Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-08-27
ROHG1I0N8c
THE ANSWER OF MILES KING
To the Reply Of the 4h .Huditor.
(coNcLUpEp1

but our ingenious Auditor, II seems, has taken some
pains TO imagine that my payment of these drafts had
some conneNon with the passing of my claim for the
jSi2 l6 by his predecessors and the reader NAV have
observed how Jney he has cndeavourcd TO maize a con-
neNion between them, by string OF dates, and by that
beautiful and characteristic little bubble upon the words
"as settled. The idea, indeed whch he seems disposed
TO suggest here hongh, as usual he has taken not
10 exPressit very fully lest its absuy should betray its
malice appears to he, that when was in Washington
before, after the 9Th of May 1926 had private un
derstanding with Mr. Watkins that if he would pass INV
SAID account, which was then before him, would ac.
cept has drafts for proper portion the amount The
heoy Is certainly poeficdt, and reflects almost equal
onor upon the head and heart of its author but unor-
iunateiy Tor It's pr0babhty and for its intended effect il
is tchoIy inconsistent NTH The facts If the Thus
In tho hrst place. it is inconsistent with the fact that
accepted and paid the first draft for $1,000 on the DIS
January lS26, nearly four months before the account for
the 1882 is was passed by Mr. Watkins on the 10Th
oil May following and bfore the account was receiv-
ed in the Auditors Office as stated on the itli of Feb
rnary an even 69ore my supposed agreement with
lin, which is alleged TO have been made about the 9th
oil May. Indeed, our Auditor himself seems TO have
been little troubled by this fact, for he saws sswbc,her
he knew that the first draft paid befye his CHARGE for
contingencies elcd (or ere, prescnted ACCORDING
TO Ms own shewing) was private transaction fnGy be
doubted; but he adroity adds che must have under
stood it afterwards, or he ,oouid not hare ,cidyaon
The charge" But here again the fact happens TO be-
that hare necG icihdrdCn the charge and ,aeyer
intended To ICithdTdic IL. included IT, as have STAT
ell, in my quarterly for March 1926 and sent I'm
the draft itself, voucher for ito Soe No g. Some
time afterwards, was informed, by note in a recon-
That the charge was suspended for ioant Of boucher
This, OF COURSE surprised little as knew hat
had sent 1t Wp but supposed that it might have been
mslaId IN the office and wOuli be found another time
Alter this, lost sight of it f,r some time and il was
indeed, subsequently, omitted in my account; bit ,on
Wder me directions Of The Department to confo, n,
my account To theirs, stated ON the reurn IT,
Se and as soon as found that II had been So dir CT
ed my c rk to inserit again; and in December last be-
tore me origin Of this controversy, requested the
same gentleman to make ont copy of it, and make az
hday on it before the Mayor as he did that miobt
hlni IN along with the of my claims i'm the SET.
tement OF my account (See No. g. Its thus appa-
rent that have never Withdrawn the charge" for this
draft, and, OF course the conclusion which our Auditor
mas so clevery founded upon his supp0siiOn thai
n2t' Is larry destroyed may add here, that as To
tiScr at least impos lille for any one TO suDnose
that there could have been the smallest improp,etv in
my paying it for Mr. Watkins, as 9Th Auditor had an
n"qncsiionbIe light 10 iraw.uPon Navy Agent as
lac ana IN Ike manner upon Mr. Paudinr the Nave
Agent at New York and VIZ. Harris the NAVY AGENT
at oSon, who also honorcd his drafts, without even our
Auditors Yeniming to imPoach their conduct in so doing
may DE remembered also, that the Circuit Court OF
the United states afterwards decided in the case OF
watkins, that the money drawn hy those AGENTS nm
Their checks for the payment OF his drafts upon them
was money drawn Tor Pubiic purpose and rot for a
P1rHtr me. Aud may yet further add that our An.
dior himself, during my short public connexion viii,
NM epeaiediy sent me his written orders to pay differ
emf persons various sums for &" Paw" ."Traveilino
eXpe"ses," &c with directions to charge tte Suns
TO the heads Of Pay" " Contingent" Gc and vel mo
one presume, will do me the gross Injustice 70 s,
pose, Tor moment That there couid hare been anv sort
oil private understanding between this parsonage and
myself upon the point.
B1'. c"nily, cur Au 'iot'a fabricated arrsnge,sn,
J. rather ncCH-isint with tbs Get thai the seco lee g
also was drawn on the Oh OF May before the accom-,
was seed on the I9h, and certainly paid some dime he
lore he0rd That II was 20; and it il likewise He
inconsistent perhaps, with the fact that the said mir,
DRAFT was not accepted by me- but only bv nv cle,L IT,
my ab.ence and, as i, would seem against NV Gil
As 10 hese however he boldly insists upon Il int tev
were certainly drawn by Mr.. Watkins for nriy,,s 49,,
pores, aud that knew il when I nail H., If.
words are II he had not well understood when hc
paid the second and hi5d irafs that thew were
Hs3ssc,lons, ne 0osd mot surely have ehUged them
IN ms ncc0unt Now, 1t Is certsiny true az we have
seen, that these dra drawn for private nur,os
and IL I. certain al'o bat kaew ir but toben Gid
know IL? Not, certainly. as our Auli,or cboo.a,
pose, when paid them; but only so,,s fines M
when bad The explanation with Mr.. Wa.kins in w, H.
lngton' M December. 1926, when he admitted H. an,
wv me me noe; 800 promised TO pay the balance
aready slated Before this indeed, az I Law. ssid
suspected The ae'; but did not even snp Of md
gfeT had paid the second drat; and Il has teen Gee,
nas sv,ugu,ou'y AVOIDED charging II to the Govern
men and determined rather 10 lose it fnVseiC AID f.
the third DRAFT s evident f,om s face that AZ ~
accept Il MYSELF and certiinly should not have dno ~
my clerk IN my abence, and paid accordio,iy al.
because conceived myself bound bv his scc.i wv
But did not charge This draft either 10 The Gosasa
msnt; but determined at once 10 take ue ~ .VF'h
ehng II rem Mr. watkins myself Now b 49,
Aci nat DID not charge these drafts in my acco,,
Against the Govcrnmont, shews cOnclusiveIv a.,
epulu nave haa no previous understanding with bin
anont mem For The effect Of not chaTgipo tbe, h, A.
Government, was evidently 10 ~ a-ge ibo5, 70 ,
and accordingly have actually Maid tho -
,he a's w" " NY own pocket, in accounting wit
me TO Vhe United States ~ my return for ti, so,L t
1879, which has been assumed as The b 4, ~ 49, ~
uement, so Tar sstt has proceeded, vas chyi., IL,
than II would have been II bad charged n o. t
by exactly their whole amount But snraIy u'a w
had Intended oPiy for these drafts myseI in