The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, November 30, 1903, Page 2

TBE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, MONDAY. NOVEMBER 80, 1903. PERRY S. HEATH'S NAME IS GIDEN PROMINENCE IN THE BRISTOW REPORT; -+ 2 WASHINGTON, Nov. 29.—Fourth As- sistant Postmaster General Bristow report, giving in detail the results of the investigation of official corruption the Postoffice Department, with a iew of the evidence obtained against re each person accused, was made public’ to-day. The report is suceinct and to point and unsparing in the frank- ness of its revelations. It takes up in turn each bureau involved ia the al- jeged frauds and reveals just what the inspectors were able to uncover. The report follows: FRAUDS IN SUPPLY DIVISION COSTLY TO THE NATION | n April 1807, Michael W. Louis of C cicnati was appointed cashier in the sas M stoffice and was detailed to the epartment as Acting superintendent of the supply division. The Civil Service Commris- o except the position from the This the commission de- y following it did give a spe- allowing- Louis a rating of e acquired during the e ha in charge of the di- t of this rating Louis passed i was appointed k. ortly after f postoffice sup- c canceling ink was & Wiborg Company of Cln- per pound, 4 cents Much of the ink fur- tors was of inferior g returned to the sed or thrown During the fiscal year nceling ink were bought % Company, costing $14,- 87 52 ng the previous year but 20. 00 ed, at a cost of $4,302 iS68-99 no contract was a ink, and from Ma . & of the fiscal ye canceling ink from the at 30 cents per pound, mpetitive bid, 10 was paid before Louis be- and from 4 to 9 cents the fiscal year beginning false statements of Louis nking pads was awarded to « 15 cents each, in pereference 14-cer e fMered by Herman Baumgar- ten Long was not a manufacturer, so he bought an inferior pad from Baumgarten at cents cach. Long received a net ‘‘rake r $16 n the year's business For th al year 1800-1901, M. D. Helm | bad the contract for twine at §10 95 per hun ‘ nds; for the followini al year the dropped to %7 45. During the closir e year 1901 when the ori £ £10 95, and after the contract had ven for the succeeding year at $7 45, large quantities of the twine at was carrfed over Into the next ved October 21, 1908 OF MANIFOLD BOOKS. e L. Mo rep- proposition to made of a patented » registry system. W erintendent of the submitted this propo- were ordered, he son employment neral Manifold tion wes accepted by who considered it a great personal voigt's duty ality to pass upon the of the supplies furnished and the a ance, there- of this racter was con- improper, and his resignation and accepied. the department to pur- supplies from the Public the Pul Printer could buy sks. Morton succeeded hav- aw changed so as to authorize the nter- to buy ‘‘completed manifold er this the use > old Company was extended so ude all books used in the registry Kempner became - 1, 1902, Louls £ stry system, and un- of the original proposition was aining 500 receipts for eac s book, however, was ite stead a book con- receipts, which cost $1 10, Prior to Kempners appointment as super- endent of the registry system, manifold | Jks were not furnished to offices where less 300 pieces registered mall were ndled per apnum. Kempner disregarded sie and sent these expensive manifold books fourth class offfcs. The bool ? material requiring careful hand- they have been sent to hundreds of fices throughout the country that are kept in small country stores and farm houses where n a year. has been that the cost of manifold for the fiscal year 1902-3 was $54.- as against $41,499 24 for the fiscal year when su] jed by the Public Printer, an rease of $ 269 61 After the books were onoe adopted for general use the company ad- ced the prices: to illustrat n October 9, 1902, 25 books Were ordered for Atianta, Ga., at a cost of $33, while on the 15th of November, five weeks later, 25 books, exactly the same were ordered for Ogden, Utah, for which the company charged $57 & On October 13, 1902, 100 books were ordered for Boston, Mass., for which the com- yany charged $126 50, while in April, 1903, 100 the same books were ordered for the same for which $1€5 was charged Diring the investigation it was learned that Kempner had been receiving from Cuba m merous packages of clgars without paying du &% required by law. By an order of the Pre tdent dated ovember 10 1889, any one em- United States service hliCubfl Tas permitted to send gifts or souvenifs to S nbers of his family free of duty. Kemp- ner had parties in Cuba buy cigars for him and send th him by registered mail, marked gt reby evadirig the duty. feventy-sight nackages were received by Kemp- ver in this way, many of which he sold. He was removed October 25, 1903 STRANGE METHODS IN THE OFFICE OF TYNER AND BARRETT The administrative methods of Tyner and Barrett are ciearly illustrated in & number of cases which were passed upon by them. E. G. Lewis.—E. G. Lewis of St. Louis, Mo., was conducting what is known &s an ‘‘endless chain” scheme. Barrett ruled that his scheme Wwas & lottery, but no fraud order was issued, end as an acknowledgment of Barrett's Jenient treatment Lewls presented him with a gold watch. Samuel Harris.—Samuel Harris of New York published in the papers & picture of an eve, then the letters D and A, followed by the Jicture of a hoe. The advertisement &n- pounced thut §i00 reward would be given to sny one who would correctly answer the name of the State represented in the picture. When &n enswer was sent in the correspondent was edvised that under the ruies of the company it was mecessary before a cash prize could be given for him te purchase one package of the renowhed Curaline tablets, costing 50 cents. After buying the package the victim was ad- vised that 50 great a number bad answered correctly that it became mnecessary to divide the $100 prize among them equally. The amount due each would not exceed 2 or 3 cents. A fraud order was issued against Harris, but after Bacrett retired from office he be- came Farris' attorney, had the fraud order revoked. and Harris ran the same old business for months without interruption. of city Cassiue M. 1"pton.—Cassius M. Upton, pub- lisher of @& cheap iilustrated paper in Chi- cago, sought tv extend his circulation by the yuzzie rlan. In one of his schemes he sub- mitted the initials of nine leading railroads rupning out of Chicago, with the names of the roads spelled out, omitting a few of the lettcrs. He offered $300 reward for full correct an- swers to.the list. The condition was that in order 1o get a prize it would be necessary 1o senfl §2 for a year's subscription to Upton's Tllustrated Weekly, The puzzie was so simple that any one could answer it correctly. The result was that the $500 prize would have been aivided up until the winners would receive less than 5 cents each, and this Upton fatled to dis- wribute. He was arrested for using the mails to defraud. Assistant Attorney General Tyner rmnzd against the actior. of the Postoffice mepector causing the arrest. And upon Bar- ret’s urgent sppeal the Attorney General, over the protest of the District Attorney, di- rected that the case be dismissed. L. M. Cushman.