« ZurückWeiter »
mittee 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.
By Mr. INGALLS: Q. Examine this copy, or alleged copy, of the warrant referred to in the sixth line on the third page, and inform the committee if there has not been an erasure in your copy.-A. Yes, sir; there is an erasure in
is a year.
Q. What does that indicate ?-A. Being a copy, I did not take as much pains as I otherwise would have done, except to be correct in the phraseology of the figures.
Q. What was the original entry you made in that line ?-A. I put the 69 of the year there. The original being longer than this, I wanted to crowd my letters in the space and get the sum total at the foot. The only scratch I made there I had the “ 69" underneath, but it would look better as it is now, and I scratched it out and put it there.
Q. Would it be just to say there that the new figures had apparently been substituted ?-A. This is not an original document.
Q. Just answer my question. Would it be just to make a marginal reference there saying that new figures had apparently been substituted ? -A. I think for a copy it would be very just, because I could make another copy. The signatures are merely signed. I can make another copy if there is any objection to this.
Q. I am not speaking about that. I want to call your attention to your marginal notes here. You say, " This amount scratched and new figures apparently substituted.” What reason have you for believing that new figures have been substituted ?-A. That is not an amount; it
Q. You are hypercritical. I am talking about the fact. There is an erasure in your own copy that you yourself made, and I ask you to say whether there were any new figures substituted in that place ?-A. No, sir; there were no new figures substituted.
Q. Do you not see, then, that there is just as much reason for supposing that these original erasures may have been of the same character as you made in this copy, and that there was no new substitution of figures?—A. I do not say that I suppose any new figures were substituted; but I say when you come to the figures being scratched, and the totals being scratched also, I merely say “ apparently."
Q. Why do you say that new figures apparently have been substituted ?-A. I do not say that new figures are apparently substituted.
Q. In your marginal notes, do you not use that language?-A. I use that language.
Q. Do you mean it ?-A. I do not mean it at all.
Q. What do you mean ?-A. I put those words down under instructions.
Q. Then you do not mean to say that there are new figures substi. tuted ?-A. I do not know whether they are new figures or not. I know there have been scratches.
Q. You do not wish to be understood, then, as saying what your marginal notes express ?-A. I do not mean to assert that there are new figures put down there. My own impression is that the figures have
been scratched and probably new figures have been put in there, but I I do not assert it.
Q. You say that these marginal notes were made bere by direction? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose direction ?-A. The Chairman's.
Q. What did he direct you to put in as marginal notes ?-A. Just to note whether and say whether there were app at alterations, as espressed there.
Q. Then he gave you the verbiage of your marginal annotations !-A. Yes, sir.
By Senator DAWES: Q: I hold in my hand table marked 13, that you have prepared for the committee. Will you hold it up to the light and tell me whether it does not appear that in the total $321,623,678.60 there has been an erasure and an apparent alteration ?-A. Yes, sir; there is.
Q. You can explain that, of course ?-A. Of course I can. count only ran to 1876, and I took the 1877 out so as to bring them to the same footing.
Q. Is there any evidence, that has come to your knowledge, why the men who made the entries in the several books of the Treasury Department, which you have noticed, if they were here, could not explain them in the same way !-A. Probably they could.
Q. You do not know of any reason why those erasures do not occur just like this of yours ?-A. I do not.
Q. The difference, $11,384,403.74, if you hold that table up to the light, shows an erasure in the same way, does it not?--A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was to make certain figures, which were originallyput there, more correct, was it not ?-A. No, sir; as I told you, this account ran to 1876, and I scratched 1877 off here (indicating), and altered the totals.
Q. You did that because the facts required you to do it ?-A. Yes, sir; the facts required me to do it.
Q. If you hold the paper up to the light it shows that there have been erasures and alterations in that report ?-A. That is another statement put on there—an afterthought.
Q. Holding table No. 8 up to the light you see that where the words “for the fiscal years 1860 to 1870, inclusive," appear, there has been an erasure and apparently some other word put over it!-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was to make a correction, was it not ?-A. To make a correction.
Q. To make it exactly what it should be?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask you the same question in reference to any erasure you have found in any of the books of the department, if the man who made that erasure were here, is there any evidence upon the books why he could not make the same explanation ?-A. Very likely he could.
