Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-07-31
THE SMITH COrRT.MARTIAL.

ExtSecretary Chandler was called by the gov
eminent to-day as q witness before the court
martial now trying faymsster General Smith,
OF the Navy. After being sworn. the correspon-
dence (hitherto given in The STAR between
officers of the Treasury and Navy
department officials relative to the payment for
supplies for one fiscal year out of Appropriations
for another year was read This was the CORE
spondence which grew out OF the refusal OF Pay
Director LOCKER. OF the navy, to pay a voucher
for navy supplies In favor OF Mr.. Austin T.
Brown, a contractor, and ex-Secretary Chand-
Ter was asked If he and General Smith
were aware of this correspondence. The
ment the objection was overruled. In
reply to the question ex-Secretary Chandler
spondence and that Gen. Smith also had
knowledge of it. But he added that In order
70 make Ii complete certain letters which he
subject ought to be produced. Ex-Secretary
Chandler said he thought there were two letters
OF his TO Secretary Folger. Ii has appeared from
held-as it was shown Secretary Chandler did
tnat the second controller OF the Treasury WAS
the proper accounting officer 10 pass upon ques-
lions growing out OF naval contracts, and that
the first controller had nothing to do with
them officially.
THE Ex-sECRETARY's LETTERS.
The letters which ex-Secretary Chandler had
asked for were produced and read. The first
was addressed by Secretary Chandler to Secre-
tary Folger, and dated November 18th, 1883
1t stated that the writer Secretary Chandlerl
mad had his attention called 10 correspondence
OF the treasury arising from a contract of the
navy department. Mr.. Chandler asked IL the
Navy department should look in the future TO
the nrst controller instead of the second for de-
cisiohs OF naval questions, and he requested
matter.
The second letter was dated November 21st,
1883, and Secretary Chandler began by briefly
ri
orders Tor the payment OF a voucher for sup
plies furnished, and wanted 10 know whether
the claim, II audited, was for the fourth aud
1tor, and, If paid, was for the second controller
as the Navy department understood the law,
or whether IL should go TO the first controller.
In one OF these letters Secretary Chandler en-
closed a written argument from Col r. q. Inger-
SOIL, attorney for the contractor, Brown. This
argument set forth all the details OF the con-
tract OF Its being doubled, and the time of de-
livery under 1t being changed from ninety DAYS
until the articles should he called for Col
ingersoll then, at some length, argued that the
voucher was legal: that il was, under the cir
cumstances, etc, legal TO pay for naval supplies
Tor one year out of the appropriation for another
year.
SECRETARY FoLGER's REPLY.
Under date Of January 4th, 1884, Secretary
Folger replied to Secretary Chambers letters.
He took the ground that it was the province of
the second controller TO pass upon naval ac-
counts, but dissented from Col. Ingersol's opin-
ION as TO the payment out of one years appro-
prlatlon for supplies for another year. Still the
secretary wrote, he did not care to decide "a
hypothetical case.
IN reply TO question, ex-Secretary Chandler
stated that Gen. Smith had knowledge OF all
the letters which had been read about the time
they were written.
EXTENSION OF THE BROWN CONTRACT.
The witness was next asked about the extern
sion or doubling of the brown contract for
beef and pork, and was asked If Gen. Smith
asked his iwitnessl advice as to doubling that
contract II think not" was the reply. The
witness was asked if he was consulted about
tne SUBSEQUENT payment In New York OF the
city, had refused to pay.
According to the witness recollection be was
not consulted about the voucher at the time.
IL was possible that Smith had consulted him.
but he had no recollection of IL. Witness GER
tainly had no recollection OF giving directions
to pay the voucher in New York rather than
through the pay office I'm Washington. 1t was
very seldom that IA requisition for money
named the specific bills that money was in
tended to pay. Blank forms for the drawing OF
money to pay for naval supplies were put in
evidence. The acquisitions set out only the
appropriations to which the moneys called for
were to be charged.
by Mr.. JEFF. Chandler, the witness stated that a
requisition always stated the appropriations to
which the moneys asked for were TO be
charged. The witness stated in response TO
questions, that the voucher upon which the
controversy with the Trea sury gave rise to, set
out that IL was 70. a payment under the ex-
tended or enlarged contract OF Brown The
witness had ascertaided that the first and not
the second controller was giving decisions upon
questions of naval contracts, and he did not hold
himself as bound by decisions of the first con-
trolier. Not much" he said. The witness
said 1t was his duty to construe the laws of the
Navy department..
"Was Gen. Smith a careful and efficient Off
cer:" the witness was asked. -
HE was according to my observation and be-
lief, was the reply.
Gen. Smith was directed by me-" said the
witness, Ito exercise extreme care i'm buying
all articles patented and all articles upon which
there could be no competition. The Paymas-
ter General, the witness added, twas directed
to exercise care"
The court took half an hours recess
After the recess Mr.. Chandler wa; called by
the defense and asked what action he would
have taken had Gen. Smith consulted him
about the LOCKER voucher. To this the prose-
cution objected, and after considerable argu-
ment the objection was sustained. In reply to a
question of the defense the witness said he
knew of no way i'm which the question of the
LOCKER voucher could have been brought before
the second controller for final decision EXCEPT
by the payment of the voucher, and then the
adjustment by the Treasury of the accounts Of
the pay officer.
To the prosecution the witness said it had
been the custom for navy pay officers to consult
accounting officers of the Treasury about
vouchers the former were ordered 10 pay in
advance OF payment, bus he regarded il as a
bad practise and tried to break ii up. Instead
should, under such circumstances, GO to the
of the Navy.
The court adjourned until Monday, when the
defense will omen