United States. Congress.

Congressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress online

. (page 141 of 172)
Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 141 of 172)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

received the oflice.

Therefore the Secretary not only was guilty of the malfeasance of
not reading the letter of General Grierson to this man firom whom he
asked the order to be written, who was to rectify^ this wrong, but the
Secretary absolutely told him that he had appointed Marsh and he
supposed he had received the office.

Whether he had transferred it, or assigned it, or sublet it, or farmed it out, or
what relations he bad with it was not, in my mind, a very speciiJ question. What
I wanted to do was to correct an abuse ; but whetber the form was that Marsh was
the trader or the other man was the trader was not so much in my mind as to dis-
cuss the question that was then up.

Then on page 127 :

Mr. Manager McMahon. * * * Was it in that conversation that he said he
bad appointed Marsh or oflfored the appointment to Marsh.

The w ITNEBS. It was on that occasion. I had several conversations ; I cannot
state whether this was the first time I saw him or suliseqaently.

So that he not only withheld, but he absolutely misled in order to
get that order written that it should not cover the case. Beijing
this fact all the time in mind that prior to this he had known his
duty, here was a full statement of the abuse laid before him, that be
had made requisition for information from the official source touch-
ing this abuse, and that he had gotten full and complete informa-
tion, then he calls on an officer of the Army and withholds his
official information, to correct this abuse recited in that report, the
only official information that he had on which to do it, and permits
an order to be drawn which in no way touches the abuse, and holds
out to the person who drew that order the impression that Marsh was
the trader and not Evans ; and General McDowell says the Secretary
of War told him Marsh was the trader. Can you account for this
divergence from the right line of a man of character on any other
basis than that there was a powerful motive inducing him ; and what
motive does the defendant assign t Friendship in consequence of at-
tentions to his wife, whereas this appointment was substantiallv made
before Marsh appears to have ever known his wife, so far as there is
any evidence in this case. So that here is falsehood put upon false-
hood to screen this wrong, I sincerely hope the first in his life and I
sincerely hope it will be the last.

Mr. BLACK. Are you sure of that f

Mr. Manager J£NKS. The learned counsel asks me whether I am
sure of that. I am only sure of it from the facts of the case, and in

Digitized by




that letter of the 16th of August there had been fmggestions for him
to find the beet post, and on the 16th of Au^ast be writes the Secre-
tary of War, and that is filed as his application, and we assume that
an application is the basis of an appointment, particularly if that ap-
plication is prior in time and acted upon othcially. So the ofiicial ap-
plication on which this was based is made prior to an^ acquaintance
with his wife at all, so far as we have any information in this case.
Then we have this additional fact, that ho told Evans that he had
promised it to Marsh. That was prior to the appointment, and
there is no evidence of any communication between him and Marsh
isubsequent to that. Taking these two transactions together it seems
to me that the appointment was made in substance before ever there
was any obligation existing from the Secretarj[ to Mr. Marsh at all.
But even if he were appointed on the basis of friendship, how quickly
that friendship had ripened into fruition. He never knew him at
M except for a little wnile in New York. Some attention was paid
to his wife ; and yet here is a friendship that ripened into full frui-
tion to such an extent that an officer of the Qovemment of the United
States would remove John S. Evans, who comes there with unques-
tionable vouchers, evervthing right in his record, every officer at the
i>ost asking that he shall be appointed ; who comes there represent-
ing that he will lose eighty to a hundred thousand dollars if he is re-
moved, and the Secret^ says you may lose that because I love this
man so ! Do you believe such absurdity as that f And if you do be-
lieve it, is it not a crime? The fact that an officer of the United
States to gratify a mere private friendship will override the recom-
mendations of all those who have a right to speak, will exercise the
tyranny of destroying a private fortune of eighty or one hundred thou-
sand doUars to gratify his own love to a ffiend, is this no evidence
of crime in a case of this kind when the Secretary is constantly
accepting money from that friend T Put it in any light you please,
how does this defendant stand f

Mr. CARPENTER. Will the counsel permit me to interrupt him
to correct a mistake in his statement of the testimony t

Mr. Manager JENKS. With pleasure. If I have made any mis-
take I hope my attention will be called to it, because I have not had
time to go over the testimony fully.

