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

offence consists applying the public money to Wnia,o
ful purposes and could no, DO aoned for by repla-
cling the amount BY the laws Of Virginia. the ap.
pcaion of public money to private by the Trea-
surer, L., am told, punishable by con6nemen in the
psnitsnuary. If the crime were proved upon him.
would Il be good defence 10 show that he had borrow
ell money and replaced IN Such an act nigh, he a
recomme niation TO clcnsncy, but could not change
the character Of The crime.
This Is the nature OF Mr.. Kinss defence. Th-
Government placed money in hi. hsn's Ia pay elaine
against the Navy Department.; he applied Il to other
uses; to pay those claims. he was Obliged to borrow
money The very fact ,ht he was Obliged to borrow,
proves his default Had not applied s 900 Of pub
lie money to other where would have beea the
nece siy e borrowing II even the claims he sets up
tor tens of thousands, as extra clerk hire AID comm
sions, were lust IL would mend the matter but very
little. II would prove that lac had applied the money
to he set of by them 10 h' before had been
decided that he trds entitled 10 it, and, 10 great
extent before he kneto that he had any rigat to
make such charges.
Before close, l .hall be able to show. with some
precision, that Nc. ng did apply considerable sums
of public money to pivata use'.
Mr. Kings excuse for claiming credit for So 259
25 viii had long since been allowed 20 him, is that
the vouchers suspended In the quarterly accounts
to which they belonged; aud he WAS told in the 4 h
Auditors off e, in September last, that they had not
yet been passed to his credit In place he says he
has ga list from the ih Audito,s Office" and in
Their that ga lis, was hand.d HIM"
II this sa'et.snt were true, would it furnish SUI
6cient excused II the al Auditor, or his Clerks. had
made out a list Of supendtd vouchers AMI given it 10
Mr.. King telling him that the vouchers therein de
scri hal never been passed to his credit, would Il
be good apology for charging them AGAIN. II so. the
| Agent IL und- no obligation 10 know any thing about
his own Accoun's, aud it is peifcy right for him to
take credit twice ten times for the thing i, he
can get il. Who ought 10 know VIVA, credit. he had
received better than Mr.. kng himself. II he did no,
know, and could ascertain from his books, the
he had managed his business with cupla. negligence.
II he did know, he presumed upon the ignorencs Of
others to attempt direct raui In either alternative,
il proved him io'ally up6, for Navy Agen'.
But no such h-t ever was furni-hed him by me- or
any else in ,hi' Office. In September. 1922 while
wa, in Kentucky, rs called a. the office, in.
fromed, and desired TO examns his OIL accounts The
clerk having charg OF the papers aided him in the
| animation.
each voucher. with notes I'll wing when they were .
iected suspended, shown 10 him and from that,
with he aid of the clerk he mad, out list of suspended
vouchers. Whonever the clerk knew that one
marked suspended had been credited, he told Mr. X ng
so but not having had change Of Mr.. Kings accounts
until 1928, he could no. tell, without mue inves,i-
CATION what had been done with claims suspende, in
1919, 90 u. % and 90. when III So ho,r date Mr..
King satisfied hmseif that the cs'k did kno,o lha,
they had been credltc aud could not ptry readily
ascertain; anh thereupGn, soon "a he reached Nor
folk, hunted up the duplicate vouchers and renewed
the claim' II requires some patience tn treat With
temper the bold"ess with which hs turns round,
charges hi< acts 10 this office. and attempts 10
make it crime in nc, who was 500 miles OIL. my
clerks, who had never examined his old accounts,
tohave Told him h" had received these credits, thing
which he above all other men. ought to have known!
There il the less excuse for him, because il IL tie prac-
tice OF the Agents, "a he very well knows when vouch
er Is Suspended to continue TO charge in their quar-
ter'y returns until fnay passed to their crci
rejected He could but have believed that each of
these ITEMS claimed by him second time had been
finally disposed ofin ona way the other Indeed, he
admits that he believed the voucher for $500 for III I.
hire Of steamboat had been pa.sed to his credit and
that he presented again merely because the clerk said
II hal not and he "Wiiing TO let the office recty
its otcn supposed ssiOn That H. he willing
take again credit which he believed ne had received
provided the office coul ascertain the FACT. L,
this the way in which man Of cautious honesty would
| act?
In relation to Mr.. King, comm, entaries upon The
vouchers rejected in this Office, is sufficient to re-
mark, that with the exception OF those approved ten
yesrs after date and those heretofore rejected there is
not one in the whole M which has the evidences of
| curacy required by the NAVY regulations, without
which. article 4h says, they "shni net be settled. nor
Ni0H ne receive credit for them. Those who wish
specific information, may obtain IL by comparing the
vouchers printed in the Secreary's report with the law
Instruction., and regulations herein before set forth.
bold effort is made by Mr. King and Mr.. Murden
to show that there is material discrepancy between
the original and bills set forth in my report as
examples They allege that the change OF items is i'm
material, and that the change OF daes made merely
to make the new bill, correspond with thu reception
of thu articles by the Navy storekeeper II this he true
the dates Of the old bills d-'iEnats the times of the pur
chnSss and the dates Of the the times of The re-
ception @ the articles by the Many stOrekeeper The
change in SAVERS bill, OF 30 pieces duck, making "a
sheets and making % pillow cases. into "24 sheets
ami q pillow cases" might not he considered
terai; but when is perceived that the receipt the
old bill IL dated 18th December 1917, anil the new
bill Augnst 30;b, 1919 il l. impossible. blrv. that
they both represent The Transaction IL IL mpo.-
sbe, at least most improbable that parcel Of sheets
and pillow ca'es, called for in 1917, made up, de
tUered, and paid for on the 17;h December, Of that
year, should not have been received by the Naval
S,orekeeper until August, 1919 Neither Nj. King
nor MIR. Murder take the slightest no'ics OF this change
OF date, hu, dwell altogether the mmaeriay Of
the difference, between the pieces OF duck and thu
making OF p sheets and 2i pillow cases" in the Old
bills, and 2i sheets and 81 PILLOW cases" a, 10 the
new Ii these ara all the sheets and pillow case.
where were they from l7:h December, 1917, TO 30b
August, 1910;
Mr. Kings explanation Of Steels bill is at least bold
Both he and Mr. Murden admit that the price annexed
to the specified numbers Of barrels of beei and pork is
not their true price but was INTENDED to the pr ce
OF two more barrels. They admit that they were
using the Sorekeepers books evidence obtain pay
men for barrels delivered to him. by
false price 10 actual delivery! IT, they say, two
barrels taken out OF the boat before il arrived
the Naval Store for the Alert, VIII not produce re-
cept for its delivery 10 the Alert instead OF ATTEMPT
ing to obtain payment through bill acknowledged TO be
false7
The other discrepancies Mr. King turns over TO Mr.
Murden. But in relation to the bill of Coke and Co.
that gentleman does not explain in what manner or for
what purpose, he embraced a bed coveret and two ia
BILE covers" in ga set Of cabin curtains" In this case
the items in the old bill which make up the new are
dated the 9th and 22d OF May, while the new bill
dated 9th of May. As Mr.. King and Mr. Murden state
that the dates OF the bills are the dates of the de-
livery Of the articles the Naval Storekeeper and the
dates of the old bills the dates of the purchases il
would have been satisfactory, had they explained how
articles could be delivered to the Naval Storekeepcr
the 9th Of May which not purchased until the
ninth and twenty-sccon1. The same difficulty arises
ia relation to several of these new bills
In every specific Of discrepancy noticed by him.
his explanations equally futile inconsistent with