National Republican., 1885-08-10

2
! barrels Of beef dumped into the sore.
/ house in New York ninety days from the
llth of November, 1882, and Il had all
then to be subjected to the overhauing
and repacking, and then kept on hand
until the Navy needed the use of it, 1t
would have been less 6t for consump.
ton; and that is probably the explana.
ton of that table that was presented
here in behalf of Gen. Smith, which
showed that during his administration
the waste had gone down year after year;
and, with the little knowledge that have
Of the subject matter, attribute IL pretty
largely to that condition of things.
Mr.. Maury. Mr.. Brown is entitled to
all that credit.
MIR. Boutwell,. Do allow Brown to
have some credit. You have been abus.
ing him in every possible direction. You
did not bring him here as witness. We
would have been very glad to have seen
| him.
The Judge Advocate. We would have
been glad to have seen him on the other
side. He is your man.
Mr.. Boutwell,. He is no friend of
ours. We ruled him out OF the Navy
Department last year. l do not know
as he has any friend; but | am going to
say something about him by and by if
my time is not consumed before get to
| him.
Paymas.er General Smith has made
his statement in regard to that adver.
tisement, and the simple fact is just this:
The advertisement was prepared based
upon old tables. Mr.. Smith had only been
in office about six months and he trusted
to those tables. He never saw the ad.
vertisement previous TO the time when q
requisition was made upon the Secretary
for authority to advertise. That letter
was received, and Mr.. benson, the chief
clerk, sent out the advertisement to the
newspapers before the paymaster gen.
eral had full opportunity to consider
the subject matter as TO quantity.
When the Advertisement was issued, and
when Mr.. Brown proposed to furnish
an additional quantity, and the pay
master general examined the tables and
exercised his judgment, it being then
the season of the year when sup.
plies of beef and pork were
laid in, he came to the conclusion that
1900 brrrels Of pork and 1000 barrels
of beef woud d be only an adequate
supply, and he increased the quantity
and accepted Mr.. Browns proposition,
which, in the presence of four or FIVE
other bidders, was something like 20 or
90 per cent. below the average prices at
which other bidders proposed to furnish
the same article, and if Mr.. Smith-my
friend, the Attorney General, said "Mr.
Smith" so often in the course of his ex.
animation, that have fallen into that
bad habit myself-if Paymaster General
Smith then and there came TO the con &.
clusion that that was proper supply,
and that these prices were low as
compared with the market prices, and
as compared with the bids which others
had submitted, he acted wisely under the
circumstances. They say the price of
beef and pork was falling. Falling
when? Between the 11th and 10th Of
November, 1862. That was all there
was of it. There is no evidence what.
ever that Paymaster General Smith in
those FIVE days had any knowledge Of any
change in the price of beef and pork in
the market. That beef and pork went
down afterwards when Paymaster General
Smith might have thought the price
would continue as it was is no fault of
his, If he acted honestly at the moment.
The government takes the responsibility.
That it suffers an injury and some loss is
no affair Of his, Judge Miller's opinion
touching this subject has been read.
do not care to trouble the court again
with it,
APPROPRIATIONS AND PAYMENTS.
The accusations in regard to the pay.
ment out Of various appropriations
have read. One of the sections pro.
vides that payments out Of the appro.
priation for one fiscal year upon con.
tracts may be made in a succeeding
fiscal year. Beyond all question deliv.
cries in q fiscal year, although based
upon q contract of preceding fiscal
year, bind the appropriation of the year
within which the supplies are delivered
to the payment, otherwise the govern.
ment must stop. There is a provision
giving to those charged with procuring
supplies authority to make contracts
for year from the date of the contract,
not a fiscal year, but year from
the date Of the contract. About that
make no mistake, though several gentle.
men who have discoursed upon this sub
ject have always claimed that contracts
could only be made for the fiscal year.
Suppose contract is made on the 10Th
| day of June. None Of the deliveries
could be made until the next fiscal year.
Is it to be presumed that the government
cannot avail itself of that contract? It
must either do it or it must pay the con-
tractor the penalty for violating the con.
tract, because the making of it is q per-
fectly legal thing, and the government is
bound 10 execute its part, and its part
is the payment, and the supplies being
delivered in the succeeding year, the ap.
preparation Of that year is properly
charged with the payment for those sup.
plies.
A copy of the contract was ialsified.
How? The word "Washington'' was
substituted for "New York, 1t turned
out that Paymaster General Smith had
nothing whatever to do with that, except
that he was in the Office and knew that
copy was sent to the paymaster here;
but as to the alteration 1t appears be-
yond controversy, upon his own state.
ment and the statement of benson, that
he had no knowledge whatever; and if
he had knowledge was it not within the
power of the Secretary of the Navy to
order vouchers to be paid at New York,
or at Boston, or at Washington, according
to his nwn discretion. And if he obliged
contractor who wanted his pay in one
place rather than in another, even
though the name of the contractor was
Brown, had he not q right to do it2
Nothing has appeared here against Mr..
Brown. He isassaied. He was turned
out Of his place Of bidder because he was
not a regular dealer or manufacturer;
but | do not understand that anything
has been disclosed here that is particu.
larly prejudicial to Brown.
THE CONTRACT OF 1883,
Then again under the contract of Dec.