35. 7«t| 
 
 TREASURY ACCOUNTS AID BOOKS. 
 
 SPEECH OF 
 
 HON. H. G. DAVIS, 
 
 OF WEST VIRGINIA. 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 TTT^TIE] 1.5, 1S80. 
 
 TREASURY ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — I ask the Senate to take up 
 report No. 539, known as the report of the Select Committee to 
 Investigate the Finance Reports, Books and Accounts of the 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Ferry) — If there be no objection 
 the report is before the Senate, and the Senator from West Vir- 
 ginia is entitled to the floor. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — It is my purpose to be as brief 
 as the circumstances will permit, and to confine myself entirely 
 to the facts and the evidence, avoiding all personal remarks of 
 any form. 
 
 It is a fact of no little importance that the majority and 
 minority reports substantial!}* agree as to all facts and evidence, 
 and that the minority report admits nearly all that the majority 
 contends for. The Committee on Treasury Accounts was ap- 
 pointed in November, 1877, and during the present Congress 
 has consisted of Messrs. Beck, Whyto, Ingalls, Dawes and my- 
 self. The immediate cause of the appointment of the commit- 
 
tee was statements made by me in several speeches in the Sen- 
 ate, stating that the figures and statements made to Congress in 
 official reports did not agree, and that there were many appar- 
 ent alterations and changes in official finance reports to Con- 
 gress, involving large amounts. 1 pointed out many differences 
 which apparently made many large increases and changes in the 
 amounts of receipts and expenditures, which caused the totals of 
 the public debt to be much larger than formerly officially re- 
 ported to Congress. The committee's examination fully sustains 
 every statement previously made by me, including the one that the 
 public debt had apparently been largely increased ; also the follow- 
 ing taken from official finance reports : 
 
 PENSION EXPENDITURES. 
 
 In the report of 1870 the expenditures for pensions are stated for the year 
 
 1864-'65 at §10,347,621 34 
 
 In the report of 1869 the same expenditures for the same year are stated at 0,291,610 48 
 
 Showing an increase in the report of 1870 over the figures in the report of 
 1869 of I 7,056,010 86 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — What two years does the Senator now compare? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The expenditures for pensions 
 as stated from 1865 to 1869 for the year 1864-'65, and then as 
 stated in the report of 1870. The two reports differ to the ex- 
 tent of 87,000,000, I say, in round numbers. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls— The Senator compares the pension 'statement 
 for 1864- - 65 as contained in the reports of 1869 and 1870? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Yes, that is it. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — What does the Senator say the difference is in 
 round numbers ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The difference of increase in 
 round numbersis $7,000,000 ; the latter reported it at $16,000,000 
 and the former at $9,000,000. Further : 
 
 In the report of 1870 the expenditures for pensions in the year 1870 are stated 
 at ; $28,340,202 17 
 
 In the report of 1874 the same expenditures for the same year (1870) are stated 
 at 28,402,241 20 
 
 Show ing an increase in the report of 1874 over 1870 of 8 62,039 03 
 
 XAVAL EXPENDITURES. 
 
 In the finance report for 1871 the expenditures in the Navy Department are 
 
 put down for the year 1865 at 8122,617,431 07 
 
 In the report for 1869 these same expenditures are stated for the same year at.. 122,567,776 12 
 
 Showing an increase in the report of 1871 over the report of 1869 in the naval 
 expenditures for the year 1865 of • 49,657^95 
 
 yvAr department. 
 
 In the report of- 1871 the expenditures of the War Department are put down 
 in Hie annual statement of Government expenditures for the year 1862-'63 
 at $603,314,411 82 
 
 In the report of 1869 the same expenditures for the same year, as appears in 
 the annual statement of expenditures, is stated at 599,298,600 83 
 
 Showing an increase in the figures of the report of 1871 over the report of 
 1869 for the year 1863 of - 8 4 t 015,800 99 
 
EX PEN PITURES IN INDIAN DEPARTMENT. 
 
 In the report for the year 1*70 the expenses iu the Indian Department for 
 the year 1863 are reported in the statement of annual expenditures at § 3,152,082 70 
 
 While in the report for the year 1868 the same expenses are reported for the 
 saint' year at MgMg 8fi 
 
 Showing an increase in the figures of the report of 1870 over the report of 1868 
 in the Indian expenditures for the same year of I 2, 07.j,706 35 
 
 It E VENUE COLLECTED. 
 
 In the finance report for 1803, in the annual statement of revenue collected tat 
 
 that year, we rind the internal revenue stated at S 37,640,787 93 
 
 The total revenue, exclusive of loans and Treasury notes, at 132,889,7 16 95 
 
 And tho total receipts from all sources stated for the same year at 889,379,632 52 
 
 Now, in the report of 1864 for the same year the internal revenue is stated at 
 
 the same figures 37,640,787 95 
 
 Total revenue, exclusive of loans and Treasury notes, at 112,687,290 95 
 
 And the total receipts from all sources at 889.379,652 52 
 
 LOANS AND TREASURY NOTES. 
 
 The loans and Treasury notes for the year 1863 are stated as follows iu the various finance 
 reports of the annual statements of revenue collected : 
 
 In the r 'port of 1863 §756,489,905 57 
 
 In the report of 1864 776,682,361 57 
 
 In the report of 1870 814,925,494 96 
 
 It will be seen that the receipts from loans and Treasury notes 
 for the year 1863 differ §58,000,000. This is for the same year, 
 but stated in different reports. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — Will the Senator explain what reports he quotes 
 from as showing the difference in the statements ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia— Certainly. I refer to the re- 
 port of 1863. I thought I had before said that in the report of 
 1863 the amount of loans and Treasury notes is set down at 
 S<fc6,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — In w T hat report ? 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The report of 1863. 
 Mr. Ingalls — In the report of what officer ? 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — In the Secretary's finance re- 
 port, the official report to Congress. At that time only the 
 Register made the report, I believe, but it is in the finance re- 
 port to Congress of 1863. In the report of 1864 it is put at 
 8776,000,000 ; in the report of 1870 at 8814,000,000 for the year 
 1863, the same year. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — Reports by the same officer ? 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia— The report made in 1870 was 
 not made by the Register; the other two were. As the Senator 
 will recollect, he having served with me upon the committee, 
 the report of 1870 was made by the Secretary, and not by the 
 Register. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — The Senator will observe, of course, that it is 
 very important that he should preserve the distinction, and ad- 
 vise the Senate whether these discrepancies appear in the reports 
 made by the same officer, or by different officers. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The reports all came from the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, officially, to Congress. I speak of 
 the reports officially sent to Cougiess. 
 
4 
 
 .Resuming, look at the statements as to net revenue colleeted : 
 
 For year 1864 : 
 
 Report for 1866 states net revenue collected for 1864 $264,626,771 CO 
 
 Report for 1870 states net revenue collected for 1864 262,742,354 32 
 
 Showing a decrease of $ 1,884,417 2t> 
 
 For year 1865 : 
 
 Report for 1866 states net revenue collected for 1865 $333,714,605 08 
 
 Report for 1870 states net revenue collected for 1865 323,092,785 92 
 
 Showing a decrease of $ 10,621,819 16 
 
 Is it not strange that the revenue collected and paid into the 
 Treasury in 1865 should, in 1870, five years after, in revising 
 statements, be found to have decreased more than ten millions ? 
 The Treasurer, Register and Secretary all agree and state in 
 1865 the net revenue of the Government was in round numbers 
 $333,000,000 ; but in 1870, five years afterward, it has decreased 
 to $323,000,000. More than ten millions decrease, and which 
 is unaccounted for ! 
 
 The following is a comparison amounts paid on account of 
 pensions between 1860 and 1870: 
 
 Department of the Interior, Pension Office, 
 Washington, D. C, July 25, 1876. 
 Sir • — In compliance with your request of the 24th instant 1 
 have the honor to transmit the enclosed table of the amount 
 paid for Army and Navy pensions from 1860 to 1870, inclu- 
 sive. 
 
 Enclosed is also the annual report of this office for the year 
 1865 ; the copies for the year 1864 are exhausted : 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 O. P. G. STARKE, 
 Hon. H. G. Davis, Chief Clerk. 
 
 United Slates Senate. 
 
 Statement Showing the Total Amount paid in each Fhcal Year for Army and Navy 
 Pensions, as per Fnance Report for 1870, and Letter of the Commissioner of Pen- 
 sions of July 25, 187G: 
 
 Yeaks. 
 
 From secre- 
 tary's table 
 finance re- 
 port 1870, 
 page 30. 
 
 From letter 
 of Com mis- 
 sion er of 
 Pensions. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 1860 
 
 1,100,802 32 
 1,034 599 73 
 852,170 47 
 ,078,513 36 
 4,985,473 90 
 16,347 621 34 
 15,605,549 88 
 20,936,551 71 
 23,782,386 78 
 28,476,621 78 
 28,340,202 17 
 
 $ 1,154,321 73 
 1,089,218 75 
 800,819 94 
 1,014,364 47 
 4,521,622 18 
 8,542,885 27 
 13,250,980 17 
 18,681,711 79 
 24,079,403 18 
 28,445,089 09 
 27,780,811 81 
 
 
 $ 53,519 41 
 54,619 02 
 
 1861 
 
 
 1862 
 
 
 1863 
 
 34,1 18 89 
 463,851 72 
 7,804.736 07 
 2,354,569 71 
 2,254,839 92 
 
 
 1864 
 
 
 1865 
 
 
 1866 
 
 
 
 1867 
 
 
 1868 _ 
 
 297,016 40 
 
 1869 
 
 31,532 69 
 559,390 36 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 
 $142,540,493 44 
 
 $129,391,228 38 
 
 i 
 
 $13,554,419 89 
 
 $405,154 83 
 
 
 
5 
 
 This shows that the Secretary of the Treasury says in round 
 numbers §142. 000. 000 was expended tor pensions from lSCn to 
 1870, inclusive. The Commissioner ot Pensions says the amount 
 is §129,000,000, or about 813,000,000 less. The Treasury has 
 813,000,000 more charged than the Commissioner says he re- 
 ceived, and yet we are told the books and accounts are all right! 
 
 STATEMENTS IN SPEECH NOV KM BEE 16, 
 
 PUBLIC DEBT. 
 
 1867 
 
 The annual statement of the public debt from 1835 to 1871, as 
 appears in the finance reports for 1809 and previous reports, and 
 1871 and subsequent reports, shows the difference in each year, 
 and the total difference between the two reports, (see pages 12 
 and 368, finance reports for 1871 ; and page 317, finance reports 
 for 1868) : 
 
 Year. 
 
 1835.. 
 1836., 
 1837.. 
 1838.. 
 1839.. 
 
 1840 
 1841. 
 1842. 
 1843. 
 1844. 
 1845.. 
 1846. 
 1847.. 
 L848. 
 1849.. 
 1850.. 
 1861.. 
 1852.. 
 1853.. 
 1854.. 
 1855.. 
 1856.. 
 1857.. 
 L858 ■ 
 1859.. 
 I860.. 
 1861.. 
 1862.. 
 1863.. 
 1864.. 
 1865.. 
 1866.. 
 1867.. 
 186$.. 
 1869.. 
 1870.. 
 
