Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-30
From our Correspondent.
LETTER L.
WAsHINGroN, June

WAsHINGroN, June ED, 1920
Sir-obserying that You have honored my CON.
lhunicston OF the 18th inst. with place in Your
columns, shall proceed to give You in detail, the
promised facts.
The earliest aud one OF the most simple cases OF
detected fraud committed by DR.. Watkins. bears
letter to the Secretary of the Navy, OF which the
following is copy
.'4th .fudi,or's Office 9th .nareh, 1927
sir,-i will thank you 10 cause requisi;ion
TO be issued in favor of Purser Hamb!cton for
S20n0, under the head Of "pay Adoat,' made pay
able 10 my order. At the request of MIR Hamb,e,on
Tor the purpose ofpayins bis drafts on Inc to tina,
amount. T. WATKINS
Secretary OF the Navy
Without any other authority fer the act Mr.
Southland endorsed upon the letter In pencil, Let
q De done IL was done, the money was drawn
from the Treasury by DR.. Watkins and charged
70 samuel Hambleton on the books OF the 4th Au-
di,ors Office There is no order or request OF S.
Hambieton, and no drafts of his paid by DIR. Wat.
kins on Gle in the Navy Department, or in the Al,
Auditors Office; nor has Hainbeton ever charged
himself with the money, or any manner acknowi-
edged its receipt II DR.. Watkins had such re-
quest from HambieOn as he aleLgas, or il he had
paid any OF his drafts, il his duty 10 file them
N his Office, Is his authority for charging that gen.
ueman with The 5000. The absence Of every
paper OF this description, and Eambleton's orns.
SION III all the accounts rendered by him since
March iS2', TO charge himself with the money,
or IN any way 10 notice it, the drafts alluded TO
nreSui.ptiVe G.
violence, that no such drafts ever existed, and
that Hanbleton was wholly ignorant Of the whole
transaction.
With this evidence, the case was presented TO
The Grand Jury. But that body refused to act
upon 1t, on the presumption, as understand which
was certainly ccntrsry 10 every reasonable and
legal presumption, that DIR. Watkins insight have
had authority from Hain.eion : Surely, they
might as well presume that any culprit, whose
case is presented before them in the mos, agra
waited colours, has good defence, which nobody
knows any thing about and On that ground refuse
to indict him. Ii was proved that Watkins had
drawn $4,000 of public money and charged it to a
diStan, Purser, without exhibilin. the eighties,
authority for doing The only reasonable pre-
sumption that nc had none. But if lie had any,
which lie had careiessly criminally neglected
TO fiie in The public Offices, il would have formed
good ground OF defence before Petit July. II,
was not the province of the Grand Jury to pre-
su'ne he had authority when it was proved there
was none in his Office, the only place where it
could have been rightfuiy lett. Ii he had put
public papers in his private bureau. himself and
not the United States Ough, 10 be responsible for
his wrong
Blu, even This singular presumption ofthe Grand
Jury, was, few days aso, completely rcbu,tei
aud overthrown. The present 4,h Auditor had
under date of April 29th 1929, written to Mr.
iiambleton, calling his attention TO the fact of his
having been informed of this cnarge, and request
lug TO know why he had not credited the govern
ment with the So coo. Mr. Eamble,on repiie, I'M.
ever having received the money, and that he had
written letter to DIR. Watkins many months ego
requesting copy CT the document on which the
charge against him was founded, to which he had
never received any reply. No such letter be
found in the 4th Auditors Oiice, ana If ever re.
ceiyed, it must have been suppressed. Mr. Ham
bietons letter 10 the present Auditor was laid De-
fore the Jury, for the purpose of showing them
that the presumption which they had refused
te act, was wholly unounied. Sill did they al
here to their presumption. that Watkins might
have had authority, aud they refused to the
case, unless Mr.. uambietcu iims eli were sroduc
ea before them.
L shall not 20 further than the facts warrant
when say, that not one OF the Jury hesi!a,cs in
believing that Dr Watkins has received this $4,000
OF public money, charged it to Hambleton with,
out authority and dishonesty applied il 10 his own
use; yet, they refuse to find bill against him, be-
cause, contrary 10 all probability and their own
belief, he may possibly nave had authority. Why,
Sir, Petit Jury, il true 10 thcir oaths, must have
found him guilty tic evidence presented 10 the
Grand Jury The government proves that there
was no authority Tor receiving ths money aed in
the Office where ii ought to be. II is then incum
bent on DIR. Watkins 10 shew that he had autlori-
ty, and explain why IL IL not III its proper place
ii he could not DO that, Jury must take it as
proof tina. none existed and would find him guilty.
Hambietons presence would not he necessary 10
tis conviciion the absence of all authority, with
Watkins inability to explain, would be conciu-
sive. The oath of Hambleton that he never gave
the authority, could not be more So. Il is not the
habit Of Grand Juries TO require strong evidence
to indict, as Petit Juries require 10 convict But
here, Grand Jury refuses 20 adict upon evil
dence, which, without other explanations than the
unauthorized presumptons which the Grand Jury
SC. up, would inevitably lead 10 conviction. Do
not the Jury, therefore, In refusing to present this
case, exhibit cau.ioa wholly at war with the due
administration of justice anil the public safety.
/ understand that Mr.. Hamblcton is expected
in this City in few days; hut whether he will ar
rive during the session of the Court, is wholly un-
certain. Were this the only case, the effect Of
the Grand Jurys hesitation would probably be, TO
set at liberty pecuiator on the Treasury, whom
they all know to be guilty, aud enable lin TO es-
cape mcrited punishment.
The public have anaccount 10 settle with Mr..
Southland. They will require TO know upon what
principle or according TO what law it is, that he is
sued this TequisitiOn upon the simple request Of
the ith Auditor Is the bare word OF an accounting
o.hcer, without voucher, sufficient to draw from
the Treasury large sums of money, aud charge
them TO distant agents of the government! The
drafts OF distant agents officers, are generally
drawn ON the Secretary OF the Navy, and not on
the 4th Auditor. The latter has no concern with
the disbuFsing OF money, he can never rightfulIy
draw il from the Treasury; he gives no security,
lie never draws drafts, unless il be for specified
objects connected with the Naval service.-Mr. !
Sou,hard, therefore, took upon himself heavy re-
sPon-ibiiity, when upon the bare word OF DR. Wat
kins he put at his disposal 81, 900 Of the public
money. But this Is not the only case, as shall |
shew you in the progress Of these letters, in which
tie was kind TO his friends TO the detri.neHt of the |
public interest.
In my next, shall give You detail OF the frauds |
committed by Watkins in his transac lions with Mr.
PauldiDg, which have already cut such figure in |
Court. TBGt Rep
CASE OF TOBIAS WATKINS.
The Circuit court did not sit to-day. la our pa.
per Of Monday last, we announced that an ad.
i0urnment had taken place until Monday, the 22d
Irse In Of o..