—At the same time that Up- ton was operating in Chicago, L. M. Cushman, publisher ©f the Columbian of Boston, Mass., L e e e e el ] Pyrography Outfits and things to burn in wood and leather. We are agents for D e eriate T e oRIS. Beabon €1 3 Vail & Co., 741 Market street. e f books of the | have been used in a | more than twenty-five pieces of mail are | !Results of Months of Investigation Are Made Public and the Accumulated Evidence Against Each Accused Person Is Succinctly Reviewed. E2 was also operating schemes of exactly the same character, and on July 1, 1809, Barrett | declared his schemes fraudulent, stating that the cas ould be presented to the District Attorney with a view of his indictment. Yet & hort time before he had declared the prosecu- | tion of Upton for exactly the sdme offense ‘was unwarrante BOND-INVESTMENT SCHEMES. When the Louisiana Lottery Company wa broken up by the Federal Government a num ! of bond-investment schemes Eprang up over the country embracing lottery features in their methods of business. stant Attorney General Thomas declared, 09, that ‘These so-called bond-investment schemes are langerous to soclety than avowed lot- in Shortly after Tyner and Barrett were in- stalled in office eight of these bond-investment companies, against which fraud orders had been issued by Thomas, formed an organiza- tion and sent representatives to Washington for the purpose of having these fraud orders revoked. G, A. Villere of New Orleans, & representative of these companies, on June 24 wrote the secretary of his company as follows: ‘I have got the strongest assurance that the Government js our friend and will do all they can for us. Being sure of this 1 wanted to re- turn home, but Butterworth, Dudley and Tyner | himseif teil me that I must stay bere; that I will be needed.’ On June 28, four days later, he again wrote: “Had a long interview with the law clerk (very satisfactory). He is & nice feliow and a relative of Tyner's wife, His name is Barrett and he has charge of this matter of ours and is conducting the investigation. * ® * I ex- pect a suspension order by about Thursday.’ This letter was written on Monday, June 28. The fraud ordg was revoked on Wednesday the 30th, one day earlier than Villere expected. After the fraud orders against these institu- tions were revoked bond-investment schemes multiplied until there were several-hundred ih | the United States. Early in the year 1900, Barrett and J. Hen- ning Nelms, an agent for a bond-investment company into a law partoership Janua Iy after this agreement Barret he intended to render a decision as to ai investment _gchemes. This opinion was ren- dered on December 5, 1900, and it held all bond-investment concerns as fraudulent. But while declaring them “inimical to the postal laws,”” Barrett suggested that they be given an_opportunity— “To make such changes as will eliminate all objectionablé features before further action | 1= taken by this-department in the direction of 1,-1901. Short- made a verbal nxlz{eemenl to_enter | depriving them of the use of the mails.” And the same mail that carried the opinion with this suggestion to the bomd-inveStment concerng also carried the announcement that Barrett had resigned and formed & law part- nership with Nelms. The result was that many of the concerns immediately sought. his services. In a letter to the secretary of one of them, written ten days before he retired from office, Barrett said: “I believe we can eliminate all the objec- tionable features in the ciantracts and put them | in such form that they will meet with the ap- Our fee would be retainer and $100 a month for twelve | proval of the department. £1000 r of bond-investment cofpanies were hington during the holiday week of 1900, they could get no satisfaction out of . But on the 31st of December, after 4 o'clock in the afterncon, they met Barrett by | appointment and employed him as their attor- On the next day he presented the matter Tyner and had their certificates approved. Southern Mutual. Company—The Southern Mutual case, of Lexingion, Ky., probably more clearly illuétrates the scheme of Barrett, Tyner and Nelms than any other. Nelms was attorney for the company. A fraud order had been lssued against it by ABsistant At- i to | torney General Thomas on January 21, 1867, but afterward revoked by Barrett On the 2Ist of December, 1900, Nelms ee- cured the approval of Tyner of a plan which | enabled it to operate its business according to i the old plan, which Barrett in his opinion had | | jeclared fraudulent. And on January § follow- ing Nelms wrote Bowman, secretary of the company : “1 wish you would state to your board of directors just what I stated to you and. Mr. Bronston when you and he agreed to pay me $1000 fee to get General Tymer to €ay he would approve the contracts submitted to him." The issuing of this opinion of Barrett's caused a panic among bond-investment - con- cerns. K. G. Pulliam, of the American In- vestinent Company, had employed ex-Secretary | Carlisle as attorney to represent him in his | efforts to prevent the issue of a fraud order. Pulliam in_a statement says that Mr. Car- lisle_advised him: - “There are only two ways of accomplishing this: Figst, to take the matter into the Fed- eral courts at a likely expense of §$25,000; the second, to employ Messrs. Barrett & Nelms, a newly organized law firm, who stood close to the Tyner crowd, but if it was to be done this way he wou!d have nothing to do with it.” Pulliam, however, was not so sensitive. He employed Barrett & Nelms and contracted to pay them $1000 as a retainer, and further com- pepsation of $600 per annum in monthly in- staliments. B The books of Barrett & Nelms show that during the first fifty-five days of their part- nership they received $6800 from these bond- investment concerns. PHYSICIANS' INSTITUTE. The Physicians’ Institute of Chicago adver- tised a magnetic belt “free.”” To any one an- swering this advertisement a symptom bLlank was sent to be fllled out and returned. In every case this. concern..claimed that the symptom sheet showed such a complication of diseascs that the belt alone would render no service; and a package of special medicine was forwarded in connection with the belt, by_express, C. O. D., 85 60. ‘When an investigation was ordered the com- pany engaged the services of Barrett, and paid him a fee of $5000 to_represent them before Tyner. On November 13, 1901, Barrett pre- pared a letter and sent it to Tyner's home address, inclosing a note indicating the kind of & decision he would like. A few days after- ward the case was disposed of as suggested by Barrett in this note. TURF-INVESTMENT COMPANIES. E. J. Arnold & Co., of St. Louls, Mo., were conducting what is Known as a ‘“‘turf invest- ment”’ echeme. On November 25, 1602, the_in- spectors, having investigated the company, recommended that a fraud order be issued, against it. In the meantime the company. had employed Barrett as its attorney and paid him & fee of $5000. And instead of issuing a fraud order Tyner gave the company a letter of ‘commendation. Two days after Tyner wrote this letter Barrett received a check of $1000 as an additional fee. The company failed in February, 1903—assets, $75,000; liabilities, $3,120,776. J. J. Ryan & Co.—J. J. Ryan & Co. of St. Louls ‘was a kindred institution to Arnold & Co. In October, 1902, the in&pectors recom- mended a fraud order against this company. The. company was given a hearing by the As- sistant Attorney General's office and another investigation by the inspectors was requested. In the meantime J. M. Johns, an attorney of Rockville, Ind., made a proposition to Ryan that for ' fee of $5000 he could help him, through his friend D. V. Miller of the Assist- ant Attorney General's office. After some ne- gotiations it was agreed that $4500 would be paid to Johns by Ryan if he would give him a “clean Bill"” before the Postoffice Department. This Johns agreed to do, and Mlller secured a favorable ruling for Ryan & Co., which he sent 10 Johns. As a result of this'transaction Miller and Johns were indicted. RIfing of the Safe.