Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1864-02-27
The Charges Against the Board Enrolment
of tho 14th District.

The Charges Against the Board Enrolment
of the 14th District.
n will be remembered by our readers, that
most serious charges of corruption, malfea-
sance, and general derciction of d,ty, were
preferred against the Board of Enrolment
of tho 14th District--of which Dauphin
county forms portion. At the time these
charges were made, and wher an investiga-
tion was in progress OIL the subject, the Tory
Organ and the tory press all over the dis
trict, resorted to the most strenuous efforts
to preIudge the case.
Since the evidence in the investigation
growing out of the charges preferred against
the Board of Enrolment in this district, was
transmitted to the War Department, it mas
been briefly reviewed and set forth in an
opinion by l.. c. Turner, Judge Advocate of
the Department. In order to enlighten the
public with extracts from this opinion, we
have applied at the Provost Marshal's Office
in this city, of the State and district, for a
copy of the same, but for some reason, we
have not been able to get u peep at the doc
umcnt. Determined that the people should
become acquainted with the tenor of this
document, we have gone to considerable
trouble to procure at least extracts from the
same, in the city of Washington, and we are
now able to write, that Judge Advocate
Turner completely aud emphatically declares
that the evideace adduced duIng the inves-
tigation OF the charges preferred against the
Enrolment Board, failed to sustain single
charge. We quote the precise language of
the Judge Advocate:
THAT the proofs taken by the investigat-
ing Board failed to support the charges
preferred. That said proofs do not impli-
cate positively or inferentially the said Board
of Enrolment, or any member thereof, in
any fraudulent act or malfeasarce in Office. y
This is certainly as strong as any man
seeking the could desire. the Judge Advo-
cate then goes on to state, that the proofs
disclose the fact, that certain lawyers, "by
false representations and assurances, obtain
ed money from certain enrolled men, the
payment of the money generally dependent
upon their exemption-but there is no evi
dence whatever, that these lawyers had any
collusion or connection or intercourse, with
the Surgeon of the Board (Dr Charlton. y
Indeed, there is no positive proof in one in.
stance of the Board regulating these law.
yers, by advising man under examination
to have nothing to do with such pretend
ers ~
But we have men in the district who
sought to hold the Board responsible fol
the acts of these sharpers, among whom on,
DR.. Crawford, of Jnniata county, made him
self very prominent in the investigation. Ii
dealing with Crawford and the other physi
clans in this city and throughout the dis
trict, who Joined in the crusade, the judge
Advocate says;
"And the fact that men were exempter
for special and certified bodily diseases, &c
and other physicians are of opinion that
such exempted persons are physically com
petent to perform military duty-does not
of itself, impute fraud or professional inca
pacity to the Surgeon of the Board. 1t il
only evidence that doctors disagree
Besides, it will be noted that the Sur
geon of the Board exempted for physica
disabilities as prescribed by the Surgeon
General, while the outside physicians ex
pressly state that they never paid particula
attention to the regulations issued by tn,
Surgeon General, prescribing causes for ex
emption.'
FINALLY, the voluminous proofs as who'll
instead of impairing the official intregrit,
or professional ability of the Board of En-
rollment, or any member thereof sustain anC
fortify both."-Harrisburg Telegraph.