funds on hand up to that time. I shall write you again before I leave. The sales are rapid; mostly paid in geld and silver. My quarterly report will be forwarded by next mail, for last quarter, which ought to have been done sooner, only for want of help in the office. Hereafter, I think I can get my reports off without much delay, after the close of the month and quarter.

What think you of this? The repeated injunction of the Secretary had been, that at the end of each month he should deposit the public money in hand; and if he failed to do so, without good excuse, he should be removed from office. Well, sir, he fails to make his deposit in October, not by accident or necessity, but voluntarily; and sends, in advance, his excuse to the Secretary. What is that excuse? It is, that his democratic friends thought he ought not to leave until after the election for President; in other words, that his duty to the party was paramount to his official duty; that his obligations to Mr. Van Buren (the candidate for the Presidency) were greater than his obligations to the country, in whose service he was at least nominally employed. Accordingly, he neglected his most important duties for many days, that he might use in the election that political influence of which the honorable Mr. H— speaks with so much unction. The Secretary receives this excuse; recognizes its sufficiency, by not recommending his removal from office, as he had promised to do, in case the reason should not be satisfactory; and has thus convicted himself of entertaining and practising the profligate doctrine that interference in elections by an office-holder is not only justifiable, but involves a higher degree of obligation than the mere performance of official duty. It was not merely to exercise his elective franchise as a citizen that Col. S violated the injunctions of the Department; this right he could have exercised where his duty called him, as well as at Fort Wayne. But that would not do; he had influence at the latter place, which it was important to the party he should exercise. Having thus violated his solemn official obligations, for the purpose of assisting the candidate of his party into the Presidential chair, it was of course no more than fair that the President should return the favor. He did return it. He continued Col. Sin office; and thus, at the same time, exhibited his gratitude, violated his

duty, and prostituted his high station. This, Mr. Chairman, is but a specimen of that corrupt reciprocity of service which constitutes the ligature that binds together, like the Siamese twins, the Executive and the office-holders.

Sir, the document from which I have made the foregoing extracts is a public record, and was furnished to the Senate at the time when the Chief Magistrate was President of that body. Of course, he cannot plead ignorance of its contents. Yet, in the face of the report of West, by which it appears that the receiver had turned his office into a "shaving-shop" for himself and friends; in the face of the profligate letter of H-; of the shameless avowal of the receiver himself that he neglected the paramount duties of his office for the purpose of exercising his influence at the election: in face of all this, the President neglects and refuses to apply the power of removal; and the unblushing partisan still remains in office, ready, doubtless, at the next election, to play again the game which proved so profitable at the last.

I will not longer detain the committee with this disgraceful case, but leaving it and the parties concerned to the judgment of the country, proceed to the consideration of another. I will take the case of H————, receiver of the land office at Columbus, in my own State. In this instance I expect to convict the Secretary of the Treasury, not of a single isolated neglect of duty, but of a continued, daily, miserable winking and connivance at malversation and defalcation during a period of two years, implicating alike his honesty, his veracity, and his capacity. First, however, I will show what importance the Treasury Department attached to the duty incumbent upon collectors and receivers, of depositing in bank, at stated periods, the public moneys in their hands; because it was from the continued violation of this duty that the defalcation in the case of Hwell as in most others, occurred; and because it will leave the Secretary no excuse, from the supposed insignificance of the duty, for the gross and culpable negligence on his own part which makes him, in justice and truth, a particeps criminis in the whole affair.

as

I hold in my hand a book of some four hundred pages, entitled "Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting copies of letters to collectors and receivers who have failed to comply with the laws and regulations for their government; and, also, copies of reports of examinations of land offices since 1st January, 1834," &c. It is Document 297, and was furnished the House by the Secretary on the 30th of March, 1838. It is the most extraordinary publication that ever fell under my observation. It is a moral, political, and literary curiosity. If you are a laughing philosopher, you will find in it ample food for mirth; if you belong to the other school, you cannot but weep at the folly and imbecility which it exhibits. The Secretary must have been frightened when he compiled it, for it is without form, and darkness rests upon its face. It contains two hundred and sixty letters to defaulting collectors and receivers; in some instances, from ten to twenty to the same defaulter; yet, so curiously is the book constructed, that you must read the whole of it to trace a single case. Its contents are as strange as the "hell broth" that boiled and bubbled in the witches' cauldron. From this fragment of chaos I shall proceed to extract and arrange such matter as is material to my purpose; and first, to show, as I proposed, what importance the Secretary attached to the duty of depositing the public moneys in bank, at stated periods, so that they might not accumulate in the hands of the collector, and thus afford temptation to defalcation.

