Once Upon A Time In Arizona ...
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
OK
Novice,
No offense meant. I will take you at your word. My comment was a huge compliment.
Nice work.
Respectfully,
Joe
No offense meant. I will take you at your word. My comment was a huge compliment.
Nice work.
Respectfully,
Joe
Hi Novice,
I'm not so sure the 1881 date is confirmed. First, look at the date on the draft. We have two other "7"s on the document (the two places where "7000" is written), both of which look like the mystery last digit in the date. We also have two "1"s (the 1 in "18", and the draft number "14 something something - 3"), both of which look alike and both of which are "1"s without question.
Gilfillan's signature on the bottom could have been pre-printed on a form that was issued in bulk while he still held office, and stocks of which were still on hand in 1887. I doubt there was any rush to replace the old forms with updated ones back then, especially out west.
I don't know that the above proves or disproves anything, but I just don't think the date of issue can be definitely said to be 1881.
FWIW.
I'm not so sure the 1881 date is confirmed. First, look at the date on the draft. We have two other "7"s on the document (the two places where "7000" is written), both of which look like the mystery last digit in the date. We also have two "1"s (the 1 in "18", and the draft number "14 something something - 3"), both of which look alike and both of which are "1"s without question.
Gilfillan's signature on the bottom could have been pre-printed on a form that was issued in bulk while he still held office, and stocks of which were still on hand in 1887. I doubt there was any rush to replace the old forms with updated ones back then, especially out west.
I don't know that the above proves or disproves anything, but I just don't think the date of issue can be definitely said to be 1881.
FWIW.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Das Signature
Wiz,
I don't believe that was done at that time. The signatures all had to be signed individually at one time. That became too burdensom at some point, and the rule was changed. In my own research into this area I read about this, but need to look at my notes to be sure.
Perhaps novice has that information at hand.
Respectfully,
Joe
I don't believe that was done at that time. The signatures all had to be signed individually at one time. That became too burdensom at some point, and the rule was changed. In my own research into this area I read about this, but need to look at my notes to be sure.
Perhaps novice has that information at hand.
Respectfully,
Joe
I too am interested in the signature of Gilfillan.
I think Wiz brings up an interesting point regarding whether it is a preprinted form. I suspect it is either preprinted or an agent of the U. S. Treasury was assigned a stamp that was applied at the time of the transaction.
I think Joe is right about the signature of the Treasurer U. S. being required on this type of document but by the 1880's he obviously could not have signed each piece of paper individually and they had some type of procedure in place to duplicate his signature.
When I look at the warrant, if someone used a stamp, he certainly placed it perfectly. I would have thought preprinted forms lying around with the signature would have been risky and the "Person" (On August 24) who filled out the body of the form would have applied some sort of identification? Be that as it may, I'm presently leaning toward Wiz's preprinted theory.
I'm pretty sure that the vertical entry, on August 27th, on the side of the form was created by Hadley.
As far as unused forms lying around for over 2 years, I kind of doubt that. The government may be slow about some things but when a new administration comes in (The Democrats replaced the Republicans in the 1884 Election and the Cleveland Administration took office in 1885) this is one place where they do not drag their feet!
I tried to determine when the Albert Hadley left for California to see if it was before 1887. Washington Hadley, his father, apparently left Kansas about 1890 and chances seem good that Albert went at this time also. (Don't take that date to the bank but I suspect it is close.)
I am having trouble with the August 24th date. It seems pretty clear to me that on August 24th an agent acting for the Treasury Department. filled in the body of the "Internal" Warrant. (It could have been a bank employee)
Aurum has suggested that August 24th was the date the paperwork for the transfer was received in Lawrence. It seems strange to me that by this time in the paper trail that someone in Kansas would still be referring to gold ore? (Unless the ore possibly came with the paperwork?)
In March of 1881, the Southern Pacific Railroad joined the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad at Deming in New Mexico territory completing the southern transcontinental route. I guess our paperwork or ore could have been moved via that mode of transportation in a timely fashion.
