im; that not more than a minute after that the sergeant and driver
got up and went out; that three or four minutes after they went out they
rushed back and said that the valise had been taken.

It was found that the valise and money had been taken by Parker, who had
mounted a horse and ridden away. He was pursued so closely that revolver
shots were exchanged between the sergeant, who was badly mounted, and
the thief. The sergeant alleged that he could have shot Parker if he had
been provided with a gun instead of a revolver.

The facts in relation to this subject were developed upon a court of
inquiry called for that purpose; and much of the above recited is
derived from the evidence of Major Bash himself, taken upon such
inquiry.

The following is the finding of the court concerning the conduct of the
paymaster in the premises:

That Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster, United States Army, did not give
such direct and detailed orders to the members of the escort as to the
manner in which they should guard the public money in his (Bash's)
possession while en route to Fort McKinney as the importance of the
matter required, and that he did not take the proper and necessary pains
to see that any orders which he had given on this subject were duly
obeyed.

This finding defines a case of negligence which renders the paymaster
liable for the loss of these funds. But a number of army officers,
including the members of the court of inquiry, suggest that the
paymaster thus found at fault should be relieved from responsibility.
This is much the fashion in these days.

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, wh