the public debt, was made up by the clerks referred to before, under Mr. Saville, and it is my impression that they did not go beyond the face of the books except where there was a suspicion that some wrong entry had been made, and that suspicion would only arise in cases where the balances indicated it.

By Mr. DAWES:

Q. And in those cases, what did they do?-A. They then made a through examination as far as the vouchers, warrants, and certificates permitted.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Then I understand you that Mr. Saville did not pretend to make a thorough examination, so far as to examine the warrants and each entry, when he made these changes in the public debt and in the receipts and expenditures. Am I correct in that or not?-A. I do not understand the word "thorough” in that connection.

Q. "Complete," or anything you choose to put there-a full and complete examination?—A. A full and complete examination was made at the time.

Q. Of the warrants?-A. Of the face of the books. It was presumed that the face of the books properly represented the warrants as drawn, as the only authority for the entries on the books are the warrants themselves.

Q. Now, please answer the question whether or not, in your judgment, from the time that Mr. Saville occupied and the number of clerks under him, he made a full and complete examination of each entry with the warrants to see whether or not they agreed?-A. In my opinion he did not with the warrants, except in cases where the balances indicated something wrong, and then the examination was made.

Q. Were the Comptroller's and Treasurer's accounts examined at the same time?-A. To the extent of explaining discrepancies only.

Q. Then the same two clerks within a year examined the Treasurer's and the Comptroller's books also, did they?-A. No; I do not wish to be so understood; but the examination was of the accounts shown upon the books of the Register. The Register's books were taken. There are three sets of books, all of which ought to be the same; but the books of the Register were taken, and, unless there was some necessity or some suspicion of incorrectness, they never went further than those. In case there was any discrepancy, any uncertainty, I have no doubt they examined all the various sources of information they had at their command.

Q. Can you tell from your own knowledge whether the Treasurer's and Comptroller's books were examined at all?—A. I have seen evidence, as I re-examined and went over these accounts, of the fact that the Treasurer's books, especially in regard to the receipts and expenditures on account of the public debt, were examined in some instances. Q. You confine it to the public debt ?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know anything as to the receipts and expenditures?—A. I

do not.

Q. You spoke a short time ago of the Pacific Railroad debt in 1869. Was the Pacific Railroad debt considered a part of the public indebtedness in 1869?—A. It is so reported in that report, under the head of "Statement of the indebtedness of the United States, June 30, 1869.” On page 22 of the Finance Report for 1869 the item "Pacific Railroad Companies' bonds, $58,638,320," is included.

Q. In 1869 in the detailed statement of the Secretary he includes in

the public indebtedness of the country the Pacific Railroad debt, which amounts to the sum just named?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the report of 1870 does he also include it ?—A. It is not included in the report of 1870.

Q. It is dropped?-A. It is dropped.

Q. Ought or ought not that to have reduced the public indebtedness by the amount of the Pacific Railroad debt when it was dropped ?—A. It would have reduced the aggregate of the report of the outstanding indebtedness.

Q. The aggregate of the amount given to the public in the report?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was dropped out that year and not considered a part of the indebtedness of the United States after that, but made an item by itself as the Pacific Railroad Companies' debt ?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did dropping out the Pacific Railroad debt create any confusion in the accounts in any way?-A. None whatever, as that is a mere

statement.

Q. It is a statement of the public debt as published by the Secretary?-A. It is.

Q. That is given as part of the public debt like any other bond the government owes; it is treated just as any other bond the government owes in the report of 1869?-A. It is.

Q. In the report of 1870 it has disappeared as part of the debt ?—A. It is omitted in the statement of 1870, but is reported on page 46 of the same Finance Report.

Q. As a debt of the Pacific Railroads?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. On comparing the Register's and Secretary's statements, in the report of 1870, the Secretary appears to have increased the total amount of the debt $94,000,000 in round numbers; that increase appears, though there were $58,000,000 dropped out. If the $58,000,000 had continued, the increase of the debt would have been $58,000,000 larger, would it not?—A. It would, if he had included it.

Q. It was included in the report of 1869, but in 1870 it disappears. Ought not that to have reduced the public debt just to the extent of the Pacific Railroad debt ?—A. It does not necessarily follow that the debt would have been that much less in 1870.

Q. There is an increase of the Secretary's statement over the Regis ter's of $94,000,000; add the $58,000,000 and the increase would have been $152,000,000, would it not?-A. Yes, sir; about that.

