Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-06-08
AUDITORS KnNDAIL's REPORT.

nc VoNchefs lnlfk'd frOTn T. y To- IUUI Wore
Iected because "f their age, or their ,nfornalhy,
their detcrncr. IN the proper evidences of anthori-
ty. They haye n,t. yeaeraliv the Naval Sn.rkccp-
"rs receipt. ar the commanding oGiccrs APPROVAL
Many of them aprcnr I" BE- based upon private
actions; some NJ menu have hccn recently ai,.red IN
toTin aud some n,v haN. been passed u his credit
incorporated IN oher bills. II they We're ist CLAIMS
1t wo"sd seem that they haze been presented ex-
planned ana allowed long since. From (8) TO fiOU)
they are all executed recently in Mr. Murders hand
wiring
The vouchers numbered o tn 1867 contain items
OF COMMISSIONS &c. winch were registered in 1878
and 1919, and are now again advanced by Dir. King
not only dem the charges inadn1ssibc, but would
not ut this late day. under axe examine decisions
then given, especially without the production of
evidence, which was not then before the Auditor.
The vouchers numbered fIOfl to (ll3,) are again
presented in suppor OF n claim winch elected i'll
1919 81 far "a can discover, the decision then
made was correct; al any rate, no, disposed to
disturb it.
A tew claims alluded to by numbers Ul4) tou160
have been suspended account of deficiencies Ia
ld.uCe. OF winch o, ~ tna civ be passed to
MIR. Kings credit.
But experience in Mr.. Kings accounts admonish-
eS M To proceed with cau'inn Not only has 1t been
found that S3359 % claimed by him had, long since
nosn passed to his credit; hut. in cases | have
fouht myself deceived lie claimed $500 upon
voucher in due form, for the hire of steamboat, to
ofng dispatches tn Washington, in 1919. Not find
ing hat II had zen passed to his credit I submitted
1t to you for your decision Ga account of the eH-
traordnary nature of the charge the absence of au-
thority for hiring the boa, sud the i.pse of i'm.
which was supposed to havo BORNE to oblivion, the
reasons wliyIt before allowed You very pro-
perly rejected the claim. For this, you have been
made tn" object OF special ani.iadversun. more
thor'ngh investigation has disclosed the fact
that this claim though suspended in 1879 passed
so Mr. Kings crcf IN 82o; and your abused deci-
sion has only prevented his twice receiving payment
for the thing
lam ad'n"nishrd BY another III appears that
MT hng last winter, put into the hands of his friend
ond Counsel, receips for $500, paid lchabod l..
scranton tor coping stone, and informed him tina,
ths carn had been rejected by the accounting Off
GERS Has counsel made argument of cons,lera-
Die length in favor of the clam, ling its supposed
fe]"ctlnn as an instance great injustice. All this
was wholly gratultous. because these vouchers had
never hscn presented and Of course had nrver been
te]ected. Although the original voucher pu-pnrted
TO be receipt from Miles KING, and the duplicate
was receipt from he United States Bank neither
having the approval OF the commanding officer; yet
such was the confidence with which the claim wns
urged. that thought Mr. King was honestly entitled
to the credit, and told him should allow it whenever
ne thought propet to present his vouchers. 1t now
Turns out, tha the stone was never received 5y the
United Stotes On the contrary, it vas found on
inspection. tn be wholly unfit for the use designed
was condemned IN Sept last, and was long before the
as presentation of he claim, if not before the first
delivered over 20 the disposition of Mr.. King All
tins Nr. King must have known, when he took The
advice OF counsel; when he urged this clum upon the
Fresdent and when he lately assigned it to the
cashier OF fhe bank at Norfolk; but all this he con
IS,
we're called on TO pass upon his claims in this CITY,
indeed 1t now appears that neither Mr. KING nor The,
nnhk paid the money. II was paid by the Cashier
u was included on list of accounts paid in similar
way, which handed over 10 the present Navv
agent, on bis entrance into office he called for and
received money to pay it; but never presented
because, not only the approval of the commanding Off
Ger could not be obtained, but the Agent knew tho
iacts When on account ofthese circunsta nces pay-
fnent was not to be expected at Norfolk TIE claim
was brought to Washington, aud throug conceal
OF me true State OF the case, might have been al
lowed It was not until few days aHo that the
truih was known Alter these examples. feel 1t nv
duty not hastily 10 pass any Of the suspended items to
Mr. Kings credit.
Euary 6h 1880 will explain the reasons why certain
rges Oft Graham, for bread first suspended
py the Second Comptroller, not passed to Mr.
Alng's credit, viz:
"lt appears that Mr. T Graham of No-f,,k an ,L.
6lst day of December. 1927 entered into con, ract
with Niles King, Navy Agent acting on behalf of
the Navy Commissioners, TO furnish such supplies OF
Navy bread at Gosport. Virginia as might be rauu;r
ed during he year 1923, The price of 50 s7l ner
hundred pounds
The accompanying vouchers Q 3, and a. purDor,
10 Ds Tor bread delivered IN pursuance of this con-
tract during the his Of November and Deem
Der. 1925.
On comparing the price charged and receiped for
WIN me contract, every item, except he FIRST in No
- appeared to be overchargcd 81. 971 Der hundred
pounds, or 81 .439 55 in oil This excess was accor
dngly suspended, and Mr. King called ON for expIu-
ions.
In his reply, addressed to me under duc of June
30 1929 he says, Il enclose extracts of letters from
The Navy Commissioners, allowing Mr. Graham
something additional the price of his bread in
consequence of his losing SO much by fire, and in
some measure owing to its not being received when
Ready" Il.
The first extract bears date December 9Th, 1925
nnd says: "Fhe Commissioners have received letter
from Mr. Grahap informing hem OF the loss of his
bake houses aud the destruction of 500 pounds of
navy bread, which had been prepared for the Guer-
rcre; they have decided to allow him for this bread
tho same terms stated their letter 10 YOU of the
18th ut, upon your receiving satisfactory evidence
that this quantity lad been prepared under the re-
QUESTION"
The other extract is dated November II, 1925, and
sse: SIN consequence OF he rise in the price of flour
since offers TO furnish Navy bread for 1929 were
lads, the bakers generally baTc withdrawn their of