New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-09
The Howard Court Of INQUIRY.

The following is contained il special dis
patch from Washington to the Chicago
Tribune:
The finding in the Howard court of in
quiry, together with Judge Advocate Cen
eral Hollis review of the proceedings, have
Just been made public through a general
order of the War Department.. The find
ing of the court was not unanimous, as has
been stated by the friends of General How
ard. The court stood four for acuuittal and
three against, as follows: For acquittal-
Generals Sherman, Meigs. Reynolds and
Miles; against-Generals Mcdowell, Pope
and Getty.
The opinion of the court, which is as fol-
lows, was approved by the President:
First-The court is Of the opinion that in
the matter referred to it for Investigation
General o. o. Howard has not, with
knowledge and intent, violated any law of
Congress, regulation of the army or rule of
morals, and that ne is not guilty, upon
legal, technical or moral responsibility, of
any Of the offsnses charged
Second-The court finds that General
Howard, when charged by his superiors
with great work arising out of the war,
devoted his whole time and all his faculties
and energies to the execution of that work.
In this he employed hundreds of assistants,
men In regard to the expenditure of
money, it appears that his accounts are
closed and settled to the satisfaction of the
accounting officers of the treasury, whose
decisions in such matters are by law the
highest authority, final and conclusive upon
the executive branch of the government,
and subject to revision only by Congress or
the proper courts.
Third-In relation to the investment of
certain public moneys in United States
bonds, while the court does not hold that
such investments were justified BY exist
ing laws, yet, in view of the fact that these
investments were made only under the
opinion and advice of the Second Con-
trOiiar the court attaches no blame to
General Howard therefor. The investment
of portions of similar fund, viz the ir.
regular county fuud, had previously been
authorized by express law.
Fourth-Some questions arising out of
the sudden termination of the operations
and organization of the Freedman's Bureau
vet remain to be settled, and by those who
were formerly subordinates and assistants
to the commissioner. Some few erroneous
payments, made by honest subordinates,
and some others made or not made by off.
GERS now dead, or cashiered for fraud, re.
main to be adjusted. The adjustment OF
these matters belongs properly to the sue
cessor Of General Howard in the bureau,
and in these matters, as in all others
brought to the notice of the court, during
days of careful and laboriOus investigation,
the court finds that General Oliver 0. How
ard did his whole duty, and believes that
he deserves we'll of his country.
In reviewing the proceedings and finding
of the court the Judge Advocate General
covers ll3 pages of legal cap. The cOnclu-
sion of his exhaustive opinion is as follows:
I'm performing this duty of revision, pre-
scribed by law, and devolving upon this
| office by order of the President, 1t has cen
found necessary to amplify the very concise
abstract of facts rendered by the court.
| The statement exhibited in this report is
| evidence contained in the record. Care has
been taken to accept nothing for the fact
| that is not either admitted'or clearly estab-
lished by competent proof.
The case presents little conflict of testi.
mony, and it is believed that under the
| most important charges the facts stated are
| only those respecting which there is no
! question. The provisions of law which are
| regarded as governing these facts have
| been likewise plainly set forth, as they ap-
pear upon the statute book. If. therefore,
| this report indicates any conclusions differ
| ent from those reached by the court, the
| upon the facts, and the legal principles ap-
| plicable to them.
:'The court finds that General Howard
| has not, with knowledge and intent, viO-
lated any law of Congress, regulation OF
| the army, or rule of morals. So far as this
| declares that he has not acted in spirit OF
| defiance or of contempt of law, or from
any corruptly selt-seeking motive, no rea-
son is found IN the evidence for any dissent
| from this opinion. His conduct, however,
| must be further judged according to the
| familiar maxims that ignorance CT the law
| is no excuse and that every man is pre-
| sumed to contemplate the natural cOnse-
quences of his own acts. When the COM
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau was
| intrusted by Congress with the duty of
taking better care than formerly that pay
and bounty should be faithfully paid to the
| colored people, to whom it belonged, If he
| not only failed to provide an efficient means
| for the execution of this tlust but adopted
one which. rejecting safeguards which had
been previously observed, was wholly in
| ad tquate and productive of mistake and
| fraud and their concealment, then for such
dereliction, ignorance of law. pressure OF
many duties, or 1nexperience in admlnistra-
ton, though combined with good inten.
tions, are matters OF palllation, not OF Justl-
| tication.
eff with only the same excuse, General
Howard sanctioned and used system and
method Of accounts; which failed to truly
show the discharge of the trusts, from
which they served to acquit him. the same
Judgment must be pronounced.
''It, when General Howard, desirous of
| increasing the revenue of his bureau, con-
ceived the idea of converting the public
| money into bonds, and did not report this
| scheme to his superior officer, the Secretary
| of War, but upon the mere verbal advice OF
| the accounting officers of the treasury, et-
| fected such conversion, in violation OF
positive law, his ignorance of that law is
| no excuse that can be safely recognized
under such form of government as ours.
''f investments of public money, Tor
which by law General Howard was resp0n-
sible, having been made by his order as
above stated, he failed to require proper
account of the fact to be rendered, so that
his subordinate constantly for nearly two
years reported that the money thus invest
ed was cash in the treasury OF the United
| States, and further, if General HowaId
| failed to cause any report to be made OF the
interest of these Investments for long
time after tn eperiods prescribed by law, so
| that the fact Of one investment OF q sum as
large as $500, 600 for whole year was not
| known to the Secretary of War until nearly
| three years after it had been reconverted
| into money and no account was rendered
| of this interest for the same period, although
| such an account is admitted to have been
placed in General Howard's hands more
| than two years before the same was given to
the treasury. aud if, when the account
is made, it is found to cover
charge to the amount of $4,000, once
before paid out of the public money,
then the serious question arises
whether this delay, contrary to law, in &C
counting. nv which a deficit Law concealed