The Washington critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1885-1888, 1885-05-19
BUTTER FOR THE NAVY
AN INTERESTING LETTER CON-
CERNINa SMITHS CONTRACTS.
The Statement of Austin p. Brown
to the Secretary of the Navy in
Answer to Certain Charges - He
Has No Transactions to Conceal.

We present below the statements of Mr..
Austin p. Brown, who was one of the first
witnesses called by the Smith Court of
Inquiry:
WASHINGTON, ID. c., May 8, 1885.
SIR: / inclose for your perusal several
clippings" from the issues of the New
York World of the Sth, 9th and 18th of
April. They charge in substance, that i'm
certain business relations with the Navy
Department "coluded' with the head Of
one of the navy-bureaus, and made money
out of certain contracts by extraordinary
and illegal methods.
Were | an officer of the navy I could
demand investigation by court of inquiry.
Were the charges serious enough could
court an inquest by the grand jury. Were
they specific enough to constitute u libel |
could appeal to the courts for redress.
But there is Just enough of truth mixed
with mass of falschood and charges by
innucndo and inference to prejudice me
and my character us u business man, and
] have therefore no other tribunal to which
can appeal for hearing except yourself.
| am compelled to appeal to you all the
more because I am n general dealer and
contractor in Government supplies. For
fifteen years have followed this business,
and my transactions with the Navy De
partment alone have amounted to hun
dreds of thousands of dollars. | pursue
this business not from patriotism but for
profit. From its proceeds | maintain
those dependent upon me, and it and my
reputation are valuable to me. | should
not be permitted to file bid in Il depart
ment Of the Government ifI am dis
honest man, and in this case as it is pre-
sented you must be my Judge. therefore
appeal TO your patient indulgence while
attempt to explain and meet the charges
of the New York World.
LIST. ] am charged with having filed u
bid in 1888 below the then market prices
for plead guilty. The charge is true.
wanted the contract ! bid on it. My
bid was formal, and was the lowest In
fixing the amount of my bid | exercised
my Judgment as to the probabilities of
luctuation in the market before the time
for delivery. ] bid below the existing
prices in October, 1889, because | thought
] foresaw that the market would fall be.
fore the time of delivery. This is what
the merchant the broker, the ordinary
business man engaged in commerce al
ways does. He wants to buy chcaply
and sell dearly. He buys expect
ing a rise, or sells. anticipating
a matter OF Judgment. If he judges
wisely he realizes profit; if unwisely, he
loses money. This is the motive and
handspring of commerce-the animus of
every commercial transaction. In bidding
in October, 1882 judged wisely. | bid
$2l so per barrel for pork and S20.75 per
barrel for beef. annex as exhibit Il the
market quotations for pork, taken from
the Commercial Bulletin from November,
1882 to March I, 1888. The time for de-
livery was February II. 1888. Exhibit Il
shows that on January %, 1888, the price
of pork had fallen to $3.50. To the mar
ket quotations must be added 81 80 for ex-
ira packing and selections, to comply with
departmental specifications. This would
have enabled me to fill my entire pork
contract at Sl9.65 per barrel or S2.l5 under
my bid, which would have given me clear
profit on 1000 barrels of pork of $4,000
The fall in the price of beef also justified
my bid of October, 1882. My bid was $40. 10
per barrel of 200 pounds, or 10 374-100 of u
cent per pound. During January and
February 1888, within the time of my con-
tract, beef declined to u cents, or SO per
barrel, or 1915 below my bid. Now add
S3.05 for choice selections and packing, as
required by the navy, to the market price
SO per barrel, and beef cost me in Jan
uary, 1888 SlS.05 per barrel, so that
could lave delivered my entire contract
of GOO barrels at a clear profit of 81. 20 per
barrel, or $500. Thus my entire profit
ON my contract delivered within the time
would have amounted to exactly $1,000
So much for bidding below market prices.
I'd. The World charges that my contract
was unduly increased and doubled. The
facts are these The bids were opened ON
the 18th of October 1889. Mine was found
to be the lowest bid, and was below the
then market price. On the, 9TH of Noyem-
Der addressed letter to the chief of the
Bureau of Provisions and Clothing, offer
ing to furnish all the beef and pork that
might be required by the Department dur
ing the season at the prices named i'm my
bid. | inclose that letter, marked exhibit
A. My contract was signed on the 18th of
November, and ON the 10Th / received II
ing my offer to increase my contract His
| letter, marked exhibit b, is inclosed.
Sd. The World charges that there was
| collision between the chief of the Bureau
of Provisions and myself with regard to
| the time of delivery of the articles of my
| contract which was extended that might
| take advantage of low markets to make in
creased profits The charge of collision is
utterly and UNANIMOUSLY false. My bust
ness with the head of the bureau was CON
Quoted solely by letter. He vas then COM
paratively new in his office. had never
Med a provision contract under his adj
ministration. did not know whether he
would readopt the old rule of delivery of
the whole contract at the time fixed or
would pursue the system to which | was
accustomed, of delivery at any time after
the date fixed, as the necessities of the
naval service might require. And so, in
order to be prepared, | wrote to the chief
of bureau ON the 9th of January 1883, ff-
teen days before the time of delivery, ask
ing him in substance whether he would
insist upon full delivery of my contract on
the day named in the contract. See eX-
hibit c. On the ID of February 1883, re-
ceivod the answer of the chief of the bu-
rcau, which inclose, marked exhibit ID.
\ glance ut exhibit ID will show that
there was no definite extension of time for