The Topeka state journal., 1903-06-27

specified in the charges. except the items
relating to appointments, including the
individual cases of Larner and 0. H.
Smith, and thus the matters open to
question are reduced to the appoint
ments which all told involve thirteen
clerks and seven cleaners. Even this
is not a minimum for several of these
appointments, as shown in the eXplana-
tory statement. We're perfectly right and
beyond any question.
More than one-half Of the Inspector
report is taken up with a minute and
detailed statement of the cases of Lar
ner and 0. H Smith. OF the latter
had no knowledge and say nothing. OF
the former l have some recollection, as
it was the only one of the cases that
was appealed TO me. Iarner had been
appointed military postal clerk for
Porto Rico by the first assistants bu-
reau. He went under a promise from
that bureau of compensation at the rate
of 81, 400 a year. About that time l fixed
the general compensation of clerks in
Porto Rico. as L was empowered to do
by law at 81 200 year. When Larner
returned he refused to settle his unset
tied account on that basis, and appealed
to me. He insisted that he had been
promised $1,400, and / found on inquiry
that this was true I ordered that he
should be paid what he had been prom
ised, as I had a right to do. Out Of that
question Of rate and out of the question
OF the actual length of his service grew
the whole story Of alleged 1rregularlty
spector's report except as it involves a
few items of his expense account. One
of the questions at issue in the latter
was the question whether in the special
Porto Rican service 'Seidlitz powders,
pills, pennyroyal and calomel should
be created as a personal or as charge
able to the government When the
charges of irregularity were made my
duty was plain. 1t was to have them
examined, and if there were irregulari-
ties to have that corrected. This is ex-
actly what was done
THE explanations were reported as
they appear in Exhibit c, and to me
most of them seemed satisfactory
was the more assured in this judgment
from the fact that the comptroller OF
the treasury, who made a. searching ln~
vestigation al the time and thoroughly
examined all the vouchers. allowed all
except $3.50 in total amount As to
those points of the explanation which
We're not satisfactory to me, / said in
my letter of May q, and can only re-
peat: I should not be altogether can
did if l did not say that in some cases
was not convinced of the necessity
or prOprety of the transactions. These
questionable transactions consisted for
the most part of placing on the roll
few persons, the need of whose serV-
ices was not clearly shown. When
these facts developed the proper Off
GERS were instructed that every pro-
ceeding which could not be justified
should be remedied and stopped
"The same report of the inspector
made in 1899 states at the conclusion
that during the course OF the inspec
ton, he, Beavers requested the in
speetor to inform the inspector in
charge that when he struck the names
of the charwomen off the stations il
would be well not to mention them III
his report as they were personal ap,
pointments of the postmaster gen :
eraI--
I do not know whether this statfs-
ment was made or not. but the fact is
that of all the appointments referred to
in the report | had personal knowle5 go
of and personal interest in only on e.
that was the case of a most estims BILE
woman, long a successful Washington
correspondent whom I had known for
25 years, and who through msfoJ tune
was in much distress. Knowing her
need and being able to help her
should have been a brute if I hail failed
to do so AS she was not on the roll Of
eligibles she could not be made a clerk
and I requested that place should he
found for her on he roll Of laborers
Months afterward 1 learned. to my SUI :
prise. that she was enrolled as 4
cleaner and. though a refined lady o.