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.

  • William Alexander Hammond
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.)

    13/70
    jnrtewl of the purveyor, as required by law, »electing and purchasing these blanket,, the selection and purchase was made by the Surgeon General himself,of were purchased by bim. This attempt to get rid of the force of his pp. 170- /] testimony must fail in the presence of a letter certified from the records of the Surgeon General's office, in which it appears that the burgeon General, on the 27th of September, 1H62, states to Surgeon Cox that by the representations of Mr. W. A. Stephens, the account of W. A. Stephens & Company, amounting to about $4,400, for blankets furnished you [not pur- chased] lor Ike use of the army, about the 15th of August, has been lost, and in which letter occur the following words: The Surgeon General therefore directs that you make from your records a new bill, which you will receipt and send to this office without delay, if yon have not the means to make a com- plete bill, then transmit a receipt for the goods. The receipt here ordered so peremptorily by the Surgeon General to be made for the benefit of Wm. A. Stephens, is the certificate appended to this bill, which is now brought into court in order to destroy the testimony of Surgeon Gox. It will be noted that it did not occur to the Surgeon General, when he issued this peremptory order of the 27th of September, 1862, to venture the assertion that the blankets bad ever been purchased by Purveyor Gox. Perhaps he had it fresh in his mind then that he had ordered Gox, on the 10th of July, 1802, to make the purchase, and on the 17th had called him to account for not having made it, and. lesl Stephens might not succeed in putting his blankets upon the country, on the same clay had telegraphed Stephens peremptorily, to forward the blankets. Up to that day, who but the Surgeon General and Wm. A. Stephens had anything to do with the selection or purchase of these blankets? Had Cox ever seen them? Had he ever been advised oi their quality, or of their juice, unless it was by the letter of July 10, in which Stephens lixed the price a! $3 00 ! Ead he ever agreed to take them at any specific price ? Had he ever done anything in the matter, except that, in obedience to the order of the Surgeon General, he directed Stephens to send them forward? Perchance, when tie- Surgeon Gen- eral, in his letter of the 27th of September, used the truthful words furnished to you, [not purchased by you,] he was not fully satisfied that his letter to Stephens on this subject, to which Stephens refers, and the receipt of which he affirms in his letter of July 11, 1862, had yet been destroyed, although be was doubtless conscious of the fact that that communication did not appear of record in the Surgeon GeneraVs office. That it does not appear, and is not of record. is established by the testimony of Spencer and Thornton. William A. Stephens, the ostensible vendor of these blankets, and the p. 1210 sub-editor of Vanity Pair, testifies that he has no letters addressed to bim by Surgeon General Hammond in 1862, especially in dune and p. 1217 July of that year, which are in his control. < >n cross-examination he states that he thinks he received some letters from General Hammond, but that he destroyed them. He cannot say at what particular day such letters were destroyed, but volunteers to explain the destruction ot these letters by statin- his general habit, which was not asked tor, and although volunteered and stated is not and cannot be mad,' evidence for any purpose whatever, lie adds the significant words: - 1 never destroyed any letter from Dr. Hammond at any time subsequent to tin- commencement of the court-martial, or alter I knew he was to be trie.!. I then had no letters from Dr. Hammond in my possession; and adds, thai when he lirsl heard of accusations against General Hammond he then searched for letters Iromandtotieneral Hammond Beingfurther p. 1220 interrogated by the court as to the lime when these letters were de-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3