The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-08-29

The third specification Of the Republic is SO expressed
as TO produce impression positively false and
founded "We aver" says the Republic, "that in Octo
ber ls4s Mr.. DENLY acknowledged the receipt Of one
hundred thousand dollars, in drafts OF $4,000 EACH
noting his account against them, "both which re-
ceved no advice Off II would be understood by this state
ment that these drafts had been issued and their receipt
acknowledged at about the date OF their receipt with
complaint OF want of notice, and that the date was
October 1915 Now the account TO which the editors of
the Republic acknowledge TO have had access will show
and without that advantage, that nothing more
two treasury drafts referred to, we
assert issued in November. ls47 and March, Isls
and received in due course of mail by Mr.. Denbys Sc
lected and accredited agent in this country.
II advice OF these payments under the contract not
given to Mr. DENLY. pas M fault of his agent, 10 whom
they made BY his direction and not the fault of The
Secretary Of The Navy. There was no obligation the
Secretary, and. no necessity to give Mr.. DENLY such
notice from the department and we doubt not, if the
Secretary had done SO, those who have "such optics
keen" would have found in it evidence of disrust that
Mr. Osborne would not make due remittance to his prin-
pal and hence argued that the Secretary OF the Navy
should not have made payment to suspicious person.
After the virtual abandonment Of its deamatory nnu
whole complaint seemed imboded in these avements,
numbered with all the formal parade of counts in
indctmenthe Republic Of the 25th instant desires TO
appear explicit 1t quotes at length the 10th
lion of the sub treasury act and again AYERS that "ts
whole transaction undenably illegal transaction.
We aver distinctly that Secretary who deposited $780,
900 in the hands OF any person, Nth the knowledge that
such person was to convert it to his in any way
whatever, to it by way of investment in any
kind of property merchandise participated in what the
law calls felony; and that it makes difference in
what capacity such person received such money or held
it, whether the navy agents agent, or as commercial
agent generally"
Now we are authorized to state that the late Secretary Of
the Nary made such depostes wi any such knowledge
He not cognizant OF privy to any arrangement
between Messrs DENLY and Osborne, or Of any agree
ment or understanding between them for any or en-
poyment OF the money paid under the contract for any
purpose bat in good faith TO make the necessary ex-
change and remittance to the agent abroad; was he
informed of the mode in which the or the other was
effected He made the advances for the necessary supply
of the naval forces in the Mediterranean and the value
of the money SO advanced according to the terms of the
contract was to be accounted for al Marsees by the
navy agent when called for OF its in the interim,
the Secretary, repeat had knowledge and no one
can truthully assert otherwise. Nor was he any more
responsible for any investment which might have been
made of it, with view to its remittance, than would
Mr. Clayton or Mr. Preston be for any investment made
BY the agent OF Messrs Barring Brothers Co. in this
country Of public moneys advanced here for remittance
to his principals in London, to pay foreign ministers or
the crews OF our ships-ofwar foreign stations In the
desperate and most nexplicabe anxiety TO mpcate Judge
Mason in the loss of the public money by Mr. Depbys
agent the Republic not only puts in the peril promi-
nen members OF the present administration but assumes
an Interpretation of he iae i entirely protects he sure
ties 10 the bonds Of all agents resident abroad and
the surees Of Mr. DENLY should happen to be good, j,
would prevent a recovery from them "The whole trans
action was an illegal Transaction" says the Republic II
So why haze the aw officers Of the government instituted
Legal proceedings against DENLY and all has s'ees
II the transaction was Illegal il cannot be enoced and
il had been believed TO be so, the solemn farce would
not have been enacted Of commencing suit, at least
against those sureties who not the navy agents
agent. ...
On this subject, the act Of Congress Of January 3lst
1922 which is not considered as repealed is full and
pic That iorbds all advances OF public money in
every whatever" But this there these
provsoes: L. lDat IL snail De lawful 10 make sucn adj
vances the disbursng officers OF the government as
may be necessary the faithful and prompt discharge Of
their respective duties and TO the uflment OF the public
engagements o And that the President may direct such
advances he may deem necessary and proper to such
persons in the naval and military service, may be
pioyed distant stations uhere The discharge Of The pay
and enounents 10 phih they may be entitled cannot be
regularly made.
But there additional averment made that the
failure OF Mr. DENLY communicated in the Sec
retarys last annual report The Republic assumes "that
il then clearly his duty TO communicate the fact
to MIR. Polk and to Congress" And this flip
pant determination OF questions Of legal construction
and Of official duty, the Republic frames coarse ac
cusations OF neglect Of duty, and Of infdeiiy TO the
President and TO the people We will not stop to inquire
whether even il a mistaken Interpretation Of law
should be MADE such grave accusations would be merit
ed but we undertake TO prove that no such miaaks tcas
made and that there little foundation for this as the
other allegations and nsnuaions OF the accuser.
In point OF fact the failure Of Mr. Osborne, and its
probable effect, pas communicated 10 the iae President
phout delay, after known 10 The Secretary Of The
Navy What course does the law prescribe under such
The second section OF the act OF Congress Of January
81 Is23 directs the mode OF settlement OF accounts by the
proper officers Of the treasury, and the Sd section declares
ss.l.. n II Lol