money being the object, the man
having money, whether loyal or disloyal, would be a victim. This
practice doubtless existed to some extent, and it was a real
additional evil that it could be, and was, plausibly charged to
exist in greater extent than it did.

THE PRESIDENT'S REPLY TO THE RADICAL DELEGATION

"When General Curtis took command of the department, Mr. Dick,
against whom I never knew anything to allege, had general charge
of this system. A controversy in regard to it rapidly grew into
almost unmanageable proportions. One side ignored the necessity
and magnified the evils of the system, while the other ignored the
evils and magnified the necessity, and each bitterly assailed the
motives of the other. I could not fail to see that the controversy
enlarged in the same proportion as the professed Union men there
distinctly took sides in two opposing political parties. I exhausted
my wits, and very nearly my patience also, in efforts to convince
both that the evils they charged on each other were inherent in
the case, and could not be cured by giving either party a victory
over the other.

"Plainly the irritating system was not to be perpetual, and it was
plausibly urged that it could be modified at once with advantage.
The case could scarcely be worse; and whether it could be made
better, could only be determined by a trial. In this view, and
not to ban or brand General Curtis, or to give a victory to any
party, I made the change of commander for the department. I now
learn that soon after this change Mr. Dick was removed, and that
Mr. Broadhead, a gentleman of no less good character, was put in
the place. The mere fact of this change is more distinctly complained
of than is any conduct of the new officer, or other consequences
of the change.

"I gave the new commander no instructions as to the administration
of the system mentioned, beyond what is contained in the private
letter, afterward surreptitiously published,( 1) in which I directed
him to act solely for the public good, and independently of both
parties. Neither anything you have presented me, nor anything I
have otherwise learned, has convinced me that he has been unfaithful
to this charge.

"Imbecility is urged as one cause for removing General Schofield;
and the late massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, is pressed as evidence
of that imbecility. To my mind that fact scarcely tends to prove
the proposition. That