1 In view of the bad personal feeling existing between Mr. Forney and myself, which was known in your Department as well as in that of the Treasury, I regret that he should have been selected as one of the examiners in this investigation. I have, however, endeavored not to permit our personal relations to influence me in answering his report; but I must insist that all of his allegations must be considered only so far as they rest upon proof or are admitted facts. As Haynie and Kilpatrick have been indicted, it seems proper that I should say but little, especially as false and malicious reports have been circulated by some one that I am trying to shield these deputies from the legal consequences of their acts. Yet some of the allegations of the report vary so far from the evidence that I must call them to your attention. * Mr. Forney says that, "In every instance where the defendants were interviewed, they made affidavits that they were not away from home the extra days charged to arrest them." An examination of the affidavits filed by Mr. Bowman will show that such is not the case. Many of the affidavits make no allusion to the days charged for endeavoring to arrest, while in one, the affiant (Henry Frisby) states distinctly that he "kept out of the way of the deputy." Many others could have been found to swear to the same thing, but such testimony was evidently not desired by the examiners. I would here call your attention to the indorsement on the affidavit of W. A. Melton, which is as follows: "Melton does not desire to go to Asheville as a witness. I do not think he would make a good witness. J. W. B." In the report occurs the following passage, "The legal fees in these cases are about as follows: 66 'Serving warrant. "Mileage to serve, 30 miles at 6 cents "One day endeavoring to arrest "Attendance before Commissioner "Releasing defendant... "Total ...... $2.00 1 80 2.00 2.00 50 8.30 "This compensation is based on the services actually and necessarily performed, as required by the express language and intention of the fee bill." It does seem strange that an examiner of the Department of Justice should be guilty of the gross injustice of recommending the total disallowance of certain fees which he says are legal and charged for services actually and necessarily performed. Such disallowance must be considered either as a refusal to pay the just dues of an officer, or as a punishment of an offense for which he has not yet been tried. In either view, such action is violative of every principle of justice, and subversive of the most sacred rights of the citizen. The statement to the effect that all the items stricken out by me were objected to by the defendants is untrue. As the duplicates of these accounts have been taken out of the district, contrary to the express directions of the judge, and in violation of the promise of one of the examiners, I cannot now tell in what particular cases the items were stricken out by me. The statement of Colonel Lusk is alluded to in my answer to the report of Messrs. Bowman and Wiegand. Mr. Forney speaks of the dissatisfaction of the Treasury Department with my accounts. I was not ignorant of this fact, nor of the "radical change" which some of the accounting officers have been so long endeavoring to force upon your Department. "Expenses to arrest in cases wherein no arrests are made." The law as laid down by the examiner with regard to these items appears to be correct. If his premises were equally so, his conclusions would be undeniable; but as his allegations are lacking in the essential element of truth, his disallowances are equally devoid of justice. I do not regard the $2 as a fee, nor do my deputies. In reading the affidavits given by the deputies to the examiners, I do not recall a single deputy who admitted that he considered this charge simply as a fee. On the contrary, nearly all of them state in substance that their actual expenditures, excluding the use of their own horses would average $2 per day. Of course a reasonable allowance for the use of their own horses would increase this amount at least 50 per cent. These affidavits having been taken by the examiners themselves, and transmitted to you in proof of their report, cannot now be questioned by them. In this connection I would invite your attention to the bills rendered by the examiners for expenses incurred during this investigation. I am informed that the sum of $4 per day was allowed to each of the examiners for subsistence alone, exclusive of all other expenses. Traveling in the same section, by easy stages on public roads, their expenses should not have exceeded, if they equaled, the expenses of a deputy marshal in the service of process. As to the approval of the commissioners, I cannot say whether they actually signed the taxation on the warrant, but this they were not required to do. When a deputy marshal taxes his fees in the presence of the commissioner without objection, it becomes a taxation by the commissioner, especially so if the commissioner reports the gross fees so taxed to the court. The Comptroller, in his letter of August 3, 1881, especially referring to such charges, says: "Where there is a taxation of costs by the commissioner, it will be taken as prima facie evidence that it is correct." The statement of the examiner that my portion of the disallowances "is HARDLY in excess of the excess" of my maximum compensation (which, in fact, is an admission that it is in excess), becomes significant. If in the emolument returns already rendered I have charged myself with an amount greater than the accounting officers now find due me, why should I be compelled to charge myself with additional amounts which they never intend to pay? I would here refer you to my answer to report of Messrs. Bowman and Wiegand: The statement that I was unable to produce any receipts whatever is incorrect; I have a great many receipts as well as drafts and other evidence of payment. It was impracticable for me to take receipts in the prescribed form until the vouchers of the deputy were settled, as I did not know what amounts would be allowed in each half year. In consequence of heavy disallowances, I find that several of my deputies are already over-paid. I have not answered this report as fully as I would otherwise have done, for the reason that so much has been substantially answered in my reply to the report of Messrs. Bowman and Wiegand, to which you are respectfully referred. I remain, sir, (Signed) Very respectfully, RO. M. DOUGLAS, United States Marshal. P. S.-Since coming to Washington, I have been informed that the duplicates of the accounts of Deputies Haynie and Kilpatrick have been returned to the clerk by your Department, a fact of which I had no previous knowledge. Very respectfully, FEBRUARY 19, 1883. RO. M. DOUGLAS, United States Marshal. Report of Messrs. Bowman and Winston in relation to expenditures of U. S. courts in Illinois....... 77 |