Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-06-08
AUDITOR KnNDALL's REPORT.

ty They have not gon"rally the Naval Storckeep-
srs receipt, or the commanding officers approval
Many of them appear tubc based upon private trans
actions nf them have been recently altered in
form and some NAV have been passed To his credit
incorporated in n hey bills Ifhcy were just clairus,
1t you'll seem taat they have been presented ex-
planned nhd allowed long since. From (Bi) to loO)
they are all executed recently in Mr. Murdcn's hand
writing
The vouchers numbered (lo To 1907 contain items
of commissions, sc. which were registered in 1915
and 1919. aud arc now again advanced by Mr.. King
not only deem he charges ina du,ssiblo but would
not this late day, under abe TO examine decisions
then given especially without the production of
evidence, which was not then before the Auditor
The vouchers numbered ti07) to (ll3,) arc again
presented in support of claim which rejected 10
1910. 80 lar a. l discover, tho decision then
mado was corrcct al any rate, am not disposed to
disturb il.
few claims alluded TO BY numbers Ni5) to (iIG,)
have been suspended ON account of deficiencies IN
''ce. some of which may ultimately be passed to
Mr. Kings credit.
But experiences in Mr.. Kings accounts, ndmonisb-
e. IN" tn proceed with caution. Not only has It been
found that S1359 25 claimed By him had, long since
hncn passed 10 hs credit; but in cases | have
found myself deceived. He claimed $500 upon a
vouchor In due form, for the hire of steamboat, to
bring dispatches tn Washington. in 1870 Not find
ing bat had been passed TO his credit, submitted
a. to you for your decision On account Of the ex-
tracrdnary nnnrc of the charge, the absence of
tburlty for hiring the boat and the lapse of time
vhch was supposed to have borne TO oblivion, tho
reasons why not before allowed you very pro-
pery rejected the claim. For this, you have been
nude the object oil special ahinadverson. y more
thorough investigation has dscosed the fact
that this clam. though suspended in 1910, passed
To Mr. Kings crodt in 1920; and your abused dcci-
sion has only prevented his twice receiving payment
tCf the thing.
am sdmnnishcG BIZ another case. II appears that
Ar hing last winter put into the hands of his friend
and Counsel, receips for 500, paid lcbabod l..
Scranton for coping stone, and informed hun tina,
Abis claim had been rejected by the accounting Off
rors Has counsel made argument of conSidera-
bic length IN favnr of the clam. treating supposed
re"ctlon an instance of great injustice All this
was wholly gratuitnu5 because these vouchers had
never been presented and of course had nevcr been
rejected Although the original voucher purpurted
to be receipt from Miles km2, and the duplicate
was receipt from he United States Bank neither
having the approval Of the commanding officer; yet
such was the confidence with which the claim was
urged, that Thought MIR King honestly entitled
20 the credit, and told him should allow il Whenever
lie thought proper TO present his vouchers. Ii now
Turns out, thai Tho stone was received % the
Nhlted States. On the contrary. il was found on
Inspection, to be wholly unfit for the use designed
was condemned IN Sept last and was long before the
last presentation Of the clnu before the first
aalvcted over TO the disposition of Mr.. King All
TINS Mr. King must have known, when he too the
advice of counsel when he urged this claim upon tho
Presidents aud when he lately assigned IT over to the
cashier OF hc bank at Norfolk; but all this he con
ccai',d from the accounting officers and others, who
Indeed It now appears that neither Mr. King nor the
h7ni pm! the money. II paid by the Cashier
~ was included list Of accounts 3ud in n similar
way, which was handed ovcr 10 the present Navy
agent on has entrance into Office; called for and
recrvcd money to pay il; butt, never presented
because mt only The approval Of the comma ndinr Off
Ger could not be cbtnin"d, but the Agent know the
facts. When, account oftheso circuls ances paw
'Icn' was not tn he expected az Norfolk, the claim
was brought ia Washington, aud through conceal
neni Of tic true sue OF the case, might have been a.
lowed u until few duys ego. that tho
tTu' wns known After these examples, ! feel IT my
duty not hnsiy to Paes ony Of the suspended items to
Mr.. Kings credit
The following extracts from rny report "a yu,i a. %
ruary 9th 1880. will explain the reasons why certnin
oVcrchargos ot l. Graham, for bread, first suspended
ny the second Comptroller, were not passed TO Mr..
Kings credit, viz:
at appears that MI. T. Graham OF Norfolk, on the
3lst day of December. 1922, entered into contract
%ith Miles King, Navy Agent, acting on behalf Of
Ihe navy Commissioners, TO furnish such supplies OF
Navy bread at Gospot. Vlrginis as might be reqnr-
ca during the year 1876, OF the pricc of$2 874 ner
hundred pounds.
gllo accompanying vouchers, ., 3, and a. purport
TO be for bread delivered in pursuance of this con-
Der, 1923.
On comparing the price charged and receiped for
with thc contract, every item, except the first in No.
g. appeared 10 be overchargcd, 81 971 per hundred
pounds or S. ,4se SIS in all This excess was accor.
dinghy suspended, and Ur. King called on for cxpla-
ps.ions.
In his reply, addressed to under date Of June
90 1892 he says Il enclose extracts Of letters from
the Navy Commissioners, allowing Dir. Graham
something additional on the price Of his bread, in
consequence Of his losing much by fire, and in
some measure owing to IFS not being received when
rCady." H.
The first extract bears date December 9th, 1928,
and says Tho Commissioners have received a letter
nom MIR. Graham, Informing them Of the loss of his
bake houses and the destruction Of 500 pounds of
navy bread, which had been prepared for the Guor-
Eiere; they have decided to allow him for this bread
the same terms as stated IN their letter 10 you of the
9Th uit, upon your receiving satisfactory evidence
shat this quantity had been prepared under the re-
QUESTION"
The other extract is dated November IS, 1928, and
sys I'm consequence Of he rise in the price Of hour
since offers to furnish Navy bread for 1899 were
made the bakers generally have withdrawn their Of
GrS. We have had nm agreement with baker in
baltimore, upon he following terms Considering
the price of superne -four to be So per barrel then
the price OF bread nude OF 6ue flour and the best