Dr. Smyth was appointed Sup't [Superintendent]
of the U.S. Mint at N.O. [New Orleans?]
Dec. 20th 1889. he continued in office
until superceded [superseded?] by the [Van
Oreston Carle?] in or about 24th June 1893.
His bond was $100,000. His bondsmen
were Edward Conery [Connery?] & David C.
McCann. A fire occurred in the vault of the
Cashier James Dowling between Sat.
evening June 24th & Monday morning
June 26th. At Dr. Smyth's request the
Government sent down experts from
Washington to investigate the cause of the
fire & their reports were such as to warrant
the Government in bringing a criminal
suit against the Cashier James Dowling
but they failed to convict him as the
presiding Judge - [Boarman?] admonished
the jury that they should not convict
Dowling on expert testimony alone.
No other testimony could be
adduced because the fire occurred
from Sat to Monday when the
Mint was closed. On the aquittal
of Dowling the Government brought
a suit against Dr. Smyth holding
him responsible as Sup't [Superintendent]
for certain missing currency $25,000:-
Doctor's plea was a fortuitous event to wit
a fire is no way attributable to said Sup't or
his employees.
What other plea could he bring
forth? Dowling having been aquitted was
beyond accusation & his individual bond, good
& solid security had been released & the
Dr debarred from coming back upon
them.
The aquittal of Dowling refuted the testimony
of the experts, whose reports had been
such as to fortify the Government's
action. Therefore the Government's
failure to prove Dowling guilty was
tantamount to declaring that the burned
currency was of such denomination as
to make up the defecit for
which they held the Dr Smyth
liable as Superintendent.
How then could the testimony
of these very self same
experts, which was not
adequate to prove Dowling
guilty have been used to
prove a deficit for which
Dr Smyth was held liable?
Dowling was the individual
custodian of the missing money
& if the testimony of the experts
from Washington had failed
to prove that the charred
remains of the bills were
in silver certifcates of one
& two dollars the deficit of
$25,000 would have naturally
been attributed to their total
loss by fire - & neither Dowling
as cashier, nor Dr Smyth
as Supt could have been
held responsible for it.
But such was not the case. The
experts from Washington found
conclusively that Dowling was
guilty of setting fire to the
mint vault to conceal this
abstraction of certain currency in
his care. Their testimony failed
however to convict Dowling & he was
acquitted & his individual bond
was released. This self same
testimony by the self same
experts was in Dr Smyths trial
as Supt held of sufficient
proof to warrant the Government
in holding Dr Smyth liable
for missing money which was
never in his personal custody
but to which he gave the general
supervision that was required
of him as Sup't.
The Judge Parlange who held that Dr
Smyth was responsible as Sup't for the
missing currency said in his charge.
"In this cause there has been
no charge or intimation that
Dr Smyth was personally at
fault or blameable in any way.
Such fault or negligence as
may have been shown in the
cause is attributable to his
subordinates and in no manner
to him."
