Copy of correspondence between
B. Homans and J. H. Butler, Commissioners, and George Loyall, Navy Agent,
and others, Norfolk, Virginia, May, June, and July, 1841.
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Norfolk, May 13, 1841.
Sir: Complaints having been made to the Navy Department
of the exceptionable manner in which public supplies have been procured,
and of the exorbitant prices paid therefor, I have been empowered by the
Secretary of the Navy to examine the books and vouchers in your office,
with a view to ascertain the truth of the representations.
In the course of the ensuing week, I shall probably
have occasion to call at your office in the performance of the duty assigned
to me.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Comm'r.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, May 17,
1841.
Sir: I am advised, by your note of the 13th instant,
that you may "probably have occasion to call at this office, in the
course of the present week, in the performance of the duty assigned to you."
In reply, I have to say that, upon the production of your authority from
the Secretary of the Navy, the books and vouchers in the office will be
submitted to any proper examination, with a view to ascertain the truth
of the representations referred to.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Comm'r, Navy Yard, Gosport.
* * * * * *
Navy Agent's Office, Norfolk, June 14, 1841.
Sir: In reply to the call, made upon me just now by
your secretary for copies of certain accounts, to be used out of the office
for purposes unknown to me, you are hereby informed that I do not regard
your commission as conferring upon you any such authority; nor, indeed,
have I any right to permit copies of books, accounts, vouchers, or letters
to be taken from the office, except so far as they may be deemed material
as a part of the statement of facts which you are instructed to make to
the Secretary of the Navy.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Comm'r.
[197] Norfolk, June 14, 1841.
Sir: I have received your letter of this day's date,
in which you say that you do not regard my commission as conferring upon
me any authority to make copies of books, accounts, vouchers, or letters,
to be taken from your office, except so far as they may be deemed material
as a part of the statement of facts which I am instructed to make to the
Secretary of the Navy.
It is for the very reason that I do consider these
extracts from your books, and copies of vouchers, not only as "material,"
but as absolutely essential, to enable me to make up a report or statement
of facts to the Navy Department, that I have commenced taking them.
A reference to my commission and authority will show
that complaints have been made to the Department on two points—
1st. That a few persons have been permitted to monopolize
the public supplies; and
2d. That extravagant or exorbitant prices have been
paid for the same. It is to ascertain the truth or foundation of these complaints
that I have been sent hither; and I do not perceive how I can accomplish
the objects of my mission, without either making these extracts and copies,
or bringing unauthorized persons into your office to examine the originals.
The latter course I had not proposed adopting out of respect to yourself.
You must be perfectly aware that copies of any vouchers
could be obtained from Washington; and a denial of your permission to make
copies in your office, and take them away, would only compel me to report
the fact to the Department, and apply to it for the required copies.
If, upon further consideration, you think proper
to refuse permission to take from your office copies of such vouchers as
appear to me to be necessary, I will thank you to give me early information
thereof that I may desist at once.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Comm'r.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
P. S. As Mr. Butler is associated with me, I would
respectfully suggest that communications be addressed to us as joint commissioners.
B. H.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, June
14, 1841.
I received this morning, by your secretary or clerk,
a verbal message for permission to make copies of certain accounts in this
office, to which I replied that I did not regard your commission as conferring
authority for any such purpose unknown to me; and, further, that I have
no right to permit copies of books and accounts to be taken out of the office,
except so far as they may be deemed material as a part of the statement
of facts which you are instructed to make to the Secretary of the Navy.
In answer to this, you say that "extracts from
the books and copies of vouchers in the office are not only material, but
absolutely essential to enable you to make up your report or statement of
facts to the Navy Department." This being your view of the just and
proper mode of ex- [198] ercising the authority granted to you, in the
present stage of the examination, I am unable to perceive the ground
upon which permission has been asked to make the copies and extracts referred
to, when all the books, accounts, vouchers, or other documents in the office
have been open for your inspection, without any sort of restraint or limitation
whatsoever, since the first moment of the production of your commission,
and this, too, without the most distant hint from you as to the course of
examination proposed, or inquiry being made of me upon a single point touching
the alleged complaints.
If, in the present stage of the examination, it is
considered essential to the object of your mission that extracts from the
books and vouchers should be taken from the office, and it be right and
proper to do so, in discharge of the duty prescribed by the terms of your
commission, why has it occurred to you that my permission is at all necessary
in the case? And, if extracts and copies from the books and vouchers were
not made and used before permission was asked, rumor has certainly done
you injustice.
Your intimation that "copies of any vouchers
could be obtained in Washington" is uncalled for in any thing contained
in my note of this morning, as none in this office, of any description,
have been withheld from you for a single moment for a purpose made known
to me; and, in order to prevent in future all cause of difficulty and delay
on this score, I shall interpose no objection to your making copies of the
vouchers, holding you responsible for the use to be made of them.
Such course as may be proper to accomplish the legitimate
objects of your mission will encounter no impediment whatever from me; but
that mischief might result from circulating abroad at this time extracts
and copies from our books and vouchers, with any secret or other view than
that already indicated, you cannot fail to perceive; and it was solely to
guard, if possible, against this mischief that my note was written.
The message for copies of the accounts came to me
informally, in the name of Mr. Homans, and my reply was therefore addressed
to him.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
* * * * * *
Messrs. B. HOMANS, and J. H. BUTLER,
Commissioners.
NORFOLK, June 16, 1841.
Sir: Your second letter of the 14th inst. was received
yesterday, and an immediate reply would have been made but for the absence
of one of us, the whole day, at the Gosport navy yard.
We hasten to correct an erroneous impression, under
which you appear to labor, with regard to the copies of certain vouchers
in your office. During every day that we have been engaged in examining
your books and accounts we have taken copies of such vouchers as appeared
to us necessary. When we left your office on Saturday afternoon it was too
late to copy some half a dozen which had been selected from a particular
quarter. We therefore suggested to our clerk, Mr. Pearce, who resides in
the vicinity, to go to your office on the Monday morning following and ask
for the [199] vouchers, that he might continue the copying, and not wait
for our arrival, as we were anxious to conclude such copying as we should
require without unnecessary delay.
The request made through Mr. Pearce, therefore, was
not for permission to make copies of certain accounts, but for the accounts
themselves, that the copies might be made. You appear to have understood
the message differently. We did not suppose that our right to take copies
and extracts could for a moment be doubted, and we were therefore not a
little surprised to learn by your first letter of the 14th that that right
was questioned: hence the remark (which was intended in no spirit of discourtesy
) that a denial of your permission to make copies and extracts would compel
us to report the fact to the Department, and apply to it for the required
copies. This denial, had it been persisted in, would have amounted to a
virtual close of our labors for the present, or until the views of the Department
could be made known to us.
