E 591 
 .N31 
 Copy 1 
 

_ 
 
 "Javy Department Investigation Reviewed. % 
 
 CALUMNY REFUTED 
 
 BY 
 
 DEMOCRATS AND REPUSLICANS ALIKE. 
 
 As a part of the general attack upon the 
 Administration, plauned by its open and con- 
 cealed enemies, gross and abusive charges of 
 official misconduct were made against the 
 Secretary of the Navy by Charles A. Dana, 
 editor of the New York Sun. They were 
 published in the most virulent and abusive 
 language, and constantly reiterated in his 
 disreputable newspaper. They originated, 
 as afterwards appeared, with a former officer 
 of the Navy Department, himself dismissed 
 under suspicion of corruption by President 
 Grant at the commencement of his Adminis- 
 tration, were connived at by men in high 
 position, worked up by hired defamers, and 
 ■were paid for and published by Charles A. 
 Dana. 
 
 In pursuance of the general plan, Mr. Aus- 
 tin Blair, of Michigan, then still pretending 
 to be a Republican, but now the leading 
 Democratic orator in the canvass of his 
 State, assuming the responsibility of charges 
 which no one else would notice, referred to 
 them in the House of Representatives, and 
 moved a committee of investigation. This 
 was at first refused by the House because 
 the/e was no responsible authority for the 
 charges; but, at the request of the Secretary 
 of the Navy, all objection was afterwards 
 withdrawn, and the committee of investiga- 
 tion was finally raised on the 11th day of 
 March, 1872. 
 
 This tvas no icliitewashing committee. The 
 majority of it were opposed to the Adminis- 
 tration. It consisted of Mr. Blair, who had 
 assumed and brought forward the charges of 
 Charles A. Dana; Mr. Archer, of Maryland; 
 and Mr. Warren, of New York, (Democrats,) 
 and Messrs. Sargent, of California, and 
 Peters, of Maine, (Republicans.) 
 
 Mr. Dana, the accuser, was permitted to 
 appear with his counsel, and clothed with all 
 the powers of the committee to investigate 
 the administration of the Navy Department. 
 The Secretary of the Navy declined to em- 
 ploy counsel, but appeared himself before the 
 committee at every meeting to assist in the 
 examination, answer questions, and give any 
 information required. Mr. Dana was soon 
 obliged to abandon his case, and after hav- 
 ing been forced to acknowledge, under oath, 
 that he had no knowledge of the truth of 
 the charges he had so falsely made, left 
 
 Washington suddenly and returned to New 
 York. 
 
 The investigation was, however, pressed 
 by the Secretary and proceeded with, 
 and after a long and thorough exami- 
 nation, the committee made their report, 
 signed by Messrs. Saigent, Peters and Mr. 
 Warreu, (one of the Democrats,) fuDv sus- 
 taining the Secretary in the legality, equity 
 and propriety ot all his action in regard, not 
 only to the matters charged, but in regard t« 
 the general administration of his Depart- 
 ment; and thoroughly and completely vindi- 
 cating and proclaiming hispersoual integrity 
 and honor, and denouncing in the strongest 
 language the accusations against him as vile 
 slanders. Mr. Archer, (the other Democrat 
 of the committee,) added a few lines as an 
 appendix to this report, concurring in "fully 
 exonerating the Secretary of the Navy from 
 all charges of fraud, corruption or dishon- 
 esty," but dissenting from the interpretation 
 of law made by the committee; and Mr. 
 Blair, himself, though he was in fact the re- 
 sponsible accuser, in his minority report, 
 (which both the Democrats of the committee 
 absolutely refused to sign)^after a general 
 attack on the Navy Department and the 
 Treasury, was yet obliged to say, "Whilelbe- 
 lieve the administration of the Navy Depart- 
 ment not creditable to the country at this 
 time, I cannot say that the charges of per- 
 sonal corruption against the Secretary are 
 made out in proof; as to that, therefore, he 
 is to be acquitted." 
 
