Treasury of the United States

[Matthew Roberts]

No longer a mystery! I looked up the basis for issuing warrants during that period and here is what the Secretary of the Treasury includes with the government financial reporting for that time:

"It is provided by law that warrants shall be issued by the Secretary or the Treasury in acknowledgement of money received, and that warrants must be drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury for all disbursements of money. These Warrants for expenditures do not represent actual payments but are merely disbursements of credit to disbursing officers who can then issue checks in payment of government obligations."

So either this Warrant represents a payment by a Jacob Waltz or the Warrant is a bill of credit issued to a government officer to pay government bills.

I seriously doubt this, or any other, Jacob Waltz paid the government $7,000. Jacob Waltz was neither a government officer nor even a citizen so this wasn't a warrant for government credit. There was a Jacob Waltz that served in the military during the civil war but he was a dirt farmer with a dozen children by the time this warrant was issued.

I think we can rule out the Superstition Waltz from having anything to do with this warrant.

The draft states , pay to the order of Jacob Waltz.

That doesn't sound like what you are describing.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

The draft states , pay to the order of Jacob Waltz.

That doesn't sound like what you are describing.

What you have offered so far only has the words "to the order of". It doesn't say "pay to the order of" on the partial scrap of a warrant(?) you show on this thread. Did you just assume that's what it said or do you have more of the warrant than what you show here?

Your argument would be with the Secretary of the Treasury and government accounting policy and law. I didn't describe anything - the quote is from the Secretary of the Treasury.

Clearly no Jacob Waltz was paid $7,000 by the Treasury in 1881, as the Treasurer clearly states These Warrants for expenditures do not represent actual payments but are merely disbursements of credit to disbursing officers who can then issue checks in payment of government obligations." The same is true to this day.

It's clear is that there is no provenance to support this forgery. If you still disagree you will need to bring some facts to this thread. The Secretary and I disagree with your assessment and you don't have anything but a small portion of a xerox copy of a piece of paper with the word "Warrant" on it. Perhaps if you shared your source or the rest of the warrant this could be included in Dutchman information but right now all we have is a xerox copy of what may appear to be an undocumented and unattributed Treasury Warrant.

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

No longer a mystery! I looked up the basis for issuing warrants during that period and here is what the Secretary of the Treasury includes with the government financial reporting for that time:

"It is provided by law that warrants shall be issued by the Secretary or the Treasury in acknowledgement of money received, and that warrants must be drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury for all disbursements of money. These Warrants for expenditures do not represent actual payments but are merely disbursements of credit to disbursing officers who can then issue checks in payment of government obligations."

So either this Warrant represents a payment by a Jacob Waltz or the Warrant is a bill of credit issued to a government officer to pay government bills.

I seriously doubt this, or any other, Jacob Waltz paid the government $7,000. Jacob Waltz was neither a government officer nor even a citizen so this wasn't a warrant for government credit. There was a Jacob Waltz that served in the military during the civil war but he was a dirt farmer with a dozen children by the time this warrant was issued.

I think we can rule out the Superstition Waltz from having anything to do with this warrant.

Good afternoon Clay Diggins: Jacob is a citizen of the United States. He was naturalized in Los Angeles in 1861. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

 

[Matthew Roberts]

I looked under the Account of Receipts and Expendatures of the US for 1881 and 1882

None of those receipts and expenditures are cross referenced to transmittal draft numbers or warrant numbers because they are not included with the receipts and expenditures.

The draft number on the Waltz draft is 1453 and the warrant number is 2250.

I believe you are looking in the wrong place.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Belief is a funny thing. There are records of who was paid and how much. Jacob Waltz is nowhere mentioned. Did you find otherwise?

I do have the draft and warrant numbers. If you would just share the rest of the warrant image we could all see the appropriations designation and there would be no reason for speculation why this warrant was issued. Otherwise all we have is a forgery.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Sorry Clay, you're mixing apples with oranges.
The receipts and expenditures listings do not include the draft and warrant number documents because they are a separate transaction. Otherwise they would be referenced with the receipts and expenditures list. We are looking at transfers between National banks.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Sorry Clay, you're mixing apples with oranges.
The receipts and expenditures listings do not include the draft and warrant number documents because they are a separate transaction. Otherwise they would be referenced with the receipts and expenditures list. We are looking at transfers between National banks.

