The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-05-30
COMES BACK
AT TULLOCH
Washington Postmaster Says the
Former Cashier Was Guilty Of
Irregularities Himself.
Asks Why No Complaint Was Made
Until After Tulloch's Retire
ment from Office.

Washington. May 30.-Postmaster Cen
eral Payne has made public the reply Of
Postmaster Merritt of this city to the
Tulloch charges.
The Merritt response makes serious ac-
cusations against Former Cashier S. W.
Tulloch of the washington postofhce, say
ing that a transaction in which Mr.. 'Tul
loch was concerned in 1898 appears to
comprehend the presentation of false
voucher. which is made a crime by the
statutes.i
Mr.. Merritt's reply further alleges that
rolls during Mr. Tulloch's regime as cash
Ter, and that the files do not indicate any
complaint Of Irregularities against the
Washington postoffice filed by Mr.. Tulloch
while he was in office. Mr.. Merritt says
the general practice of giving employees
duties seemingly incompatible with their
positions is no abuse and that the prac-
Ftioe Of paying certain expenses OF the
postofflce department out OF the Wash
ington city postoffice funds always has
existed and is proper.
Merritt's Accusation.
The reply Of Postmaster Merritt
tains the following:
Before became postmaster. one OF
the employees of the postoffice was sus-
pended from duty from May 5 to June 5,
1885, without pay, without any reason of
record, SO far as have learned, and With
out any departmental authority. Mr.. Tul-
lloch, the cashier retained this mans pay
fol. the time stated, amounting to S14O,
against his protest, / am told. obtaining
his signature to the customary form OF
pay roll, however, and then sent the ac-
count to the auditor for the postoff1ce de-,
partnrent as tho payment had actually.
been made. The cashier probably had the
|postmasters order to do this, and it seems
n not T11d a
money. But the transaction appears, never
theless. to comprehend the presentations
Of a false voucher, which Is made a crime
I by section 5483 of the revised statutes of
the United States. The money thus un-
lawfully taken was divided by the cashier
persons, upon orders signed in the name
OF the postmaster by his assistant tho
in one case no order has been found) until
all of it was used up except $7.66, which
| is now in the official possession OF one OF
| the bureaus of the postofflce department.
Postmaster Merritt then. speaking OF his
removal Of Cashier Tulloch almost at once
after he became postmaster, declares the
removal was no mistake, and for reason
therefor says:
''Take this incident related to me by
James p Willett, my predecessor, few
days after assumed the misunderstanding
and fully confirmed by the statements OF
l others: lie -Salu LQeLI HIS dCCOuI1tS sAOA
the last quarter Of his term were in a
rather tangled condition, that he was
very much worried about them; that his
. cashier should not have left them in this
condition.; that he regarded it as. the
| cashiers duty to properly arrange and
close them; but that after appealing TIC
him for assitance. he. Tulloch, alb
Isolutely refused to give it unless he was
paid $500 therefore
Upon my advice, Mr.. Willett tndig-
nantly rejected the offer, and Mr.. Tullocf
never gave him any aid whatever. The
work was entirely and satisfactorily done
Iby my own official force.
! Pay Rolls In Blank.
''Upon looking into the practice of tho
cashiers office prior to Mr.. Tulloch's
separation from it, I found that he hac
! been in the habit for many years of MAX.
ling up the quarterly pay rolls of the Office
i in blank getting the signatures of tho
4 employees thereto, and filing in afterWare
the dates and amounts paid. i do no
q charge that these amounts were ever i'm
properly filled in: but I need not say, tt
any business man at least, that such s
practice presented an open door to fraud
g"The irregularities charged by Mr.. Tul
Iloch-trlo Ugh am not informed as to tn,
details, all occurred before July l. 1899
when I entered upon the duties Of tn,
!, office. while Mr. Tulloch was holding tn,
office Of cashier, and when, il he regarded
/, them as wrong, he should have Officially
!, called attention to them. This he evident
, lily failed to do.