It is said that a safe should have been provided; that the paymaster
had the right to rely upon the fidelity and efficiency of the escort,
and that the two men furnished him as an escort were unintelligent
and negligent; that they should have been armed with guns instead of
pistols, and that the instructions given to the escort by the paymaster
were sufficient to acquit him of culpable neglect.
It seems to me that the omissions of care on the part of this officer
are of such a nature as to render much that is urged in his favor
irrelevant. He had the charge of this money. It was his care, vigilance,
and intelligence which were the safeguards of its protection. If he had
as full an appreciation as he indicates of the importance of having a
safe, he must have known that in its absence additional care and
watchfulness on his part were necessary, whatever his escort or his
clerk might do.
But notwithstanding all this he seemed quite content to leave this large
sum of money in the hands of those sent to him, not to have the custody
of his funds, but to guard him from violence and robbery. On the very
morning of the day the theft was committed he had found fault with the
sergeant for leaving the money in the stage while he took breakfast, and
had said to him that he (the sergeant) ought to have brought it in with
him. He here furnishes his own definition of the kind of care which
should have been taken of the money--the sergeant "ought to have brought
it in with him;" and this suggests the idea that it would have been
quite consistent with his duty, and perhaps not much beneath his
dignity, if he had taken it in himself.
Pages:
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625