Mr. CARPENTER. The manager's theory is that General Mc-
Dowell drew this order under a fahie impression that Marsh was the
real trader and not Evans. The subseouent portion of General Mc-
Dowell's examination, I think, shows that his former examination in
rtbat respect was a mistake. In the first place, the Tribune article,
which was the basis of McDowell's action, stated that Evans was the
trader and was paying Marsh for the privilege of having the appoint-
ment. In the next place, on page 127, to the question put by Mr.
Manager McMahon, he says :

QnestioiL If yo« had known that the aotnal iitate of circamstances at Fort Sill
was that Svana was really the post-trader, that Marsh had no canital in it, and that
Svana was paying $12,000 a year simply for the privileffe of holding it

Answer. That was aboat what I understood to be the case.

Q. (By Mr. Manager McMahon.) Did yon draw that order for the purpose of cor-
recting that?

A. Yes.

Beoross-ezamined by Mr. Caupkntbb:

Wonld not that order have corrected it if it had been executed ?
I liave said two or three times that I thought it would.


That shows that General McDowell was not under a mistake as to
who was post-trader at the time that conversation took place.

Mr. Manager JENKS. Senators, all I have to sav is just read the
whole testimony of McDowell through and see whether he did not
draw that order under the impression that Marsh was the post-trader.
In two different places in his testimony it occurs that the Secretary
of War told him so, and he says in another place that he does not
know what order he would have drawn if he had known that state
of facts. So take the whole testimony — it makes no difierence really
whether he supposed Marsh was or was not — the part that we say was
wrong is that this Secretary has endeavored to create a ^se impres-
sion bv misleading and misstating. When he asked for an intelligent
order he should have laid the report of General Grierson before Gen-
eral McDowell: he should not have said ^< I appointed Evans :'' the
attempt to mislead we complain of, not that his statement did mis-
lead. It is not whether the order did correct it or did not, but what
was the information General McDowell had, what was it the duty of
the Secretary to give t It was his duty to give General McDowell
the truth.

Mr. CARPENTER. He swears positively that when he drew the
order be understood Evans was the trader and was paying |12,000 to

Mr. Manager McMAHON. A little further on that is denied sub-
stantially by him at the bottom of page 127.

Mr. Manager JENKS. But that does not afiect the fact that he
told General McDowell he had appointed Marsh. But I read from
page 127:

Question. In this matter I want this distinctly understood : Whom did you and
General BeUEuap in your conversation there together understand to be the post>
trader at Fort Sfllf

Answer. I do not know what General Belknap understood, and as to myself I

did not think much about the matter. I merely wanted to correct an abuse ; I
merelv wanted to state a scandal ; and I took what I thought the Quickest and best
and directest wav to do it, and that will be seen in the order whicn I drew up.

Q. If you had known that the grievance that existed there was the payment bT
Evans, who was actually post trader, of $12,000 a year to Marsh, who had no capi-

tal invested in the oonoem~I put the question to you in answer to the hypothetr
ical question put on the other side— would you not have drawn a different order
from the one yon did draw?
A. I can hardly say what I would have done if things had been different

So ho states that the Secretary of War told him Marsh was the post-
trader, and his order

Mr. CARPENTER. To settle that question, there is the article in
the Tribune which set them all in motion, which charses distinctly
that Evans was the trader, that he was paying Marsh $12,000 for
having gotten him his appointment. That, therefore, was the abuse
McDowell wanted to correct.

Mr. Manager JENKS. Let me go on.

Mr. CARPENTER. I suppose you do not want to misrepresent the

Mr. Manager JENKS. I am not misrepresenting the testimony one
iota. I have read that article from the Tribune, and I have read just
what it is literally. So that the facts were before General McDow-
ell, we say. Just as stated in the Tribune article ; and I say it proba-
bly would not have made any difference whether Mursh was tiie post-
trader or not. But the fact remains the Secretary told General Mc-
Dowell he had appointed Marsh.