While we have no wish to conceal from you our intentions,
it did not seem to us requisite to anticipate them by their annunciation
to you before we could possibly determine, by a thorough examination of
your management of the agency, what plausible grounds existed for the complaints
that had been made to the Department. We therefore acknowledge in a spirit
of candor that our purpose in taking copies of accounts is to submit them
to respectable persons in the same line of business, and take their testimony,
under oath, whether the prices charged were fair and reasonable, or "unusual
and exorbitant," at the various periods during which the articles were
furnished.
So soon as we were prepared to commence the examination
of persons on these points, it was (and still is) our intention to have
invited you to be present, that you might put cross-interrogatories to them
if you thought proper to do so.
If you can point out a different course by which
we can arrive at the information which will enable us to make up a statement
of facts for the Secretary of the Navy, it shall receive our respectful
consideration; but our unaided judgment suggests no other by which we can
attain the objects of our mission.
We are, respectfully, your obedient servants,
B. HOMANS, J. H. BUTLER, Commissioners.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, June 22, 1841.
Gentlemen: We are well informed that,
in the examination of oar accounts with the Government of the United States,
about to take place before you, an effort will be made by interested individuals,
bearing the title of witnesses, to establish against us charges which, if
proved, would damn us forever in the estimation of all good and honorable
men. We demand, therefore, to be present for the purpose of hearing the
testimony, and showing its falsity in such a manner as we would not have
equal opportunity to do at a later period.
As men who value their good name above all other
things, we ask it as [200] citizens of the republic we claim it as our right
to be present at this investigation, and trust we will not be denied.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
E. J. HIGGINS & BROTHER.
EUGENE J. HIGGINS, per JNO. A. HIGGINS, his agent.
Messrs. B. HOMANS and J. H. BUTLER,
Commissioner.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, June 29, 1841.
GENTLEMEN: Your letter of the 22d
inst. was received on the day of its date. Our departure for Washington
on the succeeding day has delayed a reply thereto.
Without entering into an argument to remove the impression
which you have imbibed, that an attempt is about to be made to establish
charges against you, we have merely to remark that, in the examination of
the navy agent's official conduct, the Government does not hold you or other
persons furnishing supplies as responsible for the fairness of charges.
In this respect, it looks only to its own authorized agent.
After due reflection, we have resolved to adhere
to our original determination to exclude all persons except the navy agent,
his clerk, and the witness.
We are, respectfully, your obedient servants,
B. HOMANS, and J. H. BUTLER, Commissioners.
Messrs. E. J. HIGGINS & BROTHER, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, June 29, 1841.
SIR: We are authorized and directed
to close our investigation of your official conduct as speedily as possible,
and to continue to take testimony at all hours that may suit our convenience,
allowing you, as a matter of course, and your chief clerk to be present,
but no other person or persons whatever. Taking into view, therefore, the
ascertained wishes of the Department and our own earnest desire to complete
our labors, we shall proceed, from and after this day, to take the testimony
of those gentlemen who shall appear upon our invitation from 9 o'clock A.
M. until half past 2 o'clock P. M., and from 4 o'clock P. M. until sun set.
So soon as the examination of the witnesses on the part of the complaints
shall have been finished, we shall be ready to hear the witnesses on your
side.
We are advised that we are under no obligations to
keep a record of our proceedings, and, even if we were, that you can claim
no right to examine it. The taking of the testimony in your presence will
afford you the opportunity to determine the bearing which it may have upon
the points of complaint, and to offer such counter testimony or explanations
as may seem to you just and proper.
Any cross-interrogatories tending to embarrass the
witness, or not relevant to the matter at issue, will be objected to.
[201] In order that the investigation may be prosecuted
with all possible despatch, and to avoid misunderstanding, we have thought
it incumbent upon us to make this explanation to you.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
B. HOMANS, and J. H. BUTLER, Commissioners.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, July 6, 1841.
SIR: For reasons I cannot well make known, but which
are satisfactory to my own mind, I must respectfully decline your invitation
(under date of 3d instant) "to attend at commissioners' room to give
information respecting the prices of ship chandlery in this borough."
In deciding upon this course, I am well pleased to
be relieved from all fears of doing injustice to either of the parties interested
in the commission, by the reflection that the information can be obtained
from other sources, and may have already reached you through the gentlemen
formerly associated with me in the ship-chandlery business, who, I learn,
have been before the commissioners.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN HIPKINS.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Commissioner.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, July 7, 1841.
SIR: Your note requesting my attendance
at commissioners' room, for the object therein specified, I respectfully
beg to be excused from complying with.
Your obedient servant,
THOMAS KEATING.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Commissioner, Walters's Hotel,
Norfolk.
* * * * * *
WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
12, 1841.
Sir: Herewith you will receive a copy of all the depositions
that have been taken before us respecting your official conduct. They have
all been sworn to except those of Mr. Jordan, naval storekeeper, and Doctors
Cornick and Blacknall. Mr. Jordan desired to make an amendment or two, which
he has since done. We have propounded a few additional interrogatories to
Mr. Jordan, which he will answer in writing, and return to us in the course
of the day.
We shall hold ourselves prepared to hear your witnesses
daily, from 9 A. M. until half past 2, and from 4 P. M. until sunset.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
B. HOMANS, and J. H. BUTLER, Commissioners.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
[202] WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
14, 1841.
SIR: I enclose herein a copy of the answers of M.
Jordan, Esq., naval storekeeper, to the additional interrogatories propounded
to him.
This closes the testimony in your case, with the
exception of a question or two to Mr. John Hipkins, respecting a conversation
which, it is understood, he held with Mr. Jordan, in 1838, respecting the
contract for cheese. Mr. Hipkins will attend at any moment, and I will send
him notice whenever it may suit your convenience.
I will thank you to inform me when your witnesses
will be ready.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent,
Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, Norfolk, July
15, 184L
SIR: I received last evening, at half
past six, your letter, enclosing "a copy of the answers of M. Jordan,
Esq., naval storekeeper, to the additional interrogatories propounded to
him," which you say "closes the testimony in my case, with the
exception of a question or two to Mr. John Hipkins," &c. At any
moment you may think proper to examine Mr. Hipkins for the purpose indicated,
it will "suit my convenience to attend." There has been no moment
since you entered upon the execution of your commission that I have not
been fully prepared to repel the charges alleged against this office; and
I have now to say that "my witnesses will be ready" whenever I
am duly informed that the testimony collected on behalf of the complaint
is finally closed, and you shall have furnished me with copies of such extracts
from the accounts as may appear to require explanation.
I am, respectfully, you obedient servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
To B. HOMANS, Esq., Commissioner.
* * * * * *
WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
15, 1841.
