Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-01-22
D0yH EST'lC.
GENERAL GRATlOT.


Communication OF General Gratiot to the House OF
Representatives, containing his statements IN regard
TO his alleged defalcations
Thp origin of nv difficulty with the Government,
was in the settlement Of my accounts as disoursnS
agent for the Notifications in Hampton Roads, virginia
the construction Of which superintendent during nine
years commencing in 1919, until my promotion as Ohi
Engineer and during seven years OF mat tme was
charged with The oisoulsehifht VI ''e 'u"D' W. N
purpose.
In the final settlement Of my accounts as dsbursing
agent, difference found between my statement and
tha, of the accounting officer of the Treasury Depart
men the nature Of which, and my views on the subject
shown in the following extract OF letter 10 the Be-
ENGINEER DEPARTMENT. !
Washington, Jan. 4, 1881. !
T. Hon. j. H. Eaton, Secretary of War.
Sir--l have the honor 10 submit herewith for your
consideration AMI decision the cases presented,
statement Of differences between The 50 AUDITOR ana
myself; in the settlement OF my account as discussing
agent for the Notifications in Hampton Roads The dis
allowances may be thus cI4ssed
isl Rent Of quarters for Lleuenanss Dnl'on fan0
Mordeca.
81 Medical attendance at Forts Monroe and Calhoun,
one hall Of The amoun, paid only being allowed to my
credit
3D. Commission on disbursements at each work,
portion only OF my claim being admitted, and the mex
rejected a. inconsistent with the regulations.
1,h. Errors in calculations and omissions in my re-
ccipts The third class nf dsalowsnces arises from
difference in the mode OF constituting the $3.50 Para
p.asann he allowed to an Engineer, for dlsbufs-
la The funds applied for the construction Of tortIfca
lInDs
have charged 50 day for the disbursement at each
place (For,s Monroe and Calhoun) whilst the Comp
,.o!ier limits O that the disbursing of The whoe
of compensation for discussing the funds placed
IL my hands.
II IS plain that if all the Notifications under cons,rrc
ton al on. time flor which abou, $500 0O0 annually
appropriately situated to each other single
engineer might be charged with the general superl"-
irndence OF them, and with the disbursements c"nse
urrnt on their construction Bnt could hardly he *
prcted that he would for the small compensation alloy
ed by the accounting officers construction of the IRE
gu'a;iuns," burthen himself with so great esPonso'-
I.y Such at least not my understanding OF the
requirements pf the reputation and under the present
circumstances must recur to the only existing PToVI
son of ia,c the subject that made in the third section
ni the &C, Of Sd March, 1909, allowing compensation
Of per cent provided it do not exceed 2OU0 dollars
Ne. nnnum Il is probably known 10 yun that the
disbursements on account of the works in Hampton
Roads, were previously TO 1921, made like those on
most other works by special agent OF torrhcatnns.
appointed under the authority OF the law Just referred
to- and having the compensation therein stated The
agent in Hampton Roads having become deaoier for
large amount (neariy 80 900 dollars the funds Tor
carrying on the work placed in my hands under
the regulations of 1881, mentioned in the Sd Auditors
remarks, and continued the disbursements until lie
Dh September 1929 10 which period abou, 4OO 00
d,srs had passed through my hands, and have he"n
accounted for, with the exceptions now before you
notwithstanding the manner in which the regulations
of ls2l worded can hardly believe that IN hx'ng
the rate compensation far below that previously
allowed to agents of Notifications, II could have had
reference also TO the of an officer dsbursng on
account of more than one appropriation OF the usual
amount; and my opinion rests not less on Inc chaHsf
li1de the form OF that regulation III leo than on The
pal3able injustice OF such measure
The duty Of discussing is not one Of those with which
the commission Of Engineer officer charges him. The
proof Of which, any be necessary. found IN The TACT
special agent being appointed tor that purpose; "h'
aok arn niPI n
bonds are required ia the OF dshursng officers
IL The staff aud yet the regulations would seem as I'M
ps!aive With regard To the assumption OF this duty wirr
assigned them, 1t II were sanctioned on le lace o'
his commission and n refusal to perform it, accompanied
by demand for the appointment OF special agent tor
dsbursng would to say the least he but -reccived a.
the War office. So that III case like the present. 'h
only alternative left TO The officer, who does not wish H.
.opardze his commission by refusing perform what l.
considered his duty, is that of cncounierng risk toy
which he knows that he will nj. be compensated
A division Of given amount Of funds between i've
scpropriatops requires distinct books and papers OF al
kinds, and in doubling the number OF vonchet., n'G
Increasing the completely OF the accounts lncrt 1srs
also the risks of error, and of losses in making pay
rents AT the end of every month, during the tim" ri
my making disbursements on the works in Hampton
Roads became responsible for the transportation o;
about 5000 dollars in notes and specie from Nor
folk the losses Of single month might thus have
amounted to than my commission, at The ra,e OF g
per day for OF sypars.
The last class Of the dsallowances my accounts
show rhat this risk is not merely lmag mary although
the amount Of losses small; but the wunt of sigma
TO receipt, the loss Of single voucher, which
could be replaced would thus absorb like the last
Of the statement, the commission for half year
The liability such accidents is obvious, and is vrtu-
ally acknowledged BY the Ia have referred to, which
makes The compensation Of the agent pTupurtionate to
the amount of disbursement
arevcw Of this case, therefore, hope Sir. that
i, will appear you not only equitable bnt legal. thai
an officer who has performed The duty Of dishursing in
addition to the immediate and difficult duties o.
his profession. should receive compensation for II
greater than third Of the allowance to agent
who performed other than those Of disburs
ing.
All Of which is respectfully submitted
(Sgned) e. GRATIOT.
To this letter have only add that the risks of loss
alluded not aginary, is proved by the fact
that the officer who succeeded me- guided by an acc-
dental discovery OF discrepancy in the statements of
materials received and those paid for found among the
letters on 6e single voucher for 1404 dollars which
by some oversight had been presented in my
counts although the evidence Of receipt and payment of
the articles clear.
In Ap,il 1883 these differences still existing, the Sc
crelary of Wor submitted the subject to the Attorney
General, who declined giving opinion in the case,
and the matter remained unsettled
In December, 1885, during the existence Of the diff
cu,ies with France Congress having refused appro
nraton Of money for the defence Of the country it
d,ermiped 10 make OF such balances Of existing sp.
as could be diverted from their proper OBJ
cs without serious injury to the service, and to apply
en TO the of the repair and armament Of the
forufca,ons. To do this the money drawn from the
Treasury and placed in my hands, general fund to
be RENTED to various officers of the Engineer and Ord
nance Department for the purposes stated Or the whole
sum (say 500 0O about sos 900 were thus drawn from
the Ranks IN which hey had been deposited 10 my cre