New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-06
COBTRN AND HA/EN.

Gen. John COburn writes q remarkably i'm
pudent letter to The G Rci,,nai Commercial in
reply to the statement that the particulars OF
the Marsh scandal were laid before the House
Military Committee, of which he was Chair
man, in 1872. and suppressed. Gen. Coburn
gins by denying an "intimatiOn' that he
caused "the clerk of this Committee, one
"Smalley,r to be dismissed "bccause he pub
"lished this testimony in THE NEw-YoRK
"TRIBUNE;" and he adds that the gentleman
upon whom he thus lays the crushing desig-
nation of one Smalley" was dismissed be
"cause he was totally unfit for the position of
clerk and disagreed politically with
"majority of the Committee" We do
not know what has been intimated" by
other people but THE TRIBUNE has not
charged Mr. Coburn with Diminishing the clerk
of his Committee on account OF the publica-
ton of this story; three months elapsed be-
tween the publication and the dismissal, and
we do not believe they had any connection;
on the contrary the story of Mr.. Smallcy'S
treatment by Coburn was fully told and widely
commented upon ut the time, as an illustra-
ton of the working Of Gen. Grants "Civll
Service Rules" which were then new and in
good rcpute. Mr.. Smailey had served the
Committee with entire satisfaction to all Its
members for several years when, on the day
that Mr.. Greeley was nominated Mt Cincinnati
he was summarily discharged by Coburn be-
cause he wrote for The TRIBUNE. That was
tho reason assigned and it was distinctly ac-
knowledged by Coburn that 1t was the only
reason Yet this politician now has the mean
ness to reflect upon II worthy and respected
10 NJ ,l,ora Inv ful charge
he was Totally unfit for the position of clerk"
After this specimen Of Gen. Columns candor
il can hardly surprise any one TO find that he
meets the charge of suppressing inquiry into
the leadership scandal in 1872 dsineenuously,
and tries Ivy indircction to discredit Gen.
IIazen's word just as he tried to injure Mr.
Smalley's character. He says, :" never heard
" of or saw any accusation against the Secre-
"tary of War so far this matter of post
traders was concerned until recently. 9.
Iazcn when examined as to this very mat
4" ter of post-traders, said not word against
Bclknap."- And then he goes on to convey
the impression that Con. IIazen's testimony
referred to an entirely different matter. Now
the small fraud concealed in this ovasive pro-
testation lies in the fact that it denies
what has not been asserted. Neither
TIE TRIBUNE, which originally disclosed
the Marsh transaction in 1872, nor Gen.
IIazen. who states that the information was
given to the Military Committee at that time
by him, nor the writer of the letter from Fort
Sill quoted in The TRIBUNE of Feb. 16. 1872,
alleged that the Secretary of War was cogni-
zant of the swindle; but the name and address
of Marsh, and the particulars of his contract,
with the price, were correctly given, and the
Committee was invited to inquire further and
put stop to the outrage, which it declined
to do. When Mr.. Coburn says therefore that
lie never heard of any accusation against the
Secretary of War in relation to the post
traders until recently, he probably tells the
truth but if he gives anybody the impression
that his Committee was not informed of the
Marsh contract, he intimatcs what is false.