SIR: In compliance with the request
contained in the closing paragraph of your letter of this date, I transmit
herewith the following papers:
The original minutes, taken from your books, of the
"abstract of disbursements" made by you during the years 1837,
1838, 1839, and 1840, under the several heads of appropriation.
"Aggregate of disbursements" during the
same period, and including the first quarter of 1841.
"Aggregate of payments" made to E. J. Higgins,
John Capron, N. C. Whitehead, and Whitehead & Beale, during the same
periods.
"Statement of amounts paid on contracts,"
&c., from 1837 to the close of the first quarter of 1841.
[203] Copy of the several items in the accounts of
John Capron for iron delivered upon the indent, dated December 31, 1838.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, July
16, 1841.
I received on yesterday your letter enclosing certain
papers taken from the books of this office, together with a copy of the
deposition of Mr. John Hipkins, which, I understand, closes, on your part,
"the testimony respecting my official conduct."
The several accounts and matters which have been
submitted to examination, in the discharge of the duty assigned to you,
I shall take up on tomorrow, the 17th, and to that end have requested
the attendance of some of the witnesses at 10 o'clock A. M.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. ROMANS, Commissioner.
* * * * * *
WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
22, 1841.
SIR: If my recollection serves me,
you stated, in a conversation with me, that the cost of grinding or mixing
dry white lead in oil did not exceed one cent per pound. Will you be pleased
to state in writing whether my recollection is right, or correct me if I
am wrong?
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
Mr. JOHN HOBDAY, Master Painter, Gosport Navy
Yard.
* * * * * *
GOSPORT NAVY YARD, July 22,
1841.
SIR: You are correct. I did state,
in a conversation with you, that the mere operation of grinding white lead
would not exceed one dollar per hundred; but this dont necessarily regulate
the price of lead after being ground, as much would depend upon the price
of oil used in the operation of grinding.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
JNO. HOBDAY.
Mr. B. HOMANS.
[204] WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
26, 1841.
SIR: I will thank you to give me all the information
on the following points which your books or recollection will afford:
First. Have the wrought-iron nails, which were furnished
by E. J. Higgins in 1839, and rejected, been replaced by others?
Second. Were the 36 deck lights, furnished by E.
J. Higgins in April, 1840, and declined in consequence of being received
too late, afterwards taken on public account?
Third. For what cause were the sperm candles, furnished
by E. J. Higgins in June, 1841, condemned or rejected?
Fourth. For what cause were several boxes (and how
many) of raisins, furnished by E. J. Higgins in June or July, 1841, condemned
or rejected?
Fifth. For what cause was a part of a lot of beans,
(and how many bushels,) furnished by E. J. Higgins in July, 1841, condemned
or rejected?
Sixth. What were the circumstances attending the
indent for 144 deck lights, which were furnished by E. J. Higgins in April,
1841?
Seventh. If an examination of your books, since your
depositions were sworn to, furnishes any additional information respecting
the delivery of 200 boxes raisins, under the indent of November 3, 1840,
will you be pleased to give it?
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
M. JORDAN, Esq., Naval Storekeeper, Gosport Navy
Yard.
* * * * * *
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD, Gosport,
July 26,1841.
SIR: Your letter of this day's date, propounding
to me certain interrogatories, has been received. In answer to the first,
I have to say that, upon examination of my books, I find the iron-wrought
nails, furnished by Mr. Higgins under requisition of March, 1839, and rejected,
were afterwards replaced, which, after proper inspection, were received
on account for "public stores."
The 36 deck lights, furnished by Mr. Higgins in April,
1840, were required I believe for the Potomac. They were sent over too late
for her use, and I therefore refused to take them. Mr. H. was so informed,
but he neglected to take them away, although they were at his risk and subject
to his order. Some four or five weeks ago, the carpenter of the Delaware
made a requisition for three dozen deck lights, which were wanted as early
as practicable: he saw those of Mr. Higgins, which he said were just such
as he wanted; and, as we had none others of that kind, we delivered them
to him, and they were charged to that ship.
I do not know, of my own knowledge, the cause of
the rejection of the sperm candles, raisins, and beans, lately furnished
by Mr. Higgins. I heard the inspecting officers say they were not of good
or proper quality. The rejected beans we did not measure, but returned them
in the same [205] casks and bags we received them in. I think 56 boxes of
raisins were rejected out of the 200 furnished.
Mr. Williams, master ship joiner, informed me it
was necessary to keep on hand a few dozen deck lights, as he frequently
had to wait before they could be furnished of the proper or suitable kind,
and at the same time gave me an estimate of twelve dozen, and the kind to
be kept on hand for "public stores." A requisition was accordingly
made and approved by the commandant that quantity, and an indent sent over
[to] the navy agent the next morning for them. They were furnished by Mr.
Higgins some time afterwards—I presume upon his authority.
An examination of the receipt book this morning shows
that my evidence in relation to the 200 boxes of raisins, furnished by Mr.
Higgins under the indent of the 3d November, 1840, is strictly correct;
for although articles required for public stores are entered upon it, yet
it is done without regard to the time when they were received into store.
A certificate from my chief clerk, herewith enclosed, will show the reason
why they are so entered. I should, however, be extremely glad, if your time
will allow, for you to come over before you leave, and examine the the receipt
book yourself, when we could better explain the matter to you.
This is all the information I am enabled to give,
either from recollection or on examination of my books.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
M. JORDAN, Naval Storekeeper.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Commissioner, &c., Norfolk.
* * * * * *
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD, Gosport,
July 26, 1841.
SIR: Although the receipt books in the naval store
show the receipts or entries of articles for public stores from time to
time, yet they do not contain the date in which they are received into store,
as such entries are generally made at the end of the months in which they
are required, if furnished, or such part as may be furnished, to allow the
closing of the requisitions upon which said articles have been delivered;
and said entries are made, from the "day book," in part or in
whole, as the case may be, when the date of the receipts do not appear.
L. W. BOUTWELL, Clerk.
WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
26, 1841.
SIR: A domestic calamity, intelligence of which I
received yesterday, renders my return to Washington necessary at the earliest
possible day. I therefore request that all the witnesses, whose testimony
you desire, may attend to-day and to-morrow.
Fair copies of all the depositions already taken
have been made, and can be sworn to at my room, or at your office, or, if
more agreeable to the [206] parties, can be left with them respectively,
and sworn to before any magistrate of borough or county.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. HOMANS, Comm'r.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, July
27, 1841.
SIR: Your letter of yesterday informs
me that, in consequence of recent intelligence, your return to Washington
is rendered necessary at the earliest possible day.