—On April 21, 1908, while the investigation of the Assistant Attorney General's office was in_progress, Mrs. J. N. Tyner, in a clandestine manner, admitted Mrs.- Barreit and Mr. Hamner, a safe expert, into a. private room of the Assistant Attorney Gener- al's office, where he unlocked the safe and took out all of the contents, which Mrs. Tyner car- ried off. What was in the safe no one knows but the Tyners. Mrs. Tyner stated that she went to the office and secured the contents of the safe under the direction of her husband, which statement he confirmed. As a result of this episode Tyner was summarily removed from the office of Assistant Attorney General and Christiancy résigned. For six years under Tyner's administration certain favored frauds and lotteries were given free use of the mails. Barrett's scheme to re- <ign and practice béfore the office, and Tyner's part in that scheme, as set forth in_the body of this revort, was the climax of officlal per- fidy, more evil in its results and more demor- alizing to the public conscience that outright embezzlement or open theft. Tyner and Barrett were indicted on October 5 by the grand jury for the District of Colum- bia for conspiracy to defraud. METCALF LOSES HIS POSITION AND IS THEN INDICTED For supplying money order forms for four years from September 4, 1903, the bid of Paul Herman was $44,948 less than that of the Wynkoop-Hallenbeck-Crawford Company. James T.” Metcalf, superintendent of the money order system, asked Herman to withdraw his bid so that the Hallenbeck Company, where his son was employed, would get the contract. He as- sured that If he did #0 he would have him reinstated in the position he formerly held with that company. Metcalf knew that such withdrawal would cost the department about $45,000. For this action of Metcalf's the Post. master General summarily removed bi mast im from Mailing of Books.—In 1809, upon Metcalf's recommendation, the Wynkoop-Hallenbeck- Craw{ord. Company. was, given the contract to, ship the money order books to postmasters, for’ which it was to receive 315 cents per book. Afterward, upon Metealf's recommendation, the price was increased to 415 cents. It was further discovered by the investiga- tion that Metcalf’s son, who is employed by the company, was recelving 11-6 cents per book for all of the books shipped by the company under this arrangement. From December, 1869, to May, 1903, he was paid $9547 17 in addition to bis leeitimate salary. Inferior paper used—The investigation shows that inferior paper was being used in the printing of the forms and that Metcalf knew this fact, but made no effort to require the company to adhere to the apecifications in re- spect to paver. Metcalf made other unjustifiable and reckless changes in dealing with the Wynkoop-Hallen- beck-Crawford Company, which resulted in loss to the department of nearly $30,000. Combination of printers—It appears from the ccrrespondence between J. T. Metcalf and J. Horace McFarland, that Metcalf was a party to a combination of the four principal bidders for the purpose of raising the price of money order subplies at the last letting. When the bids were opened it was discovered that the prices of printing were advanced about 30 per cent. When knowledge of this combination was brougbt to the attention of the Postmas- ter General he refused to approve the awards, and ordered a new letting. The result was that the combination went to pieces, and the department saved $51.124 16 on the contract. On October 5, 1003, J. T. Metcalf, N. R. Metcalf and H. C. Hallenbeck were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury of the District of Columbia for conspiracy to defraud the Gov- ernment. ALLEGED STEALS IN THE DIVISION OF FREE DELIVERY August W. Machen entered the postal ser- vice as a clerk in the Toledo, Ohlo, postoffice and was appointed assistant postmaster in 1887 by Postmaster George E. Lorenz. On July 31, 1800, Lorenz retired from office. In 1893 Machen came to Washington in the hope of securing some kind of Federal position under President Cleveland's second adminis- tration. On. May 6, 1893, he was appointed assistant superintendent of free delivery, and on Sentember 16 following he was made su- perintendent. At that time he Was a bank- rupt financlally, with numerous judgments re- corded against him. When he left Toledo he berrowed sums of money from friends, promis ing to repay these loans out of the first salary that he recelved, which he failed to do. Vari- ous frandulent resresentations were made to secure loans, and upon ome occasion he even resorted to forgery. A simple statement of facts will give the clearest idea of Machen's methods. CARRIER'S STRAPS. On September 16, 1893, four days after Machen became superintendent of free delivery, he wrote the First Assistant Postmaster Gen- eral recommending that leather straps be sub- stituted for twine used by letter carriers in tying up their mail, stating that to equip the service would not cost more than $1750 a year. The recommendation was approved, and Ma- chen orderel several thousand straps from George D. Lamb of New Haven, Conn. Up to the time of Machen's removal over 1,000,000 straps bad been purchased, at a cost of $137,- 217 39, or over $14,000 a year. On_July 24, 1900, the postmaster at Worces- ter, Mass. Wrote the department asking per- mission to buy carriers’ straps from a local dealer, etating that he could buy them for about half the price the department was pay- ing. Machen refused this request, stating: “The straps for this year were purchased of Mr. George D, Lamb, in accordance with con- Tact with this office.’ This beld statement was made in the face of the fact that no contract ‘bad ever been made, Machen buying the straps from Lamb at a price fixed by a verbal agreement be- tween them. George D. Lamb is now dead and the busi- ness is conducted by George B. B. Lamb, his son, who advised the inspectorsthat he knew nothing of the details of his father's arrange- ment with Machen, but that a man named W. C. Long appeared at his father's office at reg- ular intervals and collected 233 cents for evel strap furnished. During the nine years that these etraps were used Lamb paid Long con- tributions aggregating about $80,000, a part of which has been traced into Machen's hands. Longz, Machen and Stern have been indicted by the Federal Grand Jury in the District of Columbla for conspiracy to defraud in con- nection with these transactions. CARRIERS’ SATCHELS. Carriers' satchels are purchased under four- year contracts. Beyle Contract—On June 25, 1504, & contract was executed with John Boyle & Co, of New York for furnishing these satchels_ beginning July 1, 1894. The shoulder strap a part of the satchel to be furnished by the con- tractor. On Avgust 18, 1§94, Machen wrote the company that straps would be furnished them by George D. Lamb. During the life of the contract 20,754 shoulder straps were fur- nished Boyle & Co. upon which Long and Machen_receive 2% cents each. The Boyle contract expired June 30, 189§, and that vear Machen awarded