 Total 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Reports of 1869 
 and previous 
 years. 
 
 Reports of 1871 
 and subsequent 
 years. 
 
 351,289 05 S 
 291,089 05 
 1,878,223 55 
 4.857,660 46 
 11,983,737 53 
 5,125,077 63 
 6,737,398 00 
 15,02s, 486 37 
 27,203,450 69 
 24,748,188 23 
 17,093,794 80 
 16,750,926 33 
 38.956,623 38 
 48,526,379 37 
 1)4,704,693 71 
 64,228,238 37 
 62,560,395 26 
 65,131,692 13 
 67,340,628 78 
 47,242,206 05 
 39,969,731 05 
 30,963,909 64 
 29,060,386 90 
 44,410,777 66 
 58,754,699 33 
 64,769,703 08 
 90,867,828 68| 
 514,211,371 92 
 1,098,793,181 37 
 1,740,690,489 49 
 2,682,593,026 53 
 2,783,425,879 21 
 2,692,199,215 12 
 2,636,320,964 67 
 2,489,002,480 58 
 2,386,358,599 74 
 
 $19,973,622,423 71 
 
 37,513 
 336,957 
 3,308,124 
 10,434,221 
 3,573,343 
 5,250,875 
 13,594, 4S0 
 20,601,226 
 32; 742,922 
 23,461,652 
 15,925,303 
 15,550.202 
 38,826,534 
 47,044,862 
 63,061,858 
 63,452,773 
 68,304,796 
 66,199,341 
 59,803,117 
 42,242.222 
 35,586,956 
 31,972,537 
 28,699,831 
 44,911,881 
 58,496,837 
 64,842,287 
 90,580,873 
 524,176,412 
 1,119,772,138 
 1,815,784,370 
 2,680,647,869 
 2,773,236,173 
 2,67s, 126, lo:! 
 2,611,687,851 
 2,588,452,213 
 2.480,672.427 
 
 Increase in re- 
 port of 1871 
 over 1869. 
 
 $ 45,868 78 
 1,429,900 52 
 5,576,560 
 
 125,797 91 
 6,857,082 73 
 5,572,739 91 
 5,539,471 31 
 
 5,744.400 76 
 1,067,(549 58 
 
 1,008,(128 26 
 
 72,584 80 
 
 9,965,940 21 
 20,978,957 26 
 75,093,881 68 
 
 941 99,449,733 36 
 81 1 94,313,828 07 
 
 820,221,399,098 42 
 19,973,622,423 71 
 
 $247,766,674 71 
 
 $332,843,228 59 
 85,076,553 88 
 
 $247,767,674 71 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 $ 313,776 00 
 
 8,410,393 71 
 
 1,286,535 73 
 1,168.491 79 
 1,200,723 39 
 
 130,088 61 
 1,481,517 14 
 1,642,835 02 
 
 775,464 82 
 
 7,537,511 08 
 4,999,983 63 
 4,382,774 49 
 
 360,555 05 
 '257,861 45 
 '286,'954 96 
 
 1.945,156 79 
 10,189,705 52 
 14,073,111 25 
 24,633,113 48 
 
 $85,076,553 88 
 
 And the increased figures appear in all finance reports since 
 1871. 
 
 This table shows the differences in the public debt statements 
 in the finance reports of 1869 and previous years, and in the 
 
6 
 
 finance reports of 1871 and subsequent years. It will be seen 
 there are many millions of difference, and as reported in 1870 
 the debt is much larger than as stated in the previous reports. 
 
 LOANS AND TREASURY NOTES. 
 
 Under this head 1 call the attention ot the Senate to the great 
 difference in the finance reports as to what they were for the 
 year 1863. The}' are stated differently in four annual reports 
 for the same }'ear, as follows : 
 
 In the report of 1863, for 1863 $756,489,905 57 
 
 In the report of 1864, for 1863 776,682,361 57 
 
 In the report of 1S70, for 1863 814,925,494 % 
 
 In the report of 1876, for 1863 717,284,707 01 
 
 EXPENDITURES. 
 
 The various finance reports differ widely as to the annual ex- 
 penditures of the Government, as the following table will show : 
 
 
 Total annual expenditures as 
 stated in financial report for — 
 
 1 870 
 
 a 
 i- 
 
 -x. 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 05 •' 
 ©ft 
 
 2» 
 
 z.- ■ 
 
 1 
 
 — - ?! 
 
 8-3 • 
 
 III 
 So r-M 
 
 *3 ■* 
 - — n 
 
 = - — 
 
 "£ o3 
 
 O — 
 
 - o 
 
 « 
 
 m 
 
 a 
 
 c so 
 §*— 
 
 = 33 
 •— > 
 <o o 
 
 CS 
 
 a 
 
 
 - :: 
 
 oc 
 
 oo w ' ' 
 
 
 93 
 
 1860-'61 
 
 S 85,387,313 08 
 570,841,700 25 
 895,796,630 65 
 1,298,144,656 00 
 1,897.674,224 09 
 1,141.072,666 09 
 
 8 85,387,363 08 
 505.667,35s OS 
 899,815,911 25 
 1,295,541,114 86 
 1,906,433,331 37 
 1,139,344,081 95 
 
 8 50 00 
 
 
 
 §5,174,342 17 
 
 
 
 
 4,019,280 60 
 
 1863-'64 
 
 2,603,541 14 
 
 1864--65- 
 
 8,759,107 28 
 
 1865- '66 
 
 1,728,584 14 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 5,888,917,190 16 
 
 $5,892,189,160 59 
 
 512,778,437 88 
 3,271,970 43 
 
 $9 506,467 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Increase of Expenditure* in Report of 1871 as Compared with Report of 18(59 
 
 Year. 
 
 Military 
 Service. 
 
 Pensions, j 
 
 Indians. 
 
 Naval estab- 
 lishment. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1860 
 
 82,000,000 00 
 
 
 
 
 
 1862 
 
 
 8 104,546 10 
 
 
 
 
 4.015,810 99 
 
 
 
 
 850,130 04 
 
 
 1864 
 
 8 5,840 73 
 7,056,010 86 
 
 197 53 | 
 
 ' 91.678 17 
 92,395 81 
 48,664 76 
 
 
 1S65 
 
 
 49,657 95 
 
 
 1866 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 §6.015,810 99 
 e 
 
 87,061,949 12. 
 
 
 
 82,412,991 19 
 
 899, 7S7 99 
 
 
 Increase : 
 
 Military servic 
 
 (6.015,810 99 
 
 Pensions 
 
 
 
 
 
 7,061,949 12 
 
 
 2,412,991 19 
 
 Naval establishment. 
 
 99,787 99 
 
 Total | 815,590,529 29 
 
 The above table shows that the new statement made for the 
 first time in 1870. changes and increases the statement of ex- 
 
7 
 
 penditures largely, and that between the years 18(10 and 1867 
 the increases amount to millions. 
 
 The Register is and has been from the beginning of our pres- 
 ent system of government, the official bookkeeper of the Treas- 
 ury Department and of the Government. 
 
 The .Revised Statutes, chapter 6, section 313, says that it shall 
 be the duty of the Register — 
 
 First — To keep all accounts of the receipts and expenditures 
 of the public moneys, and of all debts due to or from the United 
 States. 
 
 Second — To receive from the First Comptroller and Commis- 
 sioner of Customs the accounts which shall have been finally ad- 
 justed, and preserve such accounts with their vouchers and cer- 
 tificates. 
 
 Third — To record all warrants for the receipt and payment 
 of moneys at the Treasury, and certify the same thereon, 
 except those drawn by the Postmaster-General and those 
 drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury upon the requisitions of 
 the Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments. 
 
 This shows plainly that the Register is the only official book- 
 keeper of the Government, and is also the custodian of the war- 
 rants, vouchers, &c, and that his reports to Congress ought to 
 be correct and final, and beyond the reach of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury or any one else. 
 
 The testimony taken by your committee and the facts show 
 that the fiscal year of the Government ends June 30, and that 
 the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury and other officers 
 are made to Congress in December, giving four or five months 
 to close up the accounts of the year. Major Power, Mr. Saville 
 and others testified that sixty days was enough time to close 
 and correctly state all accounts ; yet it will be shown that many 
 alterations and changes of figures have been made after accounts 
 have been closed for years and officially reported to Congress. 
 Eegister Scofield, on page 5 of the testimony, was asked the fol- 
 lowing questions, to which he gave the answers stated : 
 
 Q. — You speak of an order from the Secretary to the then 
 Eegister, who I believe was Mr. Allison, to make the changes 
 you have referred to in this debt statement. Will you give the 
 committee that order? 
 
 A. — Yes, sir ; this is the original order, and I will hand you a 
 copy. 
 
 Q. — Read us the original. 
 A.— I will : 
 
 " Treasury Department, November 2-i, 1871. 
 
 "Sir: — I have to request that the statement of the public 
 debt on the 1st day of January in each of the years from 1791 
 to 1842, inclusive, and at various dates in subsequent years, to 
 July 1, 1870, as printed on page 276 of the finance report for 
 1870, ma}' be omitted from your tables in the forthcoming re- 
 ports, or else that it be corrected to conform to Table H on page 
 xxv of the same report for the same year. 
 
 "This request is made in consequence of a letter from the 
 
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, now in London, who com- 
 plains that these different tables are frequently referred to in 
 England, and the discrepancies between them constantly and 
 unfavorably commented upon. 
 
 " The table found on page 25 is, I believe, as nearly correct as 
 the examination of tne accounts up to the present time will en- 
 able it to be made, though I am under the impression there will 
 be some changes necessary in order to make it absolutely reli- 
 able. 
 
 "Very repectfully, 
 
 " J. H. Saville, 
 "Hon. John Allison, 11 Chief Clerk, 
 
 "Register of the Treasury." 
 
 This letter is endorsed : u Secretary of the Treasury : chief 
 clerk ; 24, 171. Asks statement of the public debt may be made 
 to correspond with statement made in Secretary's office. Mem- 
 orandum. As published for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
 1871, the statement is the same as the Secretary's." 
 
 Here we have a written order from the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, through his chief clerk, to the Eegister, to change his 
 former official reports to Congress, and to state them so as to 
 correspond to new statements made up in the Secretary's office, 
 which increased the public debt. Mr. Titcomb, Assistant Reg- 
 ister, page 13, and Major Power, page 65, testified that the Reg- 
 ister protested againsl making the changes for past years, but the 
 order was obeyed, and the amounts reported to Congress differ 
 materially from former official reports made to Congress. 
 
 The Register, from the beginning of the Government to 1870, 
 has made an official statement each year to Congress of the 
 amount of the public debt, and the receipts and expenditures. 
 Now they are made only by the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
 differ from the amounts reported by the Register previous to 
 1870. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States, in the seventh clause 
 of section 9, article 1, provides that "no money shall be drawn 
 from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made 
 by law ; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and 
 expenditures of all public money shall be published from time 
 to time ; " and section 313 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
 States makes it the duty of the Register " to keep all accounts 
 of the receipts and expenditures of the public money, and of all 
 debts due to or from the United States." 
 
