The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-06-21

THE CASE or COLONEL FORBES.
YESTERDAY in the Court of Quarter Sessions,
before Judge Ludlow, George p. Thatcher,
formerly clerk in the Pension Agency of
Colonel Forbes, was placed on trial charged
with embezzlement of certain funds amount
ing to $500, on the 10th, 21st, and 22d of
January last. Our readers will recollect the
references made some time ago in these
columns to certain alleged Irregularities in
the Office of Colonel Forbes that appeared to
demand much stricter investigation on the
part of the Government authorities than has
yet been given. Colonel Forbes made haste
to throw all the blame upon his clerk, and
the testimony given yesterday seems to indi
cate that the trial of Thatcher is intended
not only to shift the responsibility
of gross mismanagement and irregularity
from the shoulders of Colonel Forbes to that
of his clerk, but also to attract public atten-
tion from the main subject. Colonel Forbes
was placed upon the witness-stand yesterday,
and although he did not deny that he had
loaned money to pensioners at exorbitant
rates of interest, he strenuously insisted that
the particular sum belonging to the Govern
ment which was charged in the indictment
was used without his authority. AS Thatcher
was on trial charged with embezzling a
specified sum at specified time, the court
was obliged to rule out much testimony that
was offered to prove what the practices of the
Office were with regard to loaning money to
pensioners but we have affidavits in our
possession that show conclusively that needy
pensioners were bled without mercy by
Colonel Forbes as we'll as his assistants.
Colonel Forbes could not recollect yester-
day whether he had authorized Thatcher to
take certain due-bill from pensioner or
not, but some of the pensioners have better
memories, although he admitted that he had
loaned money out of his own pocket in cases
that did not enter into this trial.
The testimony most to the point yesterday
was that of DIR. Strong, pensioner, who
swore that on the 10th of January he OBJ
tanned from Thatcher an advance of $25, for
which he gave a due-bill for $50, and that
subsequently this due-bill was deducted from
his pension by Colonel Forbes.
This is sufficient to show that there was a
full understanding between Colonel Forbes
and his clerk, and whether the Government
money was used in such transactions or not,
the fact that this discounting of pensions
was the common practice of the Office is all
that is sufficient to prove that Colonel Forbes
is not a fit person to hold the position of
Pension Agent, and that he ought to be re-
moved.
The detectives who examined into the
affairs of Colonel Forbes Office found suf-
icient to convince them that things were not
managed as they should be, but the agent
of the Pension Bureau, after about two
hours examination of the books, returned
to Washington and reported that there was
nothing wrong 1t is apparent to the COM
monest understanding that thorough ex-
animation could not be made in the time that
the agent of the bureau devoted to it, as
week would scarcely have been sufficient, and
his report was an evident attempt to white
wash the affair.
If Thatcher embezzled any of the Govern
ment money he ought to be punished, and
probably will be, but nothing has as yet
been brought forward to relieve Colonel
Forbes from the responsibility of not only
having sanctioned the Irregularities alleged to
have been perpetrated in his Office, but, on
the contrary, the whole bearing of the evil
dence is in the other direction. Whether the
Government funds were used or not, it is
practically admitted that the agent and his
clerks did advance money at outrageous rates
of interest to the pensioners, which should
be all that is necessary to procure the instant
removal of Colonel Forbes, unless the officers
of the Pension Bureau wish to lay themselves
under the suspicion of being sharers in the
profits of the agents.