iotu did not extend beyond the southern district of Illinois, as we were summoned back to Washington by the chairman of the committee before we could extend it into the northern district, as contemplated in the resolution.

Immediately upon commencing the examination at Springfield, Ill., we called upon Hon. Samuel H. Treat, judge of the United States district court for the southern district of Illinois, and obtained from him an order of court permitting us to take from the United States district and circuit clerks' offices such books, papers, accounts, &c., as it would be necessary for us to refer to in the discharge of our official duties.

We obtained from the files of the United States district clerk's office at Springfield the file copies of the accounts rendered against the Unitod States by Jacob Wheeler, esq., late United States marshal for the southern district of Illinois, on account of alleged services performed by him and his several deputies, covering a peried of about four years. In addition, we obtained access to the books and dockets used by late Marshal Wheeler, and after a careful examination and comparison of said accounts with the books and dockets it became very apparent that the marshal's office during Marshal Wheeler's incumbency had been sadly deficient in system, and it was also plainly demonstrated that the duties of the office had been performed in a very loose and careless manner, and, presumably, with a view to increasing the costs against the United States to their utmost limit, so as to obtain the maximum compensation allowed by law to the marshal and his regular deputies.

We found that the accounts rendered by Marshal Wheeler not only contained many irregularities, but they also contained fictitious and fraudulent charges for services never performed. The accounts examined by us contained charges against the United States for mileage never traveled; transpotation of prisoners when none were transported; expenses charged for endeavoring to arrest when no expenses were incurred; charges for guards when no guard was employed or used; subsistence of prisoners when none was furnished; attendance of deputies and guards at preliminary examinations before United States commissioners when the alleged deputy or guard did not so attend and when there was no necessity for their attendance, and charges for committing prisoners when they were not committed.

Exhibit No. 1 is a transcript taken from the criminal docket used by Marshal Wheeler during his administration of the marshal's office. It is shown by this exhibit that in the large majority of these cases two deputy marshals, or guards, were in attendance before the United States, commissioner at the preliminary examinations of the different defendents therein referred to. It is also shown that in each of these cases Mr. Louis Vetter is charged for at the rate of $2 per day, as having attended before the commissioner. As appears from this exhibit, Mr. Vetter is alleged to have attended before the United States commissioners three hundred and twelve days, during Marshal Wheeler's incumbency, for whose services Marshal Wheeler has charged the United States in his accounts $624.

Exhibit No. 2 is the affidavit of Mr. Louis Vetter, the gentleman above referred to. In this affidavit Mr. Vetter swears that he is janitor of the public building at Springfield, Ill., which position he has held for nearly twenty-five years, and that he receives a stated compensation of $50 per month from the United States for his services. That he has frequently acted as a deputy marshal before United States commissioners during the examination of prisoners, but that he has never received any compensation for such services. He swears further that during the administration of Marshal Wheeler his best recollection is that he attended at preliminary examinations about twenty times, and positively swears that he did not attend as often as one hundred times. It is therefore shown by the foregoing affidavit that Mr. Vetter's name has been used in these accounts much oftener than he actually served; that he received no part of this $624, which it is shown by Marshal Wheeler's accounts, the United States has been charged for his services as a deputy marshal. Exhibit No. 3 is an affidavit of late Marshal Wheeler, and refers to the charges in his accounts against the United States for alleged services by Mr. Vetter. In this Mr. Wheeler admits that he knew Mr. Vetter's services were being charged for in his accounts; that he never objected to it until within the last year; that Mr. Vetter received no compensation for this service; and that he was only allowed his regular salary of $50 per month as janitor, and that it has been customary in that district for the past twenty years to use Mr. Vetter as a deputy before commissioners' court and and not give him any compensation for such services.

On page 11, of Exhibit No. 51, late Chief Deputy Marshal J. N. Reece swears that he never inserted Mr. Vetter's name in the accounts, except when it had been reported to him by the deputy marshals that Mr. Vetter had been in attendance on the commissioners' court; that he knew Mr. Vetter was receiving a stated salary from the United States, and that the money was paid to Mr. Vetter through him every month, but that he was instructed when he went into Marshal Wheeler's office that Mr. Vetter might be used as a guard before the commissioners.

