Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-07-10

PUBIC property WnlCu sDdti OF may COiile
into his hands on account Of the sub.
sistenca and quartermaster's depart
ment or such bureau without fraud OF
delay.
THIS BOND WAS NOT GIvRN
until four years after the appointment Of
the commissioner to pay the claims OF
the colOred soldiers under the joint reso-
luton of 1867, and of course covers nc
default previous to its date. The form
would seem to be for the bonds of the
ordinary discussing officers of the army,
and is little ambiguous in designating
the Office and duties of the principal
ObiigatOr. Reference ought to have been
made in the bond to the joint resolution.
There is no provision requiring any Other
officer than those already named 10 give
bonds, but it was perfectly lawful to take
bond from any subordinate officer OF
the bureau employed in the discourse
ment Of money direct to the United
States, and such bond would have been
valid and binding, although nOtrequired
by the staCute. Under the act OF 1865
| the commissioner of the freedmen's
bureau would not, l think, be liable for
funds paid directly to the assistant-com-
missioners and disbursed 10y the assist
ant-commissiOners. They were not
appointed by him, nor were they his
agents, but were government officers
and hy requiring bonds to be given by
those officers, the statute would seem to
have been intended TO relieve the COM
missioner from any
LIABILITY
for their acts within their several juris-
dictions, but the joint resolution of 1867
is very explicit. All money paid under
that act is paid directly to the commits
siOner, and it is intended that he shall
| be responsible for the safe custody and
faithful disbursements Of the funds in
trusted to him. Nothing is said about
any of the assistant-commlsslOn or
about any of the discussing officers, and,
although il was probably necessary, and
undoubtedly lawful for the court to ap-
point and employ disbursing officers be-
sides himself, nevertheless, he IS re-
spOnsible, civiIIy, under the act, for their
acts the same as if done by himself, and
even if he took bonds from them direct
" to the government, this cannot re-
lieve him of such liability. The gov
eminent can enforce both securities in
order to indemnify itself for any loss
which. through the default Of subordi-
nate officers, it may have suffered. This
liability might, in some respects, be en-
larged by the terms of the bond given
by the commissioner, but, of course, ii
could not be in the least diminished.
| The commissioner of the freedmen's bu-
reau is, therefore, liable for all losses sus-
tanned by the government through de-
fault OF a subordinate disbursing officer,
or other person employed by him IN
the
DISBURSEMENT OF MONEYS
entrusted to him under the joint TesOlu-
ton OF 1867. As to the chief disbursing
officer, it is almost impossible from the
facts which are now before me to state
what his liability to the government
may be. OF course he is liable, both
eivilly and criminally, for his own mis-
conduct. How far he is liable for the
acts of the subordinates under him is a
question which il is impossible for me TO
answer, without a copy Of his bond, and
without more information in respect to
his appointment and employment than
have been able to obtain from the pc
rusal of the papers sent TO me. If any
other officers give bonds to the govern
ment, their sureties are liable for their
misconduct, or loss OccasiOned by them,
according to the tenor thereof Further
than this, upon the facts before me, |
cannot answer.
Your second question seems
likewise to include the subject of
criminal in addition to civil prosecution
for acts of fraud or embeZzlement. In
der this act the offending parties are, of
course, liable criminally, unless the Of
tense is barred by the statute limiting
ORDINARY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
to two years. Any disbursing officer who
has misappTOpriated money inuusted u
him under this act may be indicted
therefor, whether he is appointed di-
rectly by the government or is a subOT-
dinate officer or clerk appointed by
commissioner or any other officer of the
bureau, such prOsec 1tion must be by in
dictment unless the officer is liable to trial
by coUrt-msrtiaL By section three any
military officer may be assigned to duty
under this act without increase Of pay or
allowance. 1t is sufficientin the present
case to say that a military officer, so de-
tailed and assigned to duty, still remains
within military jurisdiction and is liable
to military law for any violation of his
duty. As such more difficult question
arises under section three of the joint
resolution Of March 10, 1867, whereby
all money held or disbursed under the
provisions Of this resolution, shall be
held and disbursed under the same rules
and regulations governing other
discussing OFFICERS OF THE ARMY
The language of this is little obscure
when reference is made to the act estah-
fishing the fTeedmen's bureau, and this
obscurity probably arises from the fact,
of which | am informed, that all the
principal officers of the bureau were mil
itary officers, assigned to this special
duty. do not think this provision can
be considered as subjectiDg to court
martial person not subject to such ju-
risdiction. To have that effect the act
ought to be clear and unambiguOus, and
it would only be by a most forced and
violent construction that the rules and
regulations governing other disbursing
officers of the army can be interpreted
to include liability to trial by martial
law in respect Of civilians. The rules
ard regulations governing disbursing
officers would establish the degree of re-
sponsibility and accountability TO which
the commissioner would be liable, leav-
ing his trial by
CIVIL OR MILITARY TRIBUNAL
to depend upon his civil or military
status. This question, however, if facts
be as am informed, is of no practical
Importance. If, therefore, any military
officer detailed for duty in the freed
mems bureau has been guilty Of the mis-
appropriation of money, or Of any vio-
latiOn of the rules governing the officers
Of the army, he may be tried by court
martial in the same manner as any
other such army officer.
Finally, l need hardly say that claim
agents and other persons not officers of
the government who have obtained
money from the bureau by means of
forged receipts and vouchers, and other
frauds, can be prosecuted criminally if
two years have not elapsed since the
com mission of the crime, and can also
be sued in the civil courts, by the United
States, in the same manner as employees
of the bureau can be. AS have before
said, there is no statute limiting the
time within which the government can
begin q civil suit. But suits for penal
ties and double damages, under the act
of March 2, 1853, must be begun within
six years. Twelfth Statute at Large, DIP.
69-9S.
have the honor to be, very respect
fully, your obedient servant,
f-igned) GEO, ii. WILLIAMS,
Attorney General.
Hon. II. W. BELKNAP,
Secretary Of War.
Frank X. King, who made a balloon
ascension at MOrristown, Vermont, on
the fourth, when two and half miles
up encountered a snowstoTm, which
! covered the balloon nearly an inch
thick, and sent it down rapidly The
balloon was seen by several farmers
when il landed, about fOrty-five minutes
after 1t went up, and eight miles from
where the ascent Was made. Not hear