Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-05-21

any, because | knew it could not be explained 10 me I'M.
less oy an acknowledgment that SO much mad been taker
nom the money and effects left By the former Purser; OF
by shelving that Lieut.. Randolph had on hand of his owl
Of me Time oil his appointment, near $4,000, 81 mai he
mad borrowed that sum from sesle trend: neither of which
he ever PretsAasi was the case. ""'
.is accounts show his money transactions after he ar
rived IN the United States, to have been as follows:
RECEIPTS.
August 8. Received from the u. S. NAVY
Agent at Boston, al, 500 OC
III. Received proceeds Of sales of slop
clothing, SC. belonging to tho
late John b. Undertake, COZ 81
Received for dead mems and de-
serters' clothes sold. al os
" IL. Received from U. s. Navy Agent
at Boston, 8 1900 OC
Total receipts $685. 4s sc
EXPENDITURES
Paid crew at Boston, S7Is9t "a
Gown expenses at Charlestown,
Mass, while attending TO the sale
OF Purser Tinberlaku's eifecs, 80 90
Postage of letters on public
business, 2 OF
ar Calder, for Transporting Pur-
ser Undertakes books, &c. from
Boston to Washington, rs 10
" own travelling expenses, and
per diem while settling accounts
with the Government, lO7 40
Retained Tor own pay and rations to
30ih Sept. 1928, 463 Al
Retained for commissions allowedi in
settlement of his accounts, 2.267 10
Refunded TO the u. States, 10. 1857 a3 81 geo 81
Leaving in his hands the enact sum which his
accounts show he had advanced TO the
Government before his arrival at Boston, IS, 1887 s
Believing that his account with the Branch Bank OF
the United States at Boston, IN which he kept his money
while there would shed some further light on his money
transactions, the Auditor applied for, and obtained il
through the Secretary OF The. Treasury. 1t was found to
be very full and explicit, and afforded all the information
which was expected to be derived from il.
1t appeared from his Bank account, that he had on de-
posite in Bank on the llth of August, 1928, after CONFLICT.
ing his payments at Boston, $l9,S73 %.
Oh the l2th August, 1928, he got from the Bank a draft
on the United States Branch Bank at Norfolk, Va. for
500 IL. On the END Of the same month he got from
the Bank a draft on the United States Branch Bank at
Richmond, Va. for $4,000, and $7lS 90 in cash. These
payments by the Bank reduced his deposite to the sum of
SlO,OOO precisely, which he left in Bank, and come on
to Washington tosettle his accounts with the Government.
The settlement exhibited a balance against him of
$40, PSI 43, for which sum he drew a draft on the Branch
Bank at Boston, on the 18Th October, 1928, in favor of the
Treasurer Of the u. States. III caused TO be deposited
in the Bank on the goth OF the same month, $267 43,
which, with the deposite of $4,000, left in it on the 22d
August, made precisely the amount of the draft drawn
on 1t on the 18th October. On the 2Ist October the draft
was presented 10 the Bank, aud paid by ii, which closed
Lieutenant Randolph'' accounts with both the Bank and
the United States.
a Report made by the 4th Auditor in the year 1880, /
believe, In answer to a resolution of Congress on this sub
ject, will show all those transactions more lully. / assisted
in collecting most oil the facts upon which il is based. and
believe the whole of ii TO be true.
| resigned the ~clerkship which I held in the 4h Audi.
tors office, on the 7h April, 1882, and of course, knew bu,
little OF whathas transpiredin relation to Lieut.. Randolph's
account since that time. Tread in the Globe of the 9Th inst.
the opinion OF the Court of Enquiry, lately convened in
this city Tor the purpose Of examining his accounts. Ii
has not changed my opinion on the subject at all. a great
portion OF the amount there admitted TO have been paid bv
Lieut.. Rondolph for Purser Timberlake, | do not believe
was paid by him. For instance, | do not believe he paid
Orfila's bill of 50 ,259 80, for the following reasons. He
paid bills oil the same character for Purser Timberlake.
took the receipts in his oWn name, charged them in his
O,on Account Current, and received credit from the Gov
eminent for them. Why, then, did he take the receipt for
this Bill in Pufser Timberfdke's name, and leave il out
gfhis Account Current Besides, if my recolIe c,ion serves
Ine, this Bill is dated some two or three weeks before
Purser Timberlake's death. Why was it dated back in
March, If paid in .dpriU
But, if it were proven that Lieut.. Randolph did pay it,
and ten thousand dollars, or any sum YOU please. besides,
ii would only prove 10 my mind that Purser Timberlake
left when he died so much more than s. $1,000; for Lieut..
Randolph did certainly pay away on his oton account, be-
fore he reached the United States, at least 50, 900, moro
than he had received from the Government, or its Agents
abroad. From what source, then, could he hay We received
that sum, other than Undertakes es,ate' He does not
pretend, even, that he had any surplus cash of hi, own
when he was appointed acting Purser.
1 am ready to prove all | have said; so, YOU have nv
consent to use IL as you please.
Respectfully, job C. RIvEs.
To FRANCIS p. BLAIR, Editor of the Globe.
W~AsHINeroN, Nav Is, 1889,
SIR;-Ncor the close of my letter to you relative to
Lieut.. RandolPh's accounts, published in The Globe Of hi,
morning, are the following sentences:
al read in the Globe of the 9Th inst. the opinion Of the
Court OF Enquiry, lately convened IN this city for the pur-
pose OF examining his accounts. 1t has not changed my
opinion on the subject at all. a great portion ofthe amour,
there admitted to have been paid by Lieut.. Randolph for
Purser Timberldke, DO not believe was paid by him. Fol-
instance, | do not believe he paid Orfla's bill of 80. 259 so,
for The following reasons. He paid bills OF the same char.
acter for Purser TinbcrIake, took the receiptsI in his o,Dn
name, charged hem In his otcn Account Current, and re-
ceived credIt. from The Government for them. Why, then,
DID he take the receipt for This Bill in Purser Timber.
iabes name, and leave IL Ot 1 his Account Current:
Besides, II my recollection serves me, this Bill is dated
some two or three weeks before Purser Timberlske's Heath,
why was II dated back IN March, if paid in .dpyiY"
j Understand That some persons have supposed that I in.
tended a reflection either OIL the motivss, or on the ,Dis-
dom, OF tie Court OF Enquiry. / had no such intention
~ the time wrote the letter, did not know who com.
posed the Court; nor do I now know the name of but on.
member OF 1t. Nor did | know any Of the evidence lhst
was before II nor did | seek to know 1t, because I thought
and still think, that The evidence which I had. is bejter
than any that can 1to'e be adiuced. ! am now told tilAt
the Court bad before IL the affidavit Of Mr.. Or6Ia, which
states that bis Bill was paid by Lieut. Randolph, and lbal
tits strengthened by the testimony Of Commodore Psuer.
son The very next paragraph Of my letter provides for
'hts. and all other claims, that may be brought forward.
MY principal object fr introducing the opinion of the
Court OF Enquiry, aud Ofila's bill, was 10 show, that IN
my vieto NJ the case, it made no difference whether il wa
or was not paid by Lieutenant Randolph.
Please publish this letter for the benefit Of all concern
ed. respectfully, JOHN Z. RIYES.
To +. = BbAfn, Editor Of the GioJe,
FREDERICKSBURG COMMITTEE EDt
TOR OF THE TELEGRAPH.
On the return Of Dun Green from Frodeficksbure