Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-07-07

49,, "s 'cccs'cu an lndent t'r $500 lbs of bread
TOT tue irign'c Gucrricrc, then lying ut the Navv
Yard, all of which he had made, and was rcadv ~
denver on or about the lith of that month"; hut In.
United States not being then ready 10 rcceiye
| H. TN consequence. i believe, of the ships bs.
ing painting, and there being no convenient nlncs
Tor 1t at the yard) no was requested to Keen
Tor Few days, until they could take it, which he
ireely consented to do On the morning of the 10th
afterwards, understand, they would have been rea.
10 receive It, bu the state of the weather did not
thon permit him to send il over: and on that very
the bake houses We're burnt, and al that bread
then IN them. together with considerable quantity
oeSiucs' which he had prepared an ndent for the
Alert, and III anticipation OF other indsnts FIR Tho
wee, was consumed along with them by the fire 7,
should be noticed here, that little while before this
accident, the Commissioners had advertised for nro
Posais To supply the Navy with bread for the ensuiuo
year 1899, anu had resolved various Offers from dif
rent persons, aad Graham amene the rest Ju.t a,
tnis JUacture, however, news came that there had
neen great failure in the wheat crop in Gren,
oFtain' IN consequence of which tho price OF
hoar rose rapidly in all our mar kets and most
; OF the contractors Gncludny our Contractor
es, oeiieve) taking the alarn withdrew their proposal,
n a,e Of things the commissioners very jadciausy
~ uuac' WIN single baker in Baltimore 10 furnish alt this
bread that was to be supplied there al price which v Az n.
$50 oy lne pce ct Hour in that market the the bread
ue required according to scale fixed in the contract:
l having done they authorised me- by their letter of the
roy is1S 10 make similar contract with Graham for
Py OF the head that might be required here (ior 1921
winch did Nov shortly after the loss OF his baS. ho,.
e"u Dread a' already stated Graham letter to the
dated the I'd Dec 1898, i'm wbirh he Informed
% OF me accident and stated the OF bread which
h% , as seo bo'< weighing $4,000 hs 81 900 lbs of
AeI and the for any demands for the service He odd
my serious Losses. making every
'uon 70 comply with my contract, and an now baSins ~
ias as eau, IN hiIcd bake house aud will II no,s;hi.
'eay or the "ueriere IN time" lie subjons: T hone
~ oi the above statement, md the loss which
shH necessarily sustain in the subsequent rise of 1onr Nh,
eo'ss'nners WILL II .ey with what i, gh,
ouf bake dollar and fifty cents of Iohov
m;oa. mo, In ai.wer 70 this received letter from the com
state that they "have received letter from Mr. Graham, in
forming them OF the loss of houses and the
% OF bread which had been prepared for the Gue
EeFe, and shave decided allow him FOR h,s bread o
same terms as stated to me of 4;h ul, mon
'ons s"acory evidence that the quantity had been pre
pared under the equis;on, and az ,,a
e and desiring inform Mr. Graham of ih, their De
accordingly required aa received proot
on oath, ih1t al! the bread mentioned by GRAHAM, i, hi
eer 10 the Board had been prepared by him. and ,ubso
v"ny destroyed as lie had stated Graham then went an
10 nis the required supplies working with redobes and
extraordinary diligence under the which he had
winch he had made in lieu of tie old land ,tie over md
actually Delivered the 3ls day December 1873 and
s oea charging for IT, as the Commissioner. had expressly
MN to do according TO the price Of 1895
accompanied by certificate Of The osn "u u'
charged IN them had been received were
we'd by him in the usual way were handed 10 me To-
amn Pa mem Now on my presenting these account. aor
wa's a' ue AUDITORS Office and claiming he allowed for
the money which had thus paid them the acnoun,s and
oeing all perfectly regular and this time passed
hut
ing before the Comptroller ne observed that This
mus delivered in 1925 ION the last day yes was charged
year bS at tho per- price 81 s wa" Se e contract
PIne according the for 1929 and thereupon m
claimed on the for bread the difference
that sum and .r value Of The bread rated at 81
mats ais -, end our Audcr oppIized of the objection
aVdy and has ever since sus aimed with great delight
Now for my part in answer this objection have always
'housh that is quite sufficient for say that have paid
those accounts they and they and 20
virtually certified to me corrcc, by the commanding officer of
e tato according 10 the established usage such cases
FOR was not for me at least, conceyc 10 inquire pto The
o, Inc tom"odoe approval in any case although
ma" neeo Gooo cause to know in this that altogether
Sufficient For certainly knew. well as he did that the
commissioners had authorized Graham charge the price
wch ne mad charged for this Bread and doubling their
power 10 do could doubt any moe that the fpmo
core Of his account for this price certainly right
C hepoIte however, seems, takes different view
OF the case and his upon really curious
II Is substantially this The Commissioner, in authorizing
70 charge is parcel OF bread delivered 1925 at the
price Of bread 10 be delivered 1929 intended to allow him
hety o! compensation for his burnt bread hich he
nor eHed IN law or equity but they have allowed il 10
~ IN express terms for burnt bread by that name but
e ana as additional price for actual bread really furnished
o mo services aud this they have done get rid othe impo,
sioy OF obtaining vouchers for the bread which no,
havns been delivered the could not have been
oy TIE orekeePer approved by the commandant
Their act Is therefore he says in princpe and
imote or the ought not q, ha We been
Poved oy lhe commanding Officer and, although they were
So ought not TO have been paid By and more particularly
aI knew That the Commissioners doing what thew had
no right to DO in allowing Graham for his bread in hi,
underhand nnd ronbdabout way This his argument, and
seV'eeny mere string OF assumptions and absurdies oreh
en- torho, to 90 no further does he come at his coucsoo
that the commissioners in authorizing this additional price n,
delivered tread really intended allow Graham an indemni
~ or compensation for his burnt bread? Notexacy a, nm,
perhaps but certainly by flight steps made on, of ssdo,
and based upon nothing For first he tries 10 draw from my
letter TO him of June 80 1922 in which in answer 10
~ as to the reasons for these ovechrg say inc ose sx
tracts oil letters l9on the Navy Commissioners allowing Mr.
Graham something nddonatas the price of his in can
sequence OF his losing much by IRE and in some measure
owing TO It's not being received when ready" But do moi
here as he chooses understand me- the
had allowed Graham thing for his hread bu, ,o,
nns additional on tho bread made lieu Of IT, in consde,n
ton oil the hardship Of his having make over again /, CON
sequence OF his having lost his burnt bread &c gave This
700, merely as my opinion Of the motive which Ind led ths
commissioners 70 allow another and a higher pgcr ",one
thing additional for tho bread which was 10 SUNNY ,bc
place OF Tie old but did not pretend know their views
&acHy. as was not member Of their Board no,
privy to their counsels. Accordingly enclosed him
the extracts OF their letters TO me upon the subject
TO let them speak for themselves And do these e.
tracts establish the fact for which he IS seekne1 Tn.
hrst extract bears date Dec. $685. and saws: .srhe
Commissioners have received a letter feom Mr. era
ham, informing them Of the loss Of his bake houses
and the destruction of $500 lbs Of Navy Read
which had been prepared for the Guerrero I'hey
have decided TO allow him for this bread the same
terms as stated in their letter to you Of the nth uI,i
mo- upon your receiving satisfactory evidence :ha,
TINS quantity had been pTepnred under the reuui,i
" uln hat h.g