in the face of the abundant positive testimony of witnesses adduced before the committee, as hereafter to be cited before the Grand Jury. But the overwhelming reply to this "negative evidence" of those gentlemen referred to, is, that not one of them was in the confidence of Mr. Cullom in his transactions with his agents and contractors for furnishing supplies, hence they knew nothing of his transactions with those parties to, or cognizants. of, his frauds. Not even his chief Clerk, Mr. Ingram, who stood in the near relation of brother-in-law to him, enjoyed his confidence in these matters, which I am well informed, and can adduce the proof that he, "Mr. Cullom, took exclusively into his own hands," though the usage of his predecessors towards their chief Clerks and other assistant Clerks was entirely different. To cite this negative testimony, then, under these circumstances, is utterly futile, and not entitled to the weight alleged, viz:

"It appears that the late Clerk, on going into office, found several persons of standing and experience holding places, whom he retained in his employ; and they are still retained. They have been examined before your committee, and without exception testify that they know of no fact tending, either directly or indirectly to show misfeasance, malfeasance, corruption, or dereliction of duty on the part of the late Clerk. This is negative testimony, indeed, but coming from the source it does, is entitled to much weight."-On the contrary, it is strong presumptive evidence against the secret designs of the late Clerk, so ardently cherished by him.

If the honorable chairman had given that full, thorough, and sifting investigation into the conduct and accounts of the late Clerk, which he pledged himself to do, before he was appointed chairman, although a personal friend of Mr. Cullom, he would have found that these gentlemen had no opportunity to know anything about the facts which this negative evidence is sought to efface. He would even have learned that, upon the bills for "ladies' dressing-cases," "odor cases," "ladies' reticules," "albums illuminated," "love albums," "pruning knives,' cases," &c., &c., being presented for register, when one of those gentlemen remonstrated against these items as irregular, his objection was overruled by appeal of the Clerk to the Secretary of the Treasury, who expressed his approbation by saying“The Clerk can furnish the members with broomsticks if he thinks proper."

66

cigar

In my next number, I will take up the detached references of this portion of the report, with the resolutions intended by the committee to accompany it, and show, to that extent, the avowed frauds committed by the late Clerk, though covered under the disguises of paliating terms, as if there were no criminal laws to which he is amenable for them.

R. MAYO,

For himself and other parties defrauded. WASHINGTON, March 24, 1859.

No. 2.

I now proceed to review the detailed references made by the report to certain portions of the testimony so selected, probably by the Chairman of the Committee, from the great amount of evidence taken in the case, as seemed most susceptible, by plastic modelings, softened colorings, and other distorting circumstances, of making a public impression in extenuation of the offences perpetrated against the provisions of the criminal laws by his friend, William Cullom, late Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Maynard commences his report with a notice of Mr. Cullom's conduct respecting the stationery furnished for the House, and by way of extenuating the course of the Clerk at the very threshold, makes a feeble effort to throw the small responsibility of the advertisement for stationery on certain other persons in his office, saying—

"With respect to the stationery furnished to the present Congress, it appears in proof, that immediately after the close of the last Congress, advertisements were prepared in the clerk's office, by some of the old incumbents, under the personal direction of the clerk, to advertise for the kind and amount of stationery that their experience in the office, extending back in some cases nearly ten years, showed to be necessary, and he, himself, took no other part in preparing the advertisement than merely to give it his official signature."

It is certainly a matter of astonishment to all who are acquainted with the entire responsibility of every officer therefor, who affixes his official signature to a public document, whether prepared by subordinates in his office or by himself, that the Chairman of the Committee should fall upon so small a circumstance as this, with so erroneous an issue too, to betray his eager proclivity, either from ignorance or personal favor and affection for the delinquent, to abate his responsibility for the document to which he affixed his official signature! But still the wonder increases at every established fact of the testimony, cited and acknowledged, through the whole length of this volumnious report, in which it would seem to be the studied purpose of its author to justify, extenuate, or excuse every one of those palpable and gross violations of the criminal law, by characterizing them as mere results. of "negligence," "carelessness," "inattention," &c., &c., without even seeming to know that there was a violation of law in any one instance of the malfeasance, misfeasance, corruption, or derelictions of duty recited in the report, and recognized or adverted to in general terms by the "resolutions" accompanying it, though entirely perverted in some instances and partially true or untrue in others-for example:

The first resolution says

"Resolved, That there is nothing connected with advertising proposals, accepting bids, or selecting or purchasing stationery for the use of the House of Representatives, that reflects the slightest discredit upon William Cullom, the late clerk."