In view of the fact that a system has grown up in this district to use two deputies

or guards at preliminary examinations before United States commissioners, it is but fair to presume it was done for the purpose of increasing the fees, as we are convinced that in a very large majority of these cases it was wholly unnecessary. In the case of Mr. Vetter we have recommended the disallowance of the entire amount charged for his services as deputy marshal or guard, for the reason that the United States should not be required to pay for his services in two different capacities at the same time; but, independent of this, the service as deputy was not performed by Mr. Vetter, except in a few instances, as above stated.

Exhibit No. 4 is the affidavit of S. H. Jones, president of the State National Bank at Springfield, Ill., and one of the State Commissioners at the Joliet, Ill., penitentiary, and refers to the transportation of one Leonard Bailey, a United States prisoner, from Springfield, Ill., to the Joliet penitentiary on March 6, 1880. In the account rendered by Marshal Wheeler, for the services performed by his deputy, C. P. Davis, in transporting Bailey to the penitentiary, a charge of $15 is made for S. H. Jones, necessary guard," from Springfield to Joliet, a distance of 150 miles. The gentleman above referred to is the only S. H. Jones we could find in or about Springfield, and we therefore presume he is the person who is alleged to have acted as guard on this occasion. In his affidavit Mr. Jones says he has no recollection of ever having acted as guard over this prisoner; that he may have been on the same train with Deputy Marshal Davis and the prisoner, and may have gone to Joliet at the same time, but that he never acted as a guard or received one cent. That he never knew he was charged for as a guard until the account was shown to him by us; that he has no recollection of Deputy Marshal Davis ever having asked him to act as guard on any occasion; that he never really acted as a guard, don't know anything about the case; and that he never had been informed that he had been or was going to be charged for in the accounts as a guard. We expected to meet late Deputy Davis before leaving the district but failed, and hence we were unable to interrogate him with reference to the services performed by him; but the statement of Mr. Jones cannot be doubted, as he is recognized as a gentleman of high standing and reputation in the community in which he resides.

Exhibit No. 5 is an affidavit of Mr. T. J. Puckett, and refers to the service of a subpena by him on December 31, 1880, upon which he only actually traveled about 10 miles, while the account rendered by Marshal Wheeler makee it appear that he traveled 174 miles.

Exhibit No. 6 is an affidavit of Mr. Joseph F. Marshal, and refers to the service of a subpoena by him on December 23, 1881, upon which he only actually traveled about 7 ore miles, while the account as rendered by Marshal Wheeler makes it appear that he traveled 167 miles. This subpœna was sent by mail from Springfield to the postmaster at McLeansborough, Ill.

Exhibit No. 7 is the affidavit of Mr. C. F. Linzie, and refers to the alleged service of a subpoena on him at Duquoin, Ill., on December 16, 1882, by Marshal Wheeler. Mr. Linzie swears that he is not positive how this subpoena was served on him, and says that it may have been served on him at Duquoin or at Springfield, or it may have been sent to him by mail. He distinctly remembers having received one subpœna by mail from Marshal Wheeler, and swears positively that Marshal Wheeler never personally served a subpoena on him at Duquoin in his life. Marshal Wheeler, in his affidavit marked Exhibit No. 52, says that he has no recollection of ever having served a subpoena on Mr. Linzie at Duquoin; that he knows he never traveled 138 miles to serve this subpoena, as his account makes it appear he did, and that if he ever served the subpoena at all he served it in Springfield. The United States has been charged in Marshal Wheeler's accounts with $8.28 for 138 miles' travel to serve this subpoena, when the fact is Marshal Wheeler, as his own statement shows, did not travel any distance to serve it.

