Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

late marshal expended $2 in endeavoring to arrest each of the above-named defendants. In the affidavit of ex-Marshal Wheeler, marked Exhibit No. 52, be swears that he does not recollect anything about the arrest of the above-named defendants, but that he does koow he never did arrest them at McLeansborough, and that if he ever arrested them at all he arrested them in Springtield. The United States has been cbarged $81.42 and $20.92, respectively, for services in the David Calvert and Samuel Gates cases, making a total of $162.34. In the David Calvert case, the utmost farthing Marshal Wheeler was entitled to was $8.50, instead of $81.42 as charged, and in the Samuel Gates case he was entitled to $8 instead of $80.92 as charged; hence of the amount $162.34 charged against the United States, the marshal was entitled by law to $16.50.

Exhibit No. 14 is an affidavit of late Deputy Marshal Crisel, and refers to a charge of $20.30 for one Henry Thornton as a guard in the case of Douglas Darnell, who was arrested by late Deputy G. C. McCord on May 4, 1832. It is shown by this aftidavit that Mr. Darnell came in voluntarily, a distance of 4 miles, to McLeansborough, to meet Deputy McCord, and that he was not guarded that distance, and that he (Crisel) does not believe a guard was employed after leaving McLeansborough, and that he knows a guard was not necessary. It is very evident that if it was necessary to have a guard over Douglas Darnell be would not have come in voluntarily and alone 4 miles, and if Deputy McCord had thought it necessary he would not have left the prisoner at home after arresting him.

Exbibits No. 45, 46, and 47 are affidavits of James M. Garvin, John A. Garvin, and E. H. Vice, and refer to the arrest of James M. Garvin for a violation of the United States pension laws. It is shown by these affidavits that Mr. Garvin was subpænaed to Springfield as a witness, and after his arrival there the United States grand jury returned an indictment against him upon which a bench-warrent was issued and placed in the hands of Marshal Wheeler for service; that Marshal Wheeler did arrest Mr. Garvin in the hall of the United States court-house at Springfield, and Marshal Wheeler told him at the time, if he could not give bond or pay some one to guard him until his friends arrived to go on his bond, he would have to put him in jail, and that he (Garvin) did employ a man selected. by Marshal Wheeler and paid $2.50 a day and his board, to guard him for three or four days so as to prevent going to jail. The account rendered against the United States for services in this case shows that the arrest was made by late Marsbal Wheeler, but makes it appear that Mr. Garvin was arrested at McLeansborough instead of at Springfield. In his statement, marked Exbibit 52, late Marsbal Wheeler swears that he does not recollect the circumstances in this case, but that he is positive he never traveled 197 miles, as charged in the account, to arrest Mr. Garvin, and that if he ever did arrest Mr. Garvin it was in Springfield, Ill. The account against the United States for services in this case amounts to $55.72, while all Marshal Wheeler was entitled to under the law was $2.50.

Exhibits Nos. 48 and 49 are affidavits of R. C. Johnson and William Baldwin, and refer to the arrest of the last-named person at Jackson ville, Ill., on March 4, 1881, by Marshal Wheeler. These affidavits show that Marsbal Wheeler did not arrest William Baldwin at Jacksonville, as claimed in bis account against the United States, and that he did not transport Baldwin from Jacksonville to Springfield, a distance of 35 miles, and that he did not travel 35 miles to serve a subpona on R. C. Johnson. The inclosed telegram, attached to the affidavit of R. C. Johnson, which we found among the commissioner's papers, indicates that Mr. Baldwin was arrested without a warrant by R. C. Johnson, who transported him to Springfield, and tbat the subpoena for Mr. Johnson, if served op him at all, was served on him at Springfield. It is, therefore, very plain why Marshal Wheeler's name was inserted in this account as having made the arrest. It was done for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the fees, for if Mr. Johnson's name had been inserted in the account as the arresting party the accountiug officers of the Treasury would not have allowed him to charge $2.10 for traveling 35 miles to serve a subpona on himself. In this account the amount of $6.20, at least, is fictitious.

