The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-04-02

: Some months sgs il was alleged by Mr..
HALE in the Senate, and BY Now York jour-
nails of different political hines. that considera-
BILE sums Of money had been exacted by a
certain individual from ofiioen and sailors in
the navy under the "fslse pretence" that he
had procured the passage Of the clause in the
appropriation bill granting to certain Of their
number extra pay. 1t was understood at the
time that Mr.. ]. KNOX WALKER, formerly of
this city, and now of Memphis, Tennessee,
was the party referred to; and the subject was
referred to the select committee appointed by
the Senate to inquire into alleged frauds and
abuses, and We now append so much OF their
report as relates to this particular charge. 1t
will be seen that the statement Of the commit
tee exonerates Mr.. WALLER from all the
blame that has been implied in the premises:
"Mr Walker having been informed of the pro
ceedings of the committee, came before it, and
desired to be sworn a witness. in order to make
a statement in vindcation and defence of himself
This he was permitted to do. After examination
Of the testimony on file, be submitted statement
in writing, signed by himself as his testimony.
VI
Mr. Gwin, of the Senate, and Messrs. F. P. Stan
ton and Thomas S. Bocock, of the Hou=e.
"From this testimony it appears that Mr.. Walker
had not misrepresented the character of his SER
vices in procuring the incorporation of the provi-
sion in the Naval Appropriation bill whereby the
extra pay was allowed, but that he drew the amend.
ment himself, presented it, first to the Naval Com
mttee of the House and then to the Naval Commit
Of fba ;rdu both IN, odo 4 md
report; and subsequently, after it rejected by
the House, that he spoke to several members of the
committee of conference to retain it; and that
with some modification, it became the law. Fol
although Mr.. Gwin stated, as will be seen in the
debate in the Senate. that this provision was passed
by the unanimous consent of the committee, and
without the procurement or influence of any indi
vdual whatever and, further, that any state
ment to the contrary absolutely and uncon
ditionay false yet he has since stated in writing
that Mr.. Walkers testimony in this respect giver
above, 'is undoubtedly correct And he explains
the discrepancy between his two statements by
saying that he supposed at the time that Mr. Hal,
alluded to another bill. (See postscript to Mr.
Walkers testimony in Appendix, Case C, No. 9
against the first part of the allegation, there
fore-that of obtaining the money he received il
this sunder false pretences'-Mr. Walker
defence seems to be successful and conclusive
For, without undertaking to say wherein how
far his vices either necessary or even use
full to the benefciares of the act in question, thu
committee find no reason to doubt that he exertet
himself assiduously in the prosecution Of their in
terest; and the circumstances might well hav,
warranted him ia supposing that his exertions Sc
cured the passage of the provision.
"Against the second part OF the allegation-tha
| of using his assumed influence with members o
Congress and others, whereby personal Interest,"
were subserved at public expense by means O
special egislation-Mr. Walker makes no defence
He seems to think, on the contrary that none il
required even desirable for the vindication o
his character. Indeed. he avows and fully set
forth, something considered by him entirely
proper in itself, that it had been his regular pro
fessional employment for years past of which
public notice had been given in all the newspaper
of Washington city, to prosecute claims befor,
Congress and the Departmental