Washington, January 10, 1827. 
Jf 
At the request of Dr. Todsen, late an Assistant Surgeon n the 
Army of the United States, I have examined: First. The ire- 
cord of the proceedings of a Court Martial held at New-Orleans 
on the 15th January, 1826, and subsequent days for the trial of 
the said Dr. Todsen, on charges exhibited against him by JLeut. 
Picked. Secondly, The certificate of I. F. M’Caleb, the counsel 
of the said Todsen, dated the 26th January, 1826. Thirdly, Sun- 
dry letters from most respectable persons, testifying high confi- 
dence in the honor and integrity of Dr. Todsen. For the purpose 
of giving a professional opinion: First, on the regularity of the 
proceedings of the Court. Secondly, on the question whether 
the judgement can be justified by any legal principles on the tes- 
timony offered. There are some alleged irregularities which, al- 
though important, do not appear to me to be sufficiently apparent, 
either by the record, or the testimony, and others, which, if truly 
stated, would not be of sufficient moment to cause any impeach- 
ment of the judgement. There are others, however, of a different 
nature, and if we take the certificate of Mr. M’Caleb, (corrobo- 
tated, as it is, by the allegation of the accused in his defence, 
and uncontradicted by the Court) to be evidence of the fact, 
which must forcibly lead us to the conclusion, that most import- 
ant errors have been committed to the prejudice of the accused; 
errors which would be sufficient to reverse the judgement of a 
court of law, and set aside any verdict on which it might have 
been founded. 
The material charges were embezzlement of hospital stores, 
and fraud in overcharging the cost of articles purchased for the 
use of the hospital. All of the other charges except three here- 
after to be noticed, grew out of them. Intention is of the es- 
sence of such a charge. Therefore, in examining it, the plainest 
rule of common justice, as well as of legal evidence, would dic- 
tate to the judges that every species of legal proof to show an 
honest intention, ought to have been admitted. But on the trial, 
one of the allegations proved, or supposed to be so by the court, 
was, that the accused had taken for his own use, some of the 
hospital stores to a very trifling amount, and to rebut this, Dr. 
Todsen alleged that, even admitting the truth of the testimony, 
which he denied, that no fraud could possibly have been intended 
because he stated, and offered to prove, that he had, at his own 
expense, furnished stores to the hospital to a much greater amount 
for which he made no charge. Yet this testimony was refused 
to be admitted. He also offered to repel a similar charge, that, 
during the period in which the offence was said to have been 
committed, he had furnished to the hospital, stores to a much 2 
greater amount than all the sums he had received. This tes' 
timony also was rejected. Some poultry, for which he had 
charged at six dollars and an half per doz., were proved to have 
been purchased by him at $4 25 cts. and although he offered 
proof to show that the additional price had been really paid for 
the expense of transportation, the Court refused to hear it. I am 
of opinion that a similar decision in a court of law to any one of 
those above stated, would have been sufficient to set aside a ver- 
dict, and any judgement rendered thereon; and that it ought to 
have the same operation on the sentence of the Court Martial, 
as the great rules of evidence are the same in the military and 
the civil forum. I forbear to mention other grounds of error, 
because those I have enumerated are so apparent, that I have no 
hesitation in giving a decided opinion, that, according to law and 
justice, the sentence of the Court Martial was erroneous, and 
voidable in law for the refusal to hear the testimony offered. 
On the second question, whether the sentence can be sup- 
ported on the testimony, such as it was, given to the Court, I 
should say, first, that knowing the importance of the testimony 
offered and rejected, it is difficult to bring the mind to such a 
state as to enable it to decide, with precision, what ought to have 
been the conclusion if the testimony had been taken, without any 
such offer of contradictory or explanatory proof as was made by 
the accused; and that, connected with such offer, I should have 
no doubt that the proof was insufficient. But placing the offer 
out of view, there are some considerations which must, I think, 
bring us to the conclusion, that the evidence offered, and receivedr 
ought not, in sound discretion, to have produced the conviction. 