He then proceeds to cite numerous extracts from letters of the Secretary to receivers in different parts of the country. The following are specimens :

February 28, 1835, in a circular to some fifteen receivers, the Secretary writes:

I cannot omit the occasion to impress upon you the necessity of a strict attention to, and punctual compliance with, the duties required of you in regard to the prompt deposit of the public money, and transmission of your returns; and to say to you that the performance of those duties must be regarded as paramount to all others in your official station.

Again, July 30, 1835, the Secretary writes to the receiver at

Helena:

The regular deposit of the whole of the public moneys, as prescribed by the regulations of the Treasury, and the punctual transmission of your accounts and monthly returns, are paramount official duties.

I give these extracts from the letters and circulars of the Secretary, to show that the periodical deposit of the public money was a paramount duty of the collectors and receivers. If, then, I show that the Secretary neglected to enforce the performance or punish the neglect of this paramount duty, it may be fairly inferred that he is either unwilling or incompetent to enforce, in his subordinates, the performance of any duty. whatever.

I come now to the case of H which I will present in the shape of fourteen letters from the Secretary; and a rarer specimen of official correspondence cannot be easily found.

The correspondence commences January, 1834. I will quote only the present Secretary's epistles; and beg you to remark how well he enforces the performance of paramount duties. His first letter follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 6, 1835.

SIR-I regret that there should be occasion for again calling your attention to the omission to render your monthly duplicate returns to this office for the months of November and December (those being in arrear), and to remind you that punctuality in this respect is indispensable.

This refers to the previous defaults, and shows that the Secretary was cognizant of them. The next month he writes again:

March 17, 1835.

SIR:-Having received no monthly duplicate return of the transactions of your office since that for the month of October last, it becomes my unpleasant duty to call your immediate attention to the omission. Allow me to express a hope that there may be no further occasion to remind you of the importance of punctuality in the transmission of these returns.

Here, it seems, H— was in arrear for four returns; in other words, had violated four paramount duties.

But the Secretary is a man of long-suffering; so he writes again, and with some severity. He is determined to be trifled with no longer. Hear him:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, June 25, 1835. SIR:-Having, in a communication addressed to you on the 17th of March last, and on several prior occasions, urged upon you the indispensable necessity of a strict attention of making your monthly returns, and finding that no returns have been received from you since that for the month of November last, it becomes my unpleasant duty to say to you, that if those in arrear are not transmitted by return of mail, I shall be constrained to report your neglect for the action of the Executive.

I think, if Mr. H- don't make his returns now, he's in a desperate case; the Secretary is in earnest. Here is another letter. Let us see:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 28, 1535.

SIR-Agreeably to the intimation given you in my letter of the 20th June, it has become my disagreeable duty to report your continued neglect to the President, who has instructed me to say to you, that if the monthly returns required from you by the regulations of the Treasury, which are in arrears, are not received at the Department on or before the 10th of October next, you will then be dismissed from office.

There, sir, I told you so; if Mr. H-- don't make his returns by the 10th of October, he will be dismissed; the President himself has said it, and General Jackson is a man of his word.

In the mean time, however, the Secretary gives him another hint:

September 22, 1885.

SIR-Allow me to inquire why it is that your deposits are not made in the branch of the Planters' Bank at Columbus, instead of the parent bank at Natchez? Does the branch refuse to receive them, and credit the amount at the mother bank?

P. S. Your return for the month of February last has been received to-day, and shows a large amount on hand not deposited; and you are hereby required, if not already done, to deposit any balance still on hand in the above branch, to the credit of the Treasury, and forward receipts therefor, in order to save time and expense in travelling to Natchez.

Before the fatal 10th of October, the kind-hearted man writes still again, that he may give the victim one more warning before the day of grace is past:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, September 28, 1835. SIR-I regret to say that the reasons assigned in your letter of the 14th instant for withholding your monthly returns cannot hereafter be deemed satisfactory. I