National Republican., 1885-08-10

life is butter. He is always contem.
plating butter. He came here with O can
to advertise himself. He did not say
that he was going to put the butter in for
Che Greely expedition, and have il re.
packed aud re.examined for thirty.three
cents pound. He said he would have
furnished that kind of butter in that can
for thirty.three cents. Commodore
Schley says he was prejudiced against
butter already put up; that one can't tell
whether it is oleondrgarine or candle
grease or lard and, as he was going on
nn important expedition, he thought IL
was necessary to have good butter, and
therefore he insisted upon purchase, or
thought il was better TO have purchase,
of an article which could be inspected
when purchased. Simpson is simply Il
butter merchant who packs butter jut in
Iowa somewhere aud puts it in c tns. He
wanted to supply it to the government
for lhrty.three cents without inspection.
The evidence does not show that he pro-
posed to submit il TO inspection. He
was not invited to bid, and so he got mad
about itand came here to unload his little,
petty, trifling grievance upon Gen.
Smith, simply because Gen. Smith is in
trouble. That is species of cowardice
existing in human nature, and is known to
all men in active life. One of the mean.
eat traits of human nature is that when n
man is in trouble small and feeble minded
persons with grievance against him
come forward and unload that grievance.
| would not believe under oath man so
destitute of honor and courage.
STRANGE ANOMALY.
But ! must hurry through with tais
case. There are several transactions
pork, beef, flannel, ditty boxes, butter.
If your honors will look at the third
specification you will find that
complaint is made because Mr.. Brown
was not required to complete his deliv.
cries under the so.called enlargement
and extension Of his contract Of Nov.
II, 1882, at $20.75 per barrel
for beef and S21.S0 per barrel
for pork, "although the said paymaster
general well knew that the said Brown
had been SO tardy in making deliveries
under the said so.called enlarged and
extended contract as to seriously EN-.
barrass the government The first
specification is on the theory that the
government did not need the pork and
beef, and that he bought it when it was
not needed, for which he is to be con.
demned. The third specification is on
the theory that the government did
need it, and because he did not have
it delivered after it was bought he
is to be condemned. There is an old
stanza that justifies this proceeding, and
it is the only justification that know of
in our literature, either legal or other.
wise:
You will and you won't;
You can and you can't;
You'll be damned IL you do
And be damned If you don't.
That is the theory of this prosecution.
They undertake to cloud this man Is
honor aud punish him for illegally buy.
ing pork, and then condemn him further
because he did not demand delivery of
that very pork illegally bought. They
say in the first specification that the pork
was not needed and it was wrong to buy
1t. They say in the third specification
that that identical pork was needed, and
it was wrong not to have it delivered.
We cannot disprove both allegations.
We will admit we cannot prove it was
right and wrong, at the same time, tc
buy that pork. If we are 10 be judged
from these two repugnant standpoints,
and are required to disprove these two
propositions, first, that il was not
needed, and second, that it was needed,
we are helpless. These specifications
are on that theory all the way through.
They complain of one thing, then feel
conscious that they may sink under it,
and that no evidence can be offered to
sustain it, and then in the very next
specification they complain Of something
absolutely the converse of the first allie
cation, in the hope of catching Gen.
Smith in some delinquency some way.
In civil court repugnancy destroys
the whole charge. Where charges are
repugnant and defendant does no
know what specific thing he is to answer
for the charge is not sound, and canno
be maintained.
So far as the flannel is concerned, il
is in evidence here that it was purchased
under the usual methods of declaring AT
exigency, and the only methods known
to the department. | will not argue tina
point any further. Gen. Smith violated
no law in buying the flannel. The ques
ton is, Did he violate any law in no
having it delivered? The rules of tn
department are explicit in declaring
who shall demand delivery of supple
under contracts. These rules grow vi
under the approval of administration
after administration. The business o
this department is as old as the govern
ment, and all the methods of transactinI
| it have been sfted aud winnowed dow
through eighty years. AS the result o
eighty years of experience, certain rule
have been formulated and declared /,
govern and control the conduct of otli
GERS. If a ship comes into port the com
mandant, under the rules, is the man t,
whom report is made and the man VIII
is charged with furnishing the supplies
The wants of the ship are first disclose
to the commandant. lie is the legG
custodian and receptacle of the necess
ties Of the ship. He has before him tn
contracts for everything the government
has ordered to be delivered at that port
When any demand is made or any wan
is expressed from n ship to him the con
tracts are all spread out before him, an
he has the means by which he can suppl
that want. Not II single rule impose
this duty upon Gen. Smith. But the
argue in consonance with the very theor
that | have spoken of, that no matte
what he does he is to be condemned. II
says he did make q demand, They as
him what he was interfering for. The
try him for lack of zeal, aud when the
prove that he exercised more zeal tha
he thought was necessary he is to |
punished for excess of zeal. So it wi
be argued here that he did write SON
letters in addition to the demands th
were lawful; he did lend the influence
! his office to get delivery Of the supple
aud that he is culpable because he di