How could you possibly know any of that? None of that is on the scrap of a warrant you posted. You are assuming the improbable.

There were nearly 2,600 National banks at the time and none of them exchanged funds with a Treasury warrant - why? Because Warrants are non-fungible. They can only be redeemed by the assignee at the Treasury and only for United States currency.

Warrants are not a transaction. They are not receipts or expenditures because no money is disbursed or collected with a warrant. When the warrant is redeemed by the assignee the payments that government officer makes to others are recorded in the expenditures. Until then it's just a non-fungible accounting placeholder.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

How could you possibly know any of that? None of that is on the scrap of a warrant you posted. You are assuming the improbable.

There were nearly 2,600 National banks at the time and none of them exchanged funds with a Treasury warrant - why? Because Warrants are non-fungible. They can only be redeemed by the assignee at the Treasury and only for United States currency.

Warrants are not a transaction. They are not receipts or expenditures because no money is disbursed or collected with a warrant. When the warrant is redeemed by the assignee the payments that government officer makes to others are recorded in the expenditures. Until then it's just a non-fungible accounting placeholder.

Thanks for the contributing on this Clay.

 

[coazon de oro]

I don't believe Jacob Waltz ever took any of his gold ore to any U.S. Mint, since the closest one was around 550 miles away for any old crow. The first gold ore he sold from his lost mine, was at Fort McDowell, and he was on his way there with more when he killed his Nephew.
U.S. Treasury warrants were issued by the military to authorize payments to soldiers, and supplies. What would be the odds of another Jacob Waltz in that era to be issued a warrant of such worth?

 

[Clay Diggins]

U.S. Treasury warrants were issued by the military to authorize payments to soldiers, and supplies. What would be the odds of another Jacob Waltz in that era to be issued a warrant of such worth?

U.S. Treasury warrants were issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. The warrants were issued to the quartermaster at each main post and the quartermasters issued checks based on those warrants to a nearby bank. That bank would fulfill the check by producing U.S. coins from their safe. Usually this coin was transported to the post by way of Wells Fargo or, in some circumstances, by a military detachment. The bank would recover the coin plus a bonus by submitting their checks to an authorized treasury agent.

If you look up GOVPUB-T-92e9fd225c583773db5a2762bac4166c.pdf "Receipts and Expenditures of the United States" 1861 - 1862 you will see the Treasury accounting for that time clearly lists the fulfillment of warrant orders as well as listing the still Outstanding Warrants along with the owners name, warrant number, and dollar amount. In fact there are 13 pages of outstanding warrants and there is no Jacob Waltz among them - pages 303-322). Nor is there any distribution in the accounts to a Waltz.

There is a Waltz in the Treasury accounts in 1882 but he brought forward only $42.87 to the supplies of the Quartermasters Department. His name was M. F. Waltz. So your surmise is partially correct. There was another Waltz and he did execute a warrant but it wasn't Jacob Waltz and that warrant was for only forty two dollars and eighty seven cents.

 

[axer]

Hello Mathew Roberts, I've valued your knowledge on all things LDM for years and want to thank you for showing this U.S. Treasury record from 1881 with Jacob Waltz' name. It references a large amount of U.S. currency and fits nicely with my understanding of Jacob giving a large sum to Julia for her ice cream shop. It's just nice to have one more thing to help flesh out my version of history on this subject. Thanks

 

[Clay Diggins]

Ice cream shop?

Land in 1880 in Phoenix cost $1.25 - $2.50 an acre. Full developed lots on the main street downtown sold for $48. The entire Phoenix townsite cost $550. The biggest and finest hotel in Phoenix cost $4,500 to build.