REVIEW OF WILLIAM CULLOM'S CASE.

11

This is palpably at variance with, and in one particular contradictory to, the testimony of Wm. F. Bayly and the statements respecting the same in the report to which the resolutions are affixed. The report, after making the insinuations above noticed against some of the more experienced clerks in the preparation of the advertisement, says

"The stationery furnished is very good, and that the skill and judgment used in making the selections have been called in question only in the single article of wrapping paper, and that only to the extent of a few cents per ream.”

The testimony of Wm. F. Bayly states very differently, which he has repeated to me since he read the report in the evening paper selected for its promulgation. He says substantially, as will be seen when the testimony is printed, that—

"A bid was made to supply the wrapping paper at 9 cents per pound, (not per ream,) and that the bid accepted by the clerk, was at 11 cents per pound, and for very inferior paper to that offered at 9 cents, making a difference of many thousands in the cost of that article alone, which," he says, "could not easily have been forgotten, as a sharp altercation took place between Mr. Cullom and himself when he was before the committee."

The second resolution says

"Resolved, That in the management and disposal of the stationery, great abuses have existed; but as these have continued for a series of years, no official blame attaches to the late clerk."

Here is a palpable non-sequiter, an utter absurdity, as to no official blame attaching to the late Clerk for continuing those great abuses" which it was his sworn duty to correct. It were as rational to declare that the conduct of his predecessors in office, however marked with criminal malfeasance, constituted proper examples for him to follow! I need not add the obvious remark, that it is well known to every lawyer that when such acts amount to felony, the escape of a predecessor does not repeal the criminal law as to his successor, or any one else who perpetrates the like offences.

The third resolution says

"Resolved, That negligence and carelessness have been shown in the execution of the House resolution of January 30th, 1846, by the said clerk; though there is no evidence of either corruption or dishonesty in the premises on the part of the late clerk!

It will be perceived that the peculiar phraseology of the latter part of this resolution exculpatory of William Cullom, implies grave "corruption or dishonesty on the part of others concerned in the execution of the resolution of January, '46, who, by referring to the acts and treasury regulations quoted in the preceding Number 1, are jointly responsible as the agents of William Cullom, their principal, for all the delinquencies alluded

to.

This resolution relates to the same subject of stationery as the two preceding ones, but is confined to that branch of it which

is devoted to the "custody of the stationery," upon which the report remarks, that

"So far as your committee can perceive, there is no check imposed upon the stationery-clerk, or those who temporarily act in his place, and no means of ascertaining the fidelity with which they execute their trust. It furthermore appears that a practice had grown up in the office of allowing each of the employées to use the office stationery for private purposes to an extent equal to the amount allowed by law to each of the members. As it appears to your committee, the stationery of the House is in much the same condition as would be a stock of merchandize of many thousand dollars sold at retail by sundry different clerks, to nearly 250 different customers, each a part proprietor, interested only in receiving his share of the capital, with no eye to profit-no account of sales keptand no invoice ever taken-the safety of the stock depending alone upon the skill and integrity of the factor. The stationery-clerk of the last Congress was an old incumbent, and was continued in office by the late clerk in compliance with a very numerous and most respectable recommendation. Your committee design

no reflection upon him; but they submit, that not only the safety of the officer, (the stationery-clerk, of course,) but that of the public property in his care, requires that his official conduct shall be subjected, by the clerk, to constant revision."