Exhibit No. 50 is an affidavit of Deputy Uuited States Marsbal James E. Hill. In this affidavit Mr. Hill admits that it has been his practice, when going away from the railroad into the country to take a conveyance and driver, and when he made an arrest to charge the driver in his account as a guard for the distance he drove the team; that it has also been his custom to employ railroad employés, principally brakemen and newsboys on the different trains, to act as guards, and that in cases where he was required to take two or more railroads and employed guards on each train he would charge in his account only the name of one of these persons for the whole trip; that he has always construed the law to be that he was entitled to 6 cents per mile on all writs, from the place of issue to the place of service, regardless of where he got the writ-whether he actually traveled the distance or it was sent to him by mail. He claims that when a writ was sent to him by mail and he arrested a prisoner on it and transported the prisoner to Springfield, that he was then travel. ing on the writ and transporting the prisoner at the same time, and that he was entitled under the law to 6 cents per mile for traveling op the writ, and in addition 10 cents per mile for himself for transporting the prisoner. He swears positively that it was understood under Marshal Wheeler's administration that deputy marshals were entitled to travel on writs that were sent to them by mail, and claims that Marshal Wheeler knew that mileage was being charged in the accounts on writs that were sent to him by mail,

Exhibit No. 51 is the affidavit of J. N. Reese, formerly office deputy under the administration of late Marshal Wheeler, and refers generally to his connection with the office and the various transactions bereinbefore referred to. He swears positively that the information upon which the accounts herein before referred to were generally made out by him upon the information furnished by the parties who performed the service; that in the several irregular accounts wherein late Marshal Wheeler's name appears as having performed the services he made up the accounts upon the information furnished to him by the marshal; that all accounts were given to Marshal Wheeler and carefully examined by him before they were presented for the approval of court, and that he is not responsible for errors, irregularities, or fraudulent charges in Marshal Wheeler's accounts; that he simply acted as a clerk and made up the accounts upon the information furnished to him by Marshal Wheeler and the different deputies, and that he simply put in the accounts wbat they told him, and swears positively that he never inserted Marshal Wheeler's name in any account without having first been instructed by him to do so.

Exhibit No. 52 is an affidavit of Jacob Wheeler, late United States marshal, and refers to the various cases in which his name appears in the accounts as having performed services, and also shows many of the fictitious charges made in his accounts for services not performed and expenses never incurred.

Exbibit No. 53 is an affidavit of late Marshal Wheeler, and refers generally to the management of his office, and an arrangement entered into between bim and his three principal deputies when he was first appointed. In this he shows that when he took ebarge of the office that he was entirely unfamiliar with the duties required of him, and that he endeavored, as near as possible, to discharge the duties of the office in accordance with the law, and admits that his administration bas been exceedingly loose and imperfect, and that false, fraudulent, and fictitious charges have crept into bis accounts against the United States. He swears positively that all such charges were entirely unintentional op his part, and that he endeavored to prevent any charges being made in his accounts, except those which were lawful and just, and that he is willing to refand all moneys which he has collected from the United States on account of the false charges which we called to his attention. In this statement he also swears that he entered into an agreement with Deputy Marshals J. N. Reese, C. P. Davis, and George C. McCord, to the effect that he was to first receive the maximum compensation allowed him by law out of the earnings of the office, and that whatever remained was to be their compensation, and they were to be allowed the maximum compensation for deputy marshals if the earnings of the office would justify it; but that he now sees what an incentive tbis agreement was for those gentlemen to manufacture fees and to swell the costs against the United States as much as possible, for the larger the accounts were made the larger compensation they received. He further swears that he always instructed his depaties pever to charge constructive mileage or for any service not actually performed, and adınits that he has not given the necessary attention to the duties of his office, and says that he has relied entirely too much on others, and has not been sufficiently careful in the examination of his accounts and watching the details of his office.

Exbibit No. 54 is a statement of disallowances and suspensions amounting to 32,152.22, which is based upon the exhibits herein before referred to in this report.

In view of the loose and careless manner in which the marshal's office has been conducted during Marshal Wheeler's incumbency, together with the fact that both Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Reese swear positively that they did not know of these irregularities in the accounts until their attention was called to them by us, and for the further reason that they both expressed a desire to appear before the committee and make full explanations, we will refrain from expressing our opinion as to where the responsibility rests, but will leave that for the committee.

