NORFOLK NAVY YARD
Marcus W. Robbins, Historian & Archivist
Copyright. All rights reserved.Birth of the Gosport Yard & into the 19th Century
Books & Publications:
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate page numbers of the original document.
[1] 27th Congress, Doc. No. 205, Ho. of Reps.
2d Session.
NAVY YARD, NORFOLK.
LETTER
from
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
TRANSMITTING
Reports of the Commissioner appointed to make an investigation at the Gosport Navy Yard, &c.March 4, 1842.
Referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.May 5, 1842.
Committee discharged, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.* * * * * *
(Pages 1 - 48)
NAVY DEPARTMENT, March 2, 1842.
Sir: In obedience to a resolution, passed by the House of Representatives on the 21st ultimo, directing the Secretary of the Navy to furnish "the report of the commissioner or commissioners appointed to make an investigation at the Gosport navy yard, and of the administration of the navy agent's department at the Norfolk naval station," I have the honor to transmit, herewith, copies of the two reports made by that commissioner. These reports were accompanied with very voluminous documents, consisting of depositions and copies of accounts and correspondence. A correspondence has since taken place between the Department and the navy agent at Norfolk in relation to his administration of the duties of his office. I take leave respectfully to inquire if it is the pleasure of the House that copies of the documents accompanying the reports, and of the correspondence with the navy agent, above referred to, shall be furnished. They are probably necessary in order to a full understanding of the subject.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant,
A. P. UPSHUR.Hon. John White,
Speaker of the House of Reps.* * * * * *
WASHINGTON, June 26, 1841.
Sir: I have the honor to present, herewith, the depositions taken before me at the United States navy yard, Norfolk, Virginia, in the cases of the naval storekeeper and those master workmen whose official conduct became the subject of investigation.
[2] My first act, on arriving at the navy yard, was to make known to Commodore Shubrick the object of my visit, exhibiting my commission to him at the same time. On that, as well as on all other occasions, I received from him every facility that I asked for in the prosecution of my inquiries.
My next step was to notify the navy agent, naval storekeeper, and three of the master workmen, against whom complaints had been lodged, that I had been empowered by the Department to examine into the truth of the representations.
Having been referred to J. VV. Murdaugh, Esq., of Portsmouth, Virginia, for the nature of the complaints and the names of the witnesses, I was furnished by him, from time to time, with the names of individuals who, it was supposed, could substantiate the existence of the abuses referred to. Invitations were accordingly sent to all such to call at the room assigned to me in the commandant's office, and communicate any information they might possess on the subject. Several did call; and I requested them not only to state all they knew, but to make known to others the purpose of my visit, in order that any person, who had cause of complaint, might have an opportunity to come forward and lay it before me. Many of those to whom I addressed invitations never appeared at all.
After passing a whole week in collecting information upon which to act, I prepared a summary of complaints in each case, furnished the parties with a copy of the same and the names of the witnesses, and appointed a day to take testimony.
The first case taken up was that of
Benjamin Spratley, master armorer.
The first allegation against him was not proved.
Mr. Grice, the master blacksmith, testified that he was called upon by Mr. Higgins to sign the certificate of inspection of some files which Mr. Spratley had examined and approved. Mr. Grice refused to sign the certificate because the examination had already been made by another, but he had not refused to receive the files into his department.
Whenever articles are required and purchased for the naval service, they are first received into the public store, under charge of the naval storekeeper, and are obtained from thence by the several master workmen and others, as they are wanted for use, upon requisitions duly approved by the commandant of the yard.
The second allegation against Mr. Spratley is proved to a certain extent, viz: that he caused a brass door plate (not a knocker) to be made in the public shop, and his name to be stamped upon it; that he had four to six models of his patent galleys and cooking-stoves made, for part of which, but not for all, he produces authority. It was also proved that a pistol was made by Benjamin Dey, his nephew and apprentice. A model for a still was made for Doct. W. J. Cocke, of Portsmouth, which Doct. C. estimates to be worth $1 25, but which James H. Hall testifies he was two days at work upon. A steel spring for a truss was made for Mr. C. L. Cocke, of Portsmouth, but Mr. Spratley received no compensation for it, or for the model of the still. Mr. Spratley having improved upon the common pump-box, he caused a small one to be made in the shop as a model without authority; but, after it was exhibited to and approved by officers of the navy, he obtained an order to construct a large one for use on board the United States ship Pennsylvania. The smaller pump-box [3] was used for various purposes about the yard, and finally placed on board Lieutenant Hunter's small experimental steamboat. Two or three other private jobs, of trifling amount, are proved to have been done in the armorer's department, by order of Mr. Spratley. There was no proof to show that Mr. Spratley had appropriated to his own private use any doorknockers, door-locks, cistern-pumps, or chamber-buckets; that the sash and window-blinds of his dwelling-house were made in the yard, or that he had on hand, at the then present time, any private job.
There was no evidence to be found to sustain the third allegation. Benjamin Dey is believed to be the nephew of Mr. Spratley, and now employed in the United States navy yard at Washington.
With respect to the fourth allegation, it is fully proved (and even admitted) that Mr. Spratley demanded, and has received, from Samuel H. Burt one-half his wages ever since his admission into the yard, in December, 1840. Burt himself testifies that he consented to these terms because he could get admission into the yard on no other. Commander Page certifies that he was authorized by Commodore Shubrick to place Burt on the muster-roll of the yard, at the lowest rate of wages, (as a journeyman.) Commodore Shubrick informed me that he knew nothing of the bargain between Burt and Mr. Spratley.
Among (he papers submitted by Mr. Spratley, in his defence, is a certificate of the workmen in his department, that he had exercised no political influence over them. At the request of Mr. Spratley, the signers appeared before me in a body, and acknowledged that they had voluntarily and of their own accord given this certificate. Mr. James H. Hall refused to sign it, and informed me that he would state his reasons therefore in writing. His letter to me is appended to the papers.
The next case examined was that of
James A. Williams, master ship-joiner.
The complaints against him were lodged by Mr. George K. Lee, of Norfolk, who had once been employed in the yard, and was discharged therefrom. The complaints were, that Williams had received from two of the workmen in his department a portion of their wages. The two workmen were summoned: one of whom denied that Mr. Williams had ever received any part of his wages since he had been a journeyman; the other testified that he was still an apprentice, and of course Mr. Williams received the whole of his wages, to which he was entitled.
The third case which came under examination was that of
John B. Davis, master mast and spar maker.
There was no proof to sustain either of the allegations against him, which were, that he had built a batteau in the yard for his own private use, and had received from two of his journeymen a part of their wages.
During the progress of the investigation, sundry complaints of incapacity and neglect of duty were lodged with me against
Merritt Moore, master gun-carriage maker,
by Mr. Joseph Bushell, who acknowledged himself ready to testify in the [4] case, and furnished the names of several other witnesses. Mr. Moore was informed thereof, and avowed himself prepared for the examination.
The only allegation which was proved against Mr. Moore was, that, during the spring and summer of 1840, he was frequently absent from the shop in the mornings before breakfast, and occasionally during other parts of the day. To explain the cause of his absence, he produced Doctor Campos, his attending physician, who testified that Mr. Moore was laboring under a pulmonary disease, attended with occasional attacks of spitting blood, which compelled him to be very careful of himself while they lasted.
With respect to Mr. Moore's incapacity, the evidence is somewhat contradictory. Bushell, Barns, and Plant, by their answers, leave it to be inferred, so far as their opinion may go, that Mr. Moore is incompetent, but Gunner Marshall, and several workmen in the gun-carriage maker's department, testify directly to the contrary; and the certificates of officers of the navy, submitted by Mr. Moore, show that the work executed by him has given satisfaction.
The complaints against
Merit Jordan, Esq., naval storekeeper,
were five in number.
With regard to the three first, the facts were proved that he did make requisitions (or indents, as they are called) upon the navy agent for the purchase of a quantity of files, brass-wire, and sheet-tin; but they were made in the usual form, and approved by the commandant of the yard. It was not proved that these articles were procured in larger quantities than the public service required.
The blanks, herewith submitted, show the course of proceeding in the procurement of supplies. A is the form of a requisition upon the naval storekeeper for articles needed; if he has them on hand, they are delivered accordingly from the public store to the person making the requisition.
B is the form of an indent, or order, upon the navy agent to purchase any articles that are wanted and are not on hand.
C is the form of an account for articles purchased, having on its face a certificate of inspection, a receipt from the storekeeper, and a receipt from the seller to the navy agent for the payment of the money.
All these forms must be approved by the commandant of the yard before they can be carried into effect; so that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to commit a fraud upon the Government, without either the forging of four or five signatures, or a collusion between as many individuals.
There was no proof whatever to sustain the fourth allegation. There had been a small quantity of damaged nails turned into store from some public vessel after her return from a cruise. These nails were condemned at the last annual survey, and sold at auction.
The last allegation, that of incompetency, was not sustained by the evidence. On the contrary, Commodores Warrington and Shubrick, under whose immediate command Mr. Jordan has acted ever since his appointment, certify to his fidelity, capacity, and attention to duty; and the master workmen, who had been referred to to prove his incompetency, [5] either speak favorably of Mr. Jordan, or know nothing to his prejudice in this particular.
The last case inquired into was that of
John Hobday, master painter.
Mr. Hobday had requested a postponement, in the first instance, on the plea that he wanted time to obtain some documents essential to his defence, and it was granted. Only two witnesses appeared, and they were both in the public service. One testified that he had never paid to Mr. Hobday any portion of his wages, and the other that he was still an apprentice, and did not draw his own wages.
Mr. Wills Cowper, of Portsmouth, did not appear. In an interview subsequently held with him in his own store, I understood that his testimony would not have tended to criminate Mr. Hobday of any official misconduct. He consequently had declined attending.
Mr. J. M. Miles, of Portsmouth, appeared, in compliance with the summons, and made representations of Mr. Hobday's treatment towards him while he was employed in the yard, accused him of prejudice, partiality, and favoritism, as well as of incompetency for the duties of his station. As Mr. Miles appeared to know nothing, of his own knowledge, of the specific complaints alleged against Mr. Hobday, and as his professional competency was not a subject of inquiry, Mr. Miles's testimony was not taken. Mr. Miles requested that Mr. J. D. Cooper, of the painter's department, might be summoned and examined, and he was accordingly sent for. Mr. Hobday objected to Mr. Cooper's competency as a witness, on the ground that he had been recommended as his successor, and was therefore an interested witness. Upon advisement, Mr. Hobday consented that Mr. Cooper should be examined; he was then interrogated, and it appeared that all he knew was derived from the information of others, corroborated by concurrent circumstances, but that he knew nothing of his own knowledge, or from Mr. Hobday's admissions, concerning the alleged complaints.
Of the three remaining witnesses, Powers did not appear at all on any occasion; Perry and Hutchinson attended, on a previous day, by invitation, and stated informally what they knew, but they did not attend on the day of examination, although they promised to do so.
In connexion with these investigations, I take leave respectfully to state that it was intimated to me that some of the workmen would not willingly testify, being apprehensive that, if they stated any thing to the prejudice of the master workmen, it would draw down upon them their displeasure, which would render their situations uncomfortable, and finally lead to their discharge from the yard upon the first plausible pretext. Whenever I found the least reluctance of this kind, I took upon myself the responsibility of assuring to the persons the protection of the Department from any injurious consequences to themselves, resulting, or apprehended to result, from their testimony. I think it my duty to make known to the Department the assurance thus given by me, to afford it the opportunity to adopt precautionary measures, should it seem advisable.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most obedient servant.
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Hon. GEO. E. BADGER,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.Report of B. Homans, commissioner, appointed to investigate the official conduct
of the navy agent at Norfolk, Va.Washington, August 7, 1841.
Sir: I have the honor to present herewith a report, being the result of the investigation just made into the official conduct of the navy agent at Norfolk, Virginia, in virtue of your commission dated May 10, 1841.
The complaints alleged against the navy agent, as set forth in that commission, were two-fold:
First. That certain persons have been permitted in a great measure to monopolize the Government supplies at the Norfolk navy yard and stations; and
Second. That the supplies have been procured in an exceptionable manner, and paid for at unusual and exorbitant prices.
In order to ascertain what grounds existed for the first complaint, the books and accounts of the navy agent, George Loyall, Esq., were examined from the time of his first appointment, in March, 1837, until the close of the first quarter of the year 1841. This examination was commenced on the 10th and continued until the 17th June, 1841; from which it appeared that the whole amount of disbursements by Mr. Loyall, from March, 1837, to March, 1841, was $4,300,868.79.