Q. That being so, if the Pacific Railroad debt had not dropped out, but had been kept in the statement as it appeared in 1869, the increase in the debt of 1870, as stated by the Secretary, would have been about $152,000,000 instead of $94,000,000, would it not?-A. I believe that is

correct.

Q. Were those bonds in the Register's statement?-A. No, the Rugister never included them.

Q. What would have been the increase of the Secretary's statement over the Register's in 1870 if the Pacific Railroad debt were left there as it appeared previously; would it not have been $93,887,428.09 plus the $58,000,000 of the Pacific Railroad debt?-A. $152,000,000 in round numbers.

Q. Can you state the object of dropping that $58,000,000 from the Secretary's debt statement of 1870, when it had been treated previous to that as a part of the debt of the government?-A. Secretary Boutwell differed with Secretary McCulloch as to its being public debt, and therefore did not include it.

Q. And excluded it from his public debt statement?-A. Yes, sir. Q. If he had included it, as had been the case in previous years, the debt of the government would have appeared $58,000,000 greater than it did appear in 1870, would it not?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have furnished this committee from the Secretary's office and from the Register's office a number of statements as called for. Are they true transcripts from the books after the books had been examined, or are they made up from your footings or statements that you had previously made?-A. These statements are true transcripts from the accounts as shown upon the books, and were inade up by using the printed accounts heretofore furnished as a check in the examination of them. I do not like to testify that every one of those statements was made up directly from the books, because it was not the most convenient way for us to have it, but we took the statements as they exist and compared them with the books, as far as the statements represent that they were taken from the books, some of the statements being made from the statements taken up from the books.

By Mr. DAWES:

Q. Wherever a statement purports to have been made up from the books you have verified it by comparison with the books?-A. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Do I understand that the statements furnished us have been made up from a re-examination of the books for the purpose of making those statements to us, or did you take the totals as formerly made up for the purpose of making your own statements to Congress?-A. We only took the totals on the books; we did not add them up again to see that they had been added correct. Every account had been balanced each year, each quarter, and each month, and of course we did not go behind that. After the accounts were once balanced, we did not go behind those balances.

Q. Some of them are made up from printed statements?—A. Some of them. We had not the results of the books. They are an aggregation of results.

Q. Here is a statement "receipts and expenditures of the government from 1860 to 1877 inclusive," that you furnished the committee. In making this statement did you re-examine your books for the years named, to have it made up, or did you take the former report of each year's work and tabulate them together?-A. These statements of receipts were compared with the books in every case. The expenditures were compared with the books in every case except in a few years under the miscellaneous, and they have been aggregated from the gen eral accounts, as I explained once before that our miscellaneous are made up from a number of books. They are aggregated from a number of books consisting of Treasury proper, Interior civil, quarterly salaries, customs, internal revenue, and so forth.

Q. Do your different bureaus or divisions in the department at stated periods make comparisens to see whether their accounts agree or not? -A. Every month a comparison is made by the three offices.

Q. What three?-A. The Register's, Comptroller's, and Secretary's. The different bookkeepers in these offices compare one with the other. They do not each compare with both the other offices; but the comparison is made by the Register's with the Comptroller's, and the Comptroller's with the Secretary's. In that way we have a comparison as well as a balance of each of the books every month, and these are compared with the aggregates on the Treasurer's books, and at the end of every

quarter a complete balance of all the transactions for the quarter is made, which agrees to a cent in all branches of the department.

Q. When they do not agree, you make them agree?-A. No; they must agree.

Q. Do you ever find that they do not agree?-A. We do find sometimes that they do not agree, and then the bookkeeper makes an examination of his accounts to find where he has made his error. He has perhaps put down $77 in the cents column, as was done in one of the bills of Congress that has just come to us. We find an appropriation that was intended to be made for $77 was made for 77 cents. We often make errors of that kind in the Treasury Department, and they have to be corrected.

Q. You do that once a month?-A. Once a month.

Q. How long has that been the case in the department ?-A. I judge it has been the case since the commencement of the government. It could not have been otherwise.

Q. Was it so previous to 1870 ?—A. I have no doubt it was.

Q. It was so when you first came into the service of the government in the Treasury Department?-A. Yes, sir; and I believe I have never known any discrepancy not to be corrected within the same year, except in one year I believe there was $8 of a discrepancy, some thirty or forty years ago, which corrected itself in the course of a year or two.

