By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Were any of the irregularities discovered by you, such as have no foundation whatever in law?-A. Well, as I said before, there were cases of charges made for mileage where travel was not performed at all.

Q. State what you ascertained in regard to charges for attendance before the commissioners in the city of Springfield?---A. I think that out of the 843 cases that I have mentioned, there were not to exceed 20 before commissioners outside of Springfield, and they were at Cairo. I think twenty would cover the number in the whole Southern district.

Q. During those four years the parties concerned were brought to Springfield from different parts of the State for preliminary examination in all those cases, except about twenty ?-A. I do not think the exceptions would exceed twenty.

Q. Were there commissioners in the Southern part of the State?—A. Yes, sir. Mr. Bowman has a book which shows the number. I do not recollect the number, but there are quite a good many.

Q. What was the custom in the marshal's office as to charging for attendance before the commissioners at Springfield?-A. In a large majority of the cases two guards were charged for-that is, the deputy and a guard.

Q. What is the fact in regard to the attendance of Louis Vetter?— A. Louis Vetter, as would appear from Marshal Wheeler's criminal docket, attended as a guard 312 times in the four years before commissioners.

Q. Who is Vetter?-A. He was the janitor of the building, and had been for twenty-five years. For the last four years he has been receiving a salary of $50 a month, paid by the Government.

Q. Did you take his statement?-A. We took his statement.

Q. What does he say?-A. He says he does not think that he attended in that period of four years to exceed twenty times, certainly not one hundred; and that he never received any pay for it.

By Mr. STEWART:

Q. Have you got his affidavit?-A. Yes, sir; we have got Vetter's affidavit, and Marshal Wheeler's also, on that point. [The witness here handed ex-Marshal Wheeler's statement to Mr. Stewart.]

Mr. STEWART (after looking over the paper). Mr. Chairman, it does not seem to me that it is necessary to take up any time in investigating this case. We have here the statement of the examiners, and here is an admission by this marshal that pretty much everything that is charged against him is true. He says that he did not know much about the business, and then he goes on to say:

I now see that my administration has been exceedingly loose and imperfect, and that false, fraudulent, and fictitious charges have crept into my accounts. I wish to swear positively that this was entirely unintentional on my part and that I have endeavored to prevent any charge being made in my accounts except those which were lawful and just. I wish to say that I am perfectly willing to refund all moneys that I have collected from the United States on account of these false and fictitious charges which my attention has been called to since this investigation commenced. I agreed with Messrs. Reece, Davis, and McCord, three of my deputies, when I took charge of the office, that I was to first receive my maximum compensation before any allowance was to be made to them. I will, however, add that if I had it to do over again I would not make any such arrangement, for I can now readily see what an incentive this was to cause my deputies to manufacture fees and swell their accounts against the United States as much as possible, for the larger their accounts were made the larger compensation they received. I admit that I have not given the necessary attention to the duties of my office, and that I have relied entirely too much on others and have not been sufficiently careful in the examination of my accounts and watching the details of my office.

**

Now, this case is all on paper. This gentleman, Mr. Wheeler, admits the substance of everything that these other gentlemen say about the case, and I do not see that it is worth while to spend any time upon it. The CHAIRMAN. I have not seen that statement of Marshal Wheeler. Mr. STEWART. He does not deny what these affidavits allege. He says he does not remember serving a subpoena on so and so, but that he knows he did not travel 35 miles to do it, and that if he served the subpoena at all he did it at Springfield; so that he does not, in fact, make any issue with the parties who make these charges, and therefore the case is substantially admitted all round.

The CHAIRMAN. Except as to whether he or Mr. Reece, his deputy, is responsible?

Mr. STEWART. The legal responsibility is upon the marshal, of course. It is no excuse for a public officer to say that he did not know what his deputy was doing. You could not make the case worse if you talked about it for a week.

The CHAIRMAN. Then there is no necessity for our continuing the investigation, if the case is complete already.

Mr. STEWART. Why, of course, they have got a complete case against him. He says, in substance, "I have made false and fictitious charges, but I did not intend to."

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 26, 1884.

JOEL W. BOWMAN recalled and further examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. You have already appeared as a witness before this committee?-Answer. Yes, sir.

Q. You have heard the testimony of Mr. Winston just given?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. You made, with him, the investigation in Illinois, in regard to which he has testified here?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. State whether the report of that examination produced here by him is one which was made by you and him jointly, and whether the matters therein stated are true?-A. Yes, sir; I wrote the report in conjunction with Mr. Winston. It embodies our ideas of the evidence that we obtained.

