Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-12-13
LINCOLN ON THE STAND.
HE TELLS WHAT HE KNOWS OF
MORROW'S PAY ACCOUNTS.

MORROW'S PAY ACCOUNTS.
Efforts by Gen. GrOsvenOr to Prov,
that the Secretary was Aware of tn,
COionePs Shortcomings Prove Rathe
Unsuccessful-MOrrOw Begins 10 Civ,
Testimony.
WASHINGTON, Dec. l2.-When the Swain
court martial convened this morning Rober
I. Lincoln, Secretary of War, appeared as
witness called by the prosecution. His direc
examination was confined simply to any in
quiry whether he had received any report O.
communication from Gen. Swain prior I,
April Is, 1884, relative TO the pay accounts o
Col. Morrow. This date April IS, 1854 is tn,
date of the Endorsement made bv Gen
SWAIN upon the letter sent him b,
the Secretary of War communicating
to him the charges laid against him befor,
the war Department by Mr.. Bateman, il
winch lndOrSement reference was made to tn,
alleged duplication of Col. Morrow's pay ac
counts. Secretary Lincoln testified that ht
had received no information on the subiec
from Gen. Swain prior to the report con.
tanned IN the Endorsement. The cross exami.
nation of the witness was conducted by Gen
GrosvenOr. 1t was directed to showing thai
the Secretary had information prior to Apri
Is, 1884. of the duplication of Col. Morrow's
pay accounts. The first question asked was
whether at the time Gen. Swain referred il
the Endorsement of April Is, 1884. to the al.
leged duplication of Col. MOrrOw's pay ac-
counts the Secretary had not full knowledge
OF the condition OF those pay accounts.
BONE OF CONTENTION.
This question was objected to by the Judge
Advocate. The ground for the objection was
stated to be that the question was incompe-
tent unless the defense proposed to show that
zen. SWAIN knew that the Secretary of WaI
had this information. A long argument be-
tween the counsel followed on this question.
the defense asserting that they had the right
to show that the War Department had
the same information that Gen. Swain
had concerning the alleged duplication
of Col. MorrOW's pay accounts. Gen.
GrosvenOr asserted incidentally IN making
his argument that the defense would claim
that If Gen. Swain was under official Obliga-
tloEs TO notify anybody of what had come to
his knowledge concerning Col. MorrOw's pay
accounts, the General of the army was the
person whom he should have notified. He
added that the defense would show that at
the GATE on which IL is alleged that Gen.
SWAIN knew of the alleged duplication of
Col. MorroW's accounts the Secretary OF War
and the General of the army had knowledge
OF such alleged duplication, had known it for
weeks, and had taken official action in the
matter.
LINCOLN's FIRST INFORMATION.
He said that he would state to the court
professionally that the defense would prove
that official knowledge came to the Secretary
of w ar as early as April 5, S3, not only of dup
cation of pay accounts, but of an arrange
ment to pool these pay accounts, and that
Gen. Swain knew at the date of this pooling
arrangement that the Secretary of War had
thatjnfOrmatiOn.
The court refused to sustain the objection
lnterposed by the Judge Advocate, and the
questions wese again put to the Secretary of
war. He answered that he had no knOWl-
edge whatever of duplication of Col. Nor
rows pay accounts prior to the Endorsement
of his letter by Gen. Swain, to which refer
ence has been made.
QUESTIONS RULED OUT.
He was then asked if he had read the re-
ports OF the fact, but this question was OBJ
Jected to and the objection was sustained by
the court. Objection was also made to the
next question, whether the Secretary had had
information that the accounts were said to be
fraudulent. The court sustained the objec-
ton and held that the questions should be
confined to the Secretary's ''official" infor-
nation. The Secretary testified that he had
had no official information on the
SUBJECT. In answer to further
questions, he testified that Mai. Carey, then
A citing Paymaster General came TO see him
about letter he had received from Col. Nor
row, he asking that his (MorrOW's) pay be
stopped, except in order to settle certain
debts. Ills impression was that Maj. Carey
simply asked for instructions, and that he did
not know what debts Col. Morrow wished to
settle. He (the Secretary thought Col. Nor
rows request unusual, and did not remember
tHdI SuCu Il request ndQ been made before
during his tenure of office.
THE SECRETARY'S REPLY.