the contract to Leopold J. Stern of Baltimore, a dealer in plumbers’ supplies. The specifications called foh a satchel with leather strap minutely de- scribed, the same as the contract with. Boyle & Co. Yet Stern was supplled with 55,700 houlder straps. Lamb continued to pay Long a bunus on the straps, and Stern paid for be- ing relieved from furnishipg them. Machen, Stern and Long were indicted on July 31, 1903, by the Federal Grand Jury in the Disirict of Columbia for conspiracy to de- trand, - - Crawford Contract—On June 30, 1902, the contract with Stern expired, and a new con- tract wae entered into for,a period of four Years from that dfte with the Postal Device and Lock Company of, New York, represented by William G Crawford of Washington. D. C. Crawiora was the Deputy Auditor for the Post- office Department under the last Cleveland ad- ministration. Befgre the bids were opened Crawford en: Ifsted the services of Georgé B. Lorenz of Toledo, Ohio, to ald him In securing the con- truct, ~An sgreement was entered into between Torenz and Crawford whereby Lorenz was to Tecelve @ specific amount on each:satchel as Tis share of the profits. and he was to fur- nish the straps. An analysis of the accounts thows that the money which was paid to Lo- tens by Crawford was subdivided between Lo- tenz, Machen and Crawford. Machep and Torens each received 87% per cent and Craw- Tord 25 per cent. The straps which Lerenz agreed to yrovide were mnever shed by him. but by Machen, and paid for by the de- ment. Derent as probably the most skillful and complex scheme invented by any of ‘the.''pos- tal grafters.”” It consisted of & double con- epiraey: First, Lorenz and Machen conspired With Crawford to defraud the Government out of the price of the straps; then Crawford con- pired with Machen and Lorenz to defrand his own company out of the profits on the manu- facture of the satchels, while on the side was Long and“Machen recelving ® on straps_from Lamb. "On July 31, 1908, Machen, Crawford, George B. Lorenz and Martha J. Lorens were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury in the District of Columbla for conspiracy to defraud. ? GROFF FASTENERS. - The Groff fastener is a patented device for attaching street letter boxes to posts. No con- tract was ever executed for these fasteners. They were bought by Machen direct. This method of attaching letter “boxes was not a necessity, and in many places postmasters did Dot consider it satistactory. The cost of the manufacture of the patent fastener was 25 conts each. For many years the department w:llw.bu’}mnfluw afterward re- duced to $1 25. Of the $128,651 25 that during eight years has been paid the Groffs by the department, Machen and Lorenz have received about $51,- were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury in the District of Columbia on June 5, 8 and 22, 1803, for consoiracy to defraud and the offer- ing anad receiving of bribes. PAINTING OF STREET LETTER BOXES. In 1897 Machen made a verbal arrangement with John T. Cupper of Lockhaven, Pa.. nt ‘all_of the letter boxes in the United tates, allowing him 25 cents each on the posts, 50 cents each for the lotter boxes and $1 for the package boxes; if the work by a local painter Cupper was material and recetve 38 cents for box and 75 cents for each package On July 24, 1900, the postmaster at fleld, Mase., submitted a proposal from a local painter to furnish the material Dboxes in that city for 15 & £ g - g £ i had was directed to three times as much painter. . In May, 1902, the postmaster at San cisco, Cal., asked permission to expend ! for material to paint letter boxes. In answer to this request he was advised that John T. Cupper of Lockhaven, Pa., had been instructe to send him sufficient material. for painting the boxes, and on September 10 he was direct- i ed to pay Cupper $811 48 for material which he had ninety days previously motified the de- partment he could secure for $180. The manufacturers of letter boxes by the terms of the contract were required to paint the boxes at the factory, but, regardless of this provision, Cupper was ordered in July, 1900, to paint all the letter boxes at the f{ac- tory. where they were made, and he was paid $16,227 50 for this work. Inquiry from about 500 fsee-delivery offices shows that the expense of painting letter boxes for the six years prior to Machen's agreement with Cupper was 291 cents each. Since Machen’s removal the boxes have been painted in thirty-elght cities,” the average cOSt per letter box being 28.7 cents, package boxes bl cents and posts 9 cents each. Cupper, When first interrogated, denied that he had ever paid anyore a part of the money he received for painting letter boxes. Later, When he was confronted with drafts which he had paid to W. C. Long, he admitted that he had paid him’ 10 cents per box on every box painted, or about $20,000 during the last five years. 'Part of this money has been traced to Machen, Machen, Cupper and Long were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury on July 31, 1903, for conspiracy to, defraud. CARRIERS' LEATHER CASES. When the eystem of carrier registration was adopted, Machen conceived the idea that the carriers needed a small case in which to carry the registration book. He bought these cases from Maurice Runkle of New York and Charles E. Smith of Baltimore, Md., without competitive bids. Those purchased from Iun- kle were safd to be for the rural delivery ser- vice. On October 80, 1902, 21,000 had been ordered, though at that time there were but 11,000 rural carriers in the service. Runkle was not a leather manufacturer, but @ dealer in clothing. He received from the department 90 cents each for the cases and had them made by leather manufacturers, paying from 25 to 28 cents each, The 21,000 cases cost Runkle $5,831 96, while the Government paid him $18,006 30, making him a_profit of $13, 074 34. 'Runkle paid Machen $2450 for worth- less mining stock and also gave McGregor, a clerk in Machen's office, certain sums of money, Machen, Runkle and McGregor were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury in the District of Columbia on July 81, 1903, for conspiring to defraud, Charles E. Smith Caces—The cases alleged k? be for city delivery were bought of Charles E. Smith of Baltimore, Md. They were ex- actly the same as the Runkle cases in con- struction. C. Bllsworth Upton, an employe under McGregor in the free delivery division, took up with Smith the matter of supplying these cases. Upton submitted to him a sample case and Smith told him he could furnish them for 50 or €0 cents each. Upton told him to make a proposal to Machen at 90 cents, which he did; and 20,000 cases were bought from him at that price. Smith states that the profits cn all the cases he furnished was $11,450, and that lr#:“un‘o;xo%wu divided as follows: Machen, ; McGregor, §2000; Upto $2000; Smith, $3450. 