New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-25
DEZENDORFs ACCUSATIONS.
THE NORFOLK NAVY YARD MANAGEMENT
THE DEFENCE OF COMMODORE MAYO AND Mr..
vARNEY-VIEws OF THE SECRETARY OF THn
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrBUSE.l

BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNEI
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24.-In letter sent to-
day to Commandant Mayo, of the Norfolk Navy Yard.
Secretary Chandler forth the charges and specca-
tions against that officer and Naval Constructor Varney
made by exRepresentatve DezendOrf and their replies
The substance OF the charges was published In THB
TRIBUNE several months ago. the defence OF Mayo anu
Varney has been published. In reply to the hrso
charge against him. that OF giving leave OF absence with
pay, contrary to law and regulations to diem en-
pOye Commodore Mayo says that he did by virtue OF
official letters written by Secretary Thompson and secre-
tary Hunt, which permitted the practice In certain
cases. In response to the charge that IN violation
of regulations he had ordered the employment OF two
men, swell knowing that their services were not re-
quired" Commodore Mayo declares that he exercised
his Judgment the needs Of the service and that the
men were not employed and paid until they were needles
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
Respecting the charges that he granted leave OF aD-
sence to employees well knowing that their time was 10
be devoted to political purposes-for interference IN
eections"; and that he permitted one Thomas u
Hodges to solicit contributions within the yaru or pon
cal purposes Commodore Mayo says that leave OF ao
granted only authorized by the letters OF
Secretaries Thompson and Hunt before mentioned; and
that he knows nothing whatever OF Thomas M.
Hodges his business, aud after speelai
inquiry among the officers of the yard police
and other municipal officials and gentlemen cognizant
Of political dOngs in the vicinity, is prepared to affirm
tnat neither Hodges uOf one elSe within
embraced by the charge has collected money upon this
acreage for political purposes that Mr. Hodges has not
entered the yard for that purpose nor has permission
granted him to do but the contrary nc was
specially and particularly warned by the regular police OK
the yard TO make any attempt in that direction Tor
that purpose"
The defence Of Constructor varney Is more specific
and detailed. In answer to the charge Of "fase
muster by approving payroll giving one
E. d. Holoman credit for full time, wen
knowing that he had been continuously
absent for eectioneerng purposes" Mr Earney says
that HoIoman abused privilege granted TO MN tOr
day or two at the request the sherof Norfolk County;
that he was frequently in and OF the yard and VAR
ney seeing him there supposed him to be at work. AS
to the charge that he permitted his clerks to keep Hoo-
mans name on the roll with pay when he was dong
nothing varney denies any knowledge or approval ot
such violations Of law by the clerks MI Vaney also
denies the charge that he Disseminated against Union
exsoders and sailors that he discharged any man lor
political reasons.
VARNEYs REPLY TO SERIOUS CHARGE
Respecting the charge that he made appointments and
discharges depend upon support Of the MahoneRead-
Coalition party Mr. Varney says that he has en-
deavored to select according to their quahcauons
and for the best interests OF the Government nc aso
denies that he made political speech at rolcli' Mr'
yarney makes general denial OF the charge ta az the
request Of Mahone he increased the force OF inc
employees within sixty days OF the COngressl9 S,eson
of sS2 and submits his reports Tor sepehOeI Ocooei
and November, 1852, TO sustain his denial -, 1900
These reports show that his force on sepeiDer /.
consisted OF 435 men October OF l,263 mel
of I24s men and December i, OF, ZS9 men.
Thereore unless Constructor Narney added oo ineh 10
his force during tine dt sS sOW Te easy aS ~ that ch was
the case he have increased wthn sky us oL
the November election, which would have been Nlo%
ton Of law.
yARNEY ASSERTS HIS COMPETENCY.
Resueetiug the charge OF general mcOmpeteney ana
ineA,ceney and maladmnistration," and OF extraVa'
in the repairs Of the Pnta Mr. Varney refers TO MS
record and 10 testimonials OF shipbuders, to prove MS
and points out that tho repairs on the Pna
were begun and a large sum expended Deroro
he took charge. He attributes the extra cost
or repairing that vessel TO "lnsnhciehs
concentrations, frequent stoppages, transfer"
of force TO work on other vessels and to alterations Or
dered by the Bureau" - o.o.o., c1,,pdlar
remarks that, while he does not consider tie
tireIy complete IL appears TO be sufficient ana Sus
factory so far as tho serious charges are colcerh
tberefore ne does not regard a court tlnatll IN
either case He does not believe that any POI ~
easements were levied and collected Us chIhoo. a.
tarv chandler also informs Commodore MSo ,i to
NO. manaoement of the Norfolk Navy ara Dy Duh nas
not been wholly satisfactory and admonlsneS MN tnass
hcraotter he must conduct il in more orac9' ''eN'
and economical manner
A CASE OF EXTRANAGANCE.
The Secretary remarks especially on the eNf'VaSahce
~ neiciency shown in repairing the Pinta particularly
In rspect 70 her machinery which, upon inspection ater
tho enars were supposed to be complete, was found 10
no in very dangerous condition. He informs ComIno-
A., NIavo that on this account CbiefEnginecr Wihan-
som WHO had charge OF the repairs, VIII uDe leu y!
martial.