More than two-thirds of this sum consists of moneys advanced to pursers of vessels of war or of the navy yard and to recruiting officers, of allotments, and of orders from the Department—over all of which the agent may be said to have no discretionary control, as the money merely passes through his hands as through a banker's, and is paid on requisitions duly approved, amounting, altogether, to 2,981,819.92.
Leaving the actual amount of disbursements by the agent, for the yard and station 1,319,048.87.
Of this, however, a large portion consists of payments on contracts, for traveling expenses, transportation, freight, and pilotage, and for timber purchased at prices fixed by the Board of Navy Commissioners, amounting, in the four years, to 870,766.61.
Leaving, as the actual amount disbursed by the agent at his discretion, for the purchase of articles not contracted for $448,282.26.
This sum is disbursed principally under the following heads of appropriation: Provisions; medicines and hospital stores; repairs of vessels; improvement of navy yards; gradual improvement of the navy; ordnance and ordnance stores; contingent expenses.
Under these several heads, there have been paid to these individuals, as firms, during the period before referred to, as follows:
[7] To E. J. Higgins and Higgins & Bro. $222,439.46*
To John Capron 81,081.93*
[* E J. Higgins and J. Capron were contractors in 1838 and 1839, but the amounts paid to them under their contracts could not be positively ascertained; they did not probably exceed twenty or thirty thousand dollars to both. ]
To N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale 26,441.60.
[Totaling] $329,962.99.
which, being deducted from actual amount disbursed by agent, ($448,282.26,) leaves, for payments to all other individuals for purchases of the multifarious articles used in the naval service, the sum of $118,319.27.
This statement, derived from the books of the agent's office, would seem to be sufficient to determine, without one word of comment, "whether certain persons have been permitted in a great measure to monopolize the Government supplies at the Norfolk navy yard and station." It may not be improper to state that the three persons, as firms, above named, have not only furnished articles in their own line of business, but various other articles in which they are not regular dealers.
E. J. Higgins has furnished ship chandlery, hardware, and paints, as well as green baize, fearnaught, pine wood, raw cotton, and raisins.
John Capron has furnished, besides iron-mongery, all the flannel and charcoal required for the service at Norfolk, and nearly, if not quite, all the lime and cement. The whole amount disbursed by Mr. Loyall, under the head
of medicines and hospital stores, to March 31, 1841, is $42,504.34
Of this sum Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale, the same firm under different names, received 22,676.10.
or more than one-half. All the medicines, &c., for sea-going ships have been furnished by these gentlemen, with one or two trifling exceptions. Messrs. H. Baff & Co. furnished to the amount of $20.88 for the frigate Macedonian; and for the Delaware, now ready for sea, Messrs. Santos & Foy furnished to the amount of $141.83; Mr. N. C. King to the amount of about $200; while the bill of Messrs. Whitehead & Beale, for the same ship, was $1,330 14.
As it was possible that the navy agent might have sought to procure articles elsewhere, and found that they could be had on better terms of these persons, all the principal dealers in drugs and medicines, ship chandlery, and hardware, were invited to appear before us to give information. Some of them attended, but others declined. The following questions were put to each; and the answers taken from their respective depositions are annexed, showing still more conclusively, so far as they were concerned, that they had never been called upon by the navy agent to furnish any articles for the naval service, nor even to state the market prices; although each, for himself, avers that he could have supplied them, and at lower prices, too, if he had been called upon:
Question. Have you ever been called upon by the navy agent to furnish any articles required for the naval service, or to state the prices of any articles in the market? The answers are :
[8] Medicines.K. S. Bernard. "I never have."
N. C. King. "No."
T. D. Toy. " We never have."
Ship Chandlery.
J. Dickson. "Never, although I have been in business here for the last nine years."
J. F. Hunter. " No."
Hardware.
E. P Tabb. "I have not."
"Question. Is it not probable that any or all of the dealers in ____ could have supplied the several quantities of articles required for the naval service if they had been called upon to do so, or been allowed to participate in supplying the navy with articles in their line of business?"
The answers are:
Medicines.
K. S. Bernard. "So far as I am concerned, I say that I could have supplied all the articles required in my line."
N. C. King. "Certainly; at least I speak for myself."
T. D. Toy. "We could have furnished, if called upon, any or all of the articles required for the service."
Ship Chandlery.
J. Dickson. "I could have done it as well as any person in this place. During the last five or six years, the late firm of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins had a larger stock of ship chandlery than any other persons in Norfolk, and could have supplied the demands of the navy as promptly as any one."
J. F. Hunter. "Yes."
Hardware.
E. P. Tabb. "I notice a charge for files* and wrought nails, which is larger than the stock we generally keep on hand. All the other articles of hardware we could have supplied either immediately or at very short notice." [* The $ 1,500 worth.]
In answer to another interrogatory, he says he "could have supplied the files, I should think, within a week."
The second ground of complaint, whether the supplies have been procured in an exceptionable manner, and paid for at unusual and exorbitant prices, was the next subject of inquiry.
Copies of several accounts, presenting a fair average of the whole, having been taken, and notice to that effect having been given to the navy agent, the attendance of the principal dealers in medicines, ship chandlery, and hardware, was requested. The examination of witnesses, as to the fairness of the prices charged, was commenced on the 19th of [9] June, continued on the 21st, and then suspended until the 30th, on which day it was resumed, and continued until the 27th July.
Domestic affliction, of which I received advice on Sunday, the 25th of July, calling for my early return to Washington, I requested the navy agent, on Monday, the 26th, to have his remaining witnesses in attendance on that and the following days. His reply was "that the attendance of some of the witnesses, whose testimony (for the sake of truth and justice) he had deemed essential, may not be practicable within the brief space allotted by my letter." I then requested a list of their names, and a copy of the interrogatories to be propounded to them, that cross-interrogatories might be prepared, and offered to make an arrangement by which their depositions could be taken. Mr. Loyall declined complying with my request, and, being unable to obtain any information from him as to the names of the witnesses, or the matters they were expected to prove, and being moreover given to understand that some of them lived in the country, and the time of their visit to Norfolk uncertain, I saw no alternative between remaining there an indefinite period, to suit the pleasure or convenience of the agent, or an abrupt termination of the commission. I conceived that I had discharged my duty to him when I offered to take the depositions of his remaining witnesses by direct and cross-interrogatories, and did not doubt, if I had done him injustice, that the Department would instantly repair the wrong.
The first in order of examination was the accounts for
Medicines, Hospital Stores, &c.,
to which Messrs. K. S. Bernard, N. C. King, and T. D. Toy, all respectable dealers, testified after having looked over the accounts separately.
Mr. Bernard testifies that the articles charged in these accounts are generally higher than he charges; many of them are much higher—some-five, some ten, and some one hundred per cent, above his prices.
Mr. King testifies that there are some articles charged at one, two, and three hundred per cent, above what articles of a similar kind cost him.
Mr. Toy testifies that he could have furnished the medicines charged in one of the bills for half the money, and in two others for two-thirds of the prices charged.
And all of them state that they would have furnished articles of the best quality.
To rebut this testimony, the navy agent introduced Mr. C. H. Beale, one of the firm of Whitehead & Beale, who entered into a long explanation as to the particularly careful manner in which medicines, &c., for seagoing ships must be put up—the risk attending their keeping and delivery; and says that no druggist or apothecary, who has never supplied the navy, can be a competent witness as to the prices of those who have been in the habit of so doing. Great stress is laid upon this point in many of the interrogatories propounded to witnesses for the defence, as if no one else, but those who have been so employed, is competent to put up medicines properly. Other apothecaries in Norfolk express their ability to furnish medicines, &c., for the naval service, and must know that if they are not put up in an approved manner they will not be received. The additional trouble and risk must be theirs, if they undertake to supply; and the readiest way to test their sincerity would be to give them an order. If they [10] found they had made a rash promise and an unprofitable bargain, they would gladly relinquish the trade to those who have heretofore enjoyed it.
One fact elicited by the testimony may be mentioned here: Messrs. Whitehead & Beale furnished some blister plaster for the Delaware, and it was returned on account of its bad quality; Mr. N. C. King furnished some in lieu, which was approved. Whitehead & Beale, it is understood, charged $1 50 per pound for the bad, and N. C. King $1 for the good.
Dr. J. Cornick, of the United States navy, testified that he had been directed by the navy agent to say to surgeons attached to ships in commission, that he wished them to go where they pleased to purchase their articles. It is very singular, indeed, that all the surgeons should have gone to one house for their supplies, if some influence had not been exerted to concentrate all the custom there, when there were several other dealers prepared to execute orders.
Messrs. Whitehead & Beale are at this time engaged in putting up the medical supplies for the United States ship Cyane—no change in the system having as yet been effected by the investigation recently set on foot.
Mr. Beale, Doctors Blacknall, Baylor, and Balfour, in their evidence, state that the prices charged to the United States by Whitehead & Beale are no higher than those charged by other apothecaries for similar articles, as ascertained by an examination and comparison of several accounts. Whether the comparison be a just one may be inferred from the fact that the articles furnished by Whitehead & Beale are in large quantities, all put up at one time, for sea-going vessels bound on long cruises; while those furnished by other apothecaries alluded to were in small quantities, at various intervals, from time to time, as wanted for the navy yard, receiving ship, and hospital, and are consequently charged at the usual retail prices. The whole amount of bills for articles supplied by Messrs. S. & W. Watts, and H. Buff & Co., whose bills were compared with those of Messrs. Whitehead & Beale, for four years, is only 83,461.93.
The medical bills of Whitehead & Beale for the frigate Constitution, on her present cruise, were $2,719.24; and for the York Town, a third class sloop, $1,308.37.
It may, then, become questionable whether Whitehead & Beale are justified in charging, and the navy agent in paying, retail prices, and in many instances much more than retail prices, for medicines, &c, required in such large quantities as our vessels of war always take.
Mr. Beale, in the course of his testimony, having reflected upon the motives and accuracy of the statements made by Messrs. King and Toy, it was thought to be due to those gentlemen that an opportunity should be afforded them to offer explanations of their evidence. That part of Mr. Beale's testimony which affected them was accordingly exhibited to each, and they have prepared explanatory statements, which they request may be appended to their depositions.
Mr. Toy says that the prices charged in his accounts were not for the articles themselves, as therein mentioned, but for prescriptions which Santos & Toy have been in the habit of putting up for the families of officers residing in Norfolk; and, by an understanding with the surgeon of the station, if the prescriptions put up in any one day amounted to a certain sum, say 50 or 75 cents, $1 or $2, some article of the same value was charged instead of the prescriptions themselves.
Mr. Beale, in his deposition, says, after enumerating certain articles: [11] "These articles are always at our risk until receipted for by the surgeon, and the drayage, freight, &c., always paid by us." On reference to the accounts of Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale, for medicines, &c., put up for sea-going vessels for the last four years, it will be found that there is a charge, in all except two, for "packages and freight." These charges amount, in the aggregate, to nearly $300 in the four years. It must be left to Mr. Beale to reconcile this discrepancy between his affidavit and his accounts.
The next accounts taken up in the order of examination were those for
Ship Chandlery, Hardware, and Iron-mongery.
The books and accounts of the navy agent show that almost every article was purchased from E. J. Higgins and John Capron. There is no evidence of a single payment for ship chandlery to any other dealer in Norfolk; and two of them (J. Dickson and J. F. Hunter) testify that they were never called upon by the navy agent to furnish a single article, or to state the market price. The other two principal dealers (W. W. Spence and J. Hipkins) declined attending—for what reason is unknown. Mr. Hipkins is a brother-in-law of Mr. Higgins, and this may account for his unwillingness.
Mr. Jordan, naval storekeeper, in his letter to the Secretary of the Navy, dated June __, 1841, says that "the interest of the service requires a constant supply, upon a liberal scale, of the greater number of articles used in the service, so that the different mechanical departments can be supplied promptly and without waiting, as well as the ships fitting for sea."
Commodore Shubrick, in a conversation, informed me that a year's supply of imperishable articles was not too large.