5 £ i Upton and’ McGregor were indicted in Balti- more on June 25, 1903, for conspiracy to de- fraud. STREBET LETTER BOXES. One of the most important contracts for free delivery supplies is that for street letter boxes. These contracts are let periodically, every four years. In February, 1893, the contract was awarded to Maybury & Ellis of Detroit, Mich. Machen became superintendent of free delivery In the following September, six months after the contract had been executed. Maybury states that not many months after Machen’sappointment Eugene D. Scheble, a dentist of Toledo, Ohio, called on him and In- terested him in a patent he had acquired for a new letter box. Maybury agreed to give Scheble a 25 per cent interest in the contract Which he then held. Maybury, when asked why he gave Scheble an inierest in this contract, stated that he thought there was merit in Scheble’s box. and that it might in the future bécome a troublesome competitor. It {s not reasonable to suppose that a man of affairs like Maybury, who had at that time served two terms in Congress and is at present Mayor of the city of Detroit, should volun- tarily deliver to a stranger from Toledo, Ohio, one-fourth of his profits in so valuable a con- tract because he feared that two or three hence that man might become a dangerous competitor for another contract. During the first year—that is, before Scheble had interested himself in the 'contract—thers were 2740 boxem ardered, for whieh the depart- ment paid $8189 40. Maybury’'s profits, as near as can be estimated, amounted “to $3425 on that year's business. ' During the.second year, after Scheble became ‘Interested, 16,400 boxes were ordered, at a cost of $52,526 25." The total profits of the second year's business was $20,- 500, of which Maybury received three-fourths, or $15,375, and Scheble one-fourth, or $5215. In 1807, when a new cogtract was to be made, the box which Mnyl&ry bhad acquired from Scheble, known as the Scheble box, was the one selected, and, as a result, Maybury & Ellis were required to give him a 50 per cent interest in @he new contract. The evidence shows that Scheble remitted onme-half of his profits in this contract to Machen, One Solomon C. Wynn submitted a proposal to furnish the varfous sized boxes at $1 75, 2 25 and $2 75, as against the Scheble box at 2 60, $3 25 and $5 25 each. Wynn, therefore, -became an embarrassing competitor. But Machen was equal to the occasion. He stated to Posymaster General Wilson that he had a cousin, “Arnold J. J. Machen, of Toledo, Ohio, who wWas interested with Wynn in this box, and that he did not think it proper for the contract to be awarded to a firm in which a relative of the superintendent of free dellvery was financlally interested. The Postmaster General evidently was impressed by the unself- ish devotion of Machen to the public inter- ests, for Wynn's bid was discarded, though in 50 doing the cost of letter boxes during the contract period was increased $51,553 80. The profits on this contract to Maybury & Ellis aggregated something over $53,000, half of which was given to Scheble, which the evidence indicates was divided equally with Machen. During the past four years 27,000 letter hoxes have been distributed on rural routes. They are unnecessary, since every farmer's letter box serves the purpose of both a deposit and a col- lection box. Postmasters wrote frequently stating that the boxes were of no use, that in many of them there was not a letter deposited once a month. Nevertheless. Machen continued to have them erected, and during the last four years over $70,000 has been paid for letter boxes on rural routes. Machen and Scheble were indicted by the Federal Grand Jury in the District of Colum- bia, September 8, 1003, for confpiracy and fraud. PACKAGE BOXES. The large boxes fastened to the letter box posts or other supports are styled package baxes. They were first contracted for in 1893. Isaac McGiehan was the real contractor at that time and has been since. In 1897 Solomon C. Wynn, whose bid for let- ter boxes was thrown out upon the fiction that Machen had a cousin Interested with him, was also a bidder on package boxes, and offered to supply them for $3 50 each. But the bid was set aside with five others, ranging in price from $4 to $8 per box, and the contract given to McGiehan at $10 80. The evidence shows that McGiehan paid Machen a “‘royalty’ of 50 cents & box. McGiehan and Machen have both been fndicted. Pl SUMS UP SCANDAL INVOLVING THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE The Montague indicator is a dewjoe at- tached to street letter boxes showing the hours of collection. It was promoted by W. W. Montague, postmaster at San Francisco, Oal, and D. S. Richardson, a cashier in tHat office. A company was organized in 1899 with a capital stook of $100,000, consisting of 20,000 shares, par value $5. Immediately after the company was organized Rich- ardson and James W. Erwin, at that time a postofice inspector, visited Washing- ton for the purpose of securing the adop- tion of the device by the Postoffice De- ent. Richardson consulted George ‘W. Beavers, who told.him that to insure success he ought to distribute among the officials the matter. ] g i afsts i i ; i 3 i i’ | § : i i & B 88 ¥ ? il ; : i locate just now, being busy om natiomal committee matters. Give my regards to all inquiring friends, and believe me, very truly yours, “G. W. BEAVERS, “Superintendent. Building, San Fran- This was in February, 1901, and the stock was still in Richardson’s name and “Mr. D. S. August, 1 B te: 4 s)oa, eavers again wrof “WASHINGTON, August 21, 1903. “Dear Richardson: Our friend in Salt the name of Edwin B. Bacon. Kindly is- sue new certificates and have these de- stroyed. Forward same to me by regis- tered mail. Yours very_truly. . “G. W. BEAVERS. “Mr. D. S. Richardson, ‘MOI.L" Postmaster, San Francisco, These letters were secured from Rich- ardson by the ini stors. On the face of the last la%do!lfll in lead vencil, in the hand of R. H. E. Espey, secretary of the company: “Editor Salt Lake Tribune,” and on the back, “133 S. ‘West Temple” and ‘‘9th E. and Brigham,” the first being Perry 8. Heath’'s office ad- dress and the second his home at that time. The ‘“inclosed stock” referred to in the last letter consisted of 1000 of the shares given to Beavers on December 27, 1899, flt{"n B. Bacon is a citizen of Louis- ville, Xy., Heath’s uncle by marriage, and said to be one of his most intimat: friends. This 1000 shares issued to Ed- Win B. Bacon was returned to the co: pany anonymously in a blank envelope after this investigation began. Bacon states that he never saw the stock and did not know that it was in existence. Heath refused to make a written state- ment, but stated verbally to Inspector Simmons that he never heard of the stock and had no interest in the com- pany directly or indirectly. Machen alleges that what he did for this company was at the earmest solici- tation of ex-Congressman Loud. Rich- ardson states that Mr. Loud had no pe- cuniary interest in the company; that he never offered Loud any stock, because he thought such offer would be resented. but that he did give 150 shares to H. F. Dodge, clerk to the House Committee on the Postoffice and Post Roads, but that goud had no knowledge of such dona- on. The evidence in this case was submit- ted to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and XNeavers, Machen and Erwin were indicted on Sep- |.tember 8, 1903. for consp: to defrand the Government. The ct Attorney decided that the evidence against Heath mt‘not suficient to justify his indict- men MACHEN’S RAKE-OFF ON CONTRACT FOR CARRIERS’ BADGES Charles J. Heller of Philadelphia, who fur- nishes badges for rural carriers, recelving 50 cents each, was required to give Machen 10 per cent on the gross sales, amounting to $767 §5 in three vears, The *‘Heller case”” completes the record for the free-deilvery division wherein the inves- tigation has resulted in criminal proceedings. Many of the frauds that ylelded Machen the