Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-09-03

1926. payable sixty days after date and promised pay
me the balance from time to time, out OF his pay 1t
became DUE"
| Now this is what Mr.. King would have proposed or
Mr. Watkins offered on the failure, through the homes
ty or obsiinacy of the Second Comptroller of agree
ment TO divide the $3.50 l6 between them.
What would an honest, prudent man have done, sit
uated Mr. King says he was! lie paid the first
draft OF 81 900. charged il in his account for the first
quarter of 1926, and sent, up the original paper
voucher. This lie might have done without crminaly.
But would prudent, honest man have paid the Sc.
oa da't which was not even disguised by an Official
form out Of The public money? Would he have thought
oi paying out et the public money, when instructed by
me dr0t Itself TO charge IL TO 4. YotLins2 Would
he have dared charge contingent of the Navy that
winch The paper Itself declared 20 be ehargesble to i.
Wa,Sns' Ii he had entertained doubtas 10 its private
aiacer, he might in fifteen days, have obtained
explanation. At least he would have charged it in his
quarterly returns, and pm, the matter TO test Would
he have waited for explanation from 2Th May 10 tho
middle oil December, never making charge or writing
letter on the subject. Would he have dared 10 pay
another private draft of the public money, without
inquiry explanation? Would he not, between the
eep'ance and payment OF the third draft, which was
drawn at sixty days. have demanded of Mr.. Watkins
whether this and the two former drafts, on public
account
Mr. King does nothing of this. lie is not excited to
make an inquiry in relation 10 those drafts although
well satisfied that the second private that he d-
rected it not to be charged in his public account Nor
does accum ation of suspicious circumstances simu
late him 10 ask the OF these transactions in the
screen igh ,ceeks which interviewed between the
cepiance and payment of the third draft!
But how things brought 10 an issue after the
Second Comptroller refused pass the $5si2 49, In
TWO or three weeks, find MIR. King at ashingon,
! ho asks explanations; he gets an acknowledgment
that the two last drafts private transactions; he gets
Watkins motto for 81 800, and his promise 10 pay the
BALANCED
Mr.. King does admit that Mr.. Watkins acknowl-
edged the first draft to have been drawn for his
commodaon also, that it taken into the arrange
ment between them in December 1926. In relation to
This draft, he holds the following language:
"But here again the fact happens TO be, that hare
7lSUer icltHHTOlsn charge,
'cihdTalo IL. | included it, | have stated, in my
quarterly return for March 1926; and sent up the drah
Itself as voucher FOR il. Some time afterwards was
informed by note in reconcilement sent down to me
from the Fourth Auditors office, that the charge was
suspended for Wdt IF rouchr This, OF course,
surprised me not little, as knew that had sent up,
but supposed that might have been misad In the Oh
hce and would be found another time. After this,
lost sight of il some time; and 1t indeed suisse
queny omitted in my account; but only under direc-
tons OF the Department to conform my account TO theirs
as was stated the ITSELF and soon as found
it had been So directed my clerk TO insert again;
and in December last before the origin OF this conro
versy, requested the gentleman 10 make out
copy of il, and make affidavit il before the Mayor, as
he did, that might hand it along with the rest oil my
claims in the settlement of my account"
We learn, that the settlement of the account in which
this draft was first charged, did not take place until the
22d December, 1926, 1cen Mr.. King 1cos at |ydsh-
ingtOn, negotiating with Mr.. Watkins abou, these drafts
The reconcenent Of which he speaks, must have been
hondea TO him, not sent down 10 him at Norfolk NO
such letter paper recorded having been forward
ed to him. IL is conceivable, that with all the surprise
he affects, he did not ask explanation on the spot!
He did, without doubt unless indeed he fully UNDER
stood il before. Mr.. Watkins note given him in the
settlement of the drafts, is dated 9th December, only
two days after this settlement of Mr. Kings public ac-
count That this draft also included in their arrange.
ments, there cannot be doubt.
But MIR. King says, he has never withdrawn his
charge for M Did MIR. Watkins allow iR No. Has
the present Fourth Auditor allowed il, No. Is it "a
mong those rejected suspended by him, The Sccre-
ary of the Navy? No Where is it? After Mr..
Kings settlement with Mr.. Watkins in the latter part
OF December, 1926, he returned 10 Norfolk, and in
summary accompanying his for the second quar-
fer of 1897, withdrew the charge in the following
words:
"Charged in Summary Let Quarter 1926 now credit
cd Sl,0OO In the Summary, he credits the S5,-
Si2 l6 but with note stating that he considered that
claim Just, and should charge it again. which lie did,
and continued the charge until his removal from Office.
But there was no note in rsaion to the ST. 900 drai it
was dropped from his accounts, and has been
charged again from tha! day to This Whatever he
his clerk did in December last the claim pre-
sented 10 the present Fourth Auditor who never knew
that such draft had ever existed until he saw tho
check by whichi paid. Probably since he is de-
eced, Mr.. King intends 10 present ii, for his i'm
pudence increases with his exposure. Why it
Withdrawn and never again charged: II was doubtless
included IN the arrangements of Watkins and King, in
December, 1926, and considered as settled.
Whst beautiful patriot and faithful public servant
have we here, according to his account OF HIMSELF
Having paid three drafts Of the Fourth Auditor two of
them private in their form, out olthe public money, he
obtains from That officer, in December, 1896 direct
confession that they drawn for his private
lnoddilOn ct, knowing, as he now acknowledges,
that Mr. Watkins was attempting 10 defraud the Agents
or the Government, he conceas the fact from his ine-
riors in the Government and lets him go on This
Mr.. Kings patriotism and fidelity TO his Government.
With perfect knowledge that the 9TH Auditor was
practising frauds 10 apply public money TO his use,
he Keeps himself lets corruption take its swingl
Had MIR King, i'm 1926 communicated 10 the President,
as was his duty the facts which he dscloses TO the
public il BILE that the criminal and disgracc
scenes of 1927 and 1928 for which the late 18th Auditor
sentenced to imprisonment, would have been
enscted. The seven rauds by him committed, would
never have been perperalcd; the $1,000 obtained bv
him and countless thousands cOrruptly allowed would
have been saved TO the Treasury. But Mr. King con.
ceas ALL continues 10 associate with this man. to treat
him as a gentleman and honest man, never a whis.
per escapes him until detected himself in paving his
private drafts out Of the public money! What does
this indicate? Must there not have been some con.
geniaty OF feelng-some community OF purpose
some desire on Mr.. Kings part, 10 profit by known
official profgacy, which could have induced this Goa
ceamcuR No stronger circumstance could DO adj
duccd TO sustain Inference. that there was per-
feet understanding between those men, in relation TO the
drafts on the extra allowsnco.
One thing is certain pure and patriotic man. sitli-
sted as MIR. King says he in December 1926 would
never have rested until Mr. Watkins removed from
office. lie would first have appealed 10 the Presi-
fore the people, But MIR King supported Mr. Watkins
supported the administration, hHOtcng as he now ae-
knowledges, that II contaminated with fraud and
corruptionl
Ought such TO complain Of removal from Officer
Tic will hcnceiorh find little sympathy with real patri-
OTIS or honest To such a patriot from Of
fee demanded by public justice, well TO protect
the morals Of the country, the funds Of the nation
from depreciation. ~ s. Tel.