New-York tribune., 1903-06-18
Mr.. BRTSTOW'S REPLY.
TuHoch's Charges Fully Sustained
Reports on Irregularities.
TFRoM THE TRIBUNE BUREAU.l

Washington, June 1.-THE now famous Bris-
tow reply to the Tulloch charges IS herewith
made public. and supports Seymour W. Tulloch
in all his allegations. 1t places ex-First AS
sistant Postmaster General Perry s. Heath IN
an unfortunate light. and demonstrates that
during his regime the Washington Postot1ce
was. as charged, administered bureau OF
the Postoffice Department
The necessity of publishing this report arising
only from the publicity given to the replies Of
Mr. Heath ex-Postmaster General Smith and
others TO the Tulloch statement, and as mat
ter of justice to Tulloch, is regretted by the
administration. especially as the inspectors re-
ports refer entirely to conditions existing prior
to President Roosevelts administration, while
the purpose of the current investigation, with
which the President has charged Fourth As
sistant Postmaster General Bristow, has for its
object not the digging up of old Irregularities.
but the complete eradication of every existing
dishonest official and practice which can be dis
covered in the Postoffce Department. From
now on the investigation will be rigidly con-
fined to present conditions, under specific orders
from the President The publication of Mr..
Bristow's reply therefore. closes the official dis
cusson of past abuses which have been largely
corrected.
The important portion of the Bristow reply
tor Smith in charge of the Washington division,
based on an inspection of the Washington Post
office concluded on June 80 1899. setting forth
certain irregularities discovered by him. which.
in his Judgment indicate condition OF affairs
demanding an immediate. thorough and
haustive investigation" and by Inspector Little,
on July 81, 1900
Smith cites the cases of Edward S. Allen ex-
pert mechanic. drawing 1.40O a year. travelling
and inspecting cancelling machines; III. A
Cummings appointed at the fnstigation of Su-
perintendent Beavers's division, drawing $1,000
a year; D. NJ Monroe. appointed by First As
sstant Postmaster General Heath. unable TO
ascertain where he is performing services. but
supposed to he in department; Frank E. Muir
ray. salary 81 900. serving in department All
the above were transferred to the military roll,
but Inspector Smith says:
None of the above named appear TO have per
formed any service in connection with military
nostal matters and no good reason appears
either for their original appointment or contlnu-
ance on the rolls
smith cites in detail the difficulties with one
W 8 Larner to whom Sis 93 was paid under
protest ny Cashier Tulloch, under the instruc-
tfons of Heath. 1t appears that Tulloch quss-
toned the expenses OF Larner. a military postal
clerk and the auditor instructed him that the
account be withheld until more satisfactory
proof Of expenses hadtbeen submitted Iarner
appeared at the postoffice in Tuoch's absence
and insisted OH payment. The acting cashier
was then informed that the Washington office
held letter from the First Assistant Post
master General. directing payment he made TO
Mr. Larner and if such was not good enough,
perhaps it would obey one signed by the Post
master General" The Washington office as
serted that Larners salary S1.200 a year.
hut finally on receipt of written instructions