My regret that any domestic calamity
should thus unhappily intervene is in no degree alleviated by its occurring
at a point of time exceedingly critical to a just and full discharge of
the responsible duty assigned you. Your investigation of my official conduct
commenced on the 7th of June and closed (with the testimony finally arranged
on the part of the complaint) the 15th instant, as will appear by your letter
of that date transmitting copies of certain papers taken from the books
of the office. On the 17th, for the first time, opposing testimony was introduced,
and, before the lapse of ten days, including two Sabbaths, I am advised
that your official labors here are about to terminate. How far this may
be proper, in view of the course and direction you have given to the examination,
and of the various and pregnant matter of record, must be left to your own
decision. I have only to add that the attendance of some of the witnesses,
whose testimony (for the sake of truth and justice) I had deemed essential,
may not be practicable within the brief space allotted by your letter.
I am, respectfully, your obedient
servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Comm'r, Walters's
Hotel, Norfolk.
* * * * * *
WALTERS'S HOTEL, NORFOLK, July
27, 1841.
SIR: I have received your letter of
this day's date, in answer to mine of yesterday. It occurs to me that you
have had ample time, since the commencement of the investigation, to secure
the attendance of all the witnesses whose testimony you consider important
or essential to your justification. But a portion of the business hours
that have elapsed since the commencement of the examination of your witnesses
has been consumed in that duty. You were present at all the examinations
of witnesses for the complaints, and you or your chief clerk have taken
notes of the testimony and the proceedings, and could certainly have known,
from time to time, what points in that testimony would require explanation
or justification. Your witnesses have been prepared, before they appeared,
with information as to the questions that would be put to them, and they
appear all to have come ready with their answers; and the briefest time
possible has been consumed in putting cross-interrogatories [207] to elicit
information that was but partially communicated by the answers to direct
interrogatories.
I have been prepared at all hours
to hear your witnesses. I have frequently detained witnesses for the complaints
until you could be sent for, and have taken the trouble to notify you that
they were in waiting. I have gone beyond the line of my duty, or what could
have been required of me, to furnish you with correct copies of all the
depositions, and in various ways have imposed upon myself additional labor—all,
that you might have no cause to allege for delay on your part; and I do
not conceive, and therefore cannot admit, that you have any just grounds
to allege that I have not afforded you ample time to present your witnesses
or other testimony. In a letter addressed to you on the 29th of June, by
Mr. Butler and myself, we stated "We are authorized and directed to
close our investigations of your official conduct as speedily as possible."
I have underlined the word "directed" in this quotation, because
the intimation was given in a manner to convince us that a speedy termination
was expected. Four weeks have elapsed, and I now learn that your witnesses
are not all ready; nor have you informed me to a certainty when they will
be.
In view of the necessity which exists
for my immediate return, and of the time which has already been allowed
you to summon witnesses, I cannot consent to postpone my departure. If you
will furnish me with a list of the witnesses whose attendance you have requested,
and a copy of the interrogatories which you propose to put to them, an arrangement
might be made by which their depositions could be taken.
I am, respectfully, your obedient
servant,
B. HOMANS, Comm'r.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent,
Norfolk.
P. S. I wish to put another interrogatory
or two to Mr. West, and to examine Mr. Gatewood.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, July
27, 1841.
SIR: I desire that the following interrogatories
be propounded to Mr. Butler:
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?
At the time of your appointment,
had you a wager or bet depending upon the result?
I am, respectfully, your obedient
servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Comm'r.
* * * * * *
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, NORFOLK, July
27, 1841.
SIR: You will be pleased to state,
upon the papers purporting to be explanations of Messrs. Toy & King,
that they are true copies, and were [208] taken from the said Toy &
King without notice to me, or any knowledge whatever on my part.
I am, respectfully, your obedient
servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
B. ROMANS, Esq., Comm r.
* * * * * *
WASHINGTON, D. C., July 30,
1841.
SIR: Among the letters received from you under date
of the 27th inst., prior to my leaving Norfolk, was one handed to me by
Mr. West, about 6 o'clock in the evening, expressed in an authoritative
tone, the propriety of which I cannot recognize or tacitly submit to. The
examination of Mr. Butler and yourself immediately followed the delivery
of the letter and occupied my time until sunset, when it became necessary
to complete the arrangements for my departure.
The letter to which I allude directs me, in a peremptory
manner, to do certain acts. I have never been placed under your orders or
subject to your control; and, although I might have performed the act designated
as a matter of courtesy, I would never consent to do it as one of duty.
During the progress of the investigation, many of
your requests to me were preferred in the shape of positive commands; and
if I failed to notice them at the time, it was because I had formed a resolution
to avoid the least manifestation of feeling that could afford the slightest
pretext for that acerbity of manner which was displayed from the very outset
and continued until the close.
The haste with which my letter to you of the 27th
was written, prevented my replying to one or two points, which, on a second
perusal of your first communication of that date, seem to me material.
Our examination of your official conduct commenced
on the 10th, and not on the 7th June. We did not wait upon you until Wednesday,
the 9th, and then only to exhibit our authority and notify you of our intention
to commence the next day. From that day until the 17th, inclusive, we were
occupied in examining your books and papers, and in making extracts therefrom.
On the 18th, business connected with my previous examinations called me
to the navy yard. We commenced the examination of witnesses for the complaints
on Saturday, the 19th, and continued it on Monday, the 21st, when it was
suspended, for reasons unnecessary to be repeated, until Wednesday, the
30th. One day was lost, waiting for your return from Washington; and the
two days, July 12th and 13th, that we were engaged at your office, might
have been saved if Mr. Pearce had been permitted to complete the extracts
referred to in my letter to you of June 18th.
You were informed verbally, on the 9th July, that
the examination of witnesses on the part of the complaints was then closed,
and that we were ready for your witnesses. The delay which subsequently
occurred was occasioned by your calling for fair copies of all the depositions,
and of the extracts made from your books, with neither of which was it our
duty to furnish you.
Instead of dating from the time allowed you to collect
testimony from the close of the examination of witnesses for the complaints,
it should [209] have been from the commencement, as it was very apparent
that the tutoring of witnesses had its origin from a very early period.
This makes a material difference; and, moreover, I date the close on the
9th instead of the 10th July.
Between the 19th June and the 9th July, embracing
in all ten working days, seventeen witnesses were examined for the complaints,
occupying; altogether about 38 hours, or an average of little more than
two hours to each. From the 17th to the 27th July, embracing nine working
days twenty-one witnesses were examined in your defence, occupying altogether
only about twenty-one hours, or an average of one hour to each. In both
instances the time calculated includes all that during which you and Mr.
Gatewood were present, a part of which was occupied in conversation, and
in waiting for witnesses whose arrival was momentarily looked for.
I directed Mr. Pearce to furnish you with copies
of the explanatory statements of N. C. King and T. D. Toy, and of the depositions
not previously delivered; but, as I stated verbally, I decline certifying
them.
