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

dental expression of the opinion ofons Of the most
distinguished jursts in the country, the Hon. John
&. Spencer When speaking Of tho usage, he
says" Orders for articles, such - cannon and
shot, were, according to my belief given long ahead
Of their manufacture, at specified prices; and these
were never regarded as contracts, because q con-
tract implies obligation each side, the one to
furnish and the other to pay But an order for arti
cles, at Specified price, received BY party, ere
ates obligation on his part to furnish the arti-
cles. Nor, indeed, does it create an obligation on
the party giving the order for there is conside
ration for it, and it is revocable AT any time"
This is not the tribunal or the occasion to enlarge
upon this lpont is it necessary to do more than
refer to it in passing. Certainly there can be no
two opinions upon the point that an order to Or:
Carmichael, given with the distinct agreement
that it should be executed at certain foundry and
under specified superintendent, the freight from
that certain foundry being calculated and turned
into the price, could not be binding, in morals or
executed at another foundry, and under different
superintendent; above all, when, appears in the
case from the statement of Capt Stone, who, at the
request Of Col. Huger, arranged the details with
DR.. Carmichael, his particular attention was at
that very time called to that, and shells received
from the very foundry to which the order was after
wards assigned and the fact that they were not
fabricated satisfactorily, remarked upon by Capt.
| Stone. This last fact, though unknown to me at
the time, is material to the fundamental assump
ton which lies at the bottom of all these speci6ca
tions, viz that there was, in TRUTH an outstanding
| contract the existence Of which know and de-
MED.
Nor can il be questioned that, if Col. Huger's
order, in the first instance, constituted contract,
any other person could acquire any rights whatso-
ever by transfer or assignment of it, by whatso-
ever contrvan,e or indirection the form of an as
| Segment might be evaded. Col. Huger, in his
here given in evidence by the prosecution, states
this point clearly and correctly" Witness di-
rected Capt Stone to return the power of attorney
to Mr. Anderson, and inform him that he considered
| the power of attorney as in substance assign
ment of the order; and that Mr. Carmichael had no
right to make such transfer; and that he lwtness)
would not recognise it." An attempt has been
countenanced and admitted at the Treasury.
Upon this have no further commentary to make,
than to say, that such is the practice it is in yo-
lation Of the law. in letter and spirit; and Is a
strange commentary upon the gravamen of one Of
these specifications, which alleges, dlsgraceful
offence, that the public service was "exposed to
the discredit arising from the sale of q public
contract"-an offence which, it would then seem,
| the government encourages and protects.
This, then, was the state of things, as made known
| to me in the month of November, simultaneously
@ S my of cs Saa
become, to all intents and purposes to affect the de-
partment, mere dead letter. had no reason to
believe or imagine that anything could DO done or
would be attempted underit. Being entirely salts
fed that Col Huger had acted, as he has always
DONE with the purest and best intentions, and with
view to the public service according to his judg-
ment; and that his mere error OF judgment had re-
suited and could result in no injury to the govern
ment, it required new quality to DO infused into
my nature before l could for q moment think of
gratuitously involving him in any difficulty. Not
been done under the Carmichael order, but so late
as the end of December had the most satisfactory
positive evidence that nothing had been done.
refer to the correspondence between Mr.. Anderson
onlG Ca ivx AnHar
plains that COL Huger will not allow him to exc
cute the order, inquiries if Col Huger has any per-
sonal objection to him (Anderson), and states the
circumstances and reasons which he supposed made
such refusal negotiable.
1t must have been shortly after this, certainly be-
fore had any reason to believe that the condition
of things had at all changed, that the Secretary
made his first inquiry of me. In his testimony, he
does not state explicitly what that inquiry was,
in what language it was expressed; though this is
material in order to understand the answer, aud
ascertain whether il true and to the point. But
it may be inferred from what he says, viz:-That
he had been Uniformed that the Treiegar works
had large contract for shot for the War Depart
ment." That he sent for me, and informed me of
it. That | said cit was q mistake; that no con-
tract existed for shot, and that none was making at
Richmond for the department" believe have
quoted his precise words. Not having to the
record, take them from the notes Of counsel In
his written statement Of the 9th May, addressed to
me, also in evidence, he states my answer simply
thus:-" You told me it was an error that no such
contract existed" Whether upon this occasion, or
upon any Of the subsequent occasions, used lam
guage importing that, in point of fact, there
shot making at the Fredegar Works, no shot piled
in the foundry, or shipped thence TO- Fort Monroe,
cannot be at all material; for such language could
only have been uttered, and could only have been
understood, as denying that any shot were making,
or made, or shipped, under contract with, or by
authority of, the Ordnance Department. II Is not
to be imagined that the Secretary Of War could
possibly have understood me as pere nptoriy deny
ing, here in Washington, the existence Of facts
alleged to be occurring in Richmond. All that
could deny and all that 1t was reasonable In him to
inquire Of me- was, that such facts existed by,
under the authority Of, the Ordnance Department.
To have undertaken to 60 further than this, and
positively to contradict physical facts alleged to be
occurring more than one hundred miles beyond my
range of VISION would have been to offend his COM
mon sense an TO have renounced my own; so the
Secretary having manifestly understood 1t, for,
upon MIR. Thomas Green's second report to him, he
renews the Investigate in writing, as II now APP
pears though had intimation, at the time, that
his purpose other than n general one; and the
correspondence between the department and the
bureau, comprised in the six papers on your record,
Guiding n copy Of the order to Col Huger, speaks
tor ITSELF and shows that the inquiry was simply ms
TO existing contracts and charges upon the ordnance
appropriations. IL cannot escape your notice, as 1t
has painfully forced itself upon my own, that the
course pursued by the Secretary, upon this
second occasion, indicates too clearly that, from
some source or other. his mind had been SO
abused to my character, that he thought
IL necessary to approach me with generalities,
in order to get at the truth; but cannot abandon
the expectation that, upon!a review Of the whole
case he, too will that he has, unintentionaly,
done me the greatest injustice. You have now the
key to all the specifications imputing falsehood TO
me. In the mind Of the Secretary was one thing,
In mine another IL, in these repeated arrangements
Of me, manifested as he has said, some im itence
and heat, IL was because I understood him to be
again and again rene wing an inquiry which | had
already fully and truly answered, and in regard to
which, no single new fact, or reason to believe
fact, had come, to my knowledge, from the date Of
my first TO the date Of my declaration, that
there not a word Of truth in Mr.. Green's letter
Down TO the date Of my intcryiea with Mr.. Ander-
son, who happened to be in Washington. when that
letter was referred to me, never imagined that
any act or word of Colonel Huger had, in any de-
gree varied the condition Of things in sNovem bcr
10 wit.-Dr Carmichael himself failing to comply