The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-17

| conceded tnat that was not embezzlement
properly speaking Let IL be conceded
| that under the law Mr.. Gage had the right
to deposit the money in that bank. 1 want
10 come to what occurred
The Speaker Misunderstood.
Here Mr.. Richardson became engaged in
a controversy with Messrs Hepburn of
Iowa and Hopkins of Illinois regarding the
legal effect of the transaction, which arose
from a misunderstanding by the latter of
Mr.. Richardson's position. He conceded that
the deposit of the money in a designated
depository was payment into the Treas
ury. and that under the law Mr. Gage was
not guilty OF embezzlement. The subse-
quent transaction, however. invoked Mr..
Richardson's severest censure. especially
the agreement between the bank and the
Secretary by which the full amount of the
purchase money was not paid in order that
the bank should not DE- responsible for
taxes. although the Government was pay
ing the hank per cent upon the price OF
property as rent
But want 10 go beyond that" Mr..
Richardson continued. What is this
transaction Mr.. Chairman? On the Sd
Of July the Secretary of the Treasury, By
the authority and power vested in him by
law undertook 10 sell. and did sell. Gus
York for ss.265, 600. Now. sir. Just before
he did that the Secretary OF the Treasury
received letter from one A. D. Hep
burn. and 1 propose to quote about three
lines of that letter. because it bears upon
the subsequent action of the Secretary of
the Treasury.
What Mr. Hepburn wrote the Secretary
OF the Treasury on the 5th day OF June
was after he had mentioned his own
bank of which he was the officer, as fol-
lows:
of course the hank is yery strong. and il you
will take pains To look al the list Of our direc-
tors YOU Will see that also have very great
political claim in view OF what was done during
! the canvass last year.
Now there is the proposition of Mr..
Hepburn. Vice President OF the National
City Bank calling upon the Secretary OF
the Treasury for assistance for his bank.
based upon what they. their directors, had
done for the Republican party in 1896.
Now at that time there was deposited in
this National City Bank Government money
to the amount of only about 100000. Now.
MIR. Chairman. to hurry along. after that
date and not very long afterward in the
same year the National City Bank, of the
S5S.e00.0G0 in the settlement OF the Union
Pacific debt. received S24 900, GOO on deposit.
ernment money deposited without interest
in the National City Bank was sls.579 600.
On September 90. 1899. the balance was
S29. .000. GOO. IN the floating of the war loan
OF S2c0, 100000 in June. 1898, in which 3iS
banks participated. the National City Bank
received sl4, ,000. 900. On July s. 1899. the
balance was $40. SOC. 900, showing that the
bank had the free use of over $4,000 900
for six months.
Political Debts.
New, come Immediately TO the point
Very soon after this appeal made by Mr.
Hepburn TO Mr.. Gage, Secretary of the
Treasury, for help, this custom house prop
erty was sold, and very soon thereafter
we find that Mr.. Hepburn. acting for his
bank. called upon Secretary Gage for au-
thority to deposit with the Government
certain bonds in order that he might pay
the purchase price Of this property. 1t
did deposit So s55. 600 of Government bonds.
Now these bonds. Mr.. Chairman, were
bearing interest, to simply deposit with
the Secretary OF the Treasury s36s5, 900.
Now what followed? Instead of paying
Sc, ,265, coo. the purchase money of this
property. the Secretary says that he SIM
ply required the bank to give him credit
for s.. ,0C0. leaving the pitiful sum of
$50 eco unpaid. Now in allowing that bank
to deposit with the Secretary of the Treas
ury So. 2l5, GOO in bonds, on which the bank
was to get interest. the Secretary OF the
Treasury simply took the paper. certii-
cate of deposit for s3215. .000, the purchase
price CT this property, and turned around
Immediately and rented the same property
that had been sold 10 this bank to the
bank aud required 1t to pay interest at the
rate of per cent on the purchase price
Now. what did the bank get and what did
the Treasury get?
The Treasury got nothing in the world
except the mere deposit on paper Of the
s.. .2I5. 600. What did the bank get? It
had deposited bonds upon which it gets
or 5 per cent interest or whatever
the interest is. 1t gets the money. s3.215,-
0o0. the purchase price. which it had per-
feet right 10 loan at any rate OF interest
II could get, and ! am told by the public
press that during the late panic il loaned
money as high as 100 per cent The bank
kept the s3. 2l5. coo and did not turn IL over
to the United States, except that IL was
public depositary. and then turned round
Immediately and charged the Treasurer of
the United States or the Government OF
the United States, rent for the use and
occupation of this property, for which II
had not paid dollar.
Not only that. but the bank left unpaid
$685. in order not TO pass the tit'e 10 the
bank and make them liable for taxes TO the
city of New York. ! am stating the facts,
and the only object. IL | can understand the
matter. in holding back the s50.0c0 wss that
the title would not have 10 pass from the
Government TO this National City Bank OF
New York until the entire purchase money
was paid Therefore, by an agreement with
the Secretary OF the Treasury. this bank
was appealing for help because of the
money they had subscribed 10 the Repub- /
iican campaign in 1896, was exempted from
paying fifty or sixty thousand dollars 10 the
city OF New York for taxes. The Govern
ment sells the property and gets no money |
for il. but simply a transfer of credit On (,
paper. and the bank reserves the money in /
its vault and loans out this purchase money |
at any rate OF interest IL can get, and ths n l
Pays the Government per cent on the pUr /
chase money. interest or rent. for the use /,
and occupation of this very property. Now, /
say and l want to know IL any fair |
minded man. even the gentleman from |
Illinois (Mr. Hopkins), who has Just risen |
to confront me with a question il he will |
stand up here and say that is dealing prop |
erly with trust money of the United |
States" lApplause on the Democratic |
side.l
MIR. Hopkins Defence.
Mr.. Hopkins-Does not the gentleman |
from Tennessee know that from the time |
the bank leased this property to the Gov
crnment 1t will be responsible for the |
taxes?
Mr. Richardson-No. the contention is |
that they are not liable for the taxes as /
long as the title remains in the Govern
ment of the United States
Mr.. Hophns-How could they lease
property the title to which they did not
sba far Tha4 I,ad