By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Was he a Butler man or not?-A. I could not say. It would depend on the amount of money that was involved. Q. Were any of these gentlemen who were removed Butler men or Democrats?-A. Not to my knowledge. Q. There have been no Democrats in the Boston custom-house for the last twenty years?-A. I could not say. Q. Were any of the employés removed because of their Democratic proclivities since you went there?-A. None of them were removed because of their political proclivities one way or the other or to affect their political action.f Q. When you abolished an office did you create another to take its place-A. There has been no office created to take the place of any office abolished. Q. But men were put in as vacancies would occur, were they not?— A. As vacancies occurred men were put in. Q, Was Eaton a soldier?-A. He was a provost marshal, I think, during the war. I never heard of his being in the service. Q. Was he a soldier in the Mexican war and the war of the rebellion?— A. I don't know. If his office had not been abolished there would have been sufficient reasons for his removal, but it is not worth while to go into them, because his office was abolished. Q. There were a good many civilians in the custom-house. One of them could have gone out and he could have got the place, couldn't he-A. I believe it is the verdict of the soldiers of this State that a proportion of the offices in the Boston custom-house is all that they can ask for. Q. What do you say as to the case of J. M. Griswold ?-A. That office was also abolished. Q. He was another soldier, was he?-A. For a short time. Q. What has become of him?-A. He shot himself. Q. How long after he was removed from office?-A. I could not tell you; a few days. Q. Within a week after, was it not?-A. Yes. He had attempted self-destruction while he was in office. Q. The office of A. K. Russell was abolished also, was it not?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he a legless soldier?-A. He had but one foot. Q. His office was abolished when Eaton's and Griswold's were, was it not?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there anything against his competency as an official?— A. Nothing but his age and infirmities, nothing else. Q. How old a mau was he?-A. Nearly sixty. Q. He was not removed for political proclivities of any kind? Was he understood to be a Republican ?-A. He was there because he had been reappointed. His office had been abolished once before and he was reappointed, as I understand, by the Secretary of the Treasury, at the solicitation of Judge Hoar. His political proclivities would be sup posed to be in harmony with my own; he is a very worthy man; and it is a very hard case if, when a collector is expected to do the business at the lowest possible cost, he at the same time makes his office an asylum for disabled men, though they are men who are worth anything. Q. You can sympathize with the Democracy in their attitude in the Senate now.-A. The Democracy needs the more sympathy because they have two armies to provide for rather than one. Q. Do you know a man of the name of Bumper? [Bumpus.]—A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he out of place or in place now ?-A. In place. Q. He was removed?-A. He was out a week or ten days. Q. How did he get back -A. I do not know. Q. He too was a soldier ?—A. He too was a soldier. Q. Do you remember whether a man named Hall got in in his place? -A. I think not. Q. A man named Hall, ex-chairman of the Boston Republican committee, did get a place, did he not ?-A. He got a place, but he did not get Bumper's place, because Bumper is an inspector and Mr. Hall is a weigher. Mr. Bumper was removed for supposed cause, by report of officers, that would have justified any removal. On further investigation I was satisfied that the removal was without sufficient cause, and recommended his restoration. Q. He had some Congressman to back him, had he not?-A. I do not think he had. Q. Did not Congressman Harris stiffen up his case?—A. I do not think that Congressman Harris has had very much luck in stiffening up anybody's case. They always complain in such cases. Q. What about the case of Mr. J. L. B. Pratt?—A. Mr. Pratt is still in the custom-house. His office was abolished and he had to be out some two months, until a vacancy occurred; then he got back. It was an unnecessary office and has not been filled; $1,100 saved to the gov ernment. Q. Was Mr. Pratt pretty active during the last State campaign ?—A. I could not say. Q. He was not out of the custom-house doing any work?—A. He didn't go out of the custom-house. Q. He never went out of the city looking after political work ?—A. I couldn't say that he did, with my knowledge. We do not do any politi cal work in our establishment. Q. Is there a man named Sanborn on the list here?—A. His office is abolished. Q. One named Skinner?-A. His office is abolished. Q. One named Ham ?-A. His office is abolished. Theirs were the three last offices abolished. Mr. Skinner is a brother-in-law of Mr. Gilfillan, the Treasurer of the United States. Mr. Ham is the man who was appointed in Mr. Chadwick's place after I was appointed collector and had taken possession. He is a good man. All three of those men were good men. Q. Was Sanborn a soldier?