The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-09-01

havi0g decided adversely"
The Sec oDd Comptroller's certificate
is also indorsed; This account stated
and allowed by Second Comptroller
The Auditors opinion was rendered
after the Secretary of War had approx
ed paymens. on the opinion from the
Office of the Judge Advocate General,
and ordered the claim to be sent to the
Auditor for statement and settlement.
THE AUDITORS ADvBRSE REPORT.
The auditor viewed the case, and
stated his reasons at length for deelin-
ing to have anything to do with the
settlement. This paper is dated May
26, 1871.
1t considers tie following points
made by the cIiant:
81 After the contract failed, the gov
ernment waited an unreasonable time
before it supplied the deficiency and in
the meantime the market rapidly ad-
vanced, and thus an undue charge ac-
Jlle COhlTdClOT
2. The Quartermaster at Cincinnati,
soon after the awarding of the contract
| to Smith, so changed his methods of
purchasing as to raise the market, and
make it impossible for Smith to com
plete his contract"
The Auditor agrees that prices were
increasing, but denies the conclusion
that, because the government was not
entitled to the full damage indicated
by the ra'As it paid, it was not entitled
to any damage at all. The government
was certainly entitled to tine difference
between Smiths contract rates, and
those which ruled in the market rates
for that day, the lowest possible loss
to the government, as shown by the
Auditor, was SIG, $50. And, as se
further showed, if the loss to the gov
ernment had been estimated on the
market prices many days before Smith
made his contract, it would have been
50, 23O. Thus the smallest possible e,-
innate Of loss was greater than tie
amounr of Smiths claim, which was
81, $50. As matter OF fact the loss
to the government ON Smiths failure
before it was ready to supply his de-
heieneies was S27, 800.
The Auditor shows conclusively that
the action of the Quartermaster at Gin
cinnati steadied the market instead of
exciting it, and that instead of raising
the market he simply followed it.
In regard to the claim that the Quar-
termaster at Cincinnati changed his
methods of purchase in such way as
to make it impossible for Mr.. Smith to
fill his contract at indianapolis, the
Auditor says:
THE assumption is unsustained by
an iota of evidence. 1t is in the face
of all probabilities, and is contradicted
by the evidence adduced by the claim
ants, and by certain known facts"
One of these known facts was as
stated by Gen. Meigs, that another
contractor (Silas Barkley), who also
had a contract at indianapolis to furn-
ish 200 mules at $50 %, at the same
time Smith was given his contract at
SS7, went on and flied his contract at
the very time the Quartermasicr at
Cincinnati was buying in open market
The Auditor closes lis adverse report
as follows:
''But, in Ir. Smiths case, the gov
ernment strictly complied with the
agreement It is true that il is assumed
that the government acted in bad faith,
and that such bad faith was the sole
cause of Mr.. Smiths failure to coin
plete the contract.
''But, as | have already stated, this
assumption is a mere pretence to hide
the real causes. lt is en- assumption
unsustained by an iota of evidence; it
is contrary TO all rational and fair pre-
sumption, and is liatly contradicted by
the evidence adduced by the claimant
himself, and by certain admitted facts.
Signed A. NJ. GANGEwER,
Acting Auditor"
The Auditor presented the above
points for the information of the
Comptroller, in case the matter should
be appealed to him. although the Aud
itor held that, strictly speaking, the
accounting officer of the Government
had no jurisdiction in the case.
But, in the face of the Auditors
opinions, and the facts he set forth, the
Comptroller passed the claim, and it
was paid.
POINTS TO CONSIDER
Several things are established by
these records: l. Hr. Hendricks. while
Senator, was, for two years, the act
ual attorney of Mr. Henderson in this
claim against the Government, as for
that time he had sole charge of it, first
in the Departments, and afterwTrd in
the Senate, and in both continued TO
exercise the right, which can only
be legally exercised through a power
of attorney, of signing Mr. Hender-
sons name to all needed papers.
2. The equities which Senator Hen
bricks claimed for his client, in the pa
pers which he prepared i'm his home,
and to which he affixed Mr. Hender.
sons signature, were shown to haven no
existence; but, on the other hand, it
appeared that the government had suf-
fered a peeuniary loss at the hands of
the claimants of four times the amount
of the claim preferred.
HENDRICKS PARDOS ATTORNEY.
There is another department of this
business in which Mr Hendricks fig
ures to little advantage. In fact it was
his first step in it. Some time after
Halls conviction OF the gross frauds
named, Hendricks interposed to secure
his pardon, and succeeded in having
his sentence set aside on the technical
ground that Hall vas only 3 silent
partner of Smiths, and so was not
contractor within the meaning Of the
law which authorized the trial of DE-
frauding contractors by military court.
While there was doubt of the justice of
the conviction. Judge Holt held it to
be better that one guilty man should
escape than to have it even seem that
punishment bad been secured by
forced construction of the law. On