 The law makes it the duty of the Register to keep accounts of 
 the receipts and expenditures of the public money; yet, by or- 
 der of the Secretary of the Treasury the Register is ordered to 
 change his statements and figures to suit those of the Secretary's 
 Office, and this was done after they had been officially reported 
 to Congress and stood for many years as correct. 
 
 Dr. Guilford, who has been fifteen } 7 ears in the Register's 
 Office, and who has charge of making up the debt statements in 
 the Register's office, testifies as follows, (page 26) : 
 
9 
 
 Q, — I see in a Column headed "Amounts to be added to re 
 ceipts," marked " b,' r $2,019,776.10; and another one maked "c,' 1 
 $1,000,000.00 ; and then one marked "d," $3,274, 051.(19, making 
 a total of $0,293,827.79, which you say is "to be added to receipts." 
 What is meant by that? 
 
 A. — That is in accordance with the Secretary's report ot 
 1871. Those amounts do not appear upon our books, They are 
 added in accordance with the Secretary's order in order to har- 
 monize the two, as is shown in the report of 1871. 
 
 Q. — 1 understand that these three items, amounting to be- 
 tween six and seven million dollars do not appear upon your 
 boohs ? 
 
 A. — They do not. 
 
 — Hut are added here by order of the Secretary ? 
 
 A. — So I understand. 
 
 Again, (page 33) : 
 
 Q. — Now, do I understand that the public debt, as stated to 
 us, is from the books or not ? 
 
 A. — It is a synopsis of the books, with the exception of those 
 notes, a, b, c and d, on Statement No. 2. 
 
 Q. — With the exception of the $6,293,827.79 not on your books 
 as public debt ? 
 
 A. — Yes, sir. 
 
 This shows plainly and clearly that Dr. Guilford, a Treasury 
 clerk who has charge of a set of books from which the public debt 
 statements are made, added to the debt statement by order of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury "ta make the statement harmonize;" 
 in other words forced a balance by adding the following amounts : 
 $2,019,776.10, $3,274,051.69, $1,000,000.00— $6,293,827.79. 
 
 The real amount added in this instance to receipts was over 
 $8,000,000.00, and to expenditures over $2,000,000.00. This is 
 shown by the Secretary's Table No. 2, on page 28 of the testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Doubt was expressed by the minority of the Committee as to 
 whether or not Dr. Guilford, in his testimony, said the above 
 amounts of six or seven million dollars were not on the books, 
 and he was recalled after notice and requested if the amounts 
 were on the books to show what books and their dates, and he 
 repeated his former statement, which was, that the amounts 
 were not on the books. See testimony, page 232. 
 
 * * * * * ^ 
 
 Dr. Guilford, on page 33, testified : 
 
 Q. — When did the Secretary first begin making up his public 
 debt statement ; do you remember? 
 A. — I think it was in the year 1870. 
 
 Q. — Up to that time nothing had ever come from the Secre- 
 tary's Office, I believe; he had no organized bureau required by 
 law to do that work ? 
 
 A. — No, sir. 
 
 Q. — The Register alone did it ? 
 A. — Yes, sir. 
 
 Here is again proof that the Register made up the public- 
 debt and the receipts and expenditures statements up to 1870. 
 
10 
 
 The Secretary in 187(1 made up his new statement in a new- 
 way, which changed the total amount of the public debt for 
 nearly every year betw r een 1833 and 1870, which in a number of 
 years largely increased the public debt, and the new and in- 
 creased statement ot the public debt still remains in each annual 
 report made to Congress, 
 
 Major Power, on pages 83 and 84. testified as follows : 
 Q. — Could a correct statement of the public debt be made up 
 for each year, beginning with the organization of the Govern- 
 ment and coming down to 1870, from the issues and redemp- 
 tions alone? 
 A. — Yes, sir. 
 
 ^ 5|C ^ ^Ji ^[C 
 
 This shows that the present chief clerk of the Treasury De- 
 partment thinks that a correct statement of the public debt 
 could be made up from issues and redemptions. If so, w T hy in 
 1870 introduce a new system which changed and increased the 
 public debt and the expenditures? There must have been a 
 cause for it. Let those who made the changes explain. 
 
 On pages 71 and 72 of the testimony. Major Power tells us 
 that the Secretary and Register, previous to 1870, agreed as to 
 the amount of the public debt and the receipts and expenditures, 
 and they substantially agree since 1871: and that the changes 
 and alterations took place between 1869 and 1871 ; and that 
 there were none before and have been none since. 
 
 In referring to the Pacific Railroad debt, on pages 73 and 74 
 of the testimony. Major Power testifies : 
 
 Q. — You spoke a short time ago of the Pacific Railroad debt. 
 Was the Pacific Railroad debt considered a part of the public in- 
 debtedness in 1869? 
 
 A. — It is so reported in that report, under the head of ''State- 
 ment of the indebtedness of the United States, June 30, 1869." 
 On page 22 of the finance report for 1869, the item a Pacific 
 .Railroad Companies' bonds, 858,638,320" is included. 
 
 Q. — There is an increase of the Secretary's statement over 
 the Register's of 894.000,000; add the 858,000,000 and the in- 
 crease would have been 8152,000,000, would it not? 
 
 A. — Yes, sir ; about that. 
 
 — 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 Secretarj", 
 would have been about $152,000,000, instead ' of 894,000,000, 
 would it not? 
 
 A. — I believe that is correct. 
 
 Q. — Were those bonds in the Register's statement ? 
 
 A. — Xo, the Register 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. — One hundred and rifty-two million dollars in round num- 
 bers. 
 
1 1 
 
 This shows two important facts : First — Up to and including 
 1809 what is known as the Pacific Railroad debt, amounting to 
 about $58,000,000, was included in the debt statement of the 
 Secretary, but was dropped out in 18(59. Second — It it had been 
 included, instead of the Secretary's statement of 1870 increas- 
 ing the debt 894,000,000, the increase would have been 
 $152,000,000. 
 
 Again, Major Power testifies, on page 77 : 
 
 Q. — Then 1 understand that, from your information, since the 
 organization of the Government, once every month and every 
 quarter all four of your offices or all three make this compar- 
 ison ? 
 
 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 liegister'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. 
 
 The above shows that the books and accounts in the Secre- 
 tary's, Register's, Comptroller's and Treasurer's offices are com- 
 pared each month, quarter and year ; and yet in 1870 this new 
 system was introduced and adopted, and the official statements 
 ot the public debt, and of the receipts and expenditures were 
 changed for nearly every year from 1833 to 1870. 
 
 Major Power, on page 80, says : 
 
 Q. — Look at the report of 1871, at page 20, and state what the 
 total receipts of the Government up to June 30, 1871, were. 
 
 A. — The total receipts received into the Treasury on account 
 of loans were 87,094,541,041.38. 
 
 Q. — The net expenditures? 
 
 A. — 84,857,434,540.51, leaving a balance of $2,237,106,500.87. 
 
 Q. — State what the difference is between that and the actual 
 amount of the public debt at that time. 
 
 A.— The actual public debt was $2,253,211,332.32. 
 
 Q. — What is the difference between the actual debt aud what 
 it would appear to be on the basis of receipts and expenditures? 
 
 A. — 81 16,104,831.45. 
 
 Thus Major Power tells us that there is a difference of 
 8116,104,831.45 between the receipts and expenditures and the 
 public debt accounts. So, if you take the receipts and expen- 
 ditures from the beginning of the Government to 1870, and 
 state the debt, it will be short 8116,104.831.45, which amount 
 was added in the new debt statement. 
 
 The minority report, (page 59), quoting from the finauce re- 
 port of 1871, says : 
 
12 
 
 Revolutionary ilebt of the several States (ortimated) S7G,ooo,ooo 
 
 Same report, <|iioting Bayley's testimony, says : 
 Domestic debt of the Revolution (estimated) 63,000,000 
 
 Difference in stating the same item $13,000,000 
 
 This shows, in stating the estimated amount of the revolu- 
 tionary debt, it is made §76,000.000, then §63,000,000, to suit 
 and make statements agree. 
 
 During the examination of Major Power, the following ques- 
 tion and answer concerning the issue of bonds occurred, (pp. 
 88, 80) : 
 
 v^. — What check is there on the loan branch of the Secretary's 
 office as to the amount of the bond that has been ordered by the 
 Treasurer ? In other words, if a bond for $1,000 was subscribed 
 for and the loan division gives an order for a two thousand dol- 
 lar bond, where is the check to prevent that two thousand dol- 
 lar bond from going upon the public ? 
 
 A. — If the order to the Register for the bond recites the cer- 
 tificate of deposit as S2,000 deposit in place of SI, 000, I believe 
 there would be nothing to prevent the bond being issued. 
 There would have to be collusion to falsify the record. 
 
 Q. — All in the same office? 
 
 A. — Yes. 
 
 Q, — An order comes from the Treasurer s office to the loan 
 branch of the Secretary's office to issue a bond for 81,000 ; the 
 loan division directs a two thousand dollar bond be issued in- 
 tead of a one thousand dollar bond, which the Treasurer directed 
 to be ordered. That order goes to the Register, I understand. 
 The Register issues a two thousand dollar bond, and it comes 
 back to the same office that ordered it for the seal ; that office 
 puts the seal on it, and the bond then goes back to the Register 
 for delivery ? 
 
 A. — That is the practice. 
 
 Q.— Then there is no check outside of that particular office as 
 to whether or not the bond was a one thousand dollar or a two 
 thousand dollar bond? 
 
 A. — I believe not. 
 
 William Fletcher, chief of the loan division, and Treasurer 
 Gilfillan. each agrees with Major Power, that there is little or 
 no check on the loan division in issuing bonds. 
 
 The bonds ought to be sent to the Treasurer to see if the 
 money received agrees with the amount named in the bond. 
 
 The minority report says : 
 
 The present method of handling securities of the Govern- 
 ment, including notes, bonds and stamps, would be greatly im- 
 proved by having all securities pass through the office of the 
 Register. 
 
 In regard to legal tender or greenback notes, Major Power, on 
 page 92, testifies : 
 
 Q. — The Register's name is on the notes, 1 believe ? 
 A. — Yes, sir. 
 
 — Does the Register ever see the notes ? 
 A. — Not until they are redeemed. 
 
18 
 
 (,). — Then a note issued, though it is signed by the Register, 
 never passes through the Register's office? 
 
 A. — That is, the notes bear the fac-eimile of the Register's 
 signature. 
 
 Q. — J understand that the Superintendent of the Printing 
 Bureau delivers to the Treasurer direct, the notes, legal-tenders 
 or fractional currency when the latter was in existence. Do 
 they pass through any other hands but those two ? 
 
 A. — They do not. 
 
 Q. — They are ready for circulation when the Treasurer re- 
 ceives them from the Printing Bureau ? 
 A. — They are then ready for circulation. 
 
