>^ 
 
 I \ c^ 
 
 .Nil 
 

 Abuses in the Appointment of Subordinate 
 
 Officers and Employees of the 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE 
 MOODY COMMITTEE 
 
 PREPARED BY THE 
 
 INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 National Civil-Service Reform League. 
 
 1901. 
 
x.^^' 
 
 ,^J 
 
 'V 
 
 v\ 
 
 ^' ^^ 
 
 A 
 
 Publ. 
 
 A 
 
r 
 
 r Abuses in tlie Appointment of Subordinate 
 ^' Officers and Employees of tlie 
 
 House of Representatives 
 
 To THE Council of the National Civil Service Reform League: 
 Your Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of 
 the Federal Civil Service desires to present for coRsideration, 
 as a glaring illustration of the evils of the spoils system, the 
 abuses existing in the service of the House of Representatives, 
 which were disclosed by the so-called Moody Committee on 
 the 28th of February last. The entire investigation made by 
 the Committee had to be completed within six days, hence 
 the report was hastily prepared, and, while its general con- 
 clusions were admirably stated, it omits many details which 
 exhibit in a striking light the deformity and grotesqutness of 
 the abuses revealed by the evidence. Your Committee be- 
 lieve that a more particular account of the corruption, extra- 
 vagance and inefficiency which have resulted from the patron- 
 age system still in force in this branch of the service should 
 be given to the {mblic. 
 
 While the subordinates in these places are nominally ap- 
 pointed by their superior officers — the Clerk of the House, 
 the Doorkeeper, etc., the places are really apportioned as 
 patronage among different Members of Congress, mostly 
 among those belonging to the party in power. The system 
 under Avhich this apportionment has been made, and under 
 which subordinates of virtually every class have been selected, 
 Mr. Glenn, the door-keeper, very frankly describes as follows: 
 
 Q. Suppose a Member of Congress to whom an individual appoint- 
 ment is ciiarged desires to change his appointee, what is done in that 
 case? 
 
 A. I immediately change it. 
 
 Q. Irrespective of the capacity of the employee or of his suc- 
 cessor? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. I sometimes make requests for different positions 
 to bring a certain kind of man in. Sometimes it is done ; sometimes it 
 is not. 
 
Q. Suppose some Member fails to' be renominated and his suc- 
 cessor of the same party is chosen ? 
 
 A. When Congress adjourns, his successor succeeds to his posi- 
 tion or a smaller one. A new Member is not given — 
 
 Q. That is to say, in order to remain in the service of the House, 
 speaking generally, a man has to have behind him the endorsement of 
 some Member? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The effect of this is, of course, the House officers become re- 
 sponsible for the work of their subordinates without any power of selec- 
 tion? 
 
 A. Yes, sir.' 
 
 Q. The effect often is to lose a man who has gained experience 
 and become etricient and to replace him with some other ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Can there be under such a system as that, under anyone's ad- 
 ministration, any successful service? 
 
 A. I do not think there can be as successful as if men were se- 
 lected for the exact duties they are to perform. (Testimony, Special In- 
 vestij^ation of House Employees, p. 65.) 
 
 One of the many abuses resulting inevitably from this sys- 
 tem IS that jiersons who are appointed and paid to do certain 
 duties are transferred from their positions, and set to work at 
 occupations which are entirely different. There are some 
 amusing cases of such transfeis. For instance — to quote the 
 report of the Moody Committee: 
 
 " The place of House telegrapher is held by O. M. Enyart, who in 
 point of fact has never served in that position, but for a time was de- 
 tailed to ihe stationery room and then to the House library, where he 
 now is. J- J. Constantine actually performs the duty of telegrapher, 
 and has done so during the Fifty-fourth, Fifty-fifth, and Fifty-sixth 
 Congresses. During this lime he has been paid from an appropriation 
 carried in the legislative net. as foil- ws : ' Hire of horses and wagons 
 and cartage for use of the Clerk's office, nine hundred dollars ' " (Re- 
 port, p. Ill ) 
 
 Alexander McDonald, the Clerk of the House, ihus ex- 
 plains why this is done. He says: 
 
 " Mr. Berry and a number of Democrats came to me and told me 
 that this man Constantine had a very lar. e family — I have forgotten the 
 exact number, but it is way up, from eight to eleven — and that he was 
 pjor and needy, and wanted something to do, and he aslced as a personal 
 favor that I give him something to do. This was the only thing that I 
 could control, and so I put him under the $90(.» item. I le gets the whole 
 of that $900, and then in order to do the work I pay $40 a month to a 
 teamster, who hauls bo.xes and stationery for the members." (p. xo.) 
 
 It afterwards ;ippeared that this $40 a month (paid to one 
 
Richards in lieu of the $900 appropriated) was obtained by- 
 contributions from other employees. 
 