It is shown, however, by the affidavits hereinbefore referred to, as well as the court papers, that accounts have been raised and illegal charges made in the marshal's office without the knowledge of the deputies who actually performed the service, and after the writs had been returned by them to the marshals office.

In conclusion, we desire to say that every facility was afforded us by the court, as well as the officers thereof, to make our examination thorough and complete, but we do not wish to be understood as having made a complete investigation of the entire district, for we were recalled to Washington before having traversed but a small part of the southern portion of the district. We have the honor to be, very respectfully,

JOEL W. BOWMAN.
JAMES A. WINSTON.

Exhibit No. 51.- Affidavit of J. N. Reece, late chief deputy in the southern district of

Illinois, and refers to the general management of the office and the manner in which he made up the accounts.

Statement under oath, made by J. N. Reece, of Springfield, Ill., on the 11th day of

June, 1884, upon examination by Joel W. Bowman, examiner, Department of Justice. Present also, James A. Winston, esq.

J. N. REECE, being duly sworn by Mr. Bowman, did testify as follows:

By Mr. BOWMAN: Question. Do you desire to make a voluntary statement with regard to your connection with the marshal's office !-Answer. Yes, sir; I would like to make a statement showing the plan under which it was worked.

Q. How long were you chief deputy in Marsbal Wheeler's office !-A. I went in there, I think, in July or August, 1880, and went out, I think, in 1883, with themwhatever time it was.

Q. Did you have the entire management of the office; that is to say, did you have the supervision of the accounts ?-A. I made up the accounts under the direction of the marshal.

Q. I wish you would just define your duties, general.--A. My duties were these. I had charge of the disbursement of the funds-that is, paying out the funds on orders of the court for witnesses, jurors, prisoners, and so forth. I bad, of course, to make up the weekly statements of each week. I had charge of making up the emolument account and the subpænas I would occasionally send out yet as a rule but occasionally sent out subpanas. The marshal would send out subpænas and tbe deputies wonld frequently carry them out. When those subpanas were returned I or some one in the office would enter them up on tabs-tabs like this here [pointing to a book of such, on the table before the examiner]-tabs showing the service and number of persons served. The tabs of the deputies would be made up mostly by the deputies doing the work. They in most cases would make their own returns. Deputies frequently would make up returns for deputies, but it was under their direction and dictation. These accounts as made up by depnties would be kept in a drawer, and when the time came for making up an account they were referred to Mar. shal Wheeler and he would go through them, examine them, and check them off. If there were no changes to be made be would mark them. They were then placed in my hands or in the hands of some one connected with the office, and copies would be made of them. Accounts would be made up and after the marshal was satiştied they were all right they would be presented to the court.

Q. Iu a case where you seut a writ by mail, did the marshal send a writ by mail to a point distant from Springfield, which writ was returned while he taxed a regular cost on that?-A. The writ generally would be returned to the marshal. That is, he had charge of all the mail. I never opened the mail, unless in his absence. The mileage, or miles traveled, was generally indicated on the writ when laid on my table.

Q. Was it not a very general custom to send writs by mail in this district 1-A. Can't say that it was a general custom-frequently done.

Q. Was it not done very largely, especially so in the case of subpopas -A. Well, it was frequently done. I believe I have known a great many instances where they were sent by mail. These subpænas were very seldom in my hands. Subponas and writs were generally taken charge of by the marshal, writs more generally by deputies. They would come in bere and be anxious to get work-get control of the writs. I would very seldom see them till after returns were made.

Q. Any effort made by you or the marshal to prevent charging mileage on these writs sent to distant points by mail?-A. Invariably the rule to notify these parties serving these writs that they were entitled to mileage for the actual miles traveled. They would give the miles traveled.

Q. How do you account for the fact that these accounts are full of charges for mileage never traveled ; how do you account for the fact that mileage is charged on many subpenas sent by mail ?-A. The only explanation I can make is that when the deputies sent in the subpænas they must have stated what they had traveled on the subpænas.

Q. We will take the subpæna in the Gates case-in the case of the United States vs. Samuel Gatee, a subpæna served by W. L. Crisel, deputy. In that case be admits he only traveled 15 miles each way; how do you account for the charge in that case, made in your own handwriting?-A. That it is clearly an error, in my opinion.

