EXHIBIT NO. 53. — Affidavit of Jacob Wheeler, late United States marshal for the southern district of Illinois, relative to the general management of the duties of the office during his incumbency.

Personally appeared before me, Joel W. Bowman, examiner, Department of Justice, JACOB WHEELER, who, upon being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:

I want to make this general statement in regard to the management of affairs in this district during my incumbency. I was entirely unfamiliar with the duties appertaining to the position when I was appointed marshal, and I endeavored, as near as possible, to discharge the duties of the office as well as I could. 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 which 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 the accounts against the United States as much as possible, for the larger the accounts were made the larger compensation they received. I have, however, always instructed all my deputies never to make any charge for constructive mileage, or for any service except where they actually performed the services charged for. 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. In examining my accounts I gave more attention to looking to see as to whether or not excessive mileage was charged, and that no duplicate charges were made.

JACOB WHEELER.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of June, 1884, at Springfield, Ill. JOEL W. BOWMAN, Examiner, Department of Justice.

I, James A. Winston, hereby certify that I was present when the foregoing statement was made by Jacob Wheeler, and that I saw him carefully read over the same and sign and swear to it this 10th day of June, A. D. 1884.

JAMES A. WINSTON.

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 25, 1884.

ROBERT M. DOUGLAS Ssworn and examined.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. State your age, residence, and occupation.-Answer. I am thirty-five years of age; I reside at Greensborough, N. C.; since the expiration of my commission as marshal I have been principally occupied in attempting to close up my official matters.

Q. How long have you been in the Government service?-A. I was in the service of the United States from, I think, March, 1869, until November of the same year, as assistant secretary to President Grant. About November, 1869, I was appointed private secretary to the President, and remained in that position until the 4th of March, 1873. I was appointed United States marshal under a commission dated April 19, 1873, and held it by successive appointments until the 27th day of February, 1883.

Q. You were marshal in North Carolina?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have addressed a letter to the chairman of this committee; please state whether the facts set forth therein are true, and such as you desire to have placed upon the record as your statement.-A. Yes,

sir. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that this statement is not so full as I might make it. It was written after the receipt of your dispatch, and with the view of appearing before your committee at some future time, perhaps during the next session of Congress, and answering any questions that the committee might desire to ask me, with the expectation that in that way a great deal would be brought out which, if put into my written statement, would perhaps make it longer than would be desirable.

Q. You have mentioned the fact that you filed in the Department of Justice, on the 14th or 15th of February last, your answers to the report of Mr. Forney, and to the report of Mr. Bowman and Mr. Weigand. State whether the papers now shown you are the papers so filed by you in the Department of Justice, and which you desire to have made a part of your statement here.-A. (Looking at the papers.) These are copies that were made for me by my former chief deputy from the letter-press copies of the originals.

Q. Then these are copies of the answers that you filed in the Department of Justice to the reports made by the examiners as the result of their investigation into the conduct of your office as marshal?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are the statements made in these two papers produced here by you correct?—A. The statements made in those two papers are correct and true, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Q. You were the marshal, and the figures herein contained were obtained from the books of your office?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. From the best attainable sources of information?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there any other statement that you desire to make?-A. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that in Mr. Forney's report he has made a great many disallowances which, as far as I can ascertain from the copies of the exhibits furnished me by the Department of Justice, are based on no proof whatsoever, except on the fact that the deputies in those cases had the same opportunities of committing frauds that were possessed by Deputies Haney and Kilpatrick, who were subsequently indicted. There are some matters concerning my treatment by the Treasury Department, such as the delay, which seems to me unreasonable, unjust, and oppressive, in the settlement of my accounts; but, as it would require a great deal of time to fully explain that, and as my statement would be based on a large number of official documents, I will not speak of it further at present.

Q. State whether your accounts are still unsettled at the Treasury Department.-A. Yes, sir; I have a great many unsettled accounts. I have stated that in my letter to you.

Q. You are still seeking a settlement?-A. Yes, sir; I am still seeking a settlement, and I hope to obtain one shortly, if I can rely upon the promises of the accounting officers.

WASHINGTON, June 25, 1884.

JOEL W. BOWMAN recalled and further examined.

By Mr. DOUGLAS: ̧

Question. Please state whether any frauds were discovered, or alleged to have been discovered, in the accounts of any other deputies, except Haney and Kilpatrick.-Answer. My recollection of that is that the only frauds discovered were in the accounts of Haney and Kilpatrick. I have an indistinct recollection of something in connection with your former chief deputy, Gretter, but just what that was I do not remember.