 In the meantime, what were the duties performed by 
 Enyart, " the telegrapher ", who had been receiving $1,200 
 salary for Constantine's $900 job, who had, moreover, been 
 demanding an appropriation of " some twenty odd hundred 
 dollars," (p. i6) and for whom $400 additional (making $1,600 
 in all), had actually been recommended by the Clerk, who tes- 
 tified as follows ; 
 
 Q. What has he (Enyart) done to deserve S400 more than the 
 Si,200 he is already receiving? 
 
 A. I do not know. 
 
 Q. Do you know about his compiling this work, Biographical Dic- 
 tionary of Congress ? 
 
 A. He told me he was doing it. 
 
 Q. Did you know when he did that? 
 
 A. N'o, sir. 
 
 Q. Whether in working hours or otherwise ? 
 
 A. I do not know. He might have worked on it in the library 
 when there were no calls. 
 
 Q. That is a pretty leisuiely place ? 
 
 A. You need not necessarily perspire a great deal. (p. 17.) 
 
 Your couiniittee appreciates tiiC good fortune of a grateful 
 an<l a<:curate biographei who linds himself thus rewarded by 
 appreciative statesmanship. 
 
 Another odd aj pointment is that of John J. Conroy, who 
 is earned on the rf -lis as page at $500 a year, and is employed 
 actually as driver of the House wagon. In regard to him, 
 Mr. Glenn, the doorkeei)«.r, testifies ; 
 
 " He can't read or write, and we could not do anything with him 
 and so we assigned him to the wagon The man employed as driver is 
 scrubbing the floors and cleaning spittoons." (p. 76.) 
 
 Conroy liimself was examined by the Committee and com- 
 l)laincd ))itterly because, although employed as a dri\er, and 
 being "kept out in storms, etc.," he was not getting a driver's 
 pay, but merely a page's salary! (p. 81). 
 
 " Winthrop C. Jones," says the report of the Moody Coinmitiee, 
 •' is carried on the roll as a locksniith under the Clerk's department at a 
 salary of $1,440, while in point of fact he performs the duty of a mes- 
 senger under the Door-keepcr'.s department at the southwest door of the 
 Hou.'ie lobby, and his duties as locksmith are performed by Daniel P. 
 Hickling, who is on the Doorkeeper's roll as a ses.sion foider at b75 a 
 month. Thus the po-.ition of locksmith, the duties of which require 
 only a payment of S75 per month during tke session, pays to a man who 
 does none of its duties $1,440 per annum. And this is not all. There 
 
are four other men serving with Jones as messengers at the southwest 
 lobby door. The five men all do exactly the same work, while their re- 
 spective rates of pay are different. Thus, while Jones receives $1,440, 
 George E. Page, a folder, receives $840, Willard Wilson, also a folder, 
 receives $900 ; John Deardorff, on the messenger's roll, receives $1,000 
 and George Jenison, a specip' employee by House resolution, receives 
 $1,200 per annum. 
 
 " Jones was at the time of his appointment to the post of locksmith 
 on the roll as a messenger, receiving $1,000 per annum. He continued 
 to perform the same duties after his appointment as locksmith, the net 
 effect of the transaction being to increase his compensation $440 a year 
 at the expense of the person to whom that sum was really due for ser- 
 vice performed. The whole transaction is so instructive that we report 
 a part of the testimony relating to it : 
 
 " The Chairman : Daniel P. Hickling is performing the duties of 
 locksmith? 
 
 Major McDowell : Yes, sir. 
 
 Q, Did he not hold the position of locksmith once ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How did he happen to be removed from that position ? 
 
 A. Several Members of the Michigan delegation thought they 
 hadn't their share. 
 
 Q. Was this man Jones, who was appointed, a locksmith? 
 
 A. Indeed, I do not knov/, 
 
 Q. Have you ever heard that he had any skill at that calling? 
 
 A. No, I never knew anything about him. I know him, but that's 
 all. I do not know what his qualifications are. 
 
 Q. The substance of it was that you yielded to the demand of the 
 Michigan delegation without any regard whatever to the interests of the 
 public service ? 
 
 A. That's right. 
 
 " Itis not surprising to find, as we do, that Jones is a persistent ab- 
 sentee, and not attentive to bis duties when present. He was absent 
 from the service of the House from early in April of last year until after 
 the Christmas holidays." (Report, pp. II. and IV.) 
 
 Many other appointees have been absent without justifica- 
 tion, both dr.ring the sessions and between sessions, and yet 
 received pay. The librarian and his subordinates have been 
 absent for long periods, though the House library was in a 
 condition that would require years of intelligent labor to put 
 it in proper order. It consists of some 300,000 volumes 
 (many of which are duplicates) scattered from the dome to the 
 basement of the Capitol, books being piled in unused room.s, 
 like wood or coal. The present librarian, Mr. John J. Boo- 
 bar, testified : 
 
 " It would be all right for a barnyard, but for books it was ter- 
 rible." (p. V.) 
 
