Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-08-22
THE MILLER CHARGES
CLAIM THAT he IS MORALLY UN-
FIT TO HOLD OFFICE.
The Charge Of Bigamy Set Forth-His
Trial and Expulsion From
the Union.

of the Brotherhood of BoOkbfnderS has de-
termined to make public the technical ma
ture of those charges. When Miller was
sent a copy of the charges made by the
bOokbinders, who submitted to the public
printer that they were sufficient to call for
his immediate dismissal from the service.
he replied. returning them. that they were
frivolous and made by irresponsible parties
and that he would demean himself II he
made answer to them. The beokbinders.
who claim they were in possession Of the
sworn evidence that he was guilty Of their
charges. assert that he was sparrins for
time, that he had no idea that they had
succeeded In obtaining this damaging evf-
dence, and that he thought the years that
had passed since the acts charged were
committed were a sufficient guarantee OF
immunity.
The charges are to the effect that Miller
has been guilty Of criminal. dishonest, i'm
moral Infamous and disgracefil acts while
In the service Of the government. that he
has been guilty of discrimination. Is an
habitual user of intoxicants and that he
has violated section 1854 Of the United
States Revised Statutes in receiving gifts
from subordinates. The penalty attached
to violation of this section is that the
guilty person SHALL be summarily dis
charged from the government service"
They charge him with bigamy. with as
sauting his first wife and driving her from
her home Just prior to the birth OF her
second child of stealing stock from an en-
ployer of defaulting his mother-in-law
and accomplishing her financial ruin and OF
ignoring the order of the court in falling to
support his first wife. At the time OF the
brutal assault on his wife they were living
In Pottsvtlle. Pa
They have copies of the affldavfts of the
first wife. Maria A. Miller, and of her
mother, Ann J. Powell. who now lives in
Scranton Pa. to corroborate these charges
Nd harS tn those which
appertain. They claim that he is de-
bauchee and that he has persistently lived
up to their charges ever since he has been
employed in the government service
The complete statement that was filed
with the public printer and the Secretary
of Commerce and Labor at the time OF the
reinstateme of Miller, and on which the
bookbinders demanded his forcible retire.
ment from the service is an elaboration OF
the charges that follow.
Local Unions Explanation.
The explanation of the local union is to
the following effect:
Considerable discussion has grown out Of
the expulsion of William A. Miller by the
Journeymen Bookbinders' Society and his
subsequent discharge from the government
printing office last May. This society is
popularity known as the bookbfnderS' union.
Much savage criticism of this particular
union has been INDUCED in by those un-
too often the case, they have accepted as
true all the statements given out by Miller
and his adherents, without waiting 10 near
the other side. The spirit of justice and
fair play Is too strong in the American pub
lie to permit 1t to hold to one-sided judg-
ments The representatives of the union.
relying upon this. have patiently waited
the final outcome of the case, notwithstano-
Ing that they have been the victims of mucn
Misrepresentation, because they believed
that there was no respectable, law-abiding
citizen but would agree that they had done
exactly what ought to have been done IN
Miller's case.
Miller had twice before been separated
from the government printing office under
a cloud The first time he deceived the
public printer by claiming that he had
served a full apprenticeship as bookbfnder,
when an investigation showed that he had
never done so. The second time, In 1873 1t Is
claimed he was discharged because he had
deceived one of the young women employees
OF the Office by making her believe he was
a single man and persuading her to marry
him. and he had introduced her as his wife,
while he had a wife living In Pennsylvania.
When 1t became known. he was promptly
suspended. and while he claims his reSig-
nation was accepted. II Is the understanding
OF those in the Office with him that he was
discharged just as soon as the public
printer became certain of the facts as to
the other wife.
As Miller had not been discharged in
May. 1908, in the manner prescribed by the
rules recently approved by President
Roosevelt: when he appealed on this
ground the President was obliged to take
one of two courses. First he could have
followed the precedents he had approved
of in two similar cases. that of Rebecca
Taylor. who was removed by the Secre-
tary of War. and that of McClay who was
removed by the Secretary of the Navy.
Second. he could order Millers reinstate-
ment and then have the case taken up
anew and I'm the way provided by his rules.
III oh he la tor led
believe. because il would afford ample OPP
portunity to ascertain whether the union
had good cause for its course with Miller.
Proofs to Public Printer
Upon MiIer's reinstatement the represen-
tatves of the union were informed that
they should present their proofs against
Miller to the public printer. AS the infor-
ma tion in their possession was not in the
form OF either certified copies of records
or formal affidavits, they at once took
leave OF absence so that there could be no
charge of taking government time for the
purpose, and Immediately began the col
lection OF proofs to substantiate their
charges against him. The record evidence
secured shows that Miller was married in
Pottsville Pa, on July. 1871: that he took
out a license June II. 1873, at Alexan-
dria, Va. for his marriage to a young lady
with whom he afterward lived and whom
re represented at many times as his wife;
that in his application for this license he
represented himself single man; that,
being satisfied by the oath Of said Miller
trat there Is no legal impeachment thereto"
he secured marriage license at Minne-
apolis on July u, 1883, and was married
there to another woman on the following
day. July ~, 1888.
The court record further shows that his
first and only legal wife brought an action
for divorce against him in the summer of
IsSS and after proving that she had SUI
fered the most outrageous treatment from
him, that his fraud and dishonesty had re-
duced her mother to poverty. and that she
had received for the support OF herself
and his two children an average of only
about $50 year for the preceding thirteen
years. Notwithstanding court had ordered
him to pay her SIS a month for that pur-
pose. She was granted a decree Of divorce
on October 20. 1883. This was more than
five years after his marriage In Minneapolis
MINI, and more than ten years after he
had represented another oman as his
wife and lived with her such in Wash
ington and other places and had one child
by her. The records of this case also con-
tain the statement of Mr.. Charles w John
son. the chief clerk Washington United
States Senate during the Fifty-second Con-
gress. that Miller was discharged by his
firm In the fall OF 1883 for stealing stock"
His false statements In order to deceive
the public printer when he was first dis
charged. to obtain the marriage license in
Alexandria In 1878. his perjury as shown
by tho records Of Minneapolis IN 1883 and