Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-08-10

S41.lf9 81" Including my rejected claim for Scran-
TOMS stone, most amusingy cnarged to my debit.
Now against tins gross and patent absurdity, of
bringing titus s 10 900 into view, in this way, pro-
tested of course, the strongest terms; contendng
thai, fact. the Bank, although it had indeed, sent
up copy of the account TO the Secretary ut his re
quest had yer never ''set up any claim against the
government for the sum; hut had always looked to
only for the payment of 1t; and further that as
tho government had dsca'med having any thing to do
with 1t, aud moreover, had. most grutultousy refl
sed to allow 1t to the Bank o- the very valid reason
that it hud already allowed it to me, it was now al
together my private account with tho Bank and
therefore could not he blended with my account to
the government bat with fraudulent view, which
was obvious enough Now, caught in the bald at
tempt 10 deceive the public in this way and OPENLY
taxed with it, what does opr Auditor do? Wby he
first stands it out that lie Bank did set up the
claim against the government for the $40 ,OoO (Ob
serve his 10 necessary point for him to prove in
order to give him rrecxt for bringing it into yiey
for this purpose.l So he proceeds 10 saw in his re-
ply Mr. King states that he has some reason 20 he
heve the Bank ut the U. States never set ug any
claim upon the government for the amount over
drawn by him. In reply this. 1t is only necessary
to advert to the letter the President of the Nor
folk Branch, dated 9th Oct. 1929, published with the
Secrctary's Report, p. o. i'll which! he says: ''Y1he
claim OF THIS Office against the government amounting
to Si0I4! IL. arises of advances made TO the
late Navy Agent, TO enable him TO meet demands up
on the Navy Department, &c &C.," and to the re-
ply OF the Secretary of the Navy, dated S0th Oct
1899, IN which he says: Il aware that the
Department can afford any facilities to the Bank in
the Qlidaton of he aforesaid balances" This is in
genous: but these two letters although SO neatly
lacked together, do yet quite make out our Audi
tors pont For first, as to the letter of MIR New
ton, Docniuents o. it not as 1t is represented)
the beginning of the correspondence. That was
letter from the Head OF the Department himself t.
the new Navy Agent here, Nash Legrand ESQ. in
which he desired that officer call the Bank and
obtain copy Of the account. That gentleman ac
c"rdngly' wrote a note to Mr.! Newton, requesting
Ia the name OF the Secretary, copy of the
ot"thaIr claim against the governments" and Mr.
ReWtonS letter written answer to that moi c. berns
IL these words, which Auditor has taken GOOD
care not to Quite Il clieerully comply with the re-
quest or the Secretary OF the Navy communicated in
your MOI of tbs date; and further state rrcn,
the best authority, that the words following
which he does quote, and underscore, THE
claim of this cfice,' &c. were only an echo of
TIE words OF the note And why now have
not this letter ffons the Secretary to MIR Legrand,
and The note from Mr. Legrand to Mr. Newton been
Published among the documents? Evidently TO con
ceal the fact which they would have exposed Iret
them be produced, then, and they will shcw 1t yet
more distinctly. "a copy of the latter has Just been
sent to me from the Bank, at my request, which
shall publlsh.) Iudeed,it would seem that they have
been KEEP out OF view only to let the Secretary pav
OH me amusing air OF appearing to refuse claim
which was never made For, it IS observable that
MIR. Newton. even when he is thus invited by the
Secre; ary, through his Agent, to send up COPY of
the Claim, and does therefore ciyly comply With tn,
the name which the Secretary had given it, ga claim
against the GoVernm en yet does not even now urpe
the clam nor whisper single word Of request that
the Government should allow it to the Bank Nor
indeed could he ase done with the smallest pro-
priety since had some time before this on the Goth
OF August preceding, adopted the debt as mine and
given the Eank security for it, by NV deed of that
date. The truth IS, his letter written aogeth-
er Tor different purpose The Secretary and Audi
tor together, nast lsudaby combining 10 crminate
me, and hoping to find that some of the money which
had obtained FROM he Bank, and spent, every dol
lar OF it, for the public service, had mt been So
wrote to their friend here to get copy of the &C
! count with that view. The letter of Sir. Newton
is accordingly written with reference to that suspi
cion and confrns all my declarations on that point
IN the most full and perfect manner (See A b.
Finding. then, that the Bank could not, and would
not, unite wit h him in discredting me- our Secretary
turns about upon the Bank, with an exquisite rruce.
and IN the style of man who had been thinking of
something else, playing at cross Durpos.s
says, with total rrelevance to the letter 81 nm mot
aware that the Government can afford any facilities
to the Bank in the liquidation of the aforesaid bal
ances i'hIs is deep and diplomatic indeed 1t
turns ou', 5oweve, little unfortunately for the fu
effect of this fine movement that our GOOD Secretary
mas yet lett some words in his letter which let out
the secret which he was so anxious hide For al
though he does begin, with some caution "since per-
SUNG your letter of the 9th, to Nash Leerand Esc
Navy Agent at Norfolk and, very properly. leaves
out ali mention of his letter to said Nash Legrand
ne yet says to Nir Newton, supon cursory inspec-
toh OF the accounts OF the late Agent settled in
the Treasury Dcpar nient, appears hat he has OBJ
tanned credit for the whole principal items charped
against him in the account with The Benk" IA fact
by the way, which the Bank knew just as well as
hlmsef) The claim Of the Bank. them according to
the account shewD to the Secretary, was, as have
said, against me, and not against the Government -
1t IS then, only more and apparent, that the
Bank never ''set up" any claim against the Govern
ment tor this and if SO, there can be no reason
or excuse, tor bringing into view in connection with
my account with the Government, and the nlstiye
tor doing 1T may now be SEEM
But our Auditor proceeds: ''Mr. King maintains
that the amount overdrawn by him is private Ionn
borrowed Upon his checks"-(here he suppresses the
words which added to those which he quotes, "as
Navy Agent (backed of course by my personal res
possibility, with an obvious design to misrepresent
me- land ought not to be aken nto account in the
enquiry whether he was not defauter. The
correspondence alluded to shews that the officers of
the Bank did not consider it in that light" True
cnough-they did not at irst.) They are not in the