Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-07-07

lIdShnSiOn JN1e zbtb IS4o.
SIR,The next fraud committed by DIR. Watkins
through the Navy agent at New York. was commence
ed by the following letter
Treasury DEPARTMENr, D
lth Auditors Office, Oct. 9Th, 1927
SIR,-I have this day drawn You in favor OF Chas
s. Fowler, for $500, which you will please to charge
to arreaTages prior to 1927 under which bead re
rnuance will be made to YOU immediately on the Secre
TO pay the draft out of any unexpended balance in your
hands tobe replaced the receipt Of the Treasures
femittancc.
am, Sir, very respectfully, your ob'i servt
T. WATKINS"
J. X pauljiug, Esq. Navy Agent, N. York.
This draft was sold TO Mr.. Fowler, who ia broker In
This City, forwarded 10 New York, and paid by Mr.
Pauding on the nth 0ciober--As he did not receive
the promised remittance, the Agents return for that
month, exhibited an over-payment Of $500 under the
head OF arrearages In consequence OF this, he wrote
to DR. Watkins, urging the remittance under that heal
according TO promise. Watkins plead forgetfuIness ia
his reply, an excuse for his negligence, and on
the 9th November procured reg'lisi,ion from tho Ma.
wy Department for $500, chargeable 20 arrearages, ia
pursuance of which that sum wns transmitted 10 tho
Agent.
At the close Of the quarter, Mr.. pauling returned
the draft with abstract setting forth this Payment to
The 4h Auditors Office Neither Of these papers was
ever seen by the examining Clerk, has either OF
them made its appearance in that Office 10 this day Tho
item suspended IN the settlement of the account
and statement was made out and recorded in the OF.
fee purporiDg 10 have been sent to Pauldng, which
him notice Of the suspension That paper and two
three others Of like import and sih uiIent date
yer reached theIr destination. Neither the letter OF
advice, tn" letter OF apology is recorded in that Of
Zee. II Is notorious, that Dr. Watkins withheld from
record his own letters, took the draft and abstract
before he put the into the hands Of the exam
ming Clerk, to conceal the transaction from him. sun
pressed the letter written IN pauidnr for the purgose
of concealne from him the condition of his account
applied the $500 Of public money to his own use and
afterwards procured the issue Of a requison 10 trana
fer that amount from tho Treasurer to the Navy .gens
al New York.
Thsis the case which tho third indictment waq
presented by the grand Jury II as plain case OF
fraud as the most positive proof could exhibit All The
facts herein detailed recaptuaied ia Inc insic-
ment Vet, although the Court admitted that Watkins
had got the ailedgcd sum Of public money and applied
Il to s own use, they decided that the very statements
on which they predioa;ed that opinion, vere not sc
clear and explicit 20 authorize inference Of fraudi
The very Inference which they and every other man Of
common drew from The facts set forth, they
decided not authorized by the allegations Of tho In
dirimenu No could help drawing tho inferencc
OF fraud from the facts stated. yet the Court decides
that The facts stated sufficient to authorize suclt
M inference read that decision with aslonishmcDt
am unwilling to think the Judges dishonest and vet
boy 10 me 70 have been sobe wiIdered by ecpcai
jargon invelerae prejudice 10 disre gard common
and common aw. What the facts! Or Wstking
who could never lawfully handle OF public money
except his salary contrives to get $500 out Of tie Urea
and apply u to bis own use. What cen you infor
from This bot fiaud' Yet, say the Court, tie dra1