I think it was that he claimed not to have received his salary as clerk, while you claimed to have paid it. But I do not know that that could be regarded as a fraudulent charge. There was a difference of opinion between you; you claiming certain offsets, and he claiming that he had not received the money.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Gretter claimed that I was owing him, and on my books there appeared a balance in his favor; but he had failed to account for certain funds which I had placed in his hands for disbursement, for the payment of jurors, witnesses, and miscellaneous expenses, for which funds I was personally responsible to the Government. wrote to Mr. Gretter several times and asked him to come and close up this old matter and account for all the moneys which I had placed in his hands. He promised to do so, but postponed the settlement from time to time, until finally his sudden death ended the matter. A subsequent examination of the books disclosed beyond any doubt whatever that, taking into consideration the sums which he had retained, or failed to account for, he was in my debt. There is an allusion to Colonel Dick in the report of the examiners. I would like to add to what I have already said that Colonel Dick died of the illness from which he was suffering when the examiners were there. He has been dead now nearly a year.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Who was Colonel Dick ?—-A. He was a clerk in my office, and formerly my chief deputy. He was my wife's uncle.

Q. Was he related to Judge Dick ?-A. He was a brother of Judge Dick, the district judge. I told Mr. Bowman when he was in Greensborough investigating my office that Colonel Dick was threatened with paralysis, and that if there were any personal charges against him and he was to be called on for an explanation I feared that the excitement might injure his health, or perhaps endanger his life, and Dr. Hall gave a certificate to the same effect. Colonel Dick never recovered from the disease under which he was then suffering, and before his death he became perfectly helpless, a fact which would appear to justify the opinion which I expressed at that time, and to which the doctor certified. I have alluded to the opinion of the court in the Ebbs case, and also to a letter written by C. C. Lancaster, and if the committee desire it I will file the opinion in the Ebbs case, and also present the original of the Lancaster letter and permit it to be copied for your record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may present it, but we do not care to put it in our record.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have also a copy of the official correspondence in relation to the books and papers alluded to by Mr. Cameron, which I will hand to the committee for their information.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever withheld your books from inspection by the proper officers of the Government?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would like Mr. Bowman to answer that question. The WITNESS. Never to my knowledge. When I was in Greensbor ough Marshal Douglas gave me every facility for making the investigation thorough.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I further gave Mr. Bowman a letter addressed to all my deputies, requesting them to talk with him freely about their affairs, and I am not aware that I have in any way, at any time, hindered the investigation or attempted to conceal anything from the examiners.

The WITNESS. There is no imputation of that kind in our report.

On the contrary, we acknowledge that we were given every facility to make the investigation thorough.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I think that Mr. Weigand's testimony was exceedingly unjust; and, if he intended to say what his testimony apparently says, it was also utterly untrue. As Mr. Bowman knows, my terms of court ran from the spring to the fall, and vice versa. Court process would be issued to the marshal from the term of court that was held in April, returnable in October; that process would not be returned until October, and hence the marshal would have no knowledge of the service rendered by the deputy until the return of the process. But the regulations of the Department require the marshal to render his emolument returns within thirty days after the expiration of the half year, and the Department nearly always required me to render the returns before they would grant a requisition for any of my courts. Hence, in making up those returns in August or September, I knew of only a portion of the fees earned on the processes which were returnable at the October terms at Greensborough and Statesville, the November term at Asheville and the December term at Charlotte. I have always included in my emolument returns all fees of which I had any knowledge, or of which I could have any knowledge, from the records of my office at the time when the emolument returns were rendered.

I may add also that the office of marshal, while sometimes apparently affording a compensation of $6,000 a year, is not a lucrative office, because there are a great many expenses forced upon the marshal by virtue of his office for which the Government makes no allowance whatever; such, for instance, as the loss by exchange, trips that the marshal may be required to make to examine into the correctness of accounts, or into the condition of affairs in his district, the expense of frequently coming to Washington at the suggestion of the AttorneyGeneral, or to obtain either the allowance of his requisitions or the settlement of his accounts, the employment of attorneys to obtain the settlement of accounts, which, I regret to say, has been forced upon the marshal by the action of the accounting officers. All these expenses are to be deducted from the income of the office. I may add further, that frequently when the marshal fails to receive his maximum, he has still to pay all his expenses for clerk hire, stationery, &c., out of the gross fees. I am satisfied that I never made any deduction from the compensation of my clerks on account of any failure on my part to obtain proper compensation for myself.

