The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-04

Mr.. RObeson's Explanatt0ns
Mr.. Robeson's explanation regarding his
transactions in 1873 with Jay Cooke, McCul-
loch 4 Co. needs, in our opinion, to be lit
tie further explained. His account can be
very briefly stated.
On the 18th of September, when Jay Cooke
failed, the London house owed the Navy De-
partment 5000, 600. Mr.. Robson was as
sured by Cattell and Bradford that the house
would stand, but he knew it must be shaken
and was not safe government depository.
Accordingly he sent on September "a,
81, 500, 900 to Paymaster Bradford to use in
taking up navy drafts if Cooke, McCulloch
4 Co. should stop. He would not have sent
it otherwise
BY October 20 Cooke, McCulloch & Co..
continuing, according to Mr.. Robson, to act
as navy bankers, and honoring, as we I'M
derstand, all drafts which came in, had paid
out only $500, OOO They still owed Mr. Robe
son $500, 900, and they asked him to advance
them million more, which he did. Then,
of course, they owed him $1,000, 900, and
Bradford had 81, 500, 900 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, McCulloch & Co. have another mill
ion, why did not Mr.. Robson order
Brndford to turn over to them million from
the million and half he had in hand I'M
touched and unused? We hope Mr.. Robe
son 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 new million. In any case, he should
explain why he suddenly needed over three
millions in London on navy account
Cooke, McCulloch 4 Co. did stop-after
they got Mr.. Robeson's new million. If he
had ordered Paymaster Bradford to transfer
a 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 confidence 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 q Co.
owed him only 100000, and at present
they owe him nearly 100000 That is to
say, they got into him, on the whole,
500, 900 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.. Robson g own
account OF the whole transaction-is that he
lent Cooke, McCulloch & Co. 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 half to step in
the gap when they should stop.
There was a time in our history when such
gross misapplication of government funds
to private uses would have caused the imme-
diate disgrace Of the officer who was guilty of
it and his impeachment We do not know
what the Naval Committee or the House
propose to do in this case, but the President
evidently thinks it is all right.
Is it all right? Then it is right for any
government officer to apply the public money
in his charge to the private uses of an in
solvent friend, and to say in excuse, when
the transaction is discovered, that he has Sc
curity and will by and by, after number Of
lawsuits and Sheriffs sales, get the money
back. But if Cooke, McCulloch & Co.
could have million in time of panic why
not other bankers? Why should they be ia
vored? We advise 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 advance
of million and would have paid hand
some bonus besides.