Finding that all the supplies were obtained from the two individuals before named, (E. J. Higgins and John Capron,) it was important to ascertain whether information was not conveyed to them, directly or indirectly, as to the kinds and quantities of articles that would be wanted within a specified period; and, from the intimacy known to exist between the parties, a belief was strongly entertained that such information was regularly communicated to one or both of them. By such a course these two persons, and they alone, from the unfair advantage thus given to them, would be enabled to provide those articles, and those only, that were to be required, and be prepared when called upon to supply the quantities ordered; while, under the plea that they were "wanted immediately," all competition might be shut out, and the favored ones be privileged to charge their own prices, because the public service would suffer by delay.
The following questions were accordingly propounded to Mr. Jordan, and answered by him:
''Question. Have you not given notice, at any time, to either of the persons who are in the practice of supplying articles for the naval service, that certain articles would probably be required within a definite period?"
"Answer. I may have done so, but it was unofficially, and I cannot now state positively."
"Question. Are you certain that you have never given information, officially or unofficially, to John Capron, E. J. Higgins, or Higgins & [12] Brother, that articles would probably be required for the naval service during a specified period?"
"Answer. I am pretty certain I never did officially. * * * I have always been very cautious not to give any opinion till authorized to do so." [See deposition for the whole answer]
To Mr. Higgins the following question was put:
"Question. Have you never received an intimation from any quarter that certain articles, not contracted for, would probably be required for the naval service within a specified period?"
"Answer. I have never received any intimation from any body that had authority to give it."
The answer plainly shows that he has received intimations from unauthorized persons, and was not willing to mention their names.
The first witness examined in relation to ship chandlery was Mr. John Dickson, who enumerated several articles in the accounts of E. J. Higgins and J. Capron as being charged at much higher prices than his own.
The testimony of Mr. J. F. Hunter, who was next examined, is similar to that of Mr. Dickson. Many of the articles enumerated in the bills could not be pronounced upon with certainty, because of the difference in quality and price in articles bearing the same name.
To disprove the evidence of Messrs. Dickson and Hunter, two witnesses were produced who had compared the bills of E. J. Higgins against the United States with those of other ship chandlers against merchant vessels. One of these witnesses, Mr. Tunstall, is out of business, and resides in the country; and the other, Mr. Wilson, has not been engaged in the ship chandlery business for twenty-two years. Neither of them, therefore, could speak of prices from their own knowledge, but only by a comparison of one bill with another.
Great importance was attached, as in the case of medicines, &c, to the superior quality of all articles used in the navy, the trouble and expense of delivering them at the yard, and the risk of condemnation if not suitable.
So, also, as in the case of Messrs. King and Toy, justice to Messrs. Dickson and Hunter demanded that they should be allowed the opportunity to explain portions of their testimony; and they have accordingly prepared a joint statement, from which it appears that the prices charged by them, and referred to by Messrs. Tunstall and Wilson, were for articles in small quantities to merchants on credit, and the prices enhanced by the risk of bad debts, no such risk occurring with respect to articles furnished for the Government. The price of an article depending very much on the quantity sold, and the naval service generally calling for large quantities, it would very naturally be supposed that persons supplying would be willing to furnish at wholesale prices. Hence the following question was put to witnesses for the complaints:
"Question. If you were employed to furnish articles in your line of business in quantities required by United States vessels of war, would you charge them at wholesale or retail prices?"
Answers. T. D. Toy, wholesale, unquestionably; E. P. Tabb, wholesale, unquestionably; J. Dickson, wholesale, unquestionably; J. F. Hunter, wholesale, unquestionably.
Among the articles required by the naval service in considerable quantities, are—
[13] Bunting, Flannel, Fearnaught, Green Baize, Tallow, Chalk, Charcoal,
Sheet and Black Tin.Flannel is used in large quantities for making cylinders or cartridges for vessels of war fitting out. Gunner Marshall testifies that it must be twenty-seven inches or three-quarters of a yard wide; if less it is not received, and if over that width it is no gain to the Government.
During the four years ending March 31, 1841, J. Capron has furnished upwards of 10,000 yards of flannel, at the invariable price of 50 cents per yard. The dry goods dealers who were examined differ as to the value of the article, according to the sample shown to them; and one of them, Mr. Mackinder, differs from himself.
According to Mr. Mackinder's estimate, if flannel 27 inches wide be worth 37 cents per yard, that of 36 inches, or one yard, would be worth 73 cents. The highest estimated value of the article 27 inches wide is 35 cents by the bale, 45 cents by the piece, and 50 cents at retail; so that it appears that the highest retail price has been charged to the United States, although it has been delivered in as large a quantity as 1,000 yards at a time.
Fearnaught is another article charged at more than the highest retail price. Mr. Kile says he should consider it high at $1 per yard; it is charged at never less than $1.50, and in one instance, if not more, at $2 by the 50 yards.
The highest retail price of green baize is shown to be 95 cents and $1 per yard; it is charged at $1.25 and $1.50.
E. J. Higgins has furnished in the last four years—
Over 600 pieces of bunting Over 6,200 lbs. of tallow About 5,000 lbs. of tin Chalk is invariably charged at two cents per pound, or $44.80 per ton, in parcels of from 10 to 1,000 pounds. The price in New York was, in 1838, $4, $4.50, and $5 per ton; in 1839, $6, $7.50, and $8; and in 1840, only $2.50 per ton: thus showing an advance of from 500 to nearly 2,000 per cent, on the New York prices.
[14] Mr. Capron has furnished 5,400 bushels of charcoal, at an average of fourteen and a half cents—the charge being never less than fourteen cents, and in one instance sixteen and two-thirds cents. W. D. Roberts, jun., testifies that he has never known it to be higher than twelve and a half cents during the last four years, that it has been as low as four cents, and that the average price has been about ten cents per bushel.
In April, 1837, Messrs. Higgins & Keating delivered 10,396 lbs. of pine-apple cheese, which was charged at 22-1/4 cents per pound; and during the same year E. J. Higgins delivered other parcels at the same price. Inquiry was made whether this was a contract article, but no contract could be found. Having been informed that this same lot of cheese was bought by Mr. Keating in New York at less than half the price charged, an invitation was addressed to him to appear before us, but he declined. He attended subsequently, at the request of J. F. Hunter, to answer to a particular point, when a question was put to him whether he was ready and willing to answer to general interrogatories, and his answer was that he would not like to give any other evidence.
Desirous to ascertain how far the navy agent had exerted himself to procure supplies for the naval service on the most favorable terms, recourse was had to the offices of the Norfolk Herald and Beacon for the number of advertisements inserted by him, and to files of the New York Prices-current, for the prices of prominent articles.
During the year 1837 eight advertisements were inserted in the Norfolk papers, generally in both, but sometimes only in one: they were, in March, for timber; April, for spars; May, for cedar and cypress timber; July, for white pine plank; August, for cedar posts and cypress; September, for cypress, elm, and oak; October, for yellow pine timber; and November, for elm and cypress plank.
In 1838 eight advertisements: January, for gun-carriage timber, provender, and yellow pine timber; April, for yellow pine timber, timber and yellow pine plank stocks; September, for timber and plank; November, for fuel, &c., for 1839.
In 1839 seven advertisements, viz: February, for white pine boards and yellow pine plank stocks; June, for sand; July, for plank; August, for white pine boards; November, for white pine boards; and December, for fuel, provender, and stationery.
In 1840 seven advertisements, viz: April, for boards and plank; July, for timber; November, for oak and elm timber; and December, for fuel, for provender, for fresh beef, and for oak and elm timber.
And in the first sixth months of 1841 eight advertisements appeared, viz: in February, for ash and elm logs; March, for pine timber; April, for lumber, piles, and white oak plank stocks; May, for pine plank stocks; and June, for cement.
These advertisements, it will be seen, refer mostly to timber, while various articles, which could have been procured, beyond question, on lower terms, if competition had existed, are not advertised for at all.
Mr. J. F. Hunter, in the course of his testimony, quoted from a letter addressed to the late firm of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, by Lieut P. V. Hagner, of the Ordnance department. The difference in the manner of doing business was so striking that a copy of the letter was requested, which Mr. Hunter has furnished with the consent of Lieut. Hagner, who desires this explanation to be added. He reserved the quantity of zinc [15] required for immediate use, and returned to Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins 231 lbs., which he afterwards ordered from New York, and which cost there five and a half cents. The zinc received from Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, he allowed seven cents per pound for, and the crucibles six cents per number.
By this letter, which is appended to Mr. Hunter's deposition, it will be seen that Lieutenant Hagner objected to paying 8 cents a pound for zinc because it was so much above the market price; yet we find the navy agent paying 10 and 12-1/2 cents for the same article without hesitation. Crucibles, which Lieutenant Hagner states he has never given higher than 4-1/2 cents per number for, are frequently charged to the Navy Department, in the accounts of E. J. Higgins, at the invariable price of 10 cents per number.
Mr. Higgins himself was introduced as a witness by Mr. Loyall. Feeling myself bound to receive all the evidence which Mr. Loyall might offer, without deciding upon its admissibility, I did not think it worth while to question the competency of Mr. Higgins or Mr. Beale to testify respecting their own accounts, but have left that question to be settled by those whose province it was to decide it.
The whole of Mr. Higgins's testimony, both questions and answers, is specially worded, and calculated to convey just so much information, and no more. For example, one of the questions propounded to him by Mr. Loyall was this:
"Question. Have you kept on hand such articles for the navy as are usually required, and made such arrangements for larger demands that no time might be lost in complying with an order on the most favorable terms for the Government?"
"Answer. I have; not only in this country, but in Europe too." The question was not (as it should have been, if it was desired to elicit the whole truth) " Have you kept, and do you now keep, on hand a constant and general supply of such articles?" &c. Doubtless Mr. Higgins has kept and now has on hand "such articles; "because leather rope, tin, files, turpentine, and tallow, are "such articles" as are usually required for the navy. But he does not say, nor does it appear from the question that it was intended he should say, that he has constantly on hand all the articles required. Mr. Higgins's ability to procure goods at short notice is not doubted; so could any other merchant, enjoying equal privileges, have procured them. The information which, from his deposition, it is to be inferred is conveyed to him, puts it in his power, without a large outlay of capital or credit, to procure supplies in season to meet anticipated orders. The question and answer above quoted, and his answer to a former interrogatory, by Mr. Loyall, that "as we receive orders nearly every day, and as those are to be attended to before every thing else, we have been obliged to give up all other business to attend to them," conclusively prove that an understanding exists between him and the navy agent, by which the whole supplies of such articles as he has been in the habit of furnishing are to be secured to him.
It was our wish to have ascertained whether Mr. Higgins was prepared at all times to supply all articles from his own store, or whether, as seemed more probable, when any thing was ordered immediately which he had not on hand, nor time to procure from a distance, he was not compelled to go to those very ship chandlers and hardware dealers, his neigh- [16] bors, to whom the navy agent did not apply himself, and purchase of them at higher prices than they would themselves have charged to the Government, and then add his profit to the advanced cost to him.
Mr. Higgins was questioned by the commissioners as to the present and average value of his stock of goods—the greatest length of time intervening between the date of an indent and its entire fulfillment—the highest advance he had charged on goods to the United States: to all of which he returned evasive and unsatisfactory answers. He was then asked if he would submit his books, accounts, and stock of goods to our inspection, which he declined doing; thus leaving the impression stronger upon our minds that undue partiality was displayed in making all purchases of him, and allowing him in some cases his own time to complete orders. He is now furnishing large orders, and will undoubtedly continue to do so, until strong reproof is manifested by those having authority towards all such as are instrumental in awarding the whole supply to him. Even were his prices as moderate as those of others, good policy and sound republican doctrine would suggest that one man should not be allowed for a series of years to monopolize all the supplies required by any one branch of the Government.
There are many portions of Mr. Higgins's testimony equally evasive and unsatisfactory.
Mr. Loyall put this question to him:
"Question. By the terms of any contract you have made, was a preference given to the contractor for any articles not enumerated?"
"Answer. Yes. A difference of five per cent, over the prices here; and that, in the contracts for ship chandlery and iron-mongery, for several years."
But he omits to state that this stipulation exists in no other contracts; and that none for ship chandlery and iron-mongery have been made since 1835. What is the impression designedly intended to be made by the foregoing question and answer? Why, that such a clause exists in all contracts.
Again, Mr Higgins says:
"April 30, 1840, bought three dozen deck-lights, which were refused at the navy yard because they did not arrive in time for the purpose intended."
But he does not say, what is shown by Mr. Jordan's letter to the commissioner, dated July 26, 1841, that these deck-lights were afterwards taken on public account, but leaves it to be inferred that they are still on his hands. He says elsewhere in his deposition: "Articles for the use of the navy are required to be furnished with all possible despatch." If he is fully prepared at all times to supply all the demands of the navy, whence the delay in furnishing three dozen deck-lights?