This suggestion of a remedy is no more than what was the bounden duty of the Clerk to practice in every branch of his office, and was entirely superfluous, unless this whole recital was intended by Mr. Maynard to divert attention from the turpitude of his friend the late Clerk's official dereliction of duty, by leaving the blame to float between the old stationery clerk, his temporary substitutes, and their 250 customers, and, in that way, make scape-goats of them, to divide the greater sins of the late Clerk and screen his acts from the scrutiny" promised by the chairman on occasion of his appointment in the House. viewed in any aspect, the assumption by this resolution, "that there is no evidence of corruption or dishonesty in the premises, on the part of the late Clerk," is a discrimination between himself and his employées and their customers that is not warranted by the laws and treasury regulations, for whom his responsibility in the premises is paramount. Under this head the report pro

ceeds to say

But

"In this connection, your committee deems it proper to call attention to the matter of upholstery, furniture, and repairs of the House, furnished by direction and authority of the clerk."

"By House resolution of January 30, 1846, it is provided, that "all contracts, bargains, or agreements relative to the furnishing of any matter or thing, or for the performance of any labor for the House of Representatives, be made with the clerk, or approved by him, before any allowance therefor shall be made by the committee of accounts. The disbursements for upholstery, furniture, and repairs amount, annually, to many thousand dollars.

The practice of the office appears to be to employ some tradesman, who supplies everything of the kind that is required, either by the committees or otherwise, without any special contract or agreement as to prices, who submits his account to the committee of accounts, which, when approved by the committee, is paid by the clerk.

During the last Congress three different persons were employed, [by the late clerk,] whose evidence before the committee [their names not mentioned, though important to prevent dodging,] shows that, upon the articles furnished by them, they realized a profit of from 25 to 333 per cent., which, they say, "is no more

than they charge private persons for similar supplies." Certain it is, that the aggregate of profits is very considerable, and does not seem to be attended with corresponding benefits to the government.'

These evasions of the accountability of the late Clerk for the acts of his agents, according to laws and treasury regulations before quoted, seem to be very convenient to the Chairman of the Committee, on all suitable occasions, thereby leaving everybody who knows no better to suppose that his friend Cullom had nothing to do with the conduct of his agents. And, in the same spirit, here the report goes on to give several "examples" to illustrate the "working of this system," by which, in one particular instance mentioned, the recognition of it by the Clerk is set forth with utter nonchalance, as if he owed no responsibility whatever for it. In this case, it appears there was some contention between two persons, who claimed the right to furnish and put down the carpet for the new Hall of the House and its galleries. For this identical carpet the successful contestant charged, and was paid, about 100 per cent. more than the defeated party had charged for it, before the preference was conceded to his competitor by the decision of the Clerk; and by that transfer of the job, the successful contestant made a profit of more than $1,000 on this single item. But I conclude to give this statement of the report entire. It says:

"For example: it appears from the late clerk's report that for furniture, &c., in the committee room on Public Buildings and Grounds, ordered by that committee, was expended $1,439.25, and in like manner in the committee room on Expenditures of the Navy Department, $857.50; and in the committee room on Expenses of Post Office and Treasury Departments, $633.25. But a more striking instance of the working of the system is found in furnishing the carpets and cushions of the new hall. The superintendent engaged upon the Capitol extension, supposing that this fell within his province, had selected a carpet in this city at the price of $1.25 per yard laid down; but was informed by the clerk that he considered this as a part of his official duty under the resolution already referred to. In this view he was undoubtedly correct, and the superintendent very cheerfully and gladly acquiesced in it.

"He wrote the clerk, giving him some suggestions about the matter, and the clerk addressed a note to the tradesman employed, as general furnisher, authorizing him to do such upholstery and other work in the new Hall of the House of Representatives and its galleries as Capt. Meigs might designate and direct.'

"Under this authority, he proceeded and procured the identical carpet selected by the superintendent, laid it down, and presented to the Committee of Accounts a bill at two dollars per yard, and twenty-five cents for laying it down, making a profit of nearly $1,000 on the single item.

"It

It is proper to add, that the testimony shows that these profits, considerable as they appear, were enjoyed by the tradesman alone, neither the clerk nor any of his subordinates participating in them; and in the matter of the carpet it appears that the clerk personally had no other connection with it than to give the order in the manner stated, having one of his subordinates to supervise the laying it down according to the wishes of the Superintendent."

To imagine the profits of all this furnishing in gross, from 25 to 100 per-cent, would require much elasticity of conception, as well as great faith in the oath of the interested parties, who ex