Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1876-03-18
A CASHIERED OFFICER.
An Ofcer of the Army who Know of the
SutIer Payments to the Secretary of War
Summnrily DeRlt With.

An Omcer Of the Army who Know of thu
SutIer Payments to the Secretary of Wal
summnriIy Denlt With.
Connected with the charges made
against United States Secretary of War
Belknap there is told singular story.
The last army register shows that Capt.
George 7. Robinson, of the Tenth Uni.
ted States cavalry, was cashiered. It is
now shown that Capt. r. was member
of the post council at Fort Sill. At this
time-1868-' 9-the post leadership at
Fort Sill was controlled by the firm
of J. S. Evans & Go. Complaint having
been made to the firm that exorbitant
prices were charged, they replied that the
difficulty could not be remedied, as for
the privilege Of trading at the post fifteen
thousand dollars per year had to be paid
to w. w. Belknap, secretary of war.
This, as was shown, was the contract
price. The post council, through Cap
tain Robinson. then demanded that the
statement of Evans & Go. should be put
in the form of an affidavit. This was
promptly done and the affidavit was
sworn to in the presence of several Off
GERS of the Tenth cavalry. 1t is now on
file in the records of the council, to-
gether with other documentary evidence
of similar character. 1t afterward ap-
peared from the statements of Evans &
Go. that the annual payment at the end
of three years was reduced to $4,000.
This amount was by agreement payable
monthly in advance.
The accuracy of these statements was
unquestioned among the officers of the
Tenth cavalry and Sixth United States
infantry. That like amount was paid
annually to Secretary Belknap by the
post trader at Camp Supply, Indian
Territory, is stated on no less an au-
thority than that of General B. w.
Hazen. When General Hazen evinced
a disposition to criticise corrupt prac-
tees of his chief, he was ordered to a
more remote point on the frontier.
Soon after the discovery of the frauds
at Fort Sill, Captain Robinson, as presi-
dent of the post council, and in the line
of his duty, reported the corruption
through the customary channels. The
only result was his transfer to the posi-
ton of supervisor of the issuing of In
dian supplies in 1873. A more formal
report of the irregularities was made,
when Captain Robinson was at once Or
dered on recruiting service at Philadel-
phia. He was soon after ordered to
Baltimore and placed in command of the
recruiting post there. From Baltimore,
during the latter part of 1874, he pre-
ferred formal charges of corruption
against Secretary Belknap, and forward
ed proofs and specifications. As a result
of this act he was at once placed under
military arrest on September IL, 1874.
It is provided by the act of Congress
that formal charges must be preferred
against an officer of the army within ten
days after his arrest. Failing to do this
it is provided he shall be Immediately
set at liberty. Captain Robinson, how
ever, by special order of Secretary Bel
KNAPP, was placed under close arrest and
no liberty was allowed him, nor we're any
charges preferred against him until the
folio wing spring, when he was sent to
st. Louis for trial by a commission or
ganized for the avowed purpose of con-
viction. Belknap was authoritatively re-
ported as saying at the time: eff this
commission don't convict Captain Rob-
inson, then I will fix one that will !"
The charged finally preferred consisted
of alleged frauds, the preferring of I'M
founded charges against a superior Off
Ger, etc. General Belknap's commission,
however, did its appointed work; and
Captain Robinson was dismissed the
service. To show the irregular charac-
ter of the st. Louis commission it is only
necessary to state that five of its mem
bers were promoted by the dismissal of
Captain Robinson. The articles of war
provide that an officer shall only be tried
by his equals or superiors in rank.