Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1850-01-24
THE LYNCHBURG VIRGINIAN.
lYNCIuBURG. JANUARY -. 1850.
DEFAUITERS.

The course of the opposition, III regard to pub.
lie defaulerS, is most extraordinary and unprlne-
Piled. The Administration is denounced, in the
biuerest terms, whenever the Auditors officially
announce that this or that Democratic functional
nv is behind hand in his accounts with the Gov
eminent. 1t was the peculiar boast OF the De
mocracv that they had, in the Suh-TreaSury law,
thrown sub safe guards round the public money,
in the hands of disbursing officers, as to render
defacation morally impossible YetdetacahonS
have occurred under the Sub Treasury and when
they are announced, it would seem to be the du-
ty of the Democratic press To defend the default
ers and 10 show that they are entirely lnnocent-
even when it is obliged to admit the money Is
gone. Witness the DENLY affair, in which the
Union clearly proved that every one connected
with the malycrsaon ofthe S150 900 otthc pub
lie money was, not only innocent OF any breach
of morality or of the Sub-Treasurv law, but was
really entitled to the sympathy and even appro-
baton of the public. Not case of dcialcatlon
has been known, since the accession OF General
TAYLOR which this journal has not, at first denied,
and afterwards palated or defended the conduct
of the guilty party. The moi ilagrant case is
that of Wetmorc, the late Navy Agent at Me-"
York. The Union rails al the Administration for
hunting down, in bloodhound spirit, one whom
it had removed from office, aud for plotting the
ruin of the character of an innocent man. One
would be led to infer that the President, and not
Gen. Wetmore, is the guilty person-though,
from the admission even OF the eX-Navy Agent
himself no one can question the fact that he Is a
defaultcr, for large amount not only under the
more stringent provisions Of the famed Sub-lrea
surv law but in the ordinary sense OF the word.
50 far from the Administration being obnoxious to
the charge of dealing harshly with this offender
we are at a loss to know how II was that some
nine or ten months should have passed round, al
ter his removal from Office, before the Auditors,
DAYTON and Paris should have discovered, or
announced, at least the fact of his delinquency.
These gentlemen are Democrats, of the stricteSt
sect and certainly had no disposition to do more
than duty required in exposing leader OF their
own party in New York We do not accuse them
of Sinking their duty, from dissemination to an
nounce the fact of an enormous maversation by
A petted officer of the last Administration. Their
DELAY, however, is conclusive against the charge
that the Admin tratIon was bent upon the rum
of a man whom it had displaced.
After all The vouchers be has produced are al
loved the Auditors report balance against Wet
more of near $50 600 This he does not deny,
but ALLEGES that commissions upon purchases made
and money disburSed, not exactly in the line OF
his duty during the late war, would amount TO
an equal sum. Surprising this to be the fact,
the legal guilt is not whit essened. The Sub
Treasury expressly forbids discussing officer
from retaining money in his hands, for the purpose
ofcoye.ing claims which be may aege against
the Government for extra service. The case OF
Wetmore would seem to be eXpresS y provided
for by anticipation. In retaining the money, to
cover his pretended commissions, he committed
a felony, as unquestonaby as If he had stolen
thai amount and ran off with il. His own state
ments, coupled with the provisions of the Sub
Treasury, shows him to be guilty of felony And
this is the man in whose behalf public sympathy
il In Nnhpl