Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-06-08


alteration of prco was made by he board, 10 consid
Grafton of tho greet rise of hour, aud the peculiar
hardship of Mr. Graham's situation from the loss Of
SO large quantity of bread ready for delivery"
Not the slightest evidence wns contained in any
communication from Mr.. King. or the Commission
ers of their ever having authorized "aay alteration
of price" IN relation 20 any bread which might be de-
livered during the year 1893 Il only appeared that
they had authorized quantity to be paid for which
WA never delivered, and never could TO- ut price
higher than the contract price
Prom oil the circumstances, and he papers under
consideration, lead to the conclusion, that some
difficulty found framing voucher for the burnt
bread which would be likely pass the accounting
officers, nasnuch ~ it could not the receipt Of
the Naval Sorckeeper, the approval of tho
r,anding officer that 10 obvate these difficulties
the device of adding The prco of the burnt
bread TO other broad actually delivered, resorted
to- that the storckecper constructed his receipt APP
plying TO the quantity of the bread, and to the
price; but the Commanding OGlcer considered HE ap
prevail as only tending tn effect the object OF the
Commissioners; and that in this indirect manner Mr..
Graham was Ia be compensated for his losses
[ cannot express too strongly my repugnance 10
this covert mode of paying away tho public money
Who would suppose, on looking at these vouchers
that any portion of hem designed 10 paw Mr..
Graham for his burnt bread, Ifthe authority of tho
commissioners rus sufficient Justify payment for
the burnt bread, II sufficient to authorize a d.
rect payment. Had these vouchers passed and Sir.
Graham had come the next day with The letter of
he Commissioners in his hand, & demanded payment
Tor Tho $500 pounds uf bread, consumed BY fire,
how could we, admitting the validity oftheir allow
ancc, have refused payment: there is not un nlluson
IN vouchers 23. and !, To burnt bread. On the con
trnry, the amounts charged annexed, at a ortau
rate Pcr io0bS 10 other bread, which wa- actui ly
delivered into the public store. Tney would not CON
si;ute any bar in lnw common sense to Mr. Ora
hams culm for burnt bread allowed Try the letter of
the Commissioners.
Nr. King has not yet produced any authority from
the Comm ssoners for making these over m, rlents
They do indeed say TO him. in their Letter of the 29t
ut In the payment OF MIR. Contractor Graham,
yuu complied with the instructions OF the Board.
" here are those ''ustructloDs,"t T.ev have mover
been submitted to me-, and iui them not among the
papers submitted to the President In their letter 70
n.e o! eeth ia g, the Commissioners say: These
Graham litter ind the Comm ssunors' letters to
Dir. King, marked II. l. und k Embrace all ia.
correspondence this occasion, in 10 aton TO the
price paid Mr. Graham for the bread 20 which yonr
letter rciere' 3hetr, consequently, oil the in
structions" given To Mr. King upon the subject
confess cannot find in them he sIIghtes, aluslon 10
the bread mentioned III these rUuc!rfs They appear
10 mo to relate wholly another parcel Of bread
which was consumed by fire.
IF The instructions of the Commissioners dr,cti,o
payment for bread delivered at q price higher than
Stipulated Ill the Contract, produced then Ia.
grave question would present itself whether tie
COMMISSIONERS Dave authority by priv letters al
ter contracts winch have been made after public adj
vcrtI.e1ncnt, III tho manner prescribed ky Inv III
they can, the law which requires them TO contract af
ter public advertisement, or IN open market is nu-
y' Bnt m such instructions arc produced, and it is
unnecessary To discuss this question
The naked truth s, the nvcrcharees these vouchers were
n'en"ed to indemnify MIR Graham for his ny FIRE lie
had CLAIM tie Government Tor indemnity es, mr. s,
Table Contractors always suppcsef to calculate all ,sk
10 Or encIr'. 81 previous tho delivery ihc articles CON
acted fo aud a conrcn. aeounte 10 rn,e ,,.
They he oveaken b. cStraurcafv accidents: nm the
are msoruncs incid u every thing human MIR Graham
hI far and honest not ale 20 liza, the ~
eminent fault, the slightest degree for the derc
oi his bread rte --ys, IL @ leave reI--t to vou ina,
on the Tin Nove'Scr, udsni ir 81 500 lbs OF
bread for the United frisa,e uee,c: Which on the
4ih ut was ready for delivery: from the inclemencv Of the
weather was ntod foh s1nHis yard Unfort
nate!y, the night 18Th my tr,o E, or. uTe
consumed hy fire, with Nil the and nea rv tine
WNe contents oi the o'c among which B2g har
Teis Of navy bread, weighing G3OOD bs 81 6U0 lbs of WHICH
was prepared III compliance with the rrq,st,onr &c
~ an nhVidue had Contracted for this bread and had thus
been destroyed before delivery, without any eact or % 81
MS, would he have been bound equity or a to aay f ~
Every man. placing himself IN the the Govern,
must answer this question in tle negative
oTy MIR Graham fT tins brad was therefore An nc, o.,
mere charity VINO has right 10 he artsbIe AZ tho
Of tho pu'ic Treasury? Haye the Navy ~
secretary 81 the Navy, Pfc,idenp IL 's bcsn
doubted whether Congress itself possessed The o,G ncc ~
relieve with public money, the Sufferers by fac in Aerantris
Certainly, nothing short Of that power could lndernif Air
Graham for his losses by fire. ' VA
In Snc, consider these payments to r Graham as bad in
principle, and in mode The Executive and Ministerial
officers of tie Government haze no rr be ch,Iish ~ Ia
eKrTnse of the public mach lees ihcy u be counrennnceJ
IN eonccains their charities under tie fons Of legal and rcr
lar allowances The mind hardly conceive tine aggravated
abuses to which such presidents might eah
do not doubt that The Commissioners acted in this matter
as IN all others, with honest motives Bat c.r with hq
to the authority for their I
Had Mr. King paid Tor the bnrn bread directly might have
boe doubted whether he ought have been preG ~
the auhory produced Bot claim. nothing paid m n
ance Of that authority Tie knew The OF Graham's ION
tract To ALLOW him credit for oveciargcs contained in
these vouchers woud he sanction mDsac,ion IN prnc
PIE ann IN mode AS Executive officer am avers IN a
allowances under false uninege names Let the peo
PIE see what Is done with their money When we choose IN
pay for burnt bread bunt houses Of their money tb
nave right TO know IL II was therefore, my opinion and
sun 49, that DIT hns oush n sock for redress ln the Con
gs OF the United states who the guardians Of The public
money and may, ~ they think proper sanction the use which
has been made Of II in the case Of Mr Graham"
nave read the argument OF Dir Kings OH this point
which vac after the report from which the ioreeor extracts
are made was submitted the President has Not changed
my view Of the facts OF the law
Ills h'sl position that Sl Kirs was bound to paw tile
charged Tor this bread because was approved bv
the commanding ocer Of the yard Ia another case the com
handing officer Of the yard Norfolk, stated 10 YOU thai
ne ooe not consider his approval applying the price Of
uces purchased In this, think he wrong and that N, n
responsible hr the price well the quality and delivery
but DO not coucsde, that is tho Uty Of tie Navy Agent 10
pay an account which he knows Incorrect tbo9b an
proved BY ibe commanding officer In this he made the
Contract hmseL tie knew that the contract price was a.
not No Al -. =