Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1904-04-13
EXPLANATIONS MADE.
Connections nen flake Statements to
Especial to Democrat.)

of the Mccall committee relative to
the charges that members of congress
We're implicated in the recent graft
ing" in the postotfice department, was
made to the house late yesterday af
ternoon. 1t practically eXonerated
every member of congress, and the re-
port was unanimous.
The Connecticut members whose
names We're mentioned in the report
made their statements to the commit
tee In writing They, with the others,
We're absolutely exonerated of any
wrong intentions, and the report shows
there was not the slightest reason for
connecting them with the acts of Bea-
verS and Machen.
Congressman Henry. In explaining
his connection with the rental OF the
New Britain postoffice, said: IF my
memory is not at fault, while perhaps
somewhat deficient in detail, that state
ment referring to me is substantially
correct. The exact facts are that New
Britain, a rapidly growing city of over
10000 inhabitants, had outgrown its
postotfice accommodations; moreover,
the lease of the old Office had expired.
Citizens owning the Russwin building
offered for lease two large, centrally
located stores, which would have pro-
v1ded sufficient accommodation for
! years to come, at a rental of $1,000,
including fittings estimated to cost
from $4,000 to $1,000, heat, light, etc.
| / had no personal interest whatever in
the property offered, but after visiting
| New Britain, and thoroughly invest-
eating the proposition, | recommended
and urged the acceptance of this offer.
Inspector White thought the rental too
high, but finally approved. Suisse
quently, however, the owners of the
property withdrew their offer, and the
office heretofore occupied was re-
leased without consulting me, and the
/ incident was closed. l have no apollo
gy to make for doing what believe
my duty, both to my constituents and
4 the postotfice department. The only
comment care to make is, that a
transaction which resulted in nothing
should not nave been included in the
Bristow report"
MIR Hill made the following state
ment to the committee: First" refer
ring to the Woodbury. postottice, 1.-The
statement is incorrect. Second, the
case should not have been reported as
one where an excessive allowance was
/ granted. Third, the allowance was not
granted without a count of mail and
resulting computation of allowance.
Fourth, the discontinuance was or
dered after the work for which it was
granted was supposed to have been as
Sumed by the railway mail service.
/ Fifth, my connection with it consisted
in referring my correspondents letters,
with comments for the consideration
of the department, and that l was fully
justified in such procedure"
Mr. Sperry said, in relation to the
Hamden postoffice: LET me say in
reply that the facts in the case of the
the Hamden postoffice addressed Ham
years ago I received a letter from the
postmaster of Hamden, asking me to
procure for him. If possible, an allow
ance for clerk hire. This letter was
referred by me to the postofice depart
ment, and in due time Inspector Lew
is was sent to Investigate this matter.
The department granted an allowance
of $500 on the recommendation of the
inspector. ] enclose herewith letter
have received from the postmaster
at Hamden. Let me further say that
Hamden is town of some 1900 in
habitants, according to the last cen
sus. Hamden is the name of the
n whole town and also of the central
postoff1ce There are in this town
four other villages, each with post
office, namely: Whitneyville, High
wood, Mount Carmel and Mount Car
mel Center. Many letters come to
the Hamden posoffice addressed Ham
den, Conn. which really belong to
patrons of one or the other of the
four postoffices in the town. Strictly,
s, suppose, according to rule, such let
ters should have been sent by the
postmaster at Hamden to the dead.
letter office. If they were, it would
be several weeks before they were re-
turned to the writer's, if at all The
allowance of 5000 per year was made
to the postmaster of Hamden to en-
able him to remail these letters to
their proper destination. He had to
have someone to separate the mail
that belonged to one or the other of
the four postofiices In the town of
Hamden, although addressed simply
Hamden, Conn So far as / recollect
there was nothing else to this case
In relation to the Office at Seymour
Mr. SperTy said:
"As to the postoff1ce at Seymour
Conn, which is mentioned In the re
port, I send you enclosed letter from
the postmaster of that place which ex
! plains itself. / know nothing at al
about this case. How the depart
ment connects me with 1t, If it does
do not understand.
! IF any further statements are
wanted or required am ready to fur
, nish them. The above is all that ]
now recollect about these cases, an6
, the statements are true to the best OF
my recollection and belief"
Mr. Lilley, referring to the Torring
ton postoffice, said: "On July /, 1895
; I leased a space in I1lley building, NJ
2 3, Torrington, to the government fol
five years for a postoffice. In this
lease 7 agreed to furnish heat, light
water, burglar-proof safe, fireprooi
: vault, fixtures and all other appurten
ances required from time to time by
, the government On July i, 1901,
again leased the same space to TIT
government for another period of five
years Up to January /, 1904, / haC
expended more than $4,000 upon fix
: lures, appliances, appurtenances, heat