Democratic Sentinel, Volume 13, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 August 1889 — A POSTOFFICE SCANDAL. [ARTICLE]

A POSTOFFICE SCANDAL.

THE CIVIL-SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT ON GRAND RAPIDS. t < It Find* Only One Affidavit Against the Postmaster, but Several Against Chlet Railway Mail Clerk Hudson—The Matter Turned Over to the Postmaster General. A Washington dispatch says: The civil service commissioners submitted to Post-master-General Wanamaker their report upon the condition and management of the postoffice at Grand Rapids, Mich. They say: “In the course of a recent by the civil service commission into the condition and management of the post • offi e at Grand Rapids, Mich., certain charges were made against the postmaster, Mr. Blair, and against the then chief clerk of the railway mail service, Mr. F. A. Hudson. The charges are backed up bjr sworn affidavits, and are of so serious a nature that the commission, in view of its lack of newer to subpoend witnesses and administer oaths, deems it proper to turn the whole matter over to the postoffice department;' and accordingly they herewith submit to the department the said- affidavits. “The only affidavit affecting Mr. Blair isthat of John McConville, which asserts that Mr. Blair was present in the government building at Grand Rapids one day in October, 1888, and assisted the clerk, Hudson, in an attempt to extort from him (McConville) a contribution of money forpolitical purposes. On this point theaffidavit is unsupported by any others, while it is explicitly contradicted by the affidavits of both Mr. Blair and Mr. Hudson, and the commissioners do not consider that it is in itself sufficient to warrant their • asking any action to be taken thereon. “But in the case of Mr. Hudson seven, affidavits charge him with having collected, or attempted to collect, money for political purposes from Government employes in the Government building at Grand Rapids last fall.” The report then gives brief statements of the affidavits. The commissioners say: “If the assertions contained in these affidavits are not disproved or explained by other evidence, the commissioners believe that they warrant Mr. Hudson’s indictment under sections ? I, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the civil service act. “But Mr. Hudson has submitted, together with his affidavit denying specifically all the charges, the affidavit of the chairman of the lo:al Democratic party organization, denying that Mr. Hudson turned over such sums as. were alleged; and also copies of letters from two of the affiants denying the very facts they set forth in their affidavits, as well as letters and other matter tending to show the bad character or the improper animus .of the other men who make, the affidavits against him. If Mr. Hudson is guilty ho should be prosecuted: if he jis not guilty then the men swearing: falsey agstinst him should themselves be Drosecuted for entering into a peculiarly infamous conspiracy to blacken his character. With the commission’s limited power, especially in the matter of administering oaths and subpoenaing witnesses, it is impossible to properly investigate such a case, and, accordingly, we herewith turn over all the affidavits and other written matter in our possession to the Postmaster-General for such action as he may deem necessary.”