Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-12-18
MR.. G. E. SMITHS REPLY
Ex-PosTMAsTER GENERAL ON
coNRAD-RoNAPARTE REPORT.
Refutes Allegations of a Seeming
Failure'f Of DUTY on His Part
to9Prevent Frauds.

to9Prevent Frauds.
The Following is a copy of the letter Of
former Postmaster-General Charles Emory
Smith, sent in answer to the request of the
| President respecting the Conrad Bonaparte
report upon the charges of Mr.. Seymour
| Tuiloch concerning the management of the
Washington post office:
Philadelphia, October II, 1903.
To the President:
A copy of the report of Messrs. Conrad
and Bonaparte on the so-called ''Tulloch
charges" has been placed in my hands
The scope of the report includes much more
| than these charges; but so far as 1t con-
Germs me. 1t is limited to two references,
| viz:
First, that the responsibility for the en-
trance Of certain persons to the classified
service through the doorway Of new free
delivery offices, followed by transfer to the
! washington Office, Extends in some meas
ure to the late Postmaster General. who ap-
pears to have at least tolerated the practice
aI.er notice of its existence
second, that with regard to the alleged
irregularities covered by the TulIoch
charges and those directly responsible for
| them, there was on my part seeming
| 10 appreciate the gravity Of their miscon-
quot and the consequent necessity for it's
prompt and adequate punishment"
Facts Disregarded.
The first reflection, SO far as it concerns
me, was fully answered in my letter of
July IA, 1903 to the Postmaster General. 1t
was therein shown that the practice" re-
| 1erred to, when 1t became understood was
| stopped by my order; that the civil service
commission was notified Of that order, and
tnat the records proved that the order was
Ron orfo
| entirely disregards the facts thus presented
! another fact indicates whether the aliu-
! sion Is warranted. The letter Of Mr.. Proc
| ter stated that this practice" was twice
/ called to the attention of President Nc
k1nley-f1rst on June 20, 1893, and again on
June II, 19Oo-and that he was asked TO
modify the rule under which it occurred
He took no step except through the subse-
! quent action Of the Postmaster General If
| the declaration as to appearing to have
at least tolerated the practice after notice
or It's existence" and what Is implied in 1t
is Justifiable, it is broader in it's sweep than
the Conrad-Bonaparte report intended. No
Dody believes that President Mckinley
knowingly tolerated" any wrong: every
. body believes that he had good reasons for
| what he did; and the mere statement of the
| truth shows how inconsiderately and care
| lessly the report makes it's deductions with
| out regard to the real facts.
Evidence of Collaboration.
Respecting the second reference. relative
10 the 1ulioch charges L have this to say:
Mr.. Tullochs oral representations to me
are said to have been made July g. 1899 On
July 6, 1899, inspector-in-charge, William r.
| Smith, filed a confidential report" on the
| Washington office which was afterward
submitted to me by Fourth Assistant Bris-
| tow. This report is the most specific and
| complete formulation of the so-called Tul-
| loch charges which has ever been made 1t
! bears internal evidence of having been
| prepared in collaboration with Tulloch and
an examination of all the papers makes it
/ clear that both Tulloch's statements and
the Smith report We're derived in large part
from the letter of inquiry addressed to the
| controller of the treasury to the postmas-
| ter of Washington. setting forth matters In
| the accounts of that office which appeared
| to him to call for explanation.
The inspectors report in like manner set
| forth what, without an understanding of
| all the facts. seemed irregular. 1t was i'm
| medately analysed. itemized and subjected
! to examination. Through this examination
all the matters specified were explained ex-
| cept those relating to appointments which
| altogether covered thirteen clerks and seven
| cleaners and even some Of these were not
open to question. When the examination
determined what was justifable and what
was not, directions were given and steps
taken that the things which were irregular
| should he corrected. A careful reading
| shows that the Conrad Bonaparte report
| does not indicate anything specified in the
Tulloch charges or the inspectors report
which was not either explained or stopped.
Canceling Machines.
1t may be asked, does not the report Of
| Inspector Little made July 81, 1900, year
later. show, not the same, but other irregu-
| larities of similar character? This report
relates wholly to persons on the roll of
| the Washington Office, but detailed to work
outside whose service in the Office was
questionable The first three names on the
those ed
keepers who were detailed to install, in
| spect and repair canceling machines as a
part of the arrangement by which l saved
100000 year to the government by re-
| ducing the rental Of canceling machines
agreeing at the same time that the de-
partment would take care of the machines
The inspector knew nothing of the arrange
ment. and the authors of the Conrad Bo-
naparte report didn't take the trouble to in
quire.
Another name is that of Dorothy Lamon.
detailed at the Paris exposition. She was
a clerk in the Interior Department, was
transferred, and then detailed to attend
the post office exhibit This was done on
| the urgent request of Hon. Joseph G Cam
non, who stated that Mrs Lamon was con-
! nected with Lncolns friend, Ward Lamon;
that she spoke French well and was pecu-
larry qualified Mr. Cannon was perfectly
right. and the detail was perfectly legiti-
| mate. legally and officially
Stlli another name is that of E. c. Fow-
Ter, set forth as unable to perform salts
| clerk in the department, had become dis
abled by age. could not be removed, was
transferred to light work which he could
| do and died soon afterward. That is all
| there is of this case.
These are specimen cases within my own
| knowledge / do not pretend to know about
| all, but the Little report was referEed to
| the proper officer for review and rectifca-
| ton.
Gratuitous and Unfounded Reference.
Without going into further detail have
stated enough to show that the reference
Oh the Conrad-Bonaparte report to SEEM
ing failure. Notwithstanding repeated warn
I ings" is made without knowledge and is
wholly gratuitous and unfounded.
| 1 ought to add the "Tulloch charges
were a matter ofsnewspaper publication in
| 1900 and that IL then reported the facts
! and what had been done to President Nc
! kinley and the cabinet.
The Conrad-Bonaparte report gives as an
| opinion that 1.-THE employment of 1aborers'
| to do clerical work Is altogether illegal and
that every officer responsible for such en-
ployment should have been dismissed from
! office" This practice as is well known.