Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-05-21
DOMESTIC.
IRON tho Wa,hing,on Globo..


From tho Washington Giobo.l
THE OF THE OUR OF
We have had a conversation with Commodore Morris,
ana ind that we misunderstood the opinion of the Court
In a very important point. The mistake gave a complex.
ion to our notice OF the opinion of the Court, which il gives
us pieasure now to say does not properly belong to il. The
impression, however, which we took upon reading the
opinion, seems TO have been generally adopted, and we
feel II TO be not less our duty TO the public, than Justice TO
the Court, TO give an explaDation OF, the common error
which has arisen from q hasty peTusal OF the document in
question.
The Court exoncrated Randolph from intention to
d9rdud" in relation TO certain specified instances OF '' in
correct and censurable" transactions while Acting Purser,
and this eronerdti0n as to bad motive, has been errone-
ousiy, by us as well as by others, supposed applicable to
the main subject OF the Courts enquiry, (viz) the detail
edtion.-But this is not 50. The presiding officer has set
us right in this particular, and that it may be properly un-
ders.ood by the public, we now give the following ex-
tracts from the opinion:
The Court first say
"Tha, Lieutenant Randolph's conduct In relation TO his
transactions as Acting Purser Of the Frigate Constitution,
was incorrect and censurable in the following particu-
lars, viz:
In assuming the responsibilities and commencing the
duties OF Purser, and taking charge of any of the proper.
ty and effects left by his predecessor, before a proper or.
der had been given for taking such surveys and invento-
ries of the property left by Mr.. Timberlake, as the regu.
lations OF the Navy Department required, and before such
inventories had been duly taken and handed TO him.
"ln not charging himself aud crediing his predecessor,
Mr.. Timberlake, in his accounts, with the amount of mo.
ney and other articles left by the said Timberlake, Of which
he took possession, and which he expended as Acting Pur.
ser, and in not mentioning such receipts to the Officers of
WV Treasury " Ut al tlt tne OI ScUnDK MS accounts.
Gin making payments and taking receipts for the same as
though the payments had been made by Mr.. Timberlake
during his life, and thereby rendering it impossible to de-
termine with accuracy the precise amounts which were
respectively paid by Mr.. Timberlake and by himself.
In not taking greater care to separate The articles lief.
by his predecessor, and of which he did not assume the
control and expenditure, from those of which he did as
sumo the control, SO as TO prevent any of the former from
being either issued or returned and passed TO his own credit.
q" In returning into the Navy store and receiving credit
for linen or duck as slop clothing, when in fact il had not
been purchased as such nor any part OF the whole quantity
originally purchased, had been issued or charged as slp
clothing.
eth Court are further Of opinion that the BEFORE
MENTIONED neglects Of Lieut.. Randolph and the irregu-
tGrtties IN ms mGnner Of performing the duties of .acting
Purser and in keeping and making out the accounts,
did not proceed from any intention to defraud the Unit
ed States or Mr.. Ifmberlake."
The reader will observe that the Court expressly limit
the exoneration of Randolph from fraud to the before
mentioned neglects," SC. sc.
immediately after this, the Court come to the main
point and thus indicate their opinion upon his conductin
~ "Th. . CCSI, . are also Of oplIpion, thu, the amour, of money lon In
Washington IN 1893 was 50 large that it ought of itself to have eseit,
Hontelod oft%o amounts which Viii he S az sos Ua Il a p%S on s. wS,Snn Ss M%
Iimberake, and to have induced some voluntary attempt GU his part
upon by tho present 4th Auditor for explanations"
We had supposed that while in this passage the Court
tell Randolph, they find him in possession of money which
he must have known did not belong to him, but which he
claimed as his own, they nevertheless acquitted him of
fraudulent intention. The error grew out OF the mad
vertence OF applying the exemption from dishonest mo.
tive, appropriated by the Court to the minor neglects
first enumerated, TO the principal charge which formed
the subject of enquiry. But we are no,o assured, thai
the separation OF the defalcation of the public money,
from the venal misconduct which the Court censure, but
say ''did not proceed from any intention to defaud,'
was expressly designed to leave the inevitable inference
OF greater impropriety to attach TO the appropriation OH the
part OF Randolph, of that which did not belong to him-or.