Mr. CARPENTER. Then what is the point f

Mr. Manager JENKS. The point is this : that when the Secre-
tary of War had an ofiScial communication in answer to an official
communication requiring that information, from General Grierson,
eiving the full details of the facts and stating that this man Evans
levied that black-mail off the soldiers, and that he charged enlisted
men more than officers, and all the abuses existing under that, he did
not lay that information before but withheld the official information
from General McDowell and allowed him to draw an order on simply
the information contained in the article in the New York Tribune,
and then added to that by sayins that he had appointed Marsh. That
is wherein I complain of him. It is not whether McDowell thought
this, or thought that, or thought the other ; but it is that this Secretary
of War did not give him information by which he could correct that
abuse, and even went further, that he absolutely misled, or attempted
to mislead. General McDowell from the truth of the case.

Then the order of General McDowell is found on page 119 of the
Record. That order I will not read, but will give simply the page
on which it is found. It corrects no abuse concerning tnis $12,000 a

Mr. CARPENTER. Will the counsel allow me one further correc-
tion t I understand there is not a particle of truth here to show that
that Grierson letter was not before McDowell. McDowell does not
swear that he did not see the letter; nobody has sworn that it was
suppressed. Tou are charging us here with a positive act, the sup-
pression of a letter, and charging us, as I understand, without a par-
ticle of testimony.

Mr. Manager JENKS. I am simply charging yon with what Gen-
eral McDowell says. He says he drew the oraer on the information
in the New York Tribune, and never speaks of the Grierson communi-
cation having been laid before him. It would have been an item of
defense if you had shown that you had laid the Grierson communica-
tion before General McDowell. Wonld he not have drawn a different
order t

Mr. CARPENTER. He says he wonld not.

Mr. Manager JENKS. You never asked him what he would have
drawn if the Grierson letter had been before him. But the Grierson
letter was before the Secretarv of War, and if it had been before
McDowell why did you not ask General McDowell that question t
We do not have to prove that a thing was not so ; we do not have t4>
prove a negative ; it was for the defendant to prove affirmatively
that it was before him. But if you look at the McDowell testimony,
you will find that he testifies that he drew it from the Tribune article
and to correct the abuse therein stated, and he does not take a single
step to correct the abuses stated by Grierson's report, showing that
that was not before him.

Mr. CARPENTER. There is not a thing in the Grierson letter that
is not in the Tribune article, as I understand it.

Mr. Manager JENKS. The Tribune article and the Grierson com-
munication are before the Senate. They can Judge for themselves as
to that, and Judge whether a man whose character is in a riffht line
and who knows his duty, and does not lay the information before the
officer from whom he asks the performance of a corrective duty, is
doing right or doing wrong.

Having thus shown that the appointment of this man was out of
the ordinary course, and that the conduct of the Secretary of War
was different from what it should have been in the ordinary course,
the next inquiry is, what did he do when he got this money t Was
there anything done to indicate that it was corrupt t Was there any
concealment connected with it, or was it open and frank t But be-
fore we ^o to the consideration of that I wish to impress this fact :
When this report came from General Grierson stating as he did that
the extortion of $12,000 a year from these soldiers existed, 9Jid charg-
ing that the enlisted men paid greater prices than their officers, what
would be the conduct of a ^cretary of War of good character f
What woul(\ he do f When he found a poet-trader was doing all
these thiucs, what would he do t Would he not remove him Just as
q uickly as ne could write the order of removal t How did it affect the
President of the UnitM States when it came to his knowledget Here-

Digitized by




moredhim immediately. Why did theSecretarynotremovehim imme-
diately f He had a motive, and that motive was IG^OOO or $3,000 a year.
Before that his instincts were jast as refined as the President's : be-
fore that he bore a good character. He knew what he onght to nave
done. He ought to nave protected these enlisted men. The defend-
ant will say Evans did not charge them any more than he did before;
bat that information he did not have until we came to this trial.
Here is this letter which he had on the 9th of March, and it was
official, on the honor of a soldier, and the only infbrmation he had
showing that every one of these abases existed, and he did not re-
move the man nor do a single act to obviate this wrong. There must
have been a motive, and that motive is perfectlv apparent when the
last part of the case comes out that he fi;ot $3,000 a year from this
poet for the last three and a half years and $6,000 a year for the pre-
ceding year and a half.

