Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-06-08

w
his credit. With these changes Of dates, throw ing
them into other quarters, and sometimes other years.
with changes in caption. items, forms, receipts and
even amounts carried out, with one, two or three
bills made out Of different parts OF old one, how
possible 10 trace them in this office, ascertain whe
ther they had been passed to his credit or not!
The vouchers marked from (iI) to (O0) were rciec-
ted because OF their their inormaty, their
DEFICIENCIES in the proper evidences OF authority They
have not generay the Naval stor keepers receipt
the coiSmanding officers approval Many of them ap.
pear TO be passed upon private transactions; OF
have been recently altered in form, and some NAV
have been passed ohis credit, incorporated in o'herbs
IL thoy just claims. il would that they have
been presented explained and allowed long since From
SD TO Q00 they are all executed Gently in Mr.. Muir.
den's hand writing
The vouchers numbered (l0l) to (lO6) contain l.
TENS OF commissions, Sc. which were registered in
ISIS and 1872 and are now again advanced by Mr..
King. not only deem the charges inadmi-sble, but
would not, AT his late day. undertake TO re-examne
decisions then gven especially without the produc.
ton OF new evidence, which was net then before tie
Auditor.
The vouchers numbered (lOO to u73 } are again
presenedin support OF claim which rejected in
1872 So far az can discover the decson then made
wa. correct; at any rate l am not disposed to dis
turb it.
A few claims alluded to by numbers 1ID to Ul6)
have been suspended on account of deficiencies in
evidence some OF which may ultimately be passed TO
MIR, Kings credit
But experience in Mr.. Kings accounts, ad:nonishes
me 10 proceed with caution. Not only has it been
found that $3.50. % claimed by him, had long since
| y
myself deceived. He claimed $500 upon a voucher
in due form. 'or the hire of steamboat to bring des.
patches to Washington, in 1919. M, finding that il
had been passed 10 his credit submitted IL to You for
yonr deci-ion On account of the extraordinary aro
oil the charge the absence OF authority for hiring the boat,
and the lapse OF time which supposed to have
borne TO Oblivion the reasons why il not before al
lowed, you very properly rejected the claim For this
you have been made the object Of special animadvsr-
sion more thorough nvestig alton has since dsclo,
ed the fact that his claim, thong nJed in 1873
was passed TO Mr. Kings credit in $780, and yonr a.
bused decision has only prevented his twice receiving
payment for the thing.
am admonished by another case. II appears that
MI King last winter put into the hands Of his friend
and counsel, receipts for $780, paid Ichabod L. Scran
on Tor coping stone, and informed him that This claim
| had been rejected by the accounting officers. Hi.
counsel made an argument of considerable length in
favor OF the claim, treating it. supposed rejection az an
instance oil great injustice. All th, wholly gra,u.
| tous because these vouchers hal never been pre-.
| sented and of course had never been rejected Al.
though the original voucher purpcrted to be receipt
ircm Miles King and the duplicate re ceipt ON
| me United States Bank neither having the an.
prevail OF the commanding officer; yet such was thu
confidence with which the CAIN was urged, that |
thought Mr., King was homes y entitled the credit
anu told him should allow it whenever he thought
proper 10 present his vouchers 1t turns out, that
the stone was never received by the United Staes
oh ire contrary ii was found Inspection to be wholly
unit Tor the desgRed, was condemned in Sept.
last and long before tn. ldst presentation of the
claim if not before the fret delivered over to the dis
position OF Mr. King. All this Mr.. King must have
he urged this claim upon the President; and ". en-
he lately sssigrel it to the Cashier of the
Bank at Norfolk hut all This he concealed from
the accounting officers aud others, who were cal
led on 10 pass upon his claims in this city In
deed, it now appears That neither Mr.. King nor tn
bank paid the money. 1t was paid by the cashier 1t
was included in list of accounts paid in similar ay
which was handed over to the present Navy Agent
on his entrance into Office; h called for and received
money 10 pay it, but it was never presented because
not only the approval of the commanding officer could
not be obtained, but the Agent knew the facts When
on account Of these circumstances, payment was not
TO be expected at Norfolk, the claim troush hit to
WASHINGTON, and through a concealmsnt OF the true
slate OF the case, might have been allowed IL was
not unit! a few days ago, that the truth was known.
Alter these examples feel it my duty not hastily
10 pass any oil the suspended items to Mr.. Kings
credit. -
The following extracts from my report to you Of jan
uary oh 1880 explain the reasons why certain over
charges oil L Graham, for bread first suspended by
The Second Comptroller, not passed to Mr. Kings
c edit viz:
alt appears, that Mr.. T, Graham of Norfolk on H..
3Ist dav OF December 1927, enterd mo contract with
Miles hing, Navy agent, acting behalf Of the Ma.
Wy Commissioners. 10 furnish such supplies of Ma.
Wy bread at Gopor Virginia, might be required dur.
ing The year 1928, the price of 81 81 per hundred
pounds.
The accompanying vouchers, 2, 3, and ~ purpori
to he Tor bread delivered in pursuance of this contract
during The months o November and December 1928
On comparing the price charged and receipted for
with the contract every item, except the first in No 8
appeared TO be oyercharg:d, s 97l-2 per huodred
1
ingly suspended, and Mr. King called on for expia.
ne tons.
In his reply, addressed TO under date of June 30,
IoZ9, ne Gays, 81 enclose extracts of letters from the
Navy Commissioners allowing Mr.. Graham something
dddihondl on the price Of hs bread in consequence
| ~ ms losing so much by fire, and in some treasure
| owing to its not being received when ready."F.
The hr-t extract bears date December 9th 1928 ard
ays:"Ihe Commissioners have received letter from
MT Graham informing them Of the oss Of bis bake hou-
se and the destruction of So 500 pounds of Navy bread
which had been prepared Tor the Guerrere thew have
decided TO allow him for this bread the same terms
stated IN their letter 10 you of the l4h uIt uron your
receiving satisfactory evidence that this quantity had
| been prepared under The requisiiion"
The other extract is dated November H. 1925 and
says In consequence Of he riae in the price of flour
since offers 10 furnish Navy b. end for 1929 were made
me bakers generally have Withdrawn their Offers We
have hadan asreemen with baker in Baltimore upon
TIE following terms, viz: Considering the price OF SUI
lne Hour 10 be sc per barrel then the price bread
made OF line flour and The hest middngs in equal por
IONS 10 DC IL cents pound, Increasing tic pce
40 cents per 100 lbs for every dollar the price may
above six dollars and deducting As cents pei
| below six dollars"
Mr.. Kings statement was, that the commissioners
mad allowed Mr.. Graham something additional in The
Wice 81 ms bread IN consequence Of his losing so
much 6y fire." but the evidence produced TO sustain
this statement, showed that the Commissioners instead
OF allowing higher price TO- the bread which might
be actually delivered in 1929 decided TO paw Mr. Gra
summed 6y JITe, according TO the terms of a contract
made Tor the supplies of 1929. The evidence adduced
therefore, did not apply TO the vouchers which were moi
| Tor burnt bread, but for bread dcfualIu deIUeyed
10 obtain further light the subject, addressed A
h0'e 10 the Navy Commissioners, requesting copies Of