He says that the 144 deck-lights, charged in his accounts at $2.50 each, were made to order, by pattern from the navy yard; but he omits to state that that very pattern was one of a former lot furnished by him, and charged at $3, and that the navy storekeeper refused to give him the indent unless he would agree to furnish them at a lower price.
The beans furnished by him July 8, 1841, he says, were condemned in consequence of being exposed to the rain. Mr. Jordan says the inspectors informed him that they were condemned because they were not of good or proper quality. So also were the raisins and sperm candles [17] Mr. Higgins says he has sold brass wire to the Government at 45 cents, and to individuals at 62-1/2 cents; but he forgets to state that he has at other times charged the Government 70 and 75 cents for the same article.
Mr. Higgins was a contractor for dry white lead, in 1837, at 8 cents per pound; in 1838, at 62 cents; and in 1839, at 4 cents. In answer to an interrogatory by the commissioners, Mr. Jordan says that no dry white lead was called for in 1838 or 1339. In the course of the year 1838, Mr. Higgins furnished upwards of 20,000 pounds of white lead in oil, which was a non-contracted article, at an average charge, within a small fraction, of 13 cents per pound; and in 1839, nearly 19,000 pounds, at an average charge of 12-1/2 cents per pound.
If the interest of the Government had been consulted, dry white lead would have been called for from the contractor. Mr. Hobday, the master painter at the Gosport navy yard, states that the cost of grinding or mixing dry white lead with oil does not exceed one dollar per hundred pounds, and the New York prices current do not make a difference of more than two cents per pound between dry and ground. Either Mr. Higgins must have known that no dry white lead would be required in 1838 or 1839, which induced him to offer it at a rate so much lower than the price in New York, or the public interest was not consulted, in failing to call upon him to deliver it under his contract. In 1840, dry white lead was exclusively called for at the navy yard, and Mr. Higgins is not then the contractor. Taking the New York prices current as the standard, (that is, a difference of two cents per pound between dry and ground white lead,) the Government would have saved in 1838 4-1/4 cents per pound on upwards of 20,000 pounds, and in 1839 6-1/2 cents per pound on nearly 19,000 pounds.
Attention is particularly requested to the guarded manner in which the direct interrogatories to witnesses for the defence are worded, and to the specious language used both in the questions and answers. The witnesses for the defence were all prepared beforehand, and, when they appeared before the commissioners, came with their answers in their pockets, already written, or showed in various ways that they were advised of the questions to be put, as well as the answers expected.
Mr. Higgins made a verbal reply to one of Mr. Loyall's questions, and, on a hint being given to him that it was not the right answer, he handed a written one, and requested that it might be substituted.The two answers are subjoined:
Verbal answer.
"I have made a comparison of the prices, where they have furnished underwriters and others concerned with articles bearing the same name, and find in many instances that I am much below them in price."
Written answer.
"I have compared accounts of articles designated by those gentlemen as being too high, and find that the prices charged by them to underwriters and others, for articles bearing the same name, are in most instances higher than those charged by me, although articles required for naval purposes are of a very superior quality to those required in the merchant service. In proof of this assertion, a statement will be handed you on to-morrow.
[18] Attention is also invited to the disingenuous manner in which one of the leading questions propounded by the commissioners to the witnesses for the complainants has been perverted by Mr. Loyall, in interrogatories to his witnesses. The question is this:
"Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts now submitted to you, and state whether the prices therein charged are fair and reasonable, according to the prices then current in the Norfolk market; or whether they are higher, and how much, than the wholesale prices for similar articles of the best quality?"
Mr. Loyall, in his questions, omits altogether the words "fair and reasonable," and says:
"Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts, &c., together with the depositions taken to show that the prices therein charged are unusual and exorbitant?"
I deny that the depositions were taken with any such design as is here imputed. The perversion was pointed out to Mr. Loyall, but he refused to amend it. So, also, in a question to R. S. Bernard, he says: "I understand you are called upon to ratify what Mr. Butler had previously ascertained you are thus prepared to state."
There was no witness summoned for the complainants who knew beforehand what questions would be propounded to him, nor did the commissioners know what answers would be given by any one of them; yet Mr. Loyall charges them with summoning witnesses to determine a foregone conclusion.
Mr. R. H. Cutherell, butcher, of Portsmouth, called upon us to complain of the manner in which he had been treated at the navy agent's office, in regard to a contract for fresh beef and vegetables, for which proposals were advertised in December, 1840, and also of the omission to advertise similar proposals for the two or three previous years, allowing the former contractor to continue the supply without a change in price, and thus inhibiting all competition.
We felt bound to listen to Mr. Cutherell's complaint, and submit his deposition, together with that of Mr. L. Goodson, who was present at his interviews with the navy agent and his clerks: also those of Messrs. W. Ward and W. Langan, on the other side.
I at first expressed a doubt whether it would be proper to examine into a matter which had already been referred to and decided by the Board of Navy Commissioners. Mr. Cutherell replied, that he did not wish the examination made for the purpose of setting aside the contract, but only that he might have an opportunity of disproving some of the assertions contained in a letter from Mr. R. Gatewood to the navy agent, as well as to show no proposals had been advertised for during the last few years, until December, 1840.
The evidence does not prove that any unfairness was used in awarding the contract to Mr. Ward, who has supplied the demands of the naval service at Norfolk since 1837, upon the terms of his last contract before the present one, without renewal.
Mr. R. Vermillion, a boat builder, of Norfolk, was called upon by us to state what he knew respecting the mode of supplying oars for the navy on that station. He stated that he had never been able to supply an order but once, and that was for a small quantity of unusual length; that, on one occasion, a quantity of oars arrived at the wharf in Portsmouth, a day or two [19] after which an advertisement appeared for a quantity, "wanted immediately." He thought it useless to apply, as he supposed the advertisement was only intended to cover the lot already at the wharf, and bargained for. Mr. Vermillion complains that, by the practice hitherto pursued, dealers in articles wanted for the naval service have not had an opportunity to supply them.
The only counter testimony produced on this point was that of Mr. T. B. West, clerk in the navy agent's office, who states that, "on the 27th July, 1840, a requisition from the yard was received, calling for 16,000 feet of oars," which, after being advertised for, were furnished by Mr. Amos Edwards.
Mr. West also states that "6, 7-1/2, 9, and 10 cents, per running foot," have been paid for oars; and Mr. Vermillion says, "if they had been advertised for, and any thing like competition existed, they might have been got at five cents."
Mr. H. N. Bucktrout testifies that he has been deterred from offering to supply timber, from an impression that a preference was always given to the supporters of the late Administration, and that those opposed to it would not be allowed to furnish any articles; that he applied once for an order for timber, which he understood would be sent over from the navy yard, and, although promised that the order should not be disposed of until he could have time to offer, yet it was given to another before the hour fixed for him to call the next day.
Mr. West testifies, on the other hand, that, so far as he knows their opinions, two-thirds of all the timber given from the office has been furnished by the agent's political opponents; and with respect to the timber for which Mr. Bucktrout applied, the order was given before the agent was apprized that he wished to offer for it.
All the depositions taken during the investigation, duly signed and certified, are submitted with this report, accompanied with lists of the witnesses on both sides, and the names of the persons invited who did not attend.
To a fuller understanding of the whole subject, a copy of the correspondence between the commissioners and the navy agent and other persons is likewise submitted, together with the copies of the accounts that were under examination, and sundry statements prepared from the agent's books and other sources.
I cannot close this report without acknowledging the valuable assistance which I have received from John H. Butler, Esq., who was associated with me from the commencement until very near the close of the investigation, and whose familiar acquaintance with the citizens and business of Norfolk facilitated the inquiries which were necessary to be made. Without his co-operation my labors would have been much increased, and accomplished with more difficulty.
Great excitement was produced among the citizens of Norfolk by the mere circumstance that an investigation was ordered; and I have reason to believe that attempts were made by the political and personal friends of the navy agent to cast odium upon all who should give information of supposed abuses, or attend to give testimony before the commissioners. Some who had expressed their readiness to testify, if called upon, afterwards declined, which gives ground for the supposition that threats or arguments were resorted to to dissuade them.
[ 20] In conclusion, I will remark that we have devoted the most unremitting attention to the duties confided to us; and although the progress was much slower than we could have desired, it was impossible to accomplish the task in less time.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Hon. GEORGE E. BADGER, Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
* * * * * *
NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 14, 1842.
Sir: Upon receipt of your letter of the 12th ultimo, requesting copies of the documents accompanying the reports of the commissioner appointed to investigate the abuses alleged to exist at the Gosport navy yard, &c., three extra clerks, whom it has been necessary to employ inconsequence of the accumulating amount of labor imposed upon the Department, were assigned to making the copies. Two of them have been exclusively engaged on this work, and the third with the exception of occasional intervals, when he was taken off on other pressing emergencies. The copies being completed, I have the honor to submit them herewith, marked and numbered as follows:
A. Supplementary report of the commissioner, dated August 10, 1841, accidentally omitted when the other reports were sent.
B. Depositions in the case of Benjamin Spratley, master armorer.
C. Depositions in the case of James A. Williams, master ship-joiner.
D. Depositions in the case of John B. Davis, master mast and spar maker.
E. Depositions in the case of Merritt Moore, master gun-carriage maker.
F. Depositions in the case of John Hobday, master painter.
G. Depositions and other documents in the case of Merit Jordan, Esq., naval storekeeper.
H. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Depositions, correspondence, and other documents, in the case of George Loyall, Esq., navy agent at Norfolk.
I. Copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy to Mr. Loyall, dated October 20, 1841, in relation to the commissioner's report in his case.
K. Remarks of Mr. Loyall upon the report of the commissioner, and documents accompanying the same.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. P. UPSHUR.
Hon. FRANCIS MALLORY, Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Reps.
* * * * * *
A.
WASHINGTON, August 10,1841.
Sir: In the report presented on the 7th instant, no allusion was made to the answers of Commodore Shubrick to two interrogatories propounded to him by Mr. Loyall, or the depositions of Messrs. J. H. Butler, G. Loyall, R. Gatewood, Simon Stone, Charles F. Stone, John Tunis, J. A. Williams, Patrick Williams, and J. Hobday. This was owing to inadvertence, [21] not design. I do not conceive, however, that they materially affect the main points of complaint against the navy agent.
Commodore Shubrick says he has no reason to doubt that the supplies are furnished upon fair and reasonable terms. This can only be viewed in the light of an opinion, as it is not to be presumed that, with his varied and extensive duties to perform, he can make himself familiar with the prices of merchandise; and a contrary opinion, that the supplies had not been furnished upon fair and reasonable terms, would have amounted to a reflection or censure upon himself for approving the bills. His high character, as a faithful, intelligent, and vigilant officer, forbids the idea that he would for a moment countenance an imposition upon the Government. It appears by the testimony of Dr. Cornick and Mr. Beale, that Commodore Shubrick did refuse to approve some bills for medical supplies until an inquiry could be made; the consequence of which inquiry was a deduction of $36 from one of these bills. It must be remembered that Commodore Shubrick has been in command of the Norfolk navy yard only a few months, and his statement of course cannot refer to a period anterior to his assuming that command.
On the 3d November, 1840, an order was given to Mr. Higgins for 200 boxes of raisins, and, as the price charged ($2.98 per box) appeared to be very high, evidence was sought for as to the current market value at the time. Mr. Simon Stone was examined, and testified that there were no raisins in any quantity to be had in Norfolk in the early part of November, the new crop not having then reached market, and that he would not have furnished them at less than $3 per box.
Mr. C. F. Stone was examined, on the part of the defence, as to the prices of tin and charcoal, both of which he uses for manufacturing, but does not keep for sale. He estimates tin 16 x 20 to have cost him $22 per box in New York. The price charged by Mr. Higgins for X X X X tin, which is believed to be the largest size used, and is mentioned in one of his bills as being 16 x 20, is $35 and §35.50 per box, or more than fifty per cent. above the New York price. Mr. Stone's opinion, that 10 to 16 cents would not be an unreasonable price for charcoal, does not impair Mr. Roberts's fact, that he has never known it, during the last four years, to be worth more than 12-1/2 cents, and that it has been as low as four cents per bushel.
