Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-07-18
The Controllers Opinion.


1.-The exception to the satisfactory eX-
PLANTATION as to vouchers that have been
questioned is a payment of $3.50 made to
H. c. Graft for alleged services rendered
as cashier in the post Office at New York
from October l to December 81, 1902 at
a compensation of $500 per annum. Dur
ing the period named Mr.. Graft was not
employed cashier il the New York
city post G.iiCc. and was not employed on
duty in that city. but was employed as in
spector in charge of inspecting and ad-
justing c2ncel!ing machines and motors
i'll use Throughout the United States, with
headquarters at the Post Office Depart
Eent at Washington
The controller proceeds to show that
section of the act of August ), 1SS2, and
section ot the act of March II. 1895, d s.
tirctly prohibit the detail of clerks or en-
plnyes from any branci! of the postsl sar
vice outside of Washington to duty in
Washington. quoting II" ltws bearing; on
these points. The controller then con-
cludeS:
Payment Clearly Illegal.
'In view of the plain provisions of the
law tie payment to Mr.. Graft wts clearly
Illegal and must be disallowad The post
master claims that in placing Mi Crafts
name on the pay roll of his office ard for
warding his salary to him at Washingto ton
he was acting under instructions from the
the fact that he had no control over the
appointment should relieve him from the
responsibility for the r@ymcnt but this
contention can not he sustained The iile-
gality of the payren: Icing beyond Giles-
tion. the dishursinG officer must be held
responsible. and TIE fact that he paid by
direction of his superior officer furnishes
no legal excuse. To hold otherwise would
be suhversive of all well settled rules Of
public accounting, one Of the main prin-
siy n fS to boil al.
responsible for the legality of the payments
made by them"
The controllers opinion deals only with
the payment of the salary of Graft and of
course, does not go into the curious fea-
lures of why Mr.. Graft was being paid from
a pay roll of the New York office and as
signed to duty in Washington. 1t does not
go into the question of when Mr.. Graft was
appointed to the New York roll or how he
was appointed All that it says is that the
law prohibits such a payment.
Mr.. Van Colts Justification.
Postmaster Van Cott, according to his let
, ter to the controller. was not RESPONSE
BILE for the appointment. which was made
by officials of the Post Office Department
here; in other words. Graft was forced upon
Postmaster Van Cott and was put there to
be paid from the rolls of the New York
| office when he did work in that office
and WAS not entitled to pay there. Mr..
| responsible for the appointment and ought
not to be responsible for the salary. 1t is
supposed that Mr.. Graft is still on the New
York rolls and that all of his salary that
has been paid since January 1, VII be lost
by Postmaster Van Cott or the disbursing
officer of the New York office.
| The matter of Mr.. Crafts appointment
and subsequent service may cause further
| investigation by the post office authorities.
| nasmuch as he has been Illegally employed
! all the while. Controller Tracewelrs duties
| do not extend to the matter of nvestiga-
| ting how. when and why an employe of the
| government was appointed All he is con-
! Cerned with is whether the man is legally
entitled to his pay and by whom he should
| be paid
Beavers Indictment.
The announcement of the indictment on
| two counts of George w. Beavers, former
| superintendent of the division of salaries
| and allowances, by the federal grand jury
| at Brooklyn, which appeared exclusively in
| The Evening Star of yesterday, caused
more interest than surprise in Washington
Up to late hour this afternoon Beavers
so far could be ascertained, had not been