 This shows that the liegister's name is on the legal tender 
 notes, but he does not see them before the} T are put into circula- 
 tion. They are delivered direct by the Printing Bureau to the 
 Treasurer, and there is no check upon either of these officers ; 
 and this is an admitted fact. 
 
 BONDS AND INTEREST. 
 
 Treasurer Gilfillan, in relation to accrued interest on bonds, 
 testifies on page 105 : 
 
 Q. — No separate account on the books was kept of principal 
 and interest ? 
 
 A. — Of the receipts, no, sir. 
 
 Q. — Can your office give the exact amount of bonds now in 
 circulation ? 
 A. — No, sir. 
 
 This shows that no separate account is kept by the Treasurer 
 of accrued interest on bonds ; the only years's accrued interest 
 that can be given is 1879, whei it amounted to about §1,700,000. 
 IS T o officer has kept an account of accrued interest collected or 
 can tell the amount heretofore collected. The Treasurer, from 
 his books, cannot tell the amount of bonds now or heretofore in 
 circulation. 
 
 Mr. Gilfillan also says, that so far as his office is concerned, 
 coupons on bonds may be paid more than once, if genuine. 
 
 Q. — Then you might, so far as your office is concerned, pay 
 coupons of duplicate numbers, or a greater amount of coupons 
 than were out ? 
 
 A. — If they were genuine coupons. 
 
 If the coupons of duplicate bonds were genuine they might be 
 paid at the different sub-treasuries. At New York and Wash- 
 ington the}' might pay coupons on the same numbers, and if 
 there were twenty bonds issued, of the same or duplicate num- 
 bers, the coupons on all would be paid. 
 
 On the question of alteration, changes and erasures of the 
 Treasury books, William Woodville testifies, on page 112: 
 
 Q, — Did you find upon those books alterations or errors or 
 erasures in figures . ; 
 
 A. — Yes, sir; I found alterations, scratches, canceled war- 
 Hants. 
 
14 
 
 Q. — To what extent ? 
 
 A. — In the Treasurer's books from 1860 to 1867, inclusive, the- 
 alterations, scratches and canceled warrants amounted to about 
 twelve hundred in round numbers. 
 
 Q. — Twelve hundred different alterations ? 
 
 A. — Alterations, scratches and canceled warrants, anything 
 like a change from the original amount. 
 
 Q. — Just explain generally what you found upon the books in 
 regard to erasures or alterations of figures. 
 
 A. — Amounts scratched and new figures substituted. 
 
 You see from the above that the testimony shows on the 
 Treasury books between 1860 and 1867, in round numbers, 
 twelve hundred alterations, changes, erasures, <fcc., affecting 
 amouuts ranging from a few dollars to many millions. Mr. 
 Saville, former chief clerk of Treasur}' Department, (page 122), 
 answered : 
 
 Q. — Do you think it would be good bookkeeping to carry 
 erasures into the Ledger ? Of course a ledger is made up from 
 the day books and journals, and do you think it would be good 
 bookkeeping to make "lots" of erasures and alterations, as you 
 expressed it, in the ledgers? 
 
 A. — I should not call it good bookkeeping. I would not em- 
 ploy a bookkeeper who did much of it. 
 
 On the same point let me read from Mr. (xeutry's testimony, 
 page 174 : 
 
 John W, Gentry sworn and examined. 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. — Have you made a careful examination of certain ledgers 
 of the Eegister and Secretary ot the Treasury? 
 A. — I have. 
 
 Q. — You selected one of the number that you have examined 
 as an example of all that you examined ? 
 
 A. — I did of those mentioned in this statement. 
 
 Q. — Is the statement before you the statement you wish now 
 to offer as being a correct statement of the erasures and appar- 
 ent alterations on the books you examined ? 
 
 A.— It is. 
 
 The eight (8) ledgers enumerated below have also been ex- 
 amined, with the results as stated : 
 
 Three (3) Ledgers from Office of Register. 
 
 Title of Ledger. 
 
 Period. 
 
 Number of Erasures and Appar- 
 ent Alterations. 
 
 1. Interior appropriation 
 ledger No. 4. 
 
 2. Naval appropriation 
 ledger No 6. 
 
 Military appropriation 
 ledger No. 1U. 
 
 From July 1, 1861, to 
 
 June 30* 1868. 
 From July 1, 1861, to 
 
 June 30. 1866. 
 From July 1, 1867, to 
 
 June 30, 1871. 
 
 One hundred and fifty-three. 
 One hundred and thirty-seven. 
 One hundred and thirty-eight. 
 
15 
 
 si.,- (6) Ledger 8 from ( Office of Secretary of tl<< Tr< a&u > y, 
 
 Title of Ledger. 
 
 Period. 
 
 Number of Erasures and Appar- 
 ent Alterations. 
 
 4. Interior appropriation 
 ledger No 3 
 
 5. Naval appropriation 
 ledger No. 5. 
 
 6. Naval appropriation 
 ledger No. 6. 
 
 7. Naval appropriation 
 ledger No. 7. 
 
 8. Military appropriation 
 ledger No. 10. 
 
 From July I, l.suo, to 
 
 June :JO, 1868. 
 From Julv 1, I860, to 
 
 June 30. 18(53. 
 From July 1, 1863, to 
 
 June 30, 1867 
 From July 1, 1807, to 
 
 June 30, 1875. 
 From Julv 1, 1859, to 
 
 June 30, 1863. 
 
 Two hundred and ninety-six. 
 One hundred and ninety-three. 
 Six hundred and sixty-eight. 
 Four hundred and lifty-seven. 
 One hundred and sixty-eight. 
 
 Three ledgers from Register's Office, containing 428 erasures and apparent alterations. 
 
 Six ledgers from Secretary's office, containing 2,099 erasures and appai cnt^alterations. 
 
 Total in nine ledgers 2,527 
 
 1 certify that I have carefully examined the nine ledgers enumerated above, and that the 
 foregoing is a true statement of the erasures and apparent alterations. 
 
 JOHN W. GENTRY, Clerk. 
 
 Thus it appears that on the nine ledgers named there are 
 2,527 alterations, changes and erasures, involving amounts from 
 a lew dollars to twenty millions or more. The books referred 
 to are the great ledgers of the Treasury Department, not the 
 day-books or journals. The erasures and changes on the day- 
 book and journals are so numerous that we did not count them. 
 The ledgers of the Treasury Department have thousands of ap- 
 parent alterations, &c, involving many hundred millions of dol- 
 lars, and no person in the Department can tell why it was done 
 or who did it. 
 
 Major Power, on page 91, says no scratch or misentry should 
 appear on the ledgers. Mr. Saviile says he would not retain a 
 a bookkeeper who made changes on the ledgers. Yet thousands 
 of changes are now on the ledgers of the Treasury Department, 
 and no one can tell or has told who did it or why it was done. 
 
 On the subject of leaves being cut out of the books, AVilliam 
 Woodville, on page 113, says: 
 
 Q. — Do you know of leaves being entirely out of the books 
 that appeared to have been cut out ? 
 
 A. — Yes, sir. In the beginning of the war some of the Treas- 
 urer's accounts are that way, about 1S61 and 1862. 
 — In how many instances ? 
 
 A. — Two — four leavos in one case and live in the other. I 
 can produce the books, if you wish. 
 
 This shows that not only changes, etc., in amounts have been 
 made, but that entire leaves are out of books and cannot be ac- 
 counted for — no one can tell what amounts they affected, why 
 the leaves were cut out, or what became of them — it has not 
 been explained. 
 
 The minority report admits the above and says : 
 
 Numerous alterations and erasures upon the books of the Sec- 
 retary) Treasurer and Register were discovered, and in some 
 instances entire leaves were found to be cut or torn from some 
 of the books. 
 
 Major Power (page 73) testifies that to examine the debt 
 statement carefully to find errors, if any, for a year during the 
 
16 
 
 late war would require four or five clerks a year. Ou the same 
 page we find the following : 
 
 Q. — Going into the warrants and transactions of the Govern- 
 ment to show whether or not there were errors in the accounts? 
 
 A. — To not go beyond the stated accounts as stated and cei- 
 tilied by the Comptrollers, it would not be a task of much dif- 
 ficulty. It would take four or five years. 
 
 Q. — For how many clerks? 
 
 A. — With a corps of seven or eight clerks. 
 
 Thus it appears that this experienced officer of the Treasury 
 Department testifies that it would take seven or eight clerks 
 four or five years to examine carefully the accounts of the Gov- 
 ernment between 1860 and 1870. Notwithstanding this the tes- 
 timony is that a new and inexperienced clerk examined the 
 books from 1833 to to 1870 in four or live months, and upon 
 that examination wholesale changes were made. Mr, Bayley, 
 a clerk in the Treasury Department, page 116, testified, and 
 that he was a new clerk, and the first work he did in the De- 
 partment was to make up statements: 
 
 Q. Did you, in 1870, assist Mr. Saville, chief clerk of the 
 Treasury Department in making up a revisory statement of the 
 accounts in the Secretary's office? 
 
 A. I did. 
 
 Q. How long were you at it ? 
 
 A. About four months and a half. 
 
 Q. How~ many were engaged at it in all? 
 
 A. No one but myself at that time in the actual work. If I want- 
 ed any advice or assistance from either Mr. Fish or Dr. Guilford, 
 I asked for it. and it was always furnished me. 
 
 Q. Did you do the entire work yourself? 
 
 A. I did : that is to say, I understand you are speaking now 
 of the tables in the Secretary's report. 
 
 It has often been said, and it ought to be so. that the books, 
 accounts, and statements of the Secretary's office, the Comptrol- 
 ler's office, the Treasurer's office, and the Register's should agree 
 at the end of each quarter, and especially at the end of the fis- 
 cal year. The law allows forty-five days to close up each fiscal 
 year's accounts, and the testimony of Mr. Saville and others 
 says that sixty days is ample. The usage is to take from June 
 30 to about December 1 — five months; notice is given from the 
 Secretary's office of the number of the last warrant issued in 
 each quarter and year, so the Secretary, Comptroller, Treasu- 
 rer, and Register ought to agree to a cent. If you examine the 
 statement of the Secretary and Register of interest paid each 
 3'ear from 1860 do 1870, you will find six different statements 
 (see page 153) made by the Secretary and Register; all differ, 
 ranging from a few thousand dollars to many millions. 
 
 The Treasurer does not keej} an account of interest paid. The 
 minority report says: 
 
 The statement of the amount of interest on the public debt 
 paid as reported by the Secretary. Treasurer, and the Register, 
 
17 
 
 respectively, do not agree, but the committee did not investi- 
 gate the cause of this discrepancy. The Treasurer does not keep 
 a separate account of the interest paid. 
 
 There are millions of dollars difference between the Secretin'}', 
 Treasurer, and Register as to cash in the Treasury at the end 
 ot fiscal years. This is shown by table 4, on page 153 of the 
 testimony. It is a fact that the statements of the Secretary, 
 Register, and Treasurer all differ widely at the end of fiscal 
 years between 18li0 and 1870 as to cash in the Treasury, inter- 
 est paid, receipts and expenditures, and the amount ot the pub- 
 lic debt. Yet we arc told that the books arc all right, and that 
 they are checks upon each other. How can this be when they 
 differ so widely ? No explanation is given by the minority re- 
 port or the Treasury officials. 
 