He further gives an interesting description of his manner 
 of managing a library. Among tlie functionaries who do duty 
 amid this motley collection of books is one W. H. Smith, who 
 has however, no official position upon the roll : 
 
 Q. What does he do there ? 
 
 A. He loafs about there. He has been in that librar)' so long that 
 he does not seem to be at home anywhere else . He has had a very good 
 run of the books — that is, especially ihe old books, which were down in 
 this rubbish pile, and he knows what part of the rubbish pile to go for 
 certain books. 
 
 Q. Has anything been paid him by any of the employees to your 
 knowledge ? 
 
 A. We have never paid him anything, except once in a while we 
 give him a quarter or a half-dollar. He is pretty fond of old John Bar- 
 leycorn, and likes a drink. 
 
 Q. Has he been provided for on the deficiency bill ? 
 
 A. I understand he has been allowed an appropriation of $600. 
 
 Q. Did you pay him any money as compensation for his remaining 
 in the library during your absence ? 
 
 A. Not exactly for remaining in the library. 
 
 Q. Any stipulated sum ? 
 
 A. We had no regular sum. I paid him while I was gone. 
 
 Q. During your ab.sence did you pay him any certain sum on ac- 
 count of your absence ? 
 
 A. For the purpose of having Mr. Smith help the one member of 
 the force who ivas here, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How much ? 
 
 A. Five dollars a month. 
 
 Q. How long did that continue ? 
 
 A. I paid Mr. Smith in all something like $25. 
 
 Q. For last summer. 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Was that arrangement such that other members of the same 
 force made similar contributions to ^^r. Smith ? 
 
 A. I think that the other boys when they were away wanted to 
 have Mr. Smith help the man who was remaining, (pp. 83-84.) 
 
 It would thus appear from the librarian's own testimony 
 that the business of keeping the " rubbish pile " was farmed 
 out during vacation, at very moderate figures, to this devotee 
 of John Barleycorn. 
 
 But Mr. Boobar's conception of the proper duties of a li- 
 brarian appears very clearly in another part of his testimony. 
 R. P. Bishop, assistant librarian (the son of Congressman 
 Bishop, of Michigan), having testified that he, too, was ab- 
 sent — absent on the campaign from the time Congress ad- 
 journed and until November — Mr. Boobar was asked : 
 
Q. In the condition of the library your force ought to be on duty 
 the whole year ; should they not ? 
 
 A. Why, no, sir. 
 
 Q. With 300,000 books scattered all over the Capitol, you say your 
 force ought not to be here all the year? 
 
 A. You see, there is very little call for books during the recess. 
 
 Q. It is not a question of call for books, but a question of putting 
 the library in such shape that books can be found when called for. 
 
 A. The library (up to the appointment of the so-called Robert's 
 Committee) that is contained in the basement was in such a condition 
 that the week after I went on as librarian I went to the clerk and told 
 him the terrible condition of affairs down there. He seemed to think 
 that there was no way of getting those books straightened up, and in- 
 deed the work has required the labor of six or eight men for a year now. 
 
 Q. And in the meantime those men who are drawing their pay are 
 away performing no duty. That is true of yourself and true of Mr. 
 Bishop, and we will propably find it true of others. Is not that utterly 
 inexcusable ? 
 
 A. Well, I hardly think, Mr. Chairman, in all due fairness to the 
 library force, they should have been asked to have taken that accumula- 
 tion of books and endeavored to straighten them out. (pp. 84-85.) 
 
 Mr. Guy Underwood, who is on the rolls as a laborer, at 
 $720 a year, but who was detailed to the House library, and 
 was paid $1,800 a year by a deficiency bill, offers the follow- 
 ing interesting statement of his views regarding the proper 
 performance of official duty. 
 
 Q. (by the chairman). We get all sorts of communications, and 
 among others is a communication that you have not been here more than 
 a quarter of the time. What have you to say about it ? 
 
 A. I would beg leave to vigorously deny that statement and state 
 that I have been in the city and ready to do service probably as much as 
 any member of the force, because during the summer I would be here 
 and be willing to be at the library a part of the time each day, because 
 / had some business matters, and I cotild ivriie my letters there, and it 
 would not be in conflict with any service I could render the library. It 
 is a good place to be, and I spend my summer here. Last summer when 
 Mr. Boobar went away and Mr. Sabine went away I stayed here. (p. 
 38.) 
 
 Mr. Underwood believes evidently that his staying some- 
 where in the city and being willing to be present a part of the 
 time each day, writuig letters on private business of his own, 
 was equivalent to actual service to a library in the terrible 
 condition described. 
 