Respectfully, yours,
B. HOMANS, Commissioner.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent,
Norfolk.
* * * * * *
NORFOLK, June 29, 1841.
SIR: In compliance with your request,
I called at the navy agent's office on the 24th instant, to continue certain
extracts from the books in that office, which were commenced previous to
your departure for Washington. I was, however, denied permission, Mr. Loyall
thinking it unnecessary that further extracts should be made.
On the return of Mr. Butler, I called
again in company with him; this call was attended with the same result.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
J. A. HAZARD PEARCE.
B. HOMANS, Esq., Commissioner,
etc.
* * * * * *
I.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 20,
1841.
SIR: The report of Commissioner Homans,
relative to your official conduct, has been laid before the President, and
he directs me to inform you that, in conformity with your request, no action
will be taken on it until you shall have had time to offer such explanations
as you may think proper to submit to him.
I am, respectfully, &c.
A. P. UPSHUR.
GEORGE LOYALL, Esq., Navy Agent,
Norfolk.
[210] NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, Norfolk,
January 15, 1842.
SIR: I return herewith the report
of Commissioner Homans relative to my official conduct, with such remarks
as appear to be called for by the tone and character of this extraordinary
document. Although I have to regret that a full disclosure of all matters
connected with the inquiry was denied me, by your urgent and numerous engagements,
during my visit to the city, I cannot doubt that a careful examination of
the testimony taken will satisfy you that every material fact of the case
has been withheld or grossly distorted.
The commissioner opens his report
by slating that "the complaints alleged against the navy agent, as
set forth in his commission, were two-fold:
"First. That certain
persons have been permitted in a great measure to monopolize the Government
supplies at the Norfolk navy yard and station; and
"Second. That the supplies
have been procured in an exceptionable manner and paid for at unusual and
exorbitant prices," and adds that, "in order to ascertain what
ground existed for the first complaint, the books and accounts of the agent
were examined from the time of his first appointment, in March, 1837, until
the close of the first quarter 1841. This examination was commenced on the
10th, and was continued until the 17th of June last, from which it appealed
that the whole amount of disbursements by the agent, from March, 1837, to
March, 1841, was," (see the accompanying statement marked A.)
"This statement, (the commissioner
then informs us,) derived from the books of the office, would seem to be
sufficient to determine, without one word of comment, whether certain persons
have been permitted in a great measure to monopolize the Government supplies
at the Norfolk navy yard and station."
Were this statement entirely correct
in point of fact, it would hardly seem to be sufficient to establish any
abuse or impropriety against the office, upon the bare allegation of a monopoly,
if, in procuring the supplies, under the several heads enumerated, it should
appear that the public interest had been honestly consulted. But the statement
thus gravely affirmed to be derived from the books of the office is directly
contradicted by the books which, from the 16th March, 1837, to the 31st
March, 1841, exhibit the result, (see A, the paper already referred to.)
It will appear, then, that, instead
of $448,282.26, the amount stated by the commissioner as disbursed by the
agent at his discretion, for the purchase of articles not contracted for,
the actual amount disbursed, during the period referred to, was $624,089.28,
a difference of $175,801.02; and, deducting from this sum the amount paid
to the three individuals or firms named, ($269,332 .11,) leaves $354,757.17
for purchases made of other individuals, instead of $118,319.27, according
to the commissioner's estimate—showing a difference of about three
hundred per cent.; and of the $269,332.11, $28,394.22 being for purchases
prior to the 16th March, 1837, leaves of that amount $240,937.89 for purchases
since. The annexed statement (believed to be strictly accurate) is presented
in juxtaposition with those of the commissioner simply to show the commendable
caution and fairness with which the investigation was conducted. In order
to ascertain what grounds existed for the first complaint, [211] the books
and accounts of the office were examined, to find, it seems, the amount
paid to three individuals or firms; and, as the three individuals or firms
were believed to have been permitted, in a great measure, to monopolize
the Government supplies at this navy yard and station, the sum total paid
for purchases to all others is ascertained in like manner, and the first
being made greater than the last in despite of the books and accounts, the
complaint is thus entirely sustained "without one word of comment."
We next find the same sweeping, summary
process adopted by the commissioner, under this head of complaint, in relation
to payments made to Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead &
Beale for medicines and hospital stores, &c. He says, of the whole amount
disbursed by the agent, under the head of medicines and hospital stores,
three firms have received more than one-half. The paper C explains, at once,
how the whole sum paid to Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead
& Beale is made up—the medical supplies proper constituting but
a small portion of the aggregate, and being really less than the amount
paid to other druggists. All articles in bills of this description, except
medicines and instruments, are charged at cost, and, of course, impose additional
trouble, without compensation, upon the druggist procuring them. But with
respect to all supplies in this line, whether for sea-going -ships, hospital
or other service, the complaint that the agent has "permitted certain
persons to monopolize them at this yard and station'' is utterly destitute
of a shadow of support. Under an order from the Board of Navy Commissioners,
issued more than five years ago, the surgeons of the yard and hospital purchase
their own supplies; and, the reasons for this order applying with still
greater force to surgeons attached to seagoing ships, (the supplies
being larger in quantity and more various,) these also make their own purchases,
being deemed more competent to judge of the quality as well as the prices
of the articles required, it must, then, appear perfectly obvious, touching
this matter of complaint, that, if any thing in the slightest degree approximating
the form or character of a monopoly has existed at this station during the
period in question, the surgeons themselves are accountable, and doubtless,
in every case, would be at no loss to furnish ample ground for the preference,
which is now for the first time distorted into grievous cause of complaint.
The agent, it is certain, has never attempted to advise, recommend, or interpose
in any manner as to the individuals or firms from whom the supplies should
be obtained; yet the commissioner, in this part of his report, reiterates
the complaint in the most offensive form by stating that "Messrs. Whitehead
& Beale are at this time engaged in putting up the medical supplies
for the U. S. ship Cyane, no change in the system having been yet effected
by the investigation recently set on foot." The simple truth of the
ease stated is this:
The surgeon of the Cyane, (Dr. Clymer,)
whom the agent had never before seen, called at the office within a few
days after his arrival for his traveling allowance, and, in the course of
conversation, inquired for the name of the druggist by whom medical supplies
were usually furnished for ships of war. He was informed, in reply, that
the surgeons (who were believed to be best informed upon the subject) made
selections for themselves, and that he would accordingly be left to pursue
that course. He then added that, having been advised by a medical friend
upon the [212] station from whom he had better obtain his supplies, the
inquiry was made merely to get the name of the druggist, which had for the
moment escaped him. The agent still declined giving any name, stating that,
as the town was not large, he could readily ascertain all the dealers in
that line, and thus be enabled to procure all the supplies required for
the ship in a manner most satisfactory to himself and upon the most favorable
terms. This occurred in the presence of the clerks in the office, during
the investigation; and whilst it would seem to be sufficient of itself to
repel effectually the idea of any sort of interference, on the part of the
agent, in order "to permit certain persons to monopolize these supplies,"
it has been fastened upon by the distempered vision of this most just and
charitable commissioner as a marked aggravation of the alleged complaint.
