The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-14
THE NAVAL InVESTICATI0N.ss,
Ex-secretary Welles Examined Secretary Robe
SON Brings the Witness Under a Cross Fire
from His Official Batteries : The
Secors Claims and the New
Years Present Of sos, 600.

WASHINGTON. ID. c., April 49, 1872
the Naval Investigation Committee met tonight
at nalrpast seven O'Clock.
TESTIMONY OF Ex-sEcRETARY wELLEs.
Ex-Secreiary Welies was sworn and testified rs TO
the contracts or the Secors while he was Secretary
OF the Navy; he did not recOllect the date, but
they were extended from time TO time; there
was board, OF which Admiral Gregory
was president, which passed upon the claims for
alterations. such as were approved were sent TO
him. he passed them ana they were PAID by the
Bureau or Construction. The contract price for
building three iron-ciads was $1,000 900, anu the
Secors allowed between $500, 600 and 5000 900
additional. The Rngold Board completed the scru-
tiny Of the Secor claims alter death OF Admiral
Gregory. The Secors had claims for extra work
which the Navy Department. could not allow An
appeal was made TO Congress by the Secors and
others, winch resulted IN the appointment OF the
Sefridge Board, VINO made a report on the claims
amounting to $2,0o0,ooo The Secretary believed
lnaL action was taken on ms report,
but a law was passed authorizing the Secretary 81
the Navy TO appoint board 10 examine the claims
and report III detail The Secretary appointed the
board OF when MarChand was President. The
board took up the claims went through them and
OF the act OF Congress- for me settlement OF the
Secor and other claims application was
TINS lie considered he had no right
to DO, as the claims mad passed from the control Of
ne regarded the Secor claims finally pad, 80 lar
as the Navy Department was concerned.
FORBES CLAIM FOR WEAK ENGINES;
witness recOllecteu the contract with Panl Il.
Forbes, who made an utter failure IN building the
engines Tor the Idaho and Algonquin; The Naval
Department refused TO pay the Dli Waereupon the
contractor went to Congress ana received more
than ne ought 70 have received, namely, $1,000
OF the committee, VINO nad Just returned from Mich
lkan, resumed his seat
The witness questioned by Secretary Robe.
The Forbes claim he knew pad
the department under his administration OF i,s
PAID through the Committee on Appropriations
Of not; ne did NOT examine the blhs OF
the seeors IN detail; the Rngold board
ton and he thought he paid all the claims
allowed Dy the board, unless exceptions were taken
either the Manopac or the Manhattan or Iecumsen
was before the board, and could not say whether
CONSIDERED IHE sECoR CLAIMS CLOSED.
lie aid not suppose the Sectors nad any claims TO
consider; ne hau supposed tnelr claims nad been
closed by the department before ne lelt H..
Question by Secretary RoDeson--Is there any
reeor1 Of evidence written BY you or any oflcer OF
the bureau when shows that the account was
fosed? A. cannot tell, but l know that
passed on The claims, and az tnoughr, adjusted
ground the Secors' claims were reopcned ana pad;
do not know wnat inc ltems were, but they were
closed, as mad supposed
Secretary Robeson-You nave SAID thai several
times.
WiIness-I VIII say 50 again II the question is
asked.
CORRESPONDENTS WITH DANA.
In reply TO o question by Secretary Robson the
witness said he wrote no letter 10 Charles A. Dana;
Dana wrote to him enclosing q slip rom ms news
paper ana asking hun, whether nc knew anything
relating 10 the subjects therein contained the Wit
ness replied 10 Dana That he nan heard OF
some OF them but not OF an; he denied the
right oil any one to cali upon him Tor his
private correspondence, out wonld say Dana after
ward wrote to hin 10 know whether lhere was
pel ne could not IecUllect4 but MS impression
That there was no such contract; there that
newspaper artice various Gu. SeS against the Navy
Departments there was something about bricks be-
Ing sent 10 California, but he could not rccoect the
others; The article Was shown TO witness; IL
dated February 20; ne SAID That IL similar TO
the one they mad received from Mr.. Dana.
hy Secretary Roheson-Did you write back to Mr..
Daua saying The charges were substantially true?
A. lwrote To MN mat had neara OF some OF these
innEs but not OF others; DO not think made use
OF me expression mat they were substantially
true.n
NEW YEARS. PRESENT.
q, Did you make the SUGGESTION that the pay
mcnt OF the Secor claim was New Years present.
because 1t was maze on that day2 A. heard mat
IL was insisted that The requsltiOn should be issued
the 3lst OF December, out this could not done,
the hour being late ana the force having left tue
bureau; lt was, however, Issued next day, jan
nary l.
Q. Did you suggest In that letter to Mr.. Dana that
the Secretary OF The Navy OF anybody else received
a New Years present OUT OF the money! A. ana
not ay that tue Secretary received any part OIL the
$4,000
O. Da You suggest that a lady d,dY A. stated
part OF what heard, hut mentioned 10 lady's
name.
members OF the committee regarding the payment
OF claims.
Mr. Peters asked the witness whether he would
not consider II proper 10 pay the Secors claim OF
So, Oo0 they having performed the work Tor The
Navy Department. but mai not received cent
therefor.
The witness replied-As Congress had passed on
the Secor claims and made an Appropriation Tor
their settlement In Iull, nothing could have induced
him TO reopen the case
EDGAR wELLEs' STATEMENT,
Edgar Nelle5 was sworn and testified that he
was chief Clerk In the Navy Department under his
1atners administration; he had a general impress
sion that ne saw RlnggOld's report, but did not
know the nature OF its contents.
The Chairman said he wanted to call two wit
nesees. He would De ready on Monday evening"
QmmLlGp then uInuruel naf mo