 But there are many instances of men neglecting to per- 
 form their duties outside the library. The folders, taking the 
 orders of Members rather than those of the Door-keeper, are 
 absent a great deal durmg the vacation, and other persons are 
 
employe' i and paid by special resolution to do their work. 
 The Superintendent of the folding-room says: 
 
 " There are instances where a folder is transferred to the messenger 
 position and his Member of Congress then considers him a messenger 
 and I have no jurisdiction. I can't keep them and put them back to 
 work " (p. 53) 
 
 And the Door-keeper testifies : 
 
 "I do not like to criticise Members, but that is the situation. 
 They go and say, " I have got to have my man home, and he must go 
 home ; it is absolutely necessary,' and he has been permitted to go." 
 (p. V.) 
 
 The Door-keeper is further asked : 
 
 " Have there been any other cases of absenteeism except among the 
 folders?" 
 
 To which he replies : 
 
 " No, sir. Except those who naturally go." (p. 74.) 
 
 It would appear that these two classes, " those who natur- 
 ally go," and those who go through the artificial assistance of 
 Congressmen, form a pretty large aggregate in the service of 
 the House. 
 
 Many specific instances are given. Thus : Leroy J. 
 Hooker was appointed clerk to the Door-keeper in May, 
 1897. He was absent from Washington from the day of his 
 appointment until the following December without loss ot pay. 
 (p. V.) S. H. Morgan was "furloughed with pay" half the 
 time he was on the roll. Mr. Lyon, the superintendent of the 
 folding-room was asked concerning him and one or two others, 
 " These are not the only ones wlio have been paid when not 
 here ? ' an 1 answered, " There are dozens of them'' (p. 53.) 
 
 One case is that of C. C. Leavens, a clerk in the Dewey 
 Hotel in Washington, who "had Isis afternoons off," and 
 worked in the folding-room oflice aiid in tlie Door-keeper's of- 
 fice, reporting at !:Oon. Mr. Glenn. tiie door-keeper said that 
 " He had a long 1 ne of endorsements." 
 
 But the case of E. H. Keller, of New York, deserves more 
 extended con.sideration. He had been upon the roll as an 
 employee in the cloak-room ever since July 26ih, 1897. But 
 when iijquiries were made for him, other mei!, amor.g them 
 those who were in ti>e cloak-room, couUl not tel! who he was. 
 (pp. 37-38, 42.) At last the Superiiuei:dent of tl.e foldiiig- 
 room succeefied in placn^g him. " He was transferred to my 
 department," (;). 54) says Mr. Lyon, who further testified th.nt 
 
during three year Keller had been at work " off and on for 
 three or four months." The House Committee adds in its re- 
 port of this case : 
 
 "It is the opinion of the Door-keeper that Keller worked six 
 months. In any event he has not worked over six months in the nearly 
 four years during which he has drawn pay, and has not been in Wash- 
 ington for eleven or twelve months." (pp. V. and VI.) 
 
 By the beneficent system adopted for the benefit of absent 
 employees he is spared the necessity of going to Washington 
 even for the purpose of receiving his salary. Mr. Lyon testi- 
 fies on this point : 
 
 Q. Does he come here to draw his pay, or do you know ? 
 A. No, sir, the vouchers are sent to him. 
 Q. Is the roll signed by him ? 
 
 A. - No sir, he fills receipts in the disbursing clerk's office just the 
 same as all the other gentlemeti who go home do. (p. 54.) 
 
 Mr. Robinson, the disbursing clerk, also throws light upon 
 this matter, in the following testimony : 
 
 Q. Nov/ this man Keller seems not to honor us with his presence 
 when he draws his monthly salary? 
 
 A. In that instance when he is away he fills out receipts and puts 
 them inside envelopes, and it is a question when he is away on leave of 
 absence from the department that gives him permission to go. I see 
 that his checks go to him. 
 
 Q. (by Congressman Long). And he would not have to come here 
 in person to sign the roll ? 
 
 A. No, sir. Because when a man comes in it is just like our 
 friend Richards. When he v.'ent there he got permission from Mr. Mc- 
 Dowell to be gone some little time and he came in and left enough re- 
 ceipts to cover the time of his absence. At the end of each month we 
 send the check. I will say I am a banker at home and have followed 
 the banking business all my life, and I am piesident of a tiational bank 
 now. (p. 58.) 
 
 It is perhaps a legitimate subject of interest as to whether 
 Mr. Robinson's system of voluntary contributions and of con- 
 venient vouchers for absent officers and employees prevails 
 also in his bank. He further testifies : 
 
 Q. Is there any v/ay by which you can tell from the record 
 whether a man is present in the discharge of his work or not ? 
 
 A, No, sir. 
 
