"The War Department order dismissing captains John Ordner, Henry Pratt, Wilkerson Paige and Layton Baldwin, along with lieutenants William Snyder, Aaron Bliss, Luther Barney, Henry Field, John Hart and Theodore Weed came down while the Cavalry Corps, including the 10th New York, was on the Stoneman Raid; the convicted officers did not learn of their dismissal for nearly two weeks. On May 17, Lieut. Col. William Irvine found a line of disgruntled officers standing outside his tent. Rising to their support, Irvine took pen in hand to vouch for their character and integrity. Lieutenant Barney's case particularly angered Irvine as he had refuted the allegation during a conversation with Judge Turner in March. Irvine blamed the action on the "malignity and falsehoods of one John C. Lemmon…who stands…a man so wanting in character as not to be entitled to being believed on his oath"
Growing angrier with each letter he wrote, Irvine hit his stride writing on Captain Pratt's behalf. Displaying skills he had polished in courtrooms and political debates, Irvine declared, "The blow aimed at [Pratt's] reputation…has been inflicted by a lying malignant cowardly scoundrel for whom a just punishment would be that he be compelled to associate with himself alone till he should hate himself to death." [Emphasis added]
With the letters and denials flowing into his office, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton sent the case back to Judge Joseph Holt for review. Responding on June 2, Holt explained, "Upon an examination of all the papers in the cases it is fully established that all these officers, except Lieutenant Barney, were guilty of the offence charged…Capts. Paige, Pratt and Field…admit that during a portion of the time, covered by their accounts, they did not own the horses used by them – and they claim that their accounts were not framed with the intent to defraud the government, in as much as they were drawn under instructions from…Col. J. C. Lemmon…and it was supposed by these officers that they were honestly entitled to receive the amounts which they claimed. This plea of ignorance, inadvertence [etc.] is so often made in cases of this kind that it can only be received with grave suspicion…They present no sufficient grounds for a reconsideration of the case as respects themselves."…"
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
bases them up.
