Q. Just explain generally what you found upon the books in regard to erasures or alterations of figures ?—A. Amounts scratched and new figures substituted. 2,500 ERASURES IN LEDGERS INVOLVING $280,000,000. These changes, alterations and erasures involve an aggregate sum of about $280,000,000 since January 1st, 1865, less than twenty years. Why these changes and erasures? What transactions do they cover? What is hidden beneath them? But the erasures are not all. Mr. Woodville, in his testimony, continues: Q. Do you know of any leaves being entirely out of the books that appeared to have been cut out? A. Yes, sir; in the beginning of the war some of the Treasurer's accounts are that way, about 1861 and 1862. Q. In how many instances? A. Two, four leaves in one case and five in the other; I can produce the books if you wish. Below will be found the detailed statement of the number and whereabouts of these erasures: John W. Gentry, acting as a clerk to the committee, was examined and testified (see testimony, p. 165): By the CHAIRMAN : Question. Have you made a careful examination of certain ledgers of the Register and Secretary of the Treasury ?-Answer, I have. Q. You selected one of the number that you have examined as an example of all that you have examined ?-A. I did of those mentioned in this statement. Q. Is the statement before you the statement you wish now to offer as being a correct statement of the erasures and apparent alterations on the books you examined ?-A. It is. Again (see testimony, p. 174): The eight (8) ledgers enumerated below have also been examined, with the rcsults as stated. Three (3) ledgers from office of Register. Title of ledger. Period. Number of erasures and apparent alterations. 1. Interior appropriation From July 1, 1861, to June 30, 1868.... One hundred and fifty-three. ledger No. 4. 2. Naval appropriation From July 1, 1861, to June 30, 1866.... One hundred and thirty-seven. ledger No. 6. 3. Military appropriation From July 1, 1867, to June 30, 1871.... One hundred and thirty-eight. ledger No. 13. Six (6) ledgers from office of Secretary of Treasury. Title of ledger. Period. Number of erasures and apparent alterations. 4. Interior appropriation From July 1, 1860, to June 30, 1868.... Two hundred and ninety-six. ledger No. 3. 5. Naval appropriation From July 1, 1860, to June 30, 1863.... ledger No. 5. 6. Naval appropriation From July 1, 1863, to June 30, 1867... ledger No. 6. 7. Naval appropriation From July 1, 1867, to June 30, 1875.... ledger No. 7. 8. Military appropriation From July 1, 1859, to June 30, 1863.... ledger No. 10. Three ledgers from Register's office, containing.... Total in 9 ledgers..... One hundred and ninety-three. Six hundred and sixty-eight. Four hundred and fifty-seven. One hundred and sixty-eight. 428 erasures and apparent alterations. 2,099 erasures and apparent alterations. 2,527 I certify that I have carefully examined the nine (9) ledgers enumerated above, and that the foregoing is a true statement of the erasures and apparent alterations. JNO. W. GENTRY, Clerk:. Q. (By Mr. DAWES.) In the cases where your tables show what are called erasures and alterations, are you able to tell what the figures, as they now exist, have been substituted for ?-A. I am not. These scratches and erasures do not occur wholly in the daybooks or journals but in ledgers, and upon this point take the testimony of an experienced accountant, Major Power (see testimony, p. 91): Q. Do you know whether or not there are scratches, changes or alterations, whatever you choose to call them, upon the books of the department; take the Secretary's office ?-A. Scratches and mis-entries occur, I believe, in all systems of accounts, and the Secretary's office of the Treasury Department is no exception to that. A clerk may make a mistake at any time. Q. Is that likely to follow from the day book or journal into the ledger ?—A. It would be in the journal or register. Q. But it ought not to be in the ledger ?-A. No scratches or mis-entries should occur in the ledger. Q. You keep what is known as a register or journal, and post from that into the ledger, do you not ?-A. Yes, sir. SOMETHING VOTERS MAY WELL CONSIDER. The American voter may well stop and consider, what the wide discrepancies mean, what these erasures of 2,527 in the ledgers of the Registers' and Secretaries' offices portend. Time hides many things, destroyed leaves and cut pages conceal others, but there is one thing that the American people can have done and that is what Governor Hendricks suggests, "the books of the Government opened for examination," by faithful and honest public servants. After the foregoing record is examined, the American voter is well prepared to consider the following partial list of defalcations which have occurred during the past twelve years, defalcations upon the part of the servants of the American people. DEFALCATIONS OF UNITED STATES OFFICIALS DURING THE ADMINISTRATIONS OF PRESIDENTS GRANT, HAYES AND ARTHUR, COMPILED FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS. TOTAL AMOUNT STOLEN, SIXTEEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS. This does not include money stolen from the Government under the Whiskey Statement of amount of defalcations of Officers of the United States for the fiscal years of 1869 to 1883, both inclusive, as shown by the certified transcripts of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury Department filed in the U. S. Courts and by the annual reports of the Solicitors of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Treasury and to the Attorney-General of the United States. This statement embraces only defalcations where suit has been brought by the United States against the defaulting officers or their bondsmen and does not include suits against defaulting Post Office Officials. The First Comptroller of the Treasury is directed by section 272 of the Revised Statutes of the United States: "To make an annual Report to Congress of such "officers as shall have failed to make settlement of their accounts for the pre"ceding fiscal year." No such report as is required by this mandatory law has been made from 1869 to the close of the last fiscal year. Had this law been obeyed, the country could have the satisfaction, at least, of knowing the amount it has lost by the defalcations of its officers, the names of the defaulting officers and whether they are still in office or not. The amounts of defalcations upon which no suit has been brought cannot be obtained from any official publication. It is the secret of the Republican Officials and the Republican party. Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1869............ $2,047,027 02 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870....... $453,937 78 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871............. $3,606,661 06 5,330 32 Loss to Government.. $3,601,330 74 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872------ $2,767,857 36 104,423 13 Loss to Government..... $2,663,434 23 Total amount of defalcations for the four fiscal years preceding Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873...... $1.206,936,55 Collections by suit..... 170,781 32 Loss to Government.... $1,036,155 23 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1874--- $760,575 72 40,326 12 Loss to Government $720,249 60 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875.. $1,381,119 28 25,072 43 Loss to Government... $1,356,046 85 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876. $1,298,616 06 Collections by suit.... 36,468 48 Loss to Government.. $1,262,147 58 Total amount of defalcations for the four fiscal years preceding June 30, 1876... Total collected by suit.... $4,647,247 61 272,648 35 Total loss to Government....... Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877.... $4,374,599 26 $794,451 64 23,249 99 Loss to Government.. $771,201 65 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1878....... $264,010 35 8,235 62 Loss to Government... $255,774 73 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879.. $231,854 94 4,568 30 Loss to Government.. $227,286 64 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880............. $485,679 09 15,418 30 Loss to the Government.. $475,260 79 Total amount of defalcations during the four fiscal years preced Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1881. $488,477 97 11.785 04 Loss to Government. $476,692 93 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882... $427,920 24 1,224 14 Loss to Government...... $426,196 10 Defalcations during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883.. Amount of defalcations under Grant's first Administration.... Total defalcations.... $1,550,800 27 $8,875,483 22 4,547,247 61 1,775,996 02 1,569,733 77 $16,868,460 62 This makes an average yearly defalcation during the fifteen years preceding June 30th, 1883, of one million one hundred and twenty-four thousand five hundred and sixty-four dollars ($1,124,564.00). The amounts of defalcations by Post Office Department officials during the time stated above, are so intermingled in the Official Reports with other matters that they cannot be ascertained. This statement does not include the money stolen under the Whiskey Ring frauds, Star Route frauds, Howgate's Signal Service frauds, Burnside's P. O. frauds, Navy Medical Bureau frauds, or other frauds of that nature. Section 176, Revised Statutes of the United States provides that bonds shall be given by Disbursing Officers of the Government, satisfactory to the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to cause the bonds to be renewed, strengthened and increased, at his pleasure. Section 3144 has a similar provision concerning Internal Revenue Officers' Bonds, with the substitution of the First Comptroller of the Treasury for the Solicitor. The small percentage of collections on the suits as shown by the Reports of the Solicitor of the Treasury, makes it clear that the laws above cited have not been executed. The collections on the Bonds of the defaulting officers do not amount. to five per cent. of the defalcations. Section 3622 of the Revised Statutes directs that: "Every officer or agent of the United States who receives public money which "he is not authorized to retain as salary, pay or emolument, shall render his ac"counts monthly. Such accounts with the vouchers necessary to the correct and "prompt settlement thereof shall be sent to the Bureau to which they pertain, "within ten days after the expiration of each successive month, and after examina "tion there, shall be passed to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury. "Disburing officers of the Navy shall render their accounts and vouchers direct "to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury.” This section also gives authority to the Heads of the Department to prescribe such other rules as they may deem necessary for the prompt settlement of these accounts, and "the public interest may require.” Had these laws been faithfully executed, it is obvious that no officer could nave defaulted over one mouth without discovery, and the enormous losses to the Government would have been reduced to a minimum, if not altogether prevented. The failure of the Government officials to execute these laws gives the sureties of defaulting officers a good defence against the United States, as will be seen by the following extract from the Sunday Herald, of Washington, D. C., of July 27th, 1884: It is said the bondsmen of ex-Disbursing Officer Burnside, of the Post Office "Department, will claim that the law, in settling that officer's accounts, was not. complied with, and that they are not therefore liable; that, had the Department "settled the accounts as the law required, it would have been discovered that "Burnside was deficient in his accounts many years earlier, and at a time when "the account was small and the deficiency could have been made good. One of "the bondsmen said to the Herald last week: We cannot be held responsible "for lack of duty on the part of the Government officials whose duty it was to "examine these accounts."" The following statement copied from "The Post" of Washington, D. C., of June 20th, 1884, illustrates the fact that the laws for the protection of the public funds have not been executed. |