Rural Retreat times. [volume] (Rural Retreat, Va.) 1892-1918, 1903-06-26

that complaint was made to the post
masterg general that Inspector Little
who was engaged on the work, was ask
ing unnecessary questions and seeking
information which was not called for
in an inspector. / advised him to in
struct Inspector Little to make the
same kind of an investigation at Wash
ington postoffice that he would make
of any other office under similar cir
cumstances, and to submit in spec
ial report anything which he thought
should be called to the personal at
tention of the postmaster-gener This
he did"
In the first of the inspectors reports
submitted by Mr.. Bristow it appears
that Robert V. Willett, son of the
then postmaster, drew two salaries
| from July / to December 10, 1896, one
as a laborer at the city postoffice at
| $500 a year, and the other as mechan-
ic at So per day for each working day
on what appears to have been a special
roll of the free delivery service, and
| that N. H. Baker likewise was desig-
roll April 49, 1899, at $500 per annum
and on the8same date as mechanic on
the free delivery roll at So day. The
inspectors continuing say that on June
80, 1899, twenty-five employees were
borne on the rolls and paid on what
has been known as the military roll"
while a military roll" shows thirty
four names as having been paid by the
cashier of the Washington office. There
was also found. special rolf of en-
ployes.. paid from miscellaneous allow
ances. This roll consists of nine
cleaners with salaries from $500 to
$500, and one physician" at salary
of $1,700. Some of these cleaners APP
pear to have performed very little SER
vice and others none at all.
The most important exhibit is the
confidential report of Postoffice In
spector in charge, Smith, of the Wash
ington division, made in July 1899,
setting forth Irregularities which he
urged should be investigated.
He names four employees on the mill
tary roll who appear not to have per-
formed any service in connection with
| M iJitarv roctol yno++orc ond FOR whoca
original appointments or continuance
on the rolls no good reason exists.
| The payment to w. S. Larner, mill
tary postal clerk, under protest, by the
cashier, of $119.93; subsequently dis
allowed by the auditor of the treasury
on January 4, 1899, is gone into at
length and it is shown that this mat
ter was entirely irregular and that pay
ments were directed without proper
vouchers.
Attention is called to certain items
of expenditures authorized for the MILL
tary postal service of supplies, furni-
ture, travelling expenses, aggregating
$o,750.70, with the statement that the
prices paid for some of the articles
enumerated, such as wash stands at
| $40 each, appear to have Deen highly
excessive.
| Attention also is called to additional
Irregularities in connection with pay
rolls of clerks and laborers, and to
charging premiums on the bonds Of
military postal clerks Notwithstanding
such expenses are not chargeable to
the United States.
| An interesting feature concerns ir
Irregularities in the appointment, coz.
pensation, and promotion of Oliver H.
Smith. On November 20 1897, the first
assistant acknowledgement authorized
an allowance of $500 per annum for
his appointment. as laborer, stating
that the free delivery division would
also allow So per day to cover car fare
and incidental expenses Smith drew
pay from November %, 1897, to No
vember 80, 1888 making his compen-
sation for one year approximately ST.
348.60. The inspector reports mo one
has certified to the actual time Smith
was employed nor has any statement
been attached to his pay vouchers
showing what particular service he
rendered. He was continued in the
dual capacity of clerk and mechanic
until April /, 1899, when he was pro
NOTED to be finance clerk at $1.7O0 pei
annum."
The inspector says he knows of nc
authority of law for his appointment
or promotion.
Attention is next called by the in
spector to certain vouchers, authoriz
ed to be paid by the first assistant
postmaster general, such as expenses
of Perry S. Heath and George w
Beavers, travelling on official business
The inspector states that these vouch
ers do not appear to have been itemiz