In 1881 Banks were still holding gold but by 1879 the U. S. Treasury was beginning to accumulate gold in their repositories and gold was leaving the individual banks.
I have no idea whether a transaction such as this could have been facilitated by the use of the telegraph?
I have been trying to find some generic history of how banking was being conducted in the 1880's and I haven't found anything that seems to have a direct bearing on our case. (Will keep Trying)
I would appreciate any additional theories on any of the above!!
Novice
I think Wiz brings up an interesting point regarding whether it is a preprinted form. I suspect it is either preprinted or an agent of the U. S. Treasury was assigned a stamp that was applied at the time of the transaction.
I think Joe is right about the signature of the Treasurer U. S. being required on this type of document but by the 1880's he obviously could not have signed each piece of paper individually and they had some type of procedure in place to duplicate his signature.
When I look at the warrant, if someone used a stamp, he certainly placed it perfectly. I would have thought preprinted forms lying around with the signature would have been risky and the "Person" (On August 24) who filled out the body of the form would have applied some sort of identification? Be that as it may, I'm presently leaning toward Wiz's preprinted theory.
I'm pretty sure that the vertical entry, on August 27th, on the side of the form was created by Hadley.
As far as unused forms lying around for over 2 years, I kind of doubt that. The government may be slow about some things but when a new administration comes in (The Democrats replaced the Republicans in the 1884 Election and the Cleveland Administration took office in 1885) this is one place where they do not drag their feet!
I tried to determine when the Albert Hadley left for California to see if it was before 1887. Washington Hadley, his father, apparently left Kansas about 1890 and chances seem good that Albert went at this time also. (Don't take that date to the bank but I suspect it is close.)
I am having trouble with the August 24th date. It seems pretty clear to me that on August 24th an agent acting for the Treasury Department. filled in the body of the "Internal" Warrant. (It could have been a bank employee)
Aurum has suggested that August 24th was the date the paperwork for the transfer was received in Lawrence. It seems strange to me that by this time in the paper trail that someone in Kansas would still be referring to gold ore? (Unless the ore possibly came with the paperwork?)
In March of 1881, the Southern Pacific Railroad joined the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad at Deming in New Mexico territory completing the southern transcontinental route. I guess our paperwork or ore could have been moved via that mode of transportation in a timely fashion.
In 1881 Banks were still holding gold but by 1879 the U. S. Treasury was beginning to accumulate gold in their repositories and gold was leaving the individual banks.
I have no idea whether a transaction such as this could have been facilitated by the use of the telegraph?
I have been trying to find some generic history of how banking was being conducted in the 1880's and I haven't found anything that seems to have a direct bearing on our case. (Will keep Trying)
I would appreciate any additional theories on any of the above!!
Novice
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Signatures
Novice,
This is one of my previous posts.
"One other point of "Accountable Warrant" information. For many years the treasury was required to submit an "Accountable Warrant" for every penny it paid out. Each of those documents had to be signed by the Sec. of the Treasury. Around 1900 that was changed because of the number of signatures required. The signature on the document in question, is not a Sec. of the Treasury. Since this document is dated 1881 or 1887 it should be of interest, as to who signed it."
I have this printed out somewhere at home. The site where I found it will be on that printout.
Notice the approximate date the requirement was changed.
Respectfully,
Joe
This is one of my previous posts.
"One other point of "Accountable Warrant" information. For many years the treasury was required to submit an "Accountable Warrant" for every penny it paid out. Each of those documents had to be signed by the Sec. of the Treasury. Around 1900 that was changed because of the number of signatures required. The signature on the document in question, is not a Sec. of the Treasury. Since this document is dated 1881 or 1887 it should be of interest, as to who signed it."
I have this printed out somewhere at home. The site where I found it will be on that printout.
Notice the approximate date the requirement was changed.
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe,
I sincerely apologize for the making error!!
When I was writing the post I felt it was innocent enough but now I realize that it was bad mistake.
I should have at the very least have reread you post before putting words in your mouth. Preferably I should have pasted that portion of your post that was relevant into my post.
Of course if I had done that I wouldn't made the comment in the first place.