Exhibit No. 8 is the affidavit of Mr. Peter Saup, and refers to the service of subpœnas by him, at and near Cairo, Ill. Mr. Saup swears positively that six of the subpoenas referred to were sent to him at Cairo by mail from Springfield; and that in one case he is not positive whether the subpoena was received by him at Springfield or whether it was sent to him by mail. In the accounts rendered by Marshal Wheeler for the service of the above-mentioned subpoenas, constructive mileage to the amount of $77.88 has been charged.

Exhibit No. 9 is the affidavit of Jacob Alyea, and refers to a charge in Marshal Wheeler's accounts for his services on March 3, 1880, for attendance before United States Commissioner Adams, in the case of The United States rs. J. H. Thompson. Mr. Alyea swears that he has no recollection of having performed this service, or of ever having received any money for it, and that he thinks the charge must have been made through mistake.

Exhibit No. 10 is the affidavit of W. H. Hendricks, one of the bailiffs of the United States court at Springfield. Mr. Hendricks's name also appears in the accounts rendered by Marshal Wheeler as having attended before United States commissioners at preliminary examinations, and for each day's a tendance the United States has been

charged $2. It is shown by Mr. Hendricks's affidavit that he never received any compensation for this service, but was paid $2 per day for his services as a bailiff.

Exhibit No. 11 is the affidavit of William Derring and refers to the arrest of Michael Perrine and David Shanks at Duquoin, Ill., in October, 1883. This affidavit shows conclusively that false charges to the amount of $23.20 have been made in the account rendered by Marshal Wheeler for the arrest of Michael Perrine. We endeavored to ascertain in whose handwriting the Michael Perrine account is made out, but were unable to do so positively. We are, however, both of opinion that this account is in the handwriting of late Marshal Wheeler, but when we called his attention to it he denied having written it. The face of this account shows that it has been systematically and carefully prepared, and evidently with a view to its passage through the hands of the accounting officers of the Treasury without question. It will be observed that the name of William Hamilton" is used as a guard, and for which the United States is charged $16.50. Also that the name of "John Hamilton" is used as a witness. The fact is this guard and witness is one and the same person, as is shown by the subpoena itself and the affidavit of Mr. William Derring, the special deputy who performed the service. This man William Hamilton was the detective who worked up this case of counterfeiting, and the only reason his name was changed to John Hamilton in this account was evidently for the purpose of deceiving the accounting officers of the Treasury. This charge in the account of $9.90 for 165 miles, travel to serve this subpoena on "John Hamilton" is purely fictitious and fraudulent. The subpoena was issued for and served on William, not Jolin Hamilton, and no travel was required in order to serve it, for it was served on Mr. Hamilton in the city of Springfield, Ill.

Exhibit No. 12 is the affidavit of Henry Whyte, and refers to the arrest of Anthony O'Donnell at Jerseyville, Ill., on September 7, 1883. It will be seen by the affidavit of Mr. Whyte that the charge of $4.86 in Marshal Wheeler's account for 81 miles' travel on this warrant is irregular, for the reason that he did not travel on the warrant, and that the charge of $2 for endeavoring to arrest and $2.50 for committing the prisoner to jail is false.

Exhibit No. 13 is a joint affidavit of James Maulding, sheriff of Hamilton County, Illinois, and Mr. H. M. Crouch, one of his deputies, and refers to the arrest by him of David Clark near McLeansboro, Ill., on October 27, 1883. The accounts of Marshal Wheeler contain a charge of $12.90 for 215 miles' travel by Mr. Crouch on this warrant, which is irregular, as the affidavit of Mr. Crouch shows that he only actually traveled about 18 miles on this warrant instead of 215 miles, as charged.

Exhibit No. 14 is the affidavit of Robert C. Johnson, formerly deputy United States marshal under ex-Marshal Wheeler, and refers to various fictitious and fraudulent charges in the accounts of ex-Marshal Wheeler. It is shown by this affidavit that mileage has been charged on warrants and subpœnas which had been sent by mail and upon which no travel was made; that his name has been fraudulently inserted in the accounts as a guard, and the United States required to pay for his alleged services in cases that he (Johnson) swears he knows absolutely nothing about.

