Arizona republican., 1903-06-27
recuperate. because his presence is needed at Washington at this time.
CHARLES EMORY SMITHS REPLY

CHARLES EMORY SMITHS REPLY.
 Philadelphia, Pa, June 26.-Charles Emory Smith. who was succeeded as postmaster general by MT. Payne, made public today his reply to the charges made by MT. Tulioch in connection with the postoffice investigation.
 It says: Tn view of the partial pub lication of the letter of Fourth As sistant Postmaster General Rristow on the so-called Tulloch charges and of the accompanying reports of inspectors made to him in 1899 and 1900, deem it incumbent on me for a right public understanding to make a further state ment, supplementary to my letter of May 25th and to present the papers in their proper relation.
 Appended to this letter and to be treated as q part of il, will be found. first a complete copy, marked exhibit A, of the itemized statement of the Tulloch charges, as submitted to me at the time they were made; second. in parallel column, a complete copy (eX- cept as indicated in the teXD, marked exhibit B, of the confidential report of Inspector in Charge Smith, which is the main document accompanying Gen eral Bristows letter; third. complete copy, marked exhibit C, of the report which came as a result of the examine tion made when the Tullocn charges were submitted and which embodies the answer and the explanation of the transactions referred to. It will be seen that the TulIoch statement and the in- spector's report are practically idenu- cal. At many points the language is exactly the same. It is as if they were written by the same hand. The Tul- loch statement was submitted to me. The inspectors report was submitted to the fourth assistant postmaster gen eral. It was the business of the in spector to find whatever seemed to call for explanation; it was left to the postmaster general to find the eXplana- ton and the truth.
 This was done by probing the Tul- loch statement when it was presented. All of the transactions described as ir- regular were examined and a report was made to me which took them up item by item and groups of items and gave the facts and the explanations in each case. This report. which appears below as Exhibit C. direct particular attention 10. If its statements are cor rect, then on most points its explana- tions are satisfactory. Its accuracy in all its specific averments has never been impeached in any quarter. In the main points it is believed to be beyond successful challenge. These main points may be thus summed up, each in a sentence: First. the names of the mili- tary postal clerks were put on the gen eral roll till the military appropriation became available; then they were transferred to the military roll.
 Second. the bond premiums of mili- tary postal clerks were paid for good reasons which are plainly set forth and which had the approval of the comp troller.
 Third. the purchases of Porto Rico supplies were made from the regular department contractors named under competition and at regular contract prices.
 Fourth. the vouchers for expenses of department officials travelling on official business were made as required by the auditor.
 Fifth. the lease oe the Washington postoffice was shown to be entirely justified
 Sixth. the apparently double pay ment of those employed in examining letter carriers claims is fully explain ed
 These points embrace all that are specified in the charges, except the items relating to appointments. includ- ing the individual cases of Larner and O. H. Smith. and thus the matters open to question are reduced to the appoint ments which all told involve thirteer clerks and seven cleaners. Even this is not an iTreduceable minimum. for several of these appointments as shown in the explanatory statement were per fectly right and beyond any question.
 More than half of the inspectors report is taken up with a minute and detailed statement of the cases of Lar ner and O. Fl. Smith. Of the latter I had no knowledge and say nothing Of the former I have some recollection, as it was the only one of the cases that was appealed to me. Larner had been appointed a military postal clerk for Porto Rico by the first assistants bur eau. He went under a promise from that bureau of compensation at the rate of $1, 400 a year. About that time I fixed the general compensation Of clerks in Porto Rico, as l was em- powered to do by law, at $1, 200 a year. When Larner returned he refused to settle his unsettled account on that basis and appealed to me. He insisted that he had been promised $1 400 and I found on inquiry that this was true. I ordered that he should be paid what he had been promised, as I had a right to do. Out of that question of rate and out of the question of the actual length of his service grew the whole story of the alleged irregularity."