NORFOLK NAVY YARD

Image

Image

[100] In the testimony of Mr. James F. Hunter, there is an allusion made to the price of $4.25, charged for a half barrel of kiln dried corn meal, in the bill against the Constitution; at that time we could find none of the article in Norfolk, and were obliged to order it from the North, where, for so small a quantity of an article, which is usually sold by the five and ten barrels, the charge was of course high; and, with the freight, drayage, &c, we were compelled to charge the above-named price.

We also submit a price current of Taylor & Moore, to show the cost prices in New York of many of those articles on the list of prices of Mr. N. C. King, of the same year, which he has handed in to be used as evidence against us.

To show more clearly the incorrectness of the answer of Thomas D. Toy, "that he could have furnished the bills of W. & B. against the Constitution for one-half, and those against the Yorktown and Dale for two-thirds of the amount charged," we submit the following statement: The amount of the two bills against the Constitution is $2,637.49, which he says he could have furnished for one-half, that is - $1,318.74

Amount of hospital stores, and on which there is no profit 493.10

Amount at which he would have furnished the medicines and instruments 825.64

Amount of surgical instruments on the bill 701.50

Amount for which he could have furnished the medicines, package, &c., which, on the bill, is $1,442. 89 for 124.14

Now, even allowing that the instruments cost only one-half of the amount charged, which would be $350.75, (which, in fact, cost a great deal more,) then he would have furnished the medicines for one-third of the amount charged. What clearer proof can be shown that the gentleman has made the answer, to say the least, without examination and reflection?

He says, also, he could have furnished the supplies for the Yorktown and Dale for two-thirds of the amount charged. The bill against the Yorktown is $1,308.37, only $497.13 (little more than one-third) of which are for medicines; and the bill against the Dale amounts to $588.30, only $231.06 of which are for medicines. What further can we say?

Question. Were you a member of the firm of N. C. Whitehead & Co., and of Whitehead & Beale, at the time the several accounts for medical supplies now submitted to you were rendered?

Answer. I was.

TO INTERROGATORIES BT THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Have you examined the copies of the accounts of N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale, or compared them with the original bills?

Answer. I have.

Question. Are the copies correctly made, or have you detected any, and what, error in them?

Answer. I believe there were two or three trivial errors; and from the bill against the Yorktown a deduction was made in the original which is not noticed in the copy.

[101] Question. How do you account for the difference in price charged for strychnine, viz: on the 14th November, 1840. one-quarter of an ounce $3.75, and on the 12th November, two days previous, one ounce $34?

Answer. The deduction referred to in the foregoing answer was made in part from the price of this article in the bill against the Yorktown.

Question. Have you never had occasion to send to other places to procure articles ordered from you for the naval service on this station, after said articles were required?

Answer. Yes.

Question. What is the greatest length of time that has intervened between the receipt of a requisition by you and the entire fulfillment of said requisition?

Answer. Sometimes a week, and sometimes longer. We have always put them up within the time prescribed by the surgeon who presented them. The surgeon would sometimes leave town, and direct the articles to be ready by his return.

Question. Will you submit your books to our examination?

Answer. With the consent of my partner, I will.

Question. What is the highest advance upon the cost which you have charged to the United States for articles furnished?

Answer. On medicines and chemicals we usually charge from 25 to 35 per cent.; hospital stores we furnish at cost: and on surgical instruments we charge from 15 to 20 per cent, advance.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOVALL.

Question. Have I ever called upon you to furnish any medical supplies for sea-going ships or the hospital?

Answer. Not to my recollection.

Question. From the manner in which medical supplies, hospital stores, &c, are required by surgeons attached to ships, can they be furnished upon the same terms that they are furnished for ordinary uses?

Answer. They cannot, on account of the difference in packing, and being at our risk until delivered on board of ship and receipted for.

NORFOLK, July 17, 1841.

After a careful examination of our books, I wish to substitute for the answer given as to the highest advance upon the cost, the following:

On the whole amount of any of our bills our profits, we think, have not exceeded 25 per cent.; on medicines, instruments, &c., our advance has been more. Some articles have been charged at very small advance, while others are much higher; a fair average, we think, would be from 35 to 45 per cent, on the medicines and instruments.

TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOVALL.

Question. You say that you have ordered, at the request of surgeons, particular kinds of instruments, &c., which afterwards have been declined and thrown upon your hands, not on account of quality, but in consequence of a new preference. Do you now recollect any such instance?

Answer. I recollect an instance of a case of lithotomy instruments which were ordered by a surgeon, made to our order, and cost from $70 to $80, [102] which were declined, as the surgeon said he would remove the patients to the hospital, and the instruments are now on our hands. There was also an easy chair which was ordered, and declined for want of room. Also, a set of scales and weights, ordered by Dr. Blacknall for the hospital, and declined.

TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Have an articles furnished by your firm for United States vessels of war been returned to you in consequence of the quality or price?

Answer. The scales and weights, before alluded to, were declined on account of the price. A very few articles have been returned to us on account of quality.

Question. Will you be pleased to state what those articles were; for what vessel or vessels furnished, and for what cause returned?

Answer. I cannot recollect at present.

Question. Were other articles substituted by you for those returned, or were any of them obtained at other places?

Answer. The articles originally furnished by us, and returned, were generally replaced with others by us, and a few obtained at other places. I recollect only one instance, of some blister plaster, furnished for the Delaware, another supply of which Dr. Cornick obtained elsewhere.

Question. Of whom or where do you most generally purchase your supplies of drugs and medicines?

Answer. Of different wholesale druggists in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, and a small portion only in Boston. For the last twelve months we have bought nothing from Taylor & Moore, of New York, whose prices current are submitted with my answer to a former interrogatory.

Question. Is not a deduction from wholesale prices, as stated in the prices current, frequently made by the wholesale druggists in the Northern cities?

Answer. A small deduction is sometimes made, but the articles are generally sold at the prices therein instituted.

Question. What is the rate of that deduction?

Answer. I cannot state.

Question. For what cause did Dr. Blacknall decline taking the scales and weights, ordered by you at his request, and have you the same now on hand?

Answer. They were declined by Dr. Blacknall because he thought them too costly, and were afterwards taken by Dr. Cornick, for the Delaware, at cost.

TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORY BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Have you not found it necessary to be exceedingly careful and particular in procuring drugs, medicines, instruments, &c., ordered by the surgeons of the navy?

Answer. We have found it necessary to be very particular.

CHARLES H. BEALE.

NORFOLK, July 20, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

W. J. HARDY, Alderman, Norfolk borough.

[103] Interrogatories propounded to Doctor Baynham Baylor, examined on behalf of George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Are you a practitioner of medicine in Norfolk; and, if yea, how long have you been engaged in the profession?

Answer. I have been a practitioner more than nine years, in Norfolk, and no where else.

Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts of N. C. Whitehead & Co., and Whitehead & Beale, for medical supplies, hospital stores, surgical instruments, &c., now submitted to you, together with the depositions taken, to show that the prices therein charged are unusual and exorbitant, and state what you know and believe in regard to the same?

Answer. I examined the accounts of Whitehead & Beale, in connexion with those of Buff & Co., Santas, S. & W. Waits, all against the United States, and found them, upon the aggregate, lower than those of the other gentlemen.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Are you in the habit of procuring, and from whom, medicines in this place, for your own use as a practitioner?

Answer. I have procured them for the last nine months from Santas & Toy; for nine months previously to that time, I got them from Whitehead & Beale.

Question. Have not the articles furnished by Santas & Toy, for your own use, been of a satisfactory and approved quality?

Answer. Yes.

TO INTERROGATORY BY MR LOYALL.

Question. Are the same articles charged by Whitehead & Beale, which you usually purchase for your own use, in your opinion reasonably charged, allowing for the greater expense of putting them up and delivering them for the navy?

Answer. The few articles which I have examined I think are.

TO INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Are you in the habit of examining the bills of medicine furnished by the apothecaries for your use; and are you acquainted with the prices of medicines generally?

Answer. No; except as to high-priced articles.

BAYNHAM BAYLOR.

NORFOLK, July 17, 1841.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, borough of Norfolk, set:

I, William E. Cunningham, a justice of the peace in and for the borough of Norfolk aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Doctor Baynham Baylor personally appeared before me, in my said borough, and [104] made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to him, as written on this sheet, are true and correct.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this twenty-seventh day of July, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.

WILLIAM E. CUNNINGHAM, J. P. [SEAL.]

Interrogatories propounded to Doctor Eleazer O. Balfour, examined on behalf of George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Are you a practitioner of medicine in Norfolk; and, if yea, how long have you been engaged in the profession?

Answer. Yes; for about eleven years.

Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts of N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale, for medical supplies, hospital stores, surgical instruments, &c., now submitted to you, together with the depositions taken, to show that the prices therein charged are unusual and exorbitant, and state what you know and believe in regard to the same?

Answer. Doctor Baylor called upon me to examine the accounts in company with him. We compared them with accounts of two persons in Portsmouth, and one or two in Norfolk, against the United States, and found the charges of Whitehead & Beale, with the exception of three or four, were lower than those of the other persons.

Question. Do you believe that the statements of Messrs. Bernard, King, and Toy, in their depositions, as to the terms upon which they would have furnished the medical supplies, &c, enumerated in these accounts, were made from a careful examination and accurate understanding of the subject?

Answer. Certainly not.

Question. As surgeon of the marine hospital on this station, you have been in the habit of purchasing and contracting for medicines and hospital stores; do you find such articles charged in the accounts of Whitehead & Beale exorbitant, or higher than you have paid for similar articles, allowing for the greater expense of putting them up for the navy?

Answer. Certainly not.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Are you acquainted with the wholesale prices of drugs and medicines in other markets?

Answer. No.

Question. Are you familiar with the prices, generally, of drugs, medicines, hospital stores, and surgical instruments, in Norfolk?

Answer. No; I cannot say that I am.

NORFOLK, July 17, 1841.

I wish to amend my answer to the last interrogatory by the commissioners, by the following: Although not conversant with the exact market prices of medicines, [105] still I should be enabled to detect any exorbitant charge for the more important medicines used in my practice.

E. O. BALFOUR.

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, borough of Norfolk, set:

I, William G. Camp, a justice of the peace in and for the borough of Norfolk aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Doctor Eleazer O. Balfour this day personally appeared before me, in my said borough, and made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to him, as written on this sheet, are true and correct.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this twenty-seventh day of July, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.

WILLIAM G. CAMP, [SEAL]

* * * * * *

H 2.

Interrogatories propounded to John Dickson, by Benjamin Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk,
and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatories by George Loyall, Esq., navy agent.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Who are the principal dealers in ship chandlery in Norfolk?

Answer. John Hipkins, James F. Hunter, William W. Spence, Higgins & Brother, and myself.

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?

Answer. I answer only from the time I commenced business on my own account, viz: August 1, 1840. In October, 1840, sheet lead is charged at 10 cents per pound; I sold sheet lead, in October and November, 1840, at 10 cents per pound, at four months' credit. In September, 1840, I sold spirits of turpentine at 45 cents per gallon; it is charged in August at 50 cents, and in September, 1840, at 62-1/2 cents per gallon; the price by the barrel was then 35 cents. Sewing twine, which is charged at 50 cents per pound, I have sold ever since I have been in business at 38 cents. Suffolk tar, charged at $2.50 per barrel, September 17, 1840, I would have furnished at the time at $2; and April 7, 1841, at $2.12-1/2, which I would have sold at $1.75. Green paint is charged at 75 cents; the price was 25 cents per pound. Black paint, charged at $3, I would have furnished at $2. 25 per keg of 25 pounds. Bunting is charged at $9 per piece. The average price of blue, white, and scarlet, is $8 per piece. Sail needles, charged at 5 cents, I should have been glad to have sold at 4 cents. 500 pounds zinc, furnished April 7, 1841, is charged at 12-1/2 cents; I sold it in October at 10-1/2 cents, and would have sold it at the same price at any subsequent [106] period. Tallow is charged, in February, 1841, at 15 cents per pound. I sold it in April at 11 cents, and it was then higher than in February. Pitch is charged, on the 22d January, 1841, at $2.25; I sold it on the 31st December, 1840, at retail, at $2; and would have sold it by the quantity at $1.75. Soap is charged at 10 cents per pound; it could have been furnished, at any time during the last year, at 7-1/2 cents. Ten mounted palms are charged at 75 cents each; the retail price is 31 cents, and the wholesale price 25 cents.

Question. Is it not probable that any or all of the dealers in ship chandlery 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?

Answer. I answer, for myself, that 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.

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?

Answer. Never, although I have been in business here for the last nine years.

Question. If you were employed to furnish ship chandlery in the quantities required by United States vessels of war, would you charge them at wholesale or retail prices?

Answer. I should charge them at wholesale prices.

Question. What difference in prices should there be between selling articles to individuals on credit, to be paid for in currency, and to the Government for cash, payable in specie?

Answer. At this time, six per cent.

NORFOLK, June 30,1841.

Question. What is the value of deck lights, similar to the pattern now shown to you?

Answer. I would sell them at $1.25 each.

Question. Have you examined the account of John Capron, now shown to you; if not, will you be pleased to do so, and state whether the charges in it are fair and reasonable?