 Q. How do you learn whether they are there? 
 
 A. Well, that is just like this. Here is Mr. Cannon, chairman of 
 the Appropriations Committee, if his clerk goes away for two or three 
 months, or if Kenedy F. Rea, or Mr. Cremer should go away, it is no 
 question for me to fifid out zvhether they are here or not, and to come up 
 to Mr. Cannon and ask if they are here. If Mr. Courts comes to us 
 
and says he is going away for two months and he files the receipts and 
 address in an envelope, we will mail these checks to him. (p. 59.) 
 
 It must be remembered that the disbursing office which 
 keeps such admira;)le checks upon the expenditure of the pub- 
 lic money itself costs about $14,000 a year. 
 
 The Moody committee in its report, tells us that the pres- 
 ent method of appointing employees has existed for many 
 years. 
 
 It is very evident, from the foregoing facts, that the posi- 
 tions in the service of the House of Representatives are re- 
 garded by many members, not as places where there are du- 
 ties to be performed, but as sinecures for wl-ich there is public 
 money to be appropriated or as plunder to be divined, and 
 the sinister question mevitably presents iiself. whether honest 
 legislation is to be expected of Congressmen who are thus 
 guilty of withdrawing from the treasury of the United States 
 these numerous small sums for the benefit of the objects of 
 their patronage? Is public virtue in larger matters possible 
 ki a body where peculation of no higher dignity than petty 
 larceny has been for many years an established institution ? 
 That there are many gentlemen m the House, besides the 
 members of the Reporting Committee, who are dissatisfied 
 and disgusted with such a system, and who would gladly aid 
 in doing away with it, we can not doubt. 
 
 But the payment of salaries for services which are not per- 
 formed is only a part of the evils incident to the .spoils system. 
 The recijjients of this public plunder, as well as the honest 
 employees, become theaiselves tiie victims of extortion at the 
 hands of others. It is shown by the testimony that many of 
 the holders of these places are subject to various forms of 
 blackmail in the shape of pohtical assessments, and demands 
 for the division and distribution of salaries for the benefit of 
 other appointees, and sometimes for th.e benefit of those who 
 are not in the public service at all. 
 
 The demands for polidcal contributions made by one office 
 holder upon another, being a crimir.al act, has to be made 
 secretly. It is natuiai, theiefore, that Mr. John J. Boobar, 
 the librarian, should testify that he received an cmonymous 
 communication which said in substance: "Please call at 
 some certain room in the Raleigh House on some certain 
 day," and that the communication was signed " Committee." 
 Mr. Boobar did not call, fjr he was informed by employees 
 
about the House that it was aconunittee "expectiiig to receive 
 as donations frora tite different buys part of the exlra month's 
 salary that was voted at the last sessio;) of Congress.' (p. 
 82.) He says- 
 
 " I CiDsulted with some of the mernbers from my State and I told 
 them that if the object of the committee was to raise some sort of a 
 campaign fund, that in my estimat;on I could make a dollar of my con- 
 tribution go farther in Minnesota than tli.-Ht committee could make $10 
 go out there." 
 
 There seems no good reason to doiibt that Mr. Boobar 
 was correct in his estimation oi the efficiency of these respec- 
 tive contributions. Yet such assessments were paid often 
 enough and sometimes v/ithout any knowledge on the part of 
 the contributors as to what they were for. A curious illustra- 
 tion of the trustfulness of these campaign contributors is 
 shown by the testimony of George W. Sabine, assistant libra- 
 rian. Mr. Browning, tlie chief chrk, once asked hmi whether 
 he. " -^ould not ])ut up $5 a month," and he answered, " Yes." 
 He ...ver knevv the r-urpose of this contribution, but thought 
 it was a canvnaign fund. He did the same thing in the follow- 
 ing session. ^ 
 
 Mr. Enjart, the House " telegrapher," was one of the 
 contributors. He testifies that in the 54th Congress he gave 
 up $5 a month of his salary for eleven months to Mr. Robin- 
 son, the disbursmg d^-^rk. 
 
 Q, What for ?^- 
 
 A. I do not \'--' , ./. 
 
 Q. How did you happen to give it ? 
 
 A. Well, I do not remember exactly who it \va=i came to me, but 
 I am most positive it was. Mr. Robinson himself, and said, we need a 
 little money for a little while. We will have to assess some of the boys 
 $5 and $10. You are a sixteen hundred dollar man and w? will have to 
 assess you $5 a month, (p. 43.) 
 
