The daily union., 1852-11-09


antied rights OF The citizen directly affected by that
81 Such an expression IS all that now ask The
a d report 10 the case OF Lieutenant Roberts, adverted
y ahoye is also enclosed Tor reference.
lake The liberty 10 enclose copy OF the printed brief
- Zach member OF the committee and, il incompati-
~ with propney, may ask The favor OF you TO hand
%s, ~ over according 10 their respective address
"'' am, with much respect sir.
Your most obedien servant, ,,,o,,
Hon. A. p. BUTLER, OF the Senate.
p.igg Of General Gratiofs case, as submitted 10 The
Senate Of hs United States
The act OF the 3lst January. s23 Memorial p 4o)
ave- authority only to the President 10 dismiss an officer
En he public service when he failed 10 reader his ac
nUn .n"nts for settlement Mr., Van Baren expressly
hayes that having neglected 10 render his accounts,
: Incidence TO The law OF January 81, 1929 the said
General Charles Graot is hereby dismissed from the
The right 10 dismiss. under this law s the failing TO
render his accounts for settlement" Bot the accounts
d General Graot regularly rendered. such Is ihe
uroof This being the case, evidently the authority OF
s President was wrongiully exercised because the cir
mm.tanees 10 authorize did not exist; his accounts
and vouchers had been regularly rendered to the proper
auditor awaiting his examination (See Fowiers Stale
mpnt No 10, D. as, and Hagners, PIP. 49-5O)
Ii is denied that General Gatlot could rghtfuliy be
considered deaulter until his accounts were properly
settled The department; and even when SO ascerta'ned,
me President had legal control over him. except what
yas derived under the law OF January 20, 1898 (Memo-
nal 441 which authorized soppage OF pay until the
debt should be quidaied and this was done In The case
nnder exaunaon Tor al the lime oil his dismissal, more
han twelve thousand dollars of pay, &c, had been
tanned and credited TO his account. (See PIP Al and IS
As regards the power TO dismiss from service, the
President has no authority except under the law oil
January 81 1885, even then he could do so for
obpr Than The law assigns, failing to render his
eounts" They rendered, and hence the law failed
10 apply. The documentary evidence shows
That at The time the dismissal took place, an
indebtedness alltdged 10 the amount OF $3l ,7I2,
which General Gatiot had been ordered on the 2slh
November 1885, (see o. 43) TO pay into The treasury, as
due from him 10 the United States.
q That before suit was brought against him-viz
on the 30lh January, lS39-ths claim reduced by
admitting some credits Tor which he had conended for
wears PRIOR TO the 2sh November 1888, TO $40 292 -,
lMemoria. p. 64)a difference OF 2,4l9 81 against the
settlement reported by the Secretary oil War and this
before The accounts were officially settled. consequently
prior 10 suit for recovery being instituted. Memorial.
pH)
g. That after suit brought another portion OF
bis claims, amounting to So 03l (one-hfih OF the amount
hrs, claimed from General Gratoi abandoned by the
government, clearly showing that he dismissed for
not paying $3 ,7l2 when II was afterwards voluntarily
admitted that The demand against him was erroneous and
unjust. at least to the amount OF SS463 ST. and that the
S. 463 ST. which, as was afterwards admitted was ac-
lnalIy his own money, Memorial, PIP. SD In this
slate Of affairs, General Gaot was peemptorily ordered
pay The $3l7l2; not only to do this but also to sur
render his commission Ii was state OF durts clearly
manifested by the facts.
General Macomb, who appears a mediator in this mat
ter says: Some days before your Dismissal perhaps
tive or SIX you called on me Afterwards saw the Sec
Tesry when he stated may say TO you, that you could
pay he balance due by you to the government, and re-
agn that you might pay the balance and be tried by
cour.-maral; and that # you did not pay the balance
you be dismissed from the army" (See his letter.
and that Of Mr.. Sanford. enclosed)
There were three eeacrnaves-payd and resign. pay and
be ed by court, or be d,smisstd The acceptance OF
either proposition would have carried the imp OF dis
honor. Certainly with no expectation of favorable
suit could appea! TO courtmaral be sought, since
the paying The demanded would have been evidence
o the imputed embezzlement General Gfatot, in this
condition of actual duyess could in other way than
yield TO the determination The President might think
proper 10 adopt
Ii, under this coercve proposal resignation had been
made, restoration being asked for would have been al
lowed, for 10 some the Senate has ruled but
between such and the present, both being comPul
soy no difference 10 principle can be perceived.
But General u aot was not deiaulter. claim
arising under his brevel pay and audited BY the Secretary
oil War, was sufficient 10 cover the alleged balance
charged against hlm. (See memorial Lewis's and la
tons deposiuons, PIP S. SO, 81 That was lost or
most likely taken the files Of the accounting
oheer whereby IT'S benefit was lost on The final trial. IL
IS not reasonable that individual should be preudced
by the accidental designed loss of papers BY bureau
0hcers charged with the settlement OF accounts. Had
this paper been recovered il is confidently believed that
no Judgment would have been rendered against him; and
yeL Notwithstanding, an arbitrary balance was assumed
10 be due, and payment demanded upon terms and cond
lions most humila,iDg IL has been said that President
Van Buren urged that General Gralo should pay the bal
anee deduciing the amount which was claimed by him
lhs is not true. The only propositions offered those
contained IN the letter OF Gen Macomb above referred TO-
Be IT conceded that the President at pleasure dis
miss military officer, with or without reasons; yet if
be undertakes 10 give which turns out 10 be
tiounded-untrue-he act ought 10 be regarded as
VOID. Officers hold their commissions, is their face
expressed during The pleasure of the President" but
ihs cannot mean an arbitrary exercise o pleasure"
Indeed u s denied that the "peasure OF the President
can be exercised in any made punishable by the
ARTICLES OF war In all such, guilt being imputed, the
accused entitled to the benefit of court MARTIAL and
can be punished IN no other way. Prerogative iahs
do not exist with us. The President can do nothing
That Is not authorized by the constitution and laws.
Every cilIzen ~ bound 10 obey the laws and every
oeer who enters the military service Is under express
obligation to regard the rules and articles Of war; he
amenable to their pensies after the manner and on the
both epgagAg parties are not bound. While then, the
officer entering the service, pledges himself strictly
regard the rules OF war; the President engages that
GRACEs and pUNIsHMEsTs shall not befa him, except in
the mode and manner and the terms, which they pre-
scribe.
Bot Congress has thought proper proceed somewhat
iurber, and ~ their socude for the safety OF the treas
uy, 10 The act OF January 81 1923, declared that the
PRESIDENT should have power 10 dismiss an obcer. But
~ what case When the officer " fails to render his
accounts" The account being rendered. las was done
IN Galos case) The law is stripped OF It's penalty and
y punishment IS TO be sought for on account OF public
moneys not being paid 10 the treasury, II must be
through ouri.martia on charge OF cmbezzement and
unohcerke conduct; under the provisions OF the act
Of January IS, 1885, which authorizes the sequestens OF
bus pay until The default be iqudaied. Such has been
he practice since the enactment OF this law, and 10 its
provisions many Subjected. But three exceptions
are TO be met with il is believed, 10 this rule since 1925
'he one General Gratio The other Lieutenant Roberts of
humble Judgment The prormncamisnfo IN each case, is
illegal and and should by the be declared