Answer. I have examined the account, and find in it the article of sheet lead charged, in March, 1841, at ten cents per pound; I should have been happy to have furnished it at seven cents.

Question. Have you had an opportunity, since yesterday, to examine the books of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins; if so, will you be pleased to re-examine the accounts of E. J. Higgins, submitted to you yesterday?

Answer. I find many articles charged at higher prices than I should have been glad to have furnished them for. I will enumerate some of them:

Image

[108] several articles contained in the bills which have been submitted to your examination at lower prices than are there charged; or that the aggregate exhibits an amount exceeding that at which you were prepared to furnish the supplies, of the description and quality and put up in the manner required, deliverable at the public store in the navy yard?

Answer. I do say that I would have furnished them for much less, put up in the same manner, and deliverable at the public store.

Question. How then have you arrived at this conclusion, since most of the accounts submitted to you are detached copies and extracts from various accounts, the whole of which you have not seen?

Answer. I judge from the prices charged in the accounts laid before me.

Question. What is the greatest tonnage of any vessel you have furnished supplies in your line for?
Answer. Five to six hundred tons.

Question. Do you think that such articles, generally, would have answered for a national ship, a frigate of the first class, or the Delaware?

Answer. The same articles, enumerated in these bills, that would have answered for a vessel of five hundred tons, would have answered for a sloop of war, frigate, or ship of the line.

Question. Have you not frequently offered for contracts, under offers invited by the Navy Commissioners?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Have you ever made a contract with the Navy Commissioners for the supply of any articles; and, if so, for what, and at what time?

Answer. We made a contract once, for cheese.

Question. Did you comply with the terms and conditions of the said contract?

Answer. We did.

NORFOLK, July 2, 1841.

I wish to amend my answers to the several interrogatories in some points on which I have refreshed my memory, by further reference to my books, since I was before the commissioners last.

In my answer to the second interrogatory by the commissioners, I have stated "sail needles, charged at 5 cents, I should have been glad to have sold at 4 cents." I find that I sold 100 Lolley's sail needles in November, 1840, to E. S. Higgins, at $3. The 500 lbs. of zinc mentioned as furnished April 7, 1841, and charged at 12-1/2 cents, was slab zinc; the kind which I sold, in October, 1840, at 10-1/2 cents, was sheet zinc, which is worth 2 to 3 cents more per lb. than slab; and I sold the same kind in August, 1840, at 10 cents. "10 mounted palms are charged at 75 cents;" I sold to E. J. Higgins, August 31, 1840, 15 mounted palms, at $2.50 per dozen.

In my answer to the 5th interrogatory by the commissioners, I have stated that, if employed to furnish articles for United States vessels of war, "I should charge them at wholesale prices." I would remark that the prices which I have mentioned as having been charged for articles sold by me were my retail and not wholesale prices.

My answer to the last interrogatory by Mr. Loyall, respecting the contract for cheese, was, that "we did" comply with it.

I would explain, by stating, that the indent was sent over to us so late in the year that it was impossible for us to procure the cheese from abroad, before the expiration of the contract. We offered to import it from Europe [109] if time were allowed us to do so. We had frequently, in the course of the year, sent to the storekeeper to inquire if any cheese would be wanted, that we might provide it in season, and were told, or led to understand, that none would probably be required. With the approbation of the store­keeper, I think, we transferred the indent to the contractor for the next year, and presume it was supplied by him, as we heard no more about it.

JOHN DICKSON.

NORFOLK, July 9, 1841.

* * * * * *

WALTER'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July 7, 1841.

Sir: Mr. Loyall requests that when you attend at the commissioners' room to sign the fair copy of your deposition, you will bring with you your "ship book" for his inspection.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

B. HOMANS, Commissioner.

JOHN DICKSON, Esq., Norfolk.

NORFOLK, July 7, 1841.

Dear Sir: Your note of yesterday was duly received. It would afford me great pleasure to grant you the privilege of my ship book. I cannot allow my ship book to go out of the store, having very frequent charges and accounts to make in and from it. If Mr. Loyall will call at my store, he is at liberty to examine it with my clerk. The books which I had at your room are at Mr. Loyall's service.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

JOHN DICKSON.

B. HOMANS, Esq.

* * * * * *

Interrogatories propounded to James F. Hunter, by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatories by George Loyall, navy agent.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS

Question. Who are the principal dealers, in Norfolk, in ship chandlery?

Answer. John Hipkins, John Dickson, William W. Spence, Higgins & Brother, John Capron, Jacob Vickery, and myself.

Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts now submitted to yon, 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?

Answer. There are many articles in these accounts which it is impossible to designate, as they are not particularly described, such as binnacle lamps and log-lines, of which there is a great variety.

The first bill before me is dated 1838, for United States schooner Shark. Bunting is charged at $9; a fair price would have been $7-1/2 or $8. Soap is charged at 10 cents, which was not worth more than 6-1/2 cents to 7 cents at the [110] time. Pig lead charged at 10 cents; at that time (1838) I would have furnished it at 8 to 8-1/2 cents. Sewing twine, by the quantity, we charged to sail-makers at 40 cents; the price charged in the bill is 50 cents. Litharge was worth 10 cents, and is charged at 12-1/2 cents. Black paint is charged at $3; the wholesale price was $2.50. Green paint is charged at 75 cents; imperial green was worth 25 cents, and verdigris 50 cents per pound. Deep sea lead-lines were worth 30 cents, and are charged at 40 cents per pound. Marline, hawseline, hambroline, and bonnet line, are charged at 30 cents, and were worth 25 cents per pound. White lead I could have furnished, in 183S, at 11 to 11-1/2 cents; it is charged at 12-1/2 cents.

The next account is by John Capron, for articles furnished from 1837 to 1841. Sheet lead is charged, in March, 1841, at 10 cents per pound; I would have furnished it at 7 to 7-1/2 cents.

In E. J. Higgins's bill for 1839, February 25th, red lead is charged at 12-1/2 cent; I would have furnished it at 10-1/2 cents. Litharge was worth 10 cents, and is again charged at 12-1/2 cents. Spirits of turpentine is charged at 70 cents, and could have been bought at 45 cents. In April, 1839, 30 barrels tar is charged at $2.75, and was worth $3.25 to $2.37-1/2. Whipping twine is charged at 45 cents; was worth from 30 to 35 cents. Ground paintbrushes (0000) are charged at $12 per dozen; I would have furnished them at $10.50. No. 6 cotton duck is charged at 40 cents per yard; was worth 34 cents. Spirits of turpentine is charged at 62-1/2 cents, in 1840; I would have sold it at 45 cents. Pig lead is again charged at 10 cents; it was worth, in New York, 54 cents, and I would have sold it at 7 cents. In In 1839, E. I. block tin was worth 25 cents, and is charged at 35 cents. Cotton wick I sold at 40 cents, is charged at 50 cents. Chrome yellow is charged at 75 cents; was worth from 50 to 56 cents. Soap, twine, bunting, and marline, are charged at similar prices as in 1838, and could have been supplied at the prices I have before stated. E. I. block tin charged at 33 cents, worth 25 cents.

In 1840, sheet lead is charged at 10 cents; I could have furnished it at 7 to 7-1/2 cents, and made a good profit by it. Tallow I should have furnished at 11 to 11-1/2 cents; it is charged at 16-2/3 cents. Green paint is again charged at 75 cents, and black paint at $3, and were worth the same as before stated. Bright varnish was worth 25 to 28 cents by the barrel, and is charged at 37-1/2 cents, in February, 1839. Sheet lead was charged at 11-1/2 cents per pound the same month; cost in New York 7 cents; and we could have sold it at 8-1/2 to 9 cents. Zinc is charged, in 1840, at 12-1/2 cents; I sold some the same year to the ordnance department at Fort Monroe, at 8 cents.

Question. Is it not probable that any or all of the dealers in ship chandlery 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?

Answer. Yes.

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?

Answer. No.

Question. If you were employed to furnish articles in your line of business, in the quantities required by the United States vessels of war, would you charge them at wholesale or retail prices?

[111] Answer. I should charge them at wholesale prices.

Question. What difference in prices should there be between selling articles to individuals on credit, to be paid for in currency, and to the Government for cash, payable in specie?

Answer. Six to seven per cent.

Question. What is the value of deck lights, similar to the pattern now shown to you?

Answer. From $1 to $1.20 each.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Do the papers before you exhibit the whole of one or more accounts, or are they extracts and copies, showing particular items from different accounts.

Answer. I do not know.

Question. Do you mean to say, then, that you would hare furnished the several articles contained in the bills which have been submitted to your examination at lower prices than are there charged, or that the aggregate exhibits an amount exceeding that at which you were prepared to furnish the supplies, of the description and quality, and put up in the manner required, deliverable at the public store at the navy yard?

Answer. Yes.

Question. How then have you arrived at this conclusion, since most of the accounts submitted to you are detached copies and extracts from various accounts, the whole of which you have not seen?

Answer. I take the aggregate of the papers before me; for example, an account against the United States ship Brandy wine, commencing February 26, 1839, and amounting to $3,091.41.

There is also an account against the schooner Shark, in 1838, amounting to $1,326.17, and another against the ship Dale, November, 1840, amounting to $412.34. The others seem to be extracts.

Question. What is the greatest tonnage of any vessel you have ever furnished supplies in your line?

Answer. I once supplied a Russian ship, said to have been 700 tons burden.

Question. Do you think that such articles, generally, would have answered for a national ship, a frigate of the first class, or the Delaware?

Answer. I do; many of them would: such as paints, marline, hawseline, nails, deck lights, bunting, &c. There are many articles used on board of public armed vessels that are not required on board of merchantmen.

Question. Have you not frequently offered for contracts, under offers invited by the Navy Commissioners?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Have you ever made a contract with the Navy Commissioners for the supply of any articles; and, if so, for what, and at what time?

Answer. Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, made a contract in 1839, for cheese; also, since, for dry white lead, 2,500 gallons linseed oil, and for paints, at Boston.

Question. Did you comply with the terms and conditions of said contract?

Answer. We did for all articles except the cheese. The cheese required was of a peculiar kind; Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, made arrangements [112] for the supply of such as might be required. Asked several times of the storekeeper if any was likely to be wanted during the year, proposing to have a quantity made to meet any demand. We were told frequently articles were contracted for, and none required during the year; that none would likely be wanted until the expiration of the term of the contract, as there was a good deal on hand. Towards the close of the year an order for one or two thousand pounds was issued, and handed to Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins; every effort was made to purchase it in the country; finding it could not be had, to fulfil our contract, we determined to import it, if necessary; but the navy storekeeper consented to use some at the navy store, as I understood, and the supply of two thousand pounds was to have been made by Mr. Keating, who contracted for cheese the next year, and the indent was handed to him, as he will testify.

NORFOLK, July 2, 1841.

Shortly after Mr. Hunter retired, a letter was received from him by the commissioners, of which the following is a copy:

NORFOLK, July 2, 1841.

Gentlemen: On reference to the books of D. H. & H., I find I made an error in stating the contract for oil, &c., was taken by D. H. & H. Robert Dickson took the contract, and we were securities, and fulfilled the same, as our books will show; this will make it necessary to make some alteration in my affidavit, which I propose doing before you some other day. I take this early opportunity of correcting my statement, which I am, of course, desirous should be scrupulously correct in every particular. Will thank you to read this to Mr. Loyall and Mr. Gatewood.

Yours truly, in haste,

JAMES F. HUNTER.

Messrs. HOMANS and BUTLER, Walter's Hotel.

I wish to amend my answer to the last interrogatory by Mr. Loyall, by stating that, after the indent for cheese was sent to us, Mr. John Hipkins, my then associate, went to the navy yard and saw the naval storekeeper, who informed him that the cheese was not wanted at that time. As well as my recollection serves me, no objection was made to the contractor for the next year furnishing it. That contractor was Mr. Thomas Keating, and I ask that he may be summoned and interrogated as to what he knows of the fact.

TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. What was the price of kiln dried corn meal, by the half barrel, in February, 1839?

Answer. I cannot answer until I have referred to my books; the average price by the half barrel is from $2 to $2.25.

Question. What was the price of kiln dried corn meal, by the hundred pounds, in November, 1840?

Answer. The price per barrel of one hundred and ninety-six pounds has been from $3.25 to $3.50.

Question. Can you state the price which the Ordnance department al- [113] lowed for zinc furnished by you in 1840? And did you agree to any deduction from your charge for the same?

Answer, The Ordnance department allowed us 7 cents per pound, and we agreed to it.

Question. Will you furnish us with a certified copy of a letter addressed to you, on the subject of zinc and other articles, in 1840, by an officer of the Ordnance department?

Answer. I will, if the writer consents.

JAMES F. HUNTER.

NORFOLK, July 8, 1841.

* * * * * *

FORT MONROE ARSENAL, May 6, 1840.

Gentlemen: I have received by to-day's mail your bill of articles furnished Ordnance department.

I have to object to your prices charged for zinc and lead pots. Zinc is quoted in the New York papers of 30th ultimo at 4 cents per pound, and we have never given higher than 5-1/2 cents.

For crucibles we have never given higher than 4-1/2 cents per number; the number received was 956, and not 1,034 as charged in your bill.

The above charges must be charged at the current market prices, as it is only on such terms the department can deal.

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

P. V. HAGNER, Lieutenant Ordnance, commanding.

Messrs. DICKSON, HUNTER, & HIPKINS, Norfolk.