Q. Can you account as to how you should make such an error as that-right there before your eyes ?-A. Not unless the deputies would indicate the mileage from different points.

Q. Well, but Mr. Crisel has indicated there just exactly what he did, and right in the face of that you have added a hundred and sixty miles to the service, apparently

without any authority.-A. Well, sir, unless I had some memorandum it is clearly an error. There would be no object in taxing it up for the benefit of Mr. Crisel.

Q. Do you mean to say Mr. Crisel got the benefit of that!-A. He certainly got the benefit of those charges.

Q. How much did Mr. Crisel receive on tbat-have you any idea 1-A. I have no idea ; Mr. Wheeler adjusted the account.

Q. What arrangement did you have with Mr. Wheeler when you went into the office with regard to your pay 1-A. I was to have $2,000 as clerk, and if the earnings as deputy would justify it I was to have more.

Q. Was there any understanding that anybody else had to be paid before you got your $2.000 1-A. There was an understanding that the marshal was to have his salary. The marshal, in making up his returns, would allow himself the full amount. Q. You mean by that his maximum conipensation allowed by law 1-A. Yes, sir.

0. Then, if there was only the maximum allowed to the marshal, you received nothing?-A. Well, nothing of that kind was ever discussed. I was to bave $2,000 myself as clerk.

Q. Whether the marshal made anything or not?-A. Well, that contingency never was discussed-that point never was raised.

Q. Didn't Marshal Wheeler say to you and Mr. McCord and Mr. Davis, when he took you in the office, that he couldn't say just what he would allow you, but he was going to take $6,000 first-was going to receive his maximum first-and after that he would divide the office fees between you three gentlemen -A. That was the understanding, of course; he was to have bis maximum. That was the understanding when I came in, of course. It was understood the marshal was to have his maximum allowed by law. He said when making up his accounts they would go forward, and frequently $300 or $400 would be cut out, and while it would show that he was getting his maximum under the rule, he actually would not be, because the Department would throw out, and did frequently throw out, $300 or $400 at a time.

Q. They were evidently for services you were not entitled to!-A. I suppose that's true,

Q. What was the custom in appointing special deputies to serve writs; were deputies frequently appointed after tbe service was performed by them!--A. Not as a rule. There may be some instances of that kind, but I don't remember who nor what they were.

Q. Do you remember of such an instance 1-A. I have an indistinct recollection of one instance, and I think it was after the party was brought in ; I couldn't say who it was or where it was; I recollect hearing the matter discussed; but as a rule it was not dope.

Q. Were you ever instructed by Mr. Wheeler never to make any charge for service that was not actually and necessarily performed !-A. Well, that was the understanding always, that there was no charge to be made unless it was actually and necessarily performed. .Q. Did Mr. Wheeler ever instruct you never to make any charge for constructive mileage:-A. That was the understanding. A writ not traveled on wasn't to be entéred-that is, when it was known. Of course, we had to take the statement of the depaties in making their returns when making up the tabs.

Q. It seems to me very strange you would take the statements of the man when you knew you had sent a writ by mail. Why should you allow mileage when you knew yon had sent the writ by mail!-A. I have no recollection of taxing any that I knew to be sent by mail.

Q. Now, General, I wish you would look at that-United States against James M. Anderson—in which you charge mileage 115 miles- $6.90. Did you actually perform that travel ?-A. If this is the writ-I think it is on parties in Hancock County-I did travel on it once. I was in one county, came down to Bushnell, went from there to Paris, and from there to Carthage. If I recollect, Major Connolly was very anxious to have the thing closed up, and if I recollect right this was a case

Q. You claim then you actually collected that money 1-A. I claim that I traveled and made the demand and made a levy, and I think, if I am not mistaken, it was afterwards paid here. There were one or two cases

Q. Now, General, there is a subpæna to Martha McCartney which appears to have been served by you on the 6th day of February, 1883. Did you serve that subpæna and travel 127 miles on it 1-A. Well, on that subpæna-I was in the east part of the State, and traveled on the subpæda.'

Q. From where -A. Springfield. I was in the east part of the State, over about Paris.

Q. You claim you took that subpæna over with you!-A. I took that subpæna over with me to Paris.

Q. One hundred and twenty-seven miles !-A. Well, it was-let us see,I was going to Paris by way of Tuscola; don't remember now.

