that is all we ask. When this ticket shall have triumphed that idea will be established in this country.

I thank you very much for the attention you have given me. I ask you simply that as a citizen, interested in all that interests any of us, that you will give your attention to this campaign and never cease your efforts until your Democratic banner with Democratic principles of reform and cheap government is found waving in all the skies above your heads.

At the close of Hendricks' speech ex-Senator McDonald was introduced and spoke briefly, being followed by D. S. Gooding and other local speakers, and the meeting adjourned.

CHAPTER XII.

SECRETARY CHANDLER'S LETTER, AND HENDRICKS' REPLY.

IM

MMEDIATELY on the publication of the foregoing speech, Mr. Secretary Chandler addressed the following letter to the Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks, from Washington, D.C., under date of July 13, 1884:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 1884. THE HON. THOMAS A. HENDRICKS, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.:

Sir,-A candidate for Vice-President should speak with decent fairness. In your speech at Indianapolis last Saturday night you made statements from which you meant that the public should believe that it appeared by my testimony that the frauds in the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in this Department amounted during the last year to sixty-three thousand dollars; that I was informed of these outrages a year ago; that after I was informed of the frauds I disbelieved them, because members of Congress had recommended the continuance of the Chief of the Bureau, and that I took no adequate action concerning them; whereupon you demanded the election of a Presi dent who would appoint a Chief of Bureau who would investigate the condition of the books and bring all guilty parties to trial. To the contrary of all this, I testified that the suspected vouchers commenced as far back as June 21, 1880, although a small voucher was paid as late as January 25, 1884; that, while an anonymous letter of about a year ago charged drunkenness upon Chief Clerk Daniel Carrigan, which Chief of Bureau Dr. Philip S. Wales reported to me was not true, I had no information leading to the frauds until December or January last; that I determined simultaneously with the beginning of the investigation to have a new Chief of Bureau in place of Dr. Wales, whose term was to expire January 26; and also a new Chief Clerk; that great opposition to a change was made by members of Congress, but I persisted, and Dr. Wales went out on that date, and Carrigan was put out February 4; and the investigation of frauds and arrests of the guilty parties have since proceeded with due diligence. It is true that I stated recommendations for the reappointment of Dr.

Wales, whom I found in office when I went in, April 17, 1882, were of such a character as to fully justify me in believing that the affairs of his bureau had been well administered.

Secretary Chandler here gives the names of a large number of Senators and Representatives who recommended the reappointment of Wales, and continues:

Senator McPherson and Speaker Carlisle, and others of the most prominent of the gentlemen who demanded Dr. Wales' reappointment, were with you in convention at Chicago, and could have informed you that he had borne a good reputation; that the law required that the Chief of the Bureau should be a naval surgeon, and placed medical expenditures in his hands; that his was in no sense a political office, but that if he had any politics he was a Democrat; and that any attempt to make political capital out of frauds for which this naval surgeon, who is their intimate friend, is solely responsible, would be disingenuous and unfair. That they did not succeed in keeping Dr. Wales and his Chief Clerk, Carrigan, in office is very fortunate. Very respectfully, W. E. CHANDLER.

REPLY OF THE HON. THOMAS A. HENDRICKS TO SECRETARY CHANDLER CONCERNING THE $63,000.

On Tuesday, the 15th of July, the leading journals contained the following reply to Secretary Chandler's letter of the 13th July:

TO THE HON. W. E. CHANDLER:

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., July 14.

Sir, I find in the newspapers this morning a letter to me from yourself, written yesterday and circulated through the Associated Press. You complain that I did you an injustice in the address to the people of this city made the evening before. In that address I urged: "We need to have the books in the government offices opened for examination," and as an illustration I cited the case of fraudulent vouchers in one of the bureaus of your department, and that, upon your testimony before the sub-committee of the Senate, it appeared that the frauds amounted to $63,000; and is not every word of that true? You were brought before the committee, and testified as I stated. You admitted under oath that the sum of money lost amounted to $63,000, but your defense is that the embezzlement did

not wholly occur under your administration, but part of it was under that of your predecessor. It seems to have covered the period from June 21, 1880, down to January 25, 1884. Does that help your case? You were at the head of the department a year and nine months of that period; your predecessor about a year and ten months. He was in office at the payment of the first false voucher, June 21, 1880, and up to April 17, 1882, when you came in, and you continued thence until the last false voucher was paid, January 25, 1884. The period was equally divided between yourself and your predecessor. How much of the $63,000 was paid out under yourself and how much under your predecessor your letter does not show. But, sir, upon the question that I was discussing, does it make any difference who was Secretary when the false vouchers were paid? I urge that in cases like this, when frauds are concealed in the vaults or books of a department, the only remedy of the people is by change of control, so that the books and vouchers shall come under the examination of new and disinterested men.

Do you think I am answered when you say I was mistaken in supposing that in this case the funds were all under your administration, when in fact, a part of them extended back into that of your predecessors? Why, sir, that makes your case worse, for the bureau of medicine and surgery defalcation is large, but the more serious fact is that it could and did extend through two administrations of the department a period of nearly four years-without detection. But it becomes more serious, so far as you are individually concerned, when the fact is considered that you had notice and yet took no sufficient action. The information upon which I spoke was from Washington, the 26th of last month, by the Associated Press, the same that brings me your letter. The Associated Press obtained its information either in your department or from the Investigating Committee. If you were not correctly reported that was the time for complaint and correction. You testified that the total of suspicious vouchers discovered so far was about $63,000, and that the money fraudulently obtained was in some instances "divided between a watchman in the department, Carrigan, the Chief Clerk, and Kirkwood, in charge of accounts."

Now what notice had you? According to the Associated Press report of your testimony, you received a letter last year charging Car rigan, one of the parties, with drunkenness, and after that a man came to you and told you that Kirkwood and Carrigan were engaged in frauds. Did not that put you upon notice and investigation? You testified that some inquiry was made, and that the conclusion was

that while there were some suspicious circumstances, they did not warrant the conclusion of guilt. After notice, verbal and in writing, you left the men in office. You did not bring the frauds to light nor the guilty parties to punishment. It was Government Detective Wood who discovered the frauds, and the Associated Press report says Wood declared he would have no further dealings with your department, but would press the investigation before Congress. What is your next excuse? Worse, if possible, than all before. You say a large number of Congressmen, including some gentlemen of great influence and position, recommended that the head of the bureau, Dr. Wales, should be reappointed. Members of Congress knew nothing of frauds; they had no opportunity to know. It was within your reach and duty. They were probably his personal friends; you were his official superior. But, in fact, did you reappoint him? I understand not. Perhaps the detectives discovered the frauds too soon; but Dr. Wales was not one of the guilty parties. He neither forged vouchers nor embezzled money. His responsibility in the case is just the same as your own. He was the official superior of three rogues, as you were of himself as well as them. Neither he nor yourself exposed the frauds or punished the parties. I have not thought of or considered this as a case of politics. In addressing my neighbors I said that this and like cases admonished them to demand civil-service reform in the removal of all from office who will not seek to promote it within the sphere of their official duty and authority.

Respectfully,

THOMAS A. HENDRICKS.