* * * * * *

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

I hereby certify that the within is a true copy of a letter addressed Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, by Lieutenant P. V. Hagner, and the same is dated as within—Fort Monroe, May 6, 1840.

JAMES F. HUNTER.

* * * * * *

Interrogatories propounded to E. P. Tabb, by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatories by George Loyall, Esq., navy agent.

INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. In what line of business are you engaged?

Answer. In the hardware.

Question. Who are the principal dealers in hardware, in Norfolk?

Answer. There are only three. Allyn & Robertson, John Bonsal, and myself.

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?

[114] Answer. As far as I have examined the account against the frigate Brandywine, I cannot undertake to say whether the charges are too high or not, there being so great a variety of articles of the same kind. Double iron fore and jack planes and hand scrubbing brushes, are charged higher; than I have been in the habit of selling them. In a bill against the United States schooner Shark, I find sand paper charged at two cents per sheet which is the retail price. In a bill for repairs, I find 12 dozen 14 inch flat files charged in 1840 higher than I sell them for, of the best quality. In February, 1841, there is a charge for "public stores'' of 84 dozen bastard files, assorted, from 12 to 14 inches, at $6 per dozen. I sell the largest size, by the dozen, at a less price. In a bill of 1839, for "repairs," there is a smith's bellows charged above the price. I find wrought nails charged at more than the retail prices, except the large size, which are charged at retail price. A mouse-hole anvil, for the Delaware, is charged at 18 cents per pound. I sell them at 16 cents, under ordinary circumstances. There are a good many articles charged at reasonable prices.

Question. Is it not probable that any or all of the dealers in hardware 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?

Answer. I notice a charge for files and for wrought nails which is larger than the stock we generally keep on hand. All other articles of hardware we could have supplied, either immediately or at very short notice.

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?

Answer. I have not.

Question. If you were employed to furnish articles in your line of business, in the quantities required by the United States vessels of war, would you charge them at wholesale or retail prices?

Answer. If the United States came to me under the circumstances of ordinary purchasers, to buy on credit, I should have charged retail prices; but, as bills against the United States are paid in cash, I should have been willing to furnish the articles at wholesale prices.

Question. What difference in prices should there be, between selling articles to individuals on credit, to be paid for in currency, and to the Government for cash, payable in specie?

Answer. I consider this question answered by my answer to the previous question, except as to the difference of exchange between currency and specie.

Question. Within what time could you have furnished the files and nails referred to in your answer to a former interrogatory, if an order had been left with you for the same?

Answer. I should think within a week.

Question. Do you intend to say that most of the articles in your line, charged in the bills submitted to you for examination, are so indefinitely described that you cannot state what may have been the value of the same?

Answer. Yes; I would make that reply in relation to all the bills, except as to the articles I have particularized.

[115] TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Are you well acquainted with all the particular kinds and descriptions of hardware required for the use of ships and the navy generally?

Answer. I am acquainted with such articles as I ordinarily sell, or such as I find charged in these bills, without reference to the quality of the article so charged.

Question. Have you ever furnished articles of hardware required for the naval service on this station?

Answer. I have.

Question. Are there not many descriptions of files, of a peculiar and patent manufacture, which cost very high?

Answer. There are many descriptions of files; but I consider those I sell equal in quality to the very best.

Question. After selecting the articles of planes and hand scrubbing-brushes from the accounts of the Brandywine, do you mean to say that the whole account is exorbitantly charged, or that you could have supplied exactly the same description of articles, and the same quantity, and deliver them at the navy store in the same manner, at a less price?

Answer. This is a question which I cannot answer, because I do not know the quality of the articles.

INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Are you in the habit of selling the various sorts of hardware ordinarily used by ship builders and carpenters; and, if so, have the articles generally given satisfaction?

Answer. I am; and the articles have given satisfaction, so far as I know.

EDWARD P. TABB.

NORFOLK, July 3, 1841.

Interrogatories propounded to H. N. Bucktrout, by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners, appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatories by George Loyall, navy agent.

Question. Will you be pleased to state what you know respecting the purchase or delivery of timber for the naval service, on any occasion?

Answer. In the spring of 1840, I was informed, by a friend from the navy yard, that there was a requisition for timber to be furnished immediately. I went about 9 o'clock in the morning to the navy agent's office, and found Mr. West, the clerk, present, who informed me that the indent had not arrived. I told him that it was probable it would be over in the 9 o'clock boat; and, as I was informed it was wanted immediately, I would call again in the space of an hour; that I would furnish it as soon as any person, perhaps sooner, as my timber was near at hand, and that I would furnish it as cheap. He replied, that he could not say any thing about it, and that I had better call to-morrow. I said to him that, as the timber was wanted in haste, I would call in the course of two hours. He said, in reply, that I had better call to-morrow, and that the timber should [116] not be given out until I came. I then said, that with that understanding, I would call the next day. Accordingly, I called the next day, at 9 o'clock, and asked Mr. West (he being alone again) if he had heard from the yard? He said yes, and that the timber was given out. I asked him to whom? He said to Mr. Jonathan Ray, and I left the office. I inquired of Mr. West if he had made it known that I had applied for the timber, and he said that he had told Mr. Gatewood of it.

Question. Have you ever been deterred from offering to supply timber or other articles, required by the navy, under the impression that the orders for articles not contracted for were given to the political friends of the then administration, and that those opposed to the administration were not allowed a fair chance to participate in furnishing the supplies?

Answer. In answer, I state that I have; and that, from the impression made on my mind, I did resolve never to apply at the navy agent's office again, and did not apply, for about the space of twelve months. Since that time I have made an offer, within the present year.

TO INTERROGATORIES BT MR. LOYALL.

Question. Did you know the kind and quality of timber required, or the probable amount of the bill?

Answer. I did not.

Question. Do you know now, and will you state it?

Answer. I do not.

Question. Did yon ever complain to the agent, and ask for any explanation of the circumstance?

Answer. I never did.

Question. Do you seriously believe that any offer of yours was ever rejected by me, or by any one for me, from political considerations?

Answer. I did believe so at the time, but whether it was so in fact, I cannot now say.

Question. Have you not furnished large quantities of timber for the navy, and have you ever been treated improperly at the office in the settlement of your accounts?

Answer. I have furnished large quantities under contracts with the Navy Commissioners, and have always been treated at the agent's office with the greatest courtesy and respect.

Question. Can you state who was the friend that informed you that a bill of timber was coming out?

Answer. I do not feel myself at liberty, at this time, to mention his name.

HORATIO N. BUCKTROUT.

NORFOLK, July 6, 1841.

I wish to explain my answer to the first interrogatory propounded to me on the 6th instant, by saying, that when Mr. West informed me that "he had made it known that I had applied for the timber, and he said that he had told Mr. Gatewood of it," I did not understand whether he told him before or after the order was given to Mr. Ray.

TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. GATEWOOD.

Question. As I have now shown you the bill of Mr. Ray, for the timber [117] he furnished on the occasion referred to, amounting to $95.29, if you had known it was so small, would you have troubled yourself to apply for it?

Answer. I do not know that I should, or should not.

HORATIO N. BUCKTROUT

NORFOLK, July 20, 1841.

Sworn to, before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

G. B. COOKE, J. P.

* * * * * *

Statement of J. F. Hunter and J. Dickson.

We beg leave to submit the following statement in relation to our testimony, given before you at the investigation of the navy agency at this place, drawn up on an examination of a comparative statement of prices, and submitted by Mr. Tunstall:

We do so, jointly, inasmuch as our testimony is reviewed together by Mr. T., although taken separately, and we have not been connected in business for upwards of twelve months. Mr. T. proceeds by stating his knowledge of the navy and mercantile business, in the ship chandlery line, enables him to state they are materially different, as to the quality and description of articles used. Our testimony admits that many articles required for national armed ships are not used by merchant vessels; but a large proportion of them, we contend, are the same, as to description and quality, in both these branches of marine—such as paints ground in oil and dry, varnishes, tar, pitch, rosin, turpentine, tallow, wax, sheet lead, zinc, tarred lines of various descriptions, white lines of different kinds, bunting, brushes, twine, deck lights, cotton duck, (except hammock for cloths,) nails, cut and wrought; scupper and clout tacks; iron and copper spikes, cut and wrought; pumps, copper and wood reels, time glasses, hammers, hatchets, saws, trumpets, chisels, gouges, augers, brooms, lamp wick, soap, and a variety of other articles usually kept in our stock, inferior in quality to none to be had. We do not insist every article required by the navy was embraced in our stock of ship chandlery, but contend a large proportion of them were; that the stock of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, was always very large, and that our facilities for doing business would have enabled us to comply with requisitions from the navy as promptly as any dealer in the place.

Mr. T. submits a comparative statement of prices charged the navy, with prices named by us in our testimony, and prices charged by us to vessels, merchants, and underwriters.

The bills from which these prices are extracted are not before us, having been withdrawn by the party who submitted them; we cannot, therefore, designate nor name the circumstances under which they were created. Many bills, in doing business with individuals, varying, according to particular contracts with them, to the length of time for payment, mode of payment, &c. We do not, by any means, deny their existence, but refer you to the interrogatory put to us, viz:

You will please state the wholesale prices of leading articles, &c., which we accordingly did, to the best of our recollection, referring but in [one] or two instances to our books; yet these wholesale prices are entered in a [118] comparative statement with prices of goods at retail. (For, notwithstanding the amount of a particular bill is stated in aggregate to be $2,200, as rendered by us, we are confident, from the character of supplies to merchant vessels, it was made up principally of cordage, Russia canvass, sheet copper, chain cables—articles paying but a small profit.) For example, white lead by the keg, twine by the skein, (one or two pounds) small quantities of dry and other paints, verdigris by the canister, marline by the few pounds, copper tacks by the 100 or 1,000, brushes by the single one, tallow by the 1, 2, or few pounds, spirits of turpentine by the quart or gallon,, cotton duck by the single bolt or yard, tar by the barrel, varnish by the gallon, needles by the 1, 2, or half dozen, sheet lead by the small quantity, and most probably cut in form or shape, as ordered, which is usual in the merchant service, are compared with same articles ordered in most instances as follows: White lead by the 100 kegs, twine by the bale, dry paints by the two or three hundred pounds, as litharge and verdigris by the quantity, marline, hawseline, hambroline, by the coil or larger quantity, spirits of turpentine by the barrel, cotton duck by 20 bolts or more, tar by the 20 or 30 barrels, bright varnish by the barrel, needles by the 100, sheet lead by the 500, 800, or 1,000 pounds. We have introduced a statement (marked A) of our wholesale, and, in some instances, cash sales, taken from our books by our book-keepers, of sundry articles which have been sold to individuals, for the most part on long time, and payable in current funds; also, the cost price of said articles from our invoice books, going to show the wholesale prices named by us to you are substantially correct, varying oftener below prices then named than above, and further showing at such prices articles yielded us a fair profit.

No allowance is made for the entire difference in the character of the business by Mr. T., so far as quantities are charged, nor allowance made for credit or cash payments, the responsibility of the Government over individuals, (a most important point, as the heavy losses by our books will show,) nor none for the further advantage of the mode of payment by the Government, which has varied, for some time, from 3 to 5 and 7 per cent., in favor of specie payments.

JAMES F. HUNTER.
JOHN DICKSON.

NORFOLK, July 28,1841.

Norfolk Borough, July 29, 1841.—Sworn to before me, by James F. Hunter and John Dickson.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

Image

Image

[121] We hereby certify that we have examined the books of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, James F. Hunter and John Dickson, and find the prices named in the statement annexed are those at which wholesale sales have been made by them, and that said sales are generally on time, and payable in current funds.

That, further, the invoice cost of said articles, from their books, are correct as stated.

W. A. LOWELL,
Bookkeeper for the late firm of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, and James F. Hunter.

JAMES A. SAUNDERS,
Bookkeeper for John Dickson.

Norfolk, July 29, 1841

Sworn to before me by W. A. Lowell and James A. Saunders.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

* * * * * *

Interrogatory propounded to Richard Vermillion, by B, Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answer thereto.

Will you be pleased to state what you know on the subject of furnishing oars for the naval service?

Answer. Since I have been in business here as a boatbuilder, (1832,) I have endeavored to get a contract for supplying oars for the navy, but never succeeded. I once furnished a small order for oars of extraordinary length, but they were not contracted for. I occasionally went to Mr. Linn, the master boat builder of the navy yard, and inquired if oars were or soon would be wanted, and was sometimes informed that they would be. I then looked at the newspapers, to see if any proposals were advertised, but the next thing I heard on the subject was, that the oars were furnished. On one occasion, last fall, a quantity was advertised for as "wanted immediately," when, at the same time, the oars were in a lighter at Portsmouth, and furnished by Mr. Robert Tatem, as he informed me. Consequently it appeared to me useless to attempt to get an order or a contract. The person who usually supplied oars was a Mr. Styron, of Princess Anne county, Virginia; and the price paid, as I have heard from undoubted authority, was six cents per foot; when, if they had been advertised for, and any thing like a competition existed, they might have been got at five cents. What I complain of is, that, by the practice hitherto pursued, dealers in articles wanted for the naval service have not had an opportunity to supply them, because no competition was permitted, to mv knowledge.