That must have been one heck of an ice cream shop.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Hello Mathew Roberts, I've valued your knowledge on all things LDM for years and want to thank you for showing this U.S. Treasury record from 1881 with Jacob Waltz' name. It references a large amount of U.S. currency and fits nicely with my understanding of Jacob giving a large sum to Julia for her ice cream shop. It's just nice to have one more thing to help flesh out my version of history on this subject. Thanks

axer,
You bring up a good point. When Emil Thomas abandoned Julua and fled to Washington state he left Julia with about $3,000 in debt and no assets other than a run down half burned house on Jackson street. In the summer of 1891 Julia filed for divorce in Phoenix and Emil failed to respond. Julia was granted the divorce 2 months later and within those two months had paid off all her debts.
Waltz was bording with Julua and had paid off all her debts for her.
When Waltz died a few months later, he had $4,800 of gold in a candle box under his bed.
It seems Waltz was not destitute but had considerable assets at his disposal.

 

[axer]

axer,
You bring up a good point. When Emil Thomas abandoned Julua and fled to Washington state he left Julia with about $3,000 in debt and no assets other than a run down half burned house on Jackson street. In the summer of 1891 Julia filed for divorce in Phoenix and Emil failed to respond. Julia was granted the divorce 2 months later and within those two months had paid off all her debts.
Waltz was bording with Julua and had paid off all her debts for her.
When Waltz died a few months later, he had $4,800 of gold in a candle box under his bed.
It seems Waltz was not destitute but had considerable assets at his disposal.

Matthew Roberts, I just looked up in my notes what else was going on in 1881, according to John Reed, Waltz had been robbed of his gold and food and probably guns at the pit mine and chased off so I am going to assume that Jacob instead dug up one of his small caches so as not to waste the trip and cashed it in which caused this warrant. Of course I have no proof, I just use what I know about human nature to write fiction for fun.

 

[cw0909]

messed up the previous post, think I'll just delete and start over
in the doc that Matthew posted the 1 in 1881 doesn't look like the 1 in draft no. 14653 on that same doc

my curiosity got the better of me, I wanted to see if the doc looks like a real one
here are imgs & links

Record Group 104. Entry 1. General Correspondence, 1792 - 1899. : U.S. Mint : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Philadelphia Mint records scanned at the National Archives (NARA) in Philadelphia - covering the period December, 1880 - May, 1881. General Correspondence from...

archive.org

Warrant covering Assay Comm. travel : U.S. Mint : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Selected transcription from Philadelphia Mint records scanned at the National Archives (NARA) in Philadelphia. General Correspondence from Entry 1, Box 123 of...

archive.org

 

[Idahodutch]

messed up the previous post, think I'll just delete and start over
in the doc that Matthew posted the 1 in 1881 doesn't look like the 1 in draft no. 14653 on that same doc

my curiosity got the better of me, I wanted to see if the doc looks like a real one
here are imgs & links

Record Group 104. Entry 1. General Correspondence, 1792 - 1899. : U.S. Mint : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Philadelphia Mint records scanned at the National Archives (NARA) in Philadelphia - covering the period December, 1880 - May, 1881. General Correspondence from...

archive.org

Warrant covering Assay Comm. travel : U.S. Mint : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Selected transcription from Philadelphia Mint records scanned at the National Archives (NARA) in Philadelphia. General Correspondence from Entry 1, Box 123 of...

archive.org

Cw0909,
I’m not sure what you are talking about, but the date section in the form, where there looks to be a “partially pre-populated” year for the decade of the 1880’s……. Only the last of four digits needs to be filled in.
It looks like 188… was pre-populated on the form.
On the one Matthew posted, the 4th digit that was written, was a one. On a later posting, the 4th digit that was written in was a zero.

Maybe you are comparing a pre-populated number one, with hand written numbers ? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Anyway, I not sure if that’s what you were getting at or not?
Good eye though.. 😎👍

 

[Matthew Roberts]

"On the one Matthew posted, the 4th digit that was written, was a one. On a later posting, the 4th digit that was written in was a zero."

Idahodutch
You are correct, cw0909 posted a completely different document with a completely different date.