It was inexcusable and I truly apologize
I stand chastised!
Thanks,
Novice
I sincerely apologize for the making error!!
When I was writing the post I felt it was innocent enough but now I realize that it was bad mistake.
I should have at the very least have reread you post before putting words in your mouth. Preferably I should have pasted that portion of your post that was relevant into my post.
Of course if I had done that I wouldn't made the comment in the first place.
It was inexcusable and I truly apologize
I stand chastised!
Thanks,
Novice
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Strange Post
Novice,
I have no idea what you mean by "putting words in your mouth", since you did not actually quote me, and advanced your own opinion on what was probably being done "by the 1880s".
If it seemed like you were being "chastised", you are mistaken. I have researched this matter, a little, and just want to make sure we are not changing history here.
There is no doubt that we are talking about a document that is dated in 1881. If, as Wiz surmises, the Gilfillan signature is stamped, so is the rest of the document.
James Gilfillan served from 7-1-1877 to 3-31-1883. By Aug. 24, 1887 James W. Hyatt was the Treasurer. He was the third man to serve in that office since Gilfillan held the office. It would have been against the law for any of those men to use or issue a warrant for payment on the U.S. Treasuary using a form not signed by the current Treasurer. . &.
There is, however, a problem with the document in question. Other than Gilfillan and Hadley's signatures, no one else has signed the document.
All Accountable Warrants requuire the Comptroller or the Assistant Comptroller of the Treasury to countersign them. A "register" appointed by congress, must also countersign each such warrant.
If anyone want's my source, I will be happy to provide it, or direct quotes from the text. You don't want to read the book, unless you are the kind of person who reads the back of a cereal box.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that without those signatures the document is probably a forgery.
I can hear the opposing arguements as I write.
Respectfully,
Joe
I have no idea what you mean by "putting words in your mouth", since you did not actually quote me, and advanced your own opinion on what was probably being done "by the 1880s".
If it seemed like you were being "chastised", you are mistaken. I have researched this matter, a little, and just want to make sure we are not changing history here.
There is no doubt that we are talking about a document that is dated in 1881. If, as Wiz surmises, the Gilfillan signature is stamped, so is the rest of the document.
James Gilfillan served from 7-1-1877 to 3-31-1883. By Aug. 24, 1887 James W. Hyatt was the Treasurer. He was the third man to serve in that office since Gilfillan held the office. It would have been against the law for any of those men to use or issue a warrant for payment on the U.S. Treasuary using a form not signed by the current Treasurer. . &.There is, however, a problem with the document in question. Other than Gilfillan and Hadley's signatures, no one else has signed the document.
All Accountable Warrants requuire the Comptroller or the Assistant Comptroller of the Treasury to countersign them. A "register" appointed by congress, must also countersign each such warrant.
If anyone want's my source, I will be happy to provide it, or direct quotes from the text. You don't want to read the book, unless you are the kind of person who reads the back of a cereal box.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that without those signatures the document is probably a forgery.
I can hear the opposing arguements as I write.
Respectfully,
Joe
The Gold Ore Trail
I think I might understand the paper trail better if someone would help me with the gold trail. If someone could walk me through it step by step I would appreciate it.
Jacob takes his sack of gold ore town.
Where does he go?
Who would assay the ore?
Where would the gold physically go next? (After it has left Jacob's hands)
When would the gold be removed from the ore?
Where would the processed gold end up?
Etc., Etc.
Novice
Jacob takes his sack of gold ore town.
Where does he go?
Who would assay the ore?
Where would the gold physically go next? (After it has left Jacob's hands)
When would the gold be removed from the ore?
Where would the processed gold end up?
Etc., Etc.
Novice
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Das Warrant
Aurum,
I considered that the back of the warrant might hold the required countersignatures. That seems possible, but not likely. I agree that a place for those signatures should have been on the form.
What I said was: "My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that without those signatures the document is probably a forgery." That seems like a reasonable assumption.
Perhaps S.C. will tell us what is on the back of the Warrant.
The other thing is, that this is a "Transmitting Draft" of an Accountable Warrant. Not the same thing as an "Accountable Warrant"? I will see if I can dig that out of the book.
