The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-07-01
THE UNION.


from the Ordnance department 10 the Secretary OF War
| Question Can you say what change IN the state OF
me appropriations referred TO IN that report or the supply
VI cannon balls IN the possession OF The Ordnance de-
paftnen had taken place between the date OF this report
Sth January 1851 and LIST November $780, exclusive OF
The contract with Carmichael
dnstoer No material change that am of.
ne Judge Advocate here read the report from the
ordnance department. dated January s, 1851.
The report sales that the Ordnance department was
Wen supplied with cannon balls, in proportion 10 other
aiuces, so as 10 render II unnecessary Tor any 10
De purchased and not the limited state OF the
appropriations for that object would prevent their being
purchased at that time
Gross. examination.
Question If Colonel Huget had received on public
account The shot and shells delivered by Anderson,
would not the regular and necessary course to pay for
them have required him 10 forward 10 the Ordnance bu
reau estimates specifying the quantity and prices OF the
shot and shells and would il not have been necessary TO
nave The Secretary OF Wars requiston, specifying The
appropriation, before the money could be drawn from The
AnsWer Ii would have been necessary Tor Colonel
uger TO have forwarded estimate TO the Ordnance de-
parlmen stating what funds he required Tor what pur
pose, and from what appropriation; and he could not
have got the money without previous requlsllon IRON
me ordinance department on the secretary OF war; sta
ting in gross the amount 10 be remted, and the appo
pIatlon under which Colonel Huger 10 be held &C
conntabe for the same
Question Ii the amount required unusual or it,,
from any other reason, the Secretary desired to inquire
INTO the particulars, would not the records OF the Ord
department in such case clearly lay open to him
.qa,toer They would plainly show every fact and
every particular.
Qie,iion Please examine the printed congressional
document now shown you, and purporu1g 10 be copy
OF the report OF the Colonel oil Ordnance and dated the 4t
December last, and say whether il does not contain pur
chases made not by the bureau, but by the dsbursng
officers OF arsenas ~,
.qnstcsr 1t does contain such purchases among which
notice particularly 27,054 cubic feet OF timber among
the articles reported being procured by purchase for
fabrication at the arsenals and IN the report and IN
the report OF the commander OF the WateTtown arsenal,
which accompanies the report OF the Colonel OF Ord
nance il is stated that 276 spherical shot were inspected
at contract establishments 1t would not follow necessa
y that these spherical purchased by the
commander OF the arsenal This officer is contract in
specto and reports among his years Work the nspec-
lions he has made.
Question Ii the order for shot shells by Col Huger
had been sanctioned by the Ordnance department. and
the order executed would the annual report OF that
department 10 the War Department under the head OF
articles procured by purchase and tabTlcation have ne
cessary shown that the shot were purchased, and not
fabricated!
1ns,cer 1t would have shown that they were pro-
cured by purchase fabrication and the department
does abricate shot, it would necessarily have follow
ed that they were purchased.
Major Mordeca of the Ordnance Departm ent, called.
Question Did you send any 80 FOUNDER sao gauges to
Mr.. Anderson in January OF this year! And II SO, did
you communicate the fact to the Colonel OF Ordnance ana
procure an order for doing so!
dnstcr | did send two 80. FOUNDER shot gauges TO
Mr. Anderson in January OF this year. sent them al
the request OF Col Huger conveyed to me in an unofficial
them, being the Ordnance Office mentioned to General
Tacot that had received such letter from COL Huger,
and that presumed there would be nd objection to send
the gauges Mr.. Anderson; and | think he replied
"No suppose not" something to that effect will
add that placed but little Importance to the Transaction
My recollection OF the conversation with General lacoll
on the subject is not very positive know that re-
ceved written order 10 furnish Mr.. Anderson with
those gauges Such issues generally made only on
! written orders from the Ordnance department. They
were issued to Mr. Anderson but they Teceiped Tor
by Col Huger, to whom MIR. Anderson was told they
were 10 be turned when he was done with them
and consequently, in the summary statement OF the work
done in the month OF January, which was made TO the
Ordnance office early in February--on the Sd, think
the gauges reported having be en- issued to Colone
Huger and that is the only official port made by me tc
the Colonel OF Ordnance the subject can only hA
the date OF my conversation with General Ialcott by Ger
tain papers; after examining which, the witness said
it must have been between the 7tl and llth OF Jan
uary. $3.50,
| Question by defence Was there anything in the re-
quest of Col Huger, in what you said TO General Tai
cott inconsistent with the supposon that the gauges
were required for making few shot Tor experiments
dnstper. On the contrary, my impression al the um
was that they required for that purpose and tina
was the reason attached so little importance to the mat
ter
The court adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow morn
ing, when the Secretary Of War is 10 be further exam
med,
A displav of the Turkish costume (so called) was