The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-07-10

hereafter) then, that was hfteen days after wards,
informed Of this, and "did allow and approve the
act of said Huger," and concludes As follows
&c. So that, the Charge being that made a con.
tract the specification IN support Of it sums up all
the facts, with thereby" in totally different
offence, to wit, the subsequent approval Of con;
tract made by another But, in point of fact, as
shall show you, there was not either prior authori-
ty or subsequent assent by me.
LIST. AS to previous authority. 80
The specification sets out the contract, and the
suffered authority. Can 1t be necessary to do more
than to collate theset two written papers, AID SIDE
by side to compare them in order to decide at once
that that order is authority for that contract
No one can have read them without expect
ing that il the making of that contract was to
be charged to me, some other or further authority
would be proven, than what is contained in that
letter Even the Secretary 81 war, 70 whom .
the 9th of January, did not SO understand it. In
his testimony on that point, he say
"This answer (viz the report Of the 9th Janu-
vember,) being perfectly satisfactory, ceased to
think on the subject, until my attention was again
called to it short time after, by Mr.. Green again
mentioning the shot being made at the works at
Richmond, when it occurred to me that possibly
Col. Huger might be making shot un Ter chat order
of the 9th of November"
From this te stimony of the Secretary OF War
things TIM rssSs Of %sq
membersd, had previously been informed on two
distinct occasions, by Mr.. Thomas Green, that "the
Tredegar Works had a large contract for shot for
the War Department" and that q large quantity
of shot was making at the Tredegar Works, in
Richmond, owned by Mr.. j. X. Anderson; and
that considerable quantity was piled up In the
foundry yard. or somewhere about the foundry
and who had his suspicious aroused, and bis mind
turned directly to the investigation OF this very
point received from and read an official copy OF
that letter, Of the 9th Of November, without ina
ginning that it could b, counted authority for the
alleged contract, or could even tend to render it
probable that the information he had received had
any foundation whatever, until some time after
sit occurred to him that probably Col. Huger
might be making shot under that order"
And secondly, That whereas it is now charged
against that the authority assumed in tn st or
der usurped in violation of the regulations, be-
cause not sanctioned by the Secretary Of War.
The Secretary himself has here testified before you
on oath, that my report communicating to him that
had issued such an order, and tran ,acting the or
der word for word, and letter for letter. by him
considered perfectly satisfactory" and that he
"ceased to think upon the subject" How could
this be, he did not understand, as did, that had
the authority to issue that order If any sane
ton Of his, previous subsequent, express i'm.
piled, were necessary, has he not here on oath
placed it upon your record, on the declaration that
the report communicating that order was "perfect-
ly satisfactory" and that he "ceasei to think on
the subject ~
Hear also what is said by Capt. Manader, the
principal assistant Of the Bureau and . witness for
CrOSS-eXam;n4tlOn,
while in the hands of the learned and gallant Judge
Advocate. He says :-"I always supposed, and
frequently mentioned to Gen. Talcott, my urn be-
lief that Col Huger had exceeded his Instructions
in giving the order to DIR. Carmichael and that his
conduct in giving that order was to totally mex
plicable;" this when he was familiar with every
word in the order of the 9th Of November Need
more be said or recapitulated, to show that the
contract, any contract was made, was not in pur
suance of the letter Of the 9th Of November; and
that that letter, according to its fair and natural
import, was, in the Judgment Of tho Secretary of
War himself, clearly withinmy official 90 m potency
and perfectly satisfactory" to hint
The question then remains, was that order the
sole authority given by me to Col. Huger! Let
him answer it himself. lput the question to him
roundly and distinctly, Had you any further or
ether authority from Gen. Talcott in reference to
the procuring Of shot shells, than the order Of
the 9th Of November rected in the charge!" His
answer is simply and distinctly '.no."
Not only is this testimony entitled to be received
as conclusive, on account Of the character and
standing ofthe witness, his position here wit
ness for the prosecution, and the powerful induce
mens, if it possible for him to from the
truth, all operating to draw from him in the
strongest terms his own jus ifcaton for the order
given by him; but there is ne particle Of evidence
upon the record giving you the slightest ground
overwhelming weight upon this part Of the case.
When inquired Of him in unofficial letter, 60 DO
you want any shot shells for Fort Monroe; if so,
what quantity and calibre P'-his reply Of the 5th
such purchases to be made, as | had sup
posed might be required, my letter Of the
9Th Of November was written departing
in no degree from the idea which originally enter
tanned, that purchases to limited extent might be
necessary-not expressly or implicitly authorizing
or mplating the complete armament Of the
fort, or large supplies, or anything like it; bu. plain
ly and clearly, in as simple words as language az
fords, limiting his authority to procuring them,
from time TO time, to reasonable extent, If they
could be had on favorable terms, and by open pur-
chase only. This, my sole authority to Colonel
Huger was read and con .dered by the Secretary Of
War, under the peculiar circumstance already a l.
yerted TO, and was regarded by him as perfectly
satisfactory" IL is not to be imputed TO him that
he did not know his duty; that he not acqusint
ed with the limits Of his own powers and Of mine.
And IL that order contained anything more than
had the clear right to do, il is i'm possible that il
could have been perfectly satisfactory" to him,
or that he should have ceased to think upon a
subject which had brought Off ,ally aud directly to
bis notice the usurraton Of power, and the viola
ton Of law, by the head Of one Of the burcaux Of
the department confded 70 his charge. Ifanythng
further were needed this point, II il to be found
in the order issued by the Secretary. nearly three
months after my letter Of the 9TH Of November,
which directs that the heads Of bureaux Of the de-
partment should rot thereafter snake or authorize
any contracts for supplies, or for arms ard NUM-
tons Of war; be purchased, for services to be
performed, 70 amour. exceeding two thousand
collars, without previously submitting such con-
tracts or propositions to the Secretary Of War
on order which was perfectly nugatory and
meaning, unless, indeed, such previous sanction had
not been required heretofore in procuring supplies
70 On amount exceeding two thousand dollars. The
Secretary gays that he informed land IL il to be
presumed, through the proper official chanDels that
Il bad been the practice OF the Ordnance Bureau
not TO require such previous sanction in cases
ceeding two thousand dollars. The 1921 Regula-
tion itself II by violent construction IL be held
applicable 10 the Chief of the Bureau does not eI-
press whether the sanction Is 10 be previous sub
sequent. II, therefore, such practice did exist, IL
was practical construction Of the article, tscitly
approved and a sufficient justification Of act done
in sccOi dance with IL.
Nor was there any subsequent approval by me Of
the order given 10 DR. Carmichael. 4 shall have
occasion presently 10 review my conduct in this
pect, with reference TO the last charge At present
content myself with saying that no such approval
has been proven. ON the contrary, Col Huger, who
aor could prove IT, and had every motive to do so
x bad taken place, has testified that expressed
- H. alal