The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-14

and Congress to the facts. It was my wish
that those who superseded me should be re-
lieved Of the difficulties and embarrassments
which had experienced for three years, and
l closed very full and explicit communica-
tion, of the 10Th of January, one year ago, as
follows
In order to ascertain how this immense and
promised saving in feul is TO be effected, 1t
will be necessary to know how much coal is
consumed per annum, and at what cost. l
have no account of the amount of coal annu-
ally consumed in any one year, although l
know about the quantity required for the
navy, and can state the exact estimates for
which appropriations have been asked since
the return of peace.
In my report, December, 1867, the esti-
mates for the then ensuing year we're for
$4,000 tons. The following year, December,
1868, the estimates were for the next ensuing
year 10000 tons. consumption of about
10000 tons, or an average of 500 tons per
steamer-the estimate of the equipment bu-
reau-met the wants of the service under the
''old system, as you term it. A contract was
made in May, 186S-the last of which have
memoranda-for 10, 600 tons in Philadelphia
at 1888 per ton. But this was probably at q
less rate than the average purchases, which
are about four dollars; but even at five dol
lars, which is sometimes paid, the cost for
10000 tons-a years consumption-wouldb be
$150,000. This is the sum total required for
coal for steamers annually in time of peace;
and from this amount, in consequence of
having ''given full sail power and having re-
rigged' the steamers at great expense, you
pledge yourself and declare cit can be shown
by figures" that you will make "a saving of
more than So, 600, 900 per annum" in the ''sin-
gle item of coal alone, rs consumed under the
old system
Sir, let me tell you that the interest of the
money which has been expended by the Navy
Department in excess of the appropriations
since the 4th of March, much of it in chang
ing the character of our naval vessels, with
out the knowledge or consent of Congress,
and l apprehend without consulting the naval
constructors-the interest of the money on
the excess of the expenditures over the ap-
preparations since the 4th of March would
vastly more than pay for the coal annually
consumed by all the steamers in all our squad
rons. The whole estimate for coal, transpor-
tation, storage, labor, etc., by the equipment
bureau was $780, 600.
have not yet had the pleasure of seeing
the estimates of the Navy Department in de-
tail for the ensuing year, submitted to the
present Congress When they are published
l shall be able to ascertain what reduction
you have made or propose to make in the
quantity of coal consumed, after the large
expenditure in changing the character of the
vessels, giving them ''full sail power" and
''ship rig" Just SO much as your estimate is
less than 80, ,0c0 tons will be the saving eff
fected. If you have estimated for that guam
tity or larger quantity, it will be conclusive
that you have no confidence in your own
| statement or in your questionable improve
ments l am satisfied in this case, as well as
in that of the advancement of officers and
other particulars, you have failed to make
ol inuacti no ic aynnntad of a
in so responsible position, and that you
have, in fact, no reliable data for many of
your statements. l do not charge you with
designedly practising an imposition on Con-
gress and the country, but you have permit
ted yourself to be imposed upon by q
prompter who is careless Of facts and makes
reckless assertions.
There is an obscurity in your financial ex-
hibit to which, while writing call your at
tention, although there may have been de-
sign in making it obscure. The statement of
expenses and estimates is not an exhibit of
the fiscal year, as is usual but is blending
of fractions of two years and two administra-
tions, and furnishes no definite or satisfac-
tory information of the transactions of the
department. You omit to state what
were the expenditures for the fiscal year
which terminates on the 3Oth of June. You
| omit to state the unexpended balances in the
available resources for the current year at
that date.
The appropriations for the last fiscal year
were $17 1856, ,3501S, but the expenditure ex-
ceeded that amount several millions of dol
lars How much that excess is you do not
state, and it cannot be known without the
usual exhibit, which is studiously suppressed
An attempt is made to divert attention by O
statement that 1927, $50, 1858 was expended up
to the 1st of December, but the Treasury
year neither commences nor closes in Decem-
Der. The appropriations by Congress extend
from the 1st of July to the Both of June of
the following year, when the Treasury balances
are struck. Why have we not the usual
exhibit for the fiscal year? The country is
entitled to it. The failure to present it and
the substitute in its stead of parts of two
| fiscal years and of two administrations is not
a satisfactory exhibit.
The statement that ''$7, 799, 373 has been
refunded to the Treasury" does not make the
exhibit less obscure Has such an amount
been overdrawn? If SO, for what purpose |?
And from what fund or appropriation was
| this sum-equal to about one-half of the en-
tire naval appropriations for the current year
refunded? If it is made up of transfers or
payments from one bureau to another, as
presented in what is called an exhibit of ex-
| penditures," on the thirty page, it
amounts to nothing; for what you call ''re-
funding" is an absolute expenditure.
If those who succeed me are embarrassed for
the want of vessels or means il shall be through
no fault of mine; for 1t has been my endeavor
that the wants of the service and the true inte-
rests of the country should be faithfully pre-
sented TO Congress
In my annual report, as we'll as in special
communications of the Naval Department and