Mr. John Tunis testifies that Mr. Butler called upon him to inquire if he had any complaint to allege against the navy agent, to which he replied that he had not; and he further states, that he has no reason to suppose the business of the navy agent's office was not conducted with perfect fairness and impartiality.
Messrs. J. A. Williams, P. Williams, and J. Hobday, testify that all articles required for the naval service must be of good quality; and their admission that articles are sometimes condemned or returned on account of their quality only strengthens the belief that, with all his experience in supplying the navy, Mr. Higgins either keeps on hand or procures elsewhere some that are not suited, as he has furnished nearly every thing used in the joiner's and painter's department for several years past.
The deposition of Mr. Gatewood, chief clerk in the navy agent's office, is in direct contradiction to the statements of Messrs. Bernard, King, Toy, Tabb, Dickson, and Hunter. I shall not attempt to reconcile these contradictions, but leave Mr. Gatewood's deposition to pass for what it is worth.
[22] After Commodore Shubrick's examination was completed, but before he left the room, Mr. Loyall handed a letter containing interrogatories to be propounded to Mr. Butler. I informed Mr. Loyall that I would send for Mr. Butler, and requested him to wait for that purpose, but he declined. I immediately sent for Mr. Butler, who soon arrived, and requested that Mr. Loyall might also be sent for, and informed that he (Mr. Butler) was ready to answer, but wished Mr. Loyall to be present. Mr. Loyall accordingly returned, and, after a short conversation, both agreed to answer the interrogatories propounded to them. I submit their depositions without comment.I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Hon. GEORGE E. BADGER, Secretary of the Navy.
* * * * * *
B.Summary of complaints alleged against Benjamin Spratley, master armorer of the
United Slates navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia.First. Receiving into his department a large and unnecessary quantity of files, after they had been refused by the master blacksmith.
Second. Appropriating to his own and other private uses public labor and materials, such as door knocker, door locks, cistern pumps, models of patent stoves, chamber buckets, and the sash and window blinds of his dwelling-house, and having on hand at this time, or very recently, a job of work on private account.
Third. Receiving from Benjamin Dey, a journeyman in his department, one-half of his wages for two years, more or less.
Fourth. Admitting into his department, as a journeymen, Samuel Burt, and receiving one-half of his wages.
Names of witnesses.
Charles A. Grice, master blacksmith.
James Jarvis, inspector of timber.
R. C. Cogdell, passed midshipman United States navy.
Francis Herbert, William Bingham, George Randolph, of the armorer's department
James H. Hall.
____ Barrott, foreman house joiner's department.Examination fixed for Monday, May 24—9 A. M.
General interrogatories put to workmen employed in the United States navy yard
at Norfolk, Virginia, by B. Homans, commissioner appointed to investigate the abuses
alleged to exist in the civil department of said yard.1. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
2. Do you know of any work being done, by order of any of the master [23] workmen, with, the public materials, or by the labor of the hands paid by the Government, for the private use of the said master workmen, or for that of any other individual? If yea, be pleased to state what that work is, and when it was done.
3. Do you know of any instances in which the master workmen have demanded or received any portion of the wages of the men employed in their departments, for their own private use?
Special interrogatories put to workmen in the armorer's department.
1. Have you any knowledge of a large and unnecessary quantity of files being received into the armorer's department, after they were refused by the master blacksmith?
2. Have you any knowledge of any articles in the public stores being appropriated by Mr. Spratley to his own private use, such as door knocker, door locks, cistern pumps, models of patent stoves, or chamber buckets, or of any private job now on hand or recently done in the shop?
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Answers of James H. Hall, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's department, as a journeyman.
To the second. I have made, by order of Mr. Spratley, about half a dozen tin models of galleys or stoves, with iron wire grates; a pistol was made by Mr. Dey; a model for a mill, about twelve inches square by four inches deep; the box of tin was also made.
To the third. I have never seen any one pay money to Mr. Spratley. I have heard Mr. Spratley say that he received from Samuel Burt a portion of his pay.
[Mr. Spratley admits to the commissioner that he did receive a portion of Mr. Burt's pay.]
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. I have no knowledge.
To the second. A brass door plate was made, about three inches by five. Mr. Clark and myself made a small still for Dr. Cocke, on which I was occupied about two days. With respect to the other articles, I have no knowledge.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK. May 34, 1841.
TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. When you were employed on the models you speak of, or at any other time, was any concealment or attempt at concealment made, such as putting them out of sight whenever any officers of the navy were present?
Answer. This was the case with regard to the two last models of the galley, which I was directed by Mr. Spratley to put out of the way when any of the officers came in.
[24] Question. Were the galleys or stoves you speak of one and the same description of articles, or were they intended for different purposes?
Answer. They were different articles. The galleys were intended for ships of war, and the stoves for use in houses.
TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. If you had made an improvement or discovery of any kind, and were engaged in making a model of the same, would you be willing to exhibit it to public inspection?
Answer. I would not.
JAMES H. HALL.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 3, 1841.Answers of John Clark, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's, as a journeyman.
To the second. A revolving chamber pistol was made by Benjamin Dey; a model for a mill, the outside of tin and the cog wheels of brass, but am not certain that the wheels were made in the shop; several models of cooking stoves or galleys, of tin; a model for a still, also of tin; about six inches by three, and a pair of hedge or vine shears, of steel, were made in the public workshop, by order of Mr. Spratley.
To the third. I do not.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. I have no knowledge.
To the second. I have no knowledge, except as to a door plate which I saw made by Benjamin Dey, and Mr. Spratley's name stamped on it.
TO CROSS-INTERROGATORIES.
Question. How long have you worked in the department?
Answer. Upwards of three years.
Question. How large was the model of the mill you speak of?
Answer. About a foot square, and from three to four inches deep.
Question. Where is that model? Was it ever carried out of the yard?
Answer. I do not know where it is; I do not believe it was carried out of the yard, as I have seen the box (or outside) afterwards cut up in the shop.
Question. Do you know that any of the articles you mentioned were not made by proper authority, or for the use of the Government?
Answer. I do not.
Question. What is the size and value of the door plate made by Benjamin Dey?
Answer. It is about three inches wide and five inches long; I do not know the value; it was made of sheet brass.
JOHN CLARK.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 24, 1841.
[25] Answers of William Bingham, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's, as a journeyman.
To the second. I cannot say that I do.
To the third. I have no knowledge.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. I have no knowledge.
To the second. Mr. Spratley made use of a small piece of brass, for a door plate, with his name stamped on it. He has had made two sets of models for cooking stoves, and two models for galleys, of tin, with wire grates. I have been at work about six days on a pump box or boxes, an improvement of Mr. Spratley's, part of which time I was engaged in fitting them on board the ship Pennsylvania.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Where are the pump boxes which you have been at work upon?
Answer. One is in the shop, and the other was taken this morning on board Lieut. Hunter's small steamboat.
(Witness desires to explain, that a set of pump boxes consists of two, an upper and a lower.
Witness made two sets—one of ten inches in diameter, and a smaller one of two and a half inches. The lower box of the larger set is on board the Pennsylvania, and the upper box is in the shop. The smaller set, which is in a small hand pump, is the one on board the steamboat.)
Question. Had any of the officers of the yard a knowledge that these pump boxes were in the armorer's shop, and have experiments with them been made in presence of the officers?
Answer. I saw Commodore Shubrick and Capt. Skinner examining them in the armorer's shop. I fixed one of them on board the Pennsylvania, and a small one was sent on board Hunter's steamboat.
WILLIAM BINGHAM.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 24, 1841.
Answers of George W. Randolph, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's, as a journeyman.
To the second. A small model for a still was made of tin, and a model for a mill, also of tin.
To the third. I know of none.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. I have none.
To the second. Some models of tin, for cooking stoves, were made. With respect to the others, I have no knowledge.
[26] TO CROSS-INTERROGATORIES.
Question. Do you know how Mr. Spratley became possessed of some brass wheels, which were used in the model for the mill you have mentioned?
Answer. They were made by order of Commodore Barron, when he was in command of the yard, and left in the shop.
G. W. RANDOLPH.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 24, 1841.
Answers of R. C. Cogdell, of the U. S. navy, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. Did you ever hear Mr. Spratley acknowledge that he had received a portion of the pay of any of the workmen employed in the armorer's department?
Answer. I did.
Question. Do you know the name of the person or persons, a portion of whose pay Mr. Spratley acknowledged that he had received?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was any other person present when Mr. Spratley made the acknowledgment?
Answer. Mr. Jarvis, inspector of timber, Mr. J. J. Guthrie, of the navy, and Mr. James Atkinson, engineer of the U. S. steamer Poinsett, were present.
TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. At what time did this conversation (or acknowledgment) take place?
Answer. Some time during the present month of May, 1841.
R. C. COGDELL, U. S. Navy.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, county of Norfolk, sct :
I, John Nash, a justice of the peace in and for the county of Norfolk aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that R. C. Cogdell this day personally appeared before me, in my said county, and made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given by him to the several interrogatories propounded to him, as within written, are true and correct.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 17th day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [seal.]
Answers of Thomas Herbert, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's, as a forger.
To the second. I made, during the present year, a steel spring for a truss, for Mr. Cocke, of Portsmouth, which occupied my time for about an hour [27] and a half. I made a socket for a hoe; also, half a dozen oyster knives, two hatchets, and a hammer. I saw one of the hatchets in Mr. Spratley's office three or four weeks afterwards.
To the third. I do not.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first and second. I do not.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Do you know whether the articles you speak of were appropriated by Mr. Spratley to his own private use, or that they were not made by authority?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Did Mr. Cocke, for whom the truss spring was made, return it and ask to have it altered?
Answer. He did, and Mr. Spratley said he would not be bothered any more about it.
THOMAS HERBERT.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 3, 1841.
Answer of Samuel H. Burt, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the armorer's, as a journeyman, I suppose.
Question. Have you ever paid to Mr. Spratley any portion of your wages? If yea, how much, and for what period?
Answer. I have paid him one-half of my wages for a period of about five months.
TO CROSS-INTERROGATORIES.
Question. How long have you been employed in the yard?
Answer. Since the 2d of December, 1840.
Question. Under what circumstances and by what agreement did you come into the yard?
Answer. I applied to Commodore Warrington in the spring of 1840 for employment, and was informed that there was none. After Commodore Shubrick assumed the command, I renewed the application to him, and was referred to Captain Page, to know if there was any work. I went to see Mr. Spratley, who agreed to take me, if Commodore Shubrick had no objection. Captain Page afterwards informed me that I might go to Mr. Spratley, who would tell me when to go to work. When I applied to Mr. Spratley, he inquired on what terms I would consent to come; to which I replied, that I must leave it to him. He then offered me one-half of my wages until I was twenty-one years old. I replied, that I thought it too hard a bargain; but, after consulting my uncle, Mr. James Atkinson, I consented to the terms, and have ever since been at work.
[28] Question. How old were you when you came into the yard?
Answer. Eighteen years and ten months.
Question. Did you call on me before you applied to Commodore Warrington in the spring of 1840?
Answer. I did.
Question. Did I not inform you, before you went to Commodore Warrington, that if I received you it could only be as an apprentice, or under instruction?
Answer. I replied to you that I would not consent to serve any man as an apprentice, but that I was willing to come in under instruction, and allow you something for your trouble.
Question. Had you not been employed, and how long, at the gunsmith's or armorer's business?
Answer. I had, about two years and a half.
Question. Did I inform you that, if a discharge of workmen from my department took place, you would necessarily be discharged instead of those who had been long in the yard?
Answer. You did.
Question. Do you know of any other young man being employed in the yard on terms similar to yours?
Answer. I have been informed so by one young man himself.
TO INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. Did Commodore Shubrick or Captain Page know the terms upon which you were received into the armorer's department?
Answer. Not that I know of.
SAMUEL H. BURT.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 24, 1841.
Answers of James Atkinson, examined on behalf of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know respecting the admission of Samuel Burt into the yard.
Answer. In the summer of 1840, Samuel Burt, a nephew of mine, and residing in my family, was desirous of obtaining employment in the yard. I went to Mr. Spratley, who told me that he could not take him without the consent of the commodore. I then went to Commodore Warrington, who was in command, and applied to him, and was informed that there was no need of additional hands, and that Burt could not be taken in. After Commodore Shubrick assumed the command, Burt renewed the application, and was referred to Mr. Spratley. After seeing Mr. Spratley, Burt came to me to ask my advice whether he should accept his offer, which was to pay him (Spratley) one-half of his wages. I went to see Mr. Spratley, in company with Burt, and told him that I thought the terms too hard, as Burt could not board and clothe himself on half wages. Mr. Spratley replied, that he could not take him on any other terms, and I then advised Burt to agree with Spratley for two years, which he did.
