A BIG SWINDLE.

Evening Star, Issue 3476, 14 April 1874, Page 3

A BIG SWINDLE.

The New York Tribune’ publishes five columns, showing the alleged history of the Sanborn contracts, which it calls the biggest conspiracy of the age. It alleges that this conspiracy involves George S Boutwell, W. E. C. Banfield, William A. Richardson, and Frederick A. Sawyer, of the Treasury Department; General Butler, John D. Sanborn and Geo.-Bliss, jun., United States District Attorney for this district. It is shown that the whole scheme was planned years ago ; that a special law was smuggled through Congress to cover the swindle, and that to carry it out the whole force of Supervisors and Collectors of Internal Bevenue and the United States Court machinery have been used by Sanborn and his confederates. The special Act was attached to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill of May, 1872, as an amendment in the Senate, being introduced by Senator Sawyer and hurried through the house by Butler • although Farnsworth, of Illinois, denounced it as a corrupt measure, contemplating great frauds on the revenue. It authorised the employment of three persons to assist revenue officials in discovering and collecting taxes due to the Government. Sanborn, John Clarke, and Malcolm (.atupbtll were employed, but Sanborn soon got a monopoly of the business, and instead of assisting the revenue officers to discover taxes due. Sanborn soon began using the revenue officers to assist him, and this was done under an order from Boutwell in his own handwriting. This remarkable letter, which places all the Assessors’ and Collectors’ books in the country at Sanborn’s disposal, was written by Boutwell and signed by him in person ; it does not appearin the report. Not; only revenue officers, but United Slates Courts were loaned to Sanborn to aid him in making collections. He used the revenue books to discover what taxes were due, and he used the Courts to compel obstinate delinquents to settle up. The report contains two letters from solicitor Banfield to attorney Bliss, of New York, and Wm. M‘Michael, of Philadelphia, directing them to bring suit against any person Sanborn named as delinquent, and to notify all collectors not to collect taxes of persons named m Sanborn’s contract. Thus, it will be seen that Sanborn could inspect the books of any Assessor, and pick out the largest claims against persons or corporations, prevent the collector in that district from taking the money if the tax-payers offered to pay it and that whenever any one offered to pay Sanborn the District Attorney applied the squeezing process, as the suits were called. Ihe statement alleges that the amount involved in Sanborn’s contract is not less than ten millions, and that consequently if contracts are not rescinded the share of Sanborn and partners will not be less than five millions.