The San Francisco call., 1896-07-30
MUST NOT Do IT AGAIN.
Secretary Herbert Disapproves
the Findings of the Webster
Court-Martial.
The Paymaster Will Not Be Removed,
but Must Make Restitution
TO TObin.

WASHINGTON, D. c., July 29.-Secre-
tary Herbert to-day dlsapproved, with the
qualification that he must not do it again,
the sentence of court-martial held at Mare
Island in the case of Assistant Paymaster
Webster of the navy, who was court
martialed for conduct unbecoming an
officer and gentleman for failure to return
money which he had received from his
clerk, w. ]. Tobin, as bond. The court
found him guilty and recommended his
dismissal.
The Secretary in reviewing the case
points out the errors of the court in ad-
hitting certain evidence, and concludes
as follows:
"If the accused is entitled to every
doubt which may reasonably arise from
the evidence. and If the benefit of that
doubt is to be accorded him in considera-
ton of every portion OF the evidence, then
it is fair to assume that w. J. Tobin and
Paymaster Webster both treated this
transaction as loan. They are presumed
to have known its nature, and in the
light of these facts and circumstances it
cannot be assumed as proven that when
Paymaster Webster asserted in his letter
to the Navy Department that this trans
action was loan and was In no sense a
bond he was guilty of deliberate false
hood.
"The language of the original receipt
given by Paymaster Webster for the $500,
it is forcibly argued, sustains the conten-
tion Of the prosecution that the money
was received on account of deposit of ".
]. Tobin. This is undoubtedly the natural
cfr tfsao& n - H. @Ao&
deposit for w. j. Tobin--meaning that it
was security for his conduct as a clerk,
but such receipt as this is legally ex-
planned by parole evidence, and, like every
other contract, is to be interpreted In the
light of surrounding circumstances.
"The receipt given at Shanghai on ac-
count of the loan is so strong to show tha {
two of the parties to this transaction
treated 1t as a loan that the department
feels impelled to declare that this case is
not made out beyond reasonable doubt.
No matter what the original contract
shows on its face; no matter what may be
its legal signifcance-the issue here does
not arise upon the true Interpretation OF
that instrument The question is, How
did Webster understand it? If be under
stood it and treated it as loan, it cannot
be affirmed that he is guilty.
"The transaction, however, 1t must be
said in conclusion, is in any sense in
which it may be viewed disgraceful to Pay
master Webster and to the navy. It would
seem to have been violation of the spirit,
if not of the letter, OF section 1881 of the
Revised Statutes, prohibiting any officer Of
the Government taking money or other
consideration for procuring an appoint
ment.
but however that may have been, 1t Is
scandalous that Paymaster Webster should
fail to pay back at the termination of the
services of Tobin money received by him
In consideration of Tobin's appointment
as clerk, and should he for any great
length of time IN future persist in this
failure, the department may be expected
to proceed further in this matter. The
failure hereafter to pay this money will
be new and distinct offense not covered
oy anything which has occurred in the
trial.
For reasons herein stated the proceed
lngs, findings and sentence of the court in
tne foregoing case are disapproved.
Passed Assistant Paymaster Webster is
released from arrest and restored to duty" /"