Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-05-23
Four Replies Received by
Postmaster General.
ALL REFER TO TULLOCH
SOME BEAR ON THE TRANSFER OF
EXPERT GILMER.
Letters of Ex-Attorney General Griggs,
Ex-Assistant Secretary Vanderlip
and Controller Tracewell.

ments from former Attorney General
| Griggs; Mr.. F. A. Vanderlip, former assist
ant secretary Of the treasury; Controller
| of the Treasury Tracewell and Auditor
| Castle of the Post Office Department. They
all bore on the Tulloch statement IN various
parts of it's anatomy. In giving them out
for publication Postmaster General Payne
said he considered the most serious allega-
ton which Mr. Tulloch had made to be that
an investigation Of the affairs OF the once
had been stopped just as disclosure OF
Importance was about to be made.
while 1 have not had time to read the
replies of the controller and auditor on
this point" he continued, Il have no doubt
that they have made a positive showing 70
the contrary. 1 do not blame these officials
for demanding that their replies to MI Iul-
loch be printed" The letters from Mr.
Griggs and Mr.. Vanderlip refer to questions
transfer of Mr. T. W. Gilmer from the work
of inspecting the Post Office Department
to another assignment. In explaining these
questions Mr.. Payne said today:
"In the Post Office Department the COM
plant made of Mr.. Gilmer was that he
would abruptly and discourteously enter
the rooms of department clerks, demand
papers in an offensive way and then carry
them away without leaving a receipt. 1t
was demanded that he be instructed to act
as a gentleman and leave receipts for all
papers which he carried out of the building.
for If any were misplaced the department
clerks would be held responsible"
Mr.. Griggs' Reply.
In his reply Mr.. Griggs says:
II think but am not quite sure, that
identify him as one of the clerks in the
controllers Office of whom I was forced to
make complaint because of his excessive
trouhlesomeness in raising petty and friv-
olous objections to the accounts Of the De-
partment of Justice. The man I have In
mind. If 1t was Gilmer, had manifested q
very unreasonable and disagreeable preju-
dice against the officers Of my accounting
division and made himself busy in raising
trivial objections on legal grounds to the
accounts of my department, SO that at one
time the monthly pay Of about one-third
of my Washington force was threatened
with hOld-up and this upon point which
had practically been disposed of for fifteen
or sixteen years. I complained to the con-
troller that 1t was impossible to get along
If the accounts Of the department were to
be subjected to malicious objections merely
to crafty the personal spite Of one of his
subordinates, and think 1t was considered
for the good of the service that Mr.. Gilner
should be transferred to some other posi-
ton, where he would not make SO much
unnecessary trouble. There never was any
question of personal dishonesty in the mat
ter, nor did any of the accounts of the De-
partment of Justice which he held Up in
volve even in his mind anything more than
the most forced technical objections on Ian
guage of appropriation acts, and in every
instance it was my opinion, as we'll as the
opinion of the controller on subsequent ex-
animation, that his objections were not
well taken.
This is the best information can give
you ON the subject, and. as said before,
am not certain that the Objectionable man
was Mr.. Gilmer."
What Mr.. Vanderlip Says.
Mr. Vanderlip has this to say on the Gil
mer matter:
My best recollection is that Mr.. Gilmer
was transferred and reduced at his own re-
quest. I had previously detailed him, how
ever from the position of law expert in the
office of the controller, and assigned him to
duty as clerk in the office of the auditor
for the State and other departments where
he had previously served. My reasons for
thus detailing him were the result of much
complaint from various sources as to his
annoying methods Of conducting examina-
tfons ordered by the controller. He was re-
ported to me to be insolent and would In
sst upon withdrawing papers from the files
without leaving receipts therefor Mr.
Lawshe, at that time deputy auditor for the
Post Office Department and now auditor
for the Philippines, made such complaint
The Department of Justice did likewise.
MI Gllmer possessed some very excellent
quahncauons as clerk and accountant
put was tactless and not temperamentaIly
1T for the position of law expert and exam
liner. Looking back at the matter now
think he so realized himself, and based a
request FOR transfer upon that ground
Traceweu on Gilmer.
Mr. Tracewell replies on the Gilmer mat
ter as follows:
The facts in the matter are that on the
26th day of April 1899, the accounts of the
dspursng officer for the Washington post
once Tor the quarter ended September 80.
1S9S, were taken up for revision on nv own
motion in the ordinary way and ON the
initiative of Thomas w. Gilmer, an expert
accountant in my office. That I proceeded
with the investigation of the accounts until
the 3lSt day of August, 1899, when II was
completed, resulting in a certificate of DIFF
ference, copy of which inclose for your
information. That at no time before. dur
Ing, or after. the commencement of the re-
vision OF said accounts sWaS any political or
other pressure brought to bear upon me.
or attempted to be brought to bear. That
the examination was not stopped by rea-
son of political or other pressure, but was
fully and carefully completed under nv
personal supervision. The said expert ac-
countant, Thomas w. Gilmer, was not re-
moved, but was detailed, by the Secretary
OF the Treasury, from my Office to the Of
flee of the auditor for the State and other
departments on or about the 18th day of
September, 1899, where he has been since
employed. That this detail, In so far as I
was ADVISED at the time by Mr.. Vanderlip,
assistant secretary Of the treasury and
chief OF the committee on personnel Of the
treasury. was because of reports that had
come to him Of several instances wherein II
was charged that Mr. Gilmer had been Inn
polite and offensive to other government
ofhcials In the discharge of his duties as
an expert accountant from my Office.
Charges of this nature were made to me
by the Attorney General and the first as
slstant postmaster general, and, as I un-
derStand, he had some minor matters of
difference with the appointment division Of
the treasury. None Of these officials filed
with me any written charges against Mr.
Gilmer. assume they reported them to
Mr.. Vanderlip; in fact, Mr.. vanderlip said
that tho first assistant postmaster general
had complained Of Mr.. Gilmer.
'Mr. Gilraer was most competent palms,
taking and industrious clerk. In my Office
he displayed none Of the traits of charac-
ter of which these complaints were made"
The Allgood Case.
BY request Of the Postmaster General. the