ber of these warrants for the year 1869 is 23, and for the year 1871, 34, the number for the year 1870 must approximate to these numbers.

You will please inform me why these warrants for 1870 were not furnished.

SIR: When I assumed charge of the appropriation warrants, about two years ago, the warrants for 1870, Nos. 921 to 947 inclusive, were missing; and diligent search on my part has failed to reveal their whereabouts. But copies and registers of them are on file and subject to your order.

Respectfully,

Mr. WILLIAM WOODVILLE.

M. C. HOOKER.

The above shows that all the original permanent and indefinite appropriation warrants for 1870 cannot be found.

LOAN DIVISION.

Eugene B. Daskam, Chief of the Division of Public Moneys in the Secretary's office, in answer to the question, how the accounts of that division are compared with those of the Loan Division, said (see testimony, p. 141):

In loan matters the Division of Loans has the original certificate of deposit, and we send the list there for check.

Q. How long after the transaction closes in your office is the warrant issued in the division of Mr. Power?-A. There is no regular time.

Q. As a matter of experience in loan matters, particularly?-A. I think they have been sometimes quite a long time, particularly during these heavy loan transactions; they could not get time up there to check them.

Q. What do you mean by "a long time"?-A. Perhaps a list has been up there a

month or six weeks.

Q. Ever longer than that?—A. I do not know but they may have been longer. Again, the same witness testified as to the course pursued with money deposited for a bond (see testimony, p. 143):

Q. What would you do with that?-A. At the end of the month, that, with lots of others, would be listed. It makes a list of several hundred, perhaps. We only cover in about once a month. At the end of the month we cover in from all the different offices. One list is prepared covering perhaps millions of dollars.

And again (see testimony, p. 144):

Q. Then, if the Loan Division issued a bond for $20,000 instead. of $10,000, and chose to check that $10,000 when it came back, that would be all in the Loan Division? A. Yes; we have no check on the Loan Division in such a transaction.

By reference to page 156 of the testimony it will be seen that Treasurer Gilfillan substantially agrees with Mr. Daskam. The Public Moneys Division sends a list to the Loan Division for check, but there is no regular or prescribed time for sending it, and sometimes it stays there a month or six weeks, and even longer, before being settled. A list is made, say at the end of each month, containing, it may, be, several hundred items, and then a covering-in warrant may be made for a million dollars or It is plain that the Public Moneys Division has no check on the Loan Division that would prevent a larger bond being issued where a smaller one had been ordered and paid for.

more.

The same witness (see testimony, p. 144) testified:

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you tell me whether or not all warrants for covering in on expending money originate in the Secretary's office?-A. All warrants of every kind and description, I think. All receipts are covered into the Treasury by warrant, and those warrants all come from the Secretary's office.

It thus appears that all warrants of every kind and description are issued from the Warrant Division of the Secretary's office. Money paid into the Treasury from all sources is covered in by a covering warrant; and all expenditures are made on warrants which are the authority for paying money from the Treasury. Both classes of warrants originate in the same office, and the questions involved in them are decided by the same officer. The committee think it would be better if the warrants for the covering of money into the Treasury were issued from an office different from that from which warrants for the expenditure of public money are issued.

ACCRUED AND UNCLAIMED INTEREST ON BONDS.

Treasurer Gilfillan (see testimony, p. 157) testified in regard to the accrued interest on bonds subscribed for:

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you give us the amounts of unclaimed interest up to 1860, and since 1860, in round numbers?-A. The amount of unclaimed interest on the books at this time, which accrued prior to 1860, is $2,407.45.

Q. How much since 1860?-A. Since 1860 it is $87,927.31.

Q. Is it your impression that it would improve the general system of accounts if that was returned, after standing a certain number of years, into the Treasury, as all other appropriations are?-A. Yes, sir; all other outstanding liabilities.

Q. How long do you think it should stand before being returned into the Treasury? -A. Other balances and checks outstanding are turned into outstanding liabilities every three years. I suppose that would be as good a limit as any.

Q. Then it would have to go through the accounting officers as any other outstanding liability that is returned to the Treasury?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. As it is now, the demand for it is made at your office, and it is at your discretion whether it is right or not to pay it?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you give us an estimate of the accrued interest on bonds for a given year?— I am not particular what year you take.-A. For the fiscal year 1879 the accrued interest deposited on account of 4 per cent. bonds was $1,720,677.21.

Q. How would that year average with the years since 1863?-A. That would depend on whether we were issuing a loan or not. If we were not issuing a loan there would be no deposits; if we were issuing a loan, there would be.

*

The Treasurer here says that the accrued interest on bonds sold in 1879 was $1,720,677.21. Large as this sum is there is no division or bureau in the Treasury Department from whose books a statement of the amount received between 1860 and 1878 could be furnished to the committee.

In regard to unclaimed interest the same officer testifies, (see testimony, pp. 156 and 157):

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Can you give us the amounts of unclaimed interest up to 1860, and since 1860, in round numbers?-A. The amount of unclaimed interest on the books at this time, which accrued prior to 1860, is $2,407.45.

Q. How much since 1860?-A. Since 1860 it is $87,927.31.

Q. Is it your impression that it would improve the general system of accounts if that was returned, after standing a certain number of years, into the Treasury, as all other appropriations are?-A. Yes, sir; all other outstanding liabilities.

Q. How long do you think it should stand before being returned into the Treasury?

-A. Other balances and checks outstanding are turned into outstanding liabilities every three years. I suppose that would be as good a limit as any.

Q. Then it would have to go through the accounting officers as any other outstanding liability that is returned to the Treasury?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. As it is now, the demand made for it is made at your office, and it is at your discretion whether it is right or not to pay it ?-A. Yes, sir.

