Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-04-03
Tbe Constitutional G1lbtD.
EridHy Ecentiss. .zNrch 80.

Ertfgsy Ecentis=. .IHNrCh 80.
The U. 5. Telegraph has recently made
charge or charges, of frauds practised 10y the late
Secretary of War; and others, which occupy
twelve columns of that paper. We fluid an extract
from it ready prepared to hands, which we
publish to-day. The Richmond Enquirer COM
mcnts upon the attack with its usual impartialitv
and publishes only the reply to it from the Globe.
Ertract from the Globe, IN this mornings Enquirer.
'lThe Editor of the Telegraph has given, after
several weeks preparations most laborious account
OF "most stupendous fraud" We have not time
TO notice the matter at present, and give full OK
PLANTATION. In the mean time, we give the follow
ing succinct account of the circumstances with
which MIR. Green seems to have been very familiar.
Ii is from the pen of Duff Green himself the pre-
sent accuser, and published in the Telegraph No
vembcr s. 1880. The article is intended to yindi
cate Major Eaton from the attack of Prcntss late
editor OF the National Journal who then the
assailant. 1t will be that the Editor of the
Telegraph rcfutcs his present statement upon this
subject as well as that made by Prcutiss." Globe
THE SECRETARY OF WAR.
The Journal OF tho I'd instant contains long
article under the signature of Wm Prentiss, char
glng the Secretary of War with violation of
his duty in refusing to him contract for supply
ing tho cmigratng Indians with provisions. Mr..
Prentiss alleges that he offered to deliver the sup
Plies at nine cents, and insnuates that the Secrc.
taTy refused TO accept his bid because he believes
that he was DESTROYS to give the contract to Co
vernon Houston and Mr.. Van Fossen, at thirteen
cents per ration He also admits that he was in
formed at the Department that the cost of the ra
ton as furnished by the Commssarat, was but
eight cents, and further, that there was another
bid at nine cents, and one other at less than nine
cents.
"Mr Prentiss alleges that Mr.. Van Fossen pro-
posed to him, that if he would withdraw his bid of
nine cents, he lPrcntss should have one half the
nj nm fl,ar, a.
refused to withdraw, and alleges his reason for
that refusal, (we give his words)
"I did not accedc to their proposition. Know
ing that Governor Houston "a bosom friend of
the Secretary of War; had formed a connection
with Gen. Van Fossen, and aware of his inflence,
was led o believe that in the desire to servo him.
my rights might be violated s"
"Triiles light air,
Are, to the jealous confirmation strong
AS proofs of holy writ"
"Mr. Prentiss afraid that because Governor
Houston was tho bosom friend of the Secretary of
war, In the desire of the latter to serve the Co
vernon his (Mr. P.'s) rights might be violated;
and, therefore, he refused TO participate in a con.
tract SO advantageous! Now, an ordinary mind
would have supposed that SO far from violating
the rights of Mr.. Prentiss, his interest would
have been promoted by the desire of the Secretary
to promote the interests of the contractors if he
were indeed the bosom friend of one of them, and
so regardless of his public duty, as Mr.. p. would
represent him to be.
'But the Secretary is no doubt much indebted
to Mr. T. Tor the manner in which he has impugn-
ed his "otficlal conduct" under his own proper
name We now have the charge and accuscr 1t
is no longer vague rumor. Mr.. u. has put his name
to the indictment, and spread the charges before
the world; and with them he has given his proofs.
lis proofs are ms sUsPicIoNs FIRST that Gov Hous-
ton is the bosom friend of The Secretary of War.
This wants confirmation. 1t is known that Meth
er the Secretary the Governor SO consider
each other. The other charge is that the
secretary vas guilty of Partially in
justice in refusing give Mr.. PIentiss
the contract at nine cents. Mr.. Prentiss admits
that the ration had cost Government but eight
cents. The Partially then, if any there was, con
sists In saving to the Government twelve per cent.
on the contract. The injustice is in refusing to
give Mr.. L. preference over another bidder whose
proposal was twelve per cent less. Mr.. p. said that
the lower bid was illegal, because the bidder was
a sub-agent. 1t was easy to remedy that de-
feet, by resignation. The agency would of
course have ceased with the acceptance of the
bid AS to what passed between them, MIR.
Prentiss and Mr. Van Fosscn it does not appear
nor Is 1T pretended that Mr.. " r. authorized
by the Secretary of War to make any proposition
whatever. That lies between Mr. p and Mr.. "
f. and no Inference to the prejudice of the Sc
cretary, is properly to be deduced thcrefrom if all
that MIR. T. says be true.
''The truth of the whole matter is, that the Sc.
cretary issued proposals; that Mr.. p was a bidder
at an advance of twelve per cent. on the commits
sarat prices, and higher than another bidder. He
now complains that the Secretary did not give him
preference. If the Secretary had given Il con-
tract at nine CENTS when the ration cost but eight
would have been just cause of censurc. AS it is
all must admit that Mr.. p. has failed to make out
his caso."]
To this reply, the Editor of the Telegraph re-
marks--lsty, that the point at ISSUE is not the We
raclty OF Duff Green; and 2ndly, that the defence
OF the late Secretary, for not giving the contract
to Prentiss is no answer to charge of fraudulent
ly giving it to another, and that in fact the ques-
tons have no dependence each other.
We give place to these ordinations and recrimi-
nations, as matters of public interest without pre-
tending to have formed any opinion upon the sub
Ject. There will probably be an investigation of
it, and it is due to the late Secretary of War that
there should be.
tho cndcaring terms which these so late friends,
use towards each other Hear tho Enquirer, at
is surely notifying enough to man of honor
to be arraigncd before the public by such
an accuscr" By such GccuSer7 Who is hc7
How long has it been since the assertions of Cen
DUH Green were sufficient proof to the Editor of
the Enquirer, for the foulcst charges which could
be made against the opponents of Gen. Jackson?
we hoid the mere act of turning ones coat in it.
self indifferent. 1t is the motive alone which
makes it praiscworthy odious: When we see
garb assumed or thrown Off as il NAV giit the in
terest of party, we do not hesitate to attribute
improper motive; but on the contrary, we should
be wanting in that charity which we would claim
for ourselves, if, when there is no assignabls bad
motive, we should still persist in attributing one