Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-08-17
Mr.. Kings Reply to the 4th Auditor.
TooNcLUDEp.1

some pans TO imagine That my payment OF these
drafts had some connexon with the passing of my
claim for the $3.50 i6 by his predecessor; and the
reader may have observed how finely he has endea-
vored to make conneSion between them, by a string
of dates. and by that beautiful and lit
tic bubble upon the words las settled" The idea
indeed, which he seems disposed suggest here
Though, usual he has taken not to express il
very fully less its absurdty should heray It's mall
ice, appears to be, that when was in Washington
before, after the 9th of May 1885, had u private
understanding with Mr.. Watkins, that If he would
pass my said account, which then before him
would accept his drafts for proper portion of the
amount The theory is certainly poeticai, and re.
fleets almost equal honor upon the head and heart of
its authors but unfortunately for its probabi and
Tor It's intended effect, wholly inconsistent with
the facts of the Thus the first place If is in
consistent with the fact that l accepted and paid
the first draft for S 900 on the 2Ist January 1926,
nearly months before the account for the s5342 rs
was passed by Mr. Watkins, on the 9th of May TO,
lowing, and before the account received in the
Auditors Office, as stated, the 18th OF February.
and even before my supposed agreement with him.
winch is alleged to have been made about the 9Th of
! May. Indeed, Auditor himself seems to ha We
been little troubled by this fact; for he says ..whe
Their he knew that the fist draft, paid before his
charge TOR contingencies settled FOR even pre-
scented, according to his own shewingl private
transaction. may be doubted;' but he adroitly adds
"he must have understood it afterwards or he would
not have Withdrawn the charge" But here aeain
the fact happens to be, that have never withdrawn
the charge, and never intended to withdraw it.
included if, AS have stated, my quarterly return
tor March Ss6, md sent up The draft itself as
voucher for t.-[See No. 81 Some time after
wards was informed, by note in reconcilement
sent down to me from the 4th Auditors Office that
the charge was suspended for want of voucher
This, of course, surprised me not little as knew
that had sent it up, but supposed that it might
nave been nisiaId III the office, and would be found
another time. After this lost isirht of II for some
time; and was, indeed, subsequently omitted in INV
account; but only under the directions of the Dapart
mcnt TO conform my account to theirs as was stated
ando 7 pIt,,, 4
been So direc ed my clerk it again. and in
december last, beforc.the origin of the controversy
requested the same gentleman to make out q copy
OF 1t land make affidavit it before the Nsvor as
he did that might hand IT in along with the res, of
my claims In the settlement of my account. (See No
16.l 1t is thus apparent that have never with
Drawn the charge for this draft. and of course, the
conclusion which our Auditor las clevery found
ed upon his own supposition that had, is fairly de-
stroyed may add here that as to this draft at least
1t IS impossible for any to suppose that there
could nave been the smallest improperly in my paw
ing 1t; for Mr.. Watkins, 4h Aaditor, had an un-
questionable right to draw upon me as NAVY Aren't
as ne old IN like manner upon Mr. Pauding, the Ma
Wy Agent al New York, and Mr. Harris the Navy
Agent at Boston, who also honored his drafts with
out even our Auditors veu,uriug to impeacb their
conduct in So doing. 1t may be remembered also,
that the Circuit Court of the u. S afterwards deci-
ded in the Of Watkins. that the money drawn nv
hose Agents on their checks for the payment of his
drafts upon them, was money drawn for public pur-
pose and not for private And may yet fur
Their add that our Auditor himsef during nv short
pubic connection with him, repeatedly sent me his
written orders to pay different persons various sums
For Pay, Travelling expenses & C with drec-
tons to charge the sums to the heads Of "Pay"
contingent &C.; and yet no one. I presume, will
do me the gross injustice to suppose, for moment
that there could have been any of private under
standing between this parsonage and myself npon
| the point. :
But. secondly, our Auditors fabricated arrapoemen
is rather with the fact that the second draft
also drawn the 9Th of May before the account
was passed on the 18th, and certainly paid some time
before heard that it so and 1t is likewise lit
ne inconsistent perhaps, with the fact that the said
tnrd draft was not accepted by me- but only nv nv
| cierK IN my absence and as it would SEEM against
my Will AS to these however, he boldly insists upon
1t that, they certainly drawn by Mr. Watkins fr
private purposes, and that knew IT when maid them
HIS words are:-"If he had not we'll understand.
"hen ne PAID the scond and third drafts, that thew
were private TRANSACTIONS he would most surely have
charged them In his account. Now is certainly tre
as we have seen, that these drafts were drawn for
Fate purposes, and 1t certain also that knew it, but
When did L know it? Not, certainly as our Auditor
chooses 20 suppose, when paid them; but only some
time afterwards, when had this explanation with M
w atkins, IN Washington, in December 1926 when
ne admitted 1t, and gave his note and promised 70
pay the balance, as already stated Before this in
oeed, as have said, suspected the fact but did
not even supect until after had paid the second
ana 1t has been seenaha scrupulously avoided char
ShG IL TO the government, and determined rather To
'ose IL myself And ior the third draft it is evil
ueit rom IT'S lace that did not accept it myself and
certainly; should not have done SO if it had been
presented to me; but it accepted by nv clerl,
ID my absence, and paid it accordingly only because
convinced myself bound by his acceptance. But
did not charge this draft either to the Government;
put determined at once to take the risk of recov-
erIng it from Mr. Watkins on myself Nov
the very fact that | did not charge these drafts
/ IN my account against the Government sbews
| conclusively that could have no previous un
dersanding with him about them. For the efSc, of
not charging them to the Government, was evident
" To charge them 10 myself And accordingly
nave actually paid the amount oftbese drafts out nv
own POCKET, IN accounting with the Government: for
States by my return for the 30h June, 1929, which
nas been assumed as the basis of our settlement so
far as IT has proceeded, obviously greater than
II would have been if had charged these drafts by
eNactiy tneir whole amount. But surely now If I
iad intended to pay for these drafts myself in persu
/ ance OF any previous understanding with Mr. Wat
! kiDs, should hardly have c'hecL1d E,r 49,.