His reply to Major Carey was that he would
not consent to put an officers name on the
stoppage circular except for some recognized
cause, but that he had no objection to the
making OF an arrangement under which it
would be understood that Col MOrrov;s nav
accounts would only be paid by one paymas-
ter. Gen. GrOsvenOr asked il at this time the
Secretary had any suspicion that these pay
accounts were fraudulent? The question was
objected to, and was modified so as to ask if
1t might not have been that at that time
the Secretary had information, Officially or
otherwise, that these accounts were fraudu-
lent, and II this was not the reason, why he
(the Secretary had not inquired of Mai. Ca
rey the object of this assignment?
Objection was made to the question in this
shape. and the objection gave rise to another
long argument, in the course of which Gen.
GIosVon0r sad that they had reached a point
wnere an anomalous, unique, and never
before -heard-of paper-an assignment by an
officer OF three years pay in advance, an as
slgnment absolutely forbidden by law to be
made or recognized-had been brought to the
Secretary of War, and they wanted to show
that at that time the Secretary of War knew
the circumstances under which it had been
made.
THE OBJECT OF THE DEFENSE.
They wished to explain the silence IN the
War Department at the time this paper was
presented by showing that at that time there
was nothing to be said, because the Secretary
at that time had on his mind the knowledge
that Col. Morrow'sp pay accounts were already
discredited.
Mr.. Chandler, Judge Shellabarger and the
Judge Advocate discussed the question, which
was finally ruled out by the court.
Gen. GrosvenOr then asked the witness if he
had not on April 10. 1888. had infOrmat atiOn
official or unofficial, that Col. lMorrow's pay
accounts were duplicated. This question was
objected to by the prosecution unless the de-
fense could show that Gen. Swain knew that
the Secretary of War had this information.
Gen. GrosvenOr said that he proposed to
show that a newspaper correspondent had
gone to the secretary of War and informed
him OF rumOrs as to the duplication of Col
MorrOw's accounts. The question was ruled
out by the court. Gen. GrOsvenOr then asked
if the Secretary had ever had conversation
with Gen. Sherman on the subject of Col.
Morrow's pay account.
NO TALK WITH SHERMAN.
The witness said that he had never had a
conversation with Gen. Sherman on the sub
ject, and had not received any communica-
tlon from him Wi tn regard to the pay ac-
counts. He said, however, that he had had a
conversation In the spring of 1888 with Gen.
Sherman, touching complaints that had come
Morrow. He was asked if a newspaper cor
respondent named Scott Smith had
not come to him early in
accounts were fraudulent and showed
him publication on the subject. This ques-
ton was objected to and ruled out by the
court, In answer to a question by Gen.
GrOsvenor the Secretary said that when Major
Cary brought Col. MOrrow's letter to him he
(the Secretary knew that the accounts men
toned were in the future. Gen. Gros-
venor was then asked: ibid you under
stand at that time that such an assignment Of
accounts was in violation of Section 2,2S0 in
regard to officers paw accounts?" Secretary
Lincoln replied: Perfectly WELL" and Gen,
GrOsvenOr then asked: 'Then, why did YOU
not prosecute Col. Morrow for violation of
the articles of War?'
Mr.. Chandler Immediately objected to this
question, and Gov. GrOsVenOr said that if
objection was made they would not insist
upon it. This closed the examination of the
witness.
COL. MORROW ON THE STAND.
Col. Albert P. Morrow was next called to
the witness stand. He testified that in April.
1888. ne had had an interview with Cen
Swain, in which he asked the latter to loan
him IS, 900. Gen. Swain told him at that time
that he was unable to loan him money. but
asked him what security he could give.
He the wltness) informed him that
ne had no security other
than his pay accounts and life insurance pol
icy, and Gen. Swain then told him that there
were bankers in the city who loaned money
on such security, and gave him a note of in
PRODUCTION TO Bateman & Co., which he (the
Wltness) delivered at Bateman Y Co.'s bank,
either to Mr.. Bateman or Mr.. Parker. On
crOos- examination he said that Gen. McKil-
bin accompanied him on his visit to Gen.
Swain, and also that he (the witness) had not
told Gen. swain at this interview that there
was anything wrong with his pay accounts.
This closed the examination of Col. Morrow
at this time, the defense notifying the court
that they would call him on their side. The
court then adjourned.
BARRETT IN AN OLD PLAY,
"The Blot on the 'Scutcheon" to be Re-