These are derived, first, from the nature of the charges, and the 
character of the person. The peculations charged were of such 
paltry amount, and the character of the gentleman upon whom 
they were endeavored to be fixed, was so respectable, that the 
strongest evidence would have been necessary to support them, 
ft ought not readily to have been believed, that a man of a liberal 
profession, enjoying an excellent character, and the friendship of 
some of the men most respected in the civil, ecclesiastical, and 
military professions, could have been so depraved, as for the 
gain of a few dollars to stain his moral character, and risque the 
serious consequences of detection, which he must have known 
could not be avoided if he were guilty; because, having been 
long at variance wTith all the officers of the post, he could 
not have counted on their silence or indulgence; and the facts, 
if true, he must have known could not be concealed from them; 
when to this consideration is added, some contradictions in the 
testimony of tho witnesses, and a mode of interrogating them, 
not always calculated to elicit the truth. I think, that even as the 
evidence stands, it would have justified a sentence of acquittal on 
the charges w'hich related ta the hospital stores. There were 3 
"three others, one for placarding an officer in consequence of a 
pm ate quarrel; another for striking a camp-woman; and a third 
for disobedience of orders in not delivering the hospital books 
and instruments. To the first he pleaded guilty, and it cannot 
be believed (as nothing dishonorable in the dispute was imputed 
to Di. Todsen) that this offence incurred the punishment directed 
by the sentence. To the second the same objection will apply, 
if the offence had been proved without any circumstance to palli- 
ate it; but the accused alleges, in the face of the Court, and 
they do not contradict his statement, that he offered to prove that 
the witnesses were entirely unworthy of credit, and was refused; 
that he was not permitted to put questions in the cross-examina- 
tion tending to show that the testimony was false, and that those 
questions were, although evidently legal and proper, over-ruled. 
On the third charge the evidence was obviously defective, inas- 
much as the articles ordered to be delivered were not proved to 
have been at the time in his possession; and neither the charge 
nor the evidence implies that Dr. Todsen appropriated the arti- 
cles to his own use, or that the hospital was deprived of them. 
On the whole, I am of opinion, from the documents submitted 
to me, that the evidence offered by Dr. Todsen, in his defence, 
ought to have been admitted; and, that if it had been admitted, 
and had been such as he stated, that he could not justly have 
been found guilty of those charges which he did not admit to be 
true, 
EDW. LIVINGSTON. 
A circumstance, also, that must have the greatest weight in this 
case is, the relative state of the hospital account, which shows, 
during the time that Dr. Todsen acted as Surgeon of the post, a 
saving to the hospital of seventy-five dollars and ninety-nine cents 
as appears by the certificate of the Commissary General of 
Subsistence, hereunto unnexed. E. L. 
. Neio Orleans, January 26, 1826.1 
At the request of Dr. George P. Todsen Assistant Surgeon 
in the army of the United States, and lately stationed at Petites 
Coquilles, Louisiana, I state, that I was employed by Dr. T. to 
assist him in his defence (as counsel) before a Court Martial 
lately convened at New Orleans, of which Major Twiggs was 
President, Captains Wilson, Brady, Harney, and Lieutentants 
Shannon and Page, members, and Assistant Surgeon McMahon, 
Judge Advocate, 
The charges preferred against Dr. T. were various, and many 
of them (as will be perceived by reference to them) rested on the 
correctness of two vouchers which had been furnished during the 
months of July and August, 1825, by the Steward of the HospU 
tal under the orders of Dr. T. to the Assistant Commissary of 
Subsistence. 4 
On the trial, all the questions to witnesses were required by 
the Court to be written and then submitted to the Court before 
the witnesses were permitted to answer. One item in the July 
voucher of three dozen of fowls is stated, and charged at $6 50 
per dozen—the testimony (if I recollect shows that the price of 
(lie fowls was less, but Dr. T. alleged that he could prove, and 
put a question to a witness to that effect, to show) that there were 
incidental expenses in the transportation that caused them to 
amount lo the sum charged. The Court refused the question to 
be answered, on the ground that every item of expense should 
have appeared in the vouchers. 
Dr. T. further stated that he could show, in lieu of the articles 
he had received from the Hospital for his individual use, that 
he had supplied others equal, or greater in value, for which he 
had made no charge. The Court considered, from the character 
of the charges, it was not permitted to enter into the inquiry. 
Dr. T. further stated, that he could show that from March to 
September, 1825, he had only received a certain sum from the 
Assistant Commissary of Subsistence for the purchase of articles 
for the Hospital, and that articles to more than the amount recei- 
ved had been furnished. This the Court also refused to inquire, 
stating it, as its impression, it had no right to enter into an investi- 
gation of those facts. 
I make this statement only to declare facts. I do not pretend 
to say that the course pursued was erroneous. Had a full inqui- 
ry of the circumstances taken place, Dr. T. would, I hope, have 
been able to have shown that his motives were entirely honest, 
and his intentions free from fraud. 
J. F. McCALEB. 
Office of the Commissary General of Subsistence, 
Washington, January 18, 1827. 
Statement of the Hospital account at Petites Coquilles, from the 
1 st December, 1824, to the 30th November, 1825, under charge 
of Dr. Todsen. 
Amount due the Hospital, 30th Nov. 1824, $ 64 20 4 
Amount due 30th November, 1825, - - 140 19 8 
Amount saved, or increase of Hospital funds, 
during Dr. Todsen’s administration, - 75 99 4 
GEO. GIBSON, Commissary General of Subsistence. 
