National Republican., 1885-08-10


a criminal nature resting upon him2
Now ns TO this voucher for SgO1.
Secretary Chandler indorsed that abso.
lutely, unequivoca)ly, finally, over ding
the judgment of everybody then or now,
When Mr.. Lockers letter was referred
to him, what did he do2 He first re.
ceived communication from the at,or
ney Of Brown, Mr.. Ingersol. That
communication was an argument in
favor Of the rightfulness Of the power
that had been exercised by the Secretary
Of tho Navy and the Secretary of the
Treasury, and a condemnation of Mr..
Lockers interference in matter that
did not concern him. He sent that let.
ter with an approving letter of his own
of the Sd of December, indorsing what
Mr.. Ingersol had written in the way of
argument, aud made as his own; and IL
not before, from that day, the whole of
that proceeding, whether legal or illegal,
was assumed by the Secretary of the
Navy.
Whatever may have been the moral
character of the legal turpitude of the
transaction the paymaster general stands
absolutely excused, for it is well.
known proposition Of law, resting on
fundamental principles that are recog
nized by every mans mind, that when
superior adopts what an inferior or
| agent has done subsequent to the doing,
it is precisely the same in law, in morals,
and in reason as though he had given the
authority before the act was performed.
Therefore, whatever your judgment,
Mr.. President and gentlemen, may be as
to the propriety In law Of paying the
S007 voucher, Paymaster General
Smith is absolutely excused, excused
upon the authority sustained by his su.
perior, from which there is now no ap.
peal. When speak Of the voucher for
1907 speak ofevery voucher in the case
that Is In controversy, because they all
rest upon the same proposition. Ifit
was right to pay the 1907 voucher,
which was in payment Of pork and beef
ordered on the 10th day of November,
1882, it it was right to pay 81, it was
right to pay every dollar; aud when the
Secretary of the Navy indorscd that
minor voucher for $007 he indorsed
every voucher then in controversy and
spread out in every form of adjective
through these ten or eleven speciGca
tions. He indorsed them all and the
paymaster general stands excused. If
there were no other case, if neither
Moore nor Doe had been here to tell us
what the records of the Treasury De-
partment and of the Navy Department
disclose, it would still remain supreme
verdict upon this subject, from which
there is no appeal.
Gen. Smith stands excused. But when
you find the archives of two great
branches of this government for the last
fourteen years stuffed with evidence cor.
roborating that practice, and when you
find in the statute that was read this
morning, section $3.50, that the law
recognizes extended contracts as to time
and extended contracts as to quantity,
and when you reflect that the usage OF
department when established and con.
tinued, il it be not in plain, unmistakable
violation of law, itself becomes law upon
the opinion of the Supreme Court, then
it is more then ever apparent that no
finding can be had against Gen. Smith
in this case.
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
What are those accusations? That the
quantity of pork was increased by
letter Of Nov. 16, 1882. / draw some
inferences from the questions which the
learned attorney general was pleased to
nut to the witnesses. When Mr.. Moore
came here and said that q great many
vouchers and contracts in the Treasury
Department, which vouchers had been
paid, disclose the fact that contracts had
been enlarged, then came the grave ques-
ton, "was not that enlargement after the
contract was iilled?r lie said he thought
it was, generally. ! think 80 too. |
have no doubt about that. If that kind
government, then they are driven to this
point in their argument: That an en-.
largement made simultaneously with the
contract is bad, while enlargement made
when the contract Is ended is good.
Mr.. Maury. We do not claim that.
Mr.. Boutwell,. If he denies the whole
thing, then he denies section $3.50.
Mr.. Maury. No, | do not.
Mr.. Boutwell,. He denies the usage of
the government, or else he repudiates
the testimony Of the witnesses. But the
trouble is just here: Men who are clothed
with authority and bound to exercise
their discretion, if they are invested with
the power TO exercise that discretion,
may do it when they please, so long as
the subject matter to which the discre-
ton applies is open. In the case of Nc
Cullough vs.. the state Of Maryland, de-
cided long lime ago, the Supreme
Court hold that where a discretion was
invested there that discretion was to be
exercised, and no criticism could be
made upon it as legal proceeding, un-
less the element of corruption entered
into the exercise of that discretion.
In regard to the supplies, the point of
time when the person charged with the
authority would exercise that discretion
is when the thought was suggested to him
whether the supplies already bargained
for or received were sufficient for the pur-
pose In view. That is all there is Of it.
If Paymaster General Smith on the 10th
day Of November, 1882, ordered thou
sand barrels of pork and 500 barrels of
beef, which he then thought the govern
ment did not need, he is cplpable. Ifhe
had waited until the 1000 barrels of
pork and 800 barrels of beef, under the
contract of the 1lth of November, had
been delivered and had then exercised
the discretion, would not the exercise of
that discretion have been substantially
the same thing? 1t appears from the
evidence that an advertisement was
framed which included great
many artcles-aannel, pork, beef,
sugar, coffee-and all the articles
except sugar and coffee we're deliverable
at the end of ninety days. The sugar
and coffee were to be delivered in thirty
days. What is the object of fixing
time? Is it that the government may
require the delivery of all those articles
within the ninety days? Not by any
means. It's that they cannot require
the delivery of any of them. Then the
question arises whether it is usually for
the interests Of the government that the
supplies of a ySar shall be dumped into
the storehouses of the government at
| the end of ninety days. or whether H. is