Wiz,
I see you have offered your usual input to help the conversation along.
You are splitting frog hairs here. If you "surmise" you guess or use conjecture. If you "specuate" you are also conjecturing. Conjecture is also a guess or inference. I will not try to follow your logic here, as I don't think that has anything to do with your statement.
This was your statement:
"Gilfillan's signature on the bottom could have been pre-printed on a form that was issued in bulk while he still held office, and stocks of which were still on hand in 1887. I doubt there was any rush to replace the old forms with updated ones back then, especially out west."
I don't believe there would be any problem with saying it is a "guess" based on "speculation" and "conjecture" which qualifies it as being "surmised".
I am, however, glad to see you in the conversation.
Respectfully,
Joe
I considered that the back of the warrant might hold the required countersignatures. That seems possible, but not likely. I agree that a place for those signatures should have been on the form.
What I said was: "My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that without those signatures the document is probably a forgery." That seems like a reasonable assumption.
Perhaps S.C. will tell us what is on the back of the Warrant.
The other thing is, that this is a "Transmitting Draft" of an Accountable Warrant. Not the same thing as an "Accountable Warrant"? I will see if I can dig that out of the book.
Wiz,
I see you have offered your usual input to help the conversation along.
You are splitting frog hairs here. If you "surmise" you guess or use conjecture. If you "specuate" you are also conjecturing. Conjecture is also a guess or inference. I will not try to follow your logic here, as I don't think that has anything to do with your statement.
This was your statement:
"Gilfillan's signature on the bottom could have been pre-printed on a form that was issued in bulk while he still held office, and stocks of which were still on hand in 1887. I doubt there was any rush to replace the old forms with updated ones back then, especially out west."
I don't believe there would be any problem with saying it is a "guess" based on "speculation" and "conjecture" which qualifies it as being "surmised".
I am, however, glad to see you in the conversation.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Sas Sister
All,
One other thing about these Treasurary Drafts: From what I have read in "Control of Federal Expenditures: A Documentary History, 1775-1894",
only Jacob Waltz could have received these funds.
Respectfully,
Joe
One other thing about these Treasurary Drafts: From what I have read in "Control of Federal Expenditures: A Documentary History, 1775-1894",
only Jacob Waltz could have received these funds.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Money Trail
Aurum,
The problem, as I see it, with what you are saying, is that we do know that the U.S. Treasuary was involved. The funds did not actually come from the bank, rather they came from the Treasuary. That would indicate that the gold was sold to the Government, by Waltz, rather than any other entity.
It seems likely that the ore was sold to the U.S. Mint and paid for by the U.S. Treasuary. If any other buyer was involved, they would have paid Waltz, and the Treasuary Draft would have been to them.
I have "surmised, speculated and conjectured" here, so I could, of course, be wrong.
Respectfully,
Joe
The problem, as I see it, with what you are saying, is that we do know that the U.S. Treasuary was involved. The funds did not actually come from the bank, rather they came from the Treasuary. That would indicate that the gold was sold to the Government, by Waltz, rather than any other entity.
It seems likely that the ore was sold to the U.S. Mint and paid for by the U.S. Treasuary. If any other buyer was involved, they would have paid Waltz, and the Treasuary Draft would have been to them.
I have "surmised, speculated and conjectured" here,
so I could, of course, be wrong. Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Who Was Paid?
Aurum,
From what I have read of the Treasuary rules on drafts, only Jacob Waltz could receive the $7,000. Other's taking payment is specifically addressed and forbidden.
While we can speculate on any accompaning letters and documents, we have only the draft to consider. Since it is signed by the Treasurer, it is the primary document. In other words, it not a document that was created down the line somewhere.
There was no wriggle-room in the Treasuary rules. They were constructed in such a narrow manner because of the fear of forgeries. Because of the great distances between banks and official government
offices, the only way they could keep control over the disbursment of Treasuary funds was to keep everything in the hands of the office of the Treasurer.
The rules, as I have read them, do not allow for the assignment of payment to someone other than the person for whom the draft is written.
