The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-06-27
Former Postmaster GsnsraI Says
Appointments Were All Right.
EXPLAINS MATTERS IN DETAIL
We Accepts All Responsibility Belonging to
Him Regarding irregularities During
War With Spain.

Philadelphia, juno 27-Charles Emory
Smith, who was succeeded as postmaster
general by Mr. Payne. made public yes
terday his reply to the charges made by
Mr.. Tulboch IN connection with the post
office Investigation.
The letter repeats the charges and the
explanation made OF them at the time,
which Is now on file at the department.
Mr.. Smith has already treated the mat
ter In a letter to the postmaster general
but he now adds further matter in their
refutation than he then gave. The let
ter in part ~ as follows. including the
Philadelphia. Juno %, 1903.
Hon. Henry C. Payne. Postmaster
General:
"Sir-In view OF the partial publication
OF the letter OF Fourth Assistant Post
master General Bristow on the so-called
Tulloch charges and OF the accompany
ing reports OF inspectors made TO him
In 1899 and 49,, deem II incumbent on
me. for a right public understanding to
make a further statement supplementary
to my letter OF May q and TO present
the papers I'm Their proper relation"
Appended TO the letter are an item
ized statement of the TuTloch charges.
the report OF the inspector on them and
the answer the postmaster general made
10 them when they were Investigated y
Referring 70 his explanation concerning
the charges Mr.. Smith says:
IF the statements are correct, then
on most points it's explanations are sat
isfactory. Its accuracy In all its spec
ific averments has never been impeached
In any quarter On the main points n
ts believed to be beyond successful chal-
ienge."
BAsILY EXPLAINED.
Mr.. Smith does not think that any fur
ther answer is necessary TO the first six
OF these charges, which have already
been threshed out. He continues:
These points embrace all that are
specified in the charges. except the items
relating to appointments, including the
individual cases OF Larner and o. III.
Smith, and thus the matters open TO
question are reduced 10 the appointments
which, all told. involve Is clerks and sew
en- cleaners.
Even this is not an irreducible mini
mum, for several of these appointments,
as shown In the explanatory statement,
were perfectly right and beyond any
question.
More than one-half OF the inspectors
report Is taken up with a minute and de-
tailed statement as TO the cases OF Lar
ner and o. III. Smith. or the latter had
no knowledge and say nothing. or the
former I have some recollection, as IL
was the only one of the cases that was
appealed to me. Larner had been ap-
pointed a military postal clerk for Porto
Rico by the first assistants bureau.
He went under a promise from that
bureau OF compensation at the rate OF
Sl400 a year. About that time fixed the
general compensation Of clerks in Porto
Rico. as / was empowered to do by law
at 1920 a year"
But when the postmaster general
~ thas
3l400 a year. he allowed him that amount
As for the claim that expense accounts
were irregular. Mr.. Smith says that after
searching investigation all but $3.50 was
sworn to and allowed
The letter concludes as follows:
The report of the inspector. made In
1929, states at the conclusion that during
the course OF the inspection Beavers re-
quested the inspector to inform the in
spector-in- charge that when he struck
the names OF the charwomen off the sta
tions, IL would be well not TO mention
them In his report. as they were personal
appointments Of the postmaster general.
A NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT.
II do not know whether this state
ment was made or not but the fact Is
that all Of the appointments referred TO
In the report I had personal knowledge
or ana personal interest I'm only one
newspaper woman. long n successful
washington correspondents whom had
known for 25 years, and who. through
misfortune, was In much distress Know
Ing her need and being able TO help her
/ should have been n brute II I had failed
10 do so.
AS she was NOT on the roll Of eligibles
she could not be made n clerk and re-
quested that place he found for her on
the roll Of laborers. Months aftArvard
learned. To my surprise that she was
enrolled as cleaner. and. though n re-
fined lady Of education. had conscien-
tiously been doing a cleaners work.
Immediately I sought to find a place
more suitable To her position and ante
cedents. and happily succeeded That
was absolutely the only case Of all in
volved I'm which had any personal part
II anybody thinks the postmas ster gen
eral should know the number OF cleaners
and whether they were all at work.
have nothing 10 say
Gen. Bristow is entirely right in saw
Ing that he spoke TO me at the time about
the inspectors report. His statement
would have been complee II he had added
what stated In my letter Of May 27th.
as follows:
about the same time Fourth Assist
~