New-York tribune., 1906-07-19
DEFICIT UNEXPLAINED.
Treasury Officers Find No Reason
for Bartlett DefaIcation.
rFru-n me Tribun. Bureau J

-rsshIneton July ls.-Ths United States off,
"a, have. they say. concluded the investigation
], - shortage in the accounts OF Major George
-, BARTLETT, chief disbursing officer of the
.--,.s,rv. and have found no increase OF the
..s,,cstion over the amount reported In these
.'r-,,ehes 70 this mornings Tribune a total Of
so5n,o Of which sum $4,000 is attributable TO
- BOYD defalcation ana only technically
.s.rasabIe 70 Major Bartlett's account.
-he oaicials now assert that Major Bartlett
.-.s undoubtedly aware for considerable time
lore his death that his accounts were short,
- thew think this knowledge led 20 the heroic
',-rrEle which he made against his fatal Illness
.,sn FOR months he dragged himself to his Office
s,sni,e his physical incapacity. There are some
.,-ruunstances which seem TO warrant this con-
,,s,on. Whether or not Major Bartlett wilfully
,s.rpropriated funds with which he was in
,-,s,ed or whether his shortage was due TO a
lies Of accidents and inaccuracies. is not
,,,rn His friends maintain that were he alive
= rouId be able 20 show that he never wilfully
--isappropriated any of the Treasury funds.
~ course, the total amount is not large, and
-. bonding company which went his surety Is
!. 4. claimed. responsible but that there was
-.-,..bing radically wrong with a system which
..-r.stted an Official holding so responsible an
eoe N conceal a steadily growing shortage for
,,-q Is reluctantly admitted. A Treasury Off
-, sneakfng of the case to-day. said that it
.-,s true that Major Bartlett claimed commits
,ons amounting TO s9.1eO % on the building
s,,a Of the Postoffice Department Building in
washington nine years ago. and It was possi-
,rs that believing this amount was due him, he
srov #, and when a decision was given TO the
80. that he was not entitled 10 such commits
ron he was unable to refund the amount he
t,a advanced TO himself. but this official added:
,r.,or Bartlett had In 1890 similar claim,
,rnofinfing 10 81 600 disallowed him. He kne Y,
sbs-efore or he should have known, that there
--ould be a dispute about this commission Of
s00ao and Il would have been the part of wis
Sor "a say the least for him to wait until the
-as-rer had been definitely passed on.
Eut did he pay this commission to himself be-
soTs his claim for II was passed on? II he did he
sfould have done il by means Of a voucher and
-scsinf which he should have turned in just
n would have turned in all other vouchers and
-scsipts in balancing up his accounts. So far as
she records show now. he did not do this. There
fore II he took the money, thinking il was COM
inr 10 him he took IL irregularly and improp-
ant so far as the records show he did not pay
stis money 10 himself; he merely put in claim
sor n which claim was disalloWed. Therefore,
sbis claim and its disallowment could not be
held responsible for the majors shortage.
asked what could be the excuse for the short
age Treasury officials said that all they knew
vas that the majors accounts. when finally ar
ranged. showed that $4,000 could not be ac-
counted for. The showing is that this went into
lis hands and was never again returned TO the
proper channel