 Major Power testifies that it would require seven or eight 
 clerks four or five years to carefully examine the receipt and 
 expenditure accounts between 1SG0 and 1870; yet upon four and 
 a half months' work of Mr. Bay ley the statements officially re- 
 ported to Congress from 1789 to 1870 were changed and restat- 
 ed, which largely increased the receipts and expenditures and 
 the public debt. 
 
 It is the intention and belief that the Secretary's, Comptrol- 
 ler's, Treasurer's, and Register's books and statements are 
 cheeks upon each other, and that no money can go into or out 
 of the Treasury without the knowledge of each. I call atten 
 tion to the following table, from page 152 of the testimony : 
 
 No. 4— 0. 
 
 Comparative Statement of the total Reeeipts.and Expenditures and Balances in the 
 Treasury, for the Fiscal Yearn 18G0 to 1870, inclusive, in Treasurer's and Sec- 
 retary's and Rer/ister 7 . Statements to Committee. 
 
 (Prepared by the Senate Com mil tee (it Treasury Accounts) 
 
 TOTAL DECEIPTS. 
 
 Tear. 
 
 A 2 
 
 SI 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 2 « i 
 
 « — -J 
 
 9 33 
 H 
 
 Secretary's and 
 Register's state- 
 ments to Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 «B £ U 60 © 
 
 * «n ,= - *j 
 •L « % ta 30 
 
 2 - _ *>. T. 03 
 
 m = V a \ 15 
 - a> - — i w 
 
 Total Receipts. 
 
 Total Receipts. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 I860 
 
 S80.544.805 71 §76,841,407 S3 
 88. 694,545 03 83,371,640 13 
 589 301,545 86 1 581.679.915 93 
 896.396,010 45' SS9.379.652 5? 
 1,408.474.234 51 1,393,461,017 57 
 1.8-26,075,227 14 1,805.939,345 93 
 1.326.610,336 25 1.270,8-1.17:; 11 
 1,176,776,082 57 1,131.060,920 56 
 1,075,324,046 89 1,030,749.516 32 
 658.467.731 68 1 609,621, 82S 27 
 774,464,430 01 696,729,973 63 
 
 S3, 703. 397 83 
 5,322.904 90 
 7,62l.62!i 93 
 7,016,387 93 
 15 013.216 94 
 20,135,881 21 
 55 726,163 14 
 45,715,162 01 
 44.574,530 37 
 48,845,903 41 
 77,734 456 3S 
 
 1861 
 
 18G2 
 
 1863 
 
 1864 
 
 I860 
 
 1866 
 
 1867 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 Totals 
 
 Increase in Treasurer's as compared with 
 Secretary's and Register's statements. 
 
 9.901,129,026 10 
 9,569,719,392 00 
 
 9,569,719,392 00 
 
 331,409.634 10 
 
 331,409,634 10 
 
 331,409,634 10 
 
18 
 
 This table shows that from 186fi to 1870 the Treasurer reports 
 find accounts for <8>3 51,409,634 10 more of receipts than the 
 Secretary charges him with. If you take the expenditure of 
 the Government as shown by the tables on page 152, yon will 
 see that the Treasurer says the expenditures of the Government 
 between 1800 and 1870 were $330,981,109 05 more than t lie Sec- 
 retary's and Register's statements show. 
 
 The minority report says 
 
 The total and the net receipts and expenditures as reported 
 by the Secretary, Comptroller, and Register at the close ol each 
 fiscal year, all agree, the one with the other, but the statement 
 made by the Treasurer differs materially from the others. 
 
 The following table shows the differences between the Secre- 
 tary and Register as to the public debt between 1833 and 1870, 
 (page 149 ot testimony :) 
 
 No. 1 — O. — Secretary's and Register's Tabular Statements of the outstanding Pub 
 lie Debt for the Fiscal Years 1833 to 1870, inclusive. 
 
 PREPARED BY SENATE COMMITTEE ON TREASURY ACCOUNTS. 
 (Copied from the Finance Reports of 1870 and 1871.) 
 
 Year 
 
 3833 ... 
 
 1834.... 
 
 1835.... 
 
 j 836... 
 
 3837.... 
 
 1838... 
 
 1.-39.... 
 
 1K40..,. 
 
 1841.... 
 
 1842... 
 
 1843.... 
 
 1S44... 
 
 184*.... 
 
 1846.... 
 
 1847.... 
 
 3848.... 
 
 184!).... 
 
 1850.... 
 
 1851.... 
 
 185.'.... 
 
 3853..-. 
 
 1854..: 
 
 1855.... 
 
 1>56.... 
 
 1857.... 
 
 1858.... 
 
 3 85«J.... 
 
 ISO).... 
 
 186!.... 
 
 1862.... 
 
 18(;:{... 
 
 1864.... 
 
 1865... 
 
 J866.... 
 
 2867.... 
 
 1.S68.... 
 
 186».... 
 
 j870.... 
 
 Secretary's state-:] Register's state- 
 ment, "fi na ii <• e moot, finance 
 report, 1870, pagoi report, 18 70, 
 xxv. page 276. 
 
 87,001,608 83 
 
 4,760,082 0S| 
 
 37,5 3 05i 
 
 336,957 83! 
 
 3 308,124 071 
 
 0.434,221 14 
 
 10 
 
 $ 7,001,032 88 
 4.760,081 08 
 351,289 05 
 291.080 05 
 1.878.223 55 
 - 4.S57.660 46 
 
 13,594,480 73 
 20,601.226 28 
 32.742,922 00 
 23 461,652 50 
 15,925 303 01 
 15,5^,202 97 
 38,826,534 77 
 47,044,862 '.3 
 
 no 
 
 ,0(. 
 
 63,452,773 55 
 68,304,796 02 
 66,199.341 71 
 59,803,117 70 
 42.242 222 42 
 
 3C972,5:<7 9(8 
 28,699,831 85 
 44,911.881 03| 
 58,490,837 88! 
 6-1,842,287 88 
 90 580.873 72 J 
 524,176 412 13] 
 1,119.772,138 C3 
 1.815.784,370 57 
 2,680.617,869 74 
 2, 77::. 2:; ; 173 69 
 2.678. 120.10 f 87 
 2.611,687,851 19 
 2,588,452,213 94 
 2,480,472,427 81 
 
 15.028,4-6 37 
 27.203,4511 69 
 24,748,188 23 
 17.093.794 SO 
 16.750.926 33 
 
 64!7Q4'693 71 
 64.228.238 37 
 
 90,8i 
 514.2 
 
 $98,7! 
 
 ,740 6! 
 6s2 5! 
 
 .783,4-. 
 
 ,181 37 
 489 49 
 
 1 v). » '2. 480581 
 338,35i,5J'J74 I 
 
 Secretary's compared with 
 Register's. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 $6j _ . 9; 
 1 M 
 
 45,868 7 
 1,429.900 5 
 5,576,560 6 
 
 6, 80/, 08 2 7: 
 5,572 iS9 9 1 
 5,539,471 :.) 
 
 5.744,400 76 
 1,067,649 58 
 
 1,008,628 26 
 "T 103 37 
 72,584 SO 
 
 9.965.040 21 
 20,97>.!)">7 26 
 75,0!)3,S81 08 
 
 99.449,733 36 
 '.14,313.828 07 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 Register's State- 
 ment, Finance 
 Report, 1871, 
 page 368. 
 
 $313,776 00 
 
 8,410,393 71 
 
 1.286 535 73 
 1,1 OS. 491 79 
 1,200.723 36 
 
 130.088 61 
 1.481,517 14 
 1,612,835 02 
 
 775.464 82 
 
 7,537,511 08 
 4,999.983 63 
 4,382,774 49 
 
 J7.001.698 83 
 4,760,082 03 
 37.513 05 
 336.! 57 83 
 3,308,124 07 
 10,434,221 14 
 
 13.594 
 20.60: 
 32,742 
 23.461 
 15 925 
 15.550 
 38 82G 
 
 S75 54 
 4 so 73 
 226 28 
 
 360,555 05 
 257,S6l 45 
 '286 ^4 1)6 
 
 5 1.945,156 79 
 10,189.705 52 
 14.073.111 25 
 24,633,113 48 
 
 1 
 
 47,044 
 63,0(1 1, 
 63,452 
 68.304, 
 66,199 
 59.S03 
 42,242 
 35.. ^ 6 
 
 28J699-, 
 44 !)l I, 
 58,496. 
 64 842, 
 90.580, 
 524 176, 
 1.119.772, 
 1,815.784, 
 2,680,647. 
 
 2 678.126! 
 2.611,687. 
 2. 558. 452. 
 2 480, (i 72. 
 
 303 01 
 21 2 97 
 5 14 77 
 ,862 23 
 ,858 69 
 
 \lW 02 
 341 71 
 117 70 
 ,222 42 
 956 50 
 537 90 
 831 H5 
 881 03 
 837 83 
 28 7 88 
 
 4!2 13 
 138 63 
 370 57 
 869 74 
 173 69 
 103 87 
 Sol 19 
 213 91 
 427 81 
 
19 
 
 The tabic is from the official finance report of 1870, and is tho 
 result of the Secretary's new system or order to change the offi- 
 cial statements which appear for the first time in 1870. It will 
 be seen that the changes, alterations, and differences commence 
 in 1833 and continue until 1870; but up to 1861 the difference is 
 very small, only $72,581.80, which shows that the debt was stat- 
 cd substantially correct up to 18(51, and between 1801 and 1870 
 
 the great differences appear. 
 
 In 1SG2 tho (IiftVrenci or Pncrojsn was near ~ S10/a0 0^000 
 
 In 1863 the dilfereilOO <>r increase was noir 20,000,000 
 
 In 1SG1 the dill'erenec or increase was near 7.">,00(),G()0 
 
 In lSul) ami 1870 e.irh, the diltjr^ne? or incrensj was near 100,000,01)0 
 
 1 next come to the appropriation warrants missing. 
 
 M. C. Hooker is custodian of warrants in the Treasury De- 
 partment. I read from page 138: 
 
 The witness, Mellon C. Hooker, after being absent for some 
 time, returned, and his examination was continued as follows: 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. — What report did }~ou make? 
 
 A. — The warrants for which your memorandum calls, namely, 
 No. 895, dated June 30, 1868, and No. 947, dated June 30, 1870, 
 do not appear on the files, neither have they been on the files 
 since I have been custodian of the warrants. 
 
 Q. — Can you direct us to any place where we should be likely 
 to get information connected with them? 
 
 A. — I cannot. 
 
 The two very large warrants Nos. 895 and 947, respectively 
 covering permanent and indefinite appropriations for the years 
 lSGSand 1870— 
 
 Amounting in the yer.r 18t> 3 to 8347,2f)!).4.")0 80 
 
 Amounting in the year 1870 to : 510,760.511 95 
 
 Amounting in two years to SI, 387,909,062 75 
 
 have disappeared. 
 