This document, while compelling on it's face, is suspect.
For those of you, and you know who you are, who are thinking that this is a "pissing contest", two people trying to prove they are right, you are mistaken. Aurum and I are simply trying to present every perspective on the authenticity of this document, hoping that a kernel of truth will fall from the mass. Either of us could just a easily take the opposite point of view.
There will be no right or wrong, until more evidence/documentation is found. Right now, from what I have read, it does not look promising.
Respectfully,
Joe
From what I have read of the Treasuary rules on drafts, only Jacob Waltz could receive the $7,000. Other's taking payment is specifically addressed and forbidden.
While we can speculate on any accompaning letters and documents, we have only the draft to consider. Since it is signed by the Treasurer, it is the primary document. In other words, it not a document that was created down the line somewhere.
There was no wriggle-room in the Treasuary rules. They were constructed in such a narrow manner because of the fear of forgeries. Because of the great distances between banks and official government
offices, the only way they could keep control over the disbursment of Treasuary funds was to keep everything in the hands of the office of the Treasurer.
The rules, as I have read them, do not allow for the assignment of payment to someone other than the person for whom the draft is written.
This document, while compelling on it's face, is suspect.
For those of you, and you know who you are,
who are thinking that this is a "pissing contest", two people trying to prove they are right, you are mistaken. Aurum and I are simply trying to present every perspective on the authenticity of this document, hoping that a kernel of truth will fall from the mass. Either of us could just a easily take the opposite point of view.There will be no right or wrong, until more evidence/documentation is found. Right now, from what I have read, it does not look promising.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
More Doubt
All,
This is a bit dry as well as long, so unless you are really interested in that draft, you might just want to fan this post.
"Section 9 provides that every requisition for the advance of money, before being acted upon by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be sent to the proper Auditor for his action, as required by section 10.
Section 10 provides that the Auditor shall withhold his approval unless the accounts are forwarded to the Department at Washington within the time specified, and shall be forwarded by the administrative department to the Auditor within another specified time. It is impossible to make any regulations or rules which will compel the prompt rendering of accounts. It is necessary to make a stringent law. Section 3622 of the Revised Statutes prescribes that accounts shall be rendered within a certain time, but it is not complied with.
Sections 9 and 10 of this act will do more for the protection of the Government than a dozen reexaminations of accounts. Section 9 also provides that warrants signed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be countersigned by the Comptroller of the Treasury, and that they shall be accompanied either by the Auditor's certificate of the settlement of an accouont or by a requisition asking for an advance of money; and provides further that this certificate or requisition shall go to the Treasurer, and from him be sent to the proper Auditor, with the date and amount of the draft issued indorsed thereon.
This completes the circle. The Auditor audits the account. It then passes from the hands of the bookkeeping division to the Secretary of the Treasury, and through the Comptroller's Office to the Treasurer, and then comes back to the Auditor with the amount and date of the payment noted. It is evidence to him that the proper amount has been paid as audited, in the case of a settlement; or that an advance has been made in accordance with the requisition. In the settlement of accounts, the Auditor will get from the bookkeeper a statement of the officer's account. He will then have on hand in his own office the requisition asking for the advance, which will be a check upon the bookkeeper."
(Emphasis in bold by Joe)
"Control of Federal Expenditures: A Documentary History, 1775-1894".
Pages 715-716. There is a great deal more in this book which bears on the document we are researching.
Dr. Glover questioned the fact that the family ended up with this document. From the above, it seems to me that the draft was to be returned to the Auditor. Why did the family still have the draft?
Why is there no notation showing that the draft, which is not a receipt, had been paid? Let's not hear anything about them being loose with paperwork in those days. If anyone is going to make that claim, they need to read this book first.
Some may not come to the same conclusions as I have here.
You asked a very good question, Thomas.
Respectfully,
Joe
This is a bit dry as well as long, so unless you are really interested in that draft, you might just want to fan this post.
"Section 9 provides that every requisition for the advance of money, before being acted upon by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be sent to the proper Auditor for his action, as required by section 10.
