New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-01-26

fitness Such beng the manner of the board s OF
Canizaton its boosted impartiality fades at once.
Its military flavor recalls the old saying about
courts-martial-that they always organized
either IN convict or acauit Mr.. Schnrz's friends
loudly affirm that this board was mol oreah!Aeu W
SCOUT.
Twas ot once suspended from my desk and the
board thus packed against ne began their WORK.
They took hostile testimony In secret, swOfe inc
Witnesses to secrecy and excluded me from thelr
sess,ons. They denied me the right to confront my
aecnsers They received testimony without cross
examination or contradiction, and printed IL IRON
day TO day to form part of the political history vi
the country. They asked leading questions ihey
not only received, but even demanded hearsay eeS-
timony and extorted it from protesting. witnesses
They disregarted all the fundamental rules OF EVIL
dence and judicial procedure for III aoditioh ~
their duties judges between me ana my acouSci0'
they undertook general investigation OF the Ihoia
Service for term of years. protesting ValhiS
AGAINST the increased delay ia my own case Inc
separate functions of the grand and the petit jury
were never combined without miscarriage OF JUS
tice.
After two months of such procedure. they handed
me about 800 closely printed pages OF ex parto te'ti-
uony | have seen no other testimony excepting
that taken while was before them in answer
After two months longer, before had answered
word beyond general denial, they informed me
that they had dismissed more than hall the origiha
charges and Notwithstanding ali those preleTIc'
by TAYLOR regarding the business of the North caro-
lima Cherokces--as not sustained by the Vluehce'
and that answer would he " received irol nc
regarding them. This order they modlhed III men
report by changing received TO " required vi
this more hereafter -,
To the remainder of the CHARGES they asked my
answer rs also TO two certain matters ariSics
cutsilc of Them THIS answer they Limited Ill every
way poss;ble. They denied me the assistance OF
Counsel before the board. such assistance beng
Nv accorded
pending III the department They even denied me
the right to comment on the evidence nl sum up .i-
ease, thus adding 10 their functions proVlously a.
sulned and widely IpcOnsiStent-thoSe on srahd
jury and petit, jury, the fnrtheT duty ros OF
examination of hostile witnesses. differing from tna
known under the common law, not only in not being
allowed until months after tnelr direct leStllon!
was given but III being limited to those parts oiA
of the direct testimony which bore upon the retained
charges, and i'll excluding all question as 10 ne
prejudice and anmus OF the witnesses. They inns
practically destroyed its value Indeed. they theid
selves preferred TO speak OF 1t, not as a cross
examination" but rs continuation OF the direct
Further. an objection 10y any member of the
board to any of my questions was II rot d1sSehted
from by the Others, fatal to that question: closing
all discussion 10 its pertnency. and o1cn eAcIuu
ING it, Ike my rejected offers of testimony, IRON
their record. They excluded evldehceIeXcepI NY
own statcmcntS-aS to the character ana aiiihuS oi
INV assaarts for the reason, stated i'll substance
,y members of the board, that the reference OF the
charges to them for examination estopped them tr'
That line of INQUIRY. They thus made Secretary
Srbuiz sponscr for the charges position which he
has since openly repudiated. They eHri'rled an ev
idence ms TO nv character official record or as 10
any improvement i'll the service during my conhec-
ton with 1t.
THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION.
In short. when any witness would testify tn any
thing whethes of opinion hearsay. dcrogaioTy to
my character as a man or public officer, the board
knew of few. if any. rules to limit him. Nhen any
witness would testify rebuttal OF accusations thus
wantonly made, the board knew of few, If any
rules to permit him. They made mp then record by
admitting TO il evidence which court would re-
ceive and By excluding from it evidence which no
court would reject. Aud yet, with metodS ana
anmus so grossly unjust, out of the thirteen charges
and twenty nine specifications originally presented
the board find ne bamewOrthy on the following
only:
Fiyst-For the unwarranted and improper reten-
ton of protest filed by the swindng delegate
Taylor
Taylor's character appears to have been bet
ter known to Secretary Chandler than to this
board After his recognition a delegate was
withdrawn, he delayed the department with com
munications Of which this 1t was adj
dressed 10 Secretary Chandler He gave It to Com
missioner Smith with no Instructions and ~
paper of 50 little importance that he did not even
enter If upon the records of his department Mr..
Smith after satisfying himself that there was
nothing in it. gave il to some months afterward
as a curiosity. am cenalred for regarding II AS OF
no greater Importance than did my superi0r-Sccre-
tary Chandler himself included.
Scc6nd-For abusing Dr.. Curtis.
Curtis was, as before said, one of my assailants
whom Secretary Schurz had discharged on the adj
wee of his notwithstanding and Board OF In
onry He had been guilty of disorderly and dis
honorable conduct toward the Commissioner and
myself for which called him to account did It
with decision bat not with abuse. Not even he
himself nor any other witness could quote III terms
any OF NY language; while two credible witnesses
before the board impeached his yeracity. And get
am condemned.
1hnd-Ot discriminating against Ut. CuItlS III tBe
discharge of his duties.
This was alleged 10 have been done by transfer
ring CLERKS from his division to Others. HIS inci-
CHENEY was proved. Because be did not utilize the
services of his clerks. | transferred them 20 other
divIssiOns where they decided. mat fhis
transfer was proper Is shown by The censure OF the
board upon arrears Of work III OF the divisions.
such arrears having been reduced beyond any other
previous amounts by these transfers OF clerks.
None OF these charges seem TO me serious, none
OF them involves in the slightest my personal intcg
rity or efficiency. Surely charges which could not
he proved by such methods could not be proved ~
ALL while personal integrity which could not be
thus npugned may be held nnd0ubted.
The original charges having thus substantially
failed however, was held censurablc on two points
arising outside of them, upon one OF which my DIS
miss;l by Secretary Schurz was based These points
were The following:
l. That l. while acting as Commissioner, during
Commissioner Smiths absence, left my post, plac-
ing a subordinate in charge.
This did by The express permission of the acting
secretary. The period covered by the arrangement
extended two days only-the day OF the Pres
ldeItiai election of 1876 and the day succeeding.
Most of the clerks we're absent, and there was 80
much excitement that little work was done III any
of the departments. There Is assertion that any
detriment 10 the service through this author
lied arrangement. H.
q And upon this rests my dismissal, that |. for