The CHAIRMAN. From your experience in the office of United States marshal, what is your opinion as to the comparative merits of the fee system and the salary system of compensation?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have repeatedly urged upon the Attorney-General to recommend to Congress the payment of marshals by salaries, as my written reports will show. I think the marshal ought to be paid by salary. I think he should have no interest whatever in the compensation of his deputies, but should remain as a disinterested party between them and the Government. Furthermore, I think that all questions of fees should be ultimately decided by the Attorney-General. Formerly the Secretary of the Interior (who, before the creation of the Department of Justice, was the official superior of the marshals) had a right to review the decisions of the Comptroller in relation to their accounts. When the transfer was made to the Department of Justice, the Attor ney-General decided that, through some omission, the transfer did not convey to him the right formerly exercised by the Secretary of the Interior to decide upon appeal, and hence the decisions of the accounting

officers are without appeal, and in that way great hardships arise. the Attorney-General had the right to decide appeals in such cases, besides creating uniformity in the allowance of accounts, his opinions would be written out, and could be furnished to the marshals for their information and guidance; whereas the accounting officers frequently disallow an item as not being authorized by law, without giving the marshal any information as to how it contravenes the law.

I will further add that there are charges disallowanced in my accounts, which have remained under suspension for years, of a character that are habitually allowed and paid in the cases of other marshals. As I stated to the Attorney-General, there is but one law common to all marshals (except certain marshals on the Pacific coast and in some of the Territories, who are allowed double fees), and all that I ask now from the Department is that I shall be permitted to take the accounts of certain marshals which have been promptly settled, lay them down and have my accounts adjusted in accordance with the rules followed in the adjustment and settlement of those accounts. If I can be allowed to do that I shall be satisfied.

The following are the letters and papers identified to in the foregoing testimony of Mr. Douglas:

Mr. Douglas to Mr. Springer.

GREENSBOROUGH, N. C., June 23, 1884. SIR: I have just received your telegram of to-day, saying that the committee cannot hear me during this session. I exceedingly regret this condition of affairs, as I am unwilling that any reflections, however slight or indirect, upon my personal or official character should go unanswered.

I have always been able in the past, and am preferred now, to defend myself against all charges of any nature coming from any source whatever.

In 1875 an investigation of my official conduct as marshal, by the committee of which you are now chairman, resulted in my complete vindication.

Again in 1879, after an exhaustive investigation by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of all charges that had ever been preferred against me, I was unanimously confirmed. The charges preferred by Special Agent Lancaster, in 1880, were so successfully answered by me, that Mr. Lancaster himself, now a practicing attorney, has written to one of my deputies, M. E. Haynie, many of whose accounts he had himself suspended, offering to undertake the allowance of his accounts for a fee of 20 per

cent.

In spite of all opposition, personal as well as political, I held the office of marshal for nearly ten years, and ceased to be marshal only upon the expiration of my last commission. I then filed recommendations of the strongest character from prominent gentlemen of both political parties, and especially of the bench and bar. After the appointment of Mr. Keogh, I was distinctly informed by the President that his failure to reappoint me did not in any way arise from a dissatisfaction with my late admin. istration.

On the 6th day of last February I wrote to you inclosing a printed copy of the official correspondence in relation to the books and papers alluded to by Mr. Cameron, and suggesting that you should obtain my written auswer to Mr. Bowman's report, and examine it in connection with the report itself. I think that, in justice to me, the examiners should have presented my answers along with their reports, so that the questions at issue could have been fairly judged. As it is, their reports have gone to the world apparently unanswered. Under the impression that I could appear before your committee at any time, I have waited for all the examiners to testify, presuming that Mr. Forney would appear in explanation of his own report and conduct.

Under the circumstances, I earnestly request that you will cause this letter and my answers, the originals of which are on file in the Department of Justice, and copies herewith inclosed, to be printed with the testimony accompanying your report. I will then appear before your committee at any time, during this or the next session of Congress, that you may designate.

The testimony of Mr. Cameron is capable of misconstruction, and consequently does injustice to both Judge Dick and myself. I have a letter from Mr. Cameron dated November 28, 1882, in which he says, "I beg to express my appreciation of the manner in which you co-operated with Examiner Joel W. Bowman, of this Depart