Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-10-06
Attorney General Griggs on the Car
ter Case.
EXPENDITURES OF THAT OFFICER
Much Larger Than His Salary
Permitted.
UNEXPLAINED MATTERS

proved the finding of the court-martial,
was made public last evening. After dis
missing certain Of the minor charges as
unproven, the Attorney General takes up
the more serious questions involved, first
considering the objection that the charges
upon which Capt. Carter was found guilty
were homogeneous. He says that, unlike
the ordinary criminal procedure, the mill
tary usage and procedure permit of an in
definite number Of offenses being charged
and adjudicated together in and the
same proceeding. ut is not necessary"
he says, "to discuss whether this prac-
tice is wise whether it is prejudced to
the rights of the accused. 1t appears to
be established by long-continued practice
and. so far as l able on investigation
to discover. without previous challenge
No Objection at the Beginning.
But even if this objection we'll
founded the Attorney General says, he
does not think the accused should be al
lowed to avail himself of the objection
now, because he proceeded to trial with
cut objection to this alleged misjoinde1 and
permitted the court to enter on an invesd-
cation of all of the different specifications,
and himself brought forward his defense
as to each of them. The objection should
have been promptly taken to be made
available.
The objection concerning the ADMISSION
of evidence barred by the statute of l1mi-
tations is disposed of by saying that this
evidence was not offered for the pur-
pose of proving against the accused the
particular offenSe as to which he had inter-
posed this protective plea, nor of having
him declared guilty thereof, but for the
purpose of showing the relation between
the accused and the other alleged con-
spirators, the intent and motive of the
accused and the other alleged conspirators
and their course and conduct with refer
ence to matters of nature similar to
those, and in many respects connected
with those, involved in the transaction
under trial. For this purpose he thinks
the evidence was admissible.
Other objections relating to the admis-
sion of evidence of conversations and acts
of alleged co-conspirators antedating the
time of the particular conspiracy charged
he also thinks were admissible.
Seizure of Carter's Papers.
Referring to the seizure of the private pa
pers of Captain Carter Mr.. Griggs says the
facts do not show that the seizure was I'M
reasonable and that Carter practically con-
scented to the use made of the papers.
The point is made in this connection that
even in the absence of such consent it was
not incompetent to offer the papers as evil
dence. The use of a letter written by the
witness. Cooper, to Captain Gillette is con-
demned, but it is argued that the admission
of the letter did not injure Carter. The
Attorney General also finds that the court
dld not err IN refusing to admit certain
evidence offered by Carter, including the
letter of his father-tn-law, Mr.. R. F. Wes-
colt.
This brings inquiry to the investigation of
the main charges upon which the convic-
ton was based. Summing up many of the
specifications, including Captain Carriers
intimacy with Greene and the Gaynors
the method Of advertising for the work and
or letting the contracts, the character of
the Atlantic Contracting Company, the
large profits made the contracts ETC.
the Attorney General says that they might
justly be considered failing to fix upon
the accused criminal knowledge and pur-
pose to defraud the government If it were
shown that he had no corrupt personal mo-
tive; that he had not profited by these
loose methods and irregular and question
able proceedings.
Capt. Carriers Expenditures
He then proceeds to the investigation of
these motives. He shows that in 1891 the
captains salary was only $3.50 a month,
and that from that time forward his per-
sonal expenditures Increased very rapidly,
being s6.O47 in 1891 and $29.611 in 1896.
The fact is also pointed out that in 1882
Capt. Carter began to make notably
large deposits in the Union Trust Company
of New York. and also to buy investment
securities, these increasing until 1890 when
his holdings had increased to a market
value of $4,000
Mr.. Griggs does not accept Captain Car
ters explanation that he was dealing in
the securities and with the funds of his
father-fn-law, Mr.. Wescott, and was the
recipient Of large presents from him. "On
the face OF 1t 1t is, he says, IAN improba-
BILE story, and it was incumbent upon him
for his own protection to sustain il by all
attafnable testimony"
Speaking farther on this point the Attor-
IF Mr.. Wescott, the alleged donor. had
come upon the witness stand and corrobo-
rated the story, it would probably have
been sufficient but he did not come Ii is
commended hal of
that Wescott was, at the time of the
trial, in Europe with sick daughter and
was in q nervous state himself, So that he
naturally shrunk from the ANNOYANCE and
trouble to which he would be subjected by
coming home to testify in his son-in-law's
behalf. The evidence to the ill-heaIth
OF his daughter and his own condition of
nervousness Is very sparse, and cannot be
deemed satisfactory. The letter which Mr.
Wescott sent to Captain Carter, wherein
he declined to appear before the board Of
inquiry in the fall of 1897, does not put his
refusal upon either of these grounds, but
rather upon the ground that his testimony
was unmportant, and could be supplied in
other ways.
IF 1t be true, as contended, that Mr.
Wescott had such an eXtravagant affec-
ton and regard for his son-in-law as to
induce him to confide to him so great a
trust. and to make him the donee of such
suggestion would be that he would be in
terested intensely in the result of the trial
in which the honor as well as the liberty
of his son-in-law was involved. One would
naturally think that a father-in-law so
regardful of his sCn-in-law's interests would
be quick to rush to his defense, and by his
oath to add confrma ton to the story,
which, if true, would exculpate him from
these serious charges
1T is said that Captain Carter made
great efforts to secure the attendance of
Mr.. WeScott as a witness, but there is no
proof of it. There is evidence that he
wrote him requested him in any wise
to appear a witness before the court
martial. The Inference Is that his testi-
mony would not have benefited Captain
Carter If he had appeared. Such Is the
irresistible conclusion, and, therefore, find
ing that the one witness in all the world
who could have created conviction in the
minds of the court to the truth of this
extraordinary story withholds himself. and
that there is no satisfactory evidence that
the defendant made any exertion to pro-
duce him. must conclude that his tes-
timony would not have been useful. It is
also noteworthy that Wescott Cancelled the
power of attorney which Carter held al
most Immediately after the accusation
against Carter became public in the fall Of
1897"
The Attorney General then shows by On
analysis of Captain Carter's testimony that
in his dealings with his father-in-law he
To x6ot