Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1830-07-12

4
taken on board, with The time, place, and from
whom received" &c goes on to add from hi !.
own memory: We certainly took ON board
large quantity of rice, presume about as
much as is charged in MI. Waddes's bill. which
would supply The ship for about SIX months -
tie says, further, | have examined the abstract
book snd accounts of Mr.. King, from October.
1913 TO June 1919, which embraces oil the
Time The Congress was here in commission,
and believe that two ilerces of rice 1921 lbs
furnished October 3, 1878, is the whole auanIi
~ charged IN them either 10 the Congress, or
Navy Yard The decouni Of Mr. Udddeu is
mol Charged This was surely suffit lent 10
establish all that was wanted, as ii showed
clearly that had bousb, the rice for the service,
Nlactually delivered II, bmyet had never char
ged Tor II on my books. But, besides this,
exhibited 10 he Auditor the Mon,hly Return
OF the Siorekeeper for January, 1919, in which
the Two tierces OF rice mentioned by Darfaeb
as charged on my books. embraced ia the ac-
count OF SEYMOUR and alEo 6 5g4 lbs. OF rice
corresponding exactly with the weight Of the
| ! iierces embraced IN tue account OF Waddry,
are noted sfeceiUed for and delioered on board
" The trigaie Congress. Here, then, is full and
perfect proof of the iact---(to saw nothing OF
that Hat book is inches loog, &c. into which
our Auditor bias probably looked before tins,
aud found the same thing proved over again }
aud now then. This clam must be allowed. But
not IS rejected (Ser documents q. r.
Our Auditor proceeds E" Many Of them appear
10 have been based upon priv te lransactnns'
Tho fdct is that two OF thfee only are made
out against me Individually for ARTICLES furnish.
ed for the service for example No %, for two
barrels of Irish pork, by James Wllluughby
lH 10. ~ ! j.,
that form, but to be traced on the books and
IN all the instances, The tact that Me, wee
furnished for The public service, was proved by
The storekeepers book, Some OF them have
been recently altered in form yes in form,
ut not ia substance, and that for the very pur
pose of curing the intormaity" which is oh
jecied 10: =" and some mny Nre bsen passed TO
his cred, Incorporated IN other bulls but il
they had been so, ii must have appeared on his
books IN one account or other, and yet he has
rot found them 10 any " II they were just
Claims II would seem that they would have
been presented, explained and allowed long
since" bur the evidence before him was com
pete to shew that they tgere just, and had been
overlooked, aud 50 never presented before mud
that therefore, they ought to have been allowed
now " From (SD 10 Q0O they are all exc.
cuied recently IN NJ Murtsn'S hand writing !"
Yes, 10 put them in form He objects to ihtm II
they are not an form, aud yet will nOi allow
them 10 be put iHt0 it, This is fGe justice ~
deed
" The vouchers numbered (lOl 10 (l06) con
lam rems OF commissions, &c. winch were
registered in 1915 aud 1919, aud are now a.
gam advanced by Mr.. King. | not only deem
III" charges inadmss1e, bot would not, at this
late day, undertake 10 re-e1amlne decisions
then given, especially without the production
of new evidence which was moi before the Au-
dnor.' The items OF commissions here spuken
OF are small Sums charged 20 me by that nsme
ia the accounts Of Owen a. Gibbons. &c. or the
price of goods which they imported from Bal
Iiinore Tor the use Of the Navy, aud which,
beiieving them 10 bo van ana proper charges
aud the accounts heing approved by the coEI-
maHding officer, did act hesitate 10 pay. The
ressonnbienesS of the charges was obvious on
TIE face Of the accounts as IL was evident that
the merchants must have some compensation
Tor Their service Ia importing the articles and
whether they got il In the name nf commission
or the Baltimore prices, or involved Kin new
prices of their own, nade 40 SORT of difference
that could see The thug was SO plain in it
self that il neither required, nor admitted. any
- new evidence" e. support il.
The vouchers numbered 100 10 1l3)
are sgain presented in support Of claim
which was rejected IN 1919. SO FAR as | eau
discover the decision then made was correct :;
Of any rate ammo disposed To disturb IT.
The decision then made wa, plainly incorrect,
SO far as | was concerned, who had paid the
money which claimed by order OF the com
manding officer Of the yard hot as our Auditor
was Il! ann rate not disposed 10 disturb IT,. il
-, no rav -pIf Xpry
bic 10 inquire whether il was correct, O. moi !;
and ON cerlalhy "ot disposed 10 lei it alone
NV second attempt 10 deceive the honeis
Auditor was in the case al The stone, which IS
thus reported by him: Il appears That Mr.
King lost winter, put inio tde hands o. ms
friend and counsel, receipts Tor S1bo pad
Ichabod l.. Scran.on, for coping stone, and
informed him that this claim had been rejected
by the accounting officers. lis counsel made
an argument ni considerable lengthin favor Of
the claim, treating ats supposed rejection as an
in stance of great it, justice. All this was wholly
eratnitous, because these vouchers bad never
been presented, and of course had never been
rejected. Although The original voucher pur-
ported to be receipt from Miles klng, and
the duplicate was a receipt from the u. States
Bank. neither having the approval OF the con-
manding officer yet, such was the confidence
with which the claim was urged, that thought
Mr.. King was honestly entitled TO thr credit,
and told him should allow it whenever he
thought proper TO present his vouchers. II
now inrns out that the stone was never receiv-
ed by the U. States. On the contrary, it was
Ieund. on inspection, to he wholly unfit Tor the
use designed. was condemned IN September
last, and was, long before the last presentation
O. the claim. if not before he first, delivered
over 10 the disposition OF Mr.. King. All this,
Mr.. King must have known when he took the
advice Of counsel when he urged his CLAIM
upon the President and when he lately as
signed il TO over the Chashisr OF the Bank NJ
Nsrfolk but all this he concealed from me
accounting officers and others who were called
on to pass upon his claims in this city
Indeed, it now appears that neither Mr.. hing,
nor the Bank, paid the money. 1t was PAD
hv the Cashier. Il was included on list OF &C
counts paid in similar way, which was handed
over to the present Navy Agent, on his en-,
trance into Office he called for and received
money 10 pay it, but it was never presented
because not only the approval of the command
I'm