The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-11-11

Der. 1888. to 229. 1872 IS. memorial, D. SAL diff.
ference OF $2.4l9 81 against the settlement MT r..
ported on BY the Secretary Of War; and this before
prior to suit for recovery being instituted. me.
g. That after suit was brought .no,hs, nor,;on
OF his Claims: amounting to SS.O34. Zone fifth Of
was abandoned by the Government. clearlv .ho,n.
ing that he was dismissed for not paving x ~ Tla
when It was afterwards voluntarily Admitted ina,
!ne demand against him was ERRONEOUS and nm.
Just al least 10 the amount Of x8463 81: and ina,
the President required him TO nav in,o H., ,raa'
sary a. least So,46s :! which, AZ was afterward.
A'"'e" - as actually his own money (memo.
rial. PIP. 49, "a In this state of affairs, General
Gratiot peremptoriiy ordered TO pay the
$3l7l2; not only TO do this, but also to surrender
manifested by the facta. !,
General Macamb, who appears mediator in
this matter, says: "Some days before your dismis
sal, perhaps five or six, you called on m"
~ -~o,s..ry, when he stated,
80 --y TO you that you could pay tAs balance du,
by you to the Government, and Testen,o or that you
might pay the balance and be tried by o court
martial; and that II you did not pay the balance
you must be dismissed from the army. (See hi,
letter and thatof Mr.. Sanford, enclosed
There were three slternat ves-pay and resign ,pds
and be tried BY court or be diAnisasd fhe accept
ance Of either proposition would nave carried ia,
impress of dishonor. Certainly with no expecta
ton of favorable result could an appeal to ,
court martial be sought, since the paying tn,
sum demanded would have been evidence Of th,
imputed embezzlement. General Gratiot, la THU
condition Of actual dursss. could act in no othei
way than yield to the determination the Presiden
might think proper to adopt
II, under this coercive proposal, q resignation
had been made, a restoration being asked for
would have been allowed, for in some cases ths
Senate has 80 ruled; but between such cases ant
the present, both being compulsory, no dffcrenc,
in principle can be perceived.
But General Gratiot was not defaulter.
claim arising under his brevet pay, and audited by
the Secretary Of War, was sufficient to cover III,
alleged balance charged against him. (See me
mortal, Lews's and Eaton's dispositions, ID. IS
IS, 87.) That paper was lost, or moot likely wa,
taken from the files of the accounting officer
whereby its benefit was lost ON the fnaf trial. II
is not reasonable that an individual should be pre-
JUDGED by the accidental or designed loss of paper
by bureau officers charged with the settlement Mt o.
accounts. Had this paper been recovered, il i,
confidently believed that no judgment would have
been rendered against him; and yet, notwithstand.
ing, an arbitrary balancewas assumed to be due
and payment demanded upon terms and conditions
most hu,niGating 1t has been said that Preside emf
Van Buren, urged that General Gratiot sh,..'
the balance. deduc'- mo o,nonn, w,I ;..' pny
~.....u.u py him This 10 not true. The only pro
positions offered those contained In the letter
Of General Macomb above referred to.
Do ~ COuCtucu tuut Tue yfcblucuI C0n AZ pleasure
dismiss military officer, with without reasons
yet, il he undertakes to give reason which turns
out to be i'll founded-untrue-the act ought to be
regarded as void. Officers hold their commissions
as ia on their face Expressed; tdurnE the pleasure
Of the Preaident!" but this cannot mean an arbi
trnry exercise of pleasure" Indeed, 1t ia denied
that the "pleasure of the President can be exer.
cised in any case made punishable by the articles
of war. In all such, guilt being imputed, the &C.
cused 10 entitled to the benefit Of court martial
and can be punished in no other why. Prerogative
rights do not exist with US. The President can dc
nothing that is not authorized by the Constitution
and laws. "a. no.. p- VISITED.
Every citizen ia bound to obey the laws; and
under express obligation to regard the rules and
articles OF war, or he is amenable to their penal
ties, after the manner and the terms there pre-
sented. There can be no contract where both en-
officer, on CHEERING tho service, pledges himself
strictly to regard the rules of war, the President
engages that DIsGRAcEs and PuNIsHMENrs shall
not befall him, except in the mode and manner,
and on the terms. which they prescribe
But Congress has thought proper to proceed
somewhat further, and in their solicitude for the
safety of the treasury, in the act of January 81,
1929 declared that the President should have power
the officer "aiIs to render his accounts" The ac.
count being rendered, (as was done in Gratiot's
CASEY the law 10 stripped Of its penalty; and If
punishment s to be sought for, on account of pub
nc moneys not oelng Paid over 10 the treasury, 1t
must be through a court martial, on a charge OF
embezzlemcnt and unoficerlike conduct; or under
the provisions of the act of January 25 1885, which
authorizes the sequeserng of his pay until the de-
fault be lquidated. Such has been the practice
since the enactment of this law, and to it's provi-
sions many are now subjected. But three etcep
ions to be met with, it is believed, to this rule
since l82S-the one General Gratiot, the other
Lieutenant Roberts Of the army, and Lieutenant
Hunter of the navy; and, in my humble judy
ment, the pronuaciamsnto in each case is illegal
and void, and should by the Senate be declared.
The Legislative arm should ever be ready to resist
every arbitrary exercise Of power, and, when prac-
ticable, to correct it.
Respectfully submitted,
c. GRATIoT.
WAsHiNoros, July IL, 1882.