Q. And a correct synopsis of the exhibits?-A. Yes, sir; we believe it to be absolutely correct.

Q. Did Mr. Wheeler or Mr. Reece deny the truth of any of the statements set forth in that report?-A. No, sir. We sent for Mr. Wheeler after we had made a trip through a portion of the district. Mr. Wheeler had previously said to me that he desired to make an explanation of any irregularities that might be found in his accounts, and when we returned with these affidavits, he came up to our room and made two statements. One of those statements was in reference to particular services alleged to have been performed by himself. In that affidavit Mr. Wheeler admitted to us that he did not know whether he had performed the services or not, all of them, but, that even if he had performed any portion of the service, the travel and the expenses charged against the United States for endeavoring to arrest, and for transportation of prisoners and guards, must be incorrect, because if he had made the arrests at all he made them in the city of Springfield.

Q. Who were the parties arrested in those cases?-A. James M.

After

Garvin, David Calvert, Samuel Gates, Henry Winters, and William Baldwin. I wish to say that ex-Marshal Wheeler states very positively that he never intended to make any charge in his accounts except for services actually and necessarily performed. He appeared perfectly surprised when we called his attention to the accounts wherein his name appeared, and promptly admitted that the charges were irregular-that there were services charged for there that he had not performed. taking the first statement, we then called upon General J. M. Reece, who was the former chief deputy of the late marshal, and asked him if he desired to make an explanation. He said he did. We then showed him several of these accounts, and asked him whose handwriting they were in. At first he was not clear as to the handwriting; he said he did not know. I suggested to him that in my opinion it was his handwriting, and be then admitted that it was. Now, in the majority of all these cases where there were fictitious or fraudulent charges, they were in the handwriting of Mr. Reece. He claims that the information upon which he made those accounts was furnished by Marshal Wheeler. Marshal Wheeler denies that emphatically, and states that he never instructed Mr. Reece, or any other man, to insert in his account any charge except for services actually and necessarily performed. The issue on that point is between those two gentlemen. One man is alleged to have performed the service, and the other appears to have rendered the accounts-that is, to have written out the accounts, for, of course, the marshal, in fact, rendered them.

Q. Then the facts were substantially admitted by all the parties?— A. There was no controversy, so far as the making of the charges was concerned. I did not understand that there was any. I understood that they were admitted. Mr. Wheeler's affidavit admits the making of the charges, and admits that they are irregular, but he goes on to say that he is not responsible for their being made. Mr. Reece, on the other hand, says that Mr. Wheeler is responsible.

Q. Who would receive the benefits of the overcharges?-A. They would all receive it.

Q. In what way?—A. In explanation of that, let me say that the law allows the marshal a maximum compensation of $6,000 a year, and each deputy marshal a maximum compensation of $3,000 a year. When Mr. Wheeler took charge of that office there was an arrangement entered into by him with three of his deputies, Mr. Reece, Mr. Davis, and Mr. McCord, by which it was understood that the marshal was first to receive his maximum compensation of $6,000 a year, and that then, if the fees of the office would justify it, the other three were each to receive the maximum compensation of $3,000. But the marshal was first to have his $6,000, as I understood the arrangement. Therefore it was just as much to the advantage of the deputy marshals to swell their accounts so that they could reach their $3,000 a year each, as it was to the advantage to the marshal; in fact it was more for their interest than it was for the marshal's, because he had a sure thing.

Q. There were three deputies, you say, with whom that arrangement was made?-A. Yes, sir; Davis, McCord, and Reece.

Q. That would require net earnings of at least $15,000; $9,000 for the three deputies and $6,000 for the marshal?-A. Yes, sir; $15,000 altogether. Then there were miscellaneous expenses besides, such as stationery, fuel, &c.

Q. And the other deputies had to have their compensation?-A. Yes, sir; but their work went to make up this maximum. For instance, if the marshal sent out a special deputy and he could get that man to per

form service for one-third of the net fees, then the marshal would get two-thirds; but if the deputy required two-thirds, then the marshal would get only one-third. The marshal made the best arrangement he could with the special deputies, so as to make as much fees as he could for the office.

Q. What do you say as to the general management of the office during Marshal Wheeler's term ?-A. It was exceedingly loose and careless. It was almost totally void of system.

Q. Who was the responsible head of the office at that time?—A. Well, I must admit that I think Mr. Wheeler was very negligent. He did not give that attention to his office that he should have given it. That is quite evident to my mind.

Q. He so states, does he not?-A. I think he admits that in his affidavit.

Q. Were you able to determine the question at issue between Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Reece, as to whether these disputed items were entered in pursuance of the marshal's directions or not?-A. Mr. Chairman, that would be simply a matter of opinion with me, and I would not like to express my opinion.

