New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-08
ARMY KITEFLYING.

The order directing COlonel ilgoc, WIN nus
| been on trial before court-nartial Mt st. Paul
for duplicating his pay accounts, to repair to
his former station, there to await the decision Of
the court, is construed as an indication that he
| is merely to be suspended OF reprimanded.
This would mean that he had been found not
guilty of the charge Of conduct unbecoming an
officer and gentleman, but guilty of the lesser
charge of conduct prejudlcial to good order
and military discipline.
There il general interest just now in the
standards of honor and morality in the Army
and Navy, especially in view of the revelations
of personal dishonesty in the former service
and bad habits in tho latter. This makes it
worth while to see what was the best an officer
holding the high rank Of colonel could say for
himself against such charge as this. At the
last session of the cours-martal Colonel Hges,
addressing the court, reviewed the entire case
made against him. He admitted the facts
charged, but denied an intention to defraud.
he admitted that altar he had sold his pay ac-
counts for August, November and December,
1882, to Washington banking house, and re-
ceived the money for them, he sold pay &C
counts for the same months to st. Paul bank
ing house. But he read from the testimony
of the st. Paul banker to show that 1t had been
stipulated that the November and December
accounts should be held to be taken up after
ward by Colonel Ilges with the proceeds OF
money deposited to his credit In the Treasury.
The ST. Paul banker never forwarded the
August account for collection, and forwarded
those for November and December only after
seven months had expired. He stated to the
court that he did not believe Colonel llges had
been guilty Of anything worse than careless
ness.r The Colonel himself declared that In
tention to defraud was foreign to his nature"
This ia the significant sentence of his defence;
II signed the pay accounts as would any
anote or due bill, without thinking for mo-
ament of the wording of the printed certificate
thereof, OF intending to put my name to the
certificate on honor or officially, with the as
sumption of any special obligation" Here lie
the gist of the whole matter. Colonel llges
evidently knew that he had drawn his pay for
those three months. He signed a false certiH-
cate to the effect that the Government was
still IN debt to him for those months, and says
he did it without thinking for III oment" of
the wording of the certificates. or intending"
TO put his name to il son honor or officially"
How colonel In the Army could sign formal
paper without intending to put his name to
it Oh honor or officially" must remain mys-
terry. How would such plea sound in behalf
of defendant in a criminal courtf One thing
is clear-Culonel Ilges deceived the st. Paul
banker. The latter could not have known that
the Colonel's pay accounts had already been
sold to another banker, or the fraudulent secur-
ity would have been refused, whether the loan
was made or not. Then, too, the banker would
not have been driven to the charitable surmise
that Colonel llges had been guilty of care
lessness."
The fact is that Colonel Ilges did the same
thing, in morals, that has landed many cash
Ter, teller and clerk in the peniteniiary. He
hoped to have the money to take up the fraud
ulent pay accounts before they left the st. Paul
bankers hands, just as many defaulter has
hoped and expected to replace his stealines 10
time to prevent discovery. Deception for the
purpose of procuring money would certainly
seem to be conduct unbscoming an officer and
a gentleman # the Army 10 to MAINTAIN its
high reputation for personal honor, such
offences must be unsparingly punished.