Q. Where did you serve the subpæna on that lady ?-A. I don't remember. I didn't get service at that time if I recollect right, but I was going to Paris to visit a military company and carried the subpænas with me.

Q. You didn't get service at that time -A. It was a counterfeit case. No; I don't think the service was made at that time-my recollection--it seems to me she was away from home.

Q. When you didn't get service you couldn't travel on it!-A. I don't know; that was the custom-our rule-man traveled on a writ

Q. Whether he got service or not l-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is even if service was had subsequently ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Charged two mileages, then ?-A. When I came in here I was told that could be done. I mean that I could charge mileage whether I got service or not, or when I subsequently got service.

Q. Where was service had on that writt-A. I think she was notified and came in.

Q. Came in, and then service was made right here in Springfield ?-A. I don't remember as to that, but I know she came in and service was actually had on her.

Q. If she came in and you got no service on her-if she was ever served at all she must have been served right here 1-A. I can't say positively. I know she lives near Neoga. I was informed she wasn't at home. I couldn't say whether service was bad on her there, or where it was.

Q. Have you ever sent any writs to Mr. P. Saup, at Cairo, by mail 1-A. I have sent severa).

Q. Have you never sent writs or subpænas in criminal cases 1-A. Don't remember. Q. Why did you put in two hundred dollars-adding so many dollars to that account -subpæna, William Kershaw, served in February, '831-A. I was instructed to put it in-miles traveled.

Q. By whom I-A. Mr. Sanp.

Q. Did he or not travel at all on it, or was it sent to him by maill-A. I certainly had information that it was traveled on.

Q. Who did you receive it from 1-A. Either Mr. Saup or Marsbal Wheeler.

Q. What does that cross mean-that runs through the accounts—that cross mark I see in several places 1-A. I think a mark made by Mr. Wheeler.

Q. General, you made out that account, didn't you (exbibiting]?—A. Mr. Hill made out that account.

Q. Well, that's an account against the United States for service by Mr. Hill in March, 1883, for the arrest of one Lafayette Hamilton. You recollect, General, that Mr. Wheeler recalled that account to make corrections, and charged twenty miles in there for J. H. Jacobs as a guard 1-A. He did make corrections on one of these accounts. I think he reduced the account, if I recollect right.

Q. Why was that raised to $20.60 from $2, which it was originally 1-A. I don't know.

Q. That's your handwriting ?-A. It is all in my hand writing with the exception of the change. I did not charge the amount. If I recollect right-in a memorandum we had of the earnings of Mr. Hill-I think $80 he had credit for in this case in the book as I entered it up, and he took exception to it and insisted his earnings in that case were over $100. If there is any change it was done without my knowledge or consent. I know I made up the earnings and gave Mr. Hill credit as fixed by Mr. Wheeler after he bad made the change, striking out-I don't remember the particulars about it or anything of the kind-know that was done.

Q. You know Mr. Wheeler didn't allow on that to exceed $2 and it was afterwards increased to $20. That was done without the knowledge and consent of Mr. Wheeler 1-A. I know in a memorandum I had it was something over $80, as I said,

and

Mr. WINSTON. It shows at the bottom.
A. Yes.
Mr. WINSTON. It appears bere in your figures $87.90 and subsequently increased.

Q. Now, General, there is the account for arresting Charles L. Cullins (1) in March, 1883. That account also made out by you l-A. No, sir; by Mr. Hill; made out at the same time the other was made out. Mr. Hill always made out the account where he made any account. I think he had a writ for both those parties, and he invariably made his own return,

Q. Do you swear positively, General, that the data on which you made out this account were furnished by Mr. Hill ?-Á. My recollection is that he made out the tab himself without my assistance at all, and that this is merely a copy of the original tab.

Q. Well, there is a charge in there for R. C. Johnson, guard, $20.60; do you know whether R. C. Johnson acted as guard 1-A. I don't know.

Q. Who told you that he did -A. I only know as the information was given there by the parties making up the retnrns.

Q. Now, Mr. Hill seems to have been accompanied on the trip by a man by the name of Clemmens-Cullins; Mr. Cullins wouldn't bave given that information. You would have gone to Mr. Hill -A. Yes, sir.

« AnteriorContinuar »