The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1909-11-19

FRAUD PENALTIES COLLECTED
Reynolds, While Assistant Secretary
Of the Treasury, Prevented This and
Parr Became Sore--The Specific
Charges Denied.
Washington, Nov 19.-James B.
Reynolds, former assistant secretary
or the treasury, now member of the
recently created tariff board, yester-
day gave all but the lie direct to the
charges OF corruption brought against
him by Richard Parr, acting deputy
surveyor OF the port of New York.
Mr.. Reynolds statement was couched
In dignified language, but it showed
that large number of adjectives had
been carefully erased before the final
copy was given to the public.
The former assistant secretary
plainly intimated that the accusations
made by Mr.. Parr were the result of
the deputy surveyors chagrin and
disappointment at being denied a
share in the money collected from the
sugar trust as fine for the violation
of the customs laws. MIR. Parr, in his
charges, stated that he was the dis
coverer OF the Irregularities which re-
suited in the payment by the sugar
trust to the government of more than
$2,000.0O0. He asserted that Mr.. Rey-
nolds, while assistant secretary, or
dered the release of the vessel Stra-
thyre, while her cargo of sugar was
being unloaded. and quoted sections
of the customs law in an effort to
show that the assistant secretary was
acting illegally.
Mr.. Reynolds, in his reply, declared
that the release of the cargo was
merely an act of administrative rou-
tine. and that it had no effect on the
merits of the case, as the fines were
afterward collected by due process of
law.
Acting Deputy Parr now has be-
fore the department claim for a
share in the fines collected. MIR. Rey-
nolds said that a ruling of the treas
ury department absolutely prevented
the grant of such bounty to any Of
ficer of the department. AS soon as
an officer took his oath of Office, he
stated, he could not expect to receive
additional payment merely for doing
his duty.
Not Approached by Trust.
| Mr.. Reynolds began his statement
with the positive assertion that dur
ing all the time he held the Office of
! NS tl,n iva
there had not been the slightest effort
to influence his judgment in any way
by the sugar trust. The first specific
information in regard to any fraud,
was received in September. 1907, in a
letter from New York man. The in
formant stated that he could prove
the government was being swindled.
Mr.. Reynolds, in his statement, said
that he replied to his correspondent,
telling him that the treasury depart
ment would be glad to do anything in
its power to see that such condition
as described in the letter should be
stopped at once and would take steps
to secure the proper punishment of
the offenders. The former assistant
secretary of theh treasury declined to
give thhe name of. his informant, on
the ground that the. communication
had been confidential. This communi-
cation, he asserted. was the begin
ming of the so-called sugar investi-
cation, so far as the treasury depart
! ment was concerned"
Asked Share of Fine.
Mr.. Reynolds statement continued:
There is one thing to keep in mind,
in order to give proper weight to the
statements that have been made. Mr..
Parr is now, and has been for some
time, claimant for a share of the
$2,000,000 turned over to the depart
ment by the sugar trust. A rule
which ] made as assistant secretary,
and which rigidly enforced. stood
between him and the money reward
he desires for his services as a gov
ernment agent. In May Of 1907 is
sued an order. as follows:
The department is in receipt Of
numerous claims Of customs officers
and employees in your district for
compensation as detectors and
seizures under section of the anti
moiety act, approved June %, 1874.
An inspection of said claims leads to
the conclusion that in each of the
seizures upon which the claim is bas-
ed the claimant did nothing more
than his duty in protecting the
revenue against fraud. When a Gus
toms officer or ehploye is appointed,
he subscribes to an oath that he will
us his best endeavors to prevent and
detect frauds against the laws of the
United States imposing duties upon
imports. and would not like to be-
lieve that 1t is necessary that they
should be paid bonus to live up to
this oath.
"'In this view of the matter I WIN
state that l believe 1t bad policy to
nav cnstoma officers and employees