Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-07-09
MAJOR GENERAL O. o. HOWARD.
The Alleged Freedmem's Bureau
Frauds-FOrged Receipts and
Neutrality-suspicious. of the
Attorney General.
The following is the opinion Of the Attorney
General in the Howard case:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, July 3, 1873.

ing documents and papers, upon the subject of
the frauds in the late bureau of refugees, freed
men and abandoned lands. The papers which
you transmit me are in many respects incom
plete, and particularly so in not including the
bonds or copies of the bonds of the commission
er of said bureau and its chief discussing OFF,
GER, and have been able to obtain but one of
them. / think, however, that 1 have enough
facts before ne to answer the questions which
you propose. The freedmen's bureau was es-
tablshed by the act of March Sd, 1865, the ma
terial parts of which are as follows: By section
l, it is provided that "the said bureau hall be
under the management and control of a COM
missioner to be appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, whose compensation shall be 50, 200
may be assigned to him by the Secretary of War
and the commissioner and the chief clerk shall /,
before entering upon their duties, give bonds to
the Treasurer of the United States, the former
in the sum of $50 900 and the latter in tie sum
of $4,000, conditioned for the faithful dis
charge of their duties respectively, with secu-
as sufficient, which bonds shall be filed in the
Office of the First Controller of the Treasury,
to be by him put in suit for the benefit of any
injured party upon any breach Of the condition
thereof The third section of the act creating
the bureau is then quoted, to show the duties
and responsibilities of the commissioner.
"The papers which you enclose to me show
that considerable sums of money have been
taken from the treasury by officers employed in
the bureau by means of forged receipts and
vouchers for bounties due colored soldiers, and
procured from them, and you ask my opinion
upon two questions-1st. In cases where the
guilty parties cannot be prosecuted "what should
be the course in order to secure the protection
OF the interests of the government and of claim
ants? I'd. When prosecution is not barred by
the statute of limitations ''what action should
be had? To what extent Is the late commits
sioner of the bureau of refugees, freedmen and
abandoned lands and his chief discussing Off
Ger responsible
Your questions are not quite so explicit as
could wish, and 1 am not certain whether by
the word prosecution you refer solely to GRIM
Inal proceedings against the offender, or to civil
and criminal. For offenses of this kind it is
open to the government to proceed criminally
against the offender, and likewise to proceed in
civil action against him, and against any person
who is responsible for his acts. Where it is i'm
possible TO proceed criminally, either by the o.
tenders having absconded or the prosecution
being barred by the statute of Limitation, he
may be sued in civil action if it be deemed eX
pedient, or If property of his can be attached
If. therefore, any disbursing officer, or any
other officer or clerk employed by the bureau
has obtained money in the methods mentioned
in your communication, from the government
and it is thought best to sue him personally, the
papers may be sent TO the district attorney OF
the district in which he resides, or where he has
property for action. There is no statute bar
ring the United States in civil actions. The
late commissioner of the freedmen's bureau
gave no bond on his appointment in 1865, be-
cause, as he informs me, Mr.. Stanton, then Sec
rotary of War, did not think that the provisions
III respect Oh DODus was INTENDED 10 apply 10 the
case OF an officer of the army detailed for duty
under that act.
After due consideration find it impossible to
concur in the opinion. The object of bond is
not to have the means of Furnishing defaulter
but the protection of the government from
pecuniary loss, and the object is just as i'm
poTtan. in the case OF military Off GER as of
civilian. A bond, however, given under the act
of 1865, clearly would not cover loss of money,
paid TO the commissioner, under the joint
resolution Of 1867, but by the Sd section of that
resolution "ali money paid or discussed there
same rules and regulations governing other dis
bursting officers of the army" This required
the commissioner to give bond in the same
On the 31st of October, 1871. the commissioner
did give bond in the sum of : IL, 600, the condi
ton of which recites that he has been appoint
"a special agent and disbursing officer of the
bureau of refugees, &C." and provides that he
shall "henceforth during his boiling
and remaining in said office, carefully dis
charge the duties thereof and faithfully
expend all public moneys, and honestly
account for the same and for all public
property which shall or may come into
his hands on account of subsistence and quar-
termasters department, or of said bureau
without fraud or delay" This bond was not
given until four years after the appointment of
the commissioner to pay the claims Of colored
soldiers, under the joint resolution of 1861, aud
covers no default previous to its date The
form would seem to have been prepared for
bonds OF ordinary disbursing officers of the
the Office and duties of the principal obliger
Reference ought to have been made in the bond
to the joint resolution. There is no provision
requiring any other officers than those already
named to give bonds, but 1t was perfectly law
full to take bond from any subordi-
nate officer of the bureau employed in the
d 6ai.aG s1a.s of money, direct to tue
have been valid and binding. although not
required by statute. Under the act of 1855 the
Commissioner Of the Freedmen Bureau would
mn fnlr ha Iiat.l 10
to the assistant commissioners, and disbursei
by them. The assistant commissioners were not
appointed by him, nor were they his agents, but
were government officers, and by requiring
bonds to be given by these officers the statute
would seem to have intended to relieve the COM
missioner from liability for their acts, within
the limit OF their several Jurisdictions. But the
joint resolution Of 1861 is very explicit. All
money paid under that act is paid directly to
the commissioner, and it is enacted that '.he
shall be responsible for the safe custody and
faithful disbursement of the funds entrusted to
him." Nothing is said about any o. the assistant
commissioners or about any disbursing officer
and although 1t was probably necessary, and
undoubtedly was lawful for the commissioner to
appoint and employ disbursing officers besides
himself, nevertheless he is responsible, cvilly
under this act for their acts the same as If done
Dy himself, and even If he took bonds from
them directly to the government, this cannot
relieve him of such liability. The government
may enforce both securities in order to indem-
nifty itself for any loss which, through the de-
fault of subordinate officer, it NAV have suf-
fered. This liability might in some respects be
enlarged by the terms Of the bond given by the
commissioner, but Of course it could not be in
the least diminished. The commissioner of the
freedmen's bureau, therefore,, is liable for all
losses sustained by the government through the
default Of a subordinate dsbursing officer or
other persons employed by him In the disburse-
ment OF the moneys entrusted TO him under the
joint resolution of 1867.
AS to the chief disbursing officer it is almost
impossible upon the facts which are now be-
fore me to state what his liability to the gov
eminent may be. OF course he Is liable, both
civilly and criminally, for his own misconduct.
how far he is liable for the acts of subordinates
employed under him, is question which it is
imRoss ible for me to answer without copy of
h1sbond, and without more information in re-
spect TO his appointment and employment than
have been able to obtain from the perusal OF
the papers sent 70 me. If any other officers
gave bonds to the government their sureties
are liable for their misconduct or loss occa-
stoned BY them according to the tenor thereof.
Further than this, upon the facts before me, /
cannot answer.
Your second question seems likewise to in
clude the subject Of criminal In addition to
civil prosecution. For acts of fraud, or embez-
zlement under this act, the offending partias
ere of course liable criminaIIy unless the
one nse Is barred BY the statute lin ting orIk
nary criminal prosecutions to two years. ANY
al burning or other officers who has msappro-
priated money entrusted to him under this
act may be indicted therefor whether he Is