The fact that Messrs. Whitehead & Beale were engaged in putting up the
medical supplies for the Cyane at the time the commissioner's report was
in course of preparation, or perhaps within a few hours after this conversation
in the agent's office, was, doubtless, owing to information and advice obtained
by Dr. Clymer from some one or more of his medical friends upon the station,
or from his own inquiries among the several dealers in the town.
With regard to the supplies of ship
chandlery and hardware, which figure so conspicuously in the report under
this complaint, the accompanying letter (marked B) from the agent to the
Board of Navy Commissioners, dated 26th January last, explains fully the
mode of procuring them and the reasons for its adoption. Whether this mode
be deemed expedient or otherwise, as the letter was addressed to the board
many months prior to the investigation, it can hardly be imagined that any
motive or desire has, at any time, existed to suppress or withhold information
upon the subject, when a great deal more was communicated than seemed to
be called for. And as the mode of purchase as well as the prices of the
various articles were distinctly stated, it doubtless met the entire approbation
of the board; or, at any rate, no disapproval has ever been intimated. This
mode of purchasing ship chandlery and hardware is considered the best, and
indeed the only one that can be adopted, to secure the supplies required
at this station, at all times promptly, of the description and quality called
for, and upon the most favorable terms. If not pursued since the first establishment
of the agency, it certainly has been during the last twenty years—embracing
the terms of my two predecessors—under three different administrations.
And if, at any time, upon a fair, impartial inquiry, it should appear that
prices of certain articles range higher here, or, on an average, exceed
the prices paid at the stations to the North, it must be recollected that
nearly all the supplies (except timber) are brought from the Northern cities,
and come to us burdened with the increased charges of freight and insurance;
besides, exchange always against us, and not unfrequently within the last
few years mounting as high as seven or eight per cent. It is confidently
believed, however, that our prices for all articles will bear a favorable
comparison with those paid at other naval stations, and, with respect to
many articles purchased in Northern markets, are even lower at this station:
whilst it is doubtful if a single instance can be stated of an article which
has ever been furnished for the service at a Northern station at a lower
price than that paid here.
The view thus briefly presented will
show in what manner and to what extent the interests of Government are involved
in the monopoly com- [213] plained of; which will also derive additional
light from the testimony introduced to sustain the second ground of the
complaint, "that the supplies have been procured in an exceptionable
manner and paid for at unusual and exorbitant prices." The limits assigned
to this communication forbid any extended remarks naturally suggested by
this part of the report, tending to illustrate the strange character of
the proceeding, and especially of the instruments used to accomplish the
main object in view. I shall notice such points only as are deemed at all
material, omitting the vast mass of irrelevant matter, obviously designed
to swell the volume of the report or for some worse purpose. In support
of this complaint, the commissioner first introduces three dealers in drugs
and medicines, (Messrs. R. S. Bernard, N. C. King, and T. D. Toy,) who,
after looking over certain accounts of Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co.
and Whitehead & Beale, for medicines and hospital stores, testify:
R. S. Bernard, "That the articles
charged in those accounts are generally higher than he charges;" "many
of them are much higher—some five, some ten, and some one hundred
per cent, above his prices:"
N. C. King, "That there are
some articles charged at one, two, and three hundred per cent, above what
similar articles cost him:" and
T. D. Toy, "That he could have
furnished the medicines charged in one of the bills for half the money,
and in two others for two-thirds of the prices charged."
The degree of credit due to what
these dealers say can be determined only by a careful scrutiny of their
depositions, taken in connexion with those of Drs. Cornick, Blacknall, Baylor,
and Balfour—the several parts of which, bearing directly upon the
point of inquiry, are studiously kept out of view by the commissioner. It
will be found, upon an examination of the depositions, script of the gloss
thrown around them, that the witnesses all concur in showing that
these dealers speak of but a small portion of the articles charged in the
accounts submitted to them. Of the rest, they neither profess to be, nor
could they be, informed as to description, quality, price, or any other
matter; that, with respect to such articles in the accounts of which they
do venture to speak as being overcharged, the accounts of other druggists,
including some of their own, paid at the office, were produced to prove
that similar articles are charged, almost in every case, as high, and in
many at higher rates; that two of the three accounts selected as exorbitantly
charged, at the request of the commanding officer of the station, were subjected
to a searching examination by surgeons of the navy, and ascertained to be
fair and reasonable, before approval—one of these surgeons (Dr. Cornick)
distinctly stating in his deposition that, upon a diligent comparison of
prices charged in the accounts of Whitehead & Beale, for the supplies
of the Yorktown, with prices charged by other druggists, (and two of these
the same who are brought forward to testily upon this very account, the
other being out of the question, for reasons well understood in this community,)
the result was in favor of Whitehead & Beale, and that "one of
the firm had requested him to say to the commodore that, in settling his
accounts for medicines, &c., he would be glad if he would assign to
the surgeon of the yard the duty of examining his bills, previous to their
being brought to him for approval." Dr. Blacknall (at perfect liberty,
by the direction of the board of commissioners, to purchase for himself)
states, moreover, that his supplies for the hospital are regularly furnished
under his own eye "by [214] Whitehead & Beale and Watts & Co.,
and that, upon a comparison of the prices, those of the former are less,
though neither are higher than they should be." Independently of their
high professional standing, Dr. Cornick and Dr. Blacknall are distinguished
by a scrupulous care of every interest committed to them. The former was
attached to the Delaware, destined to the Pacific, when examined before
the commissioner upon the accounts of Whitehead & Beale; and at that
very time two-thirds or three-fourths of his supplies were furnished by
that firm. What these surgeons of the navy say derives still further confirmation
from the testimony of Drs. Baylor and Balfour; yet it is alleged that the
medical supplies are procured in an exceptionable manner, and paid for at
unusual and exorbitant prices. Until, by law or regulation of the department,
to some competent medical officer of the service shall be assigned the duty
of providing the supplies in this line for the several classes of vessels,
under such restrictions as may be deemed proper, the course pursued at this
station is believed to be liable to as little exception as any that can
he adopted.
