Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-06-08


next day with the letter Of the commissioners in his
hand and demanding payment for the 500 pounds of
bread, consumed by fire, how could we, admitting the
validity oil their allowance, have refused payment
There Is not an alluson in vouchers 2, B. and f. to
burnt bread On the contrary the charged
annexed at certain rate per l0Olbs. to other bread
which was actually delivered into the public store
they would not constitute any bar in law or in com
mon sense, TO Mr. Grahams claim for burnt bread, al
lowed by the letter OF the commissioners
Mr. King has not yet Produced any authority from
the commissioners for making these over payments
They do indeed, say to him. in their letter on the 10Th
UT sin the payment OF Mr. Contractor Graham, you
complied with the instructions of the Board" Where
are those instructions? They have never been sub
med to me. and find them among the papers sub
ncd to the President In their letter of the 10Th
June, the commissioners say: "These (Grahams letter
and the commissioners letters to MIR. King marked
Il. l. and K0 embrace all the correspondence on
ms occasion IN relation 10 the price paid MIR. Graham
Tor the bread 10 which your letter refers These
sequen,y are all the 'nsruction given 20 Mr. KIM
upon the subject L confess cannot find in them the
Sigh e. auson 10 the bread mentioned in those vouch-
er. They appear to me to relate wholly 10 another
parcel OF bread which consumed by fire.
III the in'trnctons of the Commissioners, directing
payment for bread delivered price higher than slip
uateu IN the contract, were produced then the grave
question would present itself, whether the Com.
m.ioners havo authority, by private Letters to alter
contracts which have been made after public advertise
men', In the manner prescribed by Law. Ii they can
the law which requ res them contract after pub
lie advertisement, or in open market, is nu,y. But
no such instructions are produced, and is
ry TO Discus, this question.
The naked truth IT, the in IN a..
we're intended to indemnify Mr.. Graham for his losses
ny hre lie had no claims the government for indem
Dy ic gal or equitable Contractors are always supoo.
sed TO calculate all risks to be encountered pre 10
The delivery OF hs articles contracted for, and exact
compensation adequate to cover them They may be
over'aken by extraordinary accidents; but these
iorunes incident 10 every thing human. Mr.. Graham
IN MS iar aud honest statement does aege that the
Government was in fault in the slighs.t degree, for
the destruction of his bread He saws 81 ber eave 10
represent hat on he Noy I
an Indent for 81 500 bs of bread for the United States.
irgate Gueriere; which, the Ii,h alt ady for
delivery; but from The incenercv of the ,c.dther ,ons
prevented rom sending it to the yard Unfortunately,
on tho night OF the 10 u., my two bakehousss wer,
consumed by he, with all the contents of one, and
Iy the whole contents of the o'her among which ore
were SIS barrels OF navy bread weighing 63 900 lb.
9Z,oUo lbs. OF which pre- nared compliance with
'he above requison," SC. II an individual had con
trac'ed Ter this bread aud it had thus been destroyed
before delivery, without any agency or fault OF his
wouls he have been bound in EQUITY law, to pay for
+! b cry man, placing himself in the situation OF the
Government, must this question in the ne gatve
Tofp1y Mr.. Graham for this bread, was therefore, an
act OF mere charity. WHO has right be charitable
at the expense OF The public Treasury! Have the Navy
Comm'Ssloners or the Secretary OF The Navy,
the PRESIDENT Ii has been dou bted whether Congress
itself possessed the righu mower to relieve with pub
nc money, the sufferers by fire in Alexandria Cert.in
", nothing short of that power could in emn:fy Mr.
Graham for his 10 lses by fire.
In hne, | consider there payments to Mr. Graham a.
oad IN principle, and wore in mode. The Executive
ana Ministerial officers OF the Government have no
right to be charitable at the expense of the public
much less are they TO be countenanced in conccaing
ther charities under the forms Of legal and regular al
lowances. TIL mind hsrliy conceive the agyrava
| ted abuses to which such precedents might lead.
| do not doubt, tina, Commissioners acted in th
mater, "a in all Oilers, with honest mo'ives Butt diff
Ter with then as TO tn. authority for their act.
Had MIR. King paid for the burnt bread directly, il
might have been doubted whether he ought to have
oeen credited upon the authority produced. But he
claims nothing pail in pursuance of that authority He
n Of To alio
credit Tor the overcharges contained in these vouchers
would be to sanction the transaction in principle and in
mode. As one Executive officer am all al
'owances under fal'e unintelgibie names. Let the
people see what is done with their money. When we
choose to pay for burnt bread burnt houses OF
their money, they have right 10 know it. 1t was,
| therefore, my opinion, and still is, that Mr.. King
onght 10 seek for redress from the Congress Of the Uni
ted States who the guardians of the public money;
and may ii they think proper, sanction he which
has been made Of i, in the case of MIR Graham"
have read the argument Of Mr. Kings counsel on
his point, which was after the report from which the
foregoing extracts made, submitted TO the Pre-
'ideht IL has not changed my view of the facts the
law.
His first position is that Mr. King was bound to pay
the price charged for this bread because the account
was approved by the commanding officer Of the ward
In anoher the commander OF the Yard at Norfolk
has stated to you that he does not consider his approva
a. applying to the price Of articles purchased In this
think, he Is wrong, and that he is responsible the
price "a well as the quality and delivery. But, do
conceda, that il il the duty Of the Navy Agent 10 pay
an account when he knows to he incorrect though
proved by the commanding officer. In this case, he
made the contract himself. He knew that the contract
price was 81 81 2, and not 81 S. No approval could
Justify the payment Of price, other than the contract
price. Nor should the Agent who paid the money,
with full knowledge OF the facts, and without effort
to correct the error, be permitted TO shield himself
under the wrong done by the commanding officer in ap
proving the accounts.
His next potion ia, tina, il the duty Of Govern
ment TO pay Graham for his burnt bread far as il had
been prepared requsitions because il was their
Ifat1lf hat ,altu E.s Il
claim has been presented account of burnt bread
hH casa under confederation H. overcharga bread
actually delivered. In the next place, Graham himself
in his letter TO the Commissioners, does hi.
claim on any alleged default of the Government The
only reason given nv him fer not delivering the broad
s"he nclemencV If the ,ceOticr which prevented lie
taking il to the Yard. There il not particle of evil
dHncp, that any attempt offer made to deliver IT,
and that the delivery prevented by the refusal OF
The Nava Storekecpcr receive it, by any other act
OF other Cove rnment Agent. A the assumed fact
IN which The argument is based does not exist The
gumeut itself falls to tho ground.
His ext position h that IL right 10 pay this
charge, because, had Graham delayed the delivery Of
the bread few days, il would have been received in
1922 and paid for charged according to the contract
tor that year. IL this argument seriously urged? Ii il
Sufficient answer. that Graham did not delay the dc
livery until 1929 and having delivered it in 1928, he
only entitled 10 the contract price Of that year II
delivery in December will auhorise payment accord.
ing TO the contract price OF The year, what shall
prevent The application Of the same rule to deliveries
mad in November, September, or any other month in
the yeafl
In truth, GtNham could not have prolited by delay.
His contract 10 furnish all bread reqar Ell, &C. dur
ing the 1925 This ead required in Novem-
ber 1928 and had nc failed 10 comply with the reuuisi.