 No one in the Treasury could give 3'our committee informa- 
 tion as to the whereabouts of these two large warrants which 
 transferred from the Treasury more than a billion of dollars. 
 
 The corresponding warrant for 1869 transfers from the Treas- 
 ury about 8400,000,000, and is scratched and apparently altered 
 in several places, involving many millions of dollars. Mv. 
 Hooker also states that the appropriation warrants for IS70, No. 
 921 to 9-17 inclusive, twenty-seven in all, are missing. Pages 
 196 to 198 contains a copy of appropriation warrant No. 919, 
 dated August 7, 1869, and signed '-Geo. S. Bontwcll," which 
 takes from the Treasury §397,945,900.96. This warrant has 
 numerous scratches and apparent alterations on it, involving 
 large amounts. There are many other warrants apparently 
 altered; some have as many as thirty or forty apparent altera- 
 tions upon them. 
 
 ***** 
 
 As to accrued and unclaimed interest, Treasurer Gilfillan 
 (page 157 of testimony) says the year 1879 is the only year for 
 Which that ucwucd interest on bonds can be given. In that 
 
20 
 
 year it amounted to $1,720,677.21. Largo as this amount is, 
 there is no officer in the Treasury Department that can give an 
 account of it. Of all the bonds sold, no account of accrued inter- 
 est is given, and if you examined the column of interest received 
 in the finance reports no amount is accounted for, 
 
 It will be seen by Treasurer Gilh' I lan 's testimony, on pages 157 
 and 158, that only about one-seventh ot the bonds issued by the 
 Governmcntgo through or arc paid for through the Treasurer's 
 Office. Six-sevenths ot the bonds issued are ordered direct from the 
 Secretary's office, and the order is given to the loan division of the 
 Secretary's office to issue the bond, and the Treasurer knows 
 nothing of the transaction until he is notified that the money 
 is deposited in the First National Hank of New York, or some 
 other depository. The Treasurer should have more to do with 
 issues of bonds, and the Secretary and the loan division less. 
 
 On page 191 of testimony is Table No. 9, which shows that 
 the Treasurer, in the finance report for 1870, says he held Juno 
 30, 1870, purchased on account of sinking and specie fund, $123,- 
 429,100; on page 194 the Treasurer gives the character of the 
 bonds and adds up and makes SI 23,429,100; finance report, 1870, 
 page xiv, the Secretary says the amount was $121,429,100; the 
 Secretary furnishes a statement to the committee in which he 
 states the same fund to be 8117,740,000; showing a difference 
 between the statements of about $6,000,000. If you examine 
 the statement of reduction of the public debt issued by the Treas- 
 ury Department it shows that the reduction of debt lor 1870 was 
 $102,643,880.84. This makes a difference i n the statement of near- 
 ly $20,000,000. In the debt statements of the Secretary and Register 
 as reported in the finance report for 1870 there is a difference or in- 
 crease of $94,313,828.07 according to official statements, instead of a 
 reduction of the public debt of $123,429,100, which was the amount 
 of bonds bought and paid for. If you compare the statements of the 
 public debt made by the Register and the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 there is an increase of the public debt of between ninety and one hun- 
 dred inillionsin 1870. 
 
 The minority report on this subject says, which substantially 
 admits all I claim : 
 
 '•The Secretary's statement of the sinking fund and of the 
 bonds purchased therefor in the years 18G9 and 1870, does not 
 agree with the Treasurer's statement on the same subject." 
 
 The testimony of William Woodville, pages 178 to 190, shows 
 that there are many and large changes in the receipts and ex- 
 penditures between 1800 and 1870 which are unaccounted for. 
 
 If the testimony and tables from pages 192 to 195 are exam- 
 ined tliey show that the different Departments disagree as to 
 amount of money received from Treasury; that is, the amoants 
 charged by the Treasury Department dillcr widely from the 
 amounts acknowledged and credited by the Departments of 
 State, War, Navy, Interior. As to the amount relating to pen- 
 sions between 1800 and 1870, the difference or increase in the 
 statement of the Secretary of the Treasury as compared with the 
 statement of the Secretary of the Interior is $11,384,403.74. 
 
21 
 
 The books or accounts between tho Treasury and other Depart- 
 ments will not agree by large amounts. 
 
 I come now to the printing division. The testimony, pages 
 229, 2o() and 231, shows that about 5 per cent, of the paper used 
 by the Printing Bureau is returned to the loan division, which 
 is t lie same office that issues the paper. National bank notes, 
 legal tenders, bonds, and internal revenue stamps are delivered 
 ready for use to the Comptroller, tho Treasurer, the loan di- 
 vision, and the Commissioner of Internal Ilevenue, and there 
 are no checks between tho Printing Bureau and those receiving 
 these printed impressions. All ought to pass through the Reg- 
 ister or some other offieo before delivery for use. I think thero 
 is room for fraud in the above deliveries. I am told the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury has lately made a change such as was sug- 
 gested by the committee. 
 
 Mr. Saville, who was chief clerk of the Treasury Department 
 in 1870 when the many changes in the statements and official 
 finance reports were made, on page 201 of the testimony, says: 
 
 Q — Now state the reasons that induced the changed state- 
 ment of the public debt it) 1871 ? 
 
 A. — The primary reason was that we desired to be accurate. 
 We wanted to be able to put before the world a statement that 
 we could swear to, if necessary. 
 
 Here it is stated that the reason for making these wholesale 
 changes in official statements and finance reports to Congress 
 was that they wanted a statement they could swear to. It will 
 be recollected that the written order to Register Ailison to make 
 the great changes was on the ground that the different state- 
 ments were unfavorably commented upon abroad. 
 
 Mr. Saville says in answer to a question, pago 208 : 
 
 Q. — Am I to understand, or not, that you examined each book, 
 each entry on account of the public debt from the organization 
 of the Government down to 1870 ? 
 
 A. — O, no, sir; I did not examine each entry. 1 examined 
 each book and each account, but not in detail, so as to go to 
 each entry. It would have taken years to have examined each 
 entry. 1 had expected, I may say, to do that before I got 
 through. 
 
 This shows that Mr. Saville sa} r s there was not a careful ex- 
 amination of the books before the many changes were made. 
 Mr. Bay ley told us in his testimony that he alone did the work 
 of examination of books in four months and a half ; that he took 
 the footings from printed documents, &c. Now Mr. Saville tells 
 us he did not examine each entry, but made the changes 
 and expected afterwards to examine more carefully. 
 
 On pages 212 and 213 Mr. Saville says the system of book- 
 keeping was changed it' 1870, and tho changes, when compared 
 with tho amounts previously reported by the Pegisicr, increased 
 the debt statement in — 
 
 1862 (about) $10,000,000 
 
 1363 (about) 20,000.000 
 
 1864 (about) 75,000. COO 
 
22 
 
 There lias been no attempt by any one to explain the abovo 
 increases in the public debt. On page 214 Mr. Savillo says that, 
 in order to keep the public debt correctly b}^ receipts and expen- 
 ditures, it is necessary to make entries not warranted by law. 
 Yet in 1870 the Hamilton system of keeping accounts by "issues 
 and redemption" was changed and a different one adopted, and 
 the result is an apparent increase in the public debt of many 
 millions. On that point 1 would iikc to have read a quotation 
 from a speech that Mr. Sherman made in the Senate in 1876. 
 The Secretary will please read the statement of the present 
 Secretaiy of the Treasury, and let it be seen what he thinks 
 about the changes in finance reports. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "I have often heard it complained that the system of keeping 
 accounts in some branches of the service ought to be changed ; 
 but it is a very difficult and a very dangerous process, and I invito 
 the careful scrutiny of any man who undertakes to improve on the 
 work of Alexander Hamilton and Albert Gallatin and all the great 
 men who filled the office of Secretary ot the Treasury, and to 
 devise a better system of accounting than they with their ma- 
 ture minds and long experience established, and which has been 
 enlarged with the gradual growth of our Government. Their S)'s- 
 tem has been the frame- work of our finances for more than eighty 
 3'ears. The gradual additions to the mode of accounting that 
 have been made by law have probably made as perfect a system 
 as can be devised. But he must be a bold man and a wise man who 
 v^ill undertake, without study and experience, to step in and 
 devise a better s} T stem than this. If we had such a man, if thero 
 is such a one who is willing to undertake the task, 1 shall be 
 very glad to co-operate with him. 1 doubt very much the pro- 
 priety of any tinkering with so complicated a machine as the 
 Treasury Department." 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia. It will be seen that the present 
 Secretaiy of the Treasury doubted very much the propriety of 
 tinkering with these Treasury accounts at the time. I believe 
 the word ''tinkering" is his own and not mine. 
 
 The report of the committee on page 50 gives a statement 
 compiled from Senator Edmunds's report from the Committee 
 on Retrenchment made to the Senate March 3, 1869, it showing 
 that there were partially unaccounted for about §49.000,000 in 
 United States bonds, and about 810,000,000 in Treasury notes, 
 legal-tenders, kc. In 18G9 the Senator from Vermont thought 
 then as other Senators now think, that there were many mil- 
 lions to be accounted lor. The Senator then said, on page 102 
 of his report : 
 
 "The books and accounts between the various subdivisions of 
 the printing establishment have been, until recently, (to say 
 nothing of defects still existing.) so irrcgulary kept, and contain 
 many of them on examination so man}- erasures and alterations, as 
 considerably to diminish confidence in the accuracy of results de- 
 rived from such sources." 
 
23 
 
 On page 07 the Edmonds report says: 
 
 "The methods of accountability and comparison between the 
 various bureaus in the Treasury Department, as well an their 
 own operations, have been, since the war began, as it seems to 
 us, quite imperfect and deficient, and in some respects grossly 
 ca re I ess." 
 
 Again : 
 
 "To put the best face on it. it is evident that the course of 
 things there has not been such as to merit commendation in 
 many respects, as will be seen from the evidence herewith re- 
 turned. Many things have been done which, although perhaps 
 innocent in themselves, could but have a demoralizing tendency, 
 and to suggest opportunities and methods of fraud to employes." 
 
 So it appears that the Edmunds committee found a large 
 amount of notes and bonds not satisfactorily accounted for by 
 the Printing Bureau or Treasury Department Deducting tho 
 excess, the total of notes and bonds unaccounted lor was 
 $59,379 ; GU9. 
 
 This was the report of a committee made in 1869, of which 
 the Senator from Vermont was chairman, and bo admits, there 
 was nearly 800,000,000 in doubt, and says the imperfect methods 
 of keeping the accounts "suggest opportunities and methods of 
 fraud." 
 
 Now what arc our conclusions? The testimony shows, and 
 the facts are. that each month, quarter, and year, the Secretary's 
 office, the Comptroller's, and Register's have compared state- 
 ments and accounts, and if they did not agree they were made 
 to agree. 
 
 It has often been said that the Secretary, Comptroller, Treas- 
 urer, and Register are checks upon each other. Up to 1869 
 and since 1870 all statements substantially agree. Notwithstand- 
 ing the comparisons, checks, and agreements, the statements 
 made in official finance reports previous to 1870 and since do 
 not agree by hundreds of millions of dollars. 
 