Exhibit No. 15 is the affidavit of B. F. Chase, supervising examiner of pensions at Saint Louis, and corroborates the statement of late Deputy Johnson as to charges for constructive mileage, and relates to the charge of $9.20 for one R. E. Pope as guard from 6 miles west of Kane, Ill., to Springfield, in the case of the United States vs. Orange Handling, who was arrested on April 2, 1882. The accounts of Marshal Wheeler show that the service in this case was performed by late Deputy Marshal C. P Davis. From the affidavit of Mr. Chase it appears that this charge for guard is irregular, or at least partialy so; and that even if a guard was employed after Deputy Davis got on the train with his prisoner, such employment was unnecessary. Exhibit No. 16 is the affidavit of Patrick Kerrigan, formerly chief of police at East Saint Louis, Ill. It is shown by this affidavit that Mr. Kerrigan has been charged for in Marshal Wheeler's accounts in cases where he (Kerrigan) performed no service whatever; that he has been charged for as a deputy marshal when he did not so act; that he has been charged for in the accounts as a guard when he performed no service and was never asked to act as guard; that writs have been sent to him by mail and mileage charged thereon; that fictitious charges for guards, subsistence of prisoners while in custody, and expenses while endeavoring to arrest, have been inserted in accounts where he did not perform the service; that mileage has been charged for by Marshal Wheeler for service of subpoenas on him (Kerrigan) when in fact Marshal Wheeler made no travel but served the subpoenas on him at Springfield.

Exhibit No. 17 is the affidavit of M. A. Sullivan, principal of the Franklin school at East Saint Louis, Ill. It is shown by this affidavit that Mr. Sullivan was arrested at East Saint Louis, by L. E. Wheeler, a son of late Marshal Wheeler, on March 27, 1883, for a violation of the internal-revenue laws. Mr. Sullivan swears that he was not transported or guarded from East Saint Louis to Springfield, but that he went there voluntarily and alone. He states he was arrested by Deputy Marshal L. E. Wheeler, who met him on the street and requested him to report to the United

States attorney at Springfield, which he promised to do and which he did two or three days afterwards; that Deputy Wheeler did not transport him to Springfield and that he was not guarded by any one between East Saint Louis and Springfield. Mr. Sullivan was a member of the Illinois legislature at the time, and had been in Springfield discharging the duties of his position until a day or two previous to his arrest, when he had gone down to East Saint Louis, his home, to spend the Sabbath with his family. This affidavit also shows that Mr. Sullivan appeared before the commissioner only on one day instead of three days, as the account shows.

The account rendered against the United States by Marshal Wheeler for the arrest of Mr. Sullivan shows a charge of $9.60 for transportation of prisoner from place of arrest to Springfield, 96 miles, and $9.60 for Patrick Kerrigan, necessary guard, 96 miles, and attendance of deputies at preliminary examinations on March 28 and 29 and April 5, 1883, at $2 per day.

Exhibit No. 18 is an affidavit of Patrick Kerrigan, the person charged for as having guarded Mr. Sullivan from East Saint Louis to Springfield, in which Mr. Kerrigan swears that he did not act as guard in this case, and that he never authorized any one to use his name in the account as such.

Exhibit No. 19 is the affidavit of late Deputy Marshal Loren E. Wheeler, who arrested Mr. Sullivan, in which he admits that he did not transport him from East Saint Louis to Springfield, as the account makes it appear he did. He says that after arresting Mr. Sullivan he left him and went to the railroad depot, where he got in conversation with a stranger, dressed as a laborer, who told him (Wheeler) that he was trying to get to Chicago; that he asked this man if he knew Mr. Sullivan, and was informed that he did, and he then told this stranger that if he would act as guard over Mr. Sullivan he would pay his fare from East Saint Louis to Springfield; that the stranger promised to do so, and he purchased a ticket and gave it to him. Mr. Wheeler further swears that this man was a total stranger to him; that he had never seen him before, but thinks he has seen him once since in Springfield; and that he knows Mr. Sullivan came to Springfield, but he does not know whether this man accompanied him or not. He admits that the person charged in the account as guard, Patrick Kerrigan, was not a guard, and did not accompany either him or the prisoner from East Saint Louis to Springfield.