largest returns, viz., those relating to pack- age boxes, Groff fasteners, letter boxes, and straps, began during the administration of Hon. Wilson S. Bissell as Postmaster General and Frank H. Jones as First Assistant. A change in the politics of the natlopal admin- istration did not retard the progress of his corrups operations. Machen does not seem to have considered a day of reckoning as possible. Over nine years of continued prosperity had given him confl- dence. He had passed safely through two Congressional investigations, one in 1896, by the Committee on the FPostgffice and Post Roads of the House, and one in_1897, by the Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment of the Senate. He had deceived his superior officers ghrough the administration of four Postmasters General and a like number of first assistants. But his schemes finally grew to be so elaborate and their ramifications so extensive that the atmosphere became charged with suspicion. Damaging storfes affecting his integrity reached the ears of his superiors, and this Investigation was ordered. CHARLES HEDGES. Charles Hedges was appointed an assistant superintendent of free delivery on July 1, 1898, He was made superintendent of city delivery on July 1, 1901, and was removed by _order of the Postmaster General, July 22, 1903, for loaning his traveling commission and making false statements in his diary for the purpose of collecting per diem to which he was not entitled. C. T. McCo; assistant super- intendent of ry, who also falsifie his diary, was permitted to resign, H. H. RAND. ! H. H. Rand was appointed assistant super- intendent of the salary and allowance division in April, 1002. It was charged that Rand was interestéd in the promotion of numerous spec- ulative enterprises, mostly mining companies, and that he used his official position to in- duce department employes to invest in his schemes. A thorough investigation failed to sustain the charge that Rand had ever solic- ited departmental employes to buy stock in any of his companies. 2 JOHN M. MASTEN. Anonymous charges weré made against John M. Masten, formerly chiet clerk to the First Assistant Postmaster General. It was alleged that while he was chief clerk he had solicited bribes from clerks for promotions. An investi- gation showed that the charges were not true, and that C. B. Terry, a clerk in the supply division, ‘who had preferred the charges, had submitted false af! vits; that Terry him- self had endeavored to induce clerks to him money under the pretense that he could wid them in securing promotions. Terry has been removed by the Postmaster General. RECKLESS METHODS OF BEAVERS IN THE SALARIES DIVISION In August 1897, George W. Beavers was Pointed chief of ihe galary and allowance - ardless of the motions were lf‘reqm“::. of dthe service, uently made without considerati merits of the clerk promoted. !on[il‘?-ilol‘-'lllm for postoffice premises were canceled and the rent increased upon the recommendation of prominent political leaders, sometimes without rd to the rental valus of the premises. le of Promotions.—Otto F. Weis, a clerk in the New York postoffice and an intimate friend of Beavers, an officer of the Postoffice Clerks' Assoclation, according to his own story collected from $8000 to $10,000 from the clerks upon the pretense that it was to be used in securing favorable legisiation. Many of the clerks in the New York and Jersey City postoffices stated under oath that they had contributed to Weis' legislative fund under the promise of The appropriations for clerk hire are made | Money, it has been used for the benefit under two heads: “For compensation of clerks in first and second class postoffices” and “‘for | FEYERUes. eeparating mails at third and fourth ) e 3 class The l:mmnt allowed to third and fourth class s clerk hire allowed a postmaster, Beavers comply, regardless of the merits Lake wants the inclosed stock drawm in | an increase in the allowance for clerk hire at Prestonsburg, Ky., the postmaster being his sister. A count was ordered and the report showed the office entitled to $250 per annum, but an allowance of $500 was made, Which afterward, at Langley's ‘Tequest, was In- creased to $700. In May, 1900, the member of Congrees recom- mended an increase in the allowance at Con- yers, Ga. which was then $40 a year. A courit was ordered and the report showed the office entitled to §160 per annum; only $100, apparently in Beavers’' possession. In |however, was allowed. Afterwards, the Con- gressman called on Beavers personally and the allowance was increased to $820. This in- crease of §720 was paid to & clerk recom- mended by the Congressman. On July 1, 1902, this clerk was transferred to another office and the allowance was then reduced to $100 per rnum, plainly indicating that the $720 in- crease in the allowance was made to mive a clerk employment and not because of the needs of the office. At Port Deposit, Md., the postmaster was receiving an allowance of $60 per annum for scparating purposes. On February 13, 1903, the member of Congress asked that on account of increased business the allowance be made $500, and that Ethel W. Colvin be designated as the clerk at that salary. On February 17 he was advised that the increase had been authorized. On February 27, the postmaster having refused to appoint Miss Colvin, the Congressman wrote, stating that fact and sus- gesting that the allowance be reduced to $60, which was immediately done. The foregoing cases refer to clerk hire in third and fourth class offices. A hundred other similar cases could be cited. Offices of First and Second Classes—It was, however, in offices of the first and second classes that Beavers reached his climax of reckless and criminal waste in the matter of clerk hire. Clerks were appointed in post- offices when they were not needed. Promo- tions were made without consulting the post- masters. Clerks were placed upon the rosters of posteffices and pald when no service was rendered. Changes were made in the titles of clerks or emvloyes in offices in order to in- crease their salary, while the duties performed would remain the same. In five first-class offices assistant postmasters have been desiznated as cashiers for the sole purpose of giving them larger salaries than they were entitled to under the law. Forty- cight clerks at first-class postoffices have been recefving ries of from $100 to $400 per annum in excess of what they were entitled to. Maurice Hooker was appointed a laborer in the postoffice at Fredonia, N. Y.. at $400 per annum on January 1, 1902, and though he did no work In the office he drew pay until June 30, 1908, amounting to $600. He employed a substitufe for & part of the time at an ex- nse ot $150. PRt Fredonla, N. Y., on October 11, 1808, the postmaster was directed to appoint Frank P. Ball as laborer, at a salary of $600 per annum, which he did; and Ball was carried on the rolls at that rate from October 12, 1898, to De- cember 31, 1902, and paid §2532 07, for which he rendered no service whatever, being en- gaged most of the time in the ticket brokerage business at Dunkirk, N, Y. This period covers a part of the terms of two postmasters: both ot them, bowever, certified Ball as regularly employed. At Dunkirk, N. Y., John A. Link was ap- pointed a laborer in the postoffice on May 1. 