 The following are extracts from the report 
 of the committee : 
 
 " The committee, with a view to the prompt 
 Investigation of these serious charges against 
 the Secretary of the Navy, at once, as their Aral 
 step, invited Oharleg A. Dana, the editor ot th« 
 Sun, to attend their sessions. He appeared 
 with his counsel, and was allowed to conduot 
 the investigation, to summon and examine wit- 
 nesses, to call for papers and documents, and to 
 have the widest range of inquiry into all mat- 
 ters connected wi'h the Navy Department, until 
 he seized upon the temporary Rbsence of the 
 chairman ot the committee as an excuse to with- 
 draw trom the case and abandon the investiga- 
 tion. This, however, he was not permitted td 
 Jo until, on the demau<l of the oflQcer accused, 
 he lia.d been required to be sworn and exam- 
 ined before the couimittee as to hid kuuwkd^^ 
 
 
3 I 
 
 Of the facts charged and the sources of his in- 
 formation. 
 
 "The cuminitteodo not deem it necessary to 
 lncumt)er this report with any detailed reference 
 to the testimony In relation to these assaults on 
 the^ersonal character of the Secretary of the 
 iNa«tand on the inteKrity of his administration, 
 ■lough to say that, although the oflifor 
 n Oeclined to avail hlmseU of the privil- 
 „ oj Hppeariux by counsel, while the accuser 
 with his cuunsel, was allowed the utmost (ree- 
 dom as to the extent?^r his Investii^alion, yet 
 he totally failed to produ«e a single witness, or 
 any proot whatever, tending in the sliirhtost 
 degree to maintain the charKes he had made, or 
 anect in any manner the personal or offlclal 
 character of the Secretary. 
 
 "It would be superfluous for the committee 
 to attempt to state tha result of the testimony 
 as to these various charges, or to show in detail 
 the manner in which each anil all of them have 
 been conclusively refuted. Not. a single, jvitness 
 even pretended to establisli. one of them. Not a 
 particle of testimony out of all the mass appended 
 10 this report has any tendemy wha ever to show 
 any fraudulent act or design un the part of the 
 ^icietary. I( it were desirable to refer to the 
 testimony at all upon this subject in detail, It 
 would not be for any purposes of refutation, but 
 only to exhibit the malignant and wanton char- 
 acter ul the libels which gave rise to this inves- 
 tigation. 
 
 ••But the committee content themselves with 
 Baying, without more general reference to the 
 proofs, that It appears, not only from the most 
 searching examination that they have been able 
 to make, but from the testimony of the accuser 
 himself, that all of the charges published In the 
 New \ork ^iui— and none published in any 
 other newspaper have been brought to the 
 notice 01 this committee— 'calculated to affect 
 Jhl""0U6ly the reputation of the Secretary of 
 the Navy, and to cast doubts upon the integrity 
 of his administration of the Navy Department,' 
 are totally devoid of any semblance of truth. 
 
 ' In view ol the lact that they were printed in 
 a paper of largo circulation, published in the 
 chief city of the country, repeated from day to 
 ^ay in every phase ol vituperation, long after 
 the testimony, including that of their author, 
 had shown their falsehood, the committee feel 
 Justified in denouncing them in the strongest 
 )^^^^^ OS the most extraordinary libels ever pub- 
 Itshed in this country against a public officer, 
 fnd a shameful perversion of the privHegei of 
 the press. ^ . 
 
 "Although, in the great latitude allowed to 
 mm, the author of these libels abstained from 
 any attempt to prove his chaigesot corruption, 
 and only tried to maintain certain alleged Irreg- 
 ularities in the administration of the Navy De- 
 partment. 
 
 "Nevertheless, the committee hav» fully In- 
 vestigated all matters brought forward by the 
 eaitor of the Sun, and all such matters as were 
 in any way suggested in the course of their in- 
 ''ff'^'^^j ^^^^ examination the Secretary hag 
 anorded them every facility, by the production 
 ot accounts, vouchers and exhibits, and by his 
 explanations given under oath." 
 
 "After this full investigation, the committee 
 are prepared to report that they do not find In 
 all the testimony taken and herewith submitted 
 any errois or irregularities of administration 
 Which would justify any action whetever by the 
 House of Representatives, or tend to throw any 
 dKscredit upon his administration." 
 
 THE SECOK CLAIM. 
 
 Ibc payment to Secor it Co. of a balance 
 of $93,000 due them for work done for the 
 department was pressed by the accusers of 
 the Secretary as illej^al, and has beeu much 
 harped upon by those who seek to deceive 
 the uninformed. This case is easily under- 
 stood when the facts are known. 
 
