The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1817-01-01

partrnent.
Third. That the Office OF accountant or the
War and Navy Departments, snd Of ths
be abolished.
signed 10 ihe Navy Department..
AccoId ding 70 the modification here resom'
mended, the
Frat Auditor. will be charged with the set
tlernent OF The public accounts aeeflipR Ia
the Treasury Department.
Second AudiIor, will be charged with tho set.
tlement Of all accounts relative to the pay
and Slotbing Of the army, the subsistence g
of the officers, bounies and pre- miums, the
recruiting service, and the contingent ex-
penses OF the War Department.
Third Auditor, will be charged with the set
tlement OF oil accounts, relative 10 the sub.
sisieneo OF The army, The quarter.master's
department., the hospital department and
Tho ordnance department. Both of these
'sudiIors will keep the property acconnl
Connected with those branches Of service
10 the War Department, con6ded to them
respectively.
Fourth Auditor, will be charged with the set.
tlcment of all accounts relative to the Navy
DepariIp cDt..--And the
Fifth Aud tor, will be charged With the set.
element OF all accounts relative 10 the State
and Home Departments.
The frs, Comptroller, being relieved from
directing and experimenting the recovery
by suits Of all debts due the government,
will revise all accounts settled by the 6rs,
and 6iih Auditor.
xusi ali
ments made by the second, third aad fourth
Auditors.
The Solicitor Of the Treasury, will be charg-
ed with the recovery OF debts due the gev-
eminent, according 10 the forms prescribed
by Law.
I, is probable that experience will suggest
the proprieiy of making changes in the dis
,ribuiion OF duties among the accounting Off
GERS OF the Treasury. In order ths, :hey
may be done with facility, and as they shall
be discovered to DO neccssary,N is respect
fully recomme ndcd that The whole subject DO
left TO executive regulation.
With this organization OF the Departments
the check contemplated by the revision of
Ihe csmpDoIIsr wild b. ss vffectuai rs II can
DC made. Money will then be paid in all the
Depactmsnls upan the settlement of an au-
dior, only after il has been revised and ap-
proved by a comptroller.
If the departments shall be shos organized,
aud Fosiel with sufficient power to compel all
officers employsd in the collection or dis.
bursemeat OF the public money, to render
iheir vouchers and settle their accounts, the
annual es,tleGeeni Of tho public ACCOUNTS will
b. sxasuret, and mqrS CO tain accountability
Ia tlsfs D., M
lftho 'etsicer ens,ks,sd si,h the recovery
OF money ,mproperif detained by public OFF
oers, Was aotborixed 10 issue an execution
for the sum appearing to DO due, either upoI
settlement, or upon the failure 10 settle, when
called upon for thai pa pose, and that the eYe-
cution so ISSUED should be sa,isAsd by the
distress pnd sale of ali',he delioquents pro-
perry and that OF his securities, ono OF the
most formidable obs,scIes to the annual set
t!enen; OF the public accounts would be sur.
mounted.
IL is believed that there is no constitution.
al objection 10 the adoption of It's principle, in
relation TO the officess Of the govsrnme ent,
who improperly withhold the public money.
Under tho law imposing The direct tax, the
collector, Oh deinoi Of payment, is auihorized
TO make the smount due by the levy and sale
of the deiaulter's property. In this case
there is, on the part Of tho deiaulter, nothing
but breach ot the general implied obliga-
tion which every citizen owes 10 the COLI
muni,y,to contribute to tho wants of the State,
IN proportion to the properly which be pos
sesses. This breach may frequently be tho
result of inevitable necessity, and but seldom
brings his integrity in question. In the case
of the delinquent officers, there is, in most
cssss,a direct breach Of special confidence
involving the odious charge of pecula.ion, or
embezslemeot. Is there any reason why the
remedy Ut the government should be more
summary in toe former, than in the latter
case Is there not, on the contrary, a clear
Distraction between the two cases entirely ia
favor Of the tax deiauller Can it be consid-
cred more impor,aDi to the com n,uni,y that
tho revenue should De faitnfully and honestly
disbursed Has tho difference 10 The remedy
arisen FROM the consideration, that the one
has withhold fiom the government an hun
d,ed cents, which he ought 10 have paid,
whilst the oihcr has embezzied Thousand
dollars ofthc public money, ,hus summariy
collected There can be no doubt, that the