New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-05-07

one.
The final statement of General Balloch
did not get into my possession until thes
charges had been published. Some few
the minor items of account had not bee
furnished me previously with proper voucl
ers, and when l did receive the complet
statement with explanations, believing. as
did, and still do, that my proper account.
bility is primarily to the claimants then
selves, and to the Treasury for the une,
pended balance, 1 have thought it safe t
forward the original accounts to the Secrs
tary of War. Now the decision of tn
Second Comptroller and the instructions {
the Secretary Of the Treasury render m
course very plain-it is to carry the accoun
to the Second Auditor, satisfy him as t
what the real balance is, and account to hir
for my disposition of it. / will say that
visited Mr.. Duren, General Balloch's book
keeper, accompanied by Captain Sladen, an
tested General Balloch's statement concern
an error in the taking up OF Captain Jane
(the disburslng officer of North Carolina
rolls. Mr.. Duren said that General Ballocl
pointed out to him the mistake soon after j
occurred, and that what he said to me wa
just as he Duren( understood it. Not on,
of the claimants marked paid has eve
applied to me for his pay, and am assure
that but one has indirectly inquired at tn
War Department, and that his case canno
now be produced. In conclusion, wish t,
say that | believe the fund has been faith
fully disbursed; that there are now enough
books, papers, and vouchers to account sat
isfactorily to any Court or other tribunal no
unfriendly, for the entire fund.- including tn,
interest and premium and unexpended bal
ance. Dieter to Second Auditor from Gen
Howard, dated April %, 1874, subsequently
given in this statement.)
MIsAPPIICATION OF FUNDS.
9. The next paragraph of the letter of til,
Secretary Of War under consideration Opp
2 and ,, heading s. touches upon "mlsappli
cation Of funds" claiming that "these ire
gularities and violations of law have hat
much to do with the confusion of records
their defective condition, and the almost en-
tire suspension of work, &C."
This inference is not correct. 1t will BIZ
that the several items of appro
priatiOn are not construed to mean severa
appropriations, there being really but one
When discussing officer overdraws one item
and underdraws another item there is nc
or violation of law and there
has not been, to my knowledge, single
illegal expenditure, expenditure of any kind
not contemplated in the total appropriation
not even an over-drawing On any items OF
the appropriation. 1t should not he forgot
ten that the deficiency appropriation of 1872
set apart $4,000 for schools and asylums,
and this implies fair proportion of clerks
and messengers to eXpend it. The s. G.,
school fund, the school fund proper, and
Freedmen's fund were not entirely exhausted
in the spring of 1872, and were available for
school purposes under the law; so that there
was no misapplication of funds in this direc.
ton of schools. For the want of funds, oc-
by reappropriaton by Congress OF
money already donated, and promised by me
as commissioner to schools, to the extent OF
s27 900, and cutting down of $50 900 of nv
school estimate, l was obliged to cut oil
twenty per cent. of the amounts which sew
eral worthy institutions were depending
upon. 1t was hard to do this, yet it was done
to avoid any, even constructive misapplica-
ton of funds. The remainder of the $lO9,-
800, II not under the item ''misapplication'
purports to have been paid by overdrawing
the Treasury account, or to be drawn from
bounty money, and afterward reimbursed
from the deficiency and the regular appro-
priatiOns of 1872. If it were SO the disburs-
ing officer took his own risk without consult
ing me, gave his own security, and made the
reimbursement. When appropriations are
and unaC countably delayed in
Congress, it is sometimes a question as to
what is right--whether to discharge your
force and stop necessary work, permit the
employees and their families to sufferer
endeavor to raise funds for temporary use
until the difficulty is removed. This the dis.
bursting officer seems to have done, taking
the entire responsibility upon himself. In
this connection there is another alleged yio-
lation of law made out in the papers con-
nected with this charge 9, viz: A violation
Of the law of July IL, 1870, paying accounts
in the wrong year by the discussing officer.
The answer is that the explanation of the
necessity under which he made these pay
ments was satisfactory to the accounting
officers of the Treasury, and the accounts
were by them allowed.
The ensuing clause in the charges in order
states: "The responsibility and accounta-
bilty attaching to the late Commissioner, so
far as now developed, amounts to upward OF
s278, 573.GG.
The responsibility attaching to me as Com
missioner | have ever regarded as first,
only, until l actually COM
menced to disburse money, then it became
that OF discussing officer.
AS tine the first have given to my work all
my faculties, and claim unreserve(lly to have
always exercised "due diligence in the per.
Torrance of the duty devOlyed upon me.
As to the second
THE DISBURsING RESPONSIBILITY.
When began to disburse money, though
not so required by the law of March %, 1867,
| gave bonds to the Government for the faith.
full fulfllment of the trust, and the accounts
occurring during the period of my own dis.
bursement have been settled and closed.
See the letters Of the Second and Third Au-
ditors, dated respectively, January sth and
January 9th, 1874.
The accountability cannot, then, l think,
be shown to be $27S, 1850 nor any part OF
that sum, unless it can be shown that some
law puts the accountability technically upon
me. never so construed even the Joint
resolution of March %, 1867, it was not so
by those who framed the original
bill; it was never so interpreted to me by
The Second Comptroller. Whatever be the
technical ruling, it will be necessary to sub
tract the $l2l, 900 faithfully disbursed, plus
The slO9, 363.l7, which is not even claimed
to be lost to the Treasury. This subtraction
reduces my alleged accountability to $4S,-
2l0.40.
COMPLAINTS NON-PAYMENT.
10. The review of the Secretary's letter
which brings me to heading l, viz, 'claimed
BY colored claimants who allege that they
have not been paid their pay and bounty,
although the records Of the Treasury De.
prtment show settlement of the claims and
vouchers have been filed by the late Bureau
Is evidence of payment, S33 ,SS8.39." OF
this amount there are but seven cases that
have the most positive evidence that sent
l:io money for the payment of these claim.
, IS, and if, in any case, the money had
,nne back to the Bureau, should at once