Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-07-23


when he discovered that other Agents, in former
times, had been allowed more than he had He then
made out the Fl S, bill, and presented it TO the exam
ming clerk In this office, for So 600 ,ohom any cred
az. 1t vas not until the clerk produced to him the
voucher, showing that S3.255 had been already al
lowed, that he entered the credit for that At
last the bill was not made out according to The crcu
lar which he adduces to support it. Ynat paper
thorzed the Agents at Boston, &c, to charge 81 500
per year. .ut he charges $4,000. He charges $500
tor extra clerk hire from April lst 6, April LIST.
1875, amounting to 81 200, which is not sustained
even by the poor apology that it was authorized TO be
made to other Agents. The first authority given any
one for such charge is the letter to the Agent at
New York dated 9Th June. 1926. He, therefore,
not only claims tina, the law of ,her cases shall be
applied to his own, but that for the whoke o. his claim
shall be made retrospective than gear, and
| tor the greater part of 1t more than nine.
Mr.. King would have stoutly resisted the applica-
ton to his case, of the allowances authorized the
| agent at Baltimore. Yet it might he maintained,
that those allowances are just applicable tn him,
as those made to the Navy Agent at New York.
In TRUTH each Agent eutii- to such Office en-
penses as the Secretary in his discretion thought
proper to allow; nor has any enc right to look be-
yond his own case for the rules which should regulate
! his charges. As well might man claim sum of
money from the Treasury ,cithoat tav, because Con
gress have Jy ta,o, given money to another under
like circumstances.
Mr. King has for everal years been allowed 81 900
tor cerkhire, and $500 for extra clerkhire, have
good reasons to believe, that he generally gave his
principal clerk not more than $500 and that when
he employed extra clerk which was but seldom he
paid him at the rate Of $500. Under the name of
clerkhire, therefore, his emp,ments have been in
creased from 5000 to 8 0oo per year, above the lin
It prescribed by law Not content with this he char
ges as clerkhre Sl0,345 more, not dollar Of which
ever was paid for clcrkhre and if allowed ii would
go to swell his emolumeHts that much more beyond
their lawful limit.
These facts and principles are, think sufficient
to show, that the charge of SlO345 for office expen
her orfif md uol,
Mr. Kings statement relative to the deraueemcnt
OF the differ mt heads Of appropriation in his accounts
IL substantially Though IN direct violation of
positive law it formally tie practice of the NAVY
department, when any appropriation ran snort, to
draw on others to make up the deficiency. Though
the law expressly requires that the Agents shall ac-
count for all sums Of public money under the heads
stated In the remittance, yet they cannot he much
biamed for accounting under other heads, when posi-
accfytnst'cted 10 apply the moneys rpmi,ed 10 9TH
or purposes But Che false balances thus created do
not III the least afert the general balance of the
gent 8 hly and quarterly returns CHEESE should
er1,ffY agree, well i'll the balances under eacn
head OF appropriation, as in the general balance
| The reasons given by Mr.. King for a Discrepancy
OF p45,oOO between his monthly and quarterly re-
turns, on the 30ih June 1890 are, that he had maid
out moneys OH allotmens, and made advances to con-
tractors and Dealers which, though repofted as ey
pcnditures IN his monthly returns were not includad
IN bis quarterly, because he transactions were moi
complete, and lie could not procure tho uecese,r,
vouchers.
| In this statement alSo there is some truth Pbe
practice IN relation to ai!onents is in general as he
states. Advances to some extent to desers and con.
tractors were doubtless made by him But this practice
is III direct violation law No advance or paymen,
Should be made, except for articles delivered or ser.
wees rendered and upon aa,cers icich ,pould enfi.
sae 4gent to a cred" in this o8ios. These vouchers
should be returned with the accounts of thc ru.rtars
IN which they paid Il Is easy also. as the nre
sent agent al Enrfolk now does to set forth in eacl
quarterly RETURN the amounts paid on allotmen,s anl
rot charged. If this be done, and proper vouchers
taken for all payments no monthly and uuarterl,
returns may exactly agree. Yhere may. withont
blame to The Agent, be small discrepancies They
VIII be enlarged in precise proportion to the improper
payments made or his neglect to take proper vouch
ers Whenever they amount to $4,000, honestly o,
dishonesty, 1t is time for Government to secure its
own interest by change of Agents
| directed strict examination of Mr. Kings &C
counts With the view of asccrtaining what amour,
was outstanding the 30tf # June 1899 in MONEYS
Paid on aiotments and as advances which were moi
charged In his quarterly returns up to that day
The whole amount according to his receipts was
about 1000. Deduct this from S45 600 and there
yet remains discrepancy of ssS COO not accnnnted
for by mr. King. do not wish to be understood
that the statement of Er. Kings advances is pre-.
cisely correct. II is impossible to ascertain them
WITH precision but they cannot be materially great
than the amount stated
In his explanation upon this point Mr. Rim, cow,
the department, to save itself from the Iersble
trouble OF examining many separate receipts re-
qnired the Agent to send up such vouchers for the
whoie Suns Which can only be obtained when the
work n hand other business is comD!etea n tho
department has ever required any such course from
AlI sing am yet stranger to the fact. have not
yet iound the instance i'll which Secretary of the
navy or fourth Auditor has required the Navy Agents
ot TO send up their accounts and vouchers quarterly
Vnere the lazy expressly requires that they shall If
Such d requisiioh has been made upon Mr King, be
can easily prove it by publishing the letter or order
ahu DS that means esonsrate HIMSELF at least par
nom the mputation of disregerding the laws
Eor the extravaganza of his acquisitions for nonev
upon the Navy Department prior to his removal, he
H,ahes an EFFORT to cast the responsibility upon the
Captan OF the Yard. who approved them At that
time most men had implicit confidence in MIR KINGS
integrity and accuracy. One Captuin Of the NAVY
vehtured to- approve bills twelve years on his bare
Word, gttcT ms removal; it is surprising there
tore, That arfther confded in his estimates and an
proved his requisltions, before breath Of suspicion
haa reached hsun. Whether his acquisitions were ey
taravagant or not, may be judged by the following