It must certainly be conceded that what then took place plainly warned him that to insure the safety of this money he must either take personal charge of it or he must at least be sure that those to whom he surrendered it were watchful and vigilant. And yet when, a few hours later, on the same day, upon arriving at Antelope Springs, he was informed by the sergeant that he did not propose to take dinner there, the paymaster almost casually said to him, "Then you stay at the stage," and he himself went to a room at the station to warm himself. When, as he went from there to the dining room, he passed the stage and saw no one near it except a stock tender, a very conservative idea of duty and care would have induced him to stop at the stage and ascertain the condition of affairs. If he had done so, he probably would have found the money there, and could have taken it in with him or watched it until some of his party came out from dinner. Instead of doing this, he himself went to the dining room, and indicated his surprise at seeing the sergeant there by looking at him sharply. However, as he was just eating his pie, nothing was said.
It is not improbable that the thief waited for the clerk and escort, and lastly the paymaster himself, to enter the dining room before venturing to take, entirely unmolested, the valise containing the money. When it is considered that after finishing his pie the sergeant came out to the stage so nearly the exact moment of the theft that, though badly mounted, he was able to approach near enough in pursuit of the fleeing thief to exchange revolver shots with him, it is quite apparent that the loss might have been prevented if the paymaster had remained a short time by the stage when he saw it unprotected, or had taken the valise in with him, or promptly diverted the attention of the sergeant from his pie to the money which all had abandoned.
When, therefore, it is said that this loss can be charged in any degree to the neglect or default of the Government, it is answered that the direct and immediate cause of the loss was the omission on the part of this paymaster of the Government, in whose custody these funds were placed, of the plainest and simplest acts of prudence and care.
The temptation is very strong to yield assent to the proposition for the relief of a citizen from liability to the Government arising from conduct not absolutely criminal; but the bonds and the security wisely exacted by the Government from its officers to insure proper discharge of public duty will be of very limited value if everything is to be excused except actual dishonesty.
I am thoroughly convinced that the interests of the public would be better protected if fewer private bills were passed relieving officials, upon slight and sentimental grounds, from their pecuniary responsibilities; and the readiness with which army officers join in applications for the condonation of negligence on the part of their army comrades does not tend, in my opinion, to maintain that regard for discipline and that scrupulous observance of duty which should characterize those belonging to their honorable profession.
I can not satisfy myself that the negligence made apparent in this case should be overlooked.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 21, 1888.
To the House of Representatives:
I return without approval House bill No. 823, entitled "An act granting a pension to Hannah C. De Witt."