The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-12-02

proofs ere found In the letter Of the Secretary Of
War Of the 18th ultime, and in the Letter of NJ.
Stanford, and osrtincate Of the Sd Of the same
lished Il needed by the Senators from Nissouri "a
whom he 10 well known. The prepo sails made
through Gen Mscomb show that CLOSE anslory
for whose relief the Ssnate's committee reuortsd
bill, asserting in their report that the proceed
ings in his CASE wore, In every respect, exception
able" am fully aware that the Senate cannot.
without the Interpolation OF other branches of eov.
ernnent. restore me to Ey legal position in the
army; but certainly ii il not barred ~ conserve
tive body, from the power of expressing their
opinion whether the grounds assumed BY the Preei-
dent, in his order of Dismissal were founded in
truth, sustained by law, protective Of the gusran-
tied rights of the citizen directly affected BY that
act Such an expression is all that now ask. The
printed report In the case Of Lieutenant Roberts.
take the liberty to enclo 70 copy Of the printed
brief for each member of the committee. and IL not
incompatible with propriety, may ask the favor OF
you to hand them over, according to their respss-
tive address.
lam, with much respect, sir, your most obsdisat
Hon, A. P. BUTLER, of the Senate.
RepIaO of General Grat,Ots case as submitted to
the Senate of the United States.
The act Of the 3lst January, 1923, Memorial, p.
49, gave authority only to the President to dismiss
an officer from the public service when he failed to
render his account for settlement. Mr. Van Buren,
der mis- accounts in obedience to the law Of January
81 1923, the said Gen. Charles Grstiot 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 Bat the
accounts of Gen. Gratiot were regularly rendered
such is the proof This being the case, evidently
the authority of the President wroDgfaily
cised because the circumstances to authorize it did
not exist his accounts and vouchers had been re-
gulary rendered to the proper auditor awaiting his
examination (See Fowler's abatement, No. 10, p.
AZ and Hagner's, PIP 40, so
1t is denied that Gen Gratiot could rightfully be
considered defaulter until his accounts were pro-
perly settled at the Department; and, even when
ascertained, the President had legal control
January Is, 1925. lSiemcrsl, 44j which autho-
rized stcppage Of pay until the debt should be Ii
quidated; and this was done in the case under sx-
amin Ation for, 1T the time of his dismissal mora
than twelve thousand dollars of pay, Sc had besn
retained and credited to his account. (See PIP. Al
ard77)
AS re CARDS the power to dismiss from service, the
President has DO authority except under the law Of
January 81, 1928; even then, he could do 30 for no
other than the Law assigns falling to render
his accounts" They were rendered, and hence the
law failed to apply. The documentary evidence
/. That at the time the dismissal took place. an
indebtedness alleged to the amount OF $3l 7l2,
which Gen, Gratiot had bcen ordered, on the 18th
su1y, as due from him t. tho listed States 'A'
That before suit was brought against him, viG.
on the Both January, 1889, this claim was reduced,
by admitting some credits for which he had contend
cd for years prior to the 18th November, 1888, to
$50 292 IL, (Memorial, p. Si) difference Of 81 4l9
81 against the settlement reported by tho Score
tary of War, and this before the accounts were off,
being Instituted, Memorial, 4lS
3 That after suit was brought, another portion Of
his claims, amounting to $6,034, Gone fifth of the
amount first claimed from Gen. Gratiot,) was aban.
doned by the government, clearly showing that he
was dismissed for not paying $3l, TIP, whom it was
afterwards voluntarily admitted that the demand
against him WAS erroneous and unjust, ct least to
the amount Of 50 463 81 and that the President re-
quired him to pay into the treasury at least IS 1853
81, which, as was afterwards admitted, actually
his own money. Memorial, 834 In this state
OF affairs, General Gratot was peromptorily ordered
to surrender his commission. Il vas state Of du.
ress, clearly manifested by the facts
General Macopb, who appears mediator in this
matter. says: Some days before your dismissal.
saw the Secretary. when he stated, / may say to
you tina. you could pay the balance due BY you to
the government, and resign; or that you might pay
that # You did not nav tho bslSu.o Voa Gss b.
dismissed from the army" (See h.s letter md that
Of Mr. Sanford, enclosed
There were three alternatives pay and resign,
pay and DO tried by . court, or be dismissed. Ths
acceptance Of either proposition would have carried
the impress of dishonor Certainly with no expeota-
ton Of favorable resuls could m appeal to cosrt-
demanded would nave been evidence Of the imputed
mbezz'emeDt. General Gratiot, in this coalition
factuai durtss, could act in no other way than
yield to the determination the President might think
proper to adopt.
II, under this coercive proposal, resignation had
been made, q restoration being asked for would
have been allowed, for in cases he Senate has
so ruled; but between such and the present. both
being compulsory, no difference In prlnciple can be
perceived.
But General Gratiot was not defaulter A claim
srising under his brevet pay, and audited by the
Secretary OF War, was sufficient to the alleged
balance charged against him. (see Memorial,
Lewis's and Eaton's dispositions, PIP. IS, sc, 81
That paper was lost, or most likely was taken from
the tes Of the accounting officer whereby it; benefit
IN individual should be prejudioed by the accidental
or designed loss Of papers by bureau officers charged
with the settlement Of accounts Lad thi. paper
Judgment would have been rendered against MIN;
and yet notwithstanding. an arbitrary balance was
assumed to be due, and payment demanded upon
terms and conditions most humiliatiug It has been
Glatiot should pay the balance, deducting the
amount which was claimed by him This 10 not
true The only proportions offered are those oon-
tanned in the letter Of General Macomb above no
ferred to.
Be it sorceded that tho President can at pleasure
dismiss military officer, with or without reasons;
yet, if ne undertakes to give reason which turns
out to be illfounded, untrue, the act ought to be-
regarded as void. Officers hold their commissions,
as If on their face expressed during tho pleasure
Of the Presidents" but this mean an arbitra-
~ exercise Of pleasure" Indeed it is denied that
the pleasure Of the President" can be exercised in
sry case made punishable by tho Articles Of War.
In all such, guilt being imputed, the accused is en-
titled to the benefit of acourt martial, and can bs
punished in other way. Prerogative rights do
not exist with us The President can do nothing
that is not authorized by the constitution and laws.
Every citizen il bound to they the laws; and every
officer who enters the military service is under an
ea~h1s - 81 IL ..l--
Of War, or he is amenable to their penalties, after
the manner and on the terms there presented There
can be no contract where both epgagng parties are
not be upd While, then, the officer, on entering
the service, pledges himse strictly to regard tho
rules of war; the President engages thst disgraoss
and runishme shall not befs him, except in the
mode and manner, and on the terms, which they
prescribe
But Congress has thought proper 70 proceed