Question. Did you understand that the agreement made in your pres- [29] ence, between Burt and myself, that I should receive a portion of his wages, was in consideration of the instruction he was to receive, and that he was to remain with me until he was twenty-one years of age?
Answer. I did.
Question. How long have you been employed in this yard?
Answer. About ten years.
Question. Did you ever know of my demanding or receiving any portion of the wages of the men employed in my department?
Answer. I never did.
JAMES ATKINSON.
NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
Answers of Joseph Hobday, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO INTERROGATORIES BT THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the house joiner's, as a journeyman.
Question. How long have you been employed in that department?
Answer. Between eleven and twelve years.
Question. Do you know of any window blinds or sashes being made in the yard, for Mr. Spratley's private use?
Answer. I do not.
TO INTERROGATORIES BT MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Is it not probable, if work of such kind had been done, that you would have had some knowledge of it?
Answer. I certainly should.
Question. Do you know of my ever having demanded or received any portion of the wages of the workmen employed in my department?
Answer. I do not.
JOSEPH HOBDAY.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
Answer of Charles A. Grice, master blacksmith, examined in the case of
B. Spratley, master armorer.TO INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know respecting a quantity of files, said to have been unnecessarily large, and received into the armorer's department, or the public store, after they were refused by you.
Answer. All I know of the transaction is this: About the middle of March, 1841, Mr. John Higgins, of Norfolk, called upon me at the yard, and stated that he had delivered a quantity of files at the naval store; that the files had been examined and approved by Mr. Spratley, the master armorer, whose duty it usually was to inspect them; but that he was not in the yard, and could not sign the certificate of inspection. Mr. Higgins further stated, that he was in want of money, to repay some he had borrowed, and that the commodore would not approve his account for the [30] files until the certificate of inspection was attached to it; and that he therefore applied to me to sign the certificate. I replied to Mr. Higgins, that I could not and would not sign the certificate, as I had not seen the files; that, inasmuch as Mr. Spratley had inspected them, he (Higgins) must wait until he could obtain Spratley's signature.
CHARLES A. GRICE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 1, 1841.
Answers of Dr. Wm. J. Cocke, of Portsmouth, examined on behalf of B. Spratley,
master armorer.TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know relative to a model for a still, said to have been made in the navy yard for you, by me, or by my order.
Answer, In the year 1828, I obtained a patent for an improved still, a model of which was deposited in the Patent Office at Washington. After the Patent Office was burnt, the circumstance of my having had a model there was the subject of occasional conversation between Mr. Spratley and myself. Some time last fall, I made a small model in wood, which Mr. Spratley saw, and advised me to have one made of tin, as a guide for the tin-plate workers to make a larger model by. Mr. Spratley accordingly made a small model for me, about six inches long, two inches wide, and one inch deep. Mr. Spratley has never asked any compensation therefore, nor have I ever paid or expected to pay him any thing for it.
Question. What do you suppose to be the value of, or the cost of making, the said model?
Answer. About one dollar and a quarter.
WM. J. COCKE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
Answers of John S. White, of Portsmouth, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
By Mr. Spratley. Did you build a dwelling-house for me? If yea, be pleased to state the time and the terms.
Answer. I built a dwelling-house for Mr. Spratley, under contract, in the year 1836, for which he paid me twenty-six hundred dollars.
By the commissioner. Did Mr. Spratley furnish any of the materials for said dwelling-house?
Answer. Before the contract was made, Mr. Spratley informed me that he had three or four brass locks, which he had found in, or obtained from, another house that belonged to him, and which he pulled down. These locks were furnished by Mr. Spratley, and no other materials.
By Mr. Spratley. At what time did I inform you that I had these locks?
Answer. About two years before the house was built, or some time in the year 1834.
By Mr. Spratley. How long were you in treaty with me to build this house?
Answer. About two years.
JOHN S. WHITE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
[ 31] Answers of Francis Grice, Esq., naval constructor, examined in the case
of B. Spratley, master armorer.TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. Has it not been customary with the heads of the several departments of this yard to receive one or more young men into their departments as apprentices, for instruction, in addition to those allowed by the regulations of the Navy Commissioners?
Answer. It is, and has been for twenty years past.
Question. Has it not been customary to make models in the navy yard for improvements in the various branches of the naval service?
Answer. Certainly.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. When the young men you speak of were received, was it done by the authority of the commandant of the yard?
Answer. I presume they were, as no persons are taken into the yard without his knowledge.
Question. Has it been customary to make models without the knowledge or express authority of the commandant of the yard?
Answer. When any of the master workmen have invented an improvement which they have supposed to be useful, it has been customary to make a model, and present it to the commander or the Commissioners of the Navy; but I cannot say that they were always made with the knowledge of the commander.
FRANCIS GRICE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25. 1841.
Answers of Francis C. Herbert, examined in the case of B. Spratley, master armorer.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first. In the armorer's, as foreman.
To the second. There was some work done on the boxes of a small hand pump, as a model, which was afterwards made on a larger scale; the larger pump box being made by permission. This small pump has been used for various purposes about the yard. Three bathing tubs were sold at auction in the yard. Mr. Spratley purchased one, upon which some slight repairs were made in the yard.
To the third. I do not.
TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the first and second. I have none.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. SPRATLEY.
Question. How long have you been employed in the armorer's department?
Answer. Nearly twelve years.
Question. Do you know to what use the larger box, or pump, mentioned in your reply to the second general interrogatory, was applied?
[32] Answer. To use on board the United States ship Pennsylvania.
Question. Where is the small hand pump, spoken of in your answer to the second general interrogatory, which was made as a model?
Answer. It is in the shop.
Question. Was any concealment made when the work on the small pump was done in the shop? Was it not considered an improvement upon the common pump, and exhibited as such to the officers of the yard?
Answer. There was no concealment. It was exhibited as an improvement to the officers of the yard.
FRANCIS C. HERBERT.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 24, 1841.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, county of Norfolk, ss:
I, John Nash, a justice of the peace in and for the county of Norfolk aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that James H. Hall, John Clark, William Bingham, George W. Randolph, Thomas Herbert, Samuel H. Burt, James Atkinson, Joseph Hobday, Charles A. Grice, William J. Cocke, and John S. White, this day personally appeared before me, in my said county, and severally made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to them, and which are contained on the sheets of paper signed by their names, respectively, are true and correct.
I also further certify that, on this same day, personally appeared before me Francis Grice and Francis C. Herbert, who severally affirmed that the answers given to the several interrogatories propounded to them, and which are contained on the sheets of paper signed by their names, respectively, are true and correct.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this fifteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [SEAL.]
GOSPORT NAVY YARD, June 17, 1841.
Sir: Having been reported to your Department by J. W. Murdaugh, of this place, for political interference in the late Presidential election, and for mal-practice in the department under my charge in this yard, I take this mode of commenting on such parts of the testimony taken by Mr. Homans, your commissioner, as may have a bearing on the case, in my judgment, under the full conviction that you are willing to hear what I feel myself in duty bound to say relative to said charges, and all others which have grown out of this investigation. I will first disclaim the character of a political partisan, and the defamation of the late President, as attributed to me by Mr. Murdaugh; nor will I indulge in recrimination of that individual, but content myself with the bare assertion of the fact that he is, and has been for years past, my personal enemy, and leave you to judge from the testimony how far his charges, or the charges of others, are sustained against me. Any comment on the charges of the frivolous nature of door knockers, concerning files received by me, window sashes, &c., made for my house, pumps, brass buckets, &c., are not only not sustained by the testimony, but in most instances entirely disproved. To trespass on your time and patience with a recapitulation of many of the specifications, [33] I deem unnecessary. As to the models that were made by me, for some of them I had the written permission of the Department, and for all the approbation of the commander of the yard. As to the models of the still and. the mill, I admit that I had no authority for making them, and feel no hesitation in resting my long and faithful services in the department [in which] I have been employed, in opposition to the trifling deviations from the strict line of duty. That these have been exaggerated and aggravated you will not be at a loss to conclude, from a perusal of the testimony. Jas. H. Hall, who has deposed in this matter, and who has been most rancorous in his charges and attempts to inculpate me, is the individual recommended by Mr. Murdaugh as my successor. As to the making of models, Mr. Grice's testimony will sustain me in the fact, that it is the practice of master workmen to make models for any improvement which may eventually benefit their line of business or the service generally. The charge that I received part of Burt's wages while he was borne on the books of the yard as a journeyman, I freely admit; the agreement was made with him and his uncle, Mr. Atkinson, a respectable and intelligent man employed in the yard, and although I do not pretend to justify the practice, yet it has this extenuation—that it has been the practice for many years, as will appear by the deposition of Mr. Francis Grice, to receive boys who had not completed their trades, putting them down at a fair price on the books of the yard, for what they could earn, and receiving from them a portion of their wages in consideration of the instruction they were to receive. It is no uncommon occurrence for a person employed in the yard to appear on the books in one character, when in fact he is acting in a very different one. For an explanation of all these matters, I respectfully refer you to Commodore Lewis Warrington; and here I will also take the liberty to refer you to that gentleman for my general conduct and capacity in the discharge of my duty. Filed with the papers in this case are the certificates of Captain Page, Commodore Shubrick, and Lieut. Pinkham; also the men employed in the armory. I will further state, and have no doubt in being sustained in my opinion by the late commandant of this station, that I have used my best energies in the promotion of all improvements that might benefit the Government, and in the faithful discharge of the work belonging to my department. 'Tis true, I made models of stoves and galleys, but they have been used by the Government; and a galley of my invention, which I made, has been in use for several years on board the United States ship Java, for which I have not received any compensation other than that for the regular routine of my duty. My attempts, and successful ones, too, in endeavoring to promote the good of the service—for instance, in making an improvement in pump boxes—has been called a private job by my accusers, and thus endeavoring to turn not only that, but other things, to my prejudice. With a perfect confidence of the rectitude of my conduct and a faithful discharge of my duty, I will no longer trespass on your time, but rest my cause on the evidence taken, with this remark only: that if any individual who has been at the head of any mechanical department in the Government for twenty-three years, when the door has been thrown open for the strictest scrutiny of his conduct, can be found less culpable than myself, I am willing to yield the point, and submit to your judgment. I am sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. SPRATLEY,
Hon. GEORGE E. BADGER, Secretary of the Navy.
[34] UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Gosport, June 17, 1841.This is to certify that I gave Mr. Benjamin Spratley directions to fit, on board the United States ship Pennsylvania, pump boxes [To one of the hatch pumps.] of his invention, for the purpose of testing their utility.
W. BRANFORD SHUBRICK.
* * * * * *
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Gosport, June 17, 1841.This is to certify that I received an order from Commodore Shubrick to put on the muster roll of this yard Samuel Burt, some time in the early part of December, 1840, to work in the armorer's department, at the lowest wages given in that department.
HUGH N. PAGE, Commander.
* * * * * *
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Gosport, June 17, 1841.This is to certify that, some time in eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, I gave an order to Mr. Spratley to make a pair of pruning shears, to trim the shrubbery in the yard of the commander's house.
HUGH N. PAGE, Commander.
* * * * * *
GOSPORT NAVY YARD, June 14, 1841.
This is to certify that, during the last fall, the master armorer at my request, made a small hatchet, of a peculiar shape, for the purpose of trimming the trees and shrubbery at the hospital, of which I am the superintendent; its value I suppose to be about 75 cents, and was intended for public use, and to which it has been constantly applied; it was an omission of mine that it was not included in a requisition for axes and other articles made in the yard, for the hospital, at the same time.
R. B. CUNNINGHAM, Superintendent Naval Hospital.
* * * * * *
GOSPORT NAVY YARD, June 14, 1841.
This is to certify that, during my late service in this yard, (I believe in 1838,) to prove the skill of a young workman then serving as an apprentice in the armorer's department, he was required by Mr. Spratley to make a copy of Colt's repeating pistol. There was no secrecy in the matter, nor was the pistol proved, after being finished, but reserved in the armory as a model of the fire arm, and an exhibition of the skill of this young workman.
R. B. CUNNINGHAM, Lieutenant United States Navy.
[35] UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Gosport, June 7, 1841.This is to certify that we have been employed as workmen in the armorer's department in this yard, under the direction of Mr. Benjamin Spratley, for a number of years, during which time a great many exciting political elections have taken place, and we have never known Mr. Spratley, directly or indirectly, attempt to influence any of us, individually or collectively, to vote in any other way than as we thought proper.