Deputy Wheeler's statement with reference to this case is, to say the least, very inconsistent. It is not reasonable to suppose, if he really thought a guard was necessary, that he would have paroled Mr. Sullivan after having arrested him; nor is it quite reasonable to believe that if he did have any fears he would have relied upon the mere statement of an unknown man, whom he had never seen before. It is also strange that this stranger's name does not appear in the account, but that the name of Patrick Kerrigan, who did in a measure assist Deputy Wheeler, but only by pointing out Mr. Sullivan, should be inserted in the account as a guard. We are satisfied from conversations with all the different persous connected with this case that Mr. Sullivan was not guarded at all on this occasion, and that Mr. Wheeler's statement, so far as this case is concerned, is incorrect.

Exhibit No. 20 is the affidavit of James E. Hill, and refers to the arrest of Lafayette Hamilton and Charles N. Cullins at Macedonia, Ill., on March 7, 1883. It is shown by this affidavit that Deputy Hill arrested Lafayette Hamilton at Macedonia, and went out to look for the other defendant, Charles N. Cullins, whom he did not find. He then took Lafayette Hamilton to McLeansborough, when he placed him in the custody of J. H. Jacobs to guard him while he (Hill) went to bed; that he met one W. B. Creemens whom he told that if he would get the other defendant, Charles N. Cullins, and bring him to McLeansborough, he (Hill) would take him (Creemens) to Springfield as a deputy and that he should have the fees in the Cullins case, or he would give him $10 for his trouble. When he got up preparatory to taking the train he found Charles N. Cullins had come in, and was told that Mr. Creemens had sent him word that he did not care to go to Springfield and desired him to take W. D. Cullins, a brother of the prisoner, in his stead, which he consented to do. He says further that he is not responsible for the charges made against the United States in the Charles N. Cullins case, and that he received no credit on account of it and that he had nothing to do with transporting or guarding Charles N. Cullins on this trip.

Exhibit No. 21 is the affidavit of James H. Jacobs, who is charged for in the account as having guarded Lafayette Hamilton from Macedonia to Springfield, Ill., a distance of 206 miles, at 10 cents per mile, $20.60. Mr. Jacobs swears that he only guarded the prisoner while Deputy Hill was asleep at the hotel, and from the hotel to the depot; that Deputy Hill had no guard with him when he left McLeansborough, and that if he had any guard over Lafayette Hamilton, he must have secured one after leaving McLeansborough, and that Deputy Hill told him when they parted at the depot that he did not need a guard.

"Exhibit No. 22 is the affidavit of Lafayette Hamilton, who swears that he was not guarded by any one except Deputy Hill from McLeansborough to Springfield; atleast, if he was he did not know it. -6*

H. Mis. 38, vol. 2

Exhibit No. 23 is the affidavit of Charles N. Cullins, who swears that J. H. Jacobs only guarded Lafayette Hamilton at the hotel while Deputy Hill was asleep, and from the hotel to the depot at McLeansborough; and that if any one else besides Deputy Hill guarded Lafayette Hamilton from McLeansborough to Springfield, he did not know it.

Exhibit No. 24 is the affidavit of Perry Lee, one of the witnesses against Lafayette Hamilton. He swears that J. H. Jacobs did not guard Lafayette Hamilton from McLeansborough to Springfield, and that if any one except Deputy Hill guarded him he did not know it.

Exhibit No. 25 is the affidavit of Harvey C. Vise, also a witness against Lafayette Hamilton. He swears he did not see any body but J. H. Jacobs guarding Lafayette Hamilton, and that said Jacobs did not accompany them from McLeansborough to Springfield.

Mr.

