Arizona citizen., 1873-04-05
THE CITIZEN.
April 5. 1873.
COL. TOMPKINS' CASE.

r Another COurt-Martial Gets (" Rakel
 Fore and Aft" by the Secretary O
 War.
 In its summary of War Department Orders, The Army and Navy Journal
 gives the following of date January II, 1873:
 Approves the proceedings of Court
 martial which convened at Prescott,
 Arizona Territory, Septem Der 25, 1872,
 and of which Colonel Alvan 0. Gillem,
 First Cavalry, is president, in the case
 of Lieut. ,nant- Colonel Charles H..
 Tompkins. deputy quartermaster-een-
 eral U. S. Army, acquitted of Charge
 I.--Em bezzlement, to the prejudice of
 good order and military discipline,
 and i'll violation of section 1 of the
 act of Congress approved March 2,
 1863, for the prevention of frauds" |"
 "Charge II.-Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman;" found guilty "of conduct highly to the prejudice of good order and military discipline" and sentenced ito be suspended from rank for the period of one year, forfeiting all pay for the same period except $75 month of his monthly pay, and to be repri- manded in General Orders."
 The proceedings in the foregoing case of nhor
 deputy quartermasrer-general U. S. Army, and the findings upon the first charge and it's specifications, and upon the third spec- ncation of the second charge, are approved
 Regarding the proof under the second charge, it is to be observed that there is no dispute that accused certified two accounts which were fictitious in every particular as to which they were required by regulations to correctly exhibit his disbursements-so that voucher, signed when blank, but of three hundred and seventy-fve dollars, the price of three horses purchased by the Government, was made to represent a pur- chase of lumber at n cost of seveu hundred and fifty dollars when, in fact, as accused claimed, this sum was expended, not for lumber, but for hardware; another voucher signed upon the sale to the Government of a small quantity of forage, was in like manner filled up so as to show the purchase of lumber for eight hundred and twelve dollars. And this mode of account was adopted with no other motive than to con- ceal and evade censure or responsibility for a greater expenditure in a certain undertaking than had been therefor duly authorized. Obliged to recognize these facts, which are virtually confessed, the Court qualify their affirmation of them by styling the accounts rendered by accused as "incorrect but not false. That an CT. roneous account might inadvertently be certified and no greater offence thereby committed than such neglect of duty as should be involved in the omission of proper care or vigilance, can be readily understood; but how, in any fit use of words, can it be said that an officer of the Army can render an official account, we'll knowing its statement to be incorrect, and yet not utter falsehood? In view of the palpahle contradiction thus indicated, the Secretary of War was constrained to recon vene the court for revision of their judg- ment upon this charge. They have how ever, thought proper to adhere to it, for the reason assigned, that there was no conver- sion to private use of the public money for which the vouchers in evidence accounted, hut that such money was expended for the Government. This belief naturally in- duced their findings upon the first charge, but could explain tn cir conclusions under the second only on the supposition that they hold that no official tergiversatiou of less criminality than embezzlement is con- duct unbecOming an cf6cer and a gentle man, in the meaning of the S3d Article of War. This suppo>ition the Secretary of War cannot entertain but he is equally unable to view with appreciation judg- ment evincing at once such a singular mis of the plain import of the language in which it is expressed, and such a deplorahle misconception of the gravity of the offence it has ascertained. The fragrant inconsistency of these fnd~ ings, and the iDadequacy of the sentence they support, are deemed to be sufficiently exposed and condemned in their bare state ment; but the occasion dictates an ad- monition that, should the light and inn perfect estimate which this court have placed upon the obligation of officers to render true accounts and certificates of dis bursements often receive the sanction of COurts-martial or ever become common Tn the Army, then its ancient and well-maintained reputation for the scrupulous honor and probity of it's officers, as the trustees of it's large fiscal affairs, no less than in all their other relations, will be liable to become, in public opinion, mere tradition of the past. For these reasons the acquittal of this off, cer of the offence laid in the second charge is not approved; but inasmuch as his con- duct was, undoubtedly, "highly prejudi-