 [n regard to the division ot salaries emong employees the 
 House committee reports : 
 
 " On the organization of the House in the Fifty-fourth Congress it 
 appears that more places or places with higher salaries were promised 
 than the officers of the House were able to discover under the law. It 
 does not appear by whom these promises were made. There began at 
 once a system whereby the employees agreed to contribute greater or less 
 portions of the salaries they received for the purpose either of paying 
 persons not on the roll or of increasing the compensation of persoi^s who 
 were on the roll. Of the latter class, the increases were not iDropor- 
 tioned to the character of the services rendered or the merit of the em- 
 
13 
 
 ployees. but to the supposed rights of the States or Congressional dis- 
 tricts from which the recipients came," (p. VI.) 
 
 Tlie political '• assessor" believes apparently that the words 
 "voluntary contribution " have a peculiar charm to stay the 
 course of adverse criticism; that with their aid he can effectu- 
 ally cover the most evident cases of blackmail and extortion. 
 
 Mr. Henry Robinson, the " bank president" and disbursing 
 derk testifies on this subject: 
 
 Q. It is said you personally collected $5 a month from various 
 officials. 
 
 A. No sir, I never did. 
 
 Q. Now, we have had, Mr. Robinson, here to-day, people who 
 said you did. 
 
 A. 1 think they are certainly mistaken. If it was $5 a month for 
 a voluntary contribution, or something of that kind 
 
 Q. Call it it voluntary. 
 
 A. That may be. I think there was a voluntary contribution 
 made back in the 54th Congress to take care of some people, (p. 56.) 
 
 And he describes the circumstances. Fifty or sixty d'j'.jrs 
 a month was paid to "take care" of a page, etc.,^etc, 
 
 Alexander B. Thomas, (p. 45) Arthur Lues, John W, 
 tiuscas, a:id J. A. Savoy, barbers in the Republican cloak- 
 room, were each assessed (pp. 40 and 41) $10 a month for 
 some eighteen months, which was paid to one Coates, a baiber 
 in the Dv^mocratic cloak-room. When Savoy was asked how 
 he happened to pay it, he said "At.the "lose of Congress it 
 seems as though this man Coates had no ; ' 'e, and they came 
 and told us that we would have to cerry hmi. 
 
 Mr. Lyon the man who demanded these contributions, 
 thus explains them (p. 50) — " As soon as he (Coates) was 
 removed, a gentleman on that .«;ide (Democratic) came and 
 kicked about him ". And again, " A gentleman on the Demo- 
 cratic side suggested taking care of him in that way' . (p. 51.) 
 
 It would seem to the unsophisticated that if the ejected 
 Coates had to be "carried " or paid by assessments upon other 
 people, the assessment ought properly to be levitd either upon 
 those who were guilty of turning him out or upon those who 
 were interested in keeping him in. Or, if this were a political 
 assessment for Democratic purposes it would seem that it 
 ought properly to be levied upon Democrats. But by the 
 higher system of ethics prevailing in this branch of the service 
 it is the Republican barbers (who themselves receive only $50 
 a month) who have to do the "carrying". 
 
14 
 
 But the most flagrant case of extortion was that in which 
 the victims were Robert Richardson and WiUiam Richardson, 
 two colored men employed in the House bathrooms as labor- 
 ers at $720 per annum. They had been so employed for 
 about twenty years, but in August, 1898, one W, W. Wood, a 
 white man, was placed upon the roll and continued there for 
 four months, taking the place of Robert, in August and Octo- 
 ber, and of William in September and November. 
 
 " We have not learned", (says the Moody Committee) " that Wood 
 did anything besides drawing his pay. He never even appeared in the 
 bathrooms. The Richardsons performed all the work, but each lost two 
 month's pay. The transaction was without their consent. In April, 
 1900, W. H. Ridley, a colored man residing in Media, Pa., came to the 
 bathrooms with another colored man apparently with the purpose of 
 taking the place of one or other of the Richardsons. The final result 
 was that the Richardsons agreed each to pay $10 per month to Ridley, 
 and did so by registered letters for eight months. Robert Pvichardson 
 testified that this was done with the Clerk's orders ; but this the Clerk 
 denied, asserting his ignorance of the transaction. The Richardsons 
 continued to do the work. Ridley did nothing." (pp. V-VI.) 
 
 Robert Richardson testified that on April 11, 1900, a man 
 came to take his place. 
 
 " He said he was sent down to take the place and I showed him the 
 place, and after I showed it to him I told him he would go to see his 
 friends and I would go to see my friends. I went to see members whom 
 I had served there and asked them to assist me to stay, which they did, 
 and which I am thankful for. (p. 25.) 
 
 Q, Who did he say sent him there to take your place ? 
 
 A. He said the Clerk of the House had given the place to Mr. 
 Butler, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Q. Did he come again ? 
 
 A. He came again. He found he could not do the work and he 
 
 went home, and you'll see in those papers a telegram The 
 
 telegram referred to is from Congressman Butler, as follows : 
 
 " Mar. 30, 1900. 
 " W. L. Matheus: — McDowell is here nnd will appoint a man 
 Ridley may bring here, providing he can do the work satisfactorily. 
 
