Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-27
Former Postmaster General
Further Explains.
He GOES INTO DETAIL
SAYS TULLOCH AND INSPECTOR
WERE IN COLLISION.
Draws Deadly Parallel" in Effort to
Substantiate Charge - A
Long Document.

The reply or FORMER postmaster tenerdl
Charles Emory Smith to the charges made
by Mr.. Seymour w. Tulloch former cashier
In the Washington city post office, and re-
cited in the report of Fourth Assistant
Postmaster General Bristow. reached Post
master General Payne last night 1t is an
exhaustive document. with numerous ex-
hibits and explanations. The letter trans
hitting it is as follows:
PHILADELPHIA. June %, 1903.
Hon. Henry c. Payne. Postmaster General:
Sir: In view of the partial publication
of the letter of Fourth Assistant Post
master General Bristow on the so-called
Tulloch charges and OF the accompanying
reports of inspectors made to him in 1880
and 1900. l deem 1T incumbent on me for a
right public understanding to make a fur
Their statement. supplementary to my let
ter of May a. and to present the papers
in their proper relation.
Appended to this letter and to be treat
ed a part of il, will be found, drst.
a complete copy. marked Exhibit A, of the
itemized statement of the Tulloch charges.
as submitted to me at the time they were
made; second, in parallel column COM
plete copy Except as indicated In the texD
marked Exhibit b. of the confidential re-
port of Inspector-in- charge Smith. which
is the main document accompanying Gen.
Bristow's letter; third, complete copy,
marked Exhibit c, Of the report which
came as a result of the examina ton made
and which embodes the answer and the
explanation of the transactions referred 10.
1t will be seen that the Tulloch state
ment and the inspectors report are praca-
caIly identical. At many points the Ian
guage is exactly the same. 1t is as II they
were written by the same hand The Iui
loch statement was submitted TO me. Inc
inspectors report was submitted TO the
fourth assistant. 1t was the business OF
the inspector to find whatever seemed to
call for explanation; 1t was left to the
Postmaster General to find the explanation
and the truth.
statement when it was presented. All OF
the transactions described as irregular
were examined and report was MADE 10
me which took them UP item by item anu
groups of items and gave the facts ana the
expla atoms in each case. To this report,
which appears below as Exhibit Z. direct
particular attention. If It's statements are
correct, then on most points It's explana-
lions are satisfactory. Its accuracy In all
Its specific ayermentS has never been 1T-
peached In any quarter. On the main points
1t is believed to be beyond successful chai-
lenge.
I'D. each in a sentence: First, names OF mil
itary postal clerks were put on the general
roll till the military appropriation became
available; then they were transferred 10
the military roll Second, the bond prem
iums of military postal clerks were paid for
good reasons which are plainly set forth
and which had the approval OF the con
troller. Third, the purchases OF Porto R1co
supplies were made from the regular de-
partment contractors named under COM
petition and at regular contract prices.
Fourth the vouchers for expenses OF de-
partment officials travelling on ofncial Dusl-
ness were made as required by the auditor
Fifth the lease of the Washington post
office was shown to be entirely Justified;
Sixth. the apparently double payment OF
those employed in examining letter car
II, ic frrll
These points embrace all that are speci-
fed in the charges except the items relat-
ing to appointments, including the lnoi-
yidual cases of Larner and .. ii. smith,
and thus the matters open to question are
reduced to the appointments which all told
involve thirteen clerks and seven cream
ers Even this is not an trreducible mini
mum for several of these appointments,
as shown in the explanatory statement
were perfectly right and beyond any ques-
ton.
More than half of the inspectors re-
port is taken up with minute and detali-
ed statement as to the cases of Larner and
O. H. Smith. OF the latter l had no knowi-
edge and say nothing. OF the former
have some recollection, as 1t was the only
one of the cases that was appealed 10 me-
Iarner had been appointed a military pos
tai clerk for Porto Rico by the first assist
ants bureau He went under a promise
from that bureau of compensation at the
rate of 81 400 year. About that time l
fixed the general compensation OF clerks IN
Porto Rico, as I was empowered to do by
law, at 81 200 year. When Larner re-
turned he refused to settle his unsettled
account on that basis, and appealed to me.
He insisted that he had been promised
81. 400, and found on inquiry that this was
true. l ordered that he should be paid what
he had been promised. as / had 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 ir-
regularity which takes up one-quarter OF
the inspectors report except as 1t 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 calomer' should be treated
as personal expense OF as chargeable to
the government.
When the charges of irregularity were
made. my duty was plain 1t was to have
them examined and, II there were irregu-
larities, to have them corrected. This is
exactly what was done. The explanations
We're reported as they appear In exhibit e,
and to me most of them seemed satisfac-
tory. / was the more assured in this 1udg-
ment from the fact that the controller OF
the treasury, who made a searching investi-
cation at the time and thoroughly examined
all the vouchers. allowed all except $50 IN
PLANTATION which were not satisfactory TO
me I said In my letter Of May n, and can
only repeat:
1 should not be altogether candid II / DID
not say that in some cases I was not con-
WINGED OF the necessity or propr1ety OF the
transactions These questionable transac-
lions consisted for the most part Of plac-
ing the roll few persons the need OF
whose services was not clearly shown.
When these facts developed the proper Of
ficers were instructed that every proceed
ing 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 inspection he. Beavers
requested the inspector to inform the in
spector in charge that when he struck the
names of the charwomen off the stations 1t
would be well not to mention them in hts
report, as they were personal appoint
ments of the Postmaster General"
! do not know whether this statement
was made or not but the fact is that of all
the appointments referred to in the re-
port had personal knowledge of and per-
sonal interest in only one. That was the
case of a most estimable newspaper wo-
man. long a successful Washington cores
pondent. whom l had known for twenty
five years, and who. through misfortune
was in much distress Knowing her need
and being able to help her l should have
been a brute IL l had failed to do so. As
she was not on the roll of eligibles she
could not be made a clerk, and requested
that place should be found for her on
the roll of laborers. Months afterward
la ~.