R. VERMILLION.

NORFOLK, July 6, 1841.

This statement was made and reduced to writing at half past nine A. M., before Mr. Loyall appeared, which was about 10 o'clock, and was afterwards read to him before Mr. Vermillion signed it.

[122] Interrogatories propounded to William D. Roberts, jr., by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. In what line of business are you engaged?

Answer. In tin and copper manufacturing, and dealer in stoves.

Question. What have been the prices of tin during the years 1838, 1839, and 1840, say common, 1/3X, XX, and XXXX?

Answer. I have not sold much tin by the box, as I purchase it for manufacturing. I can state what the article has cost me in New York; and when I have sold any to my customers I have charged them from 75 cents to $1 per box advance; but, if I made a business of selling tin by the box, I should charge more. The advance should be 15 per cent. on the New York prices. I have paid in New York as follows: for 1/3X, from $9 to $9.75, or an average of $9.33 per box; (when single or common tin is sold separately, it is about $1 per box less than 1/3X;) for XX, $11 per box. I have never used any tin so thick as XXXX that I am aware of, and therefore cannot state the price or cost per box. I bought, in January, 1841, two half boxes of XXX tin, 14 by 20 inches, at the rate of $27 per box, and should say that XXXX tin was not worth more than $1 per box over the XXX. There has not been a difference of more than 10 per cent. in the price of tin during the last three years.

Question. What has been the wholesale price of charcoal during the last three or four years?

Answer. The average price has been about 10 cents per bushel; it has been as low as four cents, and sometimes is as high as 12-1/2 cents, which is the highest I have known it to be during that period. A little before Christmas holydays charcoal is low in price, but in the spring, when the farmers are busy, it is higher.

Question. What do you charge for tin boxes or cannisters, with covers, capable of holding from 20 to 25 pounds of corn meal each?

Answer. For round ones from 87-1/2 cents to $1 each, and for square ones about $1 each.

WM. D. ROBERTS, Jr.

NORFOLK, July 8, 1841.

Interrogatories propounded to Simon Stone, by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatory
by George Loyall, navy agent.

Question. In what line of business are you engaged?

Answer. In mercantile business.

Question. What was the wholesale price of first crop bunch raisins, in the early part of November, 1840, in Norfolk?

Answer. In the early part of November, 1840, we had not a box of raisins in the store. We purchased, on the 14th, a quantity in Baltimore, which were received about the 18th, and then sold at $2.62, until about the 25th, when a small decline took place.

Question. Do you know what was the wholesale price of first crop bunch raisins in Norfolk, in October, 1840?

[123] Answer. The supply on hand in October, 1840, was small, and none could have been procured here, prior to the first of November, under $3 per box. We had an order abroad which we could not get filled, because the price then exceeded our limits. When the price fell to our limits, which was as above stated, on the 14th November, our order was executed.

TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. At what price would you have supplied 200 boxes on the 3d of November, 1840?

Answer. I should have charged $3 per box, for the very best quality of bunch raisins.

SIMON STONE.

NORFOLK, July 8, 1841.

Interrogatory propounded to John Hipkins, by B. Homans and J. N. Butler,
commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent,
Norfolk, and his answer thereto.

TO INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Will you be pleased to state the substance of any conversations which you may have held with M. Jordan, Esq., naval storekeeper, in relation to a contract for cheese, entered into in the year 1838, between the late firm of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, and the Board of Navy Commissioners?

Answer. Some time in the summer of 1838 (I can only recollect the time of the year from the fact of its being a very warm day) I called on Mr. Jordan, at the naval store, and inquired when the cheese would be wanted. He replied, that if some ship, then lying in the harbor, did not require it, he did not know when it would be. Mr. Jordan promised to give us early notice when any cheese would be required, that we might have time to procure it. I saw Mr. Jordan in Norfolk several times, both before and after this conversation, and made some casual inquiry respecting the cheese, but do not now recollect what occurred. I also saw him after the indent was sent to us, but do not remember what took place. Mr. Hunter, one of my then associates, took charge of the matter.

JOHN HIPKINS.

NORFOLK, July 15, 1841.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, borough of Norfolk, sct:

I, Charles H. Shield, a justice of the peace in and for the borough of Norfolk, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that John Hipkins this day personally appeared before me, in my said borough, and made oath, in due form of law, that the answer given to the interrogatory propounded to him, as (within) above written, is true and correct.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 15th day of July, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, [SEAL.]

[124] Interrogatories propounded to Merit Jordan, Esq., naval storekeeper, by B. Homans and J. H. Butler, commissioners appointed to investigate complaints alleged against the navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto, as well as to interrogatory by George Loyall, Esq., navy agent.

Question. Do you remember the circumstances attending a contract for cheese, made between the Navy Department and Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, of Norfolk, in the year 1838?

Answer. I have a copy of the contract, sent by the Navy Commissioners to the commandant of the navy yard.

Question. Did either of the members of the said firm inquire of you if any cheese would be wanted during the year of their contract, and ask you to give them notice of the quantity and the time, that they might order it from the North in season?

Answer. I cannot recollect at this time whether such an inquiry was made of me during that year; but, if it was, my reply was no doubt similar to that usually made to contractors, that it was impossible for me to say, and that they must not be governed by any opinion I might give. I remember a conversation with Mr. Hipkins, of the late firm of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, after the indent was sent to them.

Question. Did you ever promise either of the members of the said firm to give them the notice asked for; and, if so, did you give it?

Answer. I gave no such promise, that I recollect of; nor do I think I could have made such a promise, as I could not myself know when it would be required, or the quantity.

Question. At what time was the indent for cheese made, during the existence of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's contract?

Answer. It was made on the 29th of October, 1838, for 2,000 pounds.

Question. Was not the quantity called for supplied to the satisfaction of the inspecting officers, and without loss to the Government?

Answer. None was delivered under that contract.

Question. Was any contract for cheese, deliverable in 1837, made with E. J. Higgins, or Higgins & Keating?

Answer. I cannot state, without reference to my books.

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 cannot now state positively.

Question. Can you explain why so many indents for iron were made in the latter part of the year 1838, and supplied by John Capron, the then contractor, on the 31st December, 1838?

Answer. There was only one indent made for the whole. When an indent is made for articles deliverable under contract, the articles are frequently furnished in parcels, at different and remote periods. When the accounts are rendered, they are generally made to bear the same date as the indent. This is done that the navy agent may know under what contract the payment is to be made, so that the price stipulated for one year may not be charged for articles contracted for in another year. This is the only manner in which I can explain the transaction alluded to in the question.

[125] TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Have not other contractors, for cheese and provisions generally, complied with requisitions made upon them as late in the year as October or November?

Answer. I do not recollect that any contractor but one, except Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, has failed to comply when called on by requisition; but I cannot say, without reference to my books, at what time in the year the indents were made.

M. JORDAN.

NORFOLK, July 9, 1842.

Sworn to before me, July 20,1841.

WM. COLLINS, J. P.

ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES TO MR. JORDAN.

Question. What was the whole amount of the indent for iron given to John Capron, on the 31st December, 1838? Be pleased to state the quantity, of each description.

Answer. About the date of the requisition of the 31st of December, 1838, Mr. Francis Grice, naval constructor, furnished me with an estimate of the description, sizes, and quantity of iron proper to be required and kept on hand for "public stores," under the head of "repairs." The commodore directed me to divide the requisition, so as for one half to be furnished by the contractor for 1838, and the other half by the contractor for 1839; this was done as nearly as practicable. A requisition was therefore made on the 31st December, 1838, for one half, to wit: 3,000 pounds round iron, 21,900 pounds of assorted flat, 3,000 pounds of square, 2,000 pounds assorted nail rods, and 20 sheets assorted sheet iron, (the two latter articles not contracted for;) and another requisition in February, 1839, for a like quantity; which two embraced the description, sizes, and quantity contained in the estimate of Mr. Grice.

Question. Was not John Capron a contractor for iron to be delivered during the year 1839?

Answer. He was.

Question. Was not the price of iron deliverable by John Capron in 1839 lower than of that which he delivered in 1838?

Answer. It was.

Question. Are you certain that you have never given information, officially or unofficially, to John Capron, Eugene J. Higgins, or Higgins & Brother, that articles would be probably required for the naval service during a specified period?

Answer. I am pretty certain I never did officially; I may, upon inquiry by them, and in an incidental conversation, have expressed some unofficial opinion, not intended to govern their operations; and I think it very possible, after a requisition was made, or an order given to make one, for articles they were in the habit of furnishing or had contracted for, and which were wanted immediately, I may have said to them, an indent would be over the next day, or in a day or two afterwards, for them, or words to that effect. I have sometimes written to contractors abroad after the requisition was made, or ordered to be made, informing them of it, and re- [126] questing them to hurry on the articles. I have always been cautious not to give any official opinion until authorized to do so.

Question. Will you be pleased to state the substance of the conversation which you held with Mr. John Hipkins, after the indent for cheese was sent to Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins?

Answer. Some time after the indent was issued, (how long I cannot now say,) I was passing the store of those gentlemen. Mr. Hipkins called to me and observed they found it impossible to procure the round or globular cheese, and wished to know if we would take pine-apple cheese in its stead; I informed him I could not do so, but advised him to see the commodore. He then requested me to ask the commodore if he would authorize it to be received, as they could not get round; this I did at his request. The commodore would not agree to do so, saying he had no right to alter the contract. This is the only conversation I recollect upon the subject, and it is probable I should have forgotten this, had the conversation with the commodore not impressed it upon my mind.

Question. When was the indent for 200 boxes of raisins, made on the 3d November, 1840, complied with by E. J. Higgins?

Answer. Our books never show the day or date when articles are received under requisition; they only show the quantity and prices.

Question. Have you examined your books, to ascertain whether any "contract for cheese, deliverable in 1837, was made with E. J. Higgins, or Higgins & Keating?"

Answer. There was no contract for cheese in 1837: at least I find I never received a copy of a contract for that year.

M. JORDAN.

NORFOLK, July 14, 1841.

Sworn to before me, July 20. 1841.

WM. COLLINS, J. P.

Interrogatories propounded to E. J. Higgins, examined on behalf of George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOVALL.

Question. What line of business do you carry on in Norfolk, and how long have you been engaged in it?

Answer. I keep a ship chandlery and hardware store, comprising only such articles, with few exceptions, as are used in the navy. I have been engaged in this business about nineteen years; not the whole of the time on my own account.

Question. Have you been a contractor for supplies for the navy on this station, and for what articles?

Answer. I have been. In 1834, I was one-third interested, with my father, in a contract for ship chandlery and ironmongery, although the contract was not made in my name, but in my father's; since then, I have been a contractor, on my own account, for groceries, paints, and oils, and for other articles. In 1838 I contracted for white lead and linseed oil: in 1839, linseed oil, white lead, sperm candles, butter, and sperm oil; in 1840, linseed oil and paints; in 1841, linseed oil, paints, sperm candles, butter, whiskey, groceries, all of which were separately contracted for.

[127] Question. Have you contracted for supplies for other naval stations; and, if yea, what stations and what articles?

Answer. I have contracted for groceries at Boston, whiskey at Washington and Norfolk, for the year 1839. In copartnership, I contracted for groceries at New York, and groceries at Philadelphia, as far as I can recollect, for the year 1836. My then partner now having possession of the papers of the firm. I cannot state positively, but am pretty confident as to the year.

Question. By the terms of any contract you have made, was a preference given to the contractor for any articles not enumerated?

Answer. Yes.

Question. What was that preference?

Answer. A difference of 5 per cent, over the prices here; and that in the contracts for ship chandlery and ironmongery, for several years.

Question. Have you ever failed to comply with any contract you have made?

Answer. Never, that I am aware of.

Question. With whom have your contracts been made?

Answer. The Navy Commissioners.

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.

Question. Do the articles required, generally, for the naval service, whether for use in the yard or for ships, differ in kind and quality, or pattern and finish, from those required for the merchant service, and for ordinary purposes?

Answer. Generally speaking, they are very different in regard to quality and pattern, and come at a much higher cost than articles that are used in the merchant service. We have had sometimes to send out to England a pattern of locks to be made there.

Question. Can they be delivered upon the same terms; and, if not, be pleased to state the difference?

Answer. All articles furnished by E. J. Higgins and E. J. Higgins & Brother, for the use of the navy, are delivered at the navy yard at their own risk and expense; they being responsible for such articles, not only until they are landed on the navy yard wharf, and delivered at the navy store, but until such time as the navy storekeeper may be at leisure to examine and receive them. All articles delivered on the navy yard wharf are generally allowed to remain some time (say one, two, or three hours) before they are taken to the navy store; and it sometimes happens that articles sent to the navy yard, and seen on the wharf by the watchmen stationed there, have been lost between the wharf and the navy store; and even after their delivery in the navy store; articles that have been seen by officers attached to the store have also been lost; and such articles have always been replaced by us, without any additional charge to the Government. Articles sent to the navy yard, in demijohns, jugs, &c., as well as articles of glass ware, such as thermometers, &c., put up in the most careful manner, and delivered on the navy yard wharf in good order, are sometimes, by carelessness of the navy yard draymen, broken or lost; and these, too, we have always replaced. More or less loss is generally sustained by the rough man- [128] ner in which barrels, casks, &c., are handled on the wharf, producing leakage of their contents; and in all such cases we have made good the deficiency.