Q. There were, I believe, some cases where persons were arrested in the city of Springfield by Marshal Wheeler, and the fee-bill was rendered as if the parties had been arrested in remote portions of the State.-A. Well, I can say that there was one case of that kind, certainly, and the accounts show several; but whether Marshal Wheeler actually arrested those several parties or not I do not know. He did arrest one of them. That man was arrested in the hall of the courthouse, and the account was made out as if he had been arrested 197 miles off.

Q. What fees were charged in that case?-A. That was the case of The United States vs. James M. Garvin. The account as rendered amounts to $55.72, and the amount that is shown to be lawful as a charge in that case is $2.50.

Q. What were the facts about that case?-A. The facts, as we obtained them from the affidavits, and as I believe them to be, are that Mr. Garvin was subpoenaed as a witness before the grand jury, I believe, at Springfield. He went to Springfield in compliance with the subpoena, and was there one or two or perhaps three days. While he was in Springfield a bench warrant issued for him for a violation of the pension laws. He was indicted, and the bench warrant was issued and placed in the hands of Marshal Wheeler for service. Mr. Garvin was standing in the hall of the court-house, within a few feet of the marshal's office, when Marshal Wheeler came up and asked him if he was in the party (there were several persons standing there), and he said he was. The marshal asked him to step into a room; he did so, and there Marshal Wheeler informed him that he was under arrest. Garvin then went out and asked one or two of these gentlemen to go on his bond, which they declined to do. Marshal Wheeler then told him that unless he could furnish bonds he would have to go to jail. He told the marshal that he could not give a bond there; that his friends were down where he lived, at Macedonia, and that he did not want to go to jail: and he wanted to know what arrangement he could make to keep out of jail. The marshal told him that if he would employ some man to guard him until his friends should arrive, he would let him stay out of jail; so the marshal selected a man and Garvin paid him $2 or $2.50 a day until his brother or brother-in-law came on and he was bound over for trial. Q. How much fees were charged in that case ?-A. Fifty-five dollars

and seventy-two cents was the charge against the United States, and the marshal was entitled to $2.50 under the law.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. Was that $2.50 all there was that was legal in the charges that made up the account?-A. Yes, sir; as appeared by the account. For instance, the marshal was entitled to charge $2 for the service, and 50 cents for discharging the prisoner. The mileage, the expenses endeavoring to arrest, transportation, &c., were irregular and unfounded charges. Q All beyond the $2.50 was illegal?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. There were no expenses in endeavoring to arrest, and there was no travel?-A. No, sir. The marshal himself says that if he arrested this man at all he arrested him in Springfield; yet he charges for travel 197 miles. Of course, if he did not make the travel, he could not have transported the prisoner.

Q. In whose handwriting is that account?—A. In the writing of Mr. Reece, the chief deputy.

Q. And it appears upon the books of the marshal's office, and has been approved by the court and paid by the United States?-A. I presume so. It is on the books of the Treasury Department.

Q. And the account has been settled?—A. I do not know that. I know that Marshal Wheeler's accounts were presented for payment, but whether the Department has settled with him or not I do not know. Q. When did he go out of office?-A. I think he went out of office about the latter part of last December.

Mr. WINSTON. He went out on the 30th of November last.

By Mr. MILLIKEN:

Q. When did you make this investigation?-A. I made it under the direction contained in the resolution of this committee, dated April 22, 1884.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Is there any other statement that you desire to make on this subject!-A. No, sir; I do not care to make any statement.

Following are the report of Examiner Bowman and Mr. Winston, and the statements of ex-Marshal Wheeler and his chief deputy, Mr. Reece: REPORT OF EXAMINER BOWMAN AND MR. JAMES A. WINSTON IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURES OF UNITED STATES COURTS IN ILLINOIS.

To the Committee on Expenditures, Department of Justice, House of Representatives : GENTLEMEN: In conformity with a resolution of the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice, dated April 22, 1884, in which the Attorney-General was requested to “authorize Mr. Joel W. Bowman, one of the examiners of the Department of Justice, to make a special examination into the expenditures of the United States Courts in the State of Illinois, and that he be directed to report the result of the examinations, both to the Department of Justice and to this committee; and that he be authorized to employ, with the approval of the chairman of this committee, a competent person, a resident of that State, to assist him in making such examinations; and that all expenses thereof be paid as provided in resolution of the House of Representatives, passed March 17, 1884," Examiner Bowman was directed by the Attorney-General to proceed to Illinois to make the examinations required by the committee. He was there joined by Mr. James A. Winston, who had been selected by the chairman of the committee to act with him, and in compliance with that portion of the resolution calling for a report both to the Attorney-General and the committee, the following is respectfully submitted:

It will be observed that the resolution above referred to required an investigation into the court expenses in both the districts in the State of Illinois; but our examina