Section 10 provides that the Auditor shall withhold his approval unless the accounts are forwarded to the Department at Washington within the time specified, and shall be forwarded by the administrative department to the Auditor within another specified time. It is impossible to make any regulations or rules which will compel the prompt rendering of accounts. It is necessary to make a stringent law. Section 3622 of the Revised Statutes prescribes that accounts shall be rendered within a certain time, but it is not complied with.
Sections 9 and 10 of this act will do more for the protection of the Government than a dozen reexaminations of accounts. Section 9 also provides that warrants signed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be countersigned by the Comptroller of the Treasury, and that they shall be accompanied either by the Auditor's certificate of the settlement of an accouont or by a requisition asking for an advance of money; and provides further that this certificate or requisition shall go to the Treasurer, and from him be sent to the proper Auditor, with the date and amount of the draft issued indorsed thereon.
This completes the circle. The Auditor audits the account. It then passes from the hands of the bookkeeping division to the Secretary of the Treasury, and through the Comptroller's Office to the Treasurer, and then comes back to the Auditor with the amount and date of the payment noted. It is evidence to him that the proper amount has been paid as audited, in the case of a settlement; or that an advance has been made in accordance with the requisition. In the settlement of accounts, the Auditor will get from the bookkeeper a statement of the officer's account. He will then have on hand in his own office the requisition asking for the advance, which will be a check upon the bookkeeper."
(Emphasis in bold by Joe)
"Control of Federal Expenditures: A Documentary History, 1775-1894".
Pages 715-716. There is a great deal more in this book which bears on the document we are researching.
Dr. Glover questioned the fact that the family ended up with this document. From the above, it seems to me that the draft was to be returned to the Auditor. Why did the family still have the draft?
Why is there no notation showing that the draft, which is not a receipt, had been paid? Let's not hear anything about them being loose with paperwork in those days. If anyone is going to make that claim, they need to read this book first.
Some may not come to the same conclusions as I have here.
You asked a very good question, Thomas.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
One More Thing.....
One more thing:
[WARRANTS FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY
the warrants for the payment of Federal funds are of two classes, viz., setttlement warrants and accountable warrants.
The former (settlement warrants) are direct payments in settlement of sums due individuals on claims that have been settled by the Federal accounting officers. When a claim has beeen reviewed and the sum due has been ascertained, the accounting officers submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a statement that discloses the sum due. The Secretary's warrant is executed, countersigned by the Comptroller, and is paid ba a check drawn by the Treasurer in favor of the claimant.
The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury.]
It would seem that either of these warrants could be used to pay Jacob Waltz, but Albert Hadley had to be a "disbursing officer" for the U.S. Treasury for that to happen with this document. The warrant, by law, had to be returned to the Treasury Accounting Officers.
The more I research this, the less confidence I have in the authenticity of the document. I started out believing it was legit.
Since I believe the source is from the ancestors of Jacob Waltz, it becomes a real problem to figure out the purpose, if it is a hoax. That does not mean there is no purpose, only that I have no clue what it would be.
Better minds will have to figure this one out.
Respectfully,
Joe
[WARRANTS FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY
the warrants for the payment of Federal funds are of two classes, viz., setttlement warrants and accountable warrants.
The former (settlement warrants) are direct payments in settlement of sums due individuals on claims that have been settled by the Federal accounting officers. When a claim has beeen reviewed and the sum due has been ascertained, the accounting officers submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a statement that discloses the sum due. The Secretary's warrant is executed, countersigned by the Comptroller, and is paid ba a check drawn by the Treasurer in favor of the claimant.
The accountable warrant is the means employed to place Federal funds to the credit of a disbursing officer. That class of warrant is the basis for setting up a credit in the Treasury in favor of the officer concerned, against which that officer may draw checks on the Treasury in payment of vouchers. When the warrant is issued, the officer is charged on the books of the accounting office with the amount credited to him, and the charge will stand against the officer until he either submits vouchers that the accounting officers find represent lawful payments or returns the funds to the Treasury.]
