Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-07
AUDITOR PETTY RESPONDS
HIS REPLY TO CRITICISMS MADE BY
ATTORNEY FAY.
Controversy Over a Proposed Amend
ment to the Pending District
Appropriation Bill.

District Commissioners to Mr.. John q.
Fay on the amendment to the pending Dis
trict appropriation bill inserted by the SER
ate relative to payments Of judgments or
the Court of Claims rendered under the
provisions of the act Of June 16, 1880, Mr..
Fay took occasion to criticise the action OF
the auditor for the District, Mr.. ]. T. Petty,
in the case. Mr.. Fay declared, among other
things, that for twenty years the act had
been enforced with the greatest satisfaction
to both the District and the claimants, and
that the only mishap was in the matter OF
a claim which, he asserted. Mr.. Petty had
approved only to discover later that the
claimant had been overpaid several thou
sand dollars. Replying to the statements
made by Mr.. Fay at the hearing, Mr.. Petty
has submitted to the Commissioners state
ment.
In the first instance, Mr.. Petty refers to
statement made by Mr.. Fay that ANY
assertion to the effect that Judgment OF
the Court of Claims had ever been paid
without previous notice to the Commission
ers and an opportunity being afforded them
TO aftirmatively approve. or by silence ac-
quiesce in its payment was absolutely
false. Mr.. Petty says he met this aver
ment by citing the case of Stephen Tally
against the District, and claims that Mr..
Fay now admits the truth of his CPetty's)
assertion, but says the omission was an
oversight on the part of the clerk. This
confession remarks Mr. Petty, places
the shoe of falsehood on the other foot
and the right one at that, where it properly
belongs
Denies the Charge.
Referring further to this judgment, MIR.
Petty says Mr.. Fay attempted to prove
that the amount of the judgment is correct,
claiming that the auditor practically brand
ed the claim fraudulent one and Mr.
Tally as a scoundrel. Mr. Petty says he
did not brand the claimant as a scoundrei,
and that he did not condemn the referee
merely citing the opinion of the special attor-
ney for the District to the effect that the
referees report was based upon error AS
a word juggler,'' adds Mr.. Petty, Mr.. Fay
is a pronounced success. for one who can
transmute error into fraud and create
scoundrel' out of Claimant is a past mas
ter of the art of manipulating language
and a lineal descendant of the doughty Sir
Hudibras, of whom it was said.' says Mr.
Petty. dropping into poetry, - ON either
side he would dispute, confute, change
hands, and still confute.
The analogy in method" continues Mr..
Petty, between Buffers ancient knight Of
logic and this modern disciple of Black
stone appears still more complete when II
is remembered, as he himself reminded you,
that when these old cases were hrst tried
in the Court of Claims he, assistant to
the Attorney General. defended the govern
ment against them, but now, vice versa, he
is attorney for the claimants, and using
all his eloquence to compass their pay
ment.'
At the hearing before the Commissioners
Mr.. Fay read the following extract from
the annual report of Mr.. Petty relative to
refer in general: Reports of these ref
erees often display such an extraordinary
lack of intelligent appreciation of the facts
and their relation in the cases under con-
sideraton that they would cause profound
amazement but for their representative
character members of a class of produc-
tons in which frequent repetition dulls the
edge of surprise
The referee in the Tally case appears to
have been Mr.. Frank Hackett. now assist
ant secretary of the navy. Mr. Fay re-
ferred to the action of the President in Sc
lecting one of these gentlemen who.
cording TO the auditors annual report, of
ten display such an extraordinary lack of
intelligent appreciation of facts and their
relation to cases under consideration" and
to the fact that the Senate actually con-
firmed this member "of a class of produc-
tons in which frequent repetition dulls the
edge of surprise" Referring to this. Mr..
Petty says: His Gays gratuitous allu-
sion to the present position Of the referee,
and his obsequious defense of that gentle
man against an assault which was never
made except in Mr.. Fays own eager and
superheated imagination, being a transpar-
ent bid for the enlistment OF a prominent
recruit, is dismissed puerile and I'M
worthy of serious consideration
The Proposed Amendment.
The amendment inserted in the pending
District appropriation bill provides that no
judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered
by the Court of Claims under the act of
1880 shall be paid until said judgment shall
have been reported to and specific author
ity for payment thereof granted by Con-
gress. Such amendment was recon-
mended by Mr.. Petty in his last annual re-
port, and among other things said of it by
Mr.. Fay that the effect of the amend
ment would be to repeal the law requiring
such judgments to be paid out of $50 bonds
of the District, and make them wholly pay
able out of the revenues of the District
Existing law in that respect will not be
changed, it is claimed. Mr.. Fay also
charged Mr.. Petty with allowing judg-
ment of $1,000 to be paid under the act of
February ID, 1895, notwithstanding the
claimant owed the District at that time
S6,Gol.I2, and with never having done any
thing to protect the District from said al
legged overpayment.
Replying to this, Mr.. Petty says:
This avalanche of accusation would be
overwhelming were it not that its impica-
Tons and 1nsinuatiOnS, as to me, are devoid
of truth in web, wool and warp Mr. Fay
in so far i concerned. laying his
fancy under contribution for his facts.
Since the question has been raised,
however l am free to say that the negli-
gent official in the case is Mr.. Fay himself
and any failure of justice, if such occurred
must be charged up to his own laches as
special assistant attorney general. The
oVerpayment, if made at all, occurred
doubtless in 1870 Five six years there
after Nandenburgh sued the District under
the act of June H. 1850. for S24. $50 So
which he claimed to be due under his con-
tract, the case standing No. > on the dock
ct OF the Court of Claims. 1t was Mr. Fay's
outy, as the then special attorney repre-
senting the District, to make answer to the
suit, and then was his opportunity, in max
ing this alleged overpayment a defense to |
the suit of Vandenburgh, to write its his |
tory upon the records of the Department of |
Justice for future use. Omtting then, as |
the government attorney, to thus safe
guard its interests, it is strange that now,
when he Is arrayed against it, he should |
show such intense, although belated, zeal |
In its behalf: His motive is open to ques-
ton and suggests Virgils warming Fear |
the Greeks even when they are offering
presents"
Public Interests Will Not Suffer.
Another objection which Mr.. Fay made /
against the proposed amendment was that |
1t would deprive the District of the right of |
an appeal. After quoting certain authori.
ties, Mr.. Petty says:
las the proposed amendment does not