The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-14

CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE)
on the part of any member; or, another
course would have been to sift out the
names Of those for whom departmental reg
uations had been exceeded i'm an improper
manner by Beavers. Instead OF doing eth
er OF these things, the committee brought
in the whole budget OF information, recon-
mended that the Hay resolution be tabled,
accompanying this with a statement that
the matter was unworthy of further con-
sideration because the committee believed
that no wrong could be imputed 10 any
member whose name is mentioned in the de-
partment report This would have been all
right enough had it not been for the dis
closures I'm the general postofice investiga-
ton. That investigation showed that crime
had been committed. and frauds perpetrat-
ed. Members who are shown by the sup
Elemental report 10 have done nothing
wrong resented the idea of having their
names paraded in a report headed Charges
Concerning Members of Congress-" There
is warrant for this resentment on the part
OF the innocent members. in view OF the
treatment which the supplemental report
received at the hands of careless and in
some instances malicious newspaper writ
ers. In some quarters the whole report was
treated by newspapers as IAN expose of
evidences of congressional grating" etc
This was not only unfair TO members, but
wholly unWarranted.
Now. il is easy TO show, from an analysis
of the supplemental report, just what is
disclosed by IL, and just what close and
unbiased investigation of the whole SUBJ
feet will demonstrate And this can be
done without attempting to shield any,
body who appears even on the face OF the
findings TO be technically guilty OF parti-
cipation in wrong done by indicted depart
ment officials = may be said that such
unbiased analysis of the report will show
that 80 per cent. of il should not have
~. ill
probably be made OF the few cases in
which IL appears that over zeal on the
part of a few members, say in Illinois
and Virginia, and IN the cases where 1t
appeared that certain members had leased
buildings for postOffices. In the Illinois and
Virginia cases. in which figure the names
OF former members OF the postof1ce COM
mittee. il would appear that on their rec
ommendat tons, based. no doubt, on re-
quests from their local postmasters. the
regulations of the department respecting
the amount of clerk hire allowances for
separating mails at such offices were ex-
ceeded by Beavers. But that Is a viola
ton OF departmental regulations by Beav-
ers- not violation by the postmas ters or
the members who recommended action. In
the cases OF the leases of postOftiees. ex-
plantations have been made by the mem
bers, three in number, from Connecticut
and Kansas. showing that the department
declined 10 cancel leases after the owners
OF the buildings had been elected TO Con-
gress and had permitted the leases 10 be
transferred 10 others
?
And there should be noted an interest
ing fact explanatory of the system which
prevails In the department One case is
shown in the record where an increase in
separation mail clerk hire pay was made
by the department credited TO the White
House" That Is easily explained Doubt
less the postmaster In the town OF STRAIT
ford. Conn., wrote 10 the President of the
United States about the matter and the
letter was forwarded TO the department
. with request that IL be looked into. The
| Interesting feature OF the matter - that