-A. Sanborn was a soldier and a good clerk. Q. Who got in, in his place?-A. Nobody got in his place. Q. Was there not a member of the legislature put into place about that time? Mr. BLAIR. A member of what legislature? The CHAIRMAN. Of the legislature of the State of Massachusetts. The WITNESS. Not in the clerical force. The clerical force is entirely distinct, Mr. Chairman, from the weighers and inspectors. Q. Mr. J. N. Wright: what about him? Was he removed for political cause?-A. No, sir; nor reappointed for political cause. Q. Is he reappointed?-A. Yes; he has been there over six months. Q. He is a Butler man, is he not?-A. I do not know; I never asked him. He is from Lowell. Q. Who got into his place?-A. That is a good way back. I could tell probably by referring, unless the place was filled by promotion. You must recollect it is a pretty large force, and I have a very good memory, but I cannot carry it all in my head. Q. I see upon the list the name of one Bower.-A. His office was abolished. Q. Was anybody put in in his time?-A. No, sir. Q. He was a soldier, too?-A. Yes; he was a soldier. He was a member of the legislature, too. Q. Did you abolish any office that was held by a civilian ?—A. I just gave you the memorandum. I will repeat it. [Referring to memorandum.] I have abolished thirteen offices held by civilians. To those you may add two, making fifteen. I have abolished seven offices held by sol diers-seven to fifteen. Q. I see by this list that a gentleman named Tarr, an inspector here, has been removed. Was he removed because he was a Butler man or not?-A. He said he was not. Q. What was the cause of his removal?-A. He was very profuse in his professions of Republicanism and anti-Butlerism. Q. To you?-A. To me, unsolicited. He had the privilege of talking without reply. Q. Who was he? Soldier or sailor?-A. He was a sailor, certainly. Q. A commander in the Union Navy?-A. He was removed for nonpayment of duties; for intemperate habits, drinking habits. Q. A soldier got his place?-A. A soldier got his place, from the same city. Q. Who was he?-A. Captain Charles Pugh, a soldier with a good character at home-more than Mr. Tarr had. I can state some further reasons. Mr. Tarr was detailed on the international steamboats and there were complaints that he did not treat ladies respectfully when he examined their baggage in their state-rooms. Q. I see, also, that M. B. Lakeman, a weigher, was removed?—A. Yes, sir; he was removed. Q. Who got his place?-A. It was filled by promotion. I think that Captain Whall got it. Q. He (Lakeman) was one of Butler's friends too?-A. He did not profess to be. Q. He was not removed for being a friend of Butler's?-A. Not at all. I believe the complaint was that I kept Butler's friends last year. Q. Colonel Lakeman was a soldier?-A. Yes, sir; with a good record. But there were sufficient reasons for his removal. I have a good deal of regard and respect for Colonel Lakeman, and I should rather not say any more about his case. Q. I see here too the name of one Hall. His office was abolished. He was a clerk ?-A. Yes, sir; but not a soldier. Q. He served in the Navy?-A. I beg your pardon-yes. Q. Was he related to or closely connected with anybody who was a very special friend of General Butler's ?-A. That was no reason for his office being abolished. I may say, again, in regard to abolishing the offices, that no office has been abolished except upon full consultation with my deputy or the surveyor or the parties who had them immediately in charge. Mr. Hall was a good clerk, and there was nothing against him in the custom-house. My relations to his relatives, to whom you allude, have always been so pleasant that they would have led to his retention rather than to his suspension. Q. Those on the list here that you have given make how many offices abolished since April 1, 1878?—A. I could not tell without counting. Q. These changes have all been made since you have come into the custom-house? You have no list of changes made since?-A. No, sir. There is the full list of removals and appointments before you. Q. And these are changes within the personnel of the office and within the Republican party, all of them? I mean to say that no man was removed nor any man appointed who was a Democrat?-A. The question of politics has not been raised. Q. So far as you know, would the fact of a man being a Democrat, when pressed for a place in the custom-house, forbid his appointment?A. No, sir; I think not. Q. Of your own knowledge, have you a man in your employ in the custom-house who is a Democrat?-A. I think we have. Q. Are they men who have been there for a number of years?—A. I think not, except in subordinate positions. I know of having directed employment to be given to Democrats in subordinate places. Q. Has your office been used for political purposes in any regard ?— A. I am not aware that it has been. Q. What amount of money, if any, did it subscribe to the political canvass last year?