Mr. NESMITH. Every dollar of money wrung from the earnings of the people to carry on this great Government has to lie intrusted to the custody of some person, and the safe guards for the protection of the public funds and the proper custody and disbursement of those fun scannot be too great. Men seek these offices and all the security the Government can take is their bonds. I do not say there are not cases where I would vote for the relief of an officer, where he had lost money under circumstances where he had usedalldiligence for its protection, where it had been destroed by fire or captured by the public enemy. Those are cases where relief is ould be ranted; but before I would vote for the relic of an officer who had been robbed or had money stolen from him, I must have the most clear and incontrovertible evidence of it. Upon any other hypothesis you would throw the door open to the most illimit able robberies, and I apprehend in the settlement of the public accounts there will hardly be an officer who is a defaulter but will concoct some sort of a story about having been robbed. Now, sir, this case, from the brief examination that I have been able to give the report, oes not come under the category which I have laid down. I will read one sentence from the letter from Commander Paulding, which, I think, shows conclusively that this paymaster did not use due diligence. He says: "It seemsthat one day Paymuster Rittenhonso wished him” That is, the boy who helped to steal this money “to take something from a locker in the next room, taking the bunch of keys from his neck and pointin out the one which fitted the locker: the boy, who ha beenpreviously instructed by this man Bradley took a small piece of writing paper, wetted it with his tongue and took the impressionof the wards of the key of the safe; he gave radlcy this impression, antl saw him make the key out of a piece of iron.” Here is a case where a custodian of the public money having locked it in a safe, parted with the possession of the key of that safe, and put it in the hands of an irresponsible party who subsequently turns out to be o, thief. I do not think that an officer who is disbursing public money an acting with a due regard or the interests of the Government can take risks of that kind. He might as well go off and leave his safe open, if he is going to put his key into the possession of every irresponsible person who wants possession ofit. Under the circumstances, With this paragraph in Commander Pauldings letter, it is a case where no sort of diligence was exercised, and if we can grant reliefin this case we can rant relief where a man absolutely and intentionally puts his keys in the hands of a person with the intention to rob him. I do not say that this paymaster had any collusion with this party, but I do say that he manifested a disregard of the public interest, by permitting the key of his safe to go intothe hands of an irresponsible person, which should lmakc him responsible for the amount of money ost.