Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-11-13

in obedience to the law OF January 81 1923, the said
Gen Charles Graot is hereby dismissed from the service
of the United States"
The right to dismiss under this law is the failing to
render his accounts for settlement But the accounts
Of Gen. Gratiot regularly rendered. such is the
proof This being the case evidently the authority of
the President wronguly exercised because the cir
cumstances to authorize it did exist his accounts and
vouchers had been regularly rendered the proper audi
tor, awaiting his examination (See Fowers statement
No. 10, p 49, and Iiagners, PIP. 40, Soy
II is denied that Gen. Gratot could rightully be
sidered deauter until his properly set
tied at the Department. and, when ascerained
the President had legal control him. except what
derived under the law Of January 25, 1923, Memo
rial p. "A which authorized stoppage of pay until the
debt should be quidated and this done in the
under examinations for at the time Of his dismissal
than twelve thousand dollars of pay &C. had been retain
ed and credited to his account (See PIP. Al and III
AS regards the power to dismiss from service the Pre-
sident has authority except under the law of January
81 1928 then he could do forno other than
the law assigns failing to render his accounts" They
rendered. and hence the law failed to apply The
documentary evidence shows
l. That at the time the dismissal took place. ndebt
edness was alleged TO the amount Of S3l IT, which Gen.
Gratiot had been ordered the 2sth November 1885,
(see p 49, to pay into the Treasury, as due from him to
the United States.
2. That before suit was brought against him. viz on
the Both January 1884, this claim reduced by admit
ting credits for which he had contended for years
prior to the 28th November, 1888 TO 500 29213 Memo
rial, S4,) difference Of S2419.s7 against the settle
the officially settled consequently prior to
suit for recovery being instituted Memorial, p. Al
That after suit was brought, another portion of his
claims, amounting to 034 fifth Of the amount first
claimed from Gsn. Gratiot abandoned BY the Gov
ernment clearly showing that he dismissed for not
paying 1871, III, when it afterwards voluntarily adj
mitted that the demand against him and
unjust at least to the amount of and that the
President required him to pay into the treasury least
49, 463S 81, which, afterwards admitted was acu-
ally his money. Memorial, PIP. 834 In this state
Mt wa nora ptnPu or1a tn
the sd 2 not only to do this, but also surrender
his commission 1t was state of dress clearly mani
tested by the facts
General Macomb who appears mediator in this mat
ter, says Some days before your dismissal perhaps
five six, you called Afterwards saw the Sec
rotary, when he stated may say you that you could
pay ne balance due by you to the Government and resign
or that you might pay the balance and be tried by court
martial; and that if you did not pay the balance you
must be dismissed from the army (See his letter and
that of Mr. Sanford, encosed.)
There three alternativespay and resiqa pan and
be tried By eour, be dismissed The acceptance of
either proposition would have carried the impress Of dis
hynor Certainly with expectation Of a favorable
suit could an appeal to court martial be sought since
the paying the demandeded would have been evidence
OF the imputed embezzemen Gen. Gratiot in this CON
dtion OF actual dures could in other way than
yield to the determination the President might think pro-
per to adopt.
If under this coercive proposal resignation had been
made restoration being asked for would have been al
lowed for IN some cases the Senate has ruled but be-
tween such cases and the present. both being compulsory
no difference in principle can be perceived.
But Gen. Gratiot not defaulter. claim arising
under his breyet pay and audited by the Secretary of
War; was sufficient to cover the alleged balance charged
against him. (See Memorial, Lewiss and Eaton's depo
sitions PIP. 50, SO, ST. That paper lost most
likely was taken from the files of the accounting officer
whereby its benefit lost the final trial 1t is not
reasonable that individual should be preueced by the
accidental or designed loss of papers by bureau officers
charged with the settlement Of accounts Had this paper
been recovered it is confidently believed that judgment
would have been rendered against him and yet notwh
standing, arbitrary balance was assumed to be due
and payment demanded upon terms and conditions most
Illuminating II has been said that President Van Buren,
urged that Gen. Grato should pay the balance deduct
ing the amount which claimed by him. This is not
true The only propositions offered those contained
in the letter of Gen. Maeomb above referred to-
BE it conceded that the President can at pleasure dis
miss military officer, with without reasons vet if he
undertakes to give which turns out to be i'll
founded untrue, the act ought to be regarded void.
Officers hold their commissions is their ex-
pressed during the pleasure of the President but this
cannot mean arbitrary exercise of pleasure" Indeed
it is denied that the pleasure of the President can be
exercised in any made punishable by the articles of
War In all SUCH guilt being imputed the accused
Titled to the benefit of court-martia and be pun
shed IN no other way Prerogative rights do not exist
with The President do nothing that is not autho-
rized by the constitution and laws
Every citizen is bound to obey the laws and every Off
Ger who enters the military service is under express
obligation to regard the Rules and Articles of War
is amenable to their penalties after the and
the terms there presented. There be contract
where both engaging parties bound While then
the ocer on entering the service pledges himself strictly
10 regard the rules of War; the President engages that
DIsGRAcEs and PUYIsHMESTs shall beall him. except
IN the mode and manner and the terms which they
prescrbe*
But Congress has thought proper proceed somewhat
iurther and in their socude for the safely Of the Trea
sury IN the act of January 81 1929 declared that the
PRESIDENT should have power dismiss officer. But
IN what case When the officer fails to render his
counts. The account being rendered, las done in
case the law is stripped Of its penalty and if
punishment Is to be sought for account of public
neys not being paid the Treasury, it must be
through martial, charge Of embezzlement and
unocerke conduct under the provisions of the act
OF January 70, 1873 which authorizes the sequesterng
OF his pay until the default be qudated Such has been
the pracce since the enactment of this law and to its
provisions many are subjected But three excep-
tons are to be met WITH it is believed this rule since
lS2S-the one Gen. Gratot the other Lieut. Roberts Of
the army and Lieut. Hunter Of the navy and in my hum
bic Judgment the proRuncdento in each case is illegal
and void and should by the Senate be declared The
legislative arm should be ready resist every arbi
rary exercise of power and when practicable
it. Respectfully submitted. C. GRATIOT
WASHINGTON, july IL, 1852.
Gem Gratiot punished FIRST by stoppage of pay
second by Dismissal for the imputed crime thoa a
the laws flowing from it.
FRAUD UPON THE PRUssIAS GovERsMEST-I the month |
Of July last noticed the Of Theodore Pritman
Antoine Garvacc and Others charged by the Consul
neral Of the Prussan Government with having feonousy
made and procured to be made copper plates in imitation
of the genuine Prussan Loan Office Bill plates, and with
having forged, by taking impressions from these false
plates large number of Loan Office Bills Of the demo-