 The following are extracts from the report 
 of »hc committee on this point: 
 
 "The facts In regard to these So«or oliiimfl 
 Wore abundantly proFed before the committee, 
 
 and seem to be beyond dispute. During the 
 war this Arm contracted with the Navy Uepart- 
 taent for the building of certain monitors for 
 the sum of ^460,000 each. These vesswls were 
 built, accepted by the Department, and did good 
 service. The (Jovernment was to funaish the 
 plans and speclhcaiions within a certain time. 
 These plans were long delayed. 
 
 "In the interval very essential changes were 
 onlered by the Department during the .urogress 
 of the work. A large amount of extra woi Jc was 
 also ordered and oei formed during their ool''.- 
 struotion. Notwithstandinu: these obstruction! 
 the Messrs. Socor, with 'praiseworthy vseal, 
 pushed on the work and put the vessels, furnished 
 with all the modlttoations and extras required, 
 into the hands of the Qovernment in time to do 
 efficient service at Mobile and Fort Fisher. 
 Having finished their work, and It being ac- 
 cepted by the G-overnment, the Secors had, in 
 common with the other contractors for other 
 monitors built at the same time, large claims 
 for additional compensation beyond the contract 
 price. These claims were of two classes. One 
 was for the additional cost of construction under 
 their contract, arising out ot the extraordinarr 
 rise .In the price of labor and materials which 
 took place durlng,the time they were delayed 
 by the Government. This class of claims were 
 in the nature of damages. They were never 
 acted upon by the Department, but were dis- 
 posed of, with others of like nature, by legisla- 
 tion, as will appear. The other class (to which 
 the claim for $93,000 belongs) was for the actual 
 amount due for work and materials ordered, 
 furnished and accepted, entirely extra to aad 
 outside of their contracts— claims of an ordinary 
 character and subject to the ordinary action of 
 the Department. 
 
 "All the claims ot the second class, including 
 that of Secor & Co., were taken up by the De- 
 partment for ttnal settlement in 1897, and re- 
 ferred to a board of which the late Admiral 
 Gregory was president, (being the same board 
 under whose supervision the monitors were 
 originally built.) Most of the claims were set- 
 tled, and claims, precisely similar in character 
 and proponionare r^ount to the claim of Secor 
 St Co., were examin^^ settled and paid to other 
 contractors. This claim of Secor & Co., how- 
 ever, was not settled at that time, on account of 
 the sudden death of Admiral Gregory. This 
 broke up his board, and the claim was never 
 acted upon by tne Department until it came up 
 under the present Administration in the spring 
 of 1889. It was then presented to Secretary 
 Borle, who referred it to Admiral Porter, and 
 on the 6th of August, 1869, the matter was re- 
 ferred to a board consisting of Admiral Bogga, 
 (who had been associated with Admiral Gregory 
 before his death,) Chief Engineer Loring and 
 Naval Constructor Easby, all of whom had had 
 personal knowledge and superintendence of the 
 details of the construction of ships of this olasa, 
 and some of whom had had such knowledge and 
 supervision of i^hese particular vessels. 
 
 "These ctiicers examined into the claims and 
 reported that they were just, and had never 
 been paid, and amounted to $9.3,000. On this 
 report the Secretary of the Navy, in the exercise 
 of his discretion, directed their payment; and 
 afterward the Second Comptroller of the Treas- 
 ury, in the discharge of his duty, scrutinized the 
 claims, examined the laws relating to them, 
 and upon full consideration passed them as cor- 
 rect; and thus the matter was fully adjudicated 
 in the manner provided by law. 
 
 "I'; is now contended that this payment, how- 
 ever just, was barred by positive law, and was 
 improperly made by the Secretary and approved 
 by the Comptroller. To arrive at this conclu- 
 sion it Is necessary to assert that both the Secre- 
 tary and Comptroller erred In their construc- 
 tion of the effect and operation of the law 
 referred to. It should be observed that these 
 two officers were the legal judges of this ques- 
 tion, the Comptroller being by law the tlnal 
 Judge. 
 