Articles for the use of the navy are required to be furnished with all possible despatch; and, 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, and to keep only such goods as are required by the navy, and suitable for naval purposes alone.

In consequence of the scarcity of transportation boats, we are seldom able to procure one before 10 o'clock, A. M., so that by the time the boat is loaded and gets to the navy yard it is nearly dinner hour; at which time we are obliged to stop landing, and leave the wharf. The boat and hands are thus detained one hour, at our expense, doing nothing. These and other difficulties must he encountered in sending goods to the navy yard, which make the expense of transportation alone, at the most moderate calculation, exceed $400 per annum,

It frequently happens that articles furnished, corresponding exactly to the orders we receive from the navy agent, are rejected at the navy yard, and thrown on our hands; a circumstance never occurring in mercantile transactions. By way of illustration, we mention a few instances. In March, 1839, we received an order for 5,000 pounds of wrought nails, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 20 penny. After writing to Baltimore and New York to procure them, and finding they were not to be had, of the quantity and quality, we, on the 4th of June, sent the order to England to be filled. It was in due time executed, and the nails sent to the navy yard; but, on examination, were all condemned. The nails were such as are generally sent over, being of the best quality, but the rods of which they were made were thought too stout for the joiner's department, and suitable only for the boat builder's, although the order mentioned no particular department or description of wrought nails. They are still in the navy store as our property, except the 20 penny, which were sold to the navy yard some time afterwards. On this operation we are without the entire cost of the nails, (save the few sold,) say $600 or thereabouts.

April 30, 1840, bought 3 dozen deck lights, which were refused at the navy yard, because they did not arrive in time for the purpose intended.

Last month delivered 30 boxes sperm candles, amounting (first cost) to $488.95, which were all condemned and thrown on our hands; the size used by the navy are fours, a very unsaleable size, as retailers all prefer short fives and sixes. Persons who have seen the candles say that they would not want better for family use.

On the 11th June ordered 199 boxes, raisins per sample box; used the utmost diligence in getting the exact article, all from the same place, and sent them to the navy yard; out of 199 boxes, had 56 condemned, and these too were thrown on our hands.

In July, 1837, we sent to the navy yard about six hundred dollars worth of cheese, (first cost;) when this cheese was sent to the navy yard it was all condemned, and we were obliged to reship it to New York, and have it sold on our own account; when it arrived in New York the season was over, and it remained on hand a long time; and, when sold, netted $348.94; the difference was our loss. This circumstance was well known to many engaged in business here at that time.

On another occasion, we were engaged in shipping a quantity of rice, [129] which arrived at the navy yard in due season, but could not then be received; in the course of the night the wind springing up, damaged the rice to about the amount of $1,000. We received this, however, from the person who delivered the rice, after a long lawsuit.

July 8, 1841. We this day sent over to the navy yard a lot of beans; they were exposed in the rain after they were landed on the wharf at the navy yard; and in consequence, out of the lot, 58 bushels were condemned. These are only a few of the many articles we have had to suffer by, and are mentioned merely for the sake of illustration. And again, we often receive orders for one kind of articles or description of goods, and, to accommodate the persons requiring them, we frequently furnish articles entirely different, and much more costly and expensive than such as the order calls for, and this, too, without any additional charge; and it is generally the case in those orders required for the different departments of the forward officers of ships fitting out for sea.

All articles for the navy are required to be put up very carefully (without charge) in paper bundles, boxes, barrels, &c., as the case may be; and each article put up separately, and marked with the name of the article, and the department for which it is required.

Question. Have you ever sold any article for the same or less price than you have charged for it to the navy?

Answer. Yes. Tin and lead I have sold at the same. I have sold brass wire to the navy at 45 cents, and to individuals at 62-1/2 cents. I sell very little to individuals, having laid myself out to supply the navy, because the contracts I have occupy a large portion of my attention.

Question. Have not articles to a large amount been returned to you from the navy yard, because the proper officer was not ready to receive them?

Answer. Yes; on several occasions.

Question. Have they not often been sent back without complaints as to their quality, but because others were substituted for them?

Answer. They have, sometimes.

Question. Is not this attended with risk in the transportation to and from the yard, and an additional expense?

Answer. It is attended with a great deal of additional risk, in consequence of having to employ small boats, which are liable to be capsized or sunk by the swell occasioned by steamboats passing up and down, or other causes; and, also, with additional expense, having to employ additional hands always to load the boat at the wharf in Norfolk, and unloading her at the navy yard.

Question. Have not articles of provision, purchased by you to be sent to the yard, been thought of excellent quality by dealers and good judges here, yet condemned by the yard inspector, and returned to you?

Answer. The cheese referred to in my answer to the tenth interrogatory was thought to be a good article, but condemned at the yard. Recently, I purchased a lot of beans, (near 100 bushels,) a part of which I bought of Mr. James H. Johnston, who said they were the most superior article he had seen this year, and paid $1.25 per bushel, on account of their extra quality; when they went to the yard they were condemned. I afterwards shipped them to New York, and had to sell them at 87-1/2 cents in trade.

Question. Will you examine the accounts before you, together with the depositions taken thereon, of John Dickson and James F. Hunter, and say [130] whether you believe they speak from competent knowledge of all circumstances attending the purchase and delivery of articles for the navy yard, when they say they could have furnished similar articles upon terms than you have done?

Answer. I know that they are not acquainted with the mode of supplying and delivery of articles at the navy yard; and, upon a careful examination of these accounts, and the depositions of Messrs. J. Dickson and J. F. Hunter, I feel entirely confident that they could not have spoken from a due consideration of circumstances, with respect of the kind and qualities of the articles, or their delivery at the navy yard; and as to the prices charged by these persons for articles bearing the same name, for ordinary use, (without regard to quality or any other circumstance,) I would refer to their own accounts, upon which testimony will be taken.

Question. If you have made any comparison of prices charged in the accounts of Messrs. Dickson & Hunter, with prices of similar articles furnished by you, what is the difference of these prices?

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. (See statement herewith, marked A.)

Question. Are not indents from the yard frequently accompanied patterns of articles required; and do you not occasionally experience difficulty in procuring them from the manufacturer, at home or abroad?

Answer. Yes; I do.

Question. Have you been able to obtain from the navy storekeeper, or from any other source, information as to the probable time when requisitions for articles under your contracts would be made?

Answer. I have not, to the best of my knowledge.

Question. Would you not have saved a considerable amount upon your contracts for the present year, if such information could have been obtained, some weeks or days before the requisitions were sent to you?

Answer. Yes. As regards whiskey, had I received the indent three or four weeks before I did, or information that the order was coming, I should have saved fully four cents a gallon, on about forty-seven thousand gallons.

Question. Mr. Dickson has said that he sold you 100 Lolley's sail needles and 15 mounted palm irons. Do you remember whether you bought to fill up an order for the navy, or whether they were received at the yard as of suitable quality?

Answer. I do not. I am sure that the ten palms which Mr. Dickson alludes to cost me 75 cents each to have them mounted; and I threw in the palm without any charge. Sail needles are of various sizes, and when we receive an order from the yard, we assort them, from the largest to the smallest, and average the price. The sail needles bought from Mr. Dickson were of the smallest size that we are in the habit of selling to the yard.

NORFOLK, July 20, 1841.

Question. Were not the deck lights, charged in your account at $2.50 made to order, by pattern from the navy yard; and what is the rule of the manufacturers in charging for the first of such an article by pattern?

[131] Answer. They were; and the custom with manufacturers is, when a pattern is sent, for an article to be made by, to make the person pay for the moulds; if the same article is afterwards wanted, it is charged at a reasonable price.

Question. Was there any difference in the quality and assortment of eighty-four dozen files, charged in your account, and such as are to be found in hardware stores in this place, suited for naval purposes?

Answer. As regards the quality of files, we have experienced a great deal of difficulty in procuring such as the navy would receive; and, in consequence thereof, we have had to import a particular description of files, manufactured by William Spear, whose price is higher than any other house in England that I have ever dealt with; and since I have been furnishing these files to the navy yard, we have never heard any complaint. The quality has always been highly approved of. The quantity referred to were made by Spear, and part of an importation made by me in 1839, expressly for the navy.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. How long have you been engaged in business in Norfolk, on your own account?

Answer. Since 1834, with the intermission of 1835.

Question. What is the probable value of the stock of goods now on hand in your store; and what has been the average value thereof, for the last four or five years?

Answer. I have taken no account of stock since my father's death. I did attempt lately to take an inventory, but did not complete it.

Question. Do you not purchase in Norfolk; and, if yea, from whom, a portion of the ship chandlery, hardware, and ironmongery, which you furnish for the naval service?

Answer. I have purchased some few articles in Norfolk.

Question. Have you examined the copies and extracts from your accounts which have been submitted to you, and compared them with the originals, or with your books?

Answer. I have examined the extracts from my accounts, but have never given them an exact comparison with my books.

Question. Are these copies and extracts correctly made, or have you detected any and what errors?

Answer. I have detected an error in one article, a cooper's vice, said to have been charged at $1.62, and the price was 62 cents.

Question. Will you submit your books and accounts to our examination?

Answer. That will depend upon the use which you wish to make of them.

Question. Have you never had occasion to send to other places to procure articles ordered from you for the naval service on this station, after said articles were required?

Answer. Yes.

Question. What is the greatest length of time that has intervened between the receipt of an indent by you, and the entire fulfillment of said indent?

Answer. I do not know; but have always complied with them as promptly as possible.

[132] Question. What is the highest advance upon the cost which you have charged to the United States for articles furnished?

Answer. That I cannot answer; I have never made a particular estimate. I have frequently charged articles at less than cost, when they were thought to be above the market price. At other times, it would depend upon the difficulty, expense, and labor of procuring the articles.

Question. Has Mr. Loyall ever questioned the fairness of the charges in your accounts against the United States, or hesitated at paying them on presentation?

Answer. He has. My accounts have been stopped in his office on several occasions.

Question. Did you furnish any dry white lead, under your contract for 1838; and, if yea, what quantity?

Answer. I do not recollect. I furnished all that was required.

Question. What is the difference in value between dry white lead, and white lead ground in oil?

Answer. I do not know. I am not a dealer in the article this year, nor was I last year.

Question. Will you be pleased to enumerate the articles, or some of them, and their cost or value, that have been lost before reaching the naval store, and been replaced by you without additional charge?

Answer. Spirits of turpentine and water thermometers have been frequently broken in going over to the yard; and many other articles.

Question. In how large quantities have you sold brass wire to individuals?

Answer. I do not recollect; in quantities as called for.

Question. When were the beans, alluded to by you in your answer to a former interrogatory, sold in New York? What quantity did you buy of Mr. J. H. Johnston, and what price did you pay for the remainder of the 100 bushels?

Answer. As well as I recollect, the whole cost $125. I bought the lot of Mr. Johnston first, and think there were between twenty and thirty bags, of two bushels each. They were sold in New York this year.

Question. Could not an arrangement have been made with the navy storekeeper, by which the expense of transportation, the delay in receiving, and the risk of loss of articles for the navy, might have been lessened, or altogether avoided.

Answer. Not that I know of. The navy storekeeper has no power to render me any assistance.

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 information, from any body that had authority to give it.

Question. Have you received intimation, from any quarter, as to the interrogatories that were to be propounded to you, or the answers you should give thereto, before the commissioners?

Answer. I do not think it a proper question to be asked.

Question. What is the amount that you have received from the United States, under your several contracts for naval supplies on this station, for the years 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840?

[133] Answer. I have never kept any distinct account. My accounts for contracted and non-contracted articles have been kept together.

Question. Will you state at what time the two hundred boxes of raisins, required by indent dated November 3, 1840, were delivered?

Answer. I cannot; they were ordered by me to be purchased of the first vessel that came in, the first quality best bunch raisins.

TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Have you ever received any intimation whatever, from me, that any articles not contracted for would be required?

Answer. None whatever, either contracted or non-contracted. Norfolk, July 21, 1841.

I wish to correct my answer to the 12th interrogatory by the commissioners, as to the difference in value between dry and ground white lead, by omitting the words at the close, "nor was I last year."

E. J. HIGGINS.

NORFOLK, July 22, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

W. J. HARDY, Alderman, Norfolk borough.

* * * * * *

A.

This statement will show that the prices charged in the accounts submitted to examination are fair and reasonable, compared with prices for articles bearing the same name in the accounts of Messrs. Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, at the period referred to, without regard to the quality of the articles, or any allowance for delay and expense of delivery at the yard.

Broad bunting.—Witness says: "A fair price would have been $7.50 to $8." We pay $7, $7.25, and $8 per piece, and had to send to Baltimore recently for three pieces, and was charged $10.50. The article is not kept on hand in any quantity by any dealer in this place but myself, and is subject to great loss from moth.

Soap.—20 lbs. witness says "is charged at 10 cents, which was not worth more than 6-1/2 to 7 cents at the time." It is called for generally in small parcels, and has to be weighed out, by which there is a loss of from 10 to 15 per cent, in weight, and cannot be furnished of the quality desired at a less price, to yield a reasonable profit, although I have furnished it at 8 cents per pound. The soap used on shipboard is supplied by the persons attached to the navy.

