Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-08-20
RNMGEIDGANc
THE ANSw Err or MILES KING,
To the Reply of tie tM .luaitcr.
(coSrINUED.)

(COETINUEDO
10 the old charges relating to NV conduct
IN my subsequent attempts my accounts with the
Department. And the FIRST OF these was the nsnuaton
Of the honorable Secretary, that had GEOGRAPHICALLY
as he termed it, am account for clerk hire, &c which
had been formerly allowed TO me- 'wi,h the items con-
sleably increased in amount in answer 10 which
simply stated the reasons which had led me TO ed
vance my claims for additional allowances these i
Tens and which more particularly remarked, had
submitted to the Secretary himself, laying the
count before im-(ss the accou- itself since publish
ed in the Documents, A. p. IS, conirns) The point
men, that was considering not exactly whether
my new charges Tor these things ought To have been
allowed, but only whether there any ground for the
unworthy reelection that had been cast upon me for
bringing them iorward though be sure id incidcr-
tally show that they altogether rea enable and lust
Now, Auditor in lie fcudng his friend here choos 10
forget the point OF the controversy altogether on which
he admi's OF course, that his honorable colleague was
iuexcusahle and goes off TO argue at great length at
the claims ought not 10 be allowed. This however, is
another question which intended 10 have argued, on
my SIDE, when the case comes on. In the mean uIne,
am satisfied to upon what have already said con.
corning it, may add, however, in answer TO his state
mcnis about these extras that lie IL quite accurate
in saying, tat" generally gave my principal clerk not
NOR. than $500, and when employ ed an extra clerk
which was but seldom paid him the rate of < 1901
The fact is, that for several years paid my principal
clerk $1,000 and my second $3.50, besides cnploy-
ing extra ones occasionally and paying hem Of course,
for their services. At the time, too, actually
paid $500 year for Office for years. and vi
4 forwards used tenement OF my own which had been,
and might still have been, rented for $500 year
Yet Tor clerk hire, office rent, aHd ether extras, have,
az yet recciI ed other allowance but that of 90 2S5
from ,he year ISIS TO the year 1920 (6eng about $500
year, and $1,000 year since that PERIOD together
with $500 additional from the year 1926 whilst the a.
gents for Boston, Philadelphia and New Yoik, as our
Auditor admits, have all been allowed 81 500 a wear
from the year 1917, and the Agent for New York an
additional sum OF $500 year from 1925, Tor the same
things although the business Of any Of their Agen-
ccs has rarely equalled and has usually fallen far shct
Of that Ct mine. But there, then any just ground
OF discrimination against ne? And if the order which
nave quoted applied 10 them only in its terms is it not
clear that il embraced me also in its spirit! And did
my being ignorant Of that order, my neglccting 10
claim the benefit Of ii at the proper time bar me from
doing so At later period, when altered circumstances
had made il both necessary ard proper that should in
sst upon all my rights? Then as 10 what our Auditor
says, that the allowance o. these extras is not founded
Immediately on law, but depends entirely the discre
ton Of the Secretary, competent Judge has de-
sided az he reports HIMSELF that the Secretary has the
discretion under the law; and I'll will agree that he
should exercise it in fair and impartial manner. Ner
could tho Incra accident Of the Departments having
passed into new hands at all affect my right in Justice
TO have the actual incumbent exercise il in that manner
IN my case For the rest If our Auditor ia right in say
ing that 'tle original object of ihs allowance was 10
cover actual Office expenses" shall be able 10 show
that the allowances 10 for these things have not ac
compiisacd that object And, tue other hand If he
was right in saying, in his former Report already quot
ed, that domestic Agents have been allowed round
1 DI cohuhHch' expenses Nlthout oelng required
TO produce vouchers, with the evident intsnt of swell
ing their smo!unsnts beyond $2coO' (Dcc. D. 1861 so
as to give them compensation in that way for actual
services otherwise inadequatey aIded, could east
~ shew that my claim 10 these additional allow is
sll more ju t. for my official disbursements have us,-
ally been upwards of S5C0,0O0 year; and my salary
only $1,000, or hardly 3S per cent the sums laid out
which was most evidently, an insufficient compensation
Tor thetronbie and responsibility of the seryce and hard
~ consistent indeed with the spirit Of the law
ITSELF which to have considered per cent O.
herea5outs "a proper and fair But enough this point
Tor the present
The next charge in this part of tho case was one Of
our Auditors own manufacture, though something in
me style OF his honorable friend, being gross insuua
uon mat had attempted 10 get my claims for certain j.