Office of the Commissary General of Subsistence 
Washington, 25th January, 1827. 
I' rom the returns received at this office, it clearly appears that 
Dr. Todsen performed the duties of Assistant Surgeon at Petite* 5 
Coquilles from December, 1824, to November, 1825, inclusive. 
When the Doctor commenced his duties, there was a balance of 
$ ()4 20 cents due to the Hospital, when he ceased to act, there 
was $ 140 19 cents due, exhibiting an increase of $ 75 99 cents. 
InJ anuary, 1825, an Hospital cowr and calf were purchased, 
which cost $ 20. The whole amount of the Hospital fund was un- 
der the controul of Dr. Todsen, and was liable to be expended on 
his requisitions. 
J. IT. HOOK, 
Maj. U. »S'. Army. 
New Orleans, Jan. 25, 182G. 
General: Though my acquaintance with you is but slight, 
and merely the result of a lucky accident, yet recollecting with 
gratitude the attentions you were good enough to bestow on me 
in the course of a short trip we made together on the Mississippi, 
I feel encouraged to obtrude my interference with you in favour 
of my friend, Dr. George P. Todsen, of the army, Assistant Sur- 
geon at the Fort of Petites Coquilles, now arraigned before a 
Court Martial, whose proceedings, I understand, are to be re- 
ferred to your superior sanction. Though the judgement of the 
Court hasnotyet been pronounced, it is, however,the opinion of 
all the friends of theDoctor, not less than of his adversaries, that 
it can hardly be favorable to him; not that the nature of the char- 
ges, such, at least, as have transpired, be in any degree alarming, 
but because prejudice and ill-will seem to have been for a long 
time hovering over his head, threatening a fatal consummation. 
Long have I at least anticipated the event, knowing the machi- 
nations used to raise him a host of enemies among his fellow of- 
ficers. Indeed, to a superior officer of your sagacity, General, I 
trust the very charges preferred and specified against the Doctor, 
wjll be the best test of the feelings under which he has been im- 
peached. 
For my part, though very far indeed from insinuating any thing 
derogatory from the impartiality of the judges, yet from a long ac- 
quaintance I have had with the character of the accused, I would 
feel no hesitation in saying that his faults, if any, are only such as 
flow from self approbation, and are perfectly compatible with the 
strictest honor and integrity. 
Under that impression, I hope you will excuse, General, 
whatever might appear intrusive in my voluntary mediation in 
his favour, and that you will be inclined to moderate, as much as 
the laws ot military government may allow, any severity exercised 
against him. J would wish him sent to some distant garrison, 
where lie would not have to struggle against the many disadvan- 6 
fages, tinder which he is unavoidably placed in this military di- 
vision. 
With great respect, I have ihe honor to be, General, 
Your most obedient servant, 
L. W. DU BOURG, 
Bp. of New Orleans. 
Mai. Gen. Gaines. 
(A true copy) 
W. B. DAVIDSON, Lieut. U. S. Army. 
Adjutant General’s Office, 
Washington, June 23d, 1826. 
Head Quarters, Western Department, 
Cincinnati, Ohio, February 25, 1826. 
Sir: The exemplary piety and profound wisdom of Bishop Du. 
Bourg of New Orleans, the writer of the enclosed letter, leave no 
doubt in my mind of the correctness of his suggestions in refer- 
ence to the standing, and conduct of Assistant Surgeon Todsen; 
the record of whose trial I forwarded by the last mail to be laid 
before you. 
Without any personal knowledge of Dr. Todsen, and with 
great respect for the officers composing his court, as military men, 
1 cannot but apprehend that in their judicial character, on this 
occasion, they may have been deceived. To give full credit to 
the testimony in support of the charges of embezzlement and mis- 
application of public money and property (testimony of which 
much appears to be of a negative character, and little or none of 
it absolutely conclusive,) would seem to imply not merely neglect 
of duty and depravity of purpose on the part of the Doctor, but 
also an absence of reason bordering on insanity. 
With these impressions I must hope to be pardoned for sub- 
mitting to you the unofficial letter of Bishop Du Bourg, who is 
esteemed by those who know him best to be one of the most ex- 
cellent of men. 
With perfect respect, I have the honor to be, 
EDMUND P. GAINES, 
Maj. Gen. by Brevet, Com'g. 
The Hon. Jas. Barbour, Scc'y of War. 
(A true copy) 
W. B. DAVIDSON, Lieut. U. S. Armyi 
Adjutant General’s Office, June 23d, 1826. 
Philadeephia, June 6, 1826. 