 Thomas S. Butler." (p. 27.) 
 
 After he brought the man neither one could do the work, and he 
 wanted to get me to substitute for him and I would not agree, but they 
 forced me so strongly William and myself virtually agreed between our- 
 selves we would give $ib a month and pay that together — William works 
 with me — but he would not agree to that unless we gave him $30 and 
 that we would not agree to, so he went back and saw Mr. Butler and the 
 Clerk of the House, I suppose, and the Clerk came down on the nth of 
 April and told us to give him $10 apiece a month. 
 
15 
 
 Mr. Overstreet : Who came down and told you ? 
 
 The Witness. Mr. McDowell. 
 
 By the Chairman : 
 
 Q. That is a pretty serious matter. Are you sure ? 
 
 A. I am as sure as I am that I am sitting in this chair. 
 
 Q. Mr. McDowell came himself 
 
 A. And told William and myself to give that man $io apiece. 
 
 Q. When was that? 
 
 A. The nth of April and I made the date of it 
 
 Q. Was Ridley a colored man ? 
 
 A. Yes sir. 
 
 Q. How long did he do any work in the bathroom? 
 
 A. He did not do a lick there. 
 
 Q. Did he work there a day ? 
 
 A. Not half an hour. 
 
 Q. What led you to pay this money when you knew it belonged 
 to you ? 
 
 A. I had orders to do it, and I was afraid not to do it because I 
 was afraid of losing the place. 
 
 Q. How much did you pay altogether ? 
 
 A. We paid him $ 1 60. I paid §So and William $80. (pp. 25-26.) 
 
 Attached to Mr. Richardson's testimony are thirteen 
 letters from Riciley. The first three letters, written in April 
 and May, iqoo, demand $30 a month and contain threats of 
 "harsher methods". Two letters written in June promise 
 Richardson that if he will secure Ridley a $1,400 job the 
 money paid will l)e rriunded. Tlie last letters are dunning 
 letters demanding the payment of $20, which was finally 
 stopped. The final letter, Jan. 30, 1901, says, " I will be 
 compelled to appeal to higher authorities if you persist in re- 
 fusing to send the sum '. Thus these poor negroes, Robert 
 and William Richardson, were deprived of $160, besides the 
 four months' wages previously paid to Wood, and neither 
 Wood nor Ridley ever appeared in the bathroom at all. 
 
 Another remarkable case of division of salaries is that of 
 Mr. Alward's in respect to which the Moody Committee re- 
 ports as follows : 
 
 "Dennis E. Alward entered the employ of the House in April, 
 i8q6, as superintendent of the document room, at a salary of $2,000 
 per annum, and remained in that position until the beginning of the 
 special session of the Fifty-fifth Congress. During this period, by ar- 
 rangement between the respective members of the House, from whose 
 districts the employees came, he paid at the rate of $400 per annum to 
 the use of Oscar J. Hill, a folder, serving as messenger at the main 
 door. At the special session of the Fifty-fifth Congress Mr. Alward 
 became one of the reading clerks of the House at a salary of $3,600, and 
 
i6 
 
 had continued in that position until the present time. During the two 
 years of the Fifty-fifth Congress, he paid Mr. Robinson (disbursing 
 clerk) by some understanding the origin of which is uncertain, the sum 
 of $T,6oo per annum for the general purposes above described, (i. e., 
 •of paying persons not on the roll or increasing the compensation of per- 
 sons who were on the roll.)" (p. VII.) 
 
 Mr. Ahvard thus testifies to the circumstances under which 
 he gave the money : 
 
 Q. To whom did you pay the money physically? 
 
 A. I gave the money to Mr. Gillet, asking him to hand it over, 
 . . . Mr. Gillet said ' Now, I do not make any demand on you, or any- 
 thing of that kind ; I simply say to you that here is this young man to 
 whom certain promises have been made, and you have come in here and 
 are getting this money.' As I said, it ran along some time — two or 
 three weeks, I guess — when finally I said to Mr. Gillet, ' Now I will 
 give this young man so much.' . . It amounted to $400 a year, but 
 I said, " I do not want to have anything to do with the young man, at 
 all." (p. 61.) 
 
 Mr. Alward, therefore, had the money intended for the 
 man in question handed directly to Congressman Gillet (of 
 New York.) 
 
