The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-04-13
SECRETARY ROBESONS EXPLANA'
@ IION.

Grants. Secretary of the Navy has been
before the Committee begging to explain
his transactions with Jay Cooke, McCul,
loch & Co., in 1873. The explanation is
not very satisfactory. His account is as
follows;
On the 18th Of September, when Jay
Cooke failed, the London house owed the
Navy Department 5000, 900. Mr., Robe
son was assured by Cattell and Brad
ford that the house would stand, but he
know it must be shaken and was not a
safe government depository. According
ly he sent, on September "a, 81, 500 900
to Paymaster Bradford to use in taking
upnavy drafts ifCooke, McCulloch & Co.
should stop, He would not have sent it
otherwise,
By October 20 Cooke, McCulloch &
Co., continuing, according to Mr.. Robe
son, to act as navy bankers, and homo
ring, as we understand, all drafts which
camein had paid out only 100000 dol
lars. They still owed Mr.. Robson Co.,
900 dollars, and they asked him to ad-
vance them million more, which he did.
Then, of course, they owed him 600,
900 dollars, and Bradford had 500, 900
dollars besides. Why was it necessary
to have over three millions in London
on navy account just at that time If
it was prudent and right to let Cooke, Nc
Culloch & Co. have another million,
why did not Mr.. Robson order Bradford
to turn over to them million from the
million and half he had in hand un-
touched and unused? We hope Mr..
Robson will answer this question, for it
needs a reply. If he really believed the
bank sound, then Bradford did not need
the million and half, If he did not
believe the bank sound, then he did
grave wrong to trust it with a new mil
lion. In any case, he should explain
why he sudden ly needed over three mil
lion in London on navy account.
Cooke, McCulloch & Co. did stop
after they got Mr.. Robeson's new million.
If he had ordered Paymaster Bradford to
transfer million of the fund he held to
the bankers instead of sending them
new million from here he would perhaps
be at liberty to say that he mistook the
condition of the firm and had more con-
fidence in them than they deserved. But
even then, so far from congratulating
himself on having done shrewdly, he
ought to be ashamed; for in October,
1873, Cooke, McCulloch & Co. owed
him only GOO, 900 dollars, and at present
they owe him nearly 100000 dollars.
That is to say, they got into him, on the
whole, 100000 dollars deeper, in the end,
than they stood in October, 1873, when it
was in his power to stop transactions
with them, because he had then security
to cover that debt.
The plain truth-taking Mr.. Robeson's
own account Of the whole transaction
is that he lent Cooke, McCulloch & Co,
a million of the governments money
when they were in a tight place; that he
enabled them to go on for some months
by this loan, and that he had so little
confidence in their ability to pay that he
kept paymaster in London with another
million and halfto step in the gap when
they should stop.
There was time in our history when
such gross misapplication of govern
ment funds to private uses would have
caused the immediate disgrace of the
officer who was guilty of it and his inn
peachment. We do not know what the
Naval Committee or the House propose
to do in this case, but the President evil
dently thinks it is all right.
Is it all right2 Then it is right for any
government officer to apply the public
money in his charge to the private uses
of an insolvent friend, and to say in ex-
cuse, when the transaction is discovered,
than he has security and will by and by
after number of lawsuits and Sheriff's
sales, getthe money back. But if Cooke,
McCulloch & Co. could have a million in
a time of panic why not other bankers I
Why should they be favored? We ad-
wise the committee to ask Mr.. Robson
some more questions, for there were
many bankers at that time who would
have given abundant security for an ad-
vance of million and would have PAID
a hanJeor,,a 1on,,- Lae,Jae