Dr. A. Smyth, Superindent of the U.S. Mint at New Orleans.

Back to Search View Transcript
Document ID 9806330
Date 01-01-1893
Document Type Family Papers
Archive B. O'Reilly
Citation Dr. A. Smyth, Superindent of the U.S. Mint at New Orleans.;Copyright Retained by Brendan O'Reilly; CMSIED 9806330
25124
    "REVISED STATUTES SECTION 350"

  "The Supt's of the Mint shall give bond with one or more
sureties for the fauthful and diligent performance of the
duties of their office, also providing that similar bonds
may be required of the assistants or clerks in such sums
as the Sup't shall determine with the approbation of the
director of the Mint : but the same shall not be construed
to relieve the Sup't or other officers from liability to
the United States for acts, ommissions or negligence of
their subordinates."
  A fire occurred in the cashier's vault in the Mint at
New Orleans in the year 1893, and the Government indicted
James Dowling, the cashier in a criminal prosecution, and
and failing to convict him came back upon Doctor Andrew
W. Smyth, the Superintendent as responsible.  This was
an injustice as the criminal suit prevented the
Government from bringing a civil suit against Dowling's
bond.
  If the fire which occurred in the cashier's vault was
accidental, then Doctor Smyth could not be held accountable
for the missing moneys.  If it was not accidental Dowling,
being the criminal, should not have been acquitted.  His
acquittal was an acknowledgement that the fire was
accidental, and, if the fire was accidental, and the
paper currency burned, then, the United States lost
nothing.
  If, on the other hand, the fore was a criminal act on
the cashier's part, and certain moneys were lost to the
United States, the acquittal of dowling was an error
of the Court, and it cancelled Dowling's bond to the
Government.
  Dowling had given a valid bond with sureties for
twenty thousand dollars.
  In Doctor Smyth's case is presented the anomalous
instance of the courts of the United States giving
diametrically opposite decisions on the same question :
expert testimony.
  In the criminal prosecution against Dowling the
jury was admonished and instructed by the Judge not to
rely on expert testimony and Dowling was acquitted.
  In the second suit, brought against Doctor Smyth as
Sup't, the court, but not the same judge, held in effect
that the expert evidence of Mrs. Rosenberg, who had
been sent down by the Government to examine the
burnt currency, was sufficient proof that Dowling had
abstracted large notes in the amount of twenty thousand
dollars before the notes of smaller denomination were
burned.  The court there for (sic) held Doctor Smyth
responsible as Sup't on expert testimony, after acquitting
Dowling on the very same plea.  The First decision
of the court was wholly ignored.
  Therefore an appeal is made to Congress to redress this
wrong and to relieve Doctor Andrew W. Smyth, and by
direct appropriation to refund him such sums as he has
been obliged to pay through his bond to the United
States, and which he has repaid to his bond, viz :
$23,897.70.
  Furthermore, an appeal is made to Congress that Doctor
Andrew W. Smyth, by his eminent success as a surgeon
has rendered to the Unites States such services as
should receive the recognition which all great countries
pay to trhe men who have contributed to their fame and
lustre.  For his has been the honour to lead the
world's record in the forst successful operation for
sub-clavian aneurium, after at least a score of
failures by the most eminent surgeons to grasp the
obstacle to success.
  By his original treatment of an ailment, the operation
for which was considered, in its fatal results, by Sir
Eric Erichsen and others as an "unjustifiable operation"
Doctor Andrew W. Smyth has led the way to the alleviation
and cure of suffering humanity.
  This successful operation has an international fame ;
but at home, here in the United States, in the whole
wide South, his name is still remembered.  The poor have
blessed it for his charity and no sect or race but
recalls with sorrow that the great surgeon was made to
suffer such an injustice.
  An old man of nearly eighty he awaits the decision
that shall show him he was wrong to have tarried so long
to lay his case before his countrymen, and to ask Congress
peace and happiness in the closing years of his life.