Then, is there anything in the receiving of the money itself which
indicates that he knew he was guilty of a crime t In the inquiry for
truth with reference to criminals, we always start upon this hypoth-
esis, that truth loves the light and crime the darkness. Crime always
enshrowds itself either in the darkness of phvsical nature or in the
moral darkness of falsehood. Where we find falsehood, we expect
crime. Where we find darkness, we expect the deeds of darkness ;
but where it is truth, its beauty loves to shine in the bright sunlight,
and we expect everything to be conducted fairly and openly.

Now, with reference to the receiving of this money, what is the
conduct of Marsh t Every letter that he gets he destroys. Why does
he do thist Because those letters if preserved would be evidence of
crime. That would be the natural answer. But suppose you take
some other answer, that Marsh is a careless man; that answer will
not apply to this defendant, because he is a systematic man ; he pre-
serves nis corfespondence. Marsh swears that every time he sent him
a remittance he wrote him a letter. Every remittance had a letter
sent with it, or prior to its sending, and he received an order from this
defendant as to the mode of sending the money. Then we find that
he kept a private secretary and a letter-book, and had a memorandum
made of every letter; why is every single letter for thirteen different
transmissions of money entirely missing? It looks like the conceal-
ment of fraud. It looks as though he did not intend this matter ever
to come to light. Marsh may have allowed his letters to stray from
mere ne^lig^ce; but that every one should stray, every one be de-.
stroyed in his instance, was rather singular; but that the conduct of
the Secretary of War should precisely coincide with his seems to be
a most transcendent coincidence of negligence. How can you explain
this? ''The fact is, there never were any letters,'' the learned coun-
sel [Mr. Cabpkntbr] suggests; but the witness swore there were.
Which do you taket The learned counsel says there were no letters
except this one, except official letters. We sent to the War Office
and got all the papers relating to Fort Sill, and not a single letter
concerning the transmission of any money appears there. Then they
were not official letters, and the theory of the counsel is not true.
He says there were no letters at all; but the witness swears that be-
fore every remittance he made he sent a letter substantially in form,
'' I have a remittance for you from the S. W.'' There is not a single
one of all these. Mr. Evans swears that he always wrote to Mr. Marsh
for any favors he got, and Mr. Fisher swears to the same, and Mr.
Marsh swears that ne always transmitted those letters to the Secre-
tary of War, and they are not here. Why is it that every single letter
connected with this transaction is destroyed if it were an honest, bona
fide transaction, as they claim it was? It may do for counsel to say
"There were no letters but this one;" but the evidence is the con-
trary, and it is the truth we want, it is not the mere assumption of
assurance, but simple truth, and the testimony at that. So aVc say
here the destruction of these letters is a pregnant fact in favor of his
knowledge that this was intended to influence his official conduct,
and we have already shown, we claim, that it did influence his official
conduct, in that he acted differently in this transaction from what
any honest officer ever would in any other.

There is another peculiarity. Did you ever know a man on earth
who received^ say, $1,500 from another who never asked, " What is this
for, how do I come to get thisf '' Yet here are thirteen different pay-
ments of $1,500 each coming to this man straight along and he
never asks *' What is this for f " Very often there is Just as much in
what a man does not do as in what he does do. If a man should go
to one of you and hand you $l,500^as a man of honor would you not
ask him the very first question, ** Why do you give me that,'' and if
he should come three months after and give yon $1,500 again, would
you not ask, '' Why is this?" If you got a letter from him, '' Here is
a remittance from the S. W," you would say, " What do you mean by
sending me remittances from the S. W. t " Would you take the re-
ceipt and write on the back '' O. K." and return it without a word of
comment or inquiry t 1 apprehend there is not one man in this body
who woold ever act on such a system as that. You con Id not and you
would not receive thirteen different payments of $1,500 on such sig-
nificant communications as that and never once ask what they meant.
How preposterous it is for men of sense to ask the Senate of the
United States to assume that this man was not concealing something,
and if he was concealing something what was he concealing t Simply
bribery, simply crime. It takes more credulity than any one should
ask of a human being to believe that this man was not nolding back
something, was not concealing something.
But another fact. After the Tribune article the Secretary of War