-A. Which canvass? Q. The Congressional or gubernatorial canvass ?—A. I am not aware of it subscribing a dollar. Q. Was a circular received there from Mr. George C. Gorham of the Republican executive committee at Washington?-A. The circular which has been given to the prints was received from Washington, and on the same day on which it was received there was a circular from the office of the collector stating that everything that was done in that connection would be done voluntarily and that an omission to contribute would be no cause for removal from office. Q. What amount was thus voluntarily contributed in pursuance of that circular?-A. I have never known of any contribution but my own. If any money was contributed, it was not brought to my knowledge, even in a single case. Q. No money was contributed to the campaign in Massachusetts?—A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Can you tell us how generally, among the employés, this circular that was issued by Mr. Gorham was received?—A. I should presume that they all received it. The first that I knew of it was in meeting an em ployé on the steps of the custom-house and his asking me if he could not let me have his assessment. I asked him what assessment, when he showed me the circular. I immediately went up and wrote the one that I issued, and they all had it before they went home. By Mr. PLATT: Q. The circular from Mr. Gorham was for a voluntary contribution?—' A. Of course it was, but I wanted that they should all fully understand it. Q. And you supplemented it with another?—A. Yes, sir. By the CHAIRMAN: Q. Who would naturally get the money that was to be sent to Mr. Gorham? Where would it go? Would it be forwarded through you?— A. I think we have something in our regulations that would make it a cause of dismissal for another officer to take it and send it. Q. Would it not go to another official in the State?-A. No, sir. Q. How many of your employés went on the stump last year?-A. Quite a number. I went myself, but I was always at the custom-house when the business required me to be there, from nine till four o'clock. Q. You attended political meetings yourself, you say, and went on the stump out in the country?-A. Yes, sir; I have not lost any of my privileges as a citizen by being collector. Q. Of course not, but President Hayes thinks that you have.-A. No; I think President Hayes is satisfied with my duties. I have not believed that it was my duty to pack caucuses or attend political conventions. Q. Of course you attended political caucuses in the campaign last year?-A. I would say that to say that I attended them is an assumption. I was present at a caucus in my own ward that nominated a representative; further than that, I was not. Q. Were you not present at a conference with General Swift and Colonel Frost [or Verst ?] last year?-A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You were at no conference at which General Swift was present?— A. Unless it was a conversation such as I would have with my wife or members of my family. Q. Was there no meeting for the purpose of managing the campaign — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Of course you would know the fact if you had been present at one?-A. I have not been present at any such meeting. Q. Nor, so far as you know, was any person at any such meeting?— A. Nor, so far as I know, was any person. Q. The only part, then, that you took in the campaign last year was such action, as you took as a citizen outside of custom house hours?-A. Yes, sir. Q. How many of your own employés took part in the campaign ?—A. I could not tell you. Q. Did they not all?-A. Quite a number. Q. They went generally through the State helping the campaign?— A. There is no reason why they should not. Q. I ask only as to the fact?-A. I could not say as to that. That is a matter that the deputy would know of. I did not, of course, keep a diary of the force. By Mr. PLATT: Q. To what amount were the expenses of the custom-house reduced by the abolishing of unnecessary offices by you?-A. Nearly $27,000 per annum. Q. Does that embrace the total of the reduction in the expenses of the custom-house since you have taken charge of it ?-A. No, sir. Q. Can you give in round numbers about how much the entire expense of collecting the customs at this port has been reduced since you took the office?-A. I could not without reference. It was given to the public on the 1st of January. Q. Is the amount very considerably more than was then stated ?—A. On the 1st of January it was considerably more. It was some $35,000 to $36,000. There is an increased expense at the custom-house owing to the new practice with regard to sugar. The addition to the expenses from that source is quite a material one. Formerly sugar was not tared but the schedule tare was taken. Now we have to tare one hogshead in ten. The resulting increase of expense has amounted in the last eight months to some $8,000. This should properly be added to the additional or extra expenses, because it is an expenditure which has been ordered by the department and does not belong to the office ordinarily. At the |
