New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-06
The Robson Charges,

We reproduce the subjoined Washington
dispatch of Monday:
The select committee to investigate the
charges against Secretary Robson met to-
nirht. They decided not to receive the tes-
timony of Colonel William p. Wood, whom
Dana had on Friday called to show that
Simon johnson, decea .ed, employed, or
sought to employ, the witness to prevent
disclosure of the true character Of the
;Secor claims, and that he admitted to the
7B7itness their fraudulent character.
Commodore Case, chief OF bureau of ord
nance testified that in December, 1871. he
did not make contracts for the construction
of two engines for torpedo boats with John
Roach & Sons, of New York, but he signed
them by order of the Secretary of the Navy,
on the request of the Secretary to have the
contracts prepared and have the witness
sign them. No provisions of law were viO-
lated by that; contracts were drawn in the
bureau of construction. The witness was
president of the board which selected the
models for the torpedo boats. He recon-
nended that boats should be built at the
navy wards This recommendation did not
cover the engines. The department did not
want the public to know anything about the
building OF these boats.
This investigation was defeating the OBJ
jects Of the ordnance office, whose move
ments in this matter were secret. and it
was important that the Office should keep
its own knowledge. He did not know who
fixed the prices for the engines One of the
boats was designed by Chief Constructor
Hanscom, and the other by Admiral Por
ter. As the Admiral designed one of them,
he had the right to say what engines he
would put in the boat. So with the chief
constructor. AS to advertising for supplies,
lie had been informed that Admiral Dahl
IL - L., -
acted on the principle that the law did not
apply to that office. because it was not al
WAYS advisable TO let the public know what
it was doing. AS to the iron for these
boats. he said he wrote to Moorhead Il Co
of Pittsburg, by order OF the Secretary Of
the Navy, and asked them to make pr0po-
sitions, as they had the best reputation.
They, however. could not do the work. The
witness had said 20 the Secretary, who had
asked him whether il was necessary to adj
'Vertise. that it was not necessary.
Mr.. Bartlett called the attention of the
witness TO the laws of 1913 and 1861, which
required all naval supplies to be advertised
for. which witness explained had been con-
strued not to apply to the ordnance bureau.
and so approved by Secretary Welles. 1t
was under this construction that the great
transactions Of war were carried on.
Mr.. Archer asked the witness opinion as
navy yards and by private contractors.
when the witness replied that he consid-
cred they got better work at the navy
yards.
H. A. Goldsborough, chief clerk of the
bureau of construction and repairs. testified
that he had no particular conversation with
Lenthall about the law of 1868. He came
INTO his room by accident. when Lenthall
told him he had written order to pay
nytyn ri nd hot npIa
received after Office hours.
William II. Alleyu testified that he was
engaged for eight years in the bureau of
steam engineering, and left in August, 1870.
While chief OF bureau, a package of letters
was brought to him by Nj. Shook, includ
ing Bags report on the Secor claims. AT
ter looking at them the witness said they
did not pertain to that bureau. but be-
lOnged to the bureau of construction. He
looked at the report concerning these YES
sells and saw the aggregate amount al
lowed was S93,U0O or thereabouts The
witness then made statement as to what
the board reported, and closed by calling
the attention of the Secretary of the Navy
to the law of 1866 on the Secor claims. He
gave this statement to Shook. being
anxious that the Secretary should know
the provision of that law. He afterward
saw Lenthall and told HIM these papers had
been sent to the bureau by mistake
When King returned he brought to him
q statement he had prepared and asked
him what it meant. King seemed quite
angry at the action taken by the witness,
and turned abruptly and lett him. Wit
ress did not know whether Shook had re-
turned the papers to the department or to
the bureau of construction. The opinion OF
the witness was that the law Of 1866
stopped Secors from further claims. Among
the papers was a letter from King to Secors.
stating that the items of these claims had
not been considered by the former board, OF
which he was a member.
In reply to question the witness said 1t
was the custom OF the bureau to state the
terms of contracts with fullness and care
and with great particularly. In response
to questions by Secretary Robson, the
witness said contracts were not always adj
Syertised, but sometimes notice was given to
contractors, and that during the late war
contracts were made to the extent of
SS,O0O,00O. Tie witness wished it to be I'M
derstood that he had given no information,
directly or indirectly, to the New York San.