Having disposed of the accounts for
medical supplies, the commissioner informs us that the next in order for
examination were those of ship chandlery, hardware, and iron-mongery; and,
to show that these supplies also have been procured in an exceptionable
manner and paid for at unusual and exorbitant prices, two leading witnesses
(Messrs. J. Dickson and J. F. Hunter) are introduced, who, if not utterly
discredited by their own depositions in the cross-examination, are conclusively
so by the production of their bills, which were thoroughly examined and
particularly referred to by other witnesses, unimpeached and unimpeachable.
But, in proof of the wretched mockery of this part of the investigation,
the commissioner confined his testimony to less than fifty enumerated articles
of ship chandlery, when there are not less than two hundred and forty or
fifty enumerated in contracts, and more than twice the number non-enumerated;
and in iron-mongery contracts there are found some two hundred and thirty
enumerated articles, and the non enumerated about double that number, whilst
the testimony taken upon these amounts to about seven. The commissioner
says "that, to disprove the evidence of Messrs. Dickson and Hunter,
two witnesses were produced, who had compared the bills of E. J. Higgins
against the United States with those of other ship chandlers against merchant
vessels. One of these witnesses (Mr. Tunstall) is out of business, and resides
in the country, and the other (Mr. Wilson) has not been engaged in the ship-chandlery
business for twenty-two years. Neither of them, therefore, could speak of
prices from their own knowledge, but only by a comparison of one bill with
another." Whether the fact that Mr. Tunstall resides at present some
three or four miles from town is calculated to detract from his testimony,
I cannot venture to determine. At all events, his duties as an officer of
one of the banks require his daily attendance here, (except on the Sabbath,)
thus relieving him in a great degree from the contaminating influence of
the country air. He is well known as one of the purest men in this community,
and was called as a witness on this occasion on account of his unquestioned
probity, general intelligence, and more especially of his intimate acquaintance
with the subject, having been, until within the last few years, engaged
in the ship-chandlery business in furnishing supplies for the navy. Although
Mr. Wilson relinquished this particular line of business some years ago,
he is perfectly familiar wish it, in all its details, [215] and testifies
to facts too plain to be misunderstood or perverted. The testimony of these
gentlemen was deemed the more important for the very reason of their entire
freedom from all influences tending in any manner to mislead or deceive.
Their depositions must speak for themselves, and certainly afford more information
upon the matters submitted to them than the commissioner seems disposed
to allow.
Immediately following this notice
of the testimony of Messrs. Tunstall and Wilson, the commissioner says:
"So, also, as in the case of Messrs. King and Toy, justice to Messrs.
Dickson and Hunter demanded that they should be allowed the opportunity
to explain portions of their testimony, and they have accordingly prepared
a joint statement," &c.
A very few words will suffice to
disclose the whole truth in regard to this matter. In consequence of the
dilemma in which Messrs. Dickson und Hunter, as well as Messrs. King and
Toy, had involved themselves under the counter testimony, confounded as
well by their own bills and charges as by the manifold discrepancies and
contradictions appearing in their depositions, it became, necessary that
some effort should be made to extricate them; and accordingly these statements
were resorted to. It is enough that they were prepared and sworn to without
any knowledge on my part—therefore surreptitiously; and I should have
continued utterly ignorant of their existence but for an incidental inquiry
of the commissioner just at the moment of his departure, as will appear
by the affidavit of Mr. R. Gatewood, hereto annexed. This discovery was
then made only as to the statements of Messrs. King and Toy; for it was
not until the commissioner's report came into my hands that I was aware
that a similar statement had been actually prepared by Messrs. Dickson and
Hunter, which statement I have not yet seen, and of course know not what
it contains. Whether or not justice to any party concerned demanded a procedure
like this, no one can hesitate to determine. It appears from this joint
statement of Messrs. Dickson and Hunter (as we are informed by the report)
that "the prices charged by them and referred to by Messrs. Tunstall
and Wilson were for articles in small quantities," &c. The commissioner
takes especial care to forget here that some of the bills in which these
articles are charged are considerable in amount, (see deposition of Mr.
Tunstall,) and also that a large portion of the articles selected from the
bills of E. J. Higgins, to which the testimony was more particularly directed,
were furnished in very small quantities, being generally the case for supplies
of ship chandlery and iron-mongery, as will be seen most clearly from the
memoranda marked D and K.
As it was obvious, however, that
this plea of the charges in the bills of the witnesses, being for small
quantities, would not avail, the commissioner kindly endeavors to get them
out of the strait by adding that "the articles were sold to merchants
on credit, and the prices enhanced by the risk of bad debts." But here
again he takes care to forget that, to the questions propounded to Messrs.
Dickson and Hunter as to the prices of certain articles in the accounts
submitted to them, they reply distinctly and without qualification that
the prices are too high, and higher than the prices for which they had sold
similar articles at the same periods: when, in addition to other evidence
showing that the charges in these accounts were fair and reasonable, the
bills of these very persons are produced to prove that the prices actually
charged by them for articles under the same name, at the periods referred
to, are generally higher, without any [216] allowance for risk or expense
of delivery at the navy yard, or any regard whatever to the particular description
of articles required, their several qualities, &c.
It further appears that, from accounts
for iron-mongery and hardware, running through more than four years, some
seven or eight articles were picked out by two witnesses called by the commissioner;
and of these little or nothing is said at all material as to description,
quality, or price. (See C. F. Stone's deposition.) As to what is stated
by one of them, W. D. Roberts, concerning tin, brass wire, charcoal, &c.,
(and the other, E. P. Tabb, was introduced, peradventure, to give color
to the only specification contained in the document exhibited as the commissioner's
authority, but which he has not thought proper to set forth in the report,)
it is in these words, under the second head of complaint: "that an
unusual and unnecessary quantity of files, costing the sum of fifteen hundred
dollars, or thereabouts, was not long since purchased on public account
by said agent, and, by connivance of the armorer and plumber of said yard,
received into his department, after having been offered to and refused by
the master blacksmith of the said yard; and that large quantities of copper
wire and sheet tin, greatly beyond the wants of the service, have been procured
at prices exceeding those usually paid for such articles."
There has not been a single file,
nor piece of copper wire or sheet tin purchased by the present agent since
the commencement of his term of service, except on requisition duly approved,
and at a fair and reasonable price, of the description called for; and the
charge thus made, being without a shade of evidence to rest upon, is really
one of the foulest calumnies ever invented by malice and falsehood. As well
might the agent have been arraigned for peculation, or forgery, or any other
high crime.
It will be found, upon a review of
the depositions, that the foregoing remarks embrace all matters of any consequence
connected with the alleged complaints. A particular notice of the testimony
taken upon other articles referred to in the report as overcharged would,
I am aware, encroach too much on your time, already sufficiently taxed:
with respect to those, comparatively unimportant, required as they generally
are in very small quantities, the rates at which they are charged, (depending
materially upon the actual description, qualities, sizes, &c.,) whether
reasonable or otherwise, can only be accurately known by reference to the
accounts themselves at the time the purchases were made. All circumstances
considered, it is confidently affirmed that these, as well as all other
articles of the first quality, (and none others are received at the yard,)
have been furnished at a fair market price.
