Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-02-24

II
per. Your committee enquired forthe
books in which the accounts of days
were kept, but to leir surprise, none
could be produced except small pa
per book, which served only to shew
how loose, improper and unsatisfacto-
Ty the accounts were. kept. Mr. Young
further stated, that when his affidavit
was written inthe month of December
last, which was done by Mr. Clarke,
and afterwards copied by the clerk of
the aFmory, sheets of paper, which he
conceived to be the same ON which he
saw the accounts written, were produ-
ced by Mr. Clarke; that Mr. Clarke
IN his presence, added the number of
days and made the result 14626.-
Your committee enquired for those
sheets, but they were not produced
Young appeared to be an ignorant, il
literate man, and totally incapable to
act as an accountant.
Your committee resorted to other
testimony to ascertain, the truth, but
that did not enable them to determine
the precise number of days. They
were enabled, however, to ascertain,
that in the whole, there were twenty
two hands employed, whose time OF
service varied from one month to Sc
ven years. That between. the latter
part OF 1899 and the same period in
1902, there were sometimes elevci
hands employed, generally about six
seven; that after November 1902, M
til the final close of the extra account
in March, 1907, there were generall
two, one month as many as six, ana
occasionally three or four for shor,
time, exclusive of one other person
whose whole time of service in the
period mentioned, amounts to about
two and half years.
1t also appeared, that during this
time Mr. Clarke had other work for
individuals to perform, in which his
hand, were engaged, and that the aver
age number of working days of one
person employed, for upwards of four
years, were eighteen or twenty u eve
~ month.
Your committee in order to enable
them to ascertain whether the work
/. actually performed, was worth the sum
of S297,5o 81, directed John Strobe
and Richard Young, persons stated to
be we'll acquainted with the value of
C1achinery to ascertain and value the
jwo.I performed by Mr. Clarke, at the
, al inaiactory of arms. They made
different reports, to which your COM
n>ittee beg leave to refer. They state
that a considerable portion of the work
performed and charged in Mr. Clarke's
account, as extra, was in fact, compre
hended IN the contract, aud the whole
amount at which they estimate all that
was done, including contract and ex-
ira work, and allowing for repairs,
$4,000.
In their report they estimate the va
lue of tie work performed in pursu
anceof the contract, at much less than
is thereby stipulated.
Your committee solicitous to have
every view OF the subject of which it
was susceptible, az the desire of MIR
Clarke, appointed Francis Purdie and
Matthew Woodson, who assisted in
performing part of the work, the
former as journeyman and the latter
as journeyman and apprentice to Mr.
Clarke. The duties assigned to them
by your committee were, TO view, mea-
sure and value the work done in pur-
suance of the contract, and that which
was done on extra account. Their re-
port is totally vague, indefinite and
unsatisfactory; il neither states what
work was done under one or the other
of them, nor what is the value of the
whole or part, Except two articles,
one at 500 and the other at 300 dollars)
nor do they state the number of days
which were necessary to perform ihe
whole work. Your committee beg
leave also to refer TO their report.
With respect to the conduct of the
officers as more Immediately connect
ed with the operations Of making arms,
your coz 'ittee beg leave TO state, that
although considerable exertions have
been made BY the superintendent to
select good iron. vet the mode pursied