The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-12

"HEADoUARTERs OF THIS Army, ADJUTANT-GRNR-
RAILS OFFIoE, wAsHINoTON Aug I, 1s6o-deneral
TOR NJ ne treasury and bv objection of tine secre-
tsry of War, the attention OF officers OF the army
is called to the statement OF the former that the
practice OF drawing pay twice for the same time,
and refundng at some subsequent PERIOD has lately
been OF such frequent recurrence and sperpetrated
under such circumstances, as to preclude the sup
position OF inadycrtence or mistake, but rather OF
deliberate Intention -. r-r. --.
FEvery officers pay account contains the ertid-
cate that the officer has not already received payfor
the same period. II, therefore, an oncer signs two
must be false and II the names and facts reach the
Headquarters OF the Army, as they surely VIII
through the Paymaster-Generai (see paragraph 1872
General Regulations) the officer will be tried by
general court martial under the 14th Article OF War;
"By command OF General Sherman
'(Signed e. ID. TOWNSEND, Acknowledgement
Paragraph 1879, revised regulations for the
United States army edition of 1868, roads,
whenever the Paymaster-General shall discover
that an of1icer has drawn pay twice for the same
time, he shall report to the Adjutant- General"
And the 14th Article of War reads;-
'Fvery of1cer who shall be convicted before o
icate relating to the absence OF either ofiicer or
private soldier or relative to his or their pay, snail
be cashiered."
Adjutant- General Townsend, speaking for
the Secretary of War, seems to have no doubt
that the Paymaster-Gensral viii comply here
after with paragraph 1879, General Regula-
tions for the Army; and he is equally certain
that the Secretary of War will in the future
do his duty as inculcated by the 14th Article
of War; but would it not be a pertinent in
quiry for Congress to make, why the Pay
master General did not, previous to the date
of General Orders No. 81, report the names
of the offending officers as required by para
graph 1879? and if he did SO, why then did
the Secretary of War not execute the act of
Congress as expressed in the 14th Article of
War, and bring those officers to trial That
Article of War was made a law OF the land on
the 10th of April, 1906; it has remained bind
ing on the Executive ever since, and had its
provisions been rigidly complied with, the
army would not to-day be obliged to bear the
odium incurred by the publication of such an
order as that above quoted.
When the President shall have furnished
the names as required, we insist that they
shall be placed at the head of the list of those
officers that Congress proposes to muster out
this winter; and we insist upon this The more
particularly, as those officers, if the Second
Auditor is to be believed, have violated the
contract made between them and the Govern
ment, which contract was only binding upon
the Government during their good behavior.
Moreover, if there is to be any rule observed
in selecting those who shall remain in the
service, we must, as taxpayers, express our
hearty preference for those gentlemen who
are satisfied with drawing their pay but once
for the same period of service.