 From the days of Washington and Hamilton to Grant and 
 Bout well the official accounts and statements to Congress and 
 the country agreed, but there are large and many changes during 
 the Grant and Boutwell administration. I think it doubtful 
 whether half the facts connected with the wholesale changes in 
 official finance reports, books, and accounts will ever be known, 
 certainly not until there is a political change in the adminis- 
 tration and the Treasury Department of this Government. 
 
 The many changes, scratches, and apparent alterations in 
 official statements and in figures were made by some one and for 
 an object. Who did itor why it was done has not been explained. 
 Why did not the Treasury officials or the minority of the 
 com mittee call the party or parties who did the work and 
 explain ? 
 
 Mr. Ingalls. The Senator does not state that the books were 
 changed ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia. T said that tho accounts and 
 statements were changed. 
 
24 
 
 Mr. In galls. In the original books? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia. ] said that the official state- 
 ments as made to Congress from the earliest days of the Gov- 
 ernment down to 1870 continued one and the same without 
 alteration or without change, but between 18G9 and 1870 the 
 many changes that 1 have spoken of and many others that J 
 have not alluded to appear to have taken place. When theso 
 figures were restated in 1870 under the new system, they ap- 
 peared much larger than they had appeared previously, and so 
 they remain in 4 Jie reports to day. 
 
 * * : / * * 
 
 In our report and in tables I have used no tact has been stated 
 or figures used not taken from official documents or proven by 
 some Treasury official. 
 
 The Treasury Department and the minority of the committee 
 had full and ample opportunity to explain or contradict all 
 statements and figures of the majority report, but in nearly every 
 instance failed to do so. 
 
 The minority report, page 59, in referring to the changes, 
 discrepancies, &a, in official statements, books, and accounts, 
 says : 
 
 '•The undersigned are of opinion that the differences in theso 
 statements are unfortunate, and they can think of no remedy 
 for the trouble but the establishment of a rule in the Depart- 
 ment that all tables and statements shall emanate from one 
 source and shall invariably be made from the same data and 
 upon the same principle." 
 
 This is a square admission by the minority of the committed 
 that there are differences in Treasury statements and they 
 regret it. 
 
 The following table will show the great difference or increase 
 in the amount of public debt between 18G2 and 1870, as stated 
 by the Secretary and Register of the Treasury ; 
 
 Year. 
 
 Pub'ic Debt, as stated in the 
 Finance Report for— 
 
 Increase 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 1871 and sulise-' „ 
 quent Reports—. 18 ^ and previous 
 Secretary's state- Reports- H.gis- 
 ment, * ter's statement. 
 
 18G2 
 
 $524,176,412 13 $514,211,371 92 
 1.119.772.138 <;:> 1 .098.79 i. 1,81 37 
 
 S9.9G5.040 21 
 20,978,957 26 
 75,093,881 08 
 
 
 1S63 
 
 
 1864 
 
 1,815.784 370 57 
 2.680 647.86!) 74 
 2,778,236.173 6<J 
 2,678,1-6.103 87 
 2. 611. 687 851 19 
 2,588,452.213 04 
 2,480,672,427 81 
 
 1.740.694,489 49 
 2 682.593,026 53 
 2,783,425,879 21 
 2.692,199.215 12 
 
 
 1805 
 
 81.945,166 79 
 10,18'»,705 52 
 14,013,111 25 
 24,633,113 43 
 
 18G(i 
 
 
 1867 
 
 
 1868 
 
 2,636.320,! G4 67 
 2.489,002.480 58 
 2,3S6.35S,599 74 
 
 
 J 869 
 
 99,449,733 36 
 94,313,828 07 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 
 19,272,555,561 57 
 
 19,023,595,208 63 
 
 299,801.439 98 
 248,960,352 94 
 
 50,841,087 04 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 It will be seen that the apparent increase in each year is 
 large. The year 1864, $75,000,000; in I860 and 1870, uearly a 
 
25 
 
 hundred million in each year, which has not boon and perhaps 
 cannot be explained. 
 
 Mr. ingalls — May I ask the Senator one further question ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — I believe that I am not wrong in assuming that 
 all these Treasury accounts appear in duplicate and triplicate 
 and in some instances in as many as in five different books or 
 statements before they are finally closed in the Department. 
 Now, J ask the Senator it it did not appear affirmatively in the 
 testimony taken before the committee that there were no in- 
 stances in which the erasures or apparent alterations ran through 
 the entire scries, and if it was not true that in every instance 
 the footings and the statements of the accounts agreed in all 
 these different departments. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — 1 cannot answer the Senator's 
 question in that way. Take if you choose the year 18G2. In 
 that year the debt had been stated to Congress as 8514,000,000; 
 it had been so restated by four different Secretaries; had re- 
 mained at 8514,000,000 up to 1870, and when it was restated 
 under the new system in 1870 it was put at 8524,000,000 in 
 round numbers, and remains there to-day. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — What was the apparent increase? 
 
 .Mr. Davis, of Wot Virginia — Ten millions. 
 
 -Mr. Ingalls — Does not the Senator know that there was in 
 the finance report of that year a full and detailed statement of 
 all the discrepancies and how they occurred? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia, Oh, no, sir; I have not seen in 
 any finance report such an explanation, certainly not that year; 
 but in the year 1S71 there was an attempted explanation of theso 
 discrepancies. If the Senator will recollect when the receipts 
 and expenditures were added together and the deductions made, 
 there was 8116,000,000 difference 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — Made up of certain specific items. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Then there was an effort made, 
 and with some success, to explain the 8116,000,000; in other 
 words, if you take the receipts of the Government from the 
 beginning down to June, 1870, and the expenditures, and de- 
 duct one from the other, and then take the amount of the pub- 
 lic debt, you will find that there is 8116,000,000 unexplained on 
 its face Then there was an attempt to explain away the 81 10,- 
 000.000, and, as I say. with some success; but still there is part 
 of that 8116,000,000 not explained. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — In what particulars does the Senator think 
 that the explanation is unsatisfactory? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — There was no effort to explain 
 a part of it at all, and the Senator will recollect very well that 
 the witness, Dr. Guilford, whom we recalled before tho commit- 
 tee, stated that between six and seven millions in the year 1870 
 had been added to the public debt for the purpose of making 
 the statements harmonize. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — Not added to the publie debt. Tho Senator does 
 
 4 
 
20 
 
 not want to be understood as saying that it was an addition to 
 tbc public debt? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — To tbc public debt statement. 
 If you add it to tbc statement it adds it to tbe debt apparently 
 because tbc statement would not agree and would not be as 
 large as it is now if tbat was not added. Tbc witness tells you 
 so. There is no question between tbe Senator and me on that. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — There is certainly a very great question. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — It tbe Senator will look at tbe 
 very last question asked at tbe end of tbe testimony be will find 
 that tbe witness Guilford says tbat tbat six or seven million bad 
 no other existence than tbc order of tbo Secretary to put it 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Ingalls — What page docs the Senator refer to? 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The very last page in thctesti- 
 mon}', page 239. I recollect it very well. Let me read it. 
 By tbe Chairman : 
 
 Q — The on\y existence that those three amounts have to your 
 knowledge is that you were ordered to put them there to make 
 the accounts harmonize? 
 
 A. — That is so. 
 
 The Senator will recollect that at his instance Guilford was 
 recalled, he thinking that there was some mistake as to his say T - 
 ing whether it was on it or net. 
 
 Mr. Dawes — Will the Senator allow me to understand what he 
 intends to have tbe public understand? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Certainly, I have no objection 
 to any question either of my colleagues choose to ask. 
 
 Mr. Dawes — The Senator has stated that it was found by tho 
 committee tbat at some time or other some figures had been 
 changed on the books, found that by inspection. He says that 
 the minority of tho commiitee in no instance called any T wit- 
 nesses to show that that was an honest transaction. Now, I 
 should like to know of him — 
 
 Mr, Davis, of West Virginia — I did not quite say that. I 
 said no witnesses were called to explain or to show who made 
 the alterations. It was in the power of the Department to send 
 us tbe man who did the act. 
 
 Mr. Dawes— 1 want the Senator to tell the countn 7 , in connec- 
 tion with this indictment of the Treasuiy Department, whether 
 in any single instance the committee called any witnesses to 
 show that it was not an honest transaction ? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Tbe committee called the em- 
 ployes of the Treasury Department before them, pointed out 
 these erasures and alterations, and each and every one of them, 
 my recollection is, without being able to put my band just on 
 tbe place, answered that he knew nothing about them, and some 
 of them said, until they were shown them, tbat there were no 
 erasures on the books; and the Senator will recollect that both 
 Mr. Saville and Major Power, who is now chief clerk ot the De- 
 partment, said that erasures ought not to occur upon ledgers, 
 though they might occur upon the day-books. 
 
27 
 
 Mr. Dawes — After that statement of what the witnesses did 
 tcstifj 7 , can the Senator answer me directly, whether the com- 
 mittee called a single witness to show, or whether a single wit- 
 ness called I)}' anybody did show, that in any one of those ap- 
 parent erasures upon the books there was anything wrong? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — The erasures were there. They 
 
 were there by the thousand upon the ledgers. 
 
 * ' * * * * 
 
 Mr. President, I was about concluding 1113' remarks. I shall 
 do so in a few minutes. 
 
 No good, substantial, or satisfactory reason has been given by 
 the Treasury Department or the minority of the committee for 
 the following : 
 
 First— Why the order to Register Allison was issued in 1871, 
 to change his official tabulated statement in the finance reports, 
 going back thirty or fort}' years. 
 
 Second — Why the new mode or system of stating the public 
 debt, apparently largely increasing the debt in 1870, waa 
 adopted. 
 
 Third — Why six to seven millions of dollars not on (he books 
 were added to the public debt in 1871. 
 
 Fourth — Why statements which had been officially made to 
 Congress for many years were in 1870 restated at different 
 amounts, and apparently largely increased the receipts, expen- 
 ditures and public debt. 
 
 Fifth — Why the bonds issued to the Pacific Railroad com- 
 panies amounting to more than $58,000,000, were in 1870 
 dropped from the statement to the public debt, and why the 
 statement of the public debt in 1869 failed to show a decrease 
 corresponding to the amovnt of these bonds. 
 
 Sixth — Why thousands of scratches and alterations, and miss- 
 ing or mutilated leaves, appear in the ledgers of the Treasury 
 Department between I860 and 1870. when the books are com- 
 parative^ clean since and before. 
 
 Seventh — Why scratches and alterations appear on the appro- 
 priation warrant of 18(39, or why the appropriation warrants of 
 1868 and 1870, and a number of other warrants, should havo 
 been missing for years from the files of the Register of the 
 Treasury. 
 
 Eighth — Why the reports of the cash in the Treasury, the in- 
 terest paid on the public debt, or the sinking f und, do not agree 
 by many millions of dollars. 
 
