Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-07-06

SAVER, cvery worthy man and well known here) and
Extracted from original bill of 1851 So
Navy Department,
To Joseph SAVER, DR..
Making - sheets ., q oo
Making 2i pillar cases i2i.2 3 90
si2 %
:, NoRroLx. Dec. is isi7
Received OF Miles King, Navy Agen, at Norfolk the
SUN OF nine hundred aud i,y four dollars and eighty
JOHN SAVER.
.Nc,, Bin
NAVY Department Tor the Navy Hospital
ls2o, To Joseph SAVER, DR..
August 3Otb, for p sheets
- pillow CASEY S'zoo
NoRFoLK August, 1919
Received Of Miles King, NAVY Agent 6nv two
dollars, in payment Of the above bill.
JOSEPH SAVER"
Here we haze the same articles al the same priee
making the same sum, and the receipts according
Surely, then, Mr.. Murden had some right IN saw he
bills "correspond." But our Auditor who looks more
closely into things, at once that thpra Ia ey,1,
difference between them and il H. thst there are three
items in one and ouy too in the other. Yes. but if
ne hau only looked little closely still, he Nigh /
nave discovered, that the item OF the old bill which
omte in the new 10 wit, the "ihree pieces Russian
Duck, was really implied IN The two items of tle lat
ter; a. 1t ia quite clear that the < sheets and pillow ca
SEES must have been made and very probably, out of
Russian Duck" BIT if he had wished 10 graft.
~ his iuqui'itve turn OF mind little further by finding
our more particularly, ho,o this important difference
hai oeen made, and had written another letter TO Mr.
Marden upon the subject AMI him to xp ain
the affair, he weuld have discovered that Mr. NJ had
made The mysterious alteration himself only 10 make il
cotresrond with the entry Of the very same accoun,
on the book Of the Navy Storekeerer a, the Yard
VINO not knowing in what form SAVER had made out
MS account Ind made his curry in his own w,y for
me articles which he had received without noticn,
me materials out OF which they had been pads and II
ne had yet further desired TO know the "ieadiny mo
rue which led Mr.. Nj. 10 make the change he
would have learned (what could no, have ilJ to bavs
oeen very grat'yins) that MIR NJ had done il partly 10
pleass h,m-that is, to put he voucher in the very
form that he required This is the first scene of ill.,
e1ht6ion and really il is hardly possible to one
shn could have heen more happily ccn.r,ed TO cast
r'dicule uron the so,cmd his affected susp;cions and
fedt intelligence. and his whole character and
conduct as an officer with ndehie disgrace
Inc next bill IL that Of Robert +. Seed IA gentle.
man ~; OF Inc stctest integrity and it stands exhibited
" Ertrocted from an original bill of So, PSF o5.
Miles King,
Dec. 4. 46 bbs. mes. beef, at sis 90, $500 On
50 prime pork % &C. sl4 10
$l,5O4 II
Navy Department,
- ISL To Robert L S,eed, Dr.
81 bbls. prime pork Sl4 10
$l.5Ol ~
- NORFOLK, 18th Dec. 1917
Received OF Miles King, Navy gent, fifteen hun.
ment Of the above account f'
ROBERT E. STEED."
Here we are told, "the corresp,ndng receip, il
new re, eir'' The date is changed only nine days but
h.nongh there IL one barrel of rork less on the n.
ON h"n on the old il is remarkable that the aggregate
price Us exacy the same, and the price per barrel in
me on Dill is omitted in the new, being some wha,
INCONSISTENT WIN the aggregate price" This H. true:
nu ne seems TO he by this time of the reason nj
'he oiherence, for ne states himself that the new bill
corresponds with the receipt the Navy Storekeen-
rrs book, and which same hook by the wav ala,
shewed that had not been paid for the articles AIM
nut nc tries TO get over this by adding that f the
o'oreRerp@rs book admitted evidence that the
peel and norS have not hecn paid for il would prove
mat Mr. King charges for two b,rres more than vera
lowered, Not exactly il would only prove that
'""geh or two barrels more than were delivered at
ihe store but il would lIow certainly that tb.v
au nor oeen delivered eisechere; and il turns out in
tact that these two very barrels one Of beef and the
oer OF pork, were actually delivered the time on
BOARD The United States ship Alert having been taken
ont OF he boat while il on its wav 10 the NAVY
far and Tor that having gone into the store.
aln Mr. Murdea could have informed him, that hav-
ing previously ascertaned this fac, frsm the then com
naming officer OF the ship and thinking it bu, lust that
should be paid for these barrels as well as the res,
nn' ohcrwIse matter OF mere form, he had included
hen orfndHy in the new bill by extending the ar.
geea'e price OF the whole, and dropping the incons.
rent price per barrel not exactly 10 conceal the aera.
non but only to make the bill apparently correct
az II was substantially so-and This TO DIease me
8uf'for again. (See Mr. Murden's s,atemcn,N We
come 10 Cooke s. Company AMI Granier,s >hiIls
and l was gOiug'to explain the trihing differences
in these as have done in the others; but as il mus,
be evident TO ALL by this time that II is a, impossible
to please an Auditor. il ia TO satisfy Secretary
against ms toU shall refer lie reader who wishes
Tor more information, 10 the satemsu vi of Mr.. Muir
cen, which will shew him all know about hem IT,
"er as the Report in this part OF il reflects upon t,t
even more than upon me- is but right 10 lei
MN answer II for HIMSELF and think his exclamation
must ne satisfactory to every honest MIND. mn. ust
FeInatK, however that the mighty difference in Gran
" ol'S Is 'ne drop OF the enormous of 50 10 dis
COUNT III me last, and our Auditor who would doubt
less nave uS understand that he never commits the
smallest error without design does not appear 10 have
the iaci0 that Mr.. Murden could have made ~ IL ~
NY niue omission by mistake (See Mr. Murden's state
heh' IL hardly necessary to add that all these items
are rejected "Qf course '0s ''s"'
(IO6e cOntinged)
OBJ
c.. NORFOLK, February 1st 1890
SIR;-four letter enclosing three accounts bcrw,ir
returned, in which Won ask me ~ 80 - - ~,