« ZurückWeiter »
rant after it has been signed by the Secretary ?-A. Not on that class of warrants, that I am aware of.
Q. The original of that is signed by the Secretary, is it not ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does not that purport to be a transcript ?-A. It is a duplicate, but the original signatures I do not understand are on this.
Q. Of course not; but they were on the original, and this purports to be a true copy of the original ?-A. So far as the amounts are concerned.
Q. Can you give us any cause why a warrant—not a book, but a warrant-should be scratched after having been signed by the Secretary A. No, I cannot.
Q. But I understood you to say before that you could.-A. Not after it was signed by the Secretary; but these warrants are not signed by the Secretary, and not even a duplicate of the Secretary's signature is annexed to these duplicates.
Q. When you brought that to us was it not intended to be shown as a copy of the original
?-A. So far as the appropriation is concerned. Q. So far as the amounts of the appropriation are concerned ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you can give us no reason why those amounts on the duplicate have been erased and apparently altered ?-A. Except through mistake, by putting down the wrong figure and erasing it to put down the right one. I often do that myself.
Q. In warrants I–A. No, I never had anything to do with warrants, but I often do it in writing. If I am writing a letter or anything of that kind, if I write down a word that I think I ought to change I make an erasure.
Q. We are talking now of the alteration of the Treasury books and Treasury warrants.-A. I should do it on the Treasury books; if I was copying a Treasury warrant I should do the same thing.
By Mr. DAWES: Q. Do you know as a fact that there ever has been a warrant in the Treasury Department altered after it has been signed by the Secretary! -A. I do not.
Q. Take the apparent erasure on this register of the warrant dated June 30, 1870; is there anything there to show that it was not to correct a mistake made by the penman when he copied it ?-A. I cannot see anything which does not show that fact.
Q. If the penman when he copied it found, after comparing his copy with the original, that he had made a mistake in a figure in that entry of $1,166.67, would not that fact necessitate also a change in the footing?-A. Certainly, it would.
Q. Is not the appearance of this book perfectly consistent with the idea that there was a clerical mistake made by the penman when he copied it 1-A. It is, in my opinion.
Q. Is there the slightest evidence in existence anywhere to your knowledge to the contrary -A. There is not.
By the CHAIRMAN : Q. Do you know anything about why it was made ?-A. I do not.
Q. You know nothing, of your own knowledge, why those erasures were made ?-A. I do not.
By Mr. DAWES: Q. You say that in your own experience in this department when yon make an entry you often find it necessary to change a word or figure; that where you have made a mistake and written a word you did not intend to write, or put down a figure you did not intend to put down, you erase and substitute the correct word or figure?-A. I do.
Q. And what is your habit when you ascertain that fact when you are making entries ?--A. To erase the figure or word that is wrong and put down the right one.
Q. Do you know of a single erasure or apparent alteration in any of the books of the Treasury Department that has arisen in any other manner than that?-A. I do not.
By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Do you know anything about any alterations or erasures on the books at all ?-A. I do not.
By Mr. DAWES: Q. Beyond your own experience, you mean l-A. Beyond my own experience.
JOHN W. GENTRY Sworn and examined.
By the CHAIRMAN: Question. Have you made a careful examination of certain ledgers of the Register and Secretary of the Treasury ?-Answer. I have.
Q. You selected one of the number that you have examined as an example of all that you examined !-A. I did of those mentioned in this statement.
Q. Is the statement before you the statement you wish now to offer as being a correct statement of the erasures and apparent alterations on the books you examined ?-A. It is. The CHAIRMAN. I propose to offer that statement.
By Mr. DAWES : Q. Is this a comparison with the same items in three sets of books? Where you found in one something which you call an erasure or apparent alteration, you took that same item and ran it through the other books ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this table contains all the erasures and apparent alterations that have come under your observation ?-A. In the books enumerated in that statement.
Q. Going through how many books?--A. The first, ledger No. 2, I compared with the Register's and Comptroller's. Those three ledgers were compared at the same time. Besides these ledgers (as instructed by the committee), I compared several of the others, only with a view of seeing whether this detailed statement of Secretary's ledger No. 2 would be a fair average of the number of erasures occurring in the other ledgers enumerated. I went far enough to believe that this would be about an average of what the other books contain.
The CHAIRMAN. The statement is offered in evidence.
STATEMENT OF ERASURES AND APPARENT ALTERATIONS.
Comparison of Public Debt sppropriation Ledger No. 2, from office of Seoretary of Treasury, with ledgers of Register and First Comptroller, containing same
appropriations, from July 1, 1863, to June 30, 1870.
$57, 945, 850 00
$679 50 14
639 05 14
7, 973 68 14
6, 952 60
31, 000 00
66, 825 00 Out
38, 616 15
5, 550 00
70, 000 00
1, 250, 000 00
10, 036 00
3, 364 77
169 79 66
19 38 66
66 51 66
20, 000 00
5, 818 90 66 Out
7 1863 Oct. 24
Scratched on warraant book.
8, 524 68 8556 68
134 74 203, 000 00
6, 750 00
53, 281 25
4, 875 00
2, 615 00
3, 915 01
12, 019 00
1, 122 00
78, 950 00
2, 100 00
144 24,771, 650 00
13, 000 00
30 1866 July 13
1865 Sept. 18