The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-06-27

not convinced of the necessity or pro- priety of the transactions. These ques- tionable transactions consisted for the
 most part of placing on the roll a few
 persons the need of whose services was
 not clearly shown. When these facts developed the proper officers were in structed that every proceeding which could not be justified should be reme- died and stopped.
 The same report of the inspector
 made in 1899 states at the conclusion that during the course of the inspec- tion. The. Beavers, requested the in- spector to inform the inspector-in- l charge that when he struck the names of the char-women off the stations it i would be well not to mention them in his report, as they were personal ap- pointments of the postmaster general" I do not know whether this statement was made or not, but the fact is that of all the appointments referred to in the report I had personal knowledge of
 and personal interest In only one. That was the case of a most estimable news paper woman, long "a successful Wash ington correspondent, whom I had
 known for twenty-five years, and who, through misfortune, was in much dis tress. Knowing her need and being able to help her I should have been
 brute if I had failed to do so. As she
 was not on the roll of eligibles, she could not be made a clerk, and I re- quested that a place should be found for her on the roll of laborers. Months afterwards I learned, to my surprise, that she was enrolled as cleaner, and, though refined lady of educa- ton, had conscientiously been doing cleaners work. Immediately I sought to find a place more suitable to her po- sition and antecedents and happily suc-
 ceeded. That was absolutely the only case of all involved in which I had. any personal part. If anybody thinks the postmaster general should know the
 number of cleaners and whether they
 were all at work, I have nothing to say.
 General Bristow is entirely right in saying that he spoke to me at the time about the inspectors report. His state ment would have been complete if he had added what stated in my letter of
 May 27, as follows:
 About the same time Fourth Assist ant Postmaster General BristoW in- formed me that inspectors had found the same apparent or actual irregulari- ties in the Washington office I advised him, according to my recollection, of the investigation which the comptroller of the treasury had made, and of the steps which were being taken to rectify any wrong."
 wish to accept the largest measure of responsibility which belongs to me l in connection with all these matters, but it seems due to fairness to state certain facts. The war against Spain, declared three or four days later, was dated back to April 21, 1898. That was 1 the very day on which I was sworn in | as postmaster general. My first duty,
 before even familiarizing myself with | the department, was to make immediate | provision for the letters of the scatter ed army of 250,000 men which was
 promptly raised, followed by provision for the full mail of the islands. The administration had been installed for more than a year. The department force had been organized, and of course
 it was properly accepted as it was found. When the immediate duty in 1 hand was taken up it was discovered, curiously enough, that there were abso- lutely no records of the military postal | service in the civil war. There were
 no known precedents. We had nothing
 to guide us. We had to make our own
 plans. The determination of the gen-
 eral plan and policy devolved upon the postmaster general. The execution of the details devolved upon the first as- sistant's bureau. We had at first no
 special appropriation and so had to
 meet the requirements of the regular appropriation. Afterwards, when the special appropriation became available, I've had to recoup the general appropri- lsation in order that the regular service might not suffer. These things were effected in part, through the Washing
 ton office, and orders were given which subordinate officials neither did nor
 were required to understanl, and out of it has grown a vast deal of unnecessary misunderstanding.
 It is my purpose to address you re- specting the letter of the civil service
 commission on the subject, but that will
 more properly form separate commit Inication. The minor and unimportant
 report of Inspector Little made in 1900
 Respectfully yours,
 .~ -~. Charles Emory Smith, .