Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-06-23
NILES KING. ESQ

1oS
Fhe Enquirer of yesterday, Processes 10 be- dissat,s
fed with the suf6cicncy Of Mr.. Kings explanations.
IN reply to the letter Of the Secretary of tho Nav.
and specifies two points upon which it is no, satisfied.
mo hrst relates TO the claim for contingent expcu.
ce'' advanced by Mr K. in consequence of his disco
vefiny That the same allowance had been made 10 III,
agencies ut Philadelphia, New York, and Boston
That paper says: His additional claim Of near $500
ayeoft 'r uoout 10 years, for contingent expenses, Oh
the ground that he was equally entitled to il with the
three fPeeYfed offices OF New York, Philadelphia and
Boston, can scarcely, We should imagine, DO admi,
ted"
Let us cxamine this claim, and tho circumstances
under which Nr. Is. advanced it, with fairness and
candor, and in order to that. let NJ. K. again spe.h
on the point for himself:
"bnt inc honorable. Secretary proceeds tc inform
tue House and the public, that "in addition To
thc reasons assigned on these youcher, n,
tneif Selcction, 1t may he proper to state by way OF
explanation as to q part Of them, that the salary Of
inc navy Agent is limited by law to s. 1000 per an
mum; and that all sums allowedto the Apen, over and
ABOVE TINS amount, are intends ed TO cover expenses ne.
cessariiy incurred IN the discharge of the dutios OF
ms Office, for clerk hire, Office rent, stationary. fuel
Nc" and be goes on TO add that .ip tho vonrbo,s
ai"deo 10, II appears thar the demands of Mr.. kim
10 cover these expenditures We're made from time 70
time allowed by the respective Secretaries. md tho
ssvera Sums carried to his credit on The books of the
treasury'-and yet "after a lapse of from ten In mir.
teen years these charges for clerk hire Sc arr. -.
produced, and the items considerably increased in
amount. Fhe inference which he would have drawn
nom 'he premises Is obvious enough, bu, il is his Tan
sudSe only that leads 20 it, and not the fdci. which nj.
language DISCUSSES, and a little explanation will serve
10 show that 1t would be entirely faIlacious and up-
Just For the truth on this point is, that for the first
,our yearso OF my appointment; that is from 1916 to
1871, l had brought no charge against the Govern.
Hitut IT any OF tneSC eytrnS hnt hnl pa,1 ,hor. N
out OF my own pocket; but IN the latter wear. being
informed that such charges had been always allowed
IN inc accounts OF every other Agent, ! deemed il pro-
per TO add thom alGo 10 mine, and I accordingly did
80, charging only the sum of S3255 for them all for
the four years which had elapsed, that is a little over
$500 a year At this time, however. I was not an.
priseo OF n TACT winch l discovered only in Septem-
Der or October last, in looking over the paper. rel..
ting to my accounts in the Auditors office, to wit.
that on the 9th of June, 1917 a circular had been
addressed from the Navy Department 10 the Nav
hSen,s at New York Philadelphia, Il Boston. fixing
me amount OF these eXtrasai certain specified sums
Ihat circular ls in these words:-..Sir he nnture and
eaenf " the busiiess Of your agency involves the oue,-
.on OF reasonable allowances for contingent expen-
SeS,-ano ior which you are tn distinctly understand
that the following allowances will be adn:itted in full
OF all once expenses, viz: for office rent $3.50: CLERK
nire $1,000; a porter Sa40; Stationary, Books. 60.
S,so y fuoi IND candles $50; total amount per annun
Siooo.' NOW as II was altogether clear to my mind
that This circular, although addressed TO the Agent,
al New YORK, Philadelphia and Boston alone, o1rbt.
IN all fairness, to regulate the charges at Norfolk al.
So "here "the nature and extent OF the business of
the agency made 1t obviously as applicable ard pro.
per az IN either of those other cities. and M NV oc
COUNTS were now subjected to the most captions criti-
cism on all possible points, I deemed il entirely cor
rect 10 prefer my claim for my extras according to
these established rates; and |, therefore. made out q
new account against the Department in which I char
geo them at those sums, from tho commencement of
py service, and gave it credit for the said sum of
o,Ioo COLLARS which / had already received, os for SO
much on nccOiiut Tho torn. H..
ana not exactly "reproduced," were Of course .cop
Increased IN amount but only because I |
ignorantly wronged myself by undercharg for
:nem III my iorm:r accounts. 1t may b. proper to
state' however, that this new account did contain one
single new Item, which was placed By itself. and was
TO extra clerk hire from the 10th of April 1920. to
thls date goth April 1920 at 500 dollars per annum.
4uoV; Tor as a similar charge had been allowed to
o'her navy Agents las even to myself also from that
PeriodJ ] could not see TO good reason why it should
not De allowed to me. | will only add, that the ground
on which l made ull those charges, rs given above
welc Particuiariy stated IN a note at the foot of he
account ITSELF, Which Me Secretary must haue seen
IL Is entire y clear, therefore, after this cxpl.nat,o, |
t0atcH Wa5 oYore tie Gentleman hiaiSeD, that the truth
the cose viii not countcnance the imputation
winch his phraseology has been artfuliy fashioned to
cUhVey' ana, indeed, my right TO these additional
which | claIIncd, is so apparent. Tim, I
must believe that neither the Auditor nor the Secrota-
~ would have found any dificulty in admitting II n,
ouce'I II mad not become necessary by this tiiue for
~ NNN'P''ion' " uldhe INC OUL n .CilultCr by
all possible means"
In The first place, is not Mr. KS claim TO The ad.
dlt'onai amonnt OF clerk hire, &C.. fair and reason
a1ie CLAIM? TO prove that i, is not, il must first be
proved that tue Navy Agent at Norfolk, is inferior in
dignity 6nd extent Of transaction, to the agonc,cs At
New York, Philadelphia and Boston. We have al
ways Understood, that it was second in importance 10
sfat OF New York only. Are not clerks, an office,
fuel, stationary, as indispensable at Norfolk, o. a,
the other places, and Is there any evidence o show.
less Is paid for them there, than tt other aren-
cies! lfthts be so and os tue allowance claimed by
Mr.. King, was made to the northern agencies by
competent authority, we can see no sufficient reason
Tor excluding him from tho Same rule OF distribution.
much less for pronouncing his claim unfoundcd and
unjust. That his agency, as troublesome and as
as tho others, should not have been com.
by the circular. was in all probability an
oversight Of he Government, caused by his modesiy
IN not o~btruding hinseIfen Is notice for an increase