Amongst other matters paraded to
the prejudice of the office, the commissioner says: "In April, 1837,
Messrs. Higgins and Keating delivered 10,396 pounds of pine-apple cheese,
which was charged at 22-1/4 cents per pound; and during the same year E.
J. Higgins delivered other parcels at a similar price. Inquiry was made
whether this was a contract article, but no contract could be found. Having
been informed that this same lot of cheese was bought by Mr. Keating in
New York, at less than half the price charged, an invitation was addressed
to him to appear before us, but he declined."
In regard to this statement, I need
only say that vague assertions have no claim to credit, and if they had
would amount to no proof. It will be seen, by reference to Mr. Keating's
deposition, that he testified to an im- [217] portant fact, involving Messrs.
Dickson and Hunter in flagrant contradiction; and, as to the information
upon which the commissioner has thought fit to make this statement, the
affidavit of Mr. Keating, hereto annexed, exhibits its true character.
After the abortive attempt to discover
any just ground of complaint in the transactions of the office already noticed,
it became necessary to hunt up some other pretext; and hence we find the
report embellished with the narrative of Mr. Richard Vermillion, concerning
a lot of oars, and also that of Mr. Bucktrout, about some pine logs: the
one stamped with deliberate falsehood by papers in the office, and the other,
to use no harsher term, utterly preposterous, as the deposition of Mr. T.
B. West will clearly show.
It is perfectly obvious, from the
whole tenor of the report, that the commissioner's invention was continually
upon the strain to devise something that might by chance create an impression
unfavorable to the office. As a striking instance, among others, we are
told that Mr. Jordan, naval storekeeper, in his letter to the Secretary
of the Navy, dated June, 1841, says: "The interest of the service requires
a constant supply, upon a liberal scale, of the greater number of articles
used in the service, so that the different mechanical departments can be
supplied promptly and without waiting, as well as the ships fitting for
sea;" and, further, "that Commodore Shubrick, in conversation,
informed me that a year's supply of imperishable articles was not too large."
If this was meant to cast censure upon the agent for failing to provide
ample supplies for the navy in advance, the commissioner should have pointed
out his authority to do any such thing, or indeed his right to suggest the
expediency of supplying any article beyond such as, from time to time, may
be called for by requisitions from the yard or the board of commissioners.
If meant to convey the idea that Commodore Shubrick and Mr. Jordan, or either
of them, gave countenance in any manner to the complaints against the agent,
or to the commissioner's course of proceeding, it must have been upon the
principle that "some disguised falsehoods are so like truths that it
would be judging ill not to be deceived by them."
An effort was made, in various ways,
to extract from the naval storekeeper something that might, either
directly or indirectly, implicate the agent: with what success, his answers
to the several interrogatories propounded by the commissioner will determine.
As to the commanding officer of the
station, instead of the loose fragment of a conversation here insidiously
presented, why was he not invited by the commissioner and questioned directly
upon the subject-matters of inquiry? Commodore Shubrick's professional standing
and high sense of honor, as well as his fidelity and vigilance in all things,
as far as possible, to save the Government from waste and loss, rendered
it peculiarly proper that he should testify in the case; and accordingly
the agent did not omit to call upon him. It would appear, however, that
his testimony was considered unworthy of the commissioner's notice, as we
do not find the remotest allusion to it in the report. Two plain, direct
interrogatories were propounded to him by the agent:
Question. "Do you recollect what passed at the
navy agent's office, a short time after your arrival to take command of
the station, in relation to accounts presented for your approval?"
Answer. "I well recollect your expressing a
wish that I would particu- [218] larly 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."
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."
An officer of rank and character inferior to none
in the navy was in command when the agent came into office, and continued
until Commodore Shubrick took charge of the station. Accessible at all times
to the Department, he may be freely consulted in relation to the agent's
course during his term of service.
There are various matters connected with this investigation
(some of which are deemed worthy of the commissioner's attention, and others
are passed over without notice) that do not fall within the scope and compass
of these remarks, or need not be touched at this time. From the multifarious
transactions of the office, extending through a period of more than four
years, and to disbursements amounting to largely upwards of four millions,
(and, so far as it involves a moneyed trust, the whole amount has been disbursed
by the agent, and to the last cent strictly accounted for,) the accounts
of Messrs. N. C. Whitehead & Co. and Whitehead & Beale, E. J. Higgins,
and J. Capron, are selected to show, first, that these individuals or firms
"have been permitted, in a great measure, to monopolize the Government
supplies at this navy yard and station; and, secondly, that the supplies
have been procured in an exceptionable manner and paid for at unusual and
exorbitant prices." What detriment the Government has sustained in
the premises, or what degree of credit the labors of the commissioner to
establish the complaints may justly claim, will appear from the papers and
facts already referred to, and from a careful examination of all the testimony
taken, to which attention is especially invited. At present I have no desire
to trouble you further on the subject.
Against the coarse insinuations so profusely spread
through the commissioner's report, I cannot descend to offer any defence;
nor will a due sense of self-respect, and that decorum on all occasions
proper in addressing the Department, allow me to speak of it in terms suited
to the spirit and temper lurking under its flaunting capitals. It might
not be strictly just to state that it was manufactured to order, or in pursuance
of a contract between parties (Those by whom the complaints were made are
yet unknown to the agent.) having purposes to serve in nowise connected
with the interests of Government; yet, "beginning as it does without
substantial data, seeing a little, presuming a great deal, and then jumping
to a conclusion," it will not be considered harsh towards the commissioner
to say that his report savors strongly of the old adage, "what we wish
we readily believe." At all events, granting all that he may justly
claim on the score of fairness and impartiality, it certainly required greater
parts than those of Mr. Homans to sustain complaints originating in defamation
and malevolence.
The commissioner closes his report by acknowledging
the valuable assistance he had received from his associate. It is highly
probable that, [219] but for this happy conjunction, no inconsiderable portion
of the rare materials of which this document is made up would have been
lost. The, excitement of which the commissioner speaks as "produced
among the citizens of Norfolk," if it actually existed, was occasioned,
not by the "circumstance that an investigation had been ordered,"
but from the manner of conducting it—the course pursued—setting
justice at defiance, and violating every principle of right. The intimation
that "threats or arguments were resorted to by the political and personal
friends of the agent to dissuade" those disposed to give information
of supposed abuses from attending, like most of his statements, unaccompanied
by proof, is believed to be entirely gratuitous and calumnious.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
GEORGE LOYALL, Navy Agent.
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Washington.
* * * * * *
