The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-23
Page Containing Forgeries Was Cut Out,
Although One of frank Hanson's
Bondsmen Made vigor-
Gus Protest.
EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT FORWARDED
BY INSPECTOR TO WASHINGTON
From Whom Was Collection Made In Order That
Settlement Be Effected With Widow of
James Peterson? Does Booth Know?

| This attempted compromise of the mat
! ter was many months after the original
transaction.
One of the cases brought TO the at
tention Of the postoffice department and
which was investigated and settled was
/ given the department jacket number
! 1s36l0, This is wherein George Bishop
mailed registered letter al Smith
| vile, Utah, on April O. 1906, contain
ing SO, and addressed it to R. A. Nc
Bride, Fillmore.
The PostofSce department recognized
that this letter was "ri6ed - and
mailed check to r. A. Mcbride for
! the SO. Mcbride, however. died be-
! fore receiving the check, and steps are
now being taken to have the sum
turned over to his next Of kin. ii is
/ believed that the settlement of this
! claim was made under the law by
which the government indemnifes send
! ers Of valuable registered letters To
. the limit of $25. Since the government
/ recognizes that the Mcbride letter was
"rihcd.' il would be interesting 10
know how officials investigat ting this
| could come to this conclusion, restore
the amount and not apprehend the Of
i fender.
Who Paid the s3O7
In this connection it would be well iS
| the public look for a moment at the
case Of the stolen letter mailed bY
James Peterson at Garrison. Utah. and
| addressed to his wife AT Fillmore This
registered letter contained $40 and an
Inspectors check was recently sent to
Mrs. James Peterson for $50. The gov
ernmeut does not indemnify the pub
lie against loss Of n registered letter
for sums in excess of $25, The set
tlement with Mrs. Peterson could not
have been and was not made under the
indemnity clause of the Postal Laws
and Regulations, 1t was an entirely
different transaction and of an en-
tirely different character from the Me-
Bride case.
The postoflice inspector who made IN.
vestigation into the Fillmore affair was
asked by representative of The Trb-
unc how the settlement was made with
Mrs. James Peterson, since the gov
crnmcnt does not pay . $50 indemnity.
II made that collection myself
said he
''Theu it was not paid through tho
Indemnity act'"
''No, sir, it was not -
"The assumption would be, then,
would it not, that the collection was
made from either the postmaster, his
bondsmcn, or some one acting for ono
or either of thcm' Did Frank Han.
son pay you the $50 or did hls bonds
men or his brothers''
~ decline to state. -
The postofiicc Inspector explained
that after making the collection he had
reported the case to the Department
and that settlement had been or would
be made by the Department direct He
declined to discuss the matter as 10
whether or not a collection of this kind
could be made without carrying with
it the Inference or assumption Of wrong
doing on the part Of some one in tho
postal service.
More About Jackson Case,
Before going farther into the details
of the Fillmore postollice case and re.
citing other and graver incidents OF
the wrong doing of those who had tho
welfare of the public in hand, it will
lie we'll to rccur to what is known as
the Martha j. Jackson case.
The Tribune has heretofore rccited
The story of the mistreatmcnt Of a reg,
lstercd letter sent from Stanley, Ida,
TO Martha J. Jackson of Fillmore The
sender was Mrs Matte Benncr, The
letter was dispatched from stanley
Ida. March 6, 1906, and it contained
$40 in currency. The letter reached
the Fillmore postofiicc March 9, but it
was never delivered TO Martha j, Jack.
son or to any one authorized by her to
receive it, The registry card was re.
urped 10 Mrs. Benncr, who is the post.
mistress nj Stanley and who observed
hat the registry receipt bore evidences
ii fraudulent signature, She wrote
% her mother about this and the let.
er was never delivered Sho wrote