Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-10-06
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THERE
WERE PLENTY IN CARTER CASE.
HE SPENT TOO MUCH MONEY
ON SALARY OF s252 MONTH HE
SPENT $4,000 a YEAR.
Held Securities at One Time Worth
Nearly Half a NIIIion-His Faith
er-in-Law Refused to Help
Him Out of Difficulty
by Testifying.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5-The opinion of
Attorney General Griggs in the case OF
Captain Oberlin NJ. Carter, of the army,
upon which the president approved the
finding Of the court-martial, was made pub
lie to-day.
After dismissing certain of the minor
charges as unprOven, the attorney general /
takes up the more serious questions in
vOlved. first considering the objection that
the charges upon which Captain Carter
was found guilty were homogeneous. He
says that, unlike the ordinary criminal
procedure, the military usage and pro-
ceoure permit of an indefinite number of
ofenses being charged and adjudicated
together in one and the same proceeding.
1t is not necessary" he says, TO dis
cuss whether this practice is wise, or
whether it is prejudiciaI to the rights Of
the accused. 1t appears to be established
by long continued practice. and. so far as
] am able on investigation TO discover,
without previous challenge"
But, even if this objection were well
founded, the attorney general says. he does
not think the accused should be allowed
to avail himself of the objections now be-
cause he proceeded to trial without OBJ
lection TO this alleged misjoinder. and per-
United the court TO enter on an investi-
CATION of all of the different specification
and himself brought forward his defense
as. to each Of them. The objection should
have been promptly taken TO be available.
Referring 10 the seizure of the private
papers of Captain Carter, Mr.. Griggs says
the facts do not show that the seizure was
unreasonable. and that Carter practically
consented 70 the use made of the papers.
tn point is made in this connection that,
In a..
was not incompetent TO offer the papers as
evidence. The use of letter written by
the witness, Cooper, TO Captain Gillette, is
condemned, but ii is argued that the ad-
mission of the letter did not injure Carter.
The attorney general also finds that the
court did not err in refusing to admit GER
tain evidence offered by Carter. including
the letter OF his father-in-law, Mr. T. T.
Wescott
This brings the inquiry to the investiga-
ton Of the main charges upon which the
conviction was based.
Summing up many OF the specifications,
including Captain Carriers intimacy with
Green and the Gaynors, the method of ad-
yertising for the work and of letting the
contracts. the character of the Atlantic
Contracting Company. the large profits
made on the contracts, etc, the attorney
s!Gered as failing 10 fix upon the accused
knowledge and purpose to defraud the gov
oTHment if it were shown that he had no
corrupt personal motive, that he had not
profiteG by these loose methods and irreS-
u!ar and questionable proceedings. He then
Proceeds to the investigation of these mo-
tiTes. He shows that in 1891 the captain $
salary was only So per month, and that.
from that time forward, his personal ex-
penditures Increased very rapidly. being
S6,0i7 in 1891. and s., Gil in 1886. The fact is
also pointed out that in 1872 Captain Car
ter began to make NOTABLE. large deposits
In the Union Trust Company, of New York.
and also to buy securities, the purchases
increasing until 1885, when his holdings had
increased to 4 market value OF Si63, eos.
Dir. Griggs does not accept Captain Car
tiers explanation that he was dealing in
the securities with the funds OF his father
in-law. Mr.. Wescott, and was the recipien;
OF large presents from him. ION the face
OF fl, It is he says, IAN improbable story
and it was incumbent upon him. for his
own protection, to sustain it by all attain
able testimony"
Speaking farther on this point the attor.
ncy general says:
If Mr. Wescott, the alleged donor, had
come upon the witness stand and corrob,
GRATED the story, il would. probably, have
been sufficient. but he did not come. 1t i:
contended, on behalf OF Captain Carter
that Wescott was, at the time of the trial
in Europe with sick daughter, and was II
a nervous state himself, so that he natur.
ally SHRINK from the annoyance and troubl,
to which he would be subjected by coming
home to testify in his son-in-Iaw's behalf
The evidence as to the ili-health of hi:
daughter and his own condition of ner
yousness is very sparse, and cannot h,
deemed satisfactory. The letter which Mr.
WescOtt sent 10 Captain Carter, wherein
he declined TO appear before the hoard o
inquiry in the fall of 1897, does not put Inf
refusal upon either of these grounds bI
rather upon the ground that his testimon!
was unimportant, and could be supplied il
other ways.
IF IL be true, as commended that Nj
Wescott had such an extravaGant affec
ti1n and regard for his son-in-law as I
induce him TO contide to him so great a
amount and to make him the donee q
such large sums of Money, then the nat
ural suggestion would be that he woUl
be interested intensely in the result of tn
trial IN which the honor as well as III
liberty OF his sOn-in-law was involved On
would naturally think that father-in-iaI
so regardfuI of his son-in-law's interest
would be quick TO rush To his defens,
and. by his oath, to add confirmation t
the story, which. If true, would exCupat
from these serious charges.
1t is said that Captain Carter mad
great efforts. to secure The attendance c
Mr. WesCott as a witness, but this Is II
proof of H. There could he found no eV
dence that he wrote him or requisite
him in any wise 10 appear as A witHes
before the court-martial The inference
that his testimony would not have beI
efited Captain Carter il he had appsarei
Such IS the irresistible conclusion Whe
the one witness in all the world who Coul
have created conviction in the minds
the court as 10 the truth of this eXtrs
ordinary evidence that the defendant mad
any e1ertinn 10 produce him. We mu!
conclude that his testimony would not h9X
been useful. Ii IL also noteworthy III;
Wescott Cancelled the power Of attOrne
which Carter held almost Immediate
after the accusation against Carter b.
came public in the fall Of 1897.
The attorney general then shows.
an analysis OF Captain Carriers tcstimon
that. in his dealings with his father-il
law he rendered strict account to III.
gentleman. and that Carriers funds in II
Union Trust Company were ia excess
those Of MIR. N@ScOtt during the entil
tine that he had control of the latter
Affairs Tho testimony" he adds do,
not strike me as that of man possesSt
O. a clear idea Of the truth and dete
mined TO tell IL but rather as 2 clever eg!
sion Of one who Is cnjeavoring to aFtit
cialIy account for the possession of monel
derived from some other sources"
Air. GTigRs also mentions other CircUr
stances. which he pronnUuccs SUSPICION
Including the fact that many OF the checl
paid TO the contractors were collected
cash over the counter At the SubtrCaSur
and the circumstance that Carter ".
present in New York on July g. 1885,. whs
on that date. and that he was on mar
other occasions. from lsf3 to 1881, prese1
in New York when payments were made
Inc contractors He presents a starcrne
Il, If nd