Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-08-17

But our ingenious Auditoc, it seems. has toxen
some pains 10 imagine that my payment of these
drafts had SOM conuexion with the passing of nv
claim for the S5,si2 &c by his predecessor: and the
reader may have observed how finely he has endeu-
vored TO make conneXion betweer them, by string
OF dates. and by that beautiful and characteristic lit
tie bubble upon the words las settled" The idea
indeed, which he seems disposed to suggsst here,
Though, as usual, he has taken express it
very fully less It's absurdty should bctray it's NAL
lce appears to be, that when was in W sshngton
understanding with Mr.. Wa kins that If he would
pass my said account which was then beiore HIM
would accept his drafts for q proper portion Of the
amount. The theory Is certainly poeticai aud re-
n'c's almost equal honor upon the head and heart OF
It's author; but unfortunately for its probability and
Tor ITS intended effect, 1t is wholly inconsistent with
the facts Of the Thus in the first pI,cc IL is in
consistent with the fact that | accepted, and paid
the nrst draft for coo on the 2lst January 1926.
nGary months before the for the S. 91s 10
was passed by Mr. Watkins, on the 9th of Nav 70!
lowing, nnd before the account received IN the
AUDITORS Office, az stated, on the 18th Of February
an" even before my supposed agreement with him.
Which is alleged TO have been made about the 9Th of
May. Indeed, our Auditor himself seems to have
Deen little troubled by this fuct for he says whs-
theT he knew tina: the fist draft, paid Before his
charge Tor contingencies was settled Tor even pre-
senied, according To his shewingl was private
transaction, may be doubted" but he adrotly adds
"he must have understood it afterwards or he would
MOI have Withdrawn the charge" But here ssnin
inc happens 10 De, That have wI.hdrav.n
the charge, and never intended to Withdraw i, I
included 1t, us have stated in NV quarterly return
FOR Mdrch 1926, md sent up nc draft itself ~ \
voucher for r.-CSec No. @. ! Some time otter
wards, was informed by note III recoucIlemeut
sent down to me from the 18th AUDITORS Office that
the charge was suspended for want of n voucher =
Tins, at course, surprised me not 4 little as knew
TINT had sent ). up. but supposed that it NIGHT
have been nlslald IN the Office, and would be found
another tine. After tins, lost sight of It for some
time and vas, indeed subsequently, omitted in INV
accounts but Only under the directions Of tie Darart
mcht I" conform my account to theirs was 8 atcd
on the return itself. and as as found that II had
5een So directed my clerk TO insert it again. and IN
December last before The origin of the controversy
requested the same enIleman to make out a cspv
Of II and maxi affidavit II before the NIsyor as
ne d'f. that might maud 1t in along with he rest of
my claIS IN The settlement of my account. lSce No
o 1t Is thus apparent that have never "wIlb-
drawn The chargr for hs draft, and of course tho
conclusion, which ou Auditor has so cleverly found
ed upon his own supposllIon that had, is fairly de-
stroyed may add here that this draf al least
It Is impossible for any to suppose that rh.r.
could nave been he smallest mprOprlety in NV nav
ING Ii; for M. Watkins, as 4th Auditor. had an I'm
questionable right to draw upon mo az Navy Agent
as he did III ike manner upon Mr.. Pau,dinp the Ma
Wy Agent NJ New York and Mr. Harris the Nsv,
Agent OF Boston, who also honored his drafts, with
out even our Auditors Vcu;urng 10 lmueach their
eondnct IN s" dong. II may be remembered, also
that the Circuit Court o.. the u : alcrwards doc;
dcd IN the case Of Wa kns that tn. money drawn nv
those gents on their che ks for the payment OF his
drafts upon them, was money drawn fur pubic pur-
pose and not for private one And may yet for
thcr add, that our Auduor himself durinr nv sb,r,
public cOnneXIon with hlm, repeatedly sent IN. his
written orders to pay different persons various sums
Tor Pay" Travelling expenses" NC with drec
lions 10 charge the sums TO the heads of pay"
Contingent, Sc; and yet no one, | presume Will
DO me the gross injustice 20 suppose, for moment
That there could have been any sort Of private under
standing between this parsonage and myself npon
the point. -,
But secondly, Auditors .abricn, cd atr,nnop,.n
Is rather inconsistent with the fact hat the
ais was drawn on the OH OF May before the accoun,
was passed on The 10TH and certainly paid some time
before heard that 1t was and It likewise 4 lit
tie nconsist ent, perhaps with the fact that The sad
third draft was not accepted BY me- but oniv by n,y
CLERK IN my a5senc", and, as it would seem aGairst
my WILL AS to these however he boldly insist. unnn
that, they were certainly drawn by Mr.. Watkins for
private purposes, and that knew II when maid thor,
Ills words are II he had not well understooG
when he paid the econd and third drafts that tbev
were private TRANSACTIONS he would most surely have
charged them in his account" Now /, IS certainly
as We have seen, that these drafts were drawn for
FatSpuEposcs, and Is certain also Tint knew il; but
when did know It? MOI. certainly H. our Aud,tor
chooses 10 suppose, when paid hem; but only some
time afterwards, when mad his explanation with 81
=" a'hihs, IN Washington, III December, 1926, when
TIC auhted IT, aud gave me his note, and promised 10
pay the balance, as already stated Bcfore ths in
coed, as have said, suspected the fact: but did
not even supect 1t until after had paid the second draft
ana 1t has been socn that scruPueusy avoided char
gnS 1t to the government and determined rather "a
lose 1t myself And or the third draft, it is evil
dent from Its face that did accepl it myself and
certainly, should no. have done so if if Ind bern
presented 10 me; bat it was accepted by nv cIerl,
N my absence, and paid accordingly ONLY because
! convinced myself bound by his acceptance Gut
Hid not charge this draft either TO the Government;
Out determined NJ once to take the risk of recov
erlng 1t from Mr. Watkins on myself Now.
tn" very TACT that | did not charge these drafts
IN my account against the Government shows
conciuslyeIy that | could have no previous nm
c"TstSndlng with him about them. Tor the effect Of
E'L charging fhem 10 the Government was evident
~ 10 charge them 10 myself And accordingly
nave actually paid the amount Of these drafts out nv
own pocket IN accounting with the Government; for
Inc balance appearing due from me TO the United
States by my return for the 3Oth June 1899 which
has been assumed as the basis Of our settlement so
lar ns 1t has proceeded, was obviously greater than
IL wound have been If Ind charged these drafts by
exactly thor whole amount. BIi surely now. if I
had intended TO pay FOR these drafts myself in pcrsn