Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-07-23

|
| Extra clcrk-hirc for do 500 5000
$4,000
1920. April lst. Bycash in part 3,255
Balance due M. King, $6,3l5"
"NAvY DEPARTMENT.,
To Miles KING, DIR.
1925. April LIST. To extra clerk hire from the
| LIST OF April, 1920, TO this date, at $500
per annum $4,000
TIhe only ground upon which Mr. King rests the JUS
ticc OF the first o these accounts is that according
circular directed TO the NAVY Agents at Boston, New
York, and Philadelphia, in 1917, such allowances
made to them; and he deems it but reasonable that they
should be extended 10 him also. The why he has
not before presented the claim to this extent Isl that he
did not until the Fall of 1922 know that sucha circular
was in existence. He gives whatever for
charging the last item OF the first account; and in sup
port of the the latter account merely asserts that such
an allowance had been made 10 others
Neither the law of 1909, any other, authorizes-
the allowance of office expenses to Navy Agents For
many years. that law construed TO admit of al
lowancea other than the commission of one per cent
not TO exceed two thousand dollars. The first allowance
made for Office expenses rejected by the ComptTo
Ter, unauthorized by law On the 23d January 1917,
the Secretary of the Navy wrote to the Fourth Au ito,
as follows: 81 have, tupon due deberation and re-
ference to the act of Congress of March 3D. 1902 for
appointing Navy Agents, decided, that reasonable clerk
hire stationery, and office rent are charges admissible
in the settlement of Navy Agents accounts, subject,
however, tohe appreciation of this Department, when
ever you shall judge necessary to refer them for
ton.
This decision of the Secretary was sustained by the
favorable opinion of the Attorney General From that
time, although in 1919, different opinion express
cd by the Attorney General it was considered compe-
tent for the Secretary of the Navy TO fix the amount
which should be allowed to each Agent for his Office
expenses. Accordingly, the 9th June, 1917, he
addressed circular TO the Agents at Boston, New York,
and Philadelphia, to the following effect: "
"You are distinctly TO understand, that the following
items will be admitted in the settlement OF your accounts
and to be considered in full of all such expenses
arc incidental 10 the public business of the Navy Agents
Office, viz: For Office rent, $3.50; clerk-hire $1,000
n. cfatio boO- and
dies, sS60-$l 600"
No change made in the allowances TO these three
Agents until 1925. On the 9Th June, of that year, the
following letter addressed by the Secretary Of the
Navy the Navy Agent at New Yo k.
81 have received your letter of the 9TH inst, and in
consideration of the circumstances therein mentioned,
and the increase of labor be performed in your office,
you hereby authorized TO employ additional clerk,
at compensation not exceeding eight hundred dollars
per annum."
An additional clerk has since been employed by
that AGENT at salary OF $500; thus increasing his Of
fee expenses to $4,000 per year. The Agents at
Boston and Philadelphia, allowed only $780, the
power to employ additional clerk having never been
extended 10 them.
10 all other cases. far as can learn the Office ex-
penses of Navy Agents, have been fixed by the APP
Proval OF the Secretary, upon vouchers making specific
charges Thus, The allowance tc the Agent at Ports
mouth, was fixed at $500; TO the Agent at Baltimore
$685. TO the Agent at Pensacola 81 1915; and to others
different sums. Each agency has rule for itself In
this respect, the Secretary Of the Navy the lG,o
maker. That which he prescribed has bsen allowed in
each case.
MIR. Kings appointment takes date from Ist April.
1916 IL was informed, that his compensation would
be one per cent his disbursements, not TO exceed
$4,000 per aGnum II had not then beendecided that
any Office expenses allowable by law. None
were charged by him until 1919. That year bill
passed to his credit by the approval OF the Secretary Of
the Navy, allowing him for the first year of his ageH-
\ cy, 1885, for the second 8 ,260 and for the third
Sl,26O This bill was not Tor tour years as he states,
/ but for three, ending Let April 1919; and the charge
made 10y him for two years, was 81 300 per and
not 1" lees thar $780," he states. In a subsequent
account. his allowance increased 10 81 500, cores
pOndug with those made 10 the Agents at New York
aud Boston; and in 1896 without any authority what
ever the Fourth Auditor commenced making him an
allowance Of $780, for eAtra clerk hire, and finally
sd back the allowance TO the LIT January, 1925. Tho
apology for this allowance wa that the Secretary had
authorized il to be made TO the Agent al New York.
! From these facts il pAin that the whole SI0,345
claimed by Mr.. King account Of eiIce ex penses,
rests upon authority wbate, er, except his own opin-
ion OF its reasoHdbeposs The original object Of this
allowance, was TO cover actual Oicc expenses. That
IL all which conld be reasonably asked; ID was certainly
all which the Secretary of the Navy could righDuiiy
grant MIR. King does not sllege that he spent.
count OF his office, than has been diOtoed. In
deed, he acknowledges that he never thought of max
ing the charge until the fall Of 1922 when no discover
ell that other Agents, in former times had been allow
ed more than he had He then made ont the FIRST bill,
and presented il TO the examining clerk in this office,
for $4,000. Without any credit. IL was not until the
clerk produced q him the voucher showing that 1925
had been already allowed that he entered the credit
Tor that AZ las the bill made accord
ing to the circular which he adduces 10 support it,
That pdtsr authorized the Agents al Boston, &C., 10
charge 81 500 per year; hut he charges $1,000. He
charges $500 for eSifa clerk hire from Aprl 1st 1916,
10 April LIST, 1925, amounting 10 $1,000 which s not
sustained by the poor apology, tia, was author
ized to he made 10 other Agents. The FIRST authority
given sny one Tor such charge 10 the letter to the A.
gent at New York. dated oh June, 1925. He, there
fore only claims that the law OF other shall
be applied TO his own, but that for tho ohoie OF his