Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-07-22

=
clerk hire. s. 00oa porter, S2sO; stationary books
&c $780, fuel and candles, S60-Si 400
No charge was made in the allowances TO thcso
three Agents until 1925. On the 9th Juno of that
year, the following letter addressed by tho Sec
rotary Of the Navy to the Navy Agent at New
York
II have received your letter nf the 7th inst and in
consideration OF the circumstances therein mentioned
and the increase of labor tn be performed in your
office you are hereby authorized to employ add
tionai 5icrk, at compensation not exceeding eight
hundred dollars per annum."
An additional clerk has ever since been employed
by that Agent, at salary of $500; thus increasing
his office expences tn Sc 400 per ycar-Thc Agents
Mt Boston and Philadelphia allowed only 600;
the power to employ an additional clerk having
never been extended to them.
In all other cases, far as can learn the office
expenses of Navy Agents have been fixed by the APP
proval of the Secretary upon vouchers making spe
chic charges. Thus. the allowance to the Agent ut
Portsmouth fixed at $500; to the Agent at Balti-
more S825; to the Agent at Pensacola 81 375; and to
others different sums. Each agency has rule for
itself In this respect the Secretary the Navy was
the fdD maker. That which he prescribed has been
allowed in each case.
Mr.. Kings appointment takes daio from LIST April
1916. He was informed that his compensation would
be one per cent on his Disbursements not to exceed
$4,000 per onnum II had not then been decided
that any office expenses We're allowable by law.
None were charged by him until 1919. That wear
bill was passed to his credit by the approval of the
Secretary ofthe Navy allowing him for the first wear
OF ms agency S735 for the second 81 eco, and for
the third s. 900 This bill was not for four wears
us he states but for three, ending list April 1919 and
the charge made by him for two years was 81 eco
por year, and not less than $500" he states In
q subsequent account, his allowance was increased
to 81 600 corresponding with those made to the
Agents at New York and Boston; and in 1926. with
out any authority whatev the Fourth Auditor COM
memo ed making him nm allowance of $500, for extra
clerk hire and finally carried back the allowance to
the LIST January. 1895. The apology for his allow
ance that the Secretary had authorized il 10 be
made to the Agent at New York.
From these facts. Is plain that the whole StO,345
ciaimed by Mr. Hing account of Office expenses
rests upon no authority what ever except his own
opinion of its ibieness The original object of
this allowance was to cover actual office erpences
That is all which could be reasonably asked; it was
certainly all which the Secretary of the NAVY could
righ1ufiy grant Mr.. King does not aIlege that he
spent, OH account of his Office, more than has been
ditoioea Indeed, he acknowledges that he never
thought OF making the charge until the fall of 1929
when he discovered that other Agents, IN former
times. had been allowed more than he had He then
made out the s, bill, and presented 1t TO the exam
ming clerk in this office, for so GOO totout anu cred
a. 1t was not until the clerk produced to him the
voucher. showing that 1885 had been already al
lowed, that he entered the credit for that sum- At
last the bill was not made according to The crcu
lar which he adduces to support it. That paper au-
thorized the Agents at Boston, &C.. to charge 81 600
per year; but he charges s. 400. He charges $500
for extra clerk hire from April Ist 10 g. to April st
1925, amounting to 81 200, which is not sustained
even by the poor apology that it authorized 10 be
made tn other Agents. The first authority given any
one for such charge is the letter to the Agent at
New York. dated s,h June, 1926 He, therefore
not only claims that the law of other cases shall be
applied his own But that for the uholc of his Claim
shall be made retrospective more than year, and
for the greater part of 1t than nine
MIR. King would have stoutly resisted the applica-
ton to his case, of the allowances authorized the
agent at Baltimore. Yet it might be maintained,
that those allowances are just applicable to him.
made fo fha NJ.
In TRUTH each Agent WAS entit ed to such office ex-
penses as the Secretary in his discretion thought
proper to allow; nor has any right 10 look be-
yond his for the rules which should regulate
DIS charges As we'll might man claim a sum of
money from the Treasury Dittout ta1 because Con
gross nave by faD, given money TO another under
like circumstances.
Mr.. King has for eversl years been allowed q 600
for clerkhire, and $500 for extra cerkhire, | have
good reasons to believe, that he generally gave his
principal clerk not more than $500. and that when
he employed an extra clerk which but seldom he
paid him at the rate of $500. Under the name of
clerkhire, therefore, his emoluments have been in
creased from $500 to s. 900 per year. above the linn
It prescribed by law Not conten with this he char.
ges as clerkhlne SiO,345 more, dollar of which
ever was paid foe clerkhre and If allowed il wouId
60 TO swell his emoluments that much more beyond
their lawful limit
These facts and principles are, think sufficient
to show, that the charge Of lO,345 for Office expen-
SEES ID altogether arbitrary and nadmissble.
Mr Kings statement relative to the arrangement
OF the different heads of appropriation in his accounts
- substantially true. Though IN direct violation of
positive law, formally The practice Of the Navy
Department, when any appropriation ran short, TO
draw on others to make up the deficiency Though
the law expressly requires that the Agents shall ac
count for all sums of public money under the heads
stated IN the remittance, yet they cannot be much
blamed for accounting under other heads when posi-
fiUely insrueted TO apply the moneys RENTED to 9th
or purposes But the false balances thus created do
not IN the least affect the general balance Of the
Agents monthly and quarterly returns These should
eractty agree, as well in the balances under each
head OF appropriation, as in the general balance.
The reasons given by Mr.. King for discrepancy
Of $4,000 between his monthly and quarterly re-
turns, on the 30ih June $780, are, that be had paid
out moneys allotmenis aud made advances to con-
tractors and dcalers which, though reported as OK
penditures in bis monthly returns were not included
in his quarterly because the transactions were not
complete, and he could not procure the necessary
vouchers.
In this statement also, there is some truth The
practice in relation TO allotmcnts is in general as he
safes Advances to some extent 10 de'ers and con
tractors were doubtless made by him But this practice
is in direct violation of law No adrance ar navren,