Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1830-06-10

vouchers Nefe Intendfd 10 lndenihi9 NJ. VA
ham for his losses by fire lie had 40 clam
on the Government for indemnity, legal. or
equitable. Contractors are always supposed
Go calculate al risks 10 he encountered pre-
v,ous 10 the delivery OF the ARTICLES CONTACTED
for. and exaci a compensation adequate 10 CO.
yer lhem They may be oseriaken by extra
ordiuafy accidea bal ihesa are misiorinnes
Incident 20 every hing human. Mr. Graham,
in his fair aud hontst statement does not al
Ieee iiii the Cove anna n was ~ fault IN the
slightest degree. for The destruction al h,s
head Tie SAYS. = | beg leave 10 represent
10 YOU. hat On he III November. received
an indent Tor - 500 lbs. Of bread Sr the taned
States frigae Guerrero which, on the llih
nit Wasresly FOR delivery but from he M
elsmtifry ofihe me4iier loas psfreHiei from
sending Il 10 The yard Unfortunately, on the
niehi OF the I9tb al, my twp bakchauses we're
consumed by FIRE. with all the contents Of one.
aud nearly the ~ hole contents Of The oiher
among which there were s2s barrels Of navy
bread, weighing $1,000 lbs. 200 lhs of
which was prepared ~ compliance with tie n
hove requsuion," a.. II On iHdiuidunl had
contracted for this bread. and II had tins been
destroyed before delivery. without any agency
or fault OF his, would he nave been bound. N
eauiiy- or law, TO pay Tor II Z Every mea
placing himstlf IN the situation of tbe Govern
meu,, must answer This question IN The mega
live.
TO par Nj Graham for this bread, was
therefore, an act Of mere rhariiy. Who has a
righi 10 be charitable at the expense OF the
public Treasury lave the Navy Cpmms
showers. or the Secretary OF The Navy, ~ even
the President Il has been dubbed whittier
Congress itself possessed the rlghlf1 power 10
relieve, with pubic money, the sufferers by
ORE ~ Alexandria. Certainly nothing shori of
that power could indemnify MIR Graham for bis
losses hy FIRE.
In fue, consider these pavnenrs 10 Mr.
Graham as bad IN principIs, aud worse N mode.
The Executive aud Ministerial officers al tho
Government have no right TO be charitable al
the expense OF the pubic much tess are lhey
10 be oounteuapced IN conrralins their char
ties under ihe lorms OF legal and regular nj
lovsnces. The mind eau hafdl, conceive the
aggravated abuses 10 which such pTocedens
might lead.
do not dpuht, thai the Commissioners ncled
in this matter. ss III all others. with honest mo.
lives But / di1rr With them Ms TO the uuIhori
~ for their act
Had Mf hlag pad for the burnt bread d.
,ectly il might have been doubted whether
hs ought not 10 have been credited upon the
sulhoriy produced. But he claims 0uthing
paid IN pursuance IL authority. lie knew
the terms Of Graham contract. To allow him
credit for the overcharges cohtained in thes,
vouchers would be 10 sanction the Transaction il
prime pie and la mot. AS one EAecuttv,
officer, | am hvrrse to all aIiusHnces unde,
false or uniufrlleible Games. LIT thu peonle
see what is done with their money When We
choose 10 paw for burnt bread, oi burn houses
out OF their monry. Hey have d rlghi 10 know
IL. II was therefore. my opinion, and sti IS
that Nh. King ought 10 seek Tor redress from
the Congress Of the United States, who are The
guardians Of the public money. aud may, i
they think proper. sanction HE use whicn
has been made of II in the case OF MIR. Ora
ham
have read The argument of Mr.. King coun
sci On this point which was alter the rcpolt
from which the foregoing extracts are nude,
vas submitted 10 the PresldGui. |, has moi
changed nv view Of he facts OF The law.
Ills fast position is, that Mr. King was
hound 10 pay the price charged for this bread
hscansa The aceanni vas approved by the con,
maadng officer Of The yard IN another case
the Commander ofthe Yard AT Norfolk, has
stated TO you, that he does not consider bis
approvais AS applying to thu price Of article,
purchased. In this. think he 10 wrong, anc
that he is Responsible lor the price as vol a,
the quality and delivery. But, | do not con.
pay an account which he knows 10 he Incorrect
through approved by the commanding o Iicer
In tins case, he made the contract himself
He knew tint the contract prize was s. 81 -
and no, 81 So. M approval could Justify tn,
payment al price, other than ihe contrac
price. Nor SHOULD the Agent who paid I'M
money, with II full knowledge OF the fact and
without an ehort 10 correct the error, now bt
permitted 10 shield himself under The wrons
done by the commanding officer IN approvns
the accounts.
His next position is. thar Il WIS the dOiy q
Government 10 pa, Graham for has burnt brear
as tar ss n had bcen prepared upon rrquisi
tions. brcase II vas their fault that II was 40
delivered In The fiat place, no claim hai
been presented on accounof burnt bread The
case under consideration is an overcharge
on bread GetdaHy d,i,usrtd In the ne.i nlace
Graham himself, IN his bitter 10 the Commis
sIoners, does not rest his claim on any alleged
default OF the Government The only reason
given by hin for mt delivering the bread, is
the IHettmency u The Wedihtr winch prevented
his taking II to the yard. There Is uoI Il mar
ticle Of evidence that any attempt or offer
Was made to deliver il, and that the deliver,
was prevented by the refusal Of the Nayn,
Storskeeper 10 receive IL, or by any other Go
Vernhent Agent. As the assumed fact on
which the Argument IS based, does not exis,
the argument 'lsell iahs 10 the ground.
His next position is. thar i, was right TO nav
fhs nyercharge, because, had Graham delnysd
The delivery OF the bread lew DAYS il would
have been received "a 1920, and paid for as
sharged, according 10 the contract for tina,
year Is this argument seriously urged II is
sufficient s0s~ef, that Graham did moi DELAY
the delivery until 1929. having delivered il in
1928, he was ouly entitled to the coni,aci
price oil thar year. II delivery in December
will authorize payment according TO the con
tract price OF The next year, what shall prevent
the application OF the same rule 10 DELIVERIES
made IN November, September, or any other
month in thu year
In truth Graham conld not hnYe pro6ied n,
delay. His contract was toiurnisb all broad
required. &c. doring the year 1928. Tbi.
bread was required ia November ls2s. and had
he failed 10 comply "Ih The requisllion IN il
January, 1929. lie must still have been Maid ac.
cording to he contract OF the former wear.
No fraudulent delny could have profiied him !.
and II would be singular If he could cIaim tie
hPneHfs of n frpuh hacansa h.. k,.I -.