 Ninth — Why the Treasurer's report, between 1860 and 1870, 
 of the receipts and expenditures differs largely from the reports 
 of the Secretary and Register. 
 
 Tenth — And why the charges ota the books of the Treasury 
 Department of sums received by the other Departments do not 
 agree by millions with the books ol the Department so charged. 
 
 Eleventh — Why in 1870 the public debt receipts and expen- 
 ditures previously officially reported to Congress and accepted 
 as correct, were restated or altered, largely increasing the 
 amounts. 
 
28 
 
 The majority and minority reports substantially agree upon 
 all the leading facts stated. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, as there is no objection, and I do not 
 wish to prolong the debate. I will ask that the resolutions of'tho 
 committee which I believe we were very unanimous upon may 
 be read so thai they may be acted upon and that the informa- 
 tion asked from the Department may be given by the next ses- 
 sion of Congress. 
 
 * * + * * 
 
 Mr. Whyte — Mr. President, before this subject passes away I 
 should like to sa} T one word. I went upon this Committee of 
 Treasury Accounts somewhat impressed with the idea from 
 what I had heard of the manner rn which the accounts had been 
 kept according to the theory of Alexander Hamilton and the 
 other financiers of the past time who had presided over the des- 
 tinies of t hai Department, that I was to find a set of books kept 
 in a scientific and artistic manner. I presumed that the Agis- 
 ter of the Treasury, who was the official bookkeeper of the Gov- 
 ernment, had upon his books an acenrate statement ot the issues 
 and redemptions of the public debt, of the receipts and expen- 
 ditures of the public money. I had been taught myself at homo 
 in the establishment of the treasury department of my own 
 State in 1851, which had come from the hand of Louis McLano, 
 that it was based upon the accurate manner in which the books 
 of the Treasury Department at Washington were kept, and J 
 expected to find the same safeguards and protections for the 
 public there which in my own Slate had been erected through 
 the skill of Mr. McLane. I was shocked, Mr. President, to find 
 such a condition of things in the Treasury Department as an 
 inspection of their books discloses. 
 
 The distinguished Senators who acted as the minority of the 
 the committee seem to complain greatly because the chairman 
 of the committee will not express his belief that there was wrong 
 perpetrated by somebody in the past, some robbery, some pub- 
 lic plunder committed by somo of the officials who have hereto- 
 fore had charge of that Department. It was not necessary for 
 the Senator from West Virginia to express any such opinion. 
 He would have been culpable in the highest degree if be had 
 given utterance to an opinion which had not some evidence up- 
 on which it could be based. But he found, and we all found, a 
 condition of things in the Treasury Department not creditablo 
 to the financial department of this Government. We found dis- 
 crepancies between the statements of the public debt made by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury and by the official bookkeeper, 
 the .Register of the Treasury Department. We found largo 
 sums constituting those differences, and we found that, for the 
 purpose of removing from the minds of the foreign people who 
 invest in our bonds doubts as to the accuracy of our accounts, 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, or his chief clerk acting under 
 his authority, ordered and directed the official bookkeeper of 
 the Government to change his public statement, to add to it 
 such an item in round numbers, aggregating $6,000,000, for the 
 
29 
 
 purpose oi assimilating and making agree the statement eman- 
 ating from his office and tho statement emanating lrom 
 the office proper of the Secretary of the Treasury. We 
 found more than that, that the Register of the Treasury 
 was directed to enter upon the books 80,000,000 as a part of the 
 public debt for which his clerics admitted they knew of no items 
 on the books of tho Register's office which justified the entering 
 of that SO, 000, 000. We found, also, such looseness, Mich care- 
 lessness, such negligence in the condition of public affairs con- 
 nected with tho administration of the financial department as 
 left the entire protection of this people in the issue of bonds aha 
 in the issue of the Treasury notes to the honesty and integrity 
 of the officials. 
 
 Mr. President, I know that we are at the close of the session, 
 and that gentlemen are anxious to dispose of other matters of 
 business ; but I cannot leave my colleagucon the committee, tho 
 Senator from West Virginia, without bearing testimony to the 
 condition of things of which he has spoken ; and 1 will sny fur- 
 ther, that when he declined here on this floor to charge impro- 
 priety of conduct against the officers, mcrel3 r stating the facts, 
 Which he has not stated in the slightest degree of exaggeration, 
 to the letter as they exist in regard to these discrepancies in the 
 statement of the public debt, in regard to the erasures and al- 
 terations upon the books, upon the ledgers of the finance depart- 
 ment, discreditable to a corner grocery, I felt it due to him to 
 bear witness to the truth of his assertions. Mr. President he 
 lias followed only in the steps of an illustrious predecessor when 
 he has refused to charge crime or wrong against Treasury of- 
 ficials. He has done only what the distinguished Senator from 
 Vermont [Mr. Edmunds] did when he examined into the work- 
 ings of the Printing Bureau in 1809. He found a deficit of 
 $59,000,000 unaccounted for of bonds issued. He made no 
 charge against the Department, but he said that the erasures 
 and alterations upon the books of that Department were such 
 as entitled them to little consideration for accuracy. I hold in 
 my hand his report made to the Senate from the Committee on 
 Retrenchment, in which he makes this statement : that the care- 
 lessness and negligence of the conduct, of that Department was 
 such that it opened the door to fraud, and if there was no proof 
 of actual fraud before him, thero was proof of the grossest neg- 
 ligence which might have permitted any fraud to have been 
 com mitted. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I do not wish to go into the details of these 
 transactions. The reports were before the committee. Some of the 
 discrepancies were explained. The discrepancy of SI 10,000,000 
 was in part explained, but there was, to use the language of tho 
 witness, an elastic item of 810,000,000 that was not explained — 
 quite an elastic item ; $10,000,000 that was left to probability ; 
 that was left to conjecture; that if he had time to go through 
 he might be able to explain it in digging up interest unaccounted 
 for and moneys expended in the changes of bonds. 
 
 Mr. Dawes— Will the Senator state what that $10,000,000 re- 
 lated to ? 
 
.30 
 
 Mr. Whytc— It related to the difference of $116,000,000 in re- 
 gard to the report of 1871. He only accounted for 8106,000,000, 
 and then he said there was an elastic item of 810,000,000 that ho 
 had not explained. 
 
 Mr. Dawes — Docs not the Senator know that it referred to the 
 debt of the Revolution, and that they had not got through with 
 examining it? 
 
 Mr. Why to —He included the Revolutionary debt to mako up 
 his 8106, 000,000, and included everything that he could rake 
 and scrape, and still that elastic sum of 810,0JJ,033 was unex- 
 plained. 
 
 * * * * » 
 
 Mr. President, wo discovered enough to put tho people on their 
 guard, and to induce, I tru>t. Congress to throw around tho 
 Treasury Department chee'es and safeguards to protect the p3>- 
 ple in the issue of notes and tho issue of bemds, so that it will 
 not depend upon the honesty of the official, but ho will be pro- 
 tected in his honesty by proper checks which will show that not 
 a dollar issued that is not lawfully put before the people. 
 
 Mr. Cameron, of Wisconsin — I move to postpone the present 
 and all prior orders 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — This report is before the Senate. 
 
 The Presiding Officer, (Mr. Carpenter in the chair) — Tho 
 Chair will state that this debate is out of order. There is no 
 question before the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia— ThiB report was taken up reg- 
 ularly, and the resolutions of the committee are to be acted on. 
 
 Mr. Cameron, of Wisconsin — There is no action to bo taken 
 in regard to the report. 
 
 Mr. Conkling — Is not amotion to postpone in order? 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Certainly. 
 
 The Presiding Officer — The Chair will state his understanding 
 of the matter. The report was called up for tho purpose of en- 
 abling the Senator from West Virginia to submit remarks, but 
 no motion was made about it. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Now, Mr. President 
 
 Mr. Cameron, of Wisconsin — I have the floor, 1 believe. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — Of course the Senator can mako 
 his motion and I can speak on the motion. If tho idea is to cut 
 off this report when both the majority and the minority wish tho 
 resolutions appended to the report acted on, wo can speak as 
 long as we please on the motion to postpone. I believe there is 
 no division between the majority and the minority as to tho 
 resolutions. They simply ask the Department to give certain 
 information by the meeting of the next session of Congross, and 
 I can sec no objection to having them read and adopted. 
 
 Mr, Cameron, of Wisconsin -If the Senator from West Vir- 
 ginia desires to have the resolutions read for the purpose of hav- 
 ing action taken upon these resolutions, I certainly have no ob- 
 jection. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — That is it. 
 
 Tho Presiding Officer — Does tho Senator from West Virginia 
 submit any motion ? 
 
 r 
 
31 
 
 Mr. Davis of West Virginia— I have called up the report, and 
 the report contains the resolutions. I now ask the Senate to 
 proceed to consider the resolutions for the purpose of passing 
 them. 
 
 The Prosiding Officer — The Senator from West Virginia 
 moves that the Senate proceed t<> consider the resolutions ap- 
 pended to the report, as the Chair understands. 
 
 Mi*. Davis, of West Virginia — Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cock roll — Let the resolutions be read. 
 
 The Chief Clerk read as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That a copy of this report bs furnished the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, and he bo directed to report to the Senate, 
 at the next regular session, whether or not changes could bo 
 made in the mode of conducting the business in his Department 
 which would provide additional checks and secure greater safety 
 in the issuing and keeping of public moneys and securities; 
 whether the present system of keeping accounts and books, is- 
 suing warrants, and of receiving, keeping and paying money 
 can be improved; also whether any employes in any bureau or 
 division of the Department can bo dispensed with, or transferred 
 to other bureaus or divisions, where additional force may bo 
 needed ; and generally to submit his views as to what changes 
 will add to the safety of the public moneys and securities, and 
 tend to efficiency, economy and security, and the general good 
 of the public service. 
 
 Resolved^ That the Secretaries of State, War, Navy and Interior 
 Departments, Postmaster Grjnoral and Attornoj'-G-enoral bo di- 
 rected to report to the Senate at its next regular session what 
 changes, if any, of the laws regulating the management of their 
 several Departments, or the divisions and bureaus thereof, arc 
 necessary or would be beneficial in promoting the efficiency or 
 economy of their administration or management; to state what 
 additional guards or checks, if any, would conduce to the greater 
 security of the public money disbursed by any of them, or of 
 the public property and its proceeds which is in their charge 
 They are directed to set forth the mode in which the accounts 
 for their Departments are kept with the Treasury, and in what 
 mode the present system can bo improved, if change is needed, 
 and to state what changes, if an} T , in the clerical and other force 
 in the various bureaus ofthe several Departments could be made 
 in the public interest. They are directed generally to furnish 
 the Senate with such information as in their judgment would 
 enable it to pass the necessary laws and regulations to carry out 
 thci r recommendations. 
 
 The Presiding Officer — Will the Senate proceed to the con- 
 sideration of these resolutions? 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 
 Mr. Davis, of West Virginia — I move that the resolutions bo 
 adopted. 
 
 The Presiding Officer — The resolutions arc before the Sonatc, 
 and the question is on agreeing to them. 
 The resolutions were agreed to.