WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1858
78
The statement of Mr. Page further says: "The money for which he is held responsible was not spent contrary to law, but through ignorance, in part, of regulations with which he could not have been supposed to be familiar, inasmuch as they did not relate to his duties proper, and he knew nothing of their existence; and, in part, through the errors of the steward, in whom, as above stated, he was necessarily obliged to confide much in the calcula- tion of accounts," etc. Where was his clerk? He was there, for he was paid ; the Department certifies that he was paid. This is one of the officers was retained by the retiring board as competent morally, physi- cally, professionally, and in every other way. If he was, I insist that he was accountable for the performance of the duties of every officer under his command; and it is no plea that there was remissness, of neglict, or malfeasance, in a subordinate, or that he was not familiar with their duties, for it is presumed and it is a matter of fact, that every accomplished officer is familiar with all the duties subordinate to his station. No officer would possess power and accomplishments with the rank of captain in the Army, if he was not also acquainted familiarly, so far as the required intelligence would go, with all the duties connected with a general's station. He is not professionally qualified with the discharge of the duties of an officer of his own rank, unless he is familiar with all those that are subordinate to his station. He must have gone from midshipman to passed-midshipman, to lieutenant and to commander; and he must know what the duties of a purser are; he must also know the duties of a clerk; he must be able to determine the difference between a purser's steward and the clerk of a vessel. It is presumed that the Department had prepared him, as is customary on such occasions, and afforded him all the facilities that were required for the execution of the orders and commands with which he was intrusted. For the reasons I have stated, I move that the vote passing the bill for his relief be reconsidered. [Mr. Mason spoke, stating that both bills were for small amounts of relief, the one $75, the other $354.] Mr. Houston. My friend from Virginia, I think, misappre- hends the true state of the case. The petitioner says that a large portion, perhaps all of the money, was paid out to men in advance; that is they were furnished and credited with their articles in advance of service rendered. This was contrary to regulations, and after having obtained this credit, they deserted, leaving the
,'.
•
Powered by FlippingBook