.
did work Of the expert bank examiner
and accountant, Edward j. johnson,
who was detailed byAttorney General
Griggs to assist United States District
Attorney Erwin in developing the ex-
tent of the frauds charged to have been
perpetrated upon the government by
Oberlin NJ. Carter. captain of en-
gineers, in charge of The government
river and harbor improvements in
Georgia,
Mr.. johnson made his report to the
United States attorney giving in full
detail the facts brought 6dt by the in
vestigation carried on by him.
The evidence thus brought ont since
the courtmartial trial of Captain Car
Ter shows beyond q doubt the correct
ness of the conclusions reached in that
case.
The following extracts taken from
the compilation of evidence submitted
by the experts. Indicating that the pro-
fits of the government contracts, after
payment of expenses Of the work and
salaries of 81, 900 to the younger Gay
nors, were divided between the three
principal contractors in thirds, are
most significant:
August z, 1893-Carter issued dis
bursing check to the contractors,
which was deposited by them, for
$39, OTIS, of which one-third, less S75
allowed for Caters expenses to New
York, is Withdrawn by them, and two
days later Carter invests $3.50 in
bonds.
November 6, 1893-Carter issued
disbursing check to the contractors for
$1S, 900, of which one-third was with
drawn from deposit, and the same day
Carter invested Sc, 600 in bonds.
December 4, 1898 93-Carter issued
disbursing checks 20 the contractors,
which were deposited by them, for
$63, ,076, of which one-third, less S75
allowed for Carter's expenses to New
York, is withdrawn by them, and on
the same day Carter invested .$21, 900
In securities.
January s, 1S94-Carter issued dis
bursting check to the contractors, which
was deposited by then, for $4s, SIS, of
which one-third, less SIS allowed for
Csrter's expenses to New York, is
withdrawn by them, and on the same
day Carter invests $15.500 in securi-
ties.
February 5, 1ss4-Carter issued
disbursing check to the contractors,
which was deposited by them, for
$54, 600, of which one-third was with
drawn in cash by them. and on the
same day Carter invests $4,000 in se-
curities.
September 8, 1Ss4-Carter issued
disbnrsing check to the contractors for
$461, ,O75. September II, 1894, cashed
by them 152,510.15. Deposited by
Carter on same date sl03, 022. .7S, and
subsequently invested by him, includ-
ing another collection December 4,
1891, $63, 900.
The foregoing are some of the divis-
sions.shown in the report, made be-
tween the contractors and Carter IN
the earlier operations between them,
at random to show how the spoils were
divided.
It will be recalled that Westcott
was in Europe when the oourtmartial
of Carter was in progress and declined
to return aud testify in the case.
It was on the refusal of Westcott to
appear and substantiate this statement
that Attorney General Griggs largely
based his decision affirming the judg-
ment of the courtmartial on the refer
ence Of the case to him by the presi-
dent.