Pig lead.—Charged at 10 cents. Witness says "he would have furnished it at that time at 8 to 8-1/2 cents." I have been in the habit of paying 7-1/4 to 6-1/2 cents per hundred, at the North, for this article; taking into consideration freight and exchange, and the expense of delivery at the navy yard, I deemed our profit reasonable. This article we have also charged at 8 cents, in United States ship Concord's account for 467 lbs.

Sewing twine.—4 lbs. charged at 50 cents per lb. Witness says: "Sewing twine we charge to sailmakers, by the quantity, at 40 cents." In sun- [134] dry bills of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, during the years 1838, 1839, a 1840, it is charged at 62-1/2 cents.

Litharge.—10 lbs. are charged at 12-1/2 cents. Witness says "was worth 10 cents, and charged at 12-1/2 cents." In sundry bills of Dickson, Hunter, Hipkins, it is charged at 15, 18, and 20 cents.

Black paint.—6 kegs black paint charged at $3. Witness says "the wholesale price was $2.50." In sundry bills of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, one amounting to over $2,200, black paint is charged at $3 per keg, during 1838, 1839, and 1840.

Green paint.—12 lbs. is charged at 75 cents. Witness says: "Superior green was worth 25 cents, and verdigris 50 cents per pound." The green paint furnished the navy is chrome green, or pure verdigris, costing at factory from 60 to 65 cents.

White lead is charged at 12-1/2 cents per pound. Witness says "he could have furnished it at 11 to 11-1/2 cents per pound." In sundry bills of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, for white lead, during the year of 1837, it is charged at 13-1/2 cents, in 1838 at 13 cents, in 1839 at 13 cents, in 1840 at 12 cents per pound. The whole lead used in the navy was from one factory, that being considered the best in the United States, (say Witherell & Brothers, of Philadelphia,) and charged to me at 11 cents, during that year. Our deliveries are in 28 lb. kegs.

Deep-sea line.—Charged at 40 cents per pound. Witness says "were worth 30 cents." These lines are made by sample usually furnished by those requiring them, and there is much difficulty of procuring them, should those we have on hand not suit. The only white line maker we have in this section of country, now doing business, refused to make sea lines for me, a short time since, under 37-1/2 cents per pound.

Bonnet line.—22 lbs. charged at 30 cents per pound. Witness says: "Worth 25 cents." In Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bills for the year 1840, it is charged at 35 cents.

Marline, hawseline, and hambroline.—Charged at 30 cents. Witness says "were worth 25 cents." Our prices have frequently been 25 cents per pound. With these articles we have much trouble and difficulty, having them made to a particular size.

Red lead is charged at 12-1/2 cents. Witness says "he would have furnished it at 10 cents." Not finding this article charged in any of his bills to underwriters, during the years 1837,1838, 1839, and 1840, I do not believe he kept the article on hand for sale. The wholesale price at the factory in Philadelphia, when we had to procure this article, was 8 cents, which price we paid. The packages, freight, exchange and insurance, and delivery to the navy yard, are to be added to the cost.

Spirits turpentine is charged at 70 cents. Witness says, "and could have been bought at 45 cents." In Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bill, it is charged for small quantities at 75 cents per gallon. We have to send it to the navy yard at our own risk; the least jar will cause a leak, being an article of the most searching nature; it is also occasionally measured out. Should the measure not agree with the gauge on the barrel, at which we have to buy, we have make good without charge. We have charged it as low as 44 cents per gallon. On one occasion we had to have it distilled particularly.

Suffolk tar.—Witness says 30 bbls. tar charged at $2.75, and was worth $2-1/4 to $2-3/8. The difference between Suffolk tar and tar usually sold [135] in this market, is 25 to 50 cents per barrel. The Suffolk barrels are larger and in better order, and the tar of better quality.

Whipping twine is charged at 45 cents. Witness says "was worth from 30 to 35 cents per pound." In a bill of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, it is charged at 50 cents. The whole amount of bill, over $2,200.

Ground paint brushes (0000) are charged at $12 per dozen. Witness says could have furnished at $10.50. Charged by Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, 1838, at $1.25 cents each. They cost me $11 per dozen.

Cotton duck No. 6, charged at 40 cents per yard. Witness says "was worth 34 cents." My usual charge for No. 6 has been 35 cents, delivered at the navy yard, and subject to their inspection. The cost of this duck was 34 cents per yard, in New York.

Spirits turpentine is charged at 62-1/2 cents in 1840. Witness says "he would have sold it at 45 cents." Our usual price during that year was 50 cents, subject to the circumstances before alluded to.

Pig lead.—Witness says pig lead is again charged at 10 cents." It was worth in New York 5-1/2 cents, and would have sold it at 7 cents. I am the only person in Norfolk who has been in the habit of keeping constantly this article for sale. In December, 1839, I made a purchase of pig lead in Baltimore at 7-1/2 cents per pound, and believe it to be the same parcel sold the navy at 10 cents.

Chrome yellow witness says is charged at 75 cents; was worth from 50 to 56 cents. Our price per pound has been 50 cents. Sometimes there is great difficulty in procuring the proper shades, and have frequently had large quantities rejected on that account.

Block tin.—Witness says, in 1839, "block tin is charged at 35 cents; was worth 25 cents." I paid in Baltimore, for a large quantity, 25 cents per pound. This is also another article in which I am the only regular dealer in this place, and have to keep it constantly on hand; I have also charged it at 30 cents.

Cotton wick.—Five pounds charged at 50 cents. Witness says, "I sold at 40 cents." My usual price was from 2s. to 37-1/2 cents per pound; but, in December, 1840, having an order for 300 pounds, I charged the navy 30 cents per pound.

Sheet lead.—548 pounds, 1840, is charged at 10 cents. Witness says, "I could have furnished it at 7 to 7-1/2 cents, and made a good profit by it." In Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bills, in 1840 and late in 1839, it is charged at 10 cents. I have had to pay in New York, for upwards of 15,000 pounds, 9 cents per pound.

Tallow, witness says, "is charged at 16-2/3 cents; would have furnished it at 11 to 11-1/2 cents." In Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bills it is charged at 16-2/3 cents, same year.

Bright varnish.—Witness says bright varnish was worth 25 to 28 cents per gallon, (barrel in original,) and is charged by the barrel, in February, at 37-1/2 cents; in Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bills, from 1 to 10 gallons, charged at 50 cents; black varnish at 3s. 9d.

Zinc is charged at 12-1/2 cents. Witness says "he sold, the same year, to ordnance department at Old Point, for 8 cents." This is another article that I have to keep constantly on hand for the use of the navy, when called for, there being little or no sale for it here. A person not regularly keeping the article for sale, and having to incur no outlay, might be induced to sell lower than the regular dealer. Almost in every instance this article has been charged at 10 cents.

[136] Deck lights.—Witness says "the value of deck lights is from $1 to $1.20." I have had to pay, in New York, as high as $15 each for deck lights. The present lights were charged at $2.50.

Mounted palms.—Witness says, "10 mounted palms, charged at 75 cents each; retail price 31 cents, wholesale price 25 cents." For the 10 mounted palms objected to, (I believe the very same,) I paid for mounting alone 75 cents each.

Log lines at $1 each.—Witness says, "would be glad to furnish at 75 cents each." The log lines used in the navy are much larger, and of finer quality, than those used in the merchant service; they can be sold almost at any price, according to quality and size.

Copper tacks at $1.25 to 62-1/2 cents.—Witness would be glad to furnish at 50 cents per thousand. In a very few cases, for copper pump tacks I find I have charged $1.25, which I think must have been for wrought copper tacks; my usual price is 62-1/2, and have never bought them for less than 48 cents, in quantities of 200,000; and have paid, in smaller parcels, 62-1/2 cents.

Tar brushes.—Witness says, "would be glad to sell tar brushes at 50 cents each." The tar brushes furnished the navy are of finer quality and larger than those generally used.

Ballast shovels charged at $1.—Witness says, would be glad to furnish at 75 cents each. For such spades and shovels as are used in the navy yard, (say Ames's,) we have to pay more than a dollar apiece; for, by reference to Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins's bills, I find shovels charged at $1 each.

Raisins, (200 boxes,) charged at $2.98, are proved by the only witness called by the commissioners to have been low; he would not have furnished them less than $3 per box.

It is important to notice, in making the foregoing comparison, that the articles selected from my accounts are taken at their highest prices, without reference to the same article charged lower in another account, or by any fair average of the different charges.

In every article and in every market the price will vary according to circumstances: and even in the most common commodity known, the price will be at times so far above the ordinary rates as to appear exorbitant, without reference to the particular circumstances known to the parties at the moment of the purchase, and more especially when required for the haste and despatch of public business.

Fire wood is taken, for example, at $3.50—a price I have had to pay for it, upon a sudden order for a steamer requiring despatch, when other accounts against vessels would have shown it charged at $2-1/4 to $2-3/4 per cord; including, in all cases, something extra for the delays and expense of delivery, and particularly for the privilege of selecting such as would suit, which has frequently resulted in sending back the entire load from the navy yard and hospital; yet even this common article, in the Norfolk market, every house­keeper knows has been as high as four dollars, and sometimes five dollars per cord, and at periods in the winter season difficult to procure at that price, though, from the nature of public supplies for military or naval purposes, it must be furnished, when called for, without regard to cost or price.

E. J. HIGGIINS.

NORFOLK, July 21, 1841.

[140] Interrogatories propounded to Alexander Tunstall, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Have you ever been a dealer in ship chandlery and ironmongery; and, if yea, do you know any thing of the mode of furnishing supplies of such articles for the navy?

Answer. I have been; and was in the habit of supplying such articles for the navy.

Question. Will you be pleased to examine the accounts now submitted to you, of articles furnished the naval service by E. J. Higgins, together with the depositions of J. Dickson and J. F. Hunter, taken to show that the prices charged therein are unusual and exorbitant, and state what you know and believe in relation to the same?

Answer. Apprehending that I should not have time to examine these accounts here, I have asked to have them placed in my possession; and have prepared a statement, to save time, which I now submit, as my answer to the foregoing interrogatory.

I have looked at the papers handed to me, purporting to be accounts, or extracts from accounts, rendered against the Navy Department by E. J., Higgins, and which appear to have been examined by Messrs. James F. Hunter and John Dickson, and also at their depositions. Eight or nine years having elapsed since I was engaged in the ship chandlery business, it is not to be presumed that I can have, as I certainly have not, any certain information in relation to the present market price of most of the articles embraced in these accounts.

With the view of obtaining the most accurate information within my reach, to enable me to judge correctly of the prices charged in the accounts or extracts submitted to me, I have had reference to accounts of other ship chandlers in this place, for articles furnished to private individuals, who had every opportunity and every motive to procure them on the most favorable terms; and, by a comparison of those accounts with those rendered by E. J. Higgins, I find that many more articles of similar denomination are charged at higher rates in the former than in the latter; some are charged at the same rate, and very few at lower. I know that many articles are furnished by ship chandlers, for vessels in the merchant service, of a quality that would not be received at the navy yard; and that such articles can be sold at lower prices than articles of similar denomination furnished for the navy, and afford as much profit. This is particularly the case in relation to articles furnished for the painters and carpenters' departments. With a view of exhibiting a comparison of the prices charged by E. J. Higgins, those referred to in the testimony of Messrs. Dickson & Hunter, as prices which they had charged, or would have charged, and those actually charged in bills rendered by ship chandlers in this place to the owners or consignees of vessels, I have stated them in separate columns, as far as the last-mentioned bills embrace the articles contained in the accounts or extracts of accounts of E. J. Higgins. It must be borne in mind that, in addition to the prices charged in ship chandlers' bills for articles sold for merchant vessels, there is a separate charge for transportation incurred. Such charges are not admitted in bills against the Navy Department, and the transportation from Norfolk to the navy yard is a very heavy item of [138] expense, costing frequently more than the freight of the same articles from New York to Norfolk.

Many articles (and some of them requiring a large outlay of money) must necessarily be kept on hand by one who undertakes to supply the requisitions of the navy yard, and be kept for that purpose alone; because there is no other demand. Some of these may and do remain on hand often for years.

Many articles kept by ship chandlers for the naval service undergo deterioration, from various causes, and will consequently not be received at the navy yard or on board public vessels. Tools will rust; paints will become dry and skinny; bunting will become motheaten, &c. These circumstances occasion losses to those engaged in supplying naval requisitions, which others are not subjected to to the same extent.

The only articles of any moment embraced in the list of those deemed too highly charged, according to the testimony of Messrs. Hunter & Dickson, and which, on an examination of seventeen bills rendered by ship chandlers of this place, embracing the four years last past, and amounting to upwards of ten thousand dollars, I do not find charged in those bills, (because of the little demand for them in the merchant service,) are block tin, bunting, and zinc. The only instance in which I find sheet lead charged, is an inconsiderable quantity charged to one vessel at 12-1/2 cents per pound—a higher rate than is charged by E. J. Higgins.

It may be proper to remark, in relation to the article of white lead ground in oil, that it is put up in kegs of 25 and 28 pounds; that the dealers generally in this place, so far as my observation has extended, keep almost exclusively kegs of 25 pounds; whereas I understand those furnished for the naval service are kegs of 28 pounds, and are worth about 37-1/2 cents per keg more than the former.