 

[cw0909]

Cw0909,
I’m not sure what you are talking about, but the date section in the form, where there looks to be a “partially pre-populated” year for the decade of the 1880’s……. Only the last of four digits needs to be filled in.
It looks like 188… was pre-populated on the form.
On the one Matthew posted, the 4th digit that was written, was a one. On a later posting, the 4th digit that was written in was a zero.

Maybe you are comparing a pre-populated number one, with hand written numbers ? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Anyway, I not sure if that’s what you were getting at or not?
Good eye though.. 😎👍

thanks you got it, even though I didn't say it well. I also didn't realize way back then they used “partially pre-populated” text in pre printed forms, that is why I went looking, I thought names dates,ect. were written as needed on pre printed forms back then

 

[Idahodutch]

thanks you got it, even though I didn't say it well. I also didn't realize way back then they used “partially pre-populated” text in pre printed forms, that is why I went looking, I thought names dates,ect. were written as needed on pre printed forms back then

cw0909,
I too had wondered about a pre-printed form, that also show signs of subsequent “partially pre-filled out” with 3/4 of the year, hand written in too.
Not only that, but the “partially pre-filled out” digits, 188_ looked identical from form to form.

I suspect that these forms were both copies that were made many years, even decades after the transactions took place; and that the information was re-entered into newer forms. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I don’t know how else this might have ended up with what we all have been looking at, that you guys have posted here. 😁👍

maybe somebody can think of a different story to explain what’s written on the forms? 🥴

Edit: I don’t think copies of pre-filled or partially filled out forms, were available in 1881, but I’m still ignorant about a good many things 🥹

 

[Clay Diggins]

These are drafts against a named "legislative warrant". Legislative warrants are still created today whenever Congress appropriates money or gives permission to do something. When an appropriations bill is passed the Treasury is notified and physical Warrants are made up and deposited in the Treasury for the amount set aside by Congress. The Treasury refers to these particular types of Warrants as "Appropriation Warrants".

A draft is like a check except it's written and guaranteed by the issuing bank itself instead of a depositor or customer of the bank. In this case the bank is the Treasury of the United States and they are the guarantors of the draft funds.

The draft you see here is taken against the named Warrant written for that appropriation, the draft amount is charged against the full Warrant amount on the Treasury's books. Each Warrant has it's own bookkeeping and each draft is tracked through the bank redemption process.

Warrants, drafts, bonds and stocks have been preprinted since this nation was founded. It's a very old and lucrative part of the printing business. Did you really think Benjamin Franklin became so wealthy printing newspapers and almanacs?

The original "draft" presented in this thread is a forgery. The later full draft presented by cw0909 is a copy of a complete draft written on the same form as the forgery and during the same time period. In cw0909's example you can see the appropriation that authorized the Warrant and subsequent draft with an accounting of what the money is to be used for. The person redeeming the draft was an officer of the United States. Almost all Congressional appropriations are assigned directly to executive agencies and an officer and agent of that agency has to take responsibility for the funds when they redeem or draw on the draft.

It's always been this way. It's how the government has handled their finances from the beginning. It's your government maybe take some time and see how they do their banking instead of speculating on what a Warrant, Draft or Check is? It's all explained at the Treasury website.

https://tfx.treasury.gov/operational-accounting/transactional-reporting/warrant-and-net-transactions

Now here comes the tricky part. Under Federal law these warrants and drafts are not paid to individuals. The law is clear to this day that Drafts are to be treated as appropriated public moneys.

31 United States Code Ch. 33: DEPOSITING, KEEPING, AND PAYING MONEY
From Title 31—MONEY AND FINANCE SUBTITLE III—FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

§3322. Disbursing officials​

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer public money to a disbursing official only by draft or warrant written on the Treasury. Except as provided in section 3716 and section 3720A of this title and subsection (b) of this section, a disbursing official shall—

1. Deposit public money as required by section 3302 of this title; and
2. Draw public money from the Treasury or a depository only (a) as necessary to make payments; and (b) payable to persons to whom payment is to be made.

Read the rest of the actual United States law at your leisure:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle3/chapter33&edition=prelim