Q. In your experience at this kind of work, is it not the constant fortune of a man to be obliged to change words and figures ?-A. Of course.
Q. So as to get upon the paper exactly what he intended at the beginning ?-A. Yes, sir; a man will sometimes read wrong what he is copying
Q. Mr. Gentry stated that he had followed out several of the items that have been put down in the table of erasures and apparent alterations, to the warrant which had either covered the item into the Treasury, or had authorized its payment out, and that in those cases which he had followed out, the warrant corresponded with the entry as it now exists, but that you had followed all the rest of them out. I ask you, therefore, the same question that I asked him. You have followed out all the other apparent erasures and alterations that you have tabulated, to the warrant itself ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. In any instance have you found any discrepancy between the war. rant and the figures as they now stand upon the Treasury books !-- A. Let me understand you. Do you ask if I found the scratches to run through?
Q. No. My question is whether the warrant as it now stands in words and figures and the Treasury book as it now stands in words and figures, agree; whether there is any discrepancy between them?-A. There is no discrepancy.
Q. The warrant covering in on the side of receipts and the warrant paying out on the side of expenditures correspond in words and figures with the words and figures as they now stand upon the books ?-A. They agree; but allow me to correct you. The covering-in warrants do not appear on this debt ledger that you have here. That contains the expenditures on account of public debt. The receipts which were corered into the Treasury under the covering-in warrant were entered on another ledger.
Q. But you also compared that?-A. I have compared them all.
Q. Does any one of your tables, except this one in respect to leelger No. 2, show whether any scratch or apparent alteration appears in more than one place; that is, in different books? This one, I understand, indicates wherever a scratch appears, whether the same scratch appears on the corresponding books - A. Mr. Gentry has put down there in ledger No. 2 what scratches there are, and I believe in the indefinite appropriation warrants in some cases they run through all the warrants.
Q. But how many have you indicated on your table which you have heretofore furnished ?-A. I did not furnish that table; Mr. Byrne furnished that table.
Q. The table which Mr. Byrne furnished you helped him make out, did you not ?-A. No, sir.
Q. The authenticity of that table, therefore, you do not know any. thing about from personal knowledge ?-A. I examined it.
Q. With him? Did you compare it with the books ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you are able to vouch for its accuracy. As to the table which Mr. Byrne prepared and which you compared with the books, have you compared the items in that table with the different sets of books in the departments and with the warrants ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does the table itself indicate whether the scratches found in one set of books are found in the other sets of books ?-A. No, sir; with a few exceptions.
Q. Nor do they show whether the same scratches are found in the warrants ?-A. No, sir. “November 1, 1866, warrant No. 7236,” scratched on Secretary and Register and not scratched on Comptroller, $22,986,917.
Q. That is the amount of the warrant?-A. Yes, sir. The other, "August 1,1865, No. 3629," scratched on Comptroller and not scratched on Secretary and Register.
Q. Are those as far as you examined, or are those all you found ?A. All I found.
Q. Then all you found that were scratchell on the different series of books are these two!--A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. INGALLS: Q. Please to examine the table designated as “ No. 3 C," on page 151 of the printed testimony, and state what it purports to be ?-A. “Statement taken from the Secretary's statements in finance reports and to the committee of the net ordinary and gross receipts and expenditures, and of the receipts and expenditures on account of the public debt of the United States, from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1879, inclusive."
Q. Is that a correct statement of the contents of that table ?--A. These are the figures as they appear.
Q. Answer the question. Is that a correct statement of the contents of that table ?-A. For those years; yes, sir.
Q. Will you examine the first item, and state in what year it purports to begin ?-A. It purports to begin, the table says, originally in 1789.
Q. Just answer my question; do not go to explaining. What is your first item on that table under that statement !-A. 1791 to 1832.
Q. Is that table correct ?-A. Correct, according to the Secretary's statements in the finance reports; yes, sir.
Q. I ask you if it is correct—if that is a statement from 1789 until 1879?--A. That I cannot answer; I have not examined the books. It is correct, according to the published statements of the Secretary.
