Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-09-16

lave been inst easily discovered by an
examination OF the Treasarer's by a Paw
Department. Official as by examining
absence of the reports is a matter OF no import
ance whatever. The most complete refutafion
OF the allegation OF the pay department is how
ever furnished by the fact that for some time a
gentleman connected with the pay department..
who is now engaged in the investigation OF Col.
Hodges accounts. has been In the habit OF call
ing upon the Treasurer's Office for the balances
reported TO the credit of pay masters, and has in
several instances, at his request, been furnished
with statements Of the balances held by the
Treasurer to Colonel Hodge. The books OF the
TTeasurer's Office have always been open 20 any
examination which the pay department mi gut
choose 10 make.
The ate mpt 70 use his letter OF May 9, 1866 in
the face OF the foregoing facts, as basis for
holding Genl Spinner responsible for Hodges
shortcomings, Is regarded as a cruel wrong %
the absent Treasurer, Who was prompted in
writing IL by spirit Of accommodation for the
Pay Del artmCnt, which had lust lost heavily
through the defalcation OF Hodges old con f-.-s
Major Pauiding, and who could have enter
tanned no suspicion Of the use 10 which il was 70
be perverted.
The second allegation of the Paw Department,
Is, II is claimed, quite immateriai as the firt
IL ts alleged by the Treasury officials that a.
though the circular of November 2Sd, 1852 has
not been literally complied with in the payment
OF Hodges checks. yet that, had Il been OBJ
served, it would have furnished no preventive OF
his populations. The circular does not, Il Is true
10 rs Aoi. hodges were.
to "cash or bearer" 1t does, however REQUIRE
that, except in certain specified cases, ''chscks,
drawn by discussing officers must be in favor OF
the person, by name, TO whom payment Is 20 be
made, or in favor Of such person by nasse or
beGrer.' Had payment been refused on the
checks drawn payable TO "cash OF bearer il
would have been perfectly feasible for Hodge,
under these regulations, TO have drawn Sut
funCs Tor his dishorest transac. ons upon checks
payable 70 any fictitious person or 5eGrrr. Sup
pose Hodge had drawn these fraudulent checks
in this manner, and had sent them 90 the
Treasury for collection by his messenger or
HAD presented them in person, the Treasurer
could not have refused payment under the
rules. The fact that the names OF the pavees
were fictitious, or were not tn sc OF persons en-
titled TO receive money from the government,
could not have been known TO the Treasurer
since lie has no means of knowing whether a
proper voucher has been taken mp by the drawer
OF the check. Since therefore the enforcement
OF the regulations could not have prevented
Hodges fraudulent operations, the failure 20
enforce them, like the failure TO call upon him
Tor reports, Is utterly immaterial in fixing the
responsibility for his being pernitted ID carr
on his fIadulent operations 80 long unchecked
The officers OF the Treasury claim, with much
apparent justice, that their functions in the
matter OF discussing officers funds are confined
TO the safe keeping of moneys deposited and 20
their payment on genuine and proper checks,
and that they are in no wise responsible for mis-
appropriation of funds which have been with
drawn from their custody by discussing officers
who render no account TO them and are not ia
the slightest degree under their control.