Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-02-24
!1a Ia Gents Sirgie1

maxi arrangements without check or con.
'rol) to benefit HIMSELF and to Hx the
lqnantum of his ON co,y,t,ensst,,on !.
direct hostility to justice and calculated
saovert the great ends of free and linn.
''ed government. On this subject. your
committees beg leave to submit the fol-
lowing facts:
in the month Of August, 1879, John
Clarke, being then superintendent of the
Penitentiary and armory buildings, for
which he received four hundred hounds
per annum, made contract With the Ex.
ecutive to pei fec the machinery then con.
templated as necessary. LIST. For MAX
ing hre arms, swords and bayonels. ad.
Ior putting IN motion two trip hammers
49, the machinery necessary for the max.
ing OF cannon. For The performance of
ms work, the Executive contracted 10
pay Nc. Clarke the sum of io,057 dollars
IN Certain Instruments, the last of which
became due when the whole was com.
oieted. Very shortly after the commence.
ment OF the work, various improvements
and alterations were suggesed To the Ex
ecutive by Mr.. Clarke, and he was per
mi'ted TO depart materially from the said
contract, and indeed. to use his own dis.
cre'ion IN every respect, for the purpose
Oh making, as was alledged, the work
more perfect AID complete. So high wa.
the opinion OF the members of the Ex.
ecutive' OF the talents and integrity of
Mr. Clarke, and their confidence so us-
"inl.ted, that no written or verbal stir.
u'atlons were entered into as to the work
10 De performed, or the compensation to
Dc made, nor WAS any advice entered ON
'helr journals respecting il.
further appears 10 your committee.
'hat The sum Of 8 1857 was drawn from
the treasury by Mr.. Clarke before and
during the year 1909, except an inconsd.
cradle sum which was drawn afterwards.
These sums. except the las,, were drawn
on tile certificates of Mr.. Clarke, stat,ne
that the machinery had arrived at that
s'age' when by the contract he became
entitled to the sum drawn for, which gen.
orally correspondent with some ms, aiment
stated IN the contract. The machinery
necessary TO make swords, il appears 10
your committee, vas not completed mil
1905, and that for the foondery OF cannon
is not yet completed.
FROM he month OF February, 1901 un
nj March, 1907. the sum ofS 1925 was
drawn rom the treasury, ia The name of
joseph Young, in various sums. from al
io@ 2S7 s, and generally draw.
monthly The evidence on VIII cb HES.
sums were obtained, are the certificates
ii Mr.. Clarke, sta my that the SAID Y uus
was ehti'lrd TO receive The amour, for
extra wood work done on the machinery,
fixtures and apparatus. The money =,
drawn was received by Nj. Young, who
was n the employ meat Of MIR. Clarke as
ms tore man, al s IS per month and al.
Ter paying himself and her hands en-.
ployed OIL sums from & TO 6 10 10 oer
month, paid The balance regularly 10 Mr..
Clarke.
1t also appears TO your committee.
that some OF the member of the couorJ
knew that The sums so drawn were En-
the benefit OF Mr.. Clarke, willis, u hers
appear to have been ignorant Of that fact.
1t also appears 10 your committee.
That in the month Of ID cember last. Mr.
- rke preferred claim 10 committee
oil The Executive, who were appoin ed in
hs month OF June preceding, TO examine
he sublec, respecting the machinery. in
consequence OF certain publication
against the superintendent. This claim
embraced two items one for machinery
actually executed IN pursuance of the said
contract, amounting 10 s 1867 II, and
he other Tor 1896 days work, alledped
90 be performed by the hands in the EN-.
ploym, mt of Major Clarke, a SI7s each
days's work, the aggregate sum amou,,,s
to 319 6s more than the whole sum drawn
from the treasuary in the names of Joh,
Clarke and Joseph Young. which balanc.
MIR. Clarke CLAIMED but Laymsnt his
been suspendedb by the ExecuIiyA bitner-
to, owing as was stated 10 Difference due
TO your committee the claim so far az
Il respects the 1896 dAys work, was sun.
ported by he affidavl, oflhe said Young.
Your committee arc bv no mean.
satisfied that the number of davs work
as claimed by Mr. Clarke, have been
performed, on the contrary, it i, not
only extremely doubtful, but on CON.
parison of all the evidence, il appears
almost certain, that the statement is
Inaccurate.