Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-12-17
nd of his plainly inadequate explana-

and Of his plainly inadequate explana-
TONS"
of improper appointments of subordinates
and improper disbursements of public funds,
as contained in the Tulloch charges, and
after analysis concludes:
Heath and Beavers Responsible.
$50 far as is Indicated by the papers sub
mitted to us, the persons directly RESPONSE
BILE for these fraudulent employments were
Messrs. Perry S. Heath and George w
Beavers, neither of whom is now in the
public service.
1T seems clear, however, that this re-
sponSibility extends, In some measure, to
the late Postmaster General, who appears
to have at least tolerated the practice after
notice of its existence, and to the late and
present pOstmaSterS at Washington, each
of whom appears to have accepted the
transfer to his Office of number of persons
thus employed without. SO far as is shown,
any protest or exposure. facts substantially
admitted as to himself in Mr.. MerrittS let
ter of June 90
The improper disbursement of public
funds receives considerable space in the re-
port, and In this connection Messrs Con-
rad and Bonaparte go somewhat outside OF
the Tulloch charges and comment on spe-
cial report under date of May % last by
Inspector Crowell, which relates how Geo.
w. Beavers received 81, 14S for expenses in
assisting special attorneys IN the court VI
claims"
1t is stated through a review of a state
ment on the subject by Auditor Castle that
Mr.. Beavers had been promised a raise in
salary, as head of the salary and allowance
division, and that Postmaster Van Colt at
New York was instructed by letter signed
by Acting First Assistant Postmaster Cen
eral George NJ. Allen. the letter being coun-
tersgned "A. w. M" to pay Mr.. Beavers
an allowance Of 81 a day from July 1, 1898.
ha ranOrtQd
ter, after the sum stated had been paid, the
explanation referred to by Mr.. Castle was
made and the payment Immediately stop
ped
Scores Auditor Castle.
Touching the administration of former
Auditor Castle the report says:
I'VE might give further illustrations OF
the auditors apparent readiness to disre-
gard the usual safeguards against unau-
thorized expenditures, but this is needless,
because the same, in our judgment. re-
grettable disposition was shown IN matters
far more serious
I'VE have already seen that he not only
passed the accounts for the cleaners or
'charwomen' and of the assistants In pass
ing on overtime claims, the scene and CHAR
acter Of whose services the inspectors could
not find out from the postmaster or any one
else Gas to these 1t is possible, although
hardly probable, that he may nave -peen
the illegal and fraudulent claim for 'ex-
penses,' which as Mr.. Castles own memo
randum says. really constituted salary, the
salary of an Office which Beavers did not
and could not legally hold. and which no
one not even the President, could have
promised him so as to bind the United
States, either legally or morally, to keep
the promise.
I've find 1t impossible to doubt that Mr.
Heath, Mr.. Van Colt and Mr.. Beavers him.
saIf ali knew the payment of this addition
al compensation was expressly forbidden py
law and that 1t was called expenses TO
evade the prohibition"
The summary and conclusions OF the re-
port are as follows:
"As a result of our inquiry in the 'Iui-
loch charges and of the considerations
hereinbefore set forth we have the honor TO
report that in our Judgment
Summary and Conclusions.
First. The discussion of the Tulloch
charges has revealed the existence of de-
plorable and gravely discreditable abuses
during the years 1898, Loo and 1860 In the
Washington post office and the office of the
first assistant postmaster general.
Second These abuses involved conduct
on the part of various public officials which
was certainly often illegal and may have
been sometimes criminal, but such offenses
IL committed, were in all cases committed
more than three years before we were or
dered to investigate the charges and, SO
far as we are clearly informed. more than
three years before Mr.. Tulloch's interview
of May last
Third. The evidence laid before us sug-
gests the possibility. and even probability,
but does not prove that abuses may have
continued both in the department and in
the post office subsequently to the early
summer Of 1906 wnen we lose sight of
them, and that in connection Herewith