Upon the whole, I consider the per centage of profit upon corresponding articles which I find charged in the ship chandlers' bills herein before spoken of, and in the extracts of the accounts of E. J. Higgins, as greater in the former than in the latter, to say nothing of difference in quality in relation to many articles, and of the expense of delivery, both of which operate against him who supplies the navy.

Image

Image

[141] TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Will you be pleased to state whose bills you examined from which you have taken the "prices actually charged by ship chandlers, in bills rendered by them against private persons?"

Answer. They were the bills of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, while they were in partnership, and members of the same firm since their dissolution.

Question. Were the articles enumerated in those bills of Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, charged in large or small quantities ?

Answer. They were sometimes in large and sometimes in small quantities; but, generally speaking, in not such large quantities as for the naval service.

Question. Were the articles charged by Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, in large quantities, at higher or lower prices generally than those of E. J. Higgins?

Answer. I have observed no difference in the prices charged in their bills of articles similar to those in the bills of E. J. Higgins, so far as I have compared them, whether the quantity was large or small; but I have noticed a variation in prices of the same article during the same year, which may have been occasioned by a difference in the quality of the articles.

A. TUNSTALL.

NORFOLK, July 22, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to Alexander Wilson, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. In what line of business are you engaged?

Answer. Principally in the coal business; but I do some business as a commission merchant.

Question. How long have you been a merchant in Norfolk?

Answer. About forty-five years; twenty-three of which in the ship chandlery business.

Question. Are you acquainted with the manner of supplying and delivering the different articles for the navy yard?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Have you examined the accounts of E. J. Higgins, and do you find the articles usually sold in this market reasonably charged ?

Answer. I have; and the articles are reasonably charged.

Question. Have you compared the charges in the accounts with the charges in the accounts of the other ship chandlers in this place; and what is the result of that comparison?

Answer. I have; and find Mr. Higgins's charges less than those of other ship chandlers, for the same articles, with few exceptions.

Question. Have you examined the articles purchased elsewhere, with the invoices, and are they reasonably charged to the United States?

Answer. I have examined a few that I was particularly pointed to, and find them charged at a fair advance.

[142] TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. How long is it since you were engaged in the ship chandlery business?

Answer. The year 1819 was the last that I was in that line of business.

Question. What were the accounts of E. J. Higgins, which you have examined?

Answer. They were copies and extracts from his accounts against the Navy Department.

Question. Are you acquainted with the value, in Norfolk, of all the articles in the bills of E. J. Higgins, at the dates they were respectively furnished, and are the articles so specifically described, in general, in those bills, that you can say what their value was?

Answer. Not otherwise than by a comparison of them with the bills of other ship chandlers, for the same period.

ALEX. WILSON.

NORFOLK, July 23, 1841.

The word "particularly," in the first line of the last answer to interrogatories by Mr. Loyall, interlined before signing.

ALEX. WILSON.

Sworn to before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

W. J. HARDY, Alderman, Norfolk borough.

Interrogatories propounded to C. F. Stone, examined on behalf of George Loyall, Esq.,
navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. In what line of business are you engaged?

Answer. In the copper, tin, and plumbing business.

Question. Is block tin an article usually kept for sale in Norfolk, and who are the principal dealers in it?

Answer. I know no other person who keeps it, but E. J. Higgins. I keep it for my own use, in small quantities; and when I am out of it, and want any, I go to him for it, as I should not know where else to go.

Question. What do you consider a fair price for the article, in this market?

Answer. From 31 to 37-1/2 cents. When I have had on hand more than I wanted, I have sold it at these prices, for the accommodation of others.

Question. What is the difference in the quality and prices of block tin?

Answer. It varies about 10 or 12 cents per pound. The Spanish tin is considered the most inferior that is used. There is the East India tin and the Banca tin.

Question. At what price do you sell sheet tin; and will you name the houses in Norfolk that are in the habit of keeping it for sale ?

Answer. I have sold single sheet tin, without the X, at $12 per box. I do not think I have sold any X tin. The difference between single and X is about $2 per box. I know no other house in Norfolk that keeps it for sale, except E. J. Higgins. I have been here in business sixteen years, and have bought always of E. J. Higgins and his father, when I was out of the article.

[143] Question. What is the difference in prices between X, XX, XXX, and XXXX tin?

Answer. I think about $2 per box. I have never bought any heavier than XX.

Question. Do you use much charcoal in your business?

Answer. I use more than any other person in the place.

Question. Is it not very different in quality and price?

Answer. It is.

Question. Can any large quantity of the best kind be obtained in this market at any time that you want it?

Answer. No.

Question. What have you been obliged to pay for the best quality, when in want of it?

Answer. I have paid from 4 to 22 cents per bushel. It is the most uncertain article in the market.

Question. Do you think from 10 to 16 cents an unreasonable price for the very best kind, to be delivered at the navy yard, at the expense of the seller, at any time it may be called for?

Answer. No. I would not undertake to supply it at those prices. It is an article that cannot be kept on hand, as it collects the dampness, and loses every time it is moved.

Question. Have you ever purchased any brass wire; if yea, from whom, and at what price?

Answer. I have; the last from E. J. Higgins, at 62-1/2 cents per pound.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Are you in the habit of keeping sheet tin for sale in large quantities; or do you purchase it for your own use in manufacturing ?

Answer. I keep it for my own use.

Question. Do you know the value, in New York, of sheet tin, 1/3 X, XX, XXX, and XXXX, during the years 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840?

Answer. I cannot recollect, exactly. About two months ago I bought some 1/3 X in New York, at $9 to $9.25, and think it was worth about the same last year.

Question. In what quantities have you bought brass wire from Mr. Higgins?

Answer. In small quantities.

Question. Have you bought any brass wire elsewhere than in Norfolk, and at what prices?

Answer. I have not.

Question. What has been the average wholesale price of charcoal in Norfolk during the last four years?

Answer. It varies from 8 to 16 cents. I have lately bought several hundred bushels at 8 cents. The standard price formerly was 6-1/4 cents.

Question. Could not charcoal be delivered at the navy yard, in Gosport, by the maker of the article, at as low a price as in Norfolk ?

Answer. It could not be delivered on the other side of the river at the same price, if made on this side, on account of the ferryage. Some persons in Portsmouth purchase their supplies in Norfolk.

[144 ] TO INTERROGATORY BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Do you think that a contract could be made with the persons who make charcoal, to deliver it at the navy yard?

Answer. No. With none that I have met.

C. F. STONE.

NORFOLK, July 22, 1841.

Additional interrogatories propounded to Charles F. Stone, examined on behalf of
George Loyally Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Do you use tin as large as 16 by 20, and what do you pay for it?

Answer. I do; and have paid $22 per box for it in New York.

Question. What do you consider a fair price for the article of zinc in this market?

Answer. Slab zinc I have sold at 12 cents, and malleable zinc I have sold at 14 to 16 cents. There are different qualities of the malleable. There is a difference of 2 to 4 cents a pound between sheet zinc that is suitable for sheathing vessels and that fit for our purposes.

TO INTERROGATORY BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. In what years and in what quantities have you sold zinc, alluded to in your answer to the last interrogatory?

Answer. In all the years from 1837 to 1841, and in small quantities, of thirty to forty pounds.

C. F. STONE.

NORFOLK, July 23, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 27th day of July, 1841.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to James A. Williams, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. To what department in the navy yard do you belong?

Answer. To the ship joiner's, as master workman.

Question. What quality of planes do you use; and do you not find it difficult to procure such as you require?

Answer. We require the best quality of planes; and if the wood work is not good, or the planes do not correspond with my requisition, I send them back.

Question. Are you not the inspector of many articles that are sent to the navy yard?

Answer. I am, of such as are sent for my department.

Question. Will you be pleased to state the general quality of such articles as you inspect?

Answer. All that have come under my notice have been generally of the best quality.

[145] TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Do you select the tools required in your department, or do you not see them until they reach the yard?

Answer. I never see them until they reach the yard.

Question. Have you been obliged, and how often, to return tools sent to the yard for your department, in consequence of their inferior quality?

Answer. Not very often.

JAMES A. WILLIAMS.

NORFOLK, July 22,1841.

Sworn to before me, this 26th day of July, 1841.

JOHN NASH, J. P.

Interrogatories propounded to Patrick Williams, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. To what department in the navy yard do you belong?

Answer. To the house joiner's, as master workman.

Question. What quality of planes do you use; and do you not find it difficult to procure such as you require?

Answer. We use generally the best quality. When those that are sent over do not suit, we send them back until we get those that will suit.

Question. In a lot of planes, such as are usually sold in this market as of the best quality, do you not think you would reject a part as not of the best quality?

Answer. If you mean such as are generally sent to a merchant, I think we should find some that are not of the best quality, and I should be apt to reject some of them.

Question. Have you not drawn patterns of planes on your orders, and required them to be made of the exact patterns?

Answer. I have drawn patterns three or four times, and understood that Mr. Higgins got the planes from Baltimore, as they were not to be had in Norfolk.

Question. Are not the tools and other articles required for your department of the best quality?

Answer. They are; and if they are not of the best quality when sent over, we send them back, until we get those that are good.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. What number of planes did you require, of the description to correspond with the patterns furnished by you? Had you ever seen planes of similar patterns, and could they not have been found at other places, without being specially made?

Answer. I recollect three patterns; of two, we required only one plane each, and of the others six or eight. I have seen designs of such planes, but never saw any planes in Norfolk like them; possibly they might have been found at Philadelphia or Boston.

[146] Question. Do you select the tools required for your department, or do you not see them until they reach the yard?

Answer. I do not see them until they reach the yard, generally. I have come over to Norfolk, and selected one or two planes.

P. WILLIAMS.

NORFOLK, July 22, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 26th day of July, 1841.

JOHN NASH, J. P.

Interrogatories propounded, to John Hobday, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. To what department in the navy yard do you belong?

Answer. To the painter's department, as master workman.

Question. Are the qualities of paint used by you such as are usually kept by the dealers in Norfolk?

Answer. As regards white lead, it has always been of a good quality; but the other paints, such as chrome yellow or chrome green, I have found it difficult to get such as I wanted. I have frequently come over to Norfolk to select them.

Question. Have you not spoken for paints in Baltimore, and requested such to be purchased for the use of your department?

Answer. I have seen the article in Baltimore, of a good quality, and have requested the commodore to authorize me to make a requisition for it, and I have told Mr. Higgins where he could get it.

Question. What prices have you given for the first quality of chrome green and chrome yellow?

Answer. I have paid as high as $6 a pound for chrome yellow, when I was in business for myself, but that was many years ago.

Question. Do you not find it very difficult to procure the proper shades of both the paints mentioned?

Answer. Yes; the quality of the article depends upon the shade.

Question. Do you not receive spirits of turpentine by the measure, and if the measure falls short of the gauge do you not require the deficiency to be made good?

Answer. Always.

Question. Is there not a great difference in the quality of spirits of turpentine, and have you not had to reject it on several occasions?

Answer. Yes; and we have been obliged to have it distilled over again, as none was to be got of a suitable quality at the time.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. At what factory or factories were the paints made, to which you called Mr. Higgins's attention, and what were the descriptions of the paints?

Answer. It was some chrome green, which I believe was made at Timans's, in New York.

Question. What induced you to inform Mr. Higgins that the paint was to be obtained in Baltimore?

[147 ] Answer. He was the contractor, or was in the habit of furnishing paints.

Question. Who furnished the inferior spirits of turpentine, which you say was distilled over again, to render it fit for use; and when was it furnished?

Answer. I think it has been within the last three or four years, but I am not positive. I do not recollect who furnished it.

Question. How long is it since you paid $6 per pound for chrome yellow?

Answer. It was eighteen or twenty years ago.

JOHN HOBDAY.

NORFOLK, July 22, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 26th day of July, 1841.

JOHN NASH, J. P.

Interrogatories propounded, to Thomas B. West, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. The deposition of H. N. Bucktrout, setting forth his complaint against the navy agent's office, having been submitted to your examination, state what you know in relation to the same.

Answer. I read the deposition, and noticed some slight variations from my recollection of the matter; they were, however, immaterial. I will now state the circumstances as they occurred, as well as I recollect them.

Mr. Bucktrout called at the office, and said a requisition for a bill of timber was coming from the yard that morning, and he would like to furnish it. I referred him to Mr. Loyall, as I had done in all similar cases. He observed that he could not call again, as he was going into the country. I then said I would keep the requisition until he saw it. Shortly afterwards I was called out on business, and did not return to the office as soon as I expected. When I did, however, I inquired of Mr. Gatewood if an indent for timber had come over; he answered, yes, that Mr. Ray had come over with it, and it being small, and he having the timber convenient, Mr. Loyall had given it to him. I then said that I was sorry for it, as I had promised to keep the indent until Mr. Bucktrout saw it. This conversation took place after the indent had been given to Mr. Ray. I never mentioned the circumstance to Mr. Loyall. Had I been in, however, when the indent came in, it would have been kept until Mr. Bucktrout saw it.

Question. What was the description and quantity of timber about which the complaint was made?

Answer. It was pine logs, 46 to 15 feet long; in diameter, 12 to 14 inches; straight, clear of all defects, and one-third heart.

Question. To whom was the indent given, at what price, and what was the whole amount?

Answer. It was given to Mr. Jonathan Ray, at 12-1/2 cents per running foot, and amounted to $95.29.