Sir: The bearer, Dr. Geo. P. Todsen, late an Assistant Sur- 
geon in the army, has been so unfortunate as to bo involved in 
some personal disputes, which led to a Court Martial, under whose 
sentence, he believes, that he jaiost unjustly and unmeritedly suf 7 
ifers. Dr. T. regards himself as the victim of prejudices, and of 
persecution; and the statement he makes of his case, co. roborates 
this impression. 
Dr. Todsen has been known to me many years. He resided for 
a time in my family. He is gifted with considerable natural talents, 
which he has cultivated, chiefly by his own exertions, with suc- 
cess, and possesses decided merit in the profession he has adopted. 
At the time Dr. T. resided with me, (and I have every reason to 
believe he continues the same,) he was a man of the strictest pro- 
bity and honor. Of the integrity of Dr. T. I have proofs that are 
unequivocal. Some years past, when he commenced his profes- 
sional career, desirious to aid his exertions in the advancement 
of his fortune, I gave him credit, for nearly $ 1000, on his 
word alone. He punctually performed his engagements; I have 
repeatly since heard, from very respectable sources, the most 
favorable statements of his character. The paltry charge im- 
peaching his integrity, that, alone, which Dr. T. appears to re- 
gard, must, I think, be considered as groundless and malicious. 
In giving to Dr. Todsen this letter to you, I have not presumed 
on the slight acquaintance, I had the honor to make with you, 
while in this city; but, from your well known liberal principles, 
and as the uniform advocate of the injured, and strenous opponent 
of all oppressors, I believe you will not consider it amiss, that 
your attention should be drawn to, and your interference be so- 
licited in, a case, which, so far as it presents itself to me, appears 
one of peculiar hardship. 
With profound respect, your very obedient servant, 
SAMUEL JACKSON. 
Hon. Henry Clay. 
Philadelphia, June 6, 1826. 
Being requested to express my opinion of the character of 
Dr. George P. Todsen, I have to state, that while he was a Stu- 
dent of medicine in the University of Pennsylvania, I became 
well acquainted with him, and considered him as uniting with fine 
talents and considerable attainments, great moral rectitude and 
propriety of conduct, and have since, had no reason to change this 
impression of his merits. 
N. CHAPMAN, M. D. Professor, Sfc. fyc. 
March 26, 1814. 
The bearer, Mr. George P. Todscn, is well known to me. He 
Hjls regularly attended two courses of my lectures on Materia 
Medica and on the Practice of Physic, and also the lectures ot 
other Professors in thd University of Pennsylvania. He pos- 
sesses talents, is industrious, and his character, 1 have every 
feason to believe, fair and correct. I believe him qualified to 8 
practice his profession, and sincerely recommend him, as a young 
man worthy of the notice and patronage of those among whom 
he may take up his residence. 
BENJ. SMITH BARTON, M. D. 
Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine, 
in the University of Pamsylvania. 
Philadelphia, June 8, 182G, 
Dear Sir: Permit me to introduce to your friendship, Dr,. 
Todsen, a gentleman whom I esteem much for his intelligence 
and good moral character. Dr. T. visits Washington for the 
purpose of having justice done him in relation to an affair which 
he will explain to you/ I sincerely believe him to be the victim 
of a cruel and malicious persecution, and trust that he will ac- 
complish his purposes in visiting your place. If, when you be- 
come acquainted with the circumstances of his case, you think as 
l do, and I can hardly believe that you will think otherwise, you 
will, I am confident, give him your friendly assistance in for- 
warding his wishes. 
Verv respectfully, 
J. EBERLE. 
Dr. Sewal, 
Professor of Anatomy, Washington City. 
St. Louis, le 17 \or. 1820. 
Pour tons mes amis a la Nouvelle Orleans. 
Monsieur le Docteur Todsen, Porteur de la presente, se ren- 
dant H la Nouvelle Orleans pour y exrcer la Medicine, Je me 
fais un plaisir de Pintroduire a tous mes amis comm’un homme 
en qui j’ai la plus grande confiance pour ses connaissanccs et s& 
pratique medicale. 11 a etc depuis mon arrivee A St. Louis, 
jusqu’ a son depart, le medecin de ma maison, et Je n’ai on qu’a 
me louer de ses attentions et de son zele. 
L. GUIL. DU BOURG, 
Eveque de la Lnuisianc. 
Department of War, March 15, 1827- 
Sir: The President of the United States has directed, that so 
much of the sentence of George P. Todsen, late an Assistant 
Surgeon of the United States’ Army, as requires him to refund to 
the government “ forty-seven dollars,” be remitted. 
I have the honor, &c. 
(Signed) C. J. NOURSE, Chief Clerk. 
A true copy, Ch. J. Nourse. 
To Col. Towson, 
Pay Master General