Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1842-04-14
Date ofray- onsoeount Bagg,6e p.muusge Amount
esi,5ao si4,372 80 slos,5it 80

Total ss7,652 % s5i,5eo si4,372 30 sl0s, 5li 50
An examination Of the vouchers on file will show
that the only evidence upon which this largo Gum Of
money paid bv the disbursng agnnt consists frsi
Of receipts gwen by the conductors Of the Indians as to
tho number o Indians and the amount Of baggage; and
second the certificates Of clerks II the boats as to
The time the different boats wefo detained
The necessity Of tho obligation OF an oath IN all such
eases will, the Committee think be manifested by an
examination Of various items the aboyo account
especially Of that in relation To the amount OF baggage
being ,oOl tons, aud charged with rolghage u the
amount OF 81 $50. With the knowledge that tho stock
OF the indians h,d been driven hy land are At
loss To conceive that items Of Indian property could
have constituted this large total of baggage They
must have carried an unusual amount OF pailis and
boikots. The regulations Of the Indian department.
In other csscs have assumed that thirty pounds per cap
ia was far acreage of the baggage Of Indians
This may DO assumed fair average for race hose
travelling equipments usually a gun. a box of paint
and blanket and perhaps bow and arrows especially
is this average FIJI when applied large body com.
posed OF ,rairtors, squ1les, aud children. Thirty
pounds per capita would have gwen 10 these 3.0ol In
dians forty fire tons Of baggage instead of loo. tons
with which they charged
This Is but sample Of tho whole. The charge for
demurrage or detention Of the boats Is almost equal to
the value of steamboat and, when divided among tho
four boats, (Which number only of right was employ
Cd would make the demurrage of thirty five DAYS to
each boat al 800 perday and amounting in the whole
70 detention of more than four months The price pad
for transportation of these 300l Indians composed Of
warnors slnaws. and children. from Memphis 10 lat
tic Rock and Fort Coffee, is. beyond doubt moro than
ample.
II tho Government had bought the four boata each
~, thor whole cost would have been $4,000
To have hired hands bought all the fuel and paid all
other expenses OF running these boats estimating these
expenses al 500 per cay. and the time empo,s IN re-
moving the Indians al 80 days. would have required tho
farther sum oil 1900. This mode Of eiecnr the TO
mova oil those Indians would have cost the Govern
meni $4,000, being tl6,574 80 less than was pad to
capt Buckner not counting the boats. which would
have belonged to the Government
II tho Government had hired four beats each At 1000
pr day. and 80 days been required to remove tho Indians
frsm Memphis TO Fort Coffee the expense to the Gov
eminent would have been $4,000.
MS estimate, both as 10 the time required To make
the removal and for the daily hire Of the boats is beoy
ed 10 be age yet under this estimate had this course
been pursued there would have been saved in rxpcud
fure Of the public funds, the difference between Al COG
AMI tto5 pa 80, being clear saving of ISL 5ii 80
Inc detals OF all the items shew the most gross eA
Hasagance On the part OF the contractor and the most
unPardenaoe negligence on the par Of the accounting
ncers Oh inc reasury, In passing upon his accounts
IN conclusion OF the report the committee on public ex
penditures state that from thorough Investigation
'n's case they areconstaned 10 say there no ev
dencc 10 justify the accounting officers of the Treasur,
In allowing this large sum of money The testmon,
Of Capaln Buckner states that he was introduced b,
Colonel Richard Nj. johnson. who attended with hun
0lnoa day, until the requlsition obtained Their
IL some to believe thatihese daiI isi of, n,
Vice President had more persuasive influence with the ac
counting officers IN passing this claim than the strength
o. tne testimony by which ii was sustained Tn
whole amour, thns paid Captain Buckner was Al 46
80 oo OF his amount the sum of s37 ,749 was beyon
douo, Improperly paid. II the committee have been cor
rect In the view they have taken ohis case the Chick
ssaw fund has sustained loss of sl22 2i3 so attrbu
table to the want Of prudent economy and fahfulness
tne part OF those connected with its disbursement, and tn
accounting officers
Du nave referred to this report mainly for the pu,
pose ofembodying the olown passage in the histor
Of the labors Of the committee:
aefrogater,es propo,nided TO Simeon Buchner ,u N
COMMITTEE on Public Expenditures, ard has ans,cc,
thereto, under oath.
list interrogatory. Under contract for removal ,
the Chickasaw Indians you appear have received til
sum ct $31 ,749. on I'd July, 1910; that rcquis,o
was drawn on the Chickasaw fund for that amour
which was subsequently presented at the United Stat,
BANK Tor payment; that was returned and this requ
NON ssned In its stead. Please explain why this 7,