Question. Are not requisitions frequently made for small quantities of timber, wanted immediately, admitting of no delay; and, in all such cases, what is the invariable practice of the office?

Answer. There are; the practice is to give them to the first responsible [143] timber getter the agent may happen to meet with, at the lowest price for the same description of timber formerly furnished.

Question. From what you know of the terms upon which Mr. Ray and Mr. Bucktrout have offered for timber at the navy yard, do you think that the small quantity of timber in question would have been furnished as low by Mr. Bucktrout as by Mr. Ray?

Answer. I think not.

Question. Have you ever had reason to believe that orders for timber or any other article were given, at the office, from any political or party considerations?

Answer. I have not.

Question. From your knowledge of the offers made for the supply of the various descriptions of timber required at the navy yard, and of the persons with whom agreements have been made for such supplies during the term of my agency, what opinion do you entertain upon the subject?

Answer. On reference to the offers and books, I find that at least two-thirds of all the timber given from the office has been furnished by the agent's political opponents, so far as I am capable of knowing their opinions.

Question. As you have examined the deposition of Richard Vermillion, on the subject of furnishing oars for the naval service, be pleased to state what you know about it.

Answer. On the 27th of July, 1840, a requisition from the yard was received, calling for 16,000 feet of oar rafters, and 20,770 feet of yellow pine plank, which was advertised on the 28th, and continued until the 4th of August, when the offers were opened,and the lowest proved to be Mr. Amos Edwards, who presented a bill at the office for the same, in his own name, and received payment. The other persons offering were Robert H. Tatem, John R. Cooke, C. Gammage, Edward Herbert, and Kinsey Jordan.

Question. Did Mr. Richard Vermillion make an offer for the oars advertised for on the 28th of July, 1840, to which he refers in his deposition?

Answer. He did not.

Question. Has he ever furnished any oars, and at what price?

Answer. He furnished, in the early part of 1837, a bill of oar rafters, for which he charged six cents per running foot.

Question. How often has Mr. Styson furnished oars, and at what price?

Answer. In 1837, Mr. Styson furnished a bill of oars at six cents per running foot, which is the only bill of timber, of any description, he has furnished during your agency.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. Do you know the length of the oars furnished by Richard Vermillion? if yea, be pleased to state it.

Answer. The length was 24 feet.

Question. Is there any difference in the price of oars, according to length? if you know, be pleased to state what it is.

Answer. I do not know.

NORFOLK, July 26, 1841.

TO ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES BY COMMISSIONERS.

Question. When requisitions for timber reach the agent's office, from the navy yard, do you not know that, sometimes, the said timber has already been delivered, or agreed for, beforehand?

[149] Answer. It is sometimes the practice of the yard, I think, that when small articles, such as oars,and small bills of plank, are immediately required, the master workmen look about to see where they can get the articles of the precise description wanted; they then make a bargain for the articles, and send to the agent to confirm it; and sometimes they send the bill over without asking his confirmation. The articles thus procured are always of small amount.

Question. By whom have the indents for timber, which has been furnished by the agent's political opponents, been generally delivered to them?

Answer. By the agent himself, generally.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Do you think or believe that I have ever had any knowledge of any indent for timber, or other articles, until the indent or bill for the same came to the office?

Answer. I am confident you never had.

THOMAS B. WEST.

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

I wish to amend my answer to the second general interrogatory by the commissioners, by adding, they (the oars) are called for in different lengths, and paid for at the same price all round.

THOMAS B. WEST.

JULY 28, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 28th day of July, 1841.

JOHN TUNIS, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to Richard Gatewood, examined in the case of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. In what office under the Government of the United States, and in what capacity, are you employed?

Answer, Chief clerk in the navy agent's office.

Question. How long have you been so employed?

Answer. I went there in August, 1829.

Question. Has Mr. Loyall, to your knowledge, ever gone into the Norfolk market, to purchase articles for the naval service?

Answer. Certainly he has.

Question. How often has this occurred, and what particular articles has he purchased?

Answer. I cannot state how often, nor the particular articles. The occasion is frequent, and the articles numerous.

Question. Has Mr. Loyall ever directed or authorized you to purchase articles for the naval service on the best terms you could obtain in the Norfolk market, or to ascertain the market prices of articles?

Answer. Yes.

Question. When and how often has this been done, and what were the articles purchased?

[150] Answer. On all occasions, when he does not do it himself, and for all articles required at the time.

RICHARD GATEWOOD.

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 28th of July, ] 841.

WM. G. CAMP, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to John Tunis, examined on behalf of
George Loyally navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Has application been made to you, by any one, to appear before the commissioners, with your complaints against the navy agent; and, if yea, by whom?

Answer. Mr. Butler asked me if I had any complaints to make, and I answered him no.

Question. How long is it since this application was made to you?

Answer. About the time of Mr. Butler's appointment, as he informed me that he had been appointed commissioner.

Question. Have you not entered into many engagements for the supply of timber, plank, &c., at the navy yard, during the term of my agency; and have you any reasons to doubt the business of the office has been conducted, by me, with perfect impartiality and fairness?

Answer. I have entered into many engagements for timber, and have had no reason to suppose the business of the office was not conducted with perfect fairness and impartiality.

Question. To what political party do you belong?

Answer. I have always ranked myself among the whigs.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. When Mr. Butler applied to you, did he urge your appearance before the commissioners, or did he simply inquire whether you had any cause of complaint against the navy agent?

Answer. He simply inquired if I had any cause of complaint against the agent.

JOHN TUNIS.

Sworn to before me, this [As in original] Norfolk, July 28, 1841.

W. J. HARDY, Alderman, Norfolk Borough.

Interrogatories propounded to Thomas Keating, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Did Mr. J. F. Hunter hand you an indent for cheese, made upon Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins, under their contract for cheese, to be supplied by them in the year 1838?

[151] Answer. He did not.

Question. Was the indent which you received from the navy yard for 2,000 pounds of cheese, under your contract for 1839, intended to supply the quantity called for from Dickson, Hunter, & Hipkins?

Answer. Not that I know of.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

Question. At what time, during the year 1839 was the indent made for the cheese under your contract?

Answer. It was made early in the year 1839.

Question. Are you ready or willing to answer any general interrogatories by the commissioners on other matters, or only as relates to your contract for cheese?

Answer. I attended for this specific purpose, and would not like to give any other evidence.

THOMAS KEATING.

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

NORFOLK, July 28, 1841.

Sworn to by Thomas Keating, before me.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

NORFOLK July 28, 1841.

I hereby certify, early in the year of 1839 I received a requisition from the navy for two thousand pounds of cheese, which I did not furnish. I made an effort to do so, but the cheese I procured did not prove of such quality as the navy were in the habit of using, and it was not sent to the yard by me. That I was not afterwards called on by any one connected with the navy to supply this requisition for cheese, and I understood it was not wanted.

Given under my hand, at Norfolk, this 28th day of July, 1841.

THOMAS KEATING.

NORFOLK BOROUGH, July 29, 1841.

Sworn to before me, by Thomas Keating.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to Commodore William B. Shubrick, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Do you recollect what passed at the navy agent's office, a short time after your arrival to take command of this station, in relation to accounts for supplies presented to you for approval?

Answer. I recollect your expressing a wish that I would particularly examine the prices, and satisfy myself that they were reasonable; and that I would inform you, when any charge came under my eye that I thought too high.

[152] Question. Have you any reason to doubt that the supplies of every description are furnished upon fair and reasonable terms?

Answer. None at all. I have, in one or two instances, thought that charges were exorbitant; but, upon inquiry, satisfactory explanations have been given.

WM. BRANFORD SHUBRICK.

NORFOLK, July 21, 1841.

Interrogatories propounded to John H. Butler, examined on behalf of
George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY MR. LOYALL.

Question. Did you know that you had been recommended to the Secretary of the Navy as a suitable person to act as commissioner, or had you any intimation upon the subject, before the receipt of your commission?

Answer. I did not know that I had been recommended to the Secretary of the Navy as a suitable person to act as commissioner, until the day on which I received my commission. I heard Mr. Vermillion say, some days before I received it, that he heard that my name had been mentioned as a fit person to receive the appointment, but I gave no credit to the report.

Question. At the time of the appointment, had you a wager or bet upon the result?

Answer. At the time I received the commission I did have a wager pending, which wager was made on the 24th of March last, and on the receipt of my commission it was withdrawn as early as practicable.

JOHN H. BUTLER.

NORFOLK, July 21, 1841.

NORFOLK, July 28, 1841.

Sworn to by John H. Butler, before me.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman.

Interrogatories propounded to George Loyall, Esq., navy agent, Norfolk, at the
request of Mr. John H. Butler, and his answers thereto.

TO INTERROGATORIES BY THE COMMISSIONER.

Question. Were you a subscriber, or did you contribute for the dissemination of more than one copy of either of the following political newspapers: the Daily, Country , and Extra Globe, the Crisis, or Old Dominion, during the year 1840? If so, how many copies of each did you subscribe for?

Answer. I have been a subscriber to the Globe newspaper for the last eight or ten years, and subscribed, as well as I recollect, for five copies of the Extra Globe. I do not recollect distinctly about the Crisis, but may have subscribed for it. I have been a subscriber for one copy of the Old Dominion, but have never been instrumental in giving circulation to either, for electioneering purposes. While I claim it as my right as a man and as a public officer to subscribe for any public journal, with a view of informing myself upon public matters, as an officer I have never been active in disseminating newspapers. I have sedulously kept aloof, at all times, from [153] the dust and strife of the canvass; and I am now a subscriber to one of the most strenuous and decided Whig papers in the State, and have been for the last ten or fifteen years, or since the period of its first publication.

Question. Were you in the habit, during the last year, of counseling with the leading politicians of this borough, as to the best mode of securing the re-election of Mr. Van Buren?

Answer. I have never, during the whole term of my agency, attended a public or private meeting with a view to advance the pretensions of one candidate, or to depress those of another; and, with regard to all political matters, I have only exercised the right, of which no one can deprive me, of expressing my own opinions, at all times, with becoming freedom.

Question. Have you been generally in the habit of examining this market, with a view to satisfy yourself that articles furnished for the use of the navy were charged at fair and reasonable prices? If so, at what houses did you make this examination?

Answer. In the exercise of my duty as navy agent, I have conducted myself, at all times, in a way to discharge with fidelity the responsibilities devolved upon me as a public officer.

NORFOLK, July 27, 1841.

As the interrogatories above were propounded to me by B. Homans, commissioner, last evening, just before his departure, my answers are not in the precise language designed to be used; or, at all events, should be more full and explicit, in order to remove all doubt as to fact or meaning.

To the first interrogatory, I will therefore add, that I have been, during the last eight or ten years, and still am, a subscriber to the semi-weekly Globe, and, during the last year, subscribed for five copies of the Extra Globe, nearly the whole of which are now on my hands. Since my appointment to the navy agency, with the ordinary modes of partisan interference in elections I have had nothing to do; but should feel myself utterly degraded, and unworthy of any public trust restraining me in the free expression of my opinions respecting public measures or men, who, either in actual possession of, or as candidates for, office, may wish to obtain the confidence and suffrages of the people. To the latter part of this interrogatory it may be added that, until recently, I have been a subscriber, for the last ten or fifteen years, to two other Whig papers, and to one of these (besides that already mentioned) I am now a subscriber.

To the third interrogatory, the answer should be: In my character as navy agent, I have, at all times and in all things, endeavored to discharge with perfect fidelity the duties and responsibilities devolving upon me as an officer of the Government.

GEO. LOYALL, Navy Agent.

NORFOLK, July 28, 1841.

Sworn to before me, this 28th day of July, 1841.

JOHN TUNIS.

STATE OF VIRGINIA, borough of Norfolk, sct:

I, Charles H. Shield, a justice of the peace in and for the borough of Norfolk aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that James F. Hunter, John Dickson, Thomas D. Toy. Edward P. Tabb, Robert S. Bernard, N. Calvert King, Horatio N. Bucktrout, Simon Stone, William D. [154] Roberts, jr., Richard Vermillion, Robert H. Cutherell, David Kyle, and John A. Mackinder, this day personally appeared before me, in my said borough, and severally made oath, in due form of law, that the answers given to the interrogatories propounded to them respecting the official conduct of George Loyall, Esq., navy agent at Norfolk, 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 10th day of July, 1841.

CHARLES H. SHIELD, Alderman. [SEAL.]

VIRGINIA, Norfolk borough, to wit:

I, John Williams, clerk of the hustings court of Norfolk borough aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that William G. Camp, William J. Hardy, William E. Cunningham, Charles H. Shield, Giles B. Cooke, and John Tunis, Esquires, are justices of the peace in and for the said borough, duly elected and qualified; that they are respectively authorized to administer oaths; and that full faith and credit are due to all their acts as such.

In testimony whereof, I hereto set my hand and affix the seal of the said court, this twenty-eighth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, and of the commonwealth the sixty-sixth.

JOHN WILLIAMS, C. C.

VIRGINIA, Norfolk county, to wit:

I, Arthur Emmerson, clerk of the county court of Norfolk, hereby certify that William Collins and John Nash are justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned and qualified to said office, 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 28th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1841, and of our independence the 66th.

ARTHUR EMMERSON, C. C.

NEXT PAGE

Site Table of Contents