 "Under the law the Seoond Comptroller care- 
 fully examined the Seoor claim and approved It. 
 His action was beyond the control of the Secre- 
 
tary. If it had been adverse to his previous de- 
 cision, the Secretary could not have overruled 
 it. It was not adverse; and it seems palpably 
 unjust to arraign the Secretary for an exercise 
 of his judgment which was concurred in aud 
 ratitted by ibe law officer of the Treasury, in- 
 trusted by law with the final decision of the 
 matter in question. Their action ought not to 
 be impugned, except by a tribunal authorized 
 by law to sit in judgment over both. 
 
 "But assuming that such an adjudication, 
 .made in the ordinary course of executive busi- 
 ness, may properly be reviewed by an investigat- 
 ing committee of the House of Representatives, 
 we have been able te And in it nothing but the 
 fair exercise of official discretion. 
 
 "The claim was manifestly just, and had never 
 
 irbeen paid. It was due to citizens who had 
 
 endered efficient service in a critical time. To 
 
 refuse payment would have been grossly in. 
 
 «qaitable. 
 
 "But it is asserted that the payment, however 
 just, was barred by the provisions of the law of 
 July 13, 1868, which provided for the payment of 
 the first class of claims (the damages) above re- 
 iferred to. The committee think differently." 
 
 These claims for damages (includinij one 
 •by Secor & Co.) were referred ia 1867 to 
 aaother board for examination. The board 
 reported various sums due as damages to 
 various contractors, including the Secors. 
 Their report expressly states that they con- 
 aidered and made allowance only lor the 
 damages growing out of the delay of tlie 
 Oovernment. 
 
 Congress, by the act of July 13, 1868, made 
 « special appropriation to pay the specific 
 amounts reported as dainages by this board, 
 and provided that the payment should be in 
 full "of all claims, on account of the vessels, 
 ■upon which the board made the allowance as 
 per their report, under the act of March 3, 
 1867." 
 
 The claimants accepted this payment upon 
 the assurance of Mr. Grimes, the chnirman of 
 the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, that 
 the act of 1868 would not bar their claim for 
 extra work, viz: the claim for $93,000. 
 
 " It is now contended by those who dispute 
 the propriety of the payment that the proviso 
 above quoted barred, not only all further claims 
 for damages 'under the act of March 2, 1867, 
 upon which the board made the allowance, as 
 per their report,' but also all claims /or work 
 'and materials done and furnished on the vessels 
 and accepted by the Government, however just 
 they might be, and whether the board made any 
 allowance for them, '■as per their report,^ or 
 not; and that therefore the payment was im- 
 proper." 
 The report continues: 
 
 "The committee dissent entirely from this 
 view, and hold that the payment was properly 
 aud legally made. The act of 1868 provided 
 only for the payment of the particular amounts 
 reported and allowed, and that such payment 
 should be in full discharge of the claims so re- 
 ported and allowed, 
 
 " It is easy to read the act carelessly and to 
 Stop, as so many who have quoted it have done, 
 witn the words 'in full discharge of all claims on 
 account of vessels' If we stop there it is as 
 easy to assort that the plain words of tne statute 
 must prevent the Secretary from paying any 
 possible claim of these parties upon these ves- 
 sels, although such claim might be for rebuild- 
 ing and repairs after having been in action. 
 
 '•But there are other words in the act which 
 cannot be overlookcjd. The bar is simi)ly this: 
 'In full discharge of all claims, on account of the 
 ye!l0^,uponwHchlheboardmade the allowance,' 
 as per their report uudr the act of MaroU 2, 18(57. 
 The board made no report upon the vessel; but 
 they did make their report and allowance upon 
 certain claims on account of the vessels unaer 
 the act of 1867; therefore the act provided that 
 the payment of the sum allowed should bo in 
 
 full discharge of all claims upon which that at- . 
 owance was made, as appears by the report. 
 
 "It is obvious that if it had been the mten- 
 tion of Congress to say that this payment must 
 be accepted in full of all claims of these parties 
 of every kind on account of these vessels, it was 
 very easy to say so in plain terms. In fact, it 
 was only necessary to stop with the words 'on 
 account of the vessel;' and the fact that pains 
 were taken toin.5ert the additional clause shows 
 clearly that it was intended to limit the statu- 
 tory discharge to the precise claims for which, 
 the allowance was made and the payment 
 directed. 
 
