The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-05-23

6n9 their contracts and required much additional
work outside of and In addition to the work under
the contract; that In TINS way the Secors had
wit, one for damages sustained by them
within the contract, and another for ex-
having nothing to do with it except that both
classes OF claims arose upon the same vessels; that
the settlement of the claims for damages within the
REFERRED TO CONGRESS,
while the claim for extra work outside, done upon
the request OF the department, could be paid by the
department; that the Secors went to Congress
for the one and to the department for
but one kind of claim, and did not pass upon or In
tend to pass upon the other, nor was such other
claim before Congress. but, on the contrary, was
excluded therefrom by the construction OF the law,
and the action and the report Oft he Board to whom
the matter was referred by Mr.. Welles that the
JUST CLAIM, BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY;
that the testimony shows clearly that the items Of
Which \ was composed had never been paid, disal-
the present Secretary; that the delay had been oc-
casioned by the sudden death OF persons who
would have examined and passed upon them, but
who died before the claims were reached In the
course OF the investigation; that Other similar bills
that said Secors, in accepting the sum allowed by
Congress, and for which they gave only an ordl-
nary receipt for 80 much money received, had no
reason To believe that they would be estOpped to
seek payment Of their other claim before the de-
partment, and were so informed at the time by
members of the Naval Committee OF the Senate,
where the bill orignated that the claim Of $4,000
was presented to Secretary Borle and by him re-
m to Admiral %5Ss AND By him ae
recommendation the claim was paid by
or before the present Secretary that the only real
paid was barred by the wording Of the act of Con-
gress allowing the other claim; that II this is
a question that q decision either way, honestly
made, should not be subject OF reproach against
an ogicer whose constitutional duty 1t was to de,
eide it, that the Interpretation by the Secretary Of
the words OF the act, "in full discharge OF
ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
on account of the vessel upon which the Board
made the allowance, as per their report under the
act Of March 1857, as meaning the discharge only
Of f6 the Under s the act OF 1857 upon Which
port, is, In the opinion Of the committee,
correct one; that the Board made no report
upon the vessels but did make an allowance and
report upon certain claims on account OF the YES
sells under the act of that act OF 1857 did not
Board the bills making the payment of 1893 900 afore
said. So much for the legal view as taken by the
Secretary, as well % the Auditor and the Second
of the matter and without whose independent
action the claim could not have been paid. Every
JUSTICE AND EQUITY DEMANDED THE PAYMENT
of this BILL and II was the duty Of the Secretary TO
search for such an Interpretation of the law, within
the fair import OF Its terms, as would save the
government from the humiliation Of having per.
petrated gross injustice. The committee find
entirely false; that not dollar has been paid on 1t
and abiding to the various matters brought to
tn Within the
ton OF the Secretary, exercised without improperly
of either motive or action, and that they are not
able to find any rule, either OF law or right, which
forbids Secretary to do justice to public cred
itor merely because 1t has been denied or omitted
by his predecessor.
the committee remark that the Secretary OF the
Navy during the period embraced in our investiga-
ton has disbursed nearly 900 In the ordinary
administration OF his department, and 1t
is a matter of congratuation to the
S SG0n sGpe ha Of d Ha e upon Saa
officer as the result OF the investigation, but that
the searching scrutiny invited and facilitated by
him into the various and extended operations of
his department has discovered little pretence for
attack or need for defence or explanation even
In matters OF discretion and Judgment.
Mr.. Blair's Report.
Mr. Blair, Of Michigan, first examines the allow
ance by the Secretary Of the NAVY Of $4,000 to the
Secors reviewing all the facts of the case. He
says that under the act of Congress they received
the sum appropriated for them as full discharge of
all claims on account Of the vessels Tecumseh,
Mahopac and Manhattan. The Secretary Of
the Navy, however, disregarded the law,
reopened the account which had been
closed by the department and Dy Congress, and al
lowed them the above named sum- That this pay
ment was not only without law, but
IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF LAW
there can be no doubt whatever 1t took out OF the
Treasury $4,000, against the prohibition Of o
plain statute, and gave 1t TO parties to whom
the government owed nothing. 1t was also
against wholesome rule Of the depart
ment that one administration should not
reopen accounts which have been closed by
another--lts predecessor. The money was taken
out OF the appropriation made by Congress to pay
the current expenses OF the Navy Department. Tor
the current year, to pay an old iron-clad claim.
Admiral Porter had demonstrated against it, and
Mr.. Lenthall had declared 1t illegal. 1t has been
tad 1tf hn Af fhn md btr
himself that 1t was question OF the construction
OF the statute but the statute is too clear for
struction. The claim had been brought before Con-
gress patiently heard and settled In full, and the
Secretary knew 1t. II this Secor claim had been
just it would have been easy to have 1t sent to the
Appropriation Committee In the usual way; but
THE SECRETARY WAS IN HOT HASTE,
and could not walt for the slow movements of this
body, though 1t was In session at the time.
Mr.. Blair next considers the case of the war
steamer Tennessee and says the Secretary of the
Navy concluded q contract with John Roach to take
out the old engines and put In new in that
sci. The contract was made without advertisement
any publicity whatever Mr. Roach being the
moving party In it. 1t agrees to give Roach the
sum Of $500 600 in cash. the old machinery and boil
ers to be taken out Of the vessel, valued at
esii%ony wi was given by Mr. Dana for the pnrpose
of showing that this contract was illegal and greatly
prejudicial to the interests of the government. 1t
was claimed to be illegal because, first 1t was let
PRIVATELY, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT
and open competition, as required by law and by
the general practice Of the departments and second,
1t bartered away the machinery and boilers already
In the vessel which were the property Of the gov
eminent, without any authority OF laws that 1t was
prejudical to the interests Of the government, be-
cause the machinery and boilers were bartered for
less than their real value, and because too high o
price was agreed to be paid for the new boilers and
machinery; that the whole being repairs Of an old
ship ought to have been done at the navy yards
Whatever the facts may be 1t could have done no
harm to have advertised for proposals for this work
In the usual way, and thus invited competition
There no necessity for haste and no excuse for
o private contract, and Mr.. Blair understands the
law Of 1861
ABSOLUTELY TO REQUIRE PUBLICITY,
except In cases Of great emergency. II Mr.. Roach
is correct in his opinion that one else could do
this work, then he would certainly have obtained
the contract and have avoided the suspicion that
necessarily attaches to what Is done In corner
II the proposals had been invited, then 1t would
have been known whether any other builders
wished to undertake the work, and what was their
opinion of Its value II they did wish. As to the
authority of the Secretary to exchange one
engine for another, Mr.. Blair does not
know from what source he derives the
power. II he could barter the engines