Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-06-29
HOW THE LAWS AnE VIOLATED.

Utter disregard Of law has been a char
acteristic of the Grant administration
When a law stood in the way Of Grant and
his henchmeu ia the accomplishment Of
their partisan purposes it was openly set
at defiance, aud the partisan majority in
! Congress Whitewashed these lawbreakerS.
This has been done in every case that has
been brought before that body. The majority
report Of the committee ofinvestigatiOni into
tie sale OF arms to the French, not only
boldly iustifes that sale Of arms to a known
belligerent, but avows some theories of in
depreciation of statute law so extraordinary
and audaciOUs as to deserve notice. Every
thing that the administration Of President
Grant Las done, right or wrong, is boldly
defended by lis adberents, as proved by
the uuvarying result Of all the investigating
committees appointed at the late session of
Congress; and it is probable, says the St.
Louis Republican, that the President could
not DO anything, however violent and lie
gal, that would not be justified by those ad,
herents. Certainly, Senator Carpenters
defence of the plain violation Of law in this
French arms business, leaves little room to
imagine anything done by the President
that be would condemn. The arms
sold to the French were sold under
two acts Of Congress, one of 1925, the
other OF 1868, both in force, and neither in
conflict with the other. The first, in gen
eral terms, authorizes the President 10 "sell
any ordnance, arms, ammunition, or other
stores or substance or medical supplies
which, upon proper inspection or survey,
shall appear to be damaged or otherwise
unsuitable for the public service" It also
provides for an inspection and survey to
ascertain what arms and other material are
unsuitable for the public service"
The act Of 1865 directs the Secretary
of War to Golfer at public sale, after
thirty days notice, the old cannon, arms
aud other ordnance stores which were
damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the
United States military service, or for the
militia Of the United States" Both these
laws were wilfully violated, as Senator
Schurz declared, and as the majority report,
itself, proved, in the sale of arms. The
ac5 Of 1925 was violated by selling the arms
without the inspection and survey which it
called for, and By selling arms that were
neither damaged" nor "unsuitable for the
public service" In the lot sold to the
French agents were a large number Of the
Spencer and Remington patterns
which Gen. Dyer, chief Of The ord
nance department, testifss were fit to be
issued to our troops, and which are the
same kind as those in the hands of our army
at this day. Neither was the ammunition
"damaged"- it was manufactured fresh
to 20 along with The unchanged arms.
The majority report pretends to say that
"the inspection and survey required in the
act Of 1925, was not condition precedent
TO the sale under the last act;" but as an
offset to this partisan opinion we have the
written opinion of the JudgeTAdvocate Cen
eral, the law-ofIicer of the war department,
of the date Oct. u, 1869, in which he
declares that the arms to be sold, ''mr st
first have been inspected as provided for,
and declared to be either damaged or
otherwise unfit for the public service"