Exhibit No. 26 is the affidavit of Wm. D. Cullins, a brother of Charles N. Cullins, one of the prisoners, and the person who acted in the capacity of assistant deputy marshal. He swears that he does not know of any body acting as guard over Lafayette Hamilton between McLeansborough and Springfield except Deputy Hill. Exhibit No. 27 is the affidavit of ex-Marshal Wheeler, referring to this case. Wheeler says that he recalled the voucher in which this account appears from the First Auditor's Office in order to make certain corrections, and that he at that time changed the account so as to allow for the guard a distance of only 20 miles instead of 206 miles. He claims also to have changed the amount from $20.60 to $2, and that this change was agreed upon between Deputy Hill and himself after consultation, and that he is surprised to learn that the account has been changed back from $2 to $20.60, and that this last change was made without his knowledge, and that had he known it was going to be changed back to $20.60 he would not have permitted it. The account in a measure bears Mr. Wheeler out in his statement, as it still plainly shows the erasures where the change was made. It is but just to Deputy Hill to say that he admits that J. H. Jacobs, the person charged in the account as guard, did not act as guard from McLeansborough to Springfield, but he claims that he employed railroad employés to assist him with Hamilton on the different trains upon which he traveled between McLeansborough and Springfield, and, in order to save trouble, used J. H. Jacob's name in the account for the entire trip; and yet it seems to us if he really did employ railroad employés, and they were necessary, the others who accompanied him on the trip would have known it, and more especially is this true in the case of W. D. Cullins, who Mr. Hill himself deputized to assist him. Certainly, Deputy Hill considered W. D. Cullins a reliable person or he would not have placed him in charge of Charles N. Cullins, his brother, and if Mr. Hill did consider him reliable, then he must have known that he did not need any one else as guard, for he and Mr. Cullins were certainly able to look after Hamilton. It is shown by the affidavits above referred to that Charles N. Cullins did not need watching, for he came voluntarily and alone from Macedonia to McLeansboro, a distance of about 10 miles, to surrender to Deputy Hill.

Exhibit No. 28 is the affidavit of B. W. Creemens, the person who it is alleged by the account arrested and transported Charles N. Cullins to Springfield. It is shown by this affidavit that he did not accompany Charles N. Cullins on this trip; that Cullins went voluntarily from Macedonia to McLeansboro and there surrendered to Deputy Hill, and that he (Creemens) arranged with the prisoner to have Deputy Hill take his, Cullins', brother along to Springfield, as a deputy or guard. The affidavit of William D. Cullins, as well as that of Deputy Hill, herein before referred to as Exhibits 20 and 26, shows that this arrangement was entered into and that Deputy Hill placed this prisoner, Charles N. Cullins, in the custody of his own brother, William D. Cullins. The affidavits of Deputy Hill and late Marshal Wheeler, marked Exhibits 20 and 27, show that the appointment of the deputy in the Cullins case is antedated four days; that is to say, the writ shows the appointment of W. B. Creemens on March 2, 1883, when the fact is that indorsement was made on the writ after the prisoners reached Springfield, which was on March 8, 1883.

The account rendered against the United States for services in the Charles N. Cullins case amounts to $78.30, of which the sum of $28.60 is purely fictitious and fraudulent, as is shown by the affidavits of Deputy Hill, late Marshal Wheeler, Charles N. Cullins, Lafayette Hamilton, R. C. Johnson, and W. D. Cullins, as well as others. The name of R. C. Johnson is charged for in this aceount as a guard a distance of 206 miles at 10 cents per mile, $20.60. Deputy Hill swears that if Mr. Johnson was along he did not see him. Charles N. Cullins, W. D. Cullins, and Lafayette Hamilton swear he was not a guard, and Mr. R. C. Johnson himself swears that he was not a guard and knew nothing about the case.

Exhibits Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 are the affidavits of Rolandus R. Bar nett, B. W. Creemens, H. S. Humphreys, Bernhard Senn, William Steffin, Chris. Baumann, H. Hartleib, and Abraham Fricker, and refer to fictitious and fraudulent charges