The Washington times., 1903-12-19
GILhER INDICATED
BY INVESTIGATORS
BOnaparte and Conrad Ex-
Onerate Treasury Expert.
NOT GUILTY OF DlScoURTESY
Many Inconsistencies and Discrepancies
Found in Statements of His Ac-
cusers and Detractors.

One Of the results of the report of
Charles J. Bonaparte and J. Holmes
Conrad upon the charges of Seymour
w. Tulloch against the Washington
postofiice, was the complete vindica-
ton of Thomas w. Giln=r AR GiInier
was the Treasury expert who was or
de-ed to examine the accounts of the
PGstohice Department He did his work
IN thorough manner would not permit
any evasion or indireetness in the an
swers Of the officials whom ne inter
rosated, ard the consequence was, he
was reduced in salary ard transferred
to subordinate position.
Mr. GilEaer recognized the truth of
many of the charges afterward made
by Mr. Tulloeh that money had been
expended for which there was no war
rant in law, and insisted that the err
roTs should be reetined. His actions
angered. Perry Heath. First Assistant
Postmaster General, who complained TO
the Treasury. The influence of Heath
prevailed, and GilmeT was taken off
that work.
TTacewell's Poor Judgment.
Messrs. .Bonaparte and Conrad say
that many Inconsistencies and discrep-
ancies appear in the statements Of
the Treasury VanderIip, Comptroller
Tracewell. cx-Attorney General Griggs,
and Mr.. Heath. They think Mr.. Trace
well was inconsistent. and showed Door
judgment when he did not allow the
Washington postoffice to be investigat-
ed by Mr. Gilmer, as the very fact that
the transaction OF the Porto Rican
postal business through the Office and
the complications of the Spanish war
justified an experts examination, no
matter if the Office had been examined
only few months before.
Mr.. Gilmer appeared before the two
Investigators and denied the charge that
he had been abrupt and had used dis
courteous language in making his ex
animation. He said some of the people
whose accounts he was looking over
found his duty obnoxious and were
highly discourteous and rude TO him.
Occupying an official position he could
not take the same notice of this treat
ment that he would have taken had he
been in private life. The two attorneys
take the view that the rough treatment
was against Mr.. GiImer instead OF by
him and quote the opinions of others
who dealt with him to show that they
ere right in their Judgment.
Compelled to Ask Transfer.
Mr.. Gilmer told them how he was
compelled to request a transfer to
another Office and declared that the let
ter which Comptroller TraceweH ac-
cused him OF stealing was not stolen,
but was a letter to him and he had
right to keep it. a letter OF A. l.
Lawshe, acting auditor for the Post
Office Department, Is quoted as showing
that Mr. Tracewell wrote the letter
to Gilmer. and Il was intended that be
he should keep it as a justification of
his course in ceasing his investiga-
ton into the WASHINGTON Postoffice.
The charge that GilIner spent four
months in the examination Of the ac-
counts for one quarter in the Washing
ton Postoffice is discredited by the at
torneys. They say that the four months
were consumed by Heath Machen.
Beavers. and others to Comptroller
Tracewell with oral explanations OF the
conditions which Gilmer's industry had
unearthed Auditor Castle is rebuked
for saying that Gilmer received copious
hints from Mr. Tulloch in making his
investigation. as Mr. Tulloch was not
Iremoved for two months after Mr.. Gill
mer had finished his work In Washing
ton.
in our opinion" say the attorneys,
this treatment of Gilmer constitutes
one Of the most serious and significant
features OF the situation developed by
the papers laid before U.S.