1898, at $600 per annum, and drew pay until June 30, 1903, covering a period of more than five years. He was a barber and continued to work at his trade during all that time. received in all $3100 55, less $171 pald for a substitute, for which he rendered no service. ‘At_Baltimore, Md., on Jauuary 1, 1808, John W. Pettit was appointed an auxillary clerk at $200 per annum. He neither performed duty nor drew pay until July 21, 1808, when his sal- ary was increased to $600 per annum; and from that date he drew pay regularly, but per- formed no ‘Service whatever. On September 30, 1899, his roster title was changed to ““book: keeper’” and his salary increased to $1500. This salary was paid him by the postmaster until September 9, 1002, although he performed no services. The postmaster says he protested to Beavers against the appointment of Pettit, stating that he was personally distasteful to him and that he would not allow him in the office. But at the same time he certified his name to the Auditor every quarter during the entiré pe- Tiod as a clerk rendering service. Pettit was pald $5130 96, for which he performed no ser- vice whatever. In these and all similar cases known the amounts pald have been charged against the postmasters who made such certifi- cation. LEASES. The leasing of premises and furnishing of light and fuel for first, second and third class postoffices are under the supervision of the sal- ary and allowance division. Formerly leases were made usually for a period of five years, with a proviso that the Government might at any time cancel the lease, if the interests of the postal service re- quired it, by giving three months’ notice. Sometimes it was found necessary to omit the “‘three-months’ clause’’ In order to secure the most desirable location, but these instances were rare. In 1598 a law was enacted authorizing the department to make leases for a period not exceeding ten years. On November 2 following the enactment of this law the First Assistant Postmaster General, in a letter intended as a gulde to inspectors when investigating lease ated : ““While the department has authority to ex- ecute a lease for a period of ten years, it is not deemed advisable to do So uniess it can be demonstrated that a positive -dv-nngn to the service will be secured thereby.’ This policy, however, was not consistently carried out. Canceling leases.—At Weehawken, N. J., on July 1, 1900, a lease was executed for ten years, at $600 per annum, Including all equip- ment, heat, light, etc. On July 1, 1902, elght years before the lease expired, it was canceled and a new lease entered into for the same premises and the same equipment at an annual rental of $800. At Hastings/ Nebr., on May 1, 1897, a lease was made for postoffice premi for a period of five years, including light, heat, vault and equipment, at an annual rental of $700 per an- num. In March the lessor was notified that the lease would be canceled on June 30, almost | and_numerous Would | upon the recommendat Of the case. | gress. A list of over a year before its expiration. Shortly after this a proposal was accepted for anéther bullding no more desirable, at a rental of $1800 per an- num. A most vigorous protest was flled against this action of the department by thoss interested in the canceled lease, and the mat- ter was referred to an inspector for investiga- tion, who, on April 17, 1901, reported as fol- lows: “‘Viewed from the standpoint usually as- sumed by the Postoffice Department in treatment of lease cases, and eliminating all questions of personal interest, 1 am unable to conceive what possible representations could have been made to the department in this case to result in the entertainment and acceptance of the proposition of Mr. Dietrich at the price named ($1800 peér annum). The proposition is exorbitant, and the location one that If in com- petitin with other propositions oftering central locations at two-thirds the price asked could not conscientlously be considered.” As & result of this report the price for the pay for moving and Installing the equipment and provide heat and light. The office was moved* an gxpense to the department of Y.. a five-year lease was ex- ecuted March 1, 1808, at annum, in- cluding fixtures, with an additional allowance gt $US for light and fuel, making 3565 in ail. On October 15, 1901, a lease was executed for a room fully equi and furnished with light and heat for $1 per annum for ten years, the _‘‘three-months’ clause’” being eliminated. On January 27, 1902, about thrée months from the date of execution of this lease, it was can- celed and another executed at a rental of §1500, And on May 14, four months afterward, this $1500 lease was canceled and another exscuted for ten years at $2000 per annum, with the ‘‘three-months’ clause” eliminated. No addl- Vibseatient leases that was nor Ineladc o tne ‘Was not inclu i I chenives the s t o t instead this authority given by Congress to m:k‘em time Jeases to secure better buildings for less of Ppublic ‘‘grafters”” who seek to pillage the Increasing Rental Over Amount of As a rule there is an active interest in every of community in the location the the | | vice and the postmasters were requested " OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE INQUIRY 1S UNSPARING IN HIS REVELATIONS Brandt-Dent automatic cashiers were plachd in different postoffices for the purpose of tes ng its destrability as a change-making de- o that time was the George F. report on their desirability. At Winfleld S. Strawn of Canton, Ohio. uperintendent of agencies, and ["Miller, also of Canton, was the Washington agent, Judge George E. Baldwin of Canton, Ohi father-in-law ot Miller, the Washingt Bgent, was active in his efforts to secure t introduction of the machine by the depart- ment. The methods emploved to accomplish this result are clearly set forth by the cor- respondence between Brandt president of the company, and Strawn and Miller, his agents. On February 20, 1509, Miller wrote Brande, stating: “I am satisfled that we have the assurance and friendship of both parties—General Heath ané Mr. Beavers—and all that is necessary i3 to cultivate that friendship, if mot by Kind words, by dollars and cents, and I think the latter will be the most positive; however. the lines we have out mow will result in & change of programme, which means our uiti- mate success.” Six weeks later Strawn wrote Brandt from ew York that Miller had lefe“that day for Washington, having “‘succeeded in a plan to effectively reach Mr. Beavers through a Brooklyn Congressman.