Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-07-23

year. and tor the greater part of II more than nine
Mr.. King would have s,ouy resisted the application
10 his case Of the allowance authorized TO the Agent at
Baltimore: Yetmgh, it be maintained. that those al
lowances are jns, IA applicable to him. az those made
20 The Navy Agent at New York In truth, each A
rent wa. entitled such office expenses the Secre-
tary in his discreon though proper TO allow; nor has
aHy risht TO lock beyond his ewo Gaze, for the
rules which should r. suls'e his charges h'well
mis- INT claim OF money from The Trcasu.
ny tchout lao because Congress have 6y lac, given
money 10 another. under like chcum'tsnc-s.
Mr. King has f,r several years lie allowed 81 900
for clerk bi,e, and $500 for extra clerk hire; have
good believe, that he generality gave hi' prn-
cipa clerk no, more than $500, and that when he
poy ed extra clerk, which was but seldom, no paid
him at the rate OF $500 Under the name OF clerk
hire, therefore, his enoupents have been increased
ed by law No, content with this he charges Gle rk
hire Sl03t5 more, not dollar Of which ever was paid
for clerk hire; aud if allowed uli 90 to swell his
enolumenis that much eyond their lawful limit.
These facts aud principles | think, sufficient to
show that the charge OF S103i5 for Office expenses l.
altogether arbitrary and inadmis'iblP.
Mr.. Kings statement relative to the arrangement OF
the different heads OF arp opriaon in his accounts l.
substantially true Though in direct violation of posi-.
tive law, il was formerly the practice OF the Navy De-
partment, when appropr iaon short, TO draw
others 70 make up the deficiency. Though the law
expressly requires IN tn, Ageat. shall account for all
sums OF public money. under the heads stated in thu
remittsnc yet they cannot be much blamed for &C.
counting under other heads when positively instruct
cd 10 apply the moneys RENTED 10 other purposes
But the false balances thus do not in the least
affect the general balance OF the Agents monthly and
quarterly returns They should erdcfly agree as ell
in the balnces under each head Of appropriation. in
the general balance.
$45 600, between his monthly and quarterly returns,
the SOh June, 1929, are, tina, he had paid
neys on aotments, and made advances TO contractors
and Dealers which, Though reported az expenditures
In his monthly returns were not included in his quar-
ery; because the transaction, complete and
he could not procure the necessary vouchers
In ia
tice in relation TO ao'ments is In general as he states
Advances TO some extent 10 dealers and contractors,
were oub'le.s mode by him But this practice is in
direct violation OF law No advance payment should
he made, except for articles delivered services rem
dered. and upon pouchers Which ,cod enGle the IL
gent to credit in this office These vouchers should
be returned with The accounts OF the quarters in which
they paid 1t is also, as the present Agen,
Norfolk dces 20 set forth in each quarterly return
the amounts paid allotmen,s, and not charged. II
this he done, and proper vouchers taken for all pay
men,s the thIy s. erly may not exactly
egrec There may, without blame to the Agent be
small discrepancies. They will be enlarged in precise
gect TO take proper vouchers Whenever they amount
TO 900, honestly dishonesty, il il time for CIV
eminent TO secure its own interest, by change of a.
genie.
I directed a strict examination Of Mr. Kings &C.
counts, with the view Of ascertsnisg what nount W
outstanding the 30 of June, 1929, in moneys paid
al!o'menis, and az a!vances which charg d
in his quarterly returns, made up 10 that day. The
whole amoust according TO his receipts, was about
SI2 600. Deduct this from S+5 900, and there vet re.
mains discrepancy If 33 900, rot accounted Tor by
Mr.. King. do not with TO he understood. that the
statement OF MIR. Kings advances il precisely correct
IL is mposblc to ascertain them with precision; but
they cannot he materially greater than the amount
stated
In his explanation rron this point, Mr.. King says
The Department, TO save self from the inolerabie
trou lie of examining many separate receipts re.
CURED the Agent 20 send up single vouchers for the
whole sums, which can only he obtained, when the
work in hand other business is completed" II the
department has ever required any such course from
MIR. King. am vets strange. to the fact have no,
yet found the instance in which Secretary of the Ma.
Fourth Auditor has required the Navy Aaent.
TO send up their accounts and vouchers qsreriy when
the law expressly requires that they =ha. II such
fequison has heen mad upon Mr.. King Ia can All.
Iyprove u, by pubishpg the letter order AMI by
that means eSonerate himself, at Past partially from
the imPu'aon OF disresar,iing the laws under which
he acted.
For the extravaganza Of his reqni.i,ions + m one
upon the Navy Depa tnent, pinr to his removal. he
makes an effort to cast the responsibility upon the Cap
tain of the Yard, who approved them. At th& time
most men had implicit confidence in Mr.. Kings in.
iegTl'y and accuracy. Oae Captain of the Navy ven
tur.d approve bills twelve wears on his bare word
after his IemovaI; it ia surprising therefore, that
ano her cordrd in his estimates and approved his re-
qni'iions before breath Of suspicion had reached him,
Wheher ms r. QUESTIONS were exrav0gant not may
he judged by the following fac's
Tie whole amount drawn for by him
from the 9th May, 10 he Ilih Au-
gust, 1929, a. stated in The report
OF the Secretary OF the Navy, was s2so,ls9 81
Add one rpquis',ion drawn before tive
9th OF May, but not eceived until
after that date 2s,572 s5
S25s,I62 I6
RENTED o Mr.. King Upon tLo's
, requi-i'ionr $s6,i7o 10