Reply of the judge advocate, John A. Bingham, to the defence of the accused : before a general court-martial for the trial of Brig. Gen. William A. Hammond, Surgeon General, U.S.A.

  • Hammond, William A. (William Alexander), 1828-1900.
Date:
1864
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Reply of the judge advocate, John A. Bingham, to the defence of the accused : before a general court-martial for the trial of Brig. Gen. William A. Hammond, Surgeon General, U.S.A. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    16/70
    This transaction, it is submitted, when done by a public officer, in his official character, and in violation of the express letter of the laws of his country, is a fraudulent transaction, as well as an unlawful one. By the rule of the common law any act done by a public officer, to the injury of the public revenue, is indictable. Frauds affectingthe crown and the public a1 large are indictable, though they may arise in the course of particular transactions with private individuals.—(2d Russell on Crimes, 285: Roscoe Crim. /-Jr., 339.) So it was held, where two persons were indicted for enabling persons to pass their accounts with the pay office, in such a way as to defraud the government, il was objected that it was only a private matter of account, not indictable; the court decided otherwise, as it related to the public revenue.—(Bembridge's case, cited 1 East., 13G; Roscoe, 340.) This transaction, as has been shown, affects injuriously the public revenue to the extent of $4,000, and although not indictable, in the absence of a special statute to that effect) under the government of the Tinted States, it is nevertheless a fraud upon the public revenue, not to be justified, ex- cused, or palliated, when done by a public officer, in violation of his public trust and of the express letter of the law. To avoid the effect of this matter in aggravation, Townsend, who proved himself, as the record shows, an unwilling witness for the prosecution, on cross- examination is called to testify to matter in chief for the accused ; and he ventures to say, that after he had purchased these blankets on account of Mr. Stephens, in which he had no higher interest than Ids commissions, they had risen 75 cents a pair on the twenty-two bales before they were billed to the p. 12S3 government ; as to the others lie cannot state positively, but supposes the advance upon them would have been the same if there had been any of them in the market. He says he had contracted for the blankets thirty days prior to the date of the bills charged to the government, and that this rise took place in that time. Ilis supposition as to what would have been the ad- vance upon the great bulk of these blankets, if there had been any there, is hardly evidence. Ilis statement, as to the time when the rise actually did take place is so uncertain as to leave it most probable that the Surgeon General had contracted with Wm. A. Stephens for the blankets, and that they were sold to the government before; the rise began. The eleven bales were billed to the government on the 9th of August, 1862, and thirty days before that, on the 10th of July, the Surgeon General had ordered Surgeon Cox to purchase them. The next day, July 11, 1S62, Stephens writes to Cox: I p. 1135 have to-day received a letter from the Surgeon General, in refer- ence to 4,800 pairs of blankets, of which he has samples at his office, slating you had been directed to purchase them. 1 would be obliged to you if you would forward shipping directions to me by next mail, if you have not anticipated my request. This letter shows that the transaction was closed by the Surgeon General, and nothing left to be done ex- cept to forward shipping directions. Mr. Stephens testifies, as be- pp. 1598-'99fore stated, that he had the refusal of these goods at a certain price; that he might take them or not take them; and this about the 3d of July, which was more than thirty days before the last of these goods were billed to the government, and about the time he sent samples to the Surgeon General. lie himself states in reference to these 1> iltimore blankets, p- 924 in a letter to the Surgeon General,marked private, which the prose- cution put in evidence, that the advance took place from the day of sale (meaning the day of his sale to the Surgeon General) upon the lot de- livered at Baltimore, $4,400 of which * * * was ai] \ Bave(j out of the wreck; thereby confessing, in his private communication to the Sur- geon General, that the public revenue was affected in this transaction between them injuriously and fraudulently to the amount of $4,400. The court ou^ht not to overlook the fact that this letter bear,- date 1862, although the testimony