says to Mr. Marsh, and the only communication we find between them
apparently, " Have you a contract with Evans f " " Yes," says Marsh,
" I have a contract." Then the whole conversation ceases. "I have
a contract." There is all the communication there was between them
apparently in reference to this matter. He did not ask anything
more about it ; bnt his counsel, [Mr. Blair,] with that confidence in
the statement of his client which has characterized him all through,
says he thought there was a partnership. He was getting $1,E00
quarterly from Marsh for this same transaction. Would he not think
there was a partnership with him, too ; and if the partnership was
with him, too, he getting the half of the profits, was it not bribery t
It needs no precontract for bribery ; it needs no statement, " Here. I
am handing you a bribe." The best evidence in the world that the
thing was not a bribe would be such a statement as that. But it is
the gift, and according to Holy Writ, "Thou shalt not take a gift."
Bril^ry always assumes the form of a gift, and it is a gift that blinds
the eyes of even the wise, and how fearfully blind was this defend-
ant. It always has been known as a gift and always will be known
as that. So that here this man has only taken a gift, and yet see how
eccentric his conduct. If I get an honest gift I feel like proclaiming
it to the world : I say " My friend has done me this kindness, given
me this gift ;" I am proud to proclaim his generosity and love. But
if a man should come and give me thirteen of these gifts in succes-
sion, in the shape of quarterly and semi-annual payments, and I was
doing a wrong in office with reference to that matter^ I should hate
to ask any questions about it and would be equally reticent in regard
to answering any.

Then can you. Senator^, in any way account for this, or any portion
of this conduct, on the theory of this defendant's innocence 7 If you
can I am glad to see you do so, because I have no feeling of unklnd-
ness for the man.

But there is another system of facts connected with this case. In
the first instance these transmissions were made in the shape of ex-
press packages from C. P. Marsh, but after this New York Tribune
article it then becomes more complicated and gets to be R. G. Carey
& Co. There is but one payment ever transmitted in the name of C.
P. Marsh after the time of the New York Tribune article. Why t Be-
cause " this transaction is becoming a little noted, and the name of
Marsh does not sound well in connection with the Secretary's and
we will call it *R. G. Carey & Co.;'" and yet this Secretary receives it
from R. G. Carey &, Co. and never asks anything about it. Is not that
singular T

One of the payments he sends West is invested by Mr. Emery in
niiuois. That is in his own name until 1874, before the Tribune arti-
cle, and then after the newspaper notoriety it becomes the wife's. That
is another circumstance that would indicate that there must be some
cause for this change. " It is coming toward publicity^ and the Sec-
retary says I must shape my facts to suit the scandal ix it does come
out." That was the order of this transaction.

Then, again, we find on the 22d day of November, 1875, when a
democratic Congress is likely to come in, he makes a report in which
he recommends a repeal of this whole law, showing, as he reasoned
in his own mind, "I do not wish this thing inquirod into; I am op-
posed to this law." He wanted to make the people believe that he
had no intei'est in the law. He never thought of that until the 2241
of November, 1875 ; and yet here was Grierson's letter in 1871, and
here was the constant complaint from 1871 to 1975; bat it took him
four or five years to find out that the law was a wrong and a fraud,
and that discovery was only made at a time when tl^re was great
danger of this thing leaking out; another reason for this recommen-
dation of November, 1875. On March 14, 1875, there had been an
officer by the name of George Robinson who had been court-martialed,
and the charges against Robinson, as appears in the letter of Mr.
Robinson to the Secretary, were that he did not pay his debts to this
post-trader. He was court-martialed, and a sentence of dismissal
from the Army had been passed against him in consequenee of his
being in debt to the post-trader.

Mr. CARPENTER. I want to coixect the manager. He was cash-
iered for drawing his pay over and over and over agun. That is what
he was charged with and convicted of.

Mr. Manager JENKS. There is liot a word of evidenee of that, and

Online LibraryUnited States. CongressCongressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress → online text (page 141 of 172)