 "This is more definitely shown also by tho 
 fact that an amendment, providing that the 
 payment should be in 'discharge of all claims 
 arising out of the matters in connection with 
 which' the services and damages so claimed for 
 arose,' was offered and rejected in the Senate. 
 
 "The committee therotore conclude that, in a, 
 mere legal point of view, the decision of the 
 Secretary and Comptroller as to the constructloa 
 of this act was correct. 
 
 "But, looking at the matter in its equitable 
 aspects, It seems plain, that since it is proved 
 that this extra work was in fact done on the 
 order of the Government, and accepted by th» 
 Department; that the first board distinctly re- 
 fused to consider it; that the second board ex- 
 aminedltand pronounced it just and unpaid; 
 and that no former disposition of it was ever 
 made by the Department, it would be grossly 
 unjust and unworthy of a Government dealing 
 with a citizen, to set up an arbitrary legislatlyo 
 bar against an acknowledged liability, and to 
 extort a relinquishment of one honest debt as a, 
 consideration for the payment of another ana 
 totally different claim admitted So be due, ana 
 established by legal adjudication. 
 
 "Men are apt to permit their notions of 1*"' 
 and equity to bioome confused as to the deal- 
 ings of nations. It would be clearer if the 
 same case is stated as between private individ- 
 uals. . ... 
 
 "A builder contracts with a vestry to build a 
 church at a contract price of $50,000. By tho 
 fault of the vestry the plans are delayed, aud he 
 suffers obstructions, which cost him, as ho 
 claims, po,000. As the work goes on the vestry 
 requires him to add a spire to the building, 
 agreeing to pay its fair value beyond the con- 
 tract price. For this he claims $5,000. Tho 
 work being finished and accepted they disagree 
 as to the payment of the first claim of $20,000, 
 and agree to refer to arbitration all claims for 
 increased cost caused by fault of the vestry. 
 He produces nis whole claim of 125,000, but the 
 arbitrators refuse to consider the cost of the 
 spire as beyond the scope of their powers, and 
 they award him $5,000 for his claim for increased 
 cost, being one fourth of the amount demanded. 
 This amount is paid by the vestry, and they 
 exact a receipt for that sum 'in full discharge 
 of all claims against the vestry on account of 
 the church, upon which the arbitrators made 
 their allowance, as per their award, under the 
 agreement dated March 2.1867.' The builder 
 afterward presents his bill of ^5,000 for the 
 spire, but the vestry produce their receipt, ana 
 insist that his claim is cut off. Oould such an 
 unconscionable position be justified morally or 
 maiotained in anv court? Yet this is precisely 
 the position in which it is insisted that the Sec- 
 retary of tlie Navy ought to have placed the 
 Government of tlie United States in its deal- 
 ings with a citizen who had rendered it material 
 service in time ol war. And this is maintained 
 on a sh>irp and literal constructloa of a stat- 
 utory diseliarge, which is held to extinguish a 
 just debt by its iorce as a positive law. 
 
 '■The committee believe that it was the duty 
 of the Secretary to search for such an interpre- 
 tation of this law, within the fair import of its 
 terms, as would save tho Government from the 
 humiliation Oi such an injustice. 
 
 "Some comment has been made upon the sub- 
 ject of the appropriation out of whloh this pay- 
 ment was paid. This was a matter for the coa» 
 sideratlon of the proper officers of the Treasury 
 
013 763 732 7 
 
 Department. Bt it does not appear that any 
 irrexularlty was coimnittcd in this respect. 
 
 "The ftatcmentof the Secretary clearly ex- 
 plains the position ol the matter, as follows: 
 
 " 'The tact that the payment ot this claim 
 was maile from the proper uiipropriatlon Is also 
 clear and easily undcrstuort by any one familiar 
 with the nature of the appropriation made for 
 the bureaus ol the Dciiarimenr and with the 
 course of legislation on this suliject. Previous 
 to the act of the 15lh of July, 1«70, which sepa- 
 rated the appropriations, and provided that the 
 money appropriated for each year should' be 
 used only tor the expenses and liabilities of that 
 particular year, the amount of the approjiriaiion 
 to the credit of each bureau was made up not 
 only of the money appropriated (or the current 
 year, but also of the bnlances of all former ap- 
 propriations that remained unexpended. 
 
