The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-08-25

sons advising or participating n such act being con
picted thereof before any court Of the United States Of
competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced 10 ipriso
Dseat for term Of not less than months
than ten gears, and 10 fine equal 10 the amount Of the
money e,nbeszled And, upon the trial OF any in
dictment against any person for embezzing public
money under the provisions OF this act, II shall be
sufficient evidence, for the purpose of showing a
balance against such person. to produce transcript
from the books and proceedings of the treasury,
required in civil cases, under the provisions of the
act entitled An act TO provide more efectually for
the settlement of accounts between the United
States and receivers Of public money, approved
March third, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety ; and The provisions Of this act shall be
construed TO apply TO ALL PERSONS charged ioih
the safekeeping TRANSFER, on DISBURSEMENT OF
THE PUBLIC MONEY, uheer such persons be indicted
as receipers depOsitaries Of the same and the re-
fusal of such person, whether III out of office, to
pay any draft, order, or warrant which may be
drawn upon him by the proper officer of the Trea
sury Department for any public money in his hands
belonging TO the United States, MATTER IN
WHAT CAPACITY THE SAME MAY HAVE BEEN RE
CEIvED OR MAY BE HELD, 10 transfer or disbiase
any such money promptly, upon The legal requirement
Of any authorised officer Of the United States, shall be
deemed and taken, upon the trial of any indictment
against such person for embezzement, as prima
tacie evidence of such embezzement."
Now, we aver that this whole transac-
ton of Mr.. MASON with Mr.. DENNY and
Mr. OSBORNE was undeniably an illegal
transaction. We aver distinctly that a
Secretary who deposited 100000 in the
hands of any "person," with the know
ledge that such "person" was to /" con-
vert il to his own use, in any way what
ever" or was to use il ''by way of
investment in any kind Of property or
MERCHANDISE, participated in what the
above law calls felony"-and that it
makes no difference :" in what capacity"
such "person" received such money or
held it, whether as the navy agent of the
United States, or as the navy agents
agent, or as commercial agent generally.
Whether OF not we state this correctly
every reader can Judge for himself, be-
cause we have cited the law
From this state Of facts and law the
friends of the late administration cannot
escape by any system of bravado, nor by
any amount of vituperation. The facts
are all admitted, and the application of the
law is obvious. If Mr.. DENNY and Mr.
OSBORNE were "persons, and held Gov
eminent "moneys" which they invested
in "merchandise," they have violated the
plain provisions of the law The circum-
stances show-Mr. OSBORNE indeed dis
tinctly avers-that these moneys were
placed in his hands, with the understand
ing that he was at liberty to use them in
commercial speculations. He did SO use
them, and by this use the Government
has lost the moneys. These facts impli-
cate the official character of Mr.. Mason.
The pretence that it was usual, or con-
venlent, or safe mode of sending funds to
Marseilles-to transmit them uia Rich
mond, through the hands of a house at
liberty to invest them in mercantile con-
signments-is false pretence. If the
Government has ever employed this ex-
traordinary mode of transmitting funds to
Europe, the mode was no longer open to
them after the passage of the Sub-trea-
sury law Our readers can Judge for
themselves of the propriety of Mr. Ma
SONS conduct. There is no need of using
any hard words to comment on transac-
ton which explains itself.
So much for the commencement of the
transaction, and Mr.. MAsoN's dereliction
of duty in this aspect and this part of the
case. But a worse aspect remains behind.
Mr.. MASON knew of this loss before the date
Of his last annual report, and before the
date of Mr.. PoLK's last annual message.
1t was then clearly his duty to commune
cate the fact to Mr.. Polk and to Congress.
He made no such communication to Con-
gress He made no mention of the cir
cumstance in his annual report. On the
contrary, he permitted Mr. Polk, i'll the
face OF this transaction, to assure Congress
that all our funds had been safely kept
under the Sub-treasury act, and that the
most distant transfers Ind been m0ae With-
out loss or embarrassment This was not
true. Mr.. Mason knetc that il was not
true. 1t was an act Of infdelity to Mr..
Polk, as well as to the American people,
to permit him to make such solemn de-
claration, on the responsibility of his Off
cial oath. No one can believe that Mr..
Polk would have made this statement if
he had been aware that at the very mo-
ment he wrote it there was an ascertained
loss in the transfer Of Sl55, 900 to one of
the most distant points Of transfer-and
that the statement he made was not only
generally, but circumstantially untrue.
These are the specific charges which
the facts and the law make against Mr.
Mason. They require no recourse to the
rhetoric of st. Giles or Billingsgate to set
them off in their true colors We leave
such adornments TO the Opposition Jour
nails