The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-11-02
.bslAonummnl
, MAZDA 2Ta0YA9 'G1"


n ItNNN WA 10 NlNNNiu NNa % ulNM NNINA NrI.YNA
the ground that it was matter of their
own suggesting and getting up, and that
they had volunteered their services, and
had said that theyiwOuld, cheerfully give
their time. 1t, is well understood that
such experiments as these would be q
great benefit to those permitted to make
them. and would have cost them at least
$50, 900 if they had been made at their
own expense. This old claim owas 81
lowed and paid by Robeson soon after ne
became Secretary.
O. The Clara Dawson claim, $a450,
This was an old claim for the use OF a
steamer TN 1865. 1t was rejected or not
noticed underMr. WeHes, but it came
under Mr.. Robeson, and was unlawfully
paid by him from money appropriated
for other purposes. Subsequently the
claimant presented the balance Of his
claim to Congress. Why the whole claim
was not thus presented is mystery.
Y. The VIM. Mathews claim, $2l ,5gS.6l..
With this party Secretary Robeson and
his family traded heavily in the purchase
Of articles Of domestic use. and his per-
sonal friend and con6dant, Cattell, it IN
proof, got $lO,OOO"to help push this old
cain through"
s, The TiIton & Wheelwright claim,
$4,000 This claim win do to go with
that of Savage. 1t was trumped-up
affair altogether. They were defaulters
on their contract of 1868, and were only
LET off on making good their deficiency
through an act Of Congress.
8. The Belknap claim, $l52,S32. Re-
specting this claim ex.Secretary Weiles
testified as follows: IL understand that
he was living pretty fast as Paymaster
on limited salary.
Shortly afterward, within few months,
| had word from that yard (Brooklyn)
thatthe paymaster's safe had been broken
into and robbed Of large amount OF
money. Belknap had drawn the money
Saturday to pay out on Monday-had
drawn $130000, I think. Well, that
was on Saturday, He said he had locked
his safe up in the yard. There was a
guard in the yard all the time in front OF
the Paymasters office. When he went
there on Monday morning at nine or ten
O'clock he said his safe was broken open
and the money all gone. / Immediately
Suspended him. Some time after
ward-a year or two afterward-there
was difficulty among some collectors
some improper practices. / saw the
name ofAlfred Belknap. | spoke to Mr.
McCulloch. Have you in your employ
Alfred Belknap, of New York p "1ess; /;
WHY do YOU ask ?" ! said, "He is an old
defaulting Paymaster" He said, No; it
cannot be- / told him to inquire about
it and let me know. In few weeks af-
terwards he found it out and dismissed
the man."
Under Robson this man was restored
back to be Paymaster of the Navy, and
the S130, ,S92 was allowed him, together
with $4,000 of back pay, making alto
gether $i52,832.
TO- The Bonsal claim, $4,6lS. This
was back pay allowed him. He had
been dismissed from the service by Mr..
Weiles and was restored by Robson, and
all his back pay allowed HIM. m,
IL. The Louisville claim, $S2 900. This
large sum was allowed by Robeson' VI
is in proof that $4,000 was divided be
tween three parties to push it through.
Inc COHullUJee, III JuSll lOPOi' SNAS@'
"Who were they2"
II. The Hungerford claim, $75OOO
This was for property taken possession OF
by our army in 1868, at Memphis, Tenn
1t is too long to notice this matter prop
erly. The Naval Committee, in closing
their remarks upon it, asks: WHO were
the recipients of this expenditure
They add: mo outside party (outSlde the
Department. appears connected with the
transaction as an actor. >, = " Your
committee can but express the moderate
opinion that il is fortunate alike for the
reputation of the Secretary of the Navy
and the public Treasury that there are
no more such cases to | e inquired INTO.
A few notes will close this Tor the pres
ent. ...,g ... A.. ...,,.,.,,,g.E. 4
l. Had the committee carried their in
vestigations relative to these claims lit
tie further they would have found suttl'
cient material wherewith to impeach
Robeson and some of his subordinates.
2. The Secretary took all of this vast
sum from appropriations made for other
purpc ses, contrary to law, contrary to the
practice of the department,
and contrary to the decisions of the Su-
preme Court, without reference to the
Treasury department, and did not in
form Congress what he had done.