New-York tribune., 1872-05-23
THE NAVAL INVESTTGATTON.

doings was long since indicated 1t was clearly
enough shown that Messrs. Sargent, Peters,
and Warren would say that the Navy Depart
ment was thoroughly admirable institution,
and the Secretary an honest, able, and self
denying officer; that Mr.. Blair, Chairman of
the Committee, would express his dissatisfac-
ton with the Secrctarys course in regard to
the Secor claim and that Mr.. Archer the
Democratic member, would report that all
charges against the Navy Department bad
been sustained This summary of the reports
has been justified, and the three different con-
clusions of the five members of the Committee
have been made public, as above stated.
We are glad that the personal character of
the Secretary has been vindicated by all the
reports; widely diverging as they do from
this essential point, they agree that Mr. Robe
son has not been influenced by corrupt mo-
tives in his action. Leaving all other ques-
tions at issue, it must be confessed that Mr.
Blairs report which is concurred in by Mr.
Archer, deals more fairly with the Secretary's
course in relation to the SecOr claim than does
that of the majority of the Committee
Indeed, the whole question is begged by
the majority; it is pleaded that the claim,
though possibly barred legally was not so
morally and that, as long as able lawyers
disagree as to the technical points at issue, it
was right for the Secretary to give the poor
claimants the benefit of the doubt and their
$4,000 along with it. Let us examine the facts.
In 1862, the SecOrs contracted to build for
the Government three irOn-clad monitors for
$1,3S0,0O0. The vessels were finished in 1864;
and all bills and claims were presented to
Naval Board of which Admiral Gregory, and
afterward Admiral Ringgold, was President.
On the report of this Board, which examined
certain claims for extra work, as well as the
contracts and the work itself, the contractors
were paid their stipulated $1,3S0,000, and an
additional allowance of $521, 1875 Is; and the
whole case was considered closed, at least so
IgJ as the Navy Department was concerned.
But the contractors were not satisfied, and,
failing to obtain further relief from the De-
partment, they went TO Congress, which, in
the Spring of 1867, passed a bill authorizing
the creation of another Board, to be organized
by the Secretary of the Navy, " to investigate
" the claims of all contractors for building
"vessels- of-war and steam machinery for the
" same under contracts made after May /,
"1S61, and prior to Jan. 1, 1854" 1t was
provided that this investigation should be
based on the ascertaining of the additional
cost which was necessarily incurred by each
contractor by reason of changes in the orig
inal plans and specifications, and by delays
created by the Government, for which the
contractor was not responsible; and
that the Board should report each case to
Congress with full statements as to the cost
A. p,sion
increased cost of work by reason of delay in
building, and amount justly due from the
Government on account of such delay. The
Board was organized, examined the claims,
and on its report the Secretary of the Navy
reported to Congress that there was due
St15,539 OF to Secor g. Co. and Perine, Secor
g. Co. Congress- accordingly, in 1868, passed
q bill authorizing the payment Of that sum to
the aforesaid contractors. The exact language
of the law is: (which shall be in full dis
"charge of all claims against the United
Estates on account of the vessels upon which
" the Board made the allowance as per their
"report, under the Act Of March 2, 1867"
Surely, nothing could be palmer than this
language. Under the Act, the $115539 OF was
paid to the Secors, making total payment Of
$2,O16,734 16 up to 1868.
Mr.. Blair, in his minority report on this case,
refers to the fact that Congress, after the pay
ment of the Secors in 1868, was vainly impor-
tuned to reopen their case; and we find that
the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, refer
ring to these cases, May H. 1870, said;
son the 18th Of July, isGs act passed directing
the payment OF these amounts to these parties by which
act it was declared that these payments should be in
nf I'll ms
account of the vessels upon which the Board made the
allowance per their report under the act OF March
1867! Under the stress OF an overpowerng necessity as
they aege these parties received those amounts That
in law such receipt is complete bar to all further re-
course cannot be denied; still the question recurs
IA It lust for the Government to plead the BARI After
deliberate consideration, the Committee are Of opinion
that IL ia not In their Judgment the Government ought
nor upon grounds OF technical law to deny equitable re-
lief it cannot afford to be unjust IL ought never 10 re
fuse TO be just
But Congress did not allow the additional
claim and Secretary Robson, knowing all
the antecedent facts in the case, did. In 1870
after another investigation of these claims by
officers in his Department, he paid the Secors
$4,000, out of money appropriated for the
maintenance of the Navy. This was
clearly illegal, and the majority of the
Committee cannot justify it; they do not even
attempt this, except by the plea that some
LAWYERS think it was legal. Sc the Secretary
violated the rules of the Department by
reopening q claim which had been closed by a
nreyious Administration, and that without
the production of any new testimony. lie Vio-
lated law by paying on the three iron-clads
$4,000. in the face of an Act of Congress
which declares that the $l15,5S9 OF, paid in
1868, "should be in full discharge OF all claims
against the United States on account OF the
"vesselsr upon which it was paid. He again
4 laur LIZ tal Linz. S09 0Q0 from the money