TENS in my account amounting 10 So $50 25 vouchers
no ~ TO (o1 inclusiye) allowed ne a second time
some years after they had been FIRST passed my credit
70 which my answer was that III believed myself that
these claims had been allowed and had certainly no
tlought 81 preierring them over again; but told
al te Auditors Cfhce, in September last that they had
not been found passed TO my credtbut were still sus-
pended, and that therefore must send mp the vouchers
to support thom;'' upon which forwarded The dunIi
Gates (having presented the originals beloreO with a
view as stated, o let the Office rccy its Supposed
omission, ii upon further examination it should be appa
rent that 1t was one; and added that had SEA st Of
hese supposed to he suspended but really allowed j.
tems, from the Auditors office So verify any state
inen on The point Now, our Auditor repeats this silly
charge and attempts TO support it, in his proper style
by string of bubbles. Thus ne denies particular
~ that any such list was FURNISHED me by him
or by any one else in his Officer and insists upon H.
as matter of great consequence that cit was never
handed 70 me-; Gas it used that expression in
relation to t) Yet, he admits after all, that ! may
nave something like it, only he is quite sure that
lwEote IT myself. His words ''ln September 1890
while was in Kentucky, he called at the office "a I
am informed and desired 10 examine his old accounts
me CLERK having charge OF ih- papers aided him in
| he examinations. dissection tf bis tetuIns heinz a
descriptive rl Of each voucher with no.ss sbeyying
ttm when they were f'jstte1 suspvrdot yas
thewn TO hi; and fem Tat with The cid OF the CLERK
! he made out lia of snrended voucher Now
Whether made oa he isi with me aid ~ he c,b >;
or tho clerk made il out for me, is evIsDtlv a mat
Ter OF no sort Of moment, except 20 FAR ~ the
STREET accuracy Of my statement concerned But
his story Is false usua, Oh lhis ANAL poin, t,r
the list which | isve with the exception Of the
two hrsi icius only, IL taiRy in ny wri-
ting, tu 10 that Of OF his clerks (See y } And
~ ibe clerk wrote u, hc must have had IL. sup
pose in bis hand, under his hand, sad tileTal
vsTy probably Z" handed 1t" rae: 90 | was sub.
But our Auditor adds, "Mr. King sst,lied himself
iha, the clerk did know that they had becn credit
Cd, and could DOT very readily ase0Ttain; ad there.
fore as Foon he reashed Norfolk HUNTED W tne
duplcae vouchers ard renewed ue xlainrs'-l Tia
! is preuy inns giaod,; but happens sksie thai he
list shows msfnorGndam lie face, vfireh falred
INK by ere clerk h'sal In these wordsi-'' TIE fsbvt
suspended 10 those qusrter bit probably corrssied
since" II s plaiD, thea that could not hive beao
intending 70 take advantage Of hi- ignorance when
further esnninsien n thu book WAS to DO had In or
der 10 aecoain whthor tie cl8rns had been alloveJ
at al and II was pretty pnly minated too fhat tley
weuh be iound 70 have been they actually were
may sod here, slso that TIE let contained fevereI
other Items, 10 ihe eroun Of four Eve fhou nd dol
eTe winch we're marked IN lie manner, ~ suspsbdeJ
hnt up comparing IL with ROY books. ny return TO
Noiiot, they were found credited on them, and &c.
cordnzy tho vouchers fof The ifems only, which were
not found credited, that dme Qhough ;bfee or four
OIL mem have been since) WIRE 'enf ~, have stat
ed' only for further inquiry The nature Of the sh ote
diDgs hen, IL entirely p0in and pJoba ~
lu' our Auditor himself has ever i,ps,;ped m
even he hip done so) thsl IL entirely iotocst,
ouglt % add however perhaps after wbathe hoe .sd,