New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-17
THEY CENSURE MANY.
Report of Conrad and BoHapartc on
TuLIOch Charges.

washington. Dec. 16-TBe report Of Holmes
Conrad and Charles J. Bousparte on the charges
made by s ". TuIoch. formerly cashier Of the
Washington City p0stof7ce. against the admin
istration OF this office was made public to-day
Under Instructions from the President, the re-
port views the TuHOoh charges from a legal
standpoint" The report begins with brief his
tory and nature OF the Tuuoch charges. and then
makes the following preliminary observations
concerning them
No improper official act on the part Of auv
public officer or empIOye is alleged which aid not
occur more than three years before July H..
1898, and as all possible prosecutions are barred.
led therefore, 70 interpret our instruC-
tions 70 report on these matters from legal
standpoint" in a broader sense than we might
otherwise venture TO asCribe To them. and under
stand that our views are desired as 10 the legal
propriety Of the official action disclosed, and not
merely whether il may or may not have heeu
criminal The "TullOCh charges" have never
been properly speaking investigated" at all.
We have been repeatedly confronted in our in
QUiry with assertion on the one side and a
denial on the other TO a question Of fact. with
no sufficient means AT our command 10 de-
termine which statement We could advise you 70
believe.
The tendency TO evade answering these
charges evinced by those replying to the Post
master Generals request for such answers, ths
report says. is illustrated very fOrcibly by the
charges against Perry s Heath. former First
heretofore made public and his answers TO
them. We consider this answer" IL continues.
altogether insufficient and no less Unsatis-
factory in substance than in form"
BLOTs ON HEATH's RECORD.
Continuing the report says the revision OF
Postmaster WiIett's accounts Of itself is sufH-
cient to show that AIr- Heath's official record is
not so clear to defy suspicion. II adds
Moreover. the "conhdentia! report OF In
speCtor in Charge Smith and the special re-
port" OF Inspector Little tend so strongly 10 sus
tain some Of the most serious charges made BY
Mr. TuHoch against Mr. Heath that il is quite
impossible 70 dispose of these charges by calling
them lies of the whole cloth" especially
when We remember that the confidential re-
port is stated by Inspector Smith 70 set forth
irregularities discovered by himself. and that ths
special report prepared a whole year
after Mr.. TullOCh had left the office. The Tea-
sOnabls inference 10 be drawn from Mr.. Hearh's
complete failure TO meet fully and explicitly
accusations which. as Postmaster General Payne
very Justly adnOnished him. charged him with
many acts OF doubtful prOpriety." added TO the
facts appearing from The record evidence laid
prina faCie case Is presented OF WiIfuI and reCS-
less disregard by the late First Assistant Post
master General OF obligations imposed on him
by the regulations OF his own department, as
we'll by the statutes OF the United states. and
feel il our duty 10 add thar suspicion Of Ms
personal integrity must be inevitably aroused IN
our Judgment by impartial consideration -
the faults submitted 10 Us and OF MS plainly
inadequate explanations