We do further certify that Mr. Spratley never held any political conversation with the men employed in the armorer's shop, or any where else in this yard, with the workmen, to our knowledge; and we give him this certificate free and voluntary, as an act of justice to him.
F. C. HERBERT.
GEORGE W. RANDOLPH.
WILLIAM BINGHAM.
ANTHONY BOHLKEN.
THOMAS HERBERT.
JOHN CLARK.UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Norfolk, June 15, 1841.Acknowledged before B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
* * * * * *
NAVY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE, April 5, 1837.
Sir: The Commissioners have received your letter of the 2d instant, which was handed to them by Mr. Spratley. They have also seen the model of the galley referred to, and the Board desire that Mr. Spratley may be permitted to make, in the yard under your command, a tin model of his galley, to be forwarded to the Board for their examination. I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant.
I. CHAUNCEY.
Commodore L. WARRINGTON, Comm. Nav. Off., Norfolk.
I certify that the above is a true copy from the original.
WILLIAM H. PETERS, Clerk.
* * * * * *
NAVY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE, May 16, 1837.
Sir: Your letter of the 13th instant has been received. The Board have directed the model of your cooking galley to be sent to the navy yard, Washington, preparatory to some experiments that will be directed to be made with it.
I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
I. CHAUNCEY.
Mr. BENJAMIN SPRATLEY.
I certify that the above is a true copy.
WILLIAM H. PETERS, Clerk.
[36] NAVY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE, June 24, 1837.
Sir: The Board have received a report upon your galley, and, if you have no objection, they will further test it, and have one made at this yard, of size suitable for the receiving ship at Norfolk, to be tested on board ship, provided you make no charge for making and using this one galley; the one to be made to be of such size as Commodore Warrington may require.
I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,
I. CHAUNCEY.
Mr. BENJAMIN SPRATLEY, Norfolk.
I certify that the above is a true copy.
WILLIAM H. PETERS, Clerk.
* * * * * *
PORTSMOUTH, June 16, 1841.
Dear Sir: I obgected* to signing the certificate offeared* to me by Mr. Spratley, and which you saw, first, because Mr. Spratley did, on one occasion, say to me that I could not expect to be employed by the Govirment* whitch* I opposed them politicaly*. This of itself would be a sufficient cause. But, I have seen him at the court-house, on election days, under great political and party excitment,* offering a bet of $100 on the right of an indivedual* to a vote—and this, too, during business hours in the navy yard. I consider these to be sufficient causes for not signing the certificate.
Respectfuly.
JAMES H. HALL.
Mr. HOMANS.
*These words as in the original.
* * * * * *
PORTSMOUTH, June 7, 1841.
Some time during the year 1840, being compelled to wear a truss, from rupture on both sides, I applied to Mr. Benjamin Spratley to forge me a spring, as I could not get one made by any smith in Portsmouth to answer the purpose. It was done entirely as a favor, or act of kindness to me, and not without some hesitation on his part, as he stated he did not like to use the hands employed by Government for private purposes. But my situation at the time was painful, and I prevailed on him to do it. No fee or reward, in any shape or kind, was offered, received, or expected to be paid.
CHARLES L. COCKE.
NORFOLK COUNTY, to wit:
Personally appeared before me Charles L. Cocke, who made oath that the (within) above statement, dated Portsmouth, June 7, 1841, is strictly correct.
Given under my hand and seal, this 16th day of June, 1841.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [SEAL.]
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, June 17,1841.This is to certify that Mr. James Hall was expelled from the Cumberland street Baptist Church, at a regular church meeting, held December 2, [37] 1840, for a non-attendance upon the ordinance gospel, very loose conduct generally, and violation of the Sabbath in spending the day in the discussion of federal politics.
S. MARCH, Clerk of Cumberland street Baptist Church, Norfolk, Va.
* * * * * *
C.
Summary of the complaints alleged against James A. Williams, master ship joiner of the United States navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia.
First. Receiving of Henry Halstead, a journeyman employed in his department, a portion of his wages.
Second. Receiving of John Turner, a journeyman employed in his department, a portion of his wages.
Names of the witnesses.
Henry Halstead,
George K. Lee,
John Turner,
William H. Sexton.Examination fixed for Tuesday, May 25, at 3 P. M.
* * * * * *
General interrogatories put to workmen employed in the United Stales navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia, by B. Homans, commissioner, appointed to investigate the abuses alleged to exist in the civil department of said yard.
1. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
2. Do you know of any work being done, by order of any of the master workmen, with public materials, or by the labor of the hands paid by the Government, for the private use of the said master workmen, or for that of any other individual? If yea, be pleased to state what that work is, and when it was done.
3. Do you know of any instances in which the master workmen have demanded or received any portion of the wages of the men employed in their departments, for their own private use? If yea, be pleased to state the instances.
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
* * * * * *
Answers of Henry Halstead, examined in the case of James A. Williams, master ship joiner, to general interrogatories.
To the first. In the ship joiner's, as a journeyman.
To the second. I do not.
To the third. I do not.
HENRY HALSTEAD, his + mark.
Witness: J. A. HAZARD PEARCE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
[38] Answers of John W. Turner, examined in the case of James A. Williams, master ship joiner, to general interrogatories.
To the first. In the ship joiner's, as an apprentice.
To the second. I do not.
To the third. I do not.
JOHN W. TURNER.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25,1841.
Answers of Samuel Turner, examined on behalf of James A. Williams, master ship joiner, to special interrogatories.
By Mr. Williams. Do you know John W. Turner, now employed in the ship joiner's department?
Answer. I do; he is a nephew of mine.
By Mr. Williams. Do you know the circumstances under which he (the said John) was employed in this yard? If so, be pleased to state them.
Answer. John W. Turner was an apprentice to the house carpenter's business, in Portsmouth; but his employer having little for him to do, John applied to me to get him a situation. I inquired of Mr. Williams if he would take him. Mr. Williams replied, that he had his complement of apprentices, but that if Commodore Warrington would take him in, he had no objection. I then applied to Commodore Warrington, who told me that he would think of it, and let me know. Some few weeks afterwards, the commodore told me that my nephew might come in. I informed Mr. Williams of the commodore's authority, and the next day my nephew came into the yard to work.
By the commissioner. How long is it since your nephew came into the yard to work?
Answer. Nearly three years.
SAMUEL TURNER.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
Answers of George Clark, examined on behalf of James A. Williams, master ship joiner, to special interrogatories.
By Mr. Williams. Do you know George K. Lee, of Norfolk?
Answer. I do.
By Mr. Williams. Did you ever hear Mr. Lee say why he had reported me to Mr. Homans, the commissioner?
Answer. I met Mr. Lee, in Norfolk, the day after I understood that he had reported Mr. Williams, when I remarked to him, "So, George, I understand you have reported our boss." He replied, "Yes; I thought it was my duty to do so." I then asked him why. His reply was, "I have served my time, and am master of my business; Mr. Williams has discharged me, and kept Henry Halstead, who pays him a part of his wages. If you were in my place, you would have done the same." I told him I did not think I should have done so.
By the commissioner. Are you employed in this yard? If so, be pleased to state in what department and in what capacity.
Answer. I am; in the ship joiner's department, as a journeyman.
GEO. CLARK.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 25, 1841.
[39] STATE OF VIRGINIA, county of Norfolk, sct:
I, John Nash, a justice of the peace in and for the county of Norfolk, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Henry Halstead, John W. Turner, Samuel Turner, and George Clark, this day personally appeared before me, in my said county, and severally made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to them, and which are contained on the sheets of paper signed by their names, respectively, are true and correct.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this fifteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [SEAL.]
STATE OF VIRGINIA, Norfolk county, to wit:
I, Arthur Emmerson, clerk of the county court of Norfolk county, in the State of Virginia aforesaid, hereby certify that John Nash, J. P., who has given the preceding certificate, is a justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified to act as such, according to the constitution and laws of this State, and duly authorized to administer oaths.
Given under my hand and the seal of the said court, this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, and of our independence the sixty-fifth.
ARTHUR EMMERSON, Clerk, [SEAL.]
* * * * * *
D.
Summary of the complaints alleged against John B. Davis, master mast and spar maker of the United States navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia.
First. Building a bateau in the public shop, for his own private use.
Second. Receiving of Ebenezer Thompson, a journeyman employed in his department, a portion of his wages.
Third. Receiving of James McHorney, a journeyman employed in his department, a portion of his wages.
Names of witnesses,
Ebenezer Thompson,
James Mahoney.Examination fixed for Monday, May 24, at 3 P. M.
General interrogatories put to workmen employed in the United States navy yard at Norfolk, Virginia, by B. Homans, commissioner appointed to investigate the abuses alleged to exist in the civil departments of said yard.
1. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
2. Do you know of any work being done, by order of any of the master workmen, with public materials, or by the labor of the hands paid by the Government, for the private use of the said master workmen, or for that of any other individual? If yea, be pleased to state what that work is, and when it was done.
[40] 3. Do you know of any instances in which the master workmen have demanded or received any portion of the wages of the men employed in their departments, for their own private use? If yea, be pleased to state; the instances.
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Answers of Ebenezer Thompson, examined in the case of John B. Davis?
master mast and spar maker.TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
First. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the mast and spar maker's, as a journeyman.
Second. Has Mr. Davis, the master mast and spar maker, to your knowledge, ever built a bateau in this yard, for his own private use?
Answer. He has not.
Third. Has Mr. Davis ever demanded or received from you any portion of your wages as a journeyman?
Answer. He has not.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the second. I do not.
To the third. I do not.
EBENEZER THOMPSON.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 26, 1841.
Answers of James Mahoney, (or McHorney, as stated in the "summary of complaints,")
in the case of John B. Davis, master mast and spar maker.TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
First. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the mast and spar maker's, as a journeyman.
Second. Has Mr. Davis, the master mast and spar maker, to your knowledge, ever built a bateaux in this yard, for his own private use?
Answer. He has not.
Third. Has Mr. Davis ever demanded or received from you any portion of your wages as a journeyman?
Answer. He has not.
TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES.
To the second. I do not.
To the third. I do not.
JAMES MAHONEY.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May, 26, 1841.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, county of Norfolk, sct:
I, John Nash, a justice of the peace in and for the county of Norfolk, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Ebenezer Thomp- [41] son and James Mahoney this day personally appeared before me, in my said county, and severally made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to them, and which are contained on the sheets of paper signed by their names respectively, are true and correct.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this fifteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [SEAL.]
* * * * * *
E.
Summary of the complaints alleged against Merritt Moore, master gun carriage maker, at the United States navy yard, Norfolk, by Joseph Bushell, of Norfolk county, Virginia.
Making different sets of trucks for gun carriages for the steamer Poinsett, before one of the proper size was obtained.
Making an error in calculating the cost of twelve handspikes.
Compelling the men in his department to quit work, against their will, on the 23d July, 1840.
Making a set of pumps, which, after being in use about fifteen months, were taken up and repaired, at a cost of at least $100; which expense might have been saved if he had taken the advice of others.
Fixing up temporary gun carriages, to get the height of a gun, instead of obtaining the height by rule.
Absenting himself repeatedly from his workshop, and thus neglecting his duties.
Names of the witnesses.
Joseph Bushell, Samuel Harwood, James K. Plant, Joshua Barnes, Jonathan Hall, Newton Armistead, Uriah Cutherell, John Pritchard, Joseph Culpeper, David Edwards, George Marshall, Gunner U. S. navy.
Additional allegations, submitted by Mr. Bushell, May 31.
Delay in turning cogs, when several men were waiting for them, while the turner was turning walking canes.
Attempting to ascertain the dimensions of two gun carriages for 12-pounders for the sloop of war Yorktown, by raising the mould of the gun by two props and a board fixed in the port, instead of ascertaining the dimensions by established rules.
Making sponges and scoops for different vessels, which were returned, as being of incorrect dimensions.
Names of additional witnesses.
Nathaniel Hosier, Caleb Herbert.
[42] Answers of Joseph Bushell, examined in the case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. Are you now employed in this yard; and, if not, how long is it since you left?
Answer. I left the yard in the latter part of summer before last.
Question. In what department were you employed, and for how long a period, altogether?
Answer. I worked in the gun carriage maker's department for fifteen or sixteen years.