Ito use the language OF the Court) for having "REcEIv-
ED PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR WHICH HE HAS NOT
CHARGED HIMsELF, AND FOR WHICH HE HAS NEVER
ACCOUNTED TO THE And il is
clear that this was a wiful and intentional wrong, because
I'M IOnrt "A N III mn Of mn m s1fI ff IA, D. 49,.
session of Lieut.. Randolph ,chen his accounts ,cere set.
tied at Washington in 1928, tcas SO large that ii ought
Of ITSELF to haze ercited doubts in his mind as to
The correctness Of the accounts" And is not this the natural
conclusion to which every mind must come! Randolph finds
himself in possession OF a large sum of money, Tor the re-
tenion OF which he did not account when called upon by
the proper officers Of the Governments; but when he
squared his accounts at the Treasury, under the auspices
oil Watkins, a default was improperly thrown on the person
who was his predecessor. And upon the deceased Tim
bcrlake the disgrace Of the defalcation would have rested
forever, but FOR the suspicious which arose out of the cir.
cumstances which have heretofore been explained. This
led TO an invesigation-to a sort OF hue aud cry through
the accounts OF Purser Randolph, when a large portion OF
the dehcit was found to appear as a sort of surplus OH Ran
dolph's accounts before the final payments at Boston. and
an amount about equal to this apparent surplus was trans
milted by Randolph TO Richmond in a check of the Bank
Of the United States at Boston.
To show that Randolph was not unapptized of the con.
illusions which would be drawn from the state of the ac-
counts as was animadYertcd on by the court, we give be.
10y" The statement OF Mr.. Rives, who was a clerk in the
4h Auditors office, and who then pointed out 10 him the
necessity Of accounting for the surplus thus found upon
him. We unconsciously did injustice 10 the court in s,,n
posing that they had forgotten this amount, in referring TO
the sum which Randolph had in his possession u~nacco6nt.
ed for. We are now informed, that the Court referred 10
so much OF II as remained in his possession, where the
opinion speaks of "the amount IF money ief in the nos.
session Of Lieutenant Randolph ,chen his accounts mere
settled at Washington an 1925"
The opinion of the court as now explained, so far from
generating Randolph from San intention to deGa,id
the United States or Iimberidke," intimates distinctly, in
our view OF it, that he must have known that wrong was
committed on both; and that it should "haue induced some
voluntary attempt on his part Ia procure a further in.
ueSfig0tiOn," SC. SC. The failure TO make This "poitor.
fdry attempt TO do justice TO the parties from whom the
money was distracted and withheld, makes Randolph
Orom the direct consequences Of this opinioD) a wrong
doer both TO the government and its deceased agent. On
in question, with the hazard oft total loss. On the other,
an unfortunate and innocent brother officer is rendered
responsible ad stigInstized in his grave as a defaulter-
his widow robbed Of the little pittance left her-his orphans
stripped OF the means OF nurture and education, and this
too, by one acting in a fduciary character, both for the GO.
vernment and for a deceased friend. II the opinion of the
court he Just, these conclusions are inevitable under the
circumstances of the case.
We at first blamed The court for not indicating an opin.
ion with respect 10 the course which the resident ought
to pursue, as to the punishment Of the enormous wrong
committed, made manifest by its opinion; but we arc now
informed that a Court of Enquiry has no right to act in this
way, in such a case. The President Is bound TO make M
his own decision, and to act from the dictates Of his
own Notwithstanding If he pleases, the learn
ing and wisdom Of his Cabinet. In the instance of
Randolph, it Is pretended by those who seek TO preju-
dice the public mind against the course OF the Pre-
sident, that he acted from partial views and mimi
cal feelings. There never was greater wrong done 10
him, much as lie has been wronged by the violent spirit
- a.. a.-Aa NJ III 0--..t.aaA T..