Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-08-06

the allowances in the foregoing table, but more par,icu
larry 10 Illustrate the which has Gen pursued b,
,ne accounting Offices for the Navy Department, togeh
win the effects OF taking precedent for law and
suehng an appropriation however obtained, sufficient
authority for expanding the public money!
Case Of Allen & Leonard.
In January, 1915, Mcssrs. Allen and Leonard
inoa contract with Commodore Chauncev. acting 70,
the Navy Department. to deliver 10 900 gallons of good
whiskey' at Sackeu's Harbor at 90 cents per gallon
and the original cost Of the casks
They proceeded 10 deliver upwards of 5000 gallons
AT sacketts tarbor, agreeably TO contract. They hcr
received notice, that in consequence of the peace ne
more would be received at that place.
Upon the peace. the price Of whiskey fell abo At sc
per cent and the contractors anxious fulfil their
contract.
| Under date of March 10th, 1916, Commodore Chaun-
cey wrote letter TO the Navy Department, of which
the following is an extract:
"1hc contractors complain that thew will suffer great
loss because they had laid in the quantity of grain
whch would be required complete the sides
having given bonds to the United States for the whole
amount oil duties. They however, offer to deiirer the
tch,ssey at Ne,c York instead of Sdckeifs Har6or,
anu the contractors for shot, iron ballast and beef and
pork, have made the ocr and all those articles
VIII pc required at New York, II would much liti-
CATION to allow those people complete their contracts
and deliver at New York instead of Sacketts Harbor
10 this the Secretary Of the Navy under date OF 10Th
March, 1915, wrote follows:
"You will accept the proposals of the contractors 10
deliver the whiskey provisions, shot, sc. at New York,
instead of Sackctts Harbor.'
In reply, Commodore Chauncey wrote under date of
lfth April 1915, as follows:
81 have wrote to all the people which were I'M
der contract with for provisions shot, ballast and wills
Key that you had authorized TO accept their promo
sails TO deiirer The articles at Nec York instead IF
Sdc6ets Hdrbor and have directed them TO commence
immediately delivering TO the Navy Storckceper, New
York"
Messrs Allen s Leonard proceeded to deliver, at N
4 ork' o332S Ia gallons of whskey, for which they
were paid 30 cents gallon and the of the casks
NO claim was advanced by them, at that me for any
ezra allowances in consequence of the change of
In 1919, however, through David b. Ogden, mem
Der oil Congress, they presented claim the Sccrea-
~ OF thc Navy Tor cost OF transportation, which they
say in their letter to Mr. Ogden was sabout So 900 "
Inc secretary made inquiry OF Commodore Chaun.
cey, and received letter in reply, dated 18th
1873, OF which the following is extract
II made an arrangement with Mcssrs, j. H. & s
Leonard and others deliver the wbiskcy at New York
instead of Sackctfs Harbor. have no documents with
ne 10 SHOW what that arrangement was; but
at the time, and that allo,oonce for TRANSFORMATION
tods either promised or expected"
On the same day the Secretary wrote 10 Mr.. Ogden
as follows 81 have the honor TO enclose, herewith CO.
py oil letter from Commodore Chauncey in relation TO
the claims Of Messrs j. H. s. s Leonard from which il
appears that there is nothing due to those gentemen
III lS22 cy presented their claims, by petition TO
the House of Representatives. They were now in
creased and were composed of the following items viz:
10 difference in expense between trans
porting 33,32s Ii gallons of whiskey
from Lewis county, NJ York, 10 the city
OF New York and TO Sackctts Harbor,
40 miles; at I3 cents per gallon sl332 67
Extra loss sustained by leakage, &c. at l
cent 1888 %
Extra expense attending the delivery of
whiskey in New York, SC. $50 600
- S5,4l5 95
Here increase in the transportation from 1919
up TO iS22 OF more than $500; and charges ap-
peared, not before thought Of amounting to 81 OS3 2s
he claim was accompanied by affidavit of James H.
Leonard and Samuel Allen i'm which they swear that
the above amount is now justly due to these deponens
oh i
Neither in this affidavit in those that acccpany it
nor in the petition 10 Congress- is there the slightest
ehon; ausion or hint, tending TO indicate that any
loss mad been sustained in consequence of the difference
Harbor and New York
On the 18th of March, 1922 the petition and papers
were referred TO the Committee of Claims, (but | do
not discover that they acted on it at that session)
.e next session these claims were again presented,
and referred 10 the Committee of Claims That COM
mIttee applied to Commodore Chauncey for informaton
and IN his reply, dated 10Th January, 1928 he saws:
That accordingly entered into such arrangements
Ito deliver in New York instead of Sackes Harbori
'cch toere the more readily Gssented to on the part
o. me contractors, as ,ohiskey had fallen about 80
per cent although believe il rose again before the de-
vees were completed to about 10 per above the
contract price.
"That Mcssrs. Allen s. Leonard agreed TO deliver at
~ DIRK, instead of Sacketts Harbor, the original con-
tract price, say 80 cts. per gallon.
"That Messrs J. Nlappa & Co. agreed to deliver at
N ork at cts per gallon less than their original
tract price, say SO cents"
nieSSiS' AIell ana IICOnafuS ailluaNltS ana
certificates before them, asserting that they expected
extra compensation, SIC. the 10th of January 1928
they reported against the claim In conclusions they
say
"We invite the attention of the House TO the docu-
ments received from the Navy Department, in relation
to this claim, which, in tie estimation of the committee
go TO dspove the validity of the demand set up by the
petitioners"
The report was laid on the table
The papers again presented at the next session.
and on The 23d of January 1924 the Committee of Claims
reported against them and the report laid on the
table.
Nothing further seems TO have been heard from these
claimants until January 1928, when they presented the
third edition oil their account to the Secretary of the
Navy, revised and corrected, as follows:
For difference of transportation OF 1928
IL gallons of whiskcy, &c. s 1892 CT
For expenses attending delivery sc. $50 90
For leakage, SC. 400 %
For the difference between common glass
proof whskey, at which it was to have
been received at Sackett's Harbor, and
hydrometer-proof, which required
at New York, which is 10 per cent and
amounts TO 1880 gallons. Contract
price 80 cents. Extra charge for trans
Portation, as in item No. !, 10 cents 5IiS 81
SlI ,03l 80
So, the amount of S54l5 95, which was sworn to be
Justly due in 1922, had increased in 1925 to O3I so
he item OF leakage had increased from 1888 % TO l09
81 and new item for difference of proof before
heard of, made its appearances!
. Resort was aean had TO Commodore Chauncey for in
formation. In letter from him TO a member of Con-
gress, dated 18th January, 1928, he says:
at H,a yri,ie Viii