National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-04-23
Ordered to Investigate tho Charges Against
Judge Advocate General Swain.
Secretary lincon's Letter to the Pres
ident Presenting the Case,
He Recommends tho Course that Gen. Swain Should
at Once Have Asked For.
The omcini Order Giving the Detail for
the Court.

Otn VI may TO cNulnlnO lutO tuo uVCuohViuh
recently preferred against Judge Advocate
General d. c. Swain by Mr.. A. f. Bateman,
of this city, in his letter to the secretary of
war, dated the 10th instant, and to report the
facts developed by their investigation and
give their opinion thereon.
This action of the President was taken
upon the recommendation of the secretary of
war expressed in the following letter;
WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, April %,
of this city. q member of the firm of Batcman &
Co.. bankers, addressed to me letter, of which u
copy Is inclosod, In which he alleged that Gen. ID.
q. Swain, the judge advocate general OF the army,
had committed fraud upon said firm, the nature
ofwhich he described as follows
some two years a2o the said ID. q. Swim, hav-
ing deposited the sum of 5000, received upon his
departure for the west simple due bill ut his
request TO have In case an accident should befall
aim. This amount was checked out subsequent
70 tuat date by said ID. G.. Swain, for which VIC
ave number of vouchers. After having drawn
Ill the money out and settlement being made,
DC negotiated and transferred the due hill for the
ull amount with certain parties in this city"
"asssted to negotiate with this firm army pay
vouchers which he knew to be fraudulent and
duplicates of outstanding accounts" and asked
that court martial be ordered for the trial Of
the said u, G. Swain on charges preferred" On
the next day, and before any action was taken on
the communication of Mr.. Bateman. another com
munication from him was received by me, in the
following words: 1.-THE suit against our firm on
the due bill mentioned in my charges of yesterday
against Gen. d. q. Swain having been Withdrawn,
and tho differences between Gen. Swain and my.
self satisfactorily settled, hereby withdraw the
charges contained IN my letter Of April 10 against
said Gen. D. G. Swain, he claiming they were
made under misrepresentation of facts. which l
conCedc."
on the next day these letters were by mo re-
fcrred 10 Gen. SWAIN by an Endorsement upon the
desire TO submit upon the allegations made in the
within communication, ane tor any application
he may desire to make.
On the same day Gen. Swain returned the
papers with the following Endorsement:
II had bank account with Bacman Co.,
interest," for which they gave nc IN order
reading Due d. e. swain' or order $1,000 value
SW1sHlNGroN, July Is, 1852" '''''''' - W.
"This is a negotiable promssory note according
to all the authorities on the subject and was
transferred in due course of business and pay
ment demanded but refused. Bateman Dc Co.
claimed set-ofs TO the note, the correctness of
which denied. endeavored to effect settle
ment with them, or refer the matter to an arbi-
traitor, but without effect The note was put in
suit, but they now agree to refer the whole subject
TO an arbitrator. and with that view the suit mas
been withdrawn. The note Tor due bill, us 1t is
incorrectly termed) is now in the possession of
Bright d Humphrey the indorsers thereof
"1n regard TO the fraudulent pay vouchers, the
facts area as follows Lieut.. Col. A. p Morrow, at
the time a member of Gen. Sherman's staff
comparative stranger to me Mt the time, came to
my Office, in company with another officer, and
requested me to advance him several mouths pay
on his pay accounts. told him did not do that
kind OF business, but in friendly way referred
him to brokers IN the city doing such business,
and named Bateman & co. with others. / may
have given him note of introduction to that iirIn
did not know for some time afterward that Bate"
man Co. had advanced money to Col. Morrow
on his pay accounts. 1t will be seen that had
no concern or interest In these pay accounts what
ever, and all did was the friendly act of intro.
ducing brother officer TO those who were in the
habit of doing what l could not do for him.
have no knowledge OF any other pay account
transaction with Batemau " Co. The only re-
quest have TO make is that this statement may
receive the same publicity that the within false
accusations received"
press copy of his trst letter, on the day of its
date, and the grave charges made by him against
the judge advocate general were thus given
force a pecuniary adjustment by means as often
sive as possible; aud his letter of the next day
shows that notwithstanding the bitterness Of the
made one element ofwhich was his formal with
drawal of his charges with statement which
seems carefully famed TO avoid charging him
self with having recklessly made false and
libelous charges In his previous letter.
Mr.. Bateman's business adventures are not en-
titled, under any circumstances, TO the protection
of the war department; but tho integrity and up
rghIness OF the officer of the army who reports
the duty Of the secretary OF war to submit to the
President for his final action Is Il matter of the
deepest concern to the President and to every one
of his military subordinatGs. The law requires
that conduct unbecomtng an officer and II gen.
tleman" shall be followed By n sentence of dis
mlssal from the military service, and the Presi-
dent alone can mitigate the sentence. If there
could be any distinction, every consideration re-
qutreS that more thany any other Oitlcet of the
army, the judge advocate general should be free
beyond question from any imputation OF snch
conduct,
1t is a matter of deep regret to me- therefore,
that when the Judge advocate general was gwen
al opportunity To comment upon the charges in
question he, in respect to the first charge, either
was not able or did not see fiji to make an explicit
denial Of Its essential part or to give in detail such
facts and circumstances as would show the ialSity
of the charge. Instead of doing so he has con-
tented himself with statement which contains
nothing to which, Mr.. Batemans allegations
might not possibly be u truthful supplement-.
So in respect to the second charge--asslstlng to
negotHte army pny vouchers with Batemnn S
Co., which Gen. Swain knew 10 be fraudulent,
aud triplcates of outstanding accounts-Gen,
Swaim's response fails TO notice that the charge,
as made by Mr., Bnteman, refers not merely 10 al
negotiation OF army puy accounts, but TO IA negO-
taton OF pay accounts alleged 10 have been
clement of the charge no aluslon Is made in his
response. II is not overlooked that the fnu
clause OF the response, asking tor It's publication,
refers to the accusation as false, but his specific
answers to them are evidently intended to be
found in what has gone before
If there IL 10 proof 10 sustain the charges made,
or II the circumstances cRn be explained so rs %
remove every impression Of improper conduct on
the part of the officer in question, am OF the
opinion that the welfare OF the military service
requires that the proper steps should be taken for
his YndicaiOn. 1t is not u personal but an Official
aud public matter. He has not, In my view, rec
ognized this necessity and, ~ he has not done So
am compelled TO recommend to YOU the appoint
ment OF court OF inquiry 10 examine into the nc
cusalions above mentioned and TO report the
facts developed by their investigation and give
their opinion thereon. | have the honor to be,
very respectfully your obedient servant,
ROBERT L. LINCOLN,
To THE PRESIDENT Secretary of War,
The following is the letter of Mr. Bateman
referred to by the secretary:
BATEMAH ~ Co., BANKERS, WASHINGTON, D. c.,
April l6, lSSl.-To THE Hos SECRETARY or WAR
Dear Sir; 1t becomes my duty ~ prefer charges
against Brig Gen, D, q. swain, at the head Of tho
bureau of military Justice OF tho United States
army, for fraud and for conduct unbecoming an
officer