It would seem that either of these warrants could be used to pay Jacob Waltz, but Albert Hadley had to be a "disbursing officer" for the U.S. Treasury for that to happen with this document. The warrant, by law, had to be returned to the Treasury Accounting Officers.
The more I research this, the less confidence I have in the authenticity of the document. I started out believing it was legit.
Since I believe the source is from the ancestors of Jacob Waltz, it becomes a real problem to figure out the purpose, if it is a hoax.
That does not mean there is no purpose, only that I have no clue what it would be. Better minds will have to figure this one out.
Respectfully,
Joe
Re: Das Warrant
You know, it would really be great to be able to post something here without Ribaudo making a smart-assed response to it. You really should learn to keep your mouth shut, Joe. You're just letting the flies out.Joe Ribaudo wrote:Wiz,
I see you have offered your usual input to help the conversation along.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Warrant
Aurum,
In Dr. Glover,s second printing on page 290 he writes: "If a Transmaiiing Draft had to be turned in for the money why would the Waltz decendents still have it? Do the still have it because it was no good?"
I believe that the above quote makes it pretty plain that the source, Dr. Glover does not name, had to receive the document from the decendents of Jacob Waltz.
If a copy of the draft was given to the family because it was "public record", wouldn't it have been marked a copy? If they wanted it for historical reasons, wouldn't they have taken better care of it?
All speculation and assumptions.
Wiz,
Quit yer whining. It's just what you have been doing to me for a very long time. Post something of substance, instead of trying to stir up more trouble, and I will have nothing but nice things to say. If you read the posts I have mentioned your name in, you will have no trouble seeing that pattern.
Respectfully,
Joe
In Dr. Glover,s second printing on page 290 he writes: "If a Transmaiiing Draft had to be turned in for the money why would the Waltz decendents still have it? Do the still have it because it was no good?"
I believe that the above quote makes it pretty plain that the source, Dr. Glover does not name, had to receive the document from the decendents of Jacob Waltz.
If a copy of the draft was given to the family because it was "public record", wouldn't it have been marked a copy? If they wanted it for historical reasons, wouldn't they have taken better care of it?
All speculation and assumptions.
Wiz,
Quit yer whining. It's just what you have been doing to me for a very long time. Post something of substance, instead of trying to stir up more trouble, and I will have nothing but nice things to say. If you read the posts I have mentioned your name in, you will have no trouble seeing that pattern.
Respectfully,
Joe
Re: Warrant
Tsk. So many flies.Joe Ribaudo wrote:Blah, blah, blah blah blah..."
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Horse Flies
Wiz wrote:
[Joe Ribaudo wrote:
Blah, blah, blah blah blah..."
Tsk. So many flies.]
If you weren't so full of bulls......, you would find that the pesky flies would find another pile to buzz.
Quotations require a beginning quotation mark as well as one to end the quote.
You have spent a really long time burying "the hatchet". That shovel has got to be getting heavy.
Was that the most "substance" you could muster? Impressive!
Respectfully,
Joe
[Joe Ribaudo wrote:
Blah, blah, blah blah blah..."
Tsk. So many flies.]
If you weren't so full of bulls......, you would find that the pesky flies would find another pile to buzz.
Quotations require a beginning quotation mark as well as one to end the quote.
You have spent a really long time burying "the hatchet".
That shovel has got to be getting heavy. Was that the most "substance" you could muster? Impressive!
Respectfully,
Joe
Re: Horse Flies
Oooh, swearing (with dots)! The flies are getting really thick now! No, Joe, I can muster a lot more than that. But you're not worth the effort. I've scraped more interesting and worthwhile things than you off the sole of my shoe.Joe Ribaudo wrote:Wiz wrote:
[Joe Ribaudo wrote:
Blah, blah, blah blah blah..."
Tsk. So many flies.]
If you weren't so full of bulls......, you would find that the pesky flies would find another pile to buzz.
Quotations require a beginning quotation mark as well as one to end the quote.
You have spent a really long time burying "the hatchet".
Was that the most "substance" you could muster? Impressive!
Respectfully,
Joe
Flies! Hah!