Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-07-22
%
Not sent to any person
SI34,s66 SO

This is sufficient reply to Mr.. Kings assertion,
that the whole amount of his acquisitions had been
sent to others II was not until 9Th October, 1890
that the rem,ttancrs tn the Norfolk Agency equaied
the amonnt of Mr.. Kings acquisitions made before
the | lth of August, and until some time IN October
did the expenditures of the Agency, pcludino tho
$4,000 overdrawn by Mr.. King, equ al the amount
of his acquisitions. His own expenditures during the
period from 5th of May. Ilih of August, were
abou. 900, about 10000 of which were paid by
his overdraits upon he bank. Had all the money
called for by him been sent he would therefore, have
been indebted to the Government ut the time of his
removal, after being allowed all the credits he has
now received, about 10000. Mr.. King states
that he has reason to believe The Bank of the
United States never set up any claim upon the Gov
eminent Tor the amount overdrawn by him In re-
ply To this 1t is only necessary advert to the letter
of the President of the Norfolk Branch, dated 9th
October. 1929, published with the Secretary report
page 81, in which nc says "7he claim Of this Office
against the Government amounting to $40, IA II
arises ont ct advances made TO the late Navy Agent
to enable him to meet demands against the NAVY
Department" &c. and to the reply of the Secretary
of the Navy dated 3oth October 1899, in which he
says, Il am not aware that the Department afford
any aid facilities the Bank in the ioudation of
the aforesaid balances" Mr. King maint aims that
the amount overdrawn by him, private loan dor
rotoed upon his chsckS''-and ought to be taken
into account IN the inquiry whether be was or was
not a defaulter The correspondence alluded TO
shews that the officers of the Bank did not consider
in that light. They in the habit of loaniuor
to gentlemen $40 900 upon their cheeks" without
security. 1t was Mr. Kings public character, the
confidence of the Bank in his integrity as q public
officer, and firm reliance that he would receive the
suspended remitances, that induced them to paw his
checks 1t was not with has funds but with funds to be
RENTED to him from w ashingon that they expected
the debt would be paid. 1t was until October or
November that the Bank obtained security from him
II was aot, therefore, private loan, out simply an
overdraft as Navy Agent.
But the would not be altered if il ,,ere n nr;
vate Loan obtained upon his note secured in du. fr,
The question is not. is Mr.. King noro a defauherp-
IL Is, tcas Mr. King defauer the time the Secre-
tary commenced the investigation of his accounts
II he was then deaulter, the case is fully made out
He was Navy Agent. Claims against the NAVY
Department were presented tn him which he had no
money to pay He borrowed Sac, 900 and applied il
to that object. He brought the receipts to Wosb
ington and got a credit for them Instead of finding
any thing due to him from the Government TO nav
the money borrowed. he is still in debt TO the Gov
eminent upwards of $1,000. Does not this show,
that he was IN default upwards Of $40 900 at the time
be obtained the loan? If the Government had sent
him $4,000 TO pay these claims, he would have been
charged with $40 600 more than he now is and his
default would have been upwards of $4,000. He
was in default. therefore, than s43 900 when
he borrowed this money
Two Treasurers of Virginia have been found do.
faulters. IT. the first suspicion was excl
ted they had borrowed of the Banks and plncod in
the Treasury sums sufficient to cover their default
woulde not their violation Of the law and duty have
beenthe same7 The offence consists in appiyins he
P"ohc MONEY 10 unia,gfW purposes, and It could not
iO' ny icPIuCiHS tHe by the laws
of Virginia the application of public money 20 pri
va'e uses by the Treasurer, s, DID, punishable
by confinement in the pcnen,iary. IF the crime
were proved upon him, would it be good defence
10 show that ho had borrowed money and replaced IL
Such an lct might be recommendation TO clennen-
cy but could not change the character of the crime
This is the nature sfMr. KS defence The Govern.
ment placed money in his hands pay claims rainst
the Navy Department; lie applied il TO other uses to
pay those claims, he was obliged 10 borrow money!
The very fact that he was obliged to borrow proves
his default Had he not applied $4,000 of public
money to other uses where would have been the ne
cessty Of borrowing? If even the claims he sets up
for tens of Thousands, extra clerk hire and COM
MISSIONS were Just, would mend the matter but We
ny little II would prove that he applied the money
to be set of by them TO his before had been
DECIDED mat ne iods entitled 10 IT, and to great ex-
tent before he knew that he had anu rieht 10 ,.oke
such charges
Before close. shall be able 10 show with somo
precision that Mr. King did apply considerable sums
OF public money TO private uses
(To coNTINUBp0