Question. Do you know any thing of the sets of trucks got out by Mr. Moore for the steamer Poinsett?
Answer. I cannot say that I do.
Question. Do you know any thing of twelve handspikes, and their cost, made under Mr. Moore's directions?
Answer. I do not
Question. What do you know respecting the workmen being obliged to quit work in July, 1840?
Answer. I cannot say that I know any thing. I was not at work in the yard at the time.
Question. Do you know any thing respecting a set of pumps, made by Mr. Moore which were taken up and repaired after having been used about fifteen months?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know any thing of Mr. Moore's being absent from or neglecting his duty, while you were employed in his department? Be pleased to state what you know.
Answer. During the last summer that I worked in the department, Mr. Moore was frequently absent before breakfast, sometimes several mornings successively, and at others not being in the shop more than two mornings in the week, of which I kept note at the time. I have been obliged to wait for work, because he was not present to give it to me.
Question. Do you know any thing of the turning of cogs, which were delayed in consequence of the turning of walking canes?
Answer. I do not. It is since I left the yard.
Question. Do you know any thing of the gun carriages made for the sloop of war Yorktown? Be pleased to state what you know.
Answer. One of the men was at work on a gun carriage for the Yorktown, and applied to Mr. Moore for instructions how to make it. Mr. Moore attempted to give the instructions; but, being apparently unable, he told the workman to finish it in his own way.
Question. Do you know of any sponges or scoops being returned from any United Slates vessels, in consequence of not having been properly made?
Answer. I do not.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. MOORE.
Question. Did you leave the yard of your own accord, or were you discharged?
Answer. I was discharged.
[43] Question. You say you kept notes of the times of Mr. Moore's absence from the yard?
Answer. I did.
JOSEPH BUSHELL, his x mark.
Witness: J. A. HAZARD PEARCE.
ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORY BY MR. MOORE.
Question. As it appears by your mark to your testimony that you do not write your name, in what way did you take the notes you speak of?
Answer. I got some one to keep them for me.
JOSEPH BUSHELL, his x mark.
Witness : J. A. HAZARD PEARCE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May, 31, 1841.Answers of Joshua N. Barnes, examined in the case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a journeyman.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know respecting the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. With respect to the complaint of compelling a portion of his workmen to quit work on the 23d July, 1840, I will state that, on the morning of that day, a paper was carried round for the signatures of such as wished to leave. I refused to sign it, as I was desirous to make as much time as I could, but was compelled to quit work because the others did.
I built a skeleton of a gun carriage, of boards, for the upper gun deck of the Pennsylvania, which I took on board the ship, to get the proper height of a gun.
In the year 1840, Mr. Moore was frequently absent from the shop in the morning, and, occasionally, during other parts of the day.
Some time last year cogs were wanted for the use of the Vandalia, and the carpenters who were at work upon that vessel came into the shop for them, and could not get them. What the cause of delay was, I know not.
I built one gun carriage for the Yorktown. When I was putting the carriage together, Mr. Moore told me that the transom was too narrow, as Mr. Marshall, the gunner, wished the gun to wood on the transom. I then laid down the dimensions of the carriage on the floor, with chalk, and made a second transom. Mr. Moore took a gun mould that was in the shop, to the plank port, to get the proper dimensions; and after a while, he said he did not care how it was done, or whether the gun wooded or not.
I know nothing of the scoops or sponges, except that I once heard Mr. Marshall, the gunner of the yard, complain to the foreman that some sponges or scoops (I cannot recollect which) were not correct.
JOSHUA N. BARNES.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 31, 1841.
[44] Answers of Uriah Cutherell, examined in the case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a journeyman.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know respecting the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. I know nothing of any of them.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. MOORE.
Question. How long have you been employed in the gun carriage maker's department?
Answer. I served my apprenticeship in it, and have worked in it about three years, under Mr. Moore.
Question. Have you ever found me deficient in my attention to or in the duties of the department?
Answer. I have not.
URIAH CUTHERELL, his + mark.
Witness: J. A. HAZARD PEARCE.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 31, 1841.
Mr. Caleb Herbert, of Norfolk county, whose name had been furnished as a witness for complaints, called, in compliance with the summons addressed to him, and, upon the several complaints against Mr. Moore being read to him, stated that he had no knowledge of any of them, and knew nothing whatever to the prejudice of Mr. Moore, the master gun carriage maker of this yard.
E. HOMANS, Commissioner.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, May 31, 1841.
Answers of David Edwards, examined in the case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a wheelwright.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. A paper was sent round on the morning of the 23d July, 1840, for the signatures of those who wished to go out, and I expressed my willingness to go. Mr. Moore lost some time last year, in the mornings before breakfast, and some other parts of the day, but I cannot say how much, as I took no especial note of it. As to the other specifications, I know nothing.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. MOORE.
Question. Was the paper circulated on the 23d July, 1840, sent round by Mr. Moore or by his order; or did he use any threats or persuasion to [45] induce any of the men to sign it; or did he compel the men to go out of the yard?
Answer. I do not know.
DAVID EDWARDS.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
Answers of Samuel Harwood, examined in the. case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a block maker.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. A paper was sent round last summer, for the names of those men who wished to go out, and I gave my consent to it; there were three men who went out against their will.
I worked upon a set of fire pumps, a year ago or a little more, which were recently taken up and repaired by caulking, and then covering with pitch, felt, lead, and plank. There was, at the time they were made, no proper timber in the yard, but I do not think that Mr. Moore selected the best of the kind of timber of which they were made; he might have chosen better.
I noticed, in April, 1840, (that being about the time the ten-hour system commenced,) that Mr. Moore was frequently absent from the shop in the morning before breakfast, and occasionally afterwards during the summer. Sometimes he was not in the shop more than two mornings in the week.
Sometime last fall, I think it was, a man came in the shop, and I heard him say to Mr. Plant that the men were waiting for the cogs; and Mr. Plant replied that he had a walking cane in his lathe, which Mr. Moore had ordered him to turn, and he could not disobey orders. Mr. Grice, the naval constructor, afterwards came in, and said the men were waiting for the cogs, when Mr. Plant made the same reply. Mr. Grice said he was right, and went away.
I saw some sponges returned to the shop, and altered, by being turned again in the lathe. Some ladles (or scoops) were also returned from the gunner's store, because the staves were too short. Other staves were sent back in place of them, with the same ladles.
Of the other allegations I know nothing.
SAMUEL HARWOOD.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
Answers of Jonathan Hall, examined in the case of Merritt Moore, master gun carriage maker.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a block maker.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. I was not at work in the gun carriage maker's shop on the 23d July, 1840, and therefore know nothing of the paper mentioned.
[46] I worked upon the pumps when they were made, as well as when they were repaired, but know nothing of the cost of repairing, or of the necessity for it.
Mr. Moore has been absent at times before breakfast, but I cannot state how often or for what period.
Last year nine scoops were returned; but I cannot say what was done with them, nor do I know for what reason they were returned.
I know nothing of the other specifications.
JONATHAN HALL.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
Answers of Joseph Culpeper, examined in the case of Merrill Moore, master gun carriage maker.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. How long is it since you worked in the gun carriage maker's department?
Answer. I worked there during the last winter for three or four months.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the complaints against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. While I was in the shop, I thought Mr. Moore paid every attention to his duties.
I know nothing with respect to the other allegations.
JOSEPH CULPEPER.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
Answers of John Pritchard, examined in the case of Merrill S. Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a block maker.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the complaints alleged against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. Some time last summer, I think, Mr. Moore was absent from his shop in the mornings before breakfast, for a month or so, three or four times a week.
Of the other allegations I know nothing.
JOHN PRITCHARD.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
Answers of Gunner George Marshall, of the United States navy, examined in the case of Merrill Moore, master gun carriage maker.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know respecting some temporary gun carriages said to have been fitted up by Mr. Moore, in order to obtain the height of a gun, instead of obtaining it by rule.
Answer. About three or four months since, Mr. Moore had occasion to make some carriages for the upper gun deck of the ship of the line Penn- [47] sylvania; and, not having made any before for so large a vessel, he applied to me for some information concerning them. I stated to Mr. Moore that it was necessary to give the upper deck guns more depression than the lower deck guns, and explained the reasons. I afterwards saw in Mr. Moore's shop a model made of planks, with a skeleton gun, to get the elevation and depression, and Mr. Moore asked my opinion if I thought it would answer. I told him that I thought it would, and if any one could find a better plan, he must know more than I did. These carriages required more care than usual, and were made by Mr. Moore agreeably to the plan of elevation and depression I suggested to him.
TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. MOORE.
Question. In asking your information or advice, was it to show me how to make the carriage, or was it merely to ascertain the proper elevation or depression of the gun?
Answer. It was only for the purpose of ascertaining the proper elevation and depression; as a gunner, who has had practical experience in handling guns, is supposed to be more familiar with the subject than the maker of the carriage. I had been instructed by three different commandants of the yard to give all the information in my power, when called upon, to the master gun carriage maker; and I felt it to be my duty to do so. After I had given the advice to Mr. Moore, I informed Commodore Shubrick of the course I pursued, and he approved of it.
Question. Have you seen or tried any of the gun carriages made by Mr. Moore for the Pennsylvania; and, if you have, what is your opinion of them?
Answer. I have seen them, and think them well made and well finished; and, according to my judgment, they will answer well.
Question. Have you seen the gun carriages made by me for the Paixhan guns, to be used on board the Delaware 74, according to a draught furnished by the Navy Commissioners?
Answer. I have seen the gun carriages, but do not know how they were made; they appeared to be well made, and I heard no complaints against them on board the ship.
Question. As you have been a long time in the yard, and have known me, do you consider me well qualified for my duties as master gun carriage maker?
Answer. I do consider you well qualified, and that you have improved by experience.
GEORGE MARSHALL.
U. S. NAVY YARD, NORFOLK, June 2, 1841.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, county of Norfolk, sct :
I, John Nash, a justice of the peace in and for the county of Norfolk, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that George Marshall this day personally appeared before me, in my said county, and made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories, as above, are true and correct.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 7th day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.
JOHN NASH, J. P. [SEAL.]
[48] Answers of James K. Plant, examined in the case of Merritt Moore,
master gun carriage maker.TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
Question. In what department and in what capacity are you employed?
Answer. In the gun carriage maker's, as a turner.
Question. Be pleased to state what you know concerning the allegations against Mr. Moore, which have been read to you.
Answer. One set of trucks for the Poinsett was got out; but, when they were brought to me to be turned, they were found to be too small, and laid aside. A second set was got out and turned, but they were not of the proper size. A third set was then got out and turned, or the second set turned over, which proved to be correct.
I know nothing, of my own knowledge, respecting the handspikes.
On the morning of the 23d July, 1840, Mr. Gleason, foreman of the shop, brought me a paper for my signature, expressing the willingness of the men to leave off work for the remainder of the day. I declined signing it, and Mr. Gleason urged it. I positively refused, as I wished to make all the time I could. Mr. Gleason said he would put my name to the paper. I told him he should not do it with my consent. We did not return to work after breakfast, and I was compelled to lose three-fourths of a day against my will.
About eighteen mouths ago, while the men were at work getting out stocks for the pumps, I heard one of them say to Mr. Moore, that the stuff was not fit to make pumps of; when Mr. Moore replied, that if it was not, it would only be the labor lost.
Temporary gun carriages, of boards, have been put up in the shops, to get the dimensions.
From the 13th to the 31st August, 1840, Mr. Moore was absent before breakfast every morning, on working days. On the 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th August, 1840, he was absent all day. I have kept notes of his absence, and find that he has been out of the shop about one-third of his time, in warm weather; in cold weather, not so much.
In October last I was engaged in turning cogs, but took them out of the lathe, by Mr. Moore's orders, to turn two walking canes. 0ne of the ship carpenters came in, to get the cogs. I told him what I was doing, and that I could not turn them then. After a while he came in again, and said the men were waiting for the cogs. Mr. Grice, the constructor, also came in, and I told him that I had Mr. Moore's orders to turn the canes, and could not leave off. One of the canes was very small, and gave me a great deal of trouble.
I know nothing of the gun carriages for the Yorktown. Twenty-eight sponge heads for the Brandy wine, sixteen sponge heads for a sloop of war, and a number for the frigate Potomac, were returned from the gunner's store to be altered, and were altered, or new ones turned and sent back in their places. Some scoops, or ladles, were also recently returned, because the staves were too long, and they were altered.