Q. Then I understand that, from your information, since the organi zation of the government, once every month and every quarter all four of your offices or all three make this comparison?-A. Every appropriation is compared every month, and then there is a general quarterly account, which is the aggregation of all accounts.

Q. These offices are the Secretary's, the Register's, the Comptroller's, and the Treasurer's?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they have always been compared at the end of each month, and at the end of each quarter, and, I suppose, also at the end of each year?-A. They have, and, in addition, the cash account of the Treasurer is gone over by the accounting officers quarterly, in which every warrant is compared and checked.

Q. That is the case with receipts and expenditures, and is it also with the debt statement?-A. It is with receipts and expenditures.

Q. How about the debt statement?-A. The debt statement is a section of the receipts and expenditures.

Q. That is included?—A. It is included.

Q. That being so, how do you account for your being able in 1870 to go back to 1833 and make these different statements in amounts?—A. In reply to that I should have to explain how the discrepancies arise, how this occurred.

Q. Make your own answer.-A. An examination of these accounts in 1870 led to the discovery of certain irregularities and errors that had crept into former statements; and the purpose of making from the publie accounts a uniform, consistent statement was the object of this re-examination. For instance, certain discrepancies arose from the statements of trust funds and unavailables. In the Finance Reports from 1842 to 1865 trust funds were regarded as specific appropriations and unavailable for general expenditures, and the balance on bond in the Treasury each year was stated exclusive of these funds. This led to so much irregularity in attempting to keep these accounts separate, that on the 30th of June, 1865, as will be seen by the Finance Report of 1866, at pages 2 and 32, these accounts were again consolidated by adding the balance in the Treasury on account of trust funds to the general balance,

and subsequent to 1866 the receipts and expenditures are stated including trust funds and all kinds of expenditures. It was for the purpose of making these statements uniform. At the time when this different plan prevailed this statement was made. For instance, in the statement of receipts and expenditures for the year 1862, the Smithsonian Institution fund, the Navy pension fund, and the Chickasaw fund, the trust warrants, the Chickasaw school fund, and the Navy hospital fund, were excluded from the receipts and expenditures in the statement. The restatement of these accounts includes them, shows them altogether in one account.

Q. You quote from the report made by Mr. Sherman, do you not ?— A. Yes, sir; having made this memorandum at the time I refer to it.

By Mr. DAWES :

Q. You made up the memorandum from which the report was made?— A. Yes, sir; and I have used it to refresh my memory.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Q. Did you make the report that the then chairman of the Finance Committee submitted to the Senate in reply to my speeches?—A. No, sir; I prepared memorandum accompanying the answer of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Q. And he transmitted it to the Finance Committee?—A. Yes, sir; and the Finance Committee append it to the report.

Q. How do the amounts that you state-the Chickasaw and trust funds-affect the receipts and expenditures proper, or the public debt, or both ?-A. The receipts and expenditures proper; I have not referred to the public debt.

Q. Then the explanation you have given us does not refer to the public debt?-A. No, sir.

Q. Can you furnish the data from which the changes of figures were made in 1870?-A. The statement was made up from the books of the department, but I do not know that there was ever any serious attempt made to discover in all instances where the former reports departed from it. For instance, in 1836 there was a balance in the Treasury of so much money. In that year we received so many receipts into the Treasury, and we added that sum to the balance, and we expended so much on account of the different departments; we deducted that from the amount available, leaving a balance in the Treasury at the end of that year. We proceeded year by year in the same way, so that the general account is a very simple and plain one, being merely an addition and subtraction for each year. Now, if any system of statements leaves out any of the elements or any of the items of those receip ́s and expenditures, it will differ from the one that is made from the total receipts and expenditures, and the table now furnished to this committee (the only demand on the Treasury was from 1860 down) intends to show every dollar that has been covered into the Treasury on all accounts, and every dollar that has been expended from the Treasery on warrants. There was no necessity for the accountants to examine the former statements at all. They took the results on the face of the books, which can be traced on the books to.day as well as they did then, and it is not very much of an undertaking to find these results, every one of them, on the face of the books, and check them. It is nothing more than a question of time.

Q. Were the data from which these figures were changed, that were used at the time, preserved, or were they destroyed ?—A. I cannot say. Q. How is the debt statement now made up; by the Register or by the Secretary?-A. In the Secretary's office.