Thus it appears that unclaimed interest which has been standing for years is now paid by the Treasurer when demanded, and it is sometimes very doubtful whether the true owner calls for it, and the wrong person may be paid. The committee approve of the Treasurer's suggestion that after a certain period such claims should be presented formally and go through the offices of an Auditor and Comptroller, and recommend that all unclaimed interest standing more than three years be covered into the Treasury.

Treasurer Gilfillan also testifies (see testimony, p. 157):

By the CHAIRMAN:

#

*

*

Q. What proportion of the bonds issued, on an average, passes through your office, and what proportion is ordered by the Secretary directly on the Loan Division?—A. Do you mean what proportion of the deposits are made here?

Q. I mean what proportions of the bonds issued, no matter upon what basis they are issued, are on deposits that pass through your office that you have the handling of?-A. I have the figures for the 4 per cent. loan since 1877 up to December 31, 1879. I can give you those.

Q. Answer in your own way.-A. The total deposits on account of principal of the 4 per cent. loan from 1877 to December 31, 1879, were $738,490,550. Of that amount there was deposited at the Washington office $108,146,117.76.

It will be seen that six-sevenths of the bonds issued go through the Secretary's office, and the Treasurer has no connection with them, and that only one-seventh is ordered by the Treasurer. The committee think the Secretary's office has too much to do with the issue of bonds, and the Treasurer's office too little. It would be far better if the Treasurer ordered the bonds and if they were delivered through the Treasurer, so that he could see if the proper amounts of money had been paid to the government for the bonds issued. The Treasurer thinks bonds ought not to be issued on the certificates to any one except the person who receives and accounts for the money.

SINKING FUND.

Mr. Treasurer Gilfillan testifies (see testimony, p. 159):

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. What is the difference between "special" and "sinking fund," as reported? In the report of 1870 there is a table of the Treasurer which speaks of "special" and "sinking fund." I want to know what the difference between these two funds is, if there is any?-A. The Treasury bought a great many more bonds than were required for the sinking fund, which were set apart and called, for distinction, "the special fund." The sinking fund is required by law, and the special fund was simply a regulation of the department.

Q. When you came to deduct from the public debt the canceled bonds, was any distinction made then, or was the whole ainount canceled and deducted in the same way?-A. They were all canceled and deducted in the same way.

In this connection is presented table No. 9 C, prepared by the committee (see testimony, p. 191):

No. 9-C.

[Prepared by the Senate Committee on Treasury Accounts.]

Treasurer's and Secretary's statements of purchases of bonds for sinking and special funds to June 30, 1870.

TREASURER.

FINANCE REPORT 1870, p. 193.-The Treasurer says: "There were held on the 30th June, 1870, by the Treasurer, as custodian of the special fund and the sinking fund, coupon and registered bonds purchased for those funds amounting to $123,429,100.

Treasurer's "statement of five-twenty bonds purchased for special and sinking funds from May 11, 1869, to July 1, 1870.'

(Finance Report 1870, p. 194.)

FINANCE REPORT 1870, p. xlv.-Note to detailed statement of the public debt. The Secretary says: "The bonds which have been purchased for the sinking and special funds, amounting to $121,429,100, were treated as outstanding on the first of July last (1870). Since that date, the act of July 14, 1870, directed their cancellation and destruction, and they have therefore been deducted from the amount outstanding in this statement.

Secretary's monthly debt statement, July 1, 1870. Bonds purchased by Treasury.

In Finance Report of 1870, page 196, the Treasurer gives on July 1, 1870, class of bonds bought, net cost in paper and gold, and says the principal was $123,429,100, yet when deducted from the principal of the public debt $117,740,000 only was deducted.

The Treasurer says there is no difference, except in name, between "sinking fund" and "special fund," and that in deducting these funds from the nominal aggregate of the public debt the two are treated in the same way; and on June 30, 1870, he had in his custody, purchased for sinking and special fund, bonds amounting to $123,429,100. He also gives the loans to which the bonds belong, and of what kind, whether coupon or registered. The Secretary, in the Finance Report of 1870, page 14, states that on July 1, 1870, there were to the credit of this fund $121,429,100, showing a difference of $2,000,000; that is to say, the Secretary reports $2,000,000 less than the Treasurer reports he has in his custody. The above statement further shows that when the amount of this fund is deducted from the nominal total of the public debt, the sum of $117,740,000 only is deducted, or in round numbers $6,000,000 less than the Treasurer reported, and $4,000,000 less than the Secretary reported as having been purchased and paid for.

COMPARISON OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES AND ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS.

In William Woodville's examination this appears (see testimony, pp. 178-179):

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Have you prepared certain statements for the committee?—A. Yes, sir; I have them here numbered.

The CHAIRMAN. These are certain statements prepared by the committee that we propose to offer in evidence. [To the witness:] Have you prepared these statements yourself? A. Yes, sir; they are a comparison between the figures as I found them. Q. Did you take all the figures there from official reports?-A. Yes, sir, with the exception of the Navy Department. I went to the Navy Department books and took certain amounts which are specified at the bottom in their ledger.

It will be seen by tables 7 C and 8 C (see testimony, pp. 188-190) that both as to the receipts and expenditures of the government between 1860 and 1870 there are many changes in figures in official Finance Reports to Congress. Some of the changes involve large amounts, and they are the result of the Secretary's new mode of statement by Receipts and Expenditures, which appeared in form for the first time in 1870; and the changes in the Register's table result from the letter of Novem ber 24, 1871, from the Secretary directing the Register to make the changes.

Among the tables verified by Mr. Woodville is the following (see testimony, p. 195):