* On April 6, after a conference With Bald- win, his father-in-law, in Canton, Ohio, Mil- ler wrote Strawn as follows: “Mr. Baldwin * * * says to find out if possible exactly what this man Beavers wants 1o insure our success in that department in the way of dollars and cents but not to give it to him unless forced to do so: and when We do, if at all, he desires to be present in per- son himseif and pian the agreement.” On May 1 Strawn wrote Baldwin, that Brandt would like for him to come to Washington for consultation. In response to this invitation Baldwin came to Washington and held a conference with the parties inter- ested, and as a result on May 9, 1389, an or- der was given by First Assistant Postmaster General Heath for 250 machines at $150 each The machines were exactly the same as those that were selllng in the open market for §125, with the exception of a siight change in the base. After the 250 machines had been dis- posed of additional orders were given. until £27 machines had been purchased, =17 of which were shipped to postmasters without re- uisition. A he postmaster at Chicago, on May 31, 1599, stated that he could use but one {n his office, Yyet on July 25, less than two months later, nine of thess machines were sent to him and he was ordered to pay $150 each for them. The post- master at Keokuk, Ia., advised the department that the machine was not practicable and of no Vaiue to his office. On June 28, 1900, Beavers wrote him as follows: “Relative to the automatic cashier in your office, you are directed to put the same into active use, as it is the desire of the depart- ment to have a uniform system in the matter of handling cash in the larger postoffices. It is difficult to understand what interest the department could have in a systematic method of making change in the larger offices Nine of these machines were sent to Balti more, and only four of them are in use; twenty Were shipped to Boston, of which only two ars now in use, the other eighteen being stored in the basement of the postoffice; twenty wers sent to New York, only one of which is u the others being an incumbrance to_the o Of the 527 machines purchased, 173 are many of them have never been taken from cases in which they were shipped. The aggre gate amount of money paid to the Brandt-Dent Company for these useless cashiers was § Eliminating from consideration all indications of fraud and passing upon the case wholly as & question of administrative judgment, it ap- pears to me that this transaction would have Justified the summary removal from office of First Assistant Postmaste~ General Heath and W. Beavers. Coee the efement of frand cannot ba elimi- neted. Men of ordinary intelligence rarely Waste the public revenus in such & manner without a personal motive. A bribe of $12,500 was pald Congressman Edmund H. Driges to socure the order for 230 machines. A part of thia money has been traced to the bank ac- count of Beavers. Driggs, Beavers and sutfor have been in- dicted by the Federal grand jury in the city of Brooklyn, N. Y. During the investigation of this case Inspec- tors Little and Oldfleld secured evidence indi- cating that Ernest E. Baldwin, Assistant United States District Attorney for the South- ern District of New York, had knowledge of the transactions between this company and of- ficers of the department. He was the attorney for the company in a suit then pending in the Southern District of New York and had in his possession the original $12,500 note. The inspectors were given a written order by the president and treasurer of the company, directing the firm of Boothby & Baldwin, of which Ernest E. Baldwin is a member, to give them access to any papers in their possession bearing upon the subject. When the inspectors presented this order to Baldwin he refused to recognize it, became very angry, and with vio- Jent and profane language ordered them from his office. There is reason to believe that Judge George B Baldwin knows as much about this fraud as any Ather party, not even excepting Beavers and Driggs. He is at present Consul at Nurem- burg, Germany, and was not in this eountry at any time while the investization was in prog- ress. The inspectors therefore did not have an opportunity to interrogate him. . ELLIOTT & HATCH BOOK TYPEWRITERS. The Elllott & Hatch book tyvewriter is a machine intended primarily to write in record books. A company was organized to manu- facture and sell the machine, with Walter P. Hatch as general manager. H. J. Gensier, one of the stenographers of the United States Sen- ate, was in_August, 1897, given the agency for Maryland, Virginia and’ the District of Co- ‘“m:u-mlc'\i was not a success. On Janu. The ne - ary 24, 1809, the postmaster at Brooklyn, N. Y., to whom three machines had been sent, wrote, asking that they be taken away, stating that they were useless and an {ncumbrance to his office. The postmaster at Chicago fi&d epartment that they wers - :::edt:?nm: that the clerks could do the work Dbetter and faster by hand. The work done upon these typewriters was of such an unsatisfactory character that the clerks in the inspecting division of the auditor's office protested against their use. Their protest was fransmitted to the First Assistant Postmaster- General by A. L. Lawshe, acting auditor, sug- gesting that the use of the typewriter be dis- mg:ns::lembtr 23, 1898, Genaler wrote Hatch follows: u"! have Mr. Evlar's letter of the 22d, com- cerning the No. 5 machine which was delivered %o the postmaster at Allentown, Pa., who only Wants to pay $175 for same. He does not ‘cut any fee’ * * ° You will motice from ths copy of the letter received by me this morning from the Postoffice Department, sent you under another cover, that the postmaster Has been authorized to pay $200 for that machine, and you can bet that he will pay it p. d. q. or he ;will be hauled up with a jerk. Gensler's correspondence plainly _indicates that he had an understanding with Beavers to fernish his machines when requested by post- masters. But requests did not come in fast enough, and Beavers furnished the Elliott & Hatch when other machines were asked for. The postmaster at Erie Pa., requested an al- lowance of $130 to purchase a Fisher book typewriter, but it was declined; and one week Jater he was furnished an Elliott & Hateh, for which he was ordered to pay $200. On October 80, 1509, the postmaster at Coun- eil Bluffs, Ia., asked permission to buy a Remington machine at $110. FHis request was declined, but in March following he was for- warded an Elliott & Hatch and ordered to pay stating for it. w(“:l June 27, 1899, the Postmaster at Ashe- ville, N. C., made a similar request with the same result. On October 25, 1899, the Postmaster at De catur, TIl., asked authority to purchase a Smith Premier typewriter at $100, which was de- clined. He then asked permission to test a Remington, which was aiso declined, but on January 23 (ollnvlncuh was ordered to pay $200 for an Elliott & Hatch. The Postmaster at Elgin, Il asked permis- sion to buy a Remington machine. stating that it was cheaper than the Elliott & Hatch. and ald his work more satisfactorily, but his re- quest was declined and he was ordered to pay $200 for the Elliott & Hatch. The Postmaster at Kansas City, Mo, made similar request with the same results. ® The Postmaster at Spokane. Wash.. asked permission to buy a Remington, stating that Re could get one for $100; that the Elllott & e needs of his Hatch wes mot suited o the Ceecs o the Ingt: and ordered to pay $200 for the Elllott & Hatch. A hundred other such cases can be cited. Gensler, however, was not able to_inducs many Postmasters to ask for the Elliott & Hatch machine. From January, 1398, to April 15, 1901, 198 of these machines were bought " the department at a total cost of $38.575. this number, 131 were sent to FPostmasters without requisition. The investigation revealed the fact Gensler had a contract with the company T3 which he recelved $75 on each machine <01 to the Postoffice Department. From this §77 he paid W. Scott_Towers, superintendent Station C of the Washington Postottice, $31° and the i ve evidence Towe:s divided (Mn he received from Gens Beavers. by o ind. Beavers were indicted = Grand Jury in the District of Columbias Oc ber 1 and 5, 1903. BUNDY TIME RECORDERS In 1800, while Jobn Wanamaker was Pt Continued on Page 3, Column 1. .W““‘H. To Cure a Cold in One Day. inine Tablets. AN Teake m"unwjflm:y-fl it tails to zl‘; E. W. Grove's signature is oo each box. X%