 " 'The yearly appropriations were based on 
 the amount of these balances, the latter beinjj 
 greater or less as the former were larger or 
 smaller, and in some instances noappropiiation 
 Was made, because the balance to tho credit of 
 the bureau was considered large enougli lor its 
 liabilities and for the anticipated expenditures. 
 '"This sum, made up ol current appropria- 
 tions and balances, was liable for both current 
 expenses and for liabilities; and, before the act 
 of 1870, was and always had betn held by the 
 Departments and by the Treasury appropriate 
 both for the current expenditure and lor all 
 the liabilities of the several appropriations 
 whose balances went to make it up. Thus, at 
 the time ol the payment of the Secor claim out 
 of the fund at the command of the Bureau of 
 Construction and IJepalr of the Navy Depart- 
 ment, that lund was made up not only of the 
 appropriation for the then current year, but also 
 of all the balances remaining ol old appropria- 
 tions, including the appropriation lor the build- 
 ing of the very ships itius paid for. This 
 amounted at the date of the payment to more 
 than $800,000, and was the very fund liable for 
 this claim, and those of like nature, and was. In 
 fact, the same fund from which Mr. Welles had 
 paid like claims toa very large amc unt, toother 
 contractors, and like claims for work on these 
 very ships, more than five times as large as that 
 paid by the present Secretary. 
 
 " 'Gentlemen, I have been in active practice 
 as a lawyer for more than twenty years in a 
 State where the law is strictly cons'trued, and 
 was for three years the official representative of 
 a bar second to none in the country, and I say, as 
 a lawyer, that however personal malignity may 
 misrepresent this case, however demagogues 
 may present the matter tor political purposes, I 
 am sure no lawyer who values his reputation as 
 
 a lawyer, and who Is informed of the facts of the 
 case, will say, as a legal question, that this claim 
 was barred by the law of 1868, and was not prop, 
 eriy paid.' 
 
 "The committee have concluded that the ac 
 tlon of the .Secretary in the payment of this 
 claim was not only within his discretion and 
 that of the comptroller, iiut was warranted by- 
 law. 
 
 '• It may be projer to remark. In connection 
 with the transactions in the case of Secor it Co., 
 and Perrine, Secor &, Co., and in fact in regard 
 to any of the matters examined by us. that a 
 simple resolution of Inquiry ol the House of Rep- 
 resentatives to the Secretary of the Navy would 
 have readily disclosed all the tacts developed 
 before the C(immittee, as they are all of record 
 in the Department, were freely exhii>lted to the 
 committee, and the expensive machinery of a 
 Congressional committee was unnecessary to 
 produce them. 
 
 " There were some other subject-matters sug- 
 gested to and examined by the committee, but 
 they were all within the legitimate discretion of 
 the .Secretary, exercised without impropriety on 
 his part, either in motive or action; and your 
 committee are not able to find any rule, either 
 of law or of right, which forbids one Secretary to- 
 do justice to a bona Jide public creditor merely 
 because It has been denied or omitted by bis pre- 
 decessor. 
 
 " In conclusion, the committee remark that 
 the Secretary of the Navy, during the period 
 embraced In our investigations, has disbursed 
 nearly $60,000,000 in the ordinary administration 
 of his Department; and it is a matter of con- 
 gratulation to the country that not only is there 
 no stain or suspicion of dishonor left upon this 
 officer, as the result of this investigation, but 
 that the searching scrutiny, invited and facili- 
 tated by him, into the various and extended 
 opera'ions of his Department, has discovered as 
 little pretence for attack as need for defence, or 
 explanation even in matters of discretion and 
 judgment." 
 
 Notwlibstandlng this fhoroujih examina 
 tion and conclusive report, signed by Repub- 
 licans and Democrats alike, and its universal 
 acceptance by Congress, the press, and the 
 people, certaiu of the original promoters of 
 tUe'se slanders are said to be now repeating 
 them, as political capital, on the stump and 
 in localities where their complete refutation 
 is unknown or has been forgotten. Their 
 motives are easily understood, but of the 
 meanness of their malignity it is difficult to 
 conceive. 
 

\ 
 
 LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 763 732 7 
 
 Metat Edge, Inc. 2007 RAJ.