 Mr. Robinson, the " bank president," testifies that Alward 
 endorsed his salary check to him. R.obinson saw thai Alward 
 got $2,000 of his own salary, that one A. C. Smith got $1,200, 
 and that the $400 remaining went with other " voluntary 
 contributions " to one McMichaei. He adds : 
 
 " I wish to state here that I did n t know that there was any im- 
 propriety in the matter, and that what was done was done with no other 
 object or with any other idea than that it was right and proper." (p. 
 77-) 
 
 Robinson afterwards became very much confused in his 
 statements regarding these payments and finally it was ascer- 
 tained that part of Smith's salary went in turn to one Abram 
 Setley, who was carried on the roll at $720 as a messenger, 
 but who was to receive $1,200. (p. ri6.) 
 ^,^; Mr. Glenn, the door-keeper, testifies that at one time some 
 of Alward's money was paid to one Oscar J. Hill. Hill ap- 
 pears to have been prudent and thrifty in the matter of his 
 own compensation, for Glenn testifies : 
 
 Q. Did he also get anything in the Deficiency Bill? 
 A. Yes, sir. He got his bill through. He -was at the top of the 
 list and it went through." 
 
 A. C. Smith, who himself at one time paid $400 a year 
 out of his salary of $1,600, does not kno«' who got the 
 
'7 
 
 money. It was " Either Mr. Alward or some one else." He 
 does not remember when these payments ceased, nor during 
 how much of the time he got $i,6oo, or how much $1,200. 
 (p. no.) 
 
 Under the remarkable system in force m this branch of 
 the service, not only is there no record of the net compensa- 
 tion which an employee actually receives, but the employee 
 is often deprived of his memory as to how much he gets and 
 how much he pays to others. 
 
 Upon the subject of division of salaries, the Clerk of the 
 House testified as follows : 
 
 " Salaries have been divided for years, and it is generally caused by 
 the Members ; you understand that. For instance, two men draw two 
 positions. One is $1,200 and the other $3oo. They both want the 
 Si,2oo position ; and they compromise by one taking the §800 position 
 and the one of $1,200, and they figure 8 and 12 is 20, one half of 20 is 
 10. This is a matter which they figure among themselves." (Report, 
 p.Vil.) 
 
 Besides the divisions of salaries there were other remark- 
 able features in this branch of the serAice, among them a 
 peculiar system of service and conii^ensation without any ap- 
 pointment whatever. Thus John Holiingsworth, of Missouri, 
 a little tellow they called "Johnny ", was not emjjlojed and 
 never even had permission to go on the floor, but he went on 
 the floor, acted as page, and was paid by a deficiency appro- 
 priation. As Mr. Bailey said, "he piacticallv appointed him- 
 self." (P. 75-) 
 
 In other cases the evidence showed enormous salaries paid 
 for very trifling service. For instance, a newspaper clerk, 
 who had charge of the subscription lists and took care of the 
 files, "which were consulted by pro!)ably twenty-five or thirty 
 people a day ", was paid $2,000 a year, and, havmg little to 
 do, was used as a proofreader m the enrolling room (p 6), 
 while another man (Aaron Russell), a messenger at a salary 
 of $1,314, brought up the newspapers and put them upon the 
 files (p. 7). 
 
 A place wiiich involves an indefinite amount of leakage is 
 that of Carpenter for the House. He receives no salary, but 
 simply ''goes around and does the work" (as McDowell tes- 
 tifies), makes out a bill for it, swears to it, then it is approved 
 by the Clerk, then it goes to the Committee on Accounts. 
 The Carpenter himself designates the work that shall be done 
 
13 
 
 by him. He furnishes his own material. The Clerk is unable 
 to state how much is paid for this work, and adds (p. 109) : 
 "I have no doubt it is plenty". It seems there is one item 
 of $3,218.40 for packing boxes alone. And Mr. Bailey, a 
 member of the committee, states that •' worse boxes could not 
 be got." 
 
 This committee, which investigated these abuses, states 
 that the short time at their disposal rendered it impossible to 
 make a complete investigation. It is perhaps ungracious to 
 criticise a report which in the main appears to be so candid 
 and impartial, yet it will be noticed that, while giving the 
 names of many employees who have violated the law, the 
 committee do not give the names of the particular Members of 
 the House who caused its violation. In a few cases the 
 names of the Congressmen responsible for these abuses ap- 
 pear in the testimony, but it would seem to be more frequently 
 accidental than otherwise, and few inquiries are made upon 
 this subject. ^^Xt^ 
 
 The entire force in which these abuses occurred consisted ♦ 
 of 357 persons, and their aggregate annual compensation was 
 about $400,000. The question presents itself to your com- 
 mittee : If such abuses can exist in a force of this size, what 
 would be the effect of the restoration of the patronage system 
 in the 85,000 places which are now subject to competitive ex- 
 amination and merit tenure ? 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 William Dudley Foulke,. 
 Richard Henry Dana, 
 William A. Aiken, 
 Charles Richardson, 
 George McAnfny. 
 
) 
 
 .rjrj^Dv Qc CONGRESS 
 
 C l'-^. i^^ -^- *"' 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH 83