United States House Select Committee On Government Contracts - Criticisms

Criticisms

The investigating committee was subject to severe criticism from the time of beginning their work until the end of the 37th Congress. Nearly every person who had wronged the government had friends, and sought to defend himself. Newspapers and members of Congress both came the defense of those allegedly wronged by the committee. Opponents of the committee looked for any opportunity to attack the committee's work in floor speeches, particularly when committee members were absent from the House, thereby lessening the importance of the work of the committee and to render its members unpopular. Rep. Roscoe Conkling, Republican of New York, was an often vocal opponent of the committee, sharply denounced its work, maintaining that "the nation, the government, classes of individuals, and individuals themselves, had suffered in character; that we had lost caste, and that much harm had come, not from detecting or exposing fraud or extravagance, but from magnifying and exaggerating what had happened, and charging and publishing to the world what had never happened at all." Rep. Schuyler Colfax, Republican of Indiana, frequently joined Rep. Conkling in attacking the committee's work.

Other criticisms were levied at its original chairman, Charles Van Wyck. After the committee had been at work for several months, Rep. Van Wyck desired to investigate the mode of conducting business at the New York Customs House. The other committee members objected for lack of time. It was decided that Van Wyck would take the evidence while the other members continued their work of investigating government contracts. After collecting a large body of evidence, was instructed by the committee not to proceed in his investigations without further orders. The rest of the committee returned to New York, and after receiving testimony and evidence from the custom-house in its own defense, ordered the testimony taken by Mr. Van Wyck to be deposited with the Clerk of the House "subject only to the inspection of any member of the committee." Van Wyck was later suspended from conducting his investigations, which he alleged were because of "the clamor of the revenue officers and their friends."

Early on, Van Wyck's efforts to investigate the custom house as well as periodic absences from the committee had led the committee members to replace him as chairman and appointed Elihu B. Washburne in his place as acting chairman. When the committee's final report was submitted to the House on March 3, 1863, Van Wyck was given leave to present minority views of the committee to the full House, which per instruction were to be inspected by the other committee members. However, when the time came to review the report, it was nowhere to be found. Mr. Washburne alleged that a member of the House had contrived with a member of the clerk's office to "abstract," or remove, the report from the clerk's office, and he demanded the creation of a select committee to investigate the matter. In floor debate on the matter on March 3, charges were made that Van Wyck's minority report was nothing more than a baseless attack on the committee members, rather than focusing on the subject matter assigned to the committee. Rep. Washburne also alleged that Rep. Van Wyck's investigation of the customs house was a personal vendetta against the director of the Port of New York. At the behest of Rep. Washburne, the Select Committee on an Alleged Abstraction of a Report from the Clerk's Office that same day, but the House adjourned shortly thereafter, giving it no time to meet or report on its findings.