“It is in this document that mention is made of the character, I
might say criminal, which the name of Richardson appears to have
assumed in the affairs of Mr. Remington.”
After remarking that the witness who has thus testified has exposed
himself to the penalties of perjury, being several years of
imprisonment, the Report proceeds:--
“You see from this that the operations of Mr. Remington give only
too much of a glimpse of the most audacious frauds.”
Here is testimony tending at least to stimulate inquiry: Mr.
Remington’s books altered three times, and the name of Richardson
playing a criminal part. I quote this from an official document, and
leave it.
* * * * *
Here, then, are six different sources of testimony, all prompting
inquiry: first, the resolution of a committee of the French Assembly,
showing suspicion of American officials; secondly, the cable dispatch
of Squire, son-in-law and agent of Mr. Remington, declaring that “we
have the strongest influences working for us, which will use all their
efforts to succeed”; thirdly, the letter of Mr. Remington, reporting,
in various forms and repetitions, that he is dealing with the American
Government; fourthly, the testimony of M. Le Cesne, the Chairman of
the French Armament Committee, made in open court and under oath, that
the French “had an agreement with the American Federal Government,
which had engaged to deliver free on board all the arms on account
of France”; fifthly, the positive declaration of the London “Times”
in the face of Europe, and reported by our Minister at Berlin, that
rifled cannon and ammunition had been furnished to the French in
enormous quantities by the War Department at Washington; and, sixthly,
the testimony of a clerk of Mr. Remington, authenticated by the French
Consul-General at New York, that Mr. Remington had altered his books
three times, and also speaking of the criminal character of Richardson
in the affairs of Mr. Remington. On this cumulative and concurring
testimony from six different sources is it not plain that there must
be inquiry? The Senate cannot afford to close its eyes. The resolution
of the committee of the French Assembly alone would be enough; but
reinforced as it is from so many different quarters, the case is
irresistible. Not to inquire is to set at defiance all rules of decency
and common-sense.
* * * * *
To these successive reasons I add the evidence, which has been much
discussed, showing a violation of the statute authorizing the sale of
“the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores, now in possession
of the War Department, which are damaged or otherwise unsuitable for
the United States military service or for the militia of the United
States,”[22]--inasmuch as stores were sold which were not “damaged”
or “otherwise unsuitable.” I think no person can have heard the
debate without admitting that here at least is something for careful
investigation. The Senator from Missouri has already exposed this
apparent dereliction of duty, which in its excess ended in actually
disarming the country, so as to impair its defensive capacity. One of
the crimes of the Cabinet of Mr. Buchanan on the eve of the Rebellion
was that the North had been disarmed. It is important to consider
whether, in the strange greed for money or in the misfeasance of
subordinates, something similar was not done when good arms were sold
to France. The Chief of Ordnance, in his last Annual Report, which will
be found in the Report of the Secretary of War, makes the following
statement:--
“Now there are less than ten thousand breech-loading muskets in the
arsenals for issue. This number of muskets is not half sufficient
to supply the States with the muskets they are now entitled to
receive under their apportionment of the permanent appropriation
for arming and equipping the militia.”
Why, then, were breech-loading muskets exchanged for French gold? The
Chief of Ordnance then proceeds:--
“This Department should, as soon as possible, be placed in a
condition to fill all proper requisitions by the States upon
it, and should also have on hand in store a large number of
breech-loading muskets and carbines to meet any emergency that may
arise.”
But these very breech-loading muskets have gone to France. The Chief of
Ordnance adds:--
“Ten years ago the country felt that not less than a million of
muskets should be kept in store in the arsenals.”[23]
Why was not this remembered, when the arsenals were stripped to supply
France?
This important testimony speaks for itself. It is not sufficient to
recount against it the arms actually in the national arsenals. The
Chief of Ordnance answers the allegation by his own statements. He
regrets the small number of breech-loading muskets on hand, and refers
as an example to the standard ten years ago, when it was felt that a
million of muskets should be kept in store. It is not I who say this;
it is the Chief of Ordnance.
* * * * *
But these several considerations, while making inquiry imperative, do
not touch the money question involved. If in the asserted dealings
with a belligerent power, in violation of our neutral duties, there
is reason to believe corrupt practices of any kind, if there are
large sums of money that seem to be unaccounted for, then is there
additional ground for inquiry. Two questions are presented: first, as
to the violation of neutral duties; and, secondly, as to misfeasance of
subordinates involving money. In both cases the question, I repeat, is
of inquiry.
I do not dwell now on the sums lost by France in this business. They
are supposed to count by the million; but here I make no allegation. I
allude only to what appears elsewhere.
Unquestionably there are enormous discrepancies between the sums paid
by France for arms actually identified as coming from our arsenals and
the sums received by our Ordnance Bureau. In different reports these
discrepancies assume different forms. Not to repeat what has been said
on other occasions, I introduce the report of the acting French Consul
at New York, dated August 25, 1871, where, after showing that France
received only 368,000 muskets and 53,000,000 cartridges, while the
accounts with Mr. Remington enumerate a sum-total of 425,000 arms and
54,000,000 cartridges, it is said:--
“Whence comes this difference of 57,000 between the arms said to
be sent from here and those which were received in France, if in
fact the report of M. Riant signifies that they have only received
a total of 368,000? How explain that there were 425,000 put on the
bills of lading, and that the price of these was paid in New York?”
Now this discrepancy may be traced exclusively to French agents, so
that our subordinates shall not in any way be involved; but when we
consider all the circumstances of this transaction, it affords grounds
of inquiry.
But there is another witness on this head, not before mentioned in
this debate. I have here an extract from the official report of M. de
Bellonet, the French _Chargé d’Affaires_ at Washington, made to his
Government on this very question of losses down to a certain period.
His language is explicit: “The _dry loss_ to the Treasury of France
must have been about $1,500,000, or seven million francs.” This, be
it remembered, is only a partial report down to a certain period. Now
there is nothing in this report to charge this “dry loss” upon our
officials. It may be that it was all absorbed by the intermediate
agents. But taken in connection with the telegram of Squire and the
abundant letter of Mr. Remington, it leaves a suspicion at least
adverse to our officials.
Sir, let me be understood. I do not believe that any inquiry by any
committee can give back to France any of the enormous sums she has
lost. They have already gone beyond recall into the portentous mass
of her terrible sacrifices destined to be an indefinite mortgage on
that interesting country. Not for the sake of France or of any French
claimant do I propose inquiry, but for our sake, for the sake of our
own country. We read of that vast Serbonian bog “where armies whole
have sunk.” It is important to know if there is any such bog anywhere
about our Ordnance Office, where millions whole have sunk.
Investigation is the order of the day. Already in France, amid all
the anxieties of her distracted condition, these purchases of arms
have occupied much attention. As far back as last April, the “Soir,”
a journal at Versailles, where the Convention was sitting, called for
parliamentary inquiry. Its language was strong:--
“A parliamentary inquiry made in full day can alone establish
either the culpability of some or the perfect honorableness of
others.”