Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-06-08

Grafton OF tae gfrat fS' u IL ana peculiar
hardship of MIR. Gra'aiis situation from the loss of
so lurge quantity OF bread ready for delivery"
Not the slightest evidence contained in any
communication from Mr.. King, tie Commission
crs, of their ever having authorized ''ai.y alteration
uf price in relation any bread which might be de-
vcrcd d',og the year 1923 II only appeared ,l,ut
they had autio izrd quantity 10 be PAID for which
was delivered. and never could he, at a prize
higher than the contract price.
From all the circunls ances and the papers under
consideration, was lead 10 the cuncusou that some
difficulty found framing voucher for The burnt
bread, which wonld be likely to pass the accounting
officers, inasnuch il could not bear the recent of
the Naval Storekeeper, the approval of the COM
ma ndng officer; That to obvate these difficulties
the device of adding Ike price of the burnt
bread tn other bread actually delivered was rcsor,ed
To- that Tie si"seke"pcr constructed his receipt APP
plying TO the Ghan'y Of the bread, and not TO the
price; but the Commanding Officer c,isidcrcd his ap
prevail as only tending To ell. ct the object OF the
Commissioners; and that in this indirect manner, Mr.
Hraham was to be compensated for his losses.
cannot express too strongly my repugnance TO
this covert modc OF paying away the pubic money
Who would suppose, on looking at these vouchers,
that any portion Of them was designed to pay Mr..
Gr"han Tor his burnt bread? If the authority OF the
commissioners was sufficient 10 Justify payment for
the burnt bread, it was sufficient TO aul,r:e d.
rect payment Had these vouchers passed and Mr.
Graham had come. the next day with the letter of
the commissioners i'll his hand, 6; demanded payment
Tor tue 500 pounds of bread, consumed by fire,
how could we, admitting the validity oftheir allow
ance, have refused payment: there is not an allusion
IN vouchers s,3. and 4, to burnt bread. On the con
trary 'he amounts charged n:e annexed, at certain
rate per lGobs to other bread which, wa actually
delivered in. he public store. They would nor con-
sti:mte any bar in law common sense to Mr. Ora
hams claim for burnt bread allowed by the letter of
The Commissioners.
Mr.. King has not We; produced any au thnri. from
tn. Comm ssioaers for making these over pa, rents
They do. indeed say To him. their letter of the 90 h
ut In the payment of Mr.. Contractor Graham.
Where those ''ins,ructlons,i They have never
been submitted to me-, and find them not anoru the
papers submitted 20 the President. In their ,eiIer to
ne or 2Sih Ju e, the Commissioners saw: These
Graham letter aud tn. Comm ssuncrs' letters to
Mr.. King, marked H. I, and Ky embrace oil the
correspondence on this occasion, in re alton to tic
price paid Mr.. Graham for the bread TO whcl, your
letter refers" These consequently, ore all the sin
structions given to MIR King upon the subject. /
confess cannot End in them the slightest al!tsion 10
the bread mentioned in i!lcse vouchers They appear
TO me to relate wholly 10 another parcel of bread
which was consumed by Arc.
If the instructions oil the Commissioners, dircctnr
payment Tor bread delivered at a price higher than
stipulated III the contract, produced then the
grave question would present itself Whe, her Tho
commissioners have authority by priv letters 10 ~
ter contracts which have been made after public ad-
vcrtlsement, In the manner prescribed by law. If
they can, the law which requires them to of
Ter puoc advertisement, or III open market, is q null
hty But ~ such instructions produced and il is
unnecessary 10 discuss this question
The naked truth tho ove1charscs n these vouchers ae.
intended To indemnify Mr. E,r his losses bv 6e lie
nan no claim ON tho Government for indemnity. legal e3ui.
!ane Con'IacIors are always supposed calculate all risks
10 he encountered the delivery the as chr,
io AND exact compensation adequate
They may be overaken by extraordinary accidents: bu, tese
are msor ones ,ncid lent human Air G-absn,
IN n's tlf a"a honest statement doss ae5e Gov
onuen was M s tie slightest degree the
oil his bread He II beg leave represent, to Won ,b,,
ON The TN November re:eiyed indcns So 500 lbs OF
oeao TOT Tue United states fsaie Guerrero; which, on The
18th ui ready for delivery: the c]sncnry of M
weaief was prevented from sending yard U.on-
Ha'eiy on the night Of The 18th ut ny bakeou.e were
consumed by fire. with all ie Of o.e and neav The
wno.e Contents of the he wbe were 82B bar
RES OF navy bread weighing 65GjD los, 500 of which,
vas prepared IA compliance with the above reGuist,ono 6
al individual mad contracted for this bread aud had thus
ceiofe delivery without agency fault OF
ms would he have been bound, equity or law to nav n il,
Every man. placing himself IN the Government,
H'isi answer this question i'll the negative. S
10 pay Mr. Graham for tins bread was theref,r. an ar, f
r VINO mas right TO he charitable expense
OF e public treasury Have the Nary or the
Secretary of the Navy, The President? II b,s h.e
doubted whether itself possessed s,f power TO
relieve with public money. the sufferers by ia Alexandria
certainly, nothing short of that power could inemny hr
Graham for his losses by Ere
principle. and mode The Executive aud MINISTERIAL
officers OF tie Government have right Charitable AZ the
eSSne OF The pusc much less they
IN ealing their charities wider legal and
Jar allowances The mind hardly the
ABUSES 10 wiich such Precedenis light lead
do not doubt, that the acted in this matte,
as 10 all others with honest motives Eu differ will, them as
to the authority for their
fiad M' King paid foe burnt bread directly might lave
been doubted whether he ought been pcded mon
the authority produced But claims nothing bald in
ance OF that authority He knew of (;raham's con
tract 10 allow him credit for the overchages contained in
these vouchers would sanction the trnnssc,ion ~ 80
PIE ana III mode As Executive officer am averss to all
allowances under false unintegble names Let the peo
Pile see what is done their money When wa chno -
pay or orn bread or burnt houses of their money thew
nav fghi TO know it. 1t therefore, my opinion and
e. % Ihat MI hnS ought to seek fun the Con
gess o. the United States who the guardians the public
has BEEN made y Of iey ,k Pos sanction the which
,,;a
'ch was after the report from which the foregoing
are made was submitted the President Ii has not
my view of the facts the law ~ 'e0'
is hst position IS that MIR King bound to paw tire prics
charged for this Bread because was approved bv
'he commanding officer OF The yard In another tile com
nandnS officer of the yard Norfolk stated TO you that
ooes MOI consider his approval applying price of
'es PuTchased In this think he wrons and that h.
or the price as well the quality delivery
u 90 not conceis that the uty of The Navy Agen, TO
pay an account which he knows be incorrect hoeb an
proved ny the commanding officer In case he made Tho
conrac' nmsef He that the price was So
an MOI 81 90 No approval could justify the payment of