Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-07-07

THE ANSWER OF NILES kiNG,
Late Macy agent at NoJoLk, 1
70 the Report of the Fourth Auditor upon the SUBJ
jcct of his accounts.
(coNTINUEp.)
After this We have . general and sweeping coudem-
nation of all the rest OF this whole lot of accounts for
various inJormatities, originating, dor the most part.
in the SIMPLE and SINGLE tact that they had been over
looked at the time ottheir origin, AZ already stated.
Hence the signing by an administrator in one case,
and by an agent in another, &c. &c. all, things that
Of any standing, but which our Auditor would ram
represent as altogether monstroue in mine. In al OF
them. observe, the justice OF the charges themselves
Is established by evidence that must satisfy every ra-
tional understanding Yet they are rejected; and not
only rejected but absolutely repro6ated, az ifthey had
been actually tainted with fraud. l ought TO add also,
that I presented this class of accounts 10 the Audi
tor, not exnctly as certain claims, but as probable
omissions in my account; and l requested him accor-
dinghy to examine his books minutely to ascertain
whether any o. them had been passed to my credit
at any time before. He admits, indeed. himself that
] did so, but colouring the fact. az usual, With his
own dye, he artfulfy and falsely represents me as
wishing HIM to "eKamine the proper quarters &C.
count" only, and ~affsctedly asks, "w,th these changes
OF dates, throwing them into other quarters, and
sometimes into other years, with changes in captions,
items, receipts, and even amounts carricd out, with
one, two, or three new bills made ont of different
parts Of an old one, how was it possible to trace them
IN this Office, and ascertain whether they had been
passed 70 his crdit or not?" All this Is gross and
wiiful exaggerotion The formal changes in the &c
counts, as his own selected specimens have Showed,
were very trrtAng; the differences IN the dates usu-
ally q few days only, und if they dad occasionally ron
into different quarters, or even years, it would Still
have been quite possible for him, or any one ofhis host
Of clerks, with only a little patience, to have traced
ell the leading articles III them on the books. In point
OF fact indeed, the most thorough search was made
for them, Qhuush not perhaps exactly with q NEW to
do me justice, but for u different purpose,) and it they
were not found on the books. It was most assuredly,
only because they were mt there, and had never been
passed to my credit II all. And this conclusion, more
over, was yet further confirmed by the fact, that the
Navy StorekecPeEs book Showed that thoy had Rever
been certified by him, aud therefore could never have
been presented by me; but that they must have been
as supposed, altogether ortyIooked.
The vouchers Il .kcd from Ci4J to lIGo1 were Es
jec'ed because OF their age. or their ~iyormahsty, or
their Deficiencies IN proper evidences OF authority,
&c. that - tor the same reasons over again which l
have already considered, and showed to be Insult
cient. Some ofthrm too, are no; gerry old. No. 90,
for Instance, Is dated San. 10, 1927, and No. 100,
Nov. %, 1928. In some also, the "informalty' is
very slight, and IN others not even perceptible.-
s'Some,' indeed, he says, have not the Storekeeper's
receipt; but 1t was only as he wss informed, because
they had been overlooked al the time of their origin,
aud the subsequent death of The Storekeeper, Dulton,
had made It impossible to obtain his signature. But
in the absence of that. his books with the certificate
of bis successor, Gait. shewed clearly that the articles
had been receired and nerer certified. In other Gu
ses, the evidence of that fact Is yet more complete.
For example, No. DO, to which ] beg the readers
u,tention, Is an account OF Edwards Waddey, dated
Z = x 4 " u I " VI rice, IurniShed for tho
ship Congress, weighing $500 lbs 81 72, S5il o.,
MIR. Waddey's receipt to me- for the money is here Of
the same date with the account; and this account has
IoL been recently written" over again by Er Nor
den, which might h.aye spoiled it perhaps, but it is
all fair and formal, as far as l can see, to q letter.
II has not, however, L acknowledge, the reccipt Of
the Storekeeper Duiton, or the approval Of Tho Com
handing Officer, Capt. Henley. becauso, having SEEN
overlooked ut the origin, the one gas dead, and the
other oas Of the country, when I aasrraxds pr.np9t-
ed il to the Auditor But the Auditor himself did ms.
a first sBem to think that this deficiency ought to de-
stxoy my claim tor It. for he goes very properly. &c
examine his books to see whether I had ever beer
credited With it before, and not finding that I had
lie writes a letter to Hr. q. P. Darragh, in Which he
says:-'Learnng thnt you were Purser Of the
Congress at that tine, end not being able e
trace this voucher in your acconnt, I have to reguesl
that you wiil slate whether you have any know.
ledge or recollection of the delivery Of this rice q.
board ofthat ship, or elsevhese, for the use Of the
NaVy"-Cf coorse, it must be presumed that he ip
tends to ALLOW mo for the rice, If be can oaly be sure
OF the fact that The article has heea 'seliverd on
board of that frIgate or elsewhere, for she use Of the
Navy" Nov Mr. Darragh, in his answer, dated Nor.
folk. January 90, 1880, referring the Auditor to hs
Pursers books and accounts which he had deapoS1ed
IN the 1udiors Office, on hIsretuFn from the yoyse on
Which he had sailed in the Consreas in 1891, and
particularly" "a dat eooR ~ inches long, and contain
ing perhaps two quires. in which" be Eays, "wns en-
tered in appropriate colomns all the provisions taken
IN board, uith tho time, place, and from whom recei-
Yea" &c. goes ID to add from hsown memory. "we
Certainty tOOk CD oOdFu D large quantity OF rice, 4 Dre-
sumo about as much a. is charged in Mr.. woddey's
bill, which weuld supply the ship about six months"
He says, further, II have examined the abstract book
and accounts of Mr. King FROM October 1918, to
June 1919, which embraces all the tune the Con-
gress was here in commission, aud believe that two
ueIces of rice, 1921 pounds, furnished Oct. 1913. is
the whole quantity charged in them, either TO the
Congress, or Navy Yard. The account of Mr. Wad-
dey's is not charged" Tbis was surely ~suf6cient to
establish all that was wanted, as It showed clearly
that had bought the rice for the service, and actual
ly delivered it, but get bad never chareed fer il ON
my books. But, besides this, l exhibited to the Au-
ditor the Monthly return ofthe Storekeeper for Jan
uary, 1919, in which the two tierces of rice mention.
ed bJ oafrah as charged on my books, (enbraced
In the account of Seymour) and also e'soa ihs NJ
rico, corresponding exactly with the weight Of II
iierces embraced in the account of waddey, ara mo-
TED as Tece'oedJ for and detioered on board the Erirsss
Congress. Iiore then, ia foil aud perfecl proof Of The
tact-Ato say nothing of that fat book 10 ioches ionv.