Q. What was the amount of the debt from 1789 to 1791 ? You say in your statement that that table is an exhibit of the net ordinary and gross receipts and expenditures and receipts and expenditures on account of the public debt of the United States from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1879, inclusive, and your first period named under that statement is " from 1791 to 1832, inclusive" ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, state to the committee what the amount of ordinary and gross receipts and expenditures and receipts and expenditures on account of the public debt of the United States was from March 4, 1789, until 1791, and where it appears in that table. Does it appear in it ?A. No, sir; it does not appear. I added those figures up myself, and the total of all of them appears. I added that up myself from that table. The total agrees.
Q. I understand that the total agrees; but what I want you to state is whether or not, upon an inspection of the printed copy, the statement of what that table contains corresponds with the actual facts of its contents ?-A. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Senator.
Q. Certainly.-A. Do you mean to ask me if it appears divided into these different periods? Is that the meaning of your question ?
Q. I want to ask you whether that is a correct statement of the public debt ?-A. The total is correct.
Q. Is the table correct, in accordance with your statement in the caption that is printed ?-A. Well, it is a kind of analysis of that table.
Q. There is a discrepancy between your statement of what that table contains and what it actually does contain, is there not, or an apparent discrepancy ?-A. It is not a discrepancy; it is just taking the table and dividing it into certain periods.
Q. Where is the period beginning at 1789 ?-A. To 1832 ?
Q. Where in your table is the period beginning 1789, March 4 ?-A. In some of the tables they put 1789 and in others they do not.
Q. I am talking about your table !-A. That is intended to be from the beginning of the government; that is the earliest period.
Q. Is it from the beginning of the government ?-A. According to their statement; yes, sir?
Q. According to whose statement !-A. The Secretary's statement and the finance reports. ·
Q. Then I understand you to say the finance reports and the state. ments of the Secretary of the Treasury begin in 1791 !-A. No, sir. The first statement the Secretary made up was in the finance report of 1870 in which he commenced that way. I will show it to you. (Exhibiting finance report of 1871.] There it is.
Q. This table, "3 C,” is a compilation of your own, is it not?-A. It is a compilation, certainly. I made it up according to instructions.
Q. But this statement, as I understand you now, does not contain the receipt and expenditures on account of the public debt of the United States from March 4, 1789 ?—A. It is a copy from the Secretary's finance report exactly as it appears there.
Q. Is there anywhere in the accounts that you have examined or the statements that you have investigated a declaration that the debt has been stated from March 4, 1789, to June 30, 1879?-A. Yes, sir; I can show you in one of the finance reports [producing the finance report of 1876). On page 18 of this report those two amounts agree exactly with that. It is an analysis of that statement by certain periods. It is an analysis of that statement of $116,000,000 difference by certain periods. That was the object of it.
Q. But that does not, as I understand you, include a statement from the year 1789 to the year 1791 ?-A. That I cannot answer. I can tell you where I got that. To be sure, I did this: I took the liberty of taking that from the Register in the same finance report.
Q. Then you have changed the statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury, and have added at your own instance words taken from another source!-A. I have included more in that first date, but I have not altered the figures any.
Q. I am not asking you about the figures. You say that you took the liberty to interpolate something in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury taken from the report of the Register on the finances -A. I put it there from this statement of expenditures from March 4, 1789.” I remember now where I got it. They all run that way, from March 4, 1759.
By Mr. BECK: Q. Just see if the headings of the Finance Reports—take any one of them, 1877, 1871, 1870—are not in that way?-A. They all ran that way.
Q. They purport to begin with 1789 and actually begin with 1791 A. Yes, sir.
Q. You followed the same wording they had ?-A. Exactly. Here is the last one of this year, Secretary's report “from March 4, 1789.”
Q. And that, too, begins in 1791, just as yours did !-A. Just exactly the same.
By the CHAIRMAN: Q. This copy of the warrant, No. 919 of 1870, was intended to be a true copy of the original warrant 919, was it not?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as to the marginal notes. Are the figures which those notes are opposite scratched on the original and apparently altered, or not?A. They look to me as if they had been altered; the entire amount scratched in some of them. There is a 2 here which has certainly been a 1, and the totals are scratched all the way through.
Q. The amounts that those marginal notes are opposite to, when you compare them with the original, are scratched certainly and apparently altered ?-A. They look to me that way.
Q. You have put a cross opposite the amounts that were scratched and appeared to be altered, have you not ?-A. Yes, sir; that is merely to call attention to them.