27th Congress, 
 2d Session. 
 
 Sep. Xo. 1065. 
 
 Ho. of Reps. 
 
 FINISHING AND FURNISHING THE NEW CUSTOM-HOUSE, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 August 25, 1842. \^ 
 
 Read, and laid upon the table. 
 
 Mr. Richard W. Thompson, from the Select Committee to which the 
 subject had been referred, submitted the following 
 
 REPORT : 
 
 The Select Committee appointed by resolution of the House, adopted 07i 
 the 13th May, to inquire into all the circumstances attending the fin- 
 ishing and furnishing the New York custom-house, and to ascertain 
 how much is justly clue, and to whom, for work done and materials 
 provided since the 3d day of March, 1S41, and by what authority 
 such debt was contracted, beg leave to submit the following report : 
 
 The conviction entertained by the committee, that the character of the 
 matters referred to them demanded the most deliberate care and reflec- 
 tion, and that their examination should be sufficiently extended to devel- 
 op " all the circumstances attending the finishing and furnishing the 
 New York custom-house," which have recently attracted the attention of 
 the House and the country, induced them, with entire unanimity, to ask 
 of the House leave to proceed to the city of New York, where they be- 
 lieved, within a few days, more efficient labor might have been performed 
 than in as ntany months here. This, however, was refused them by the 
 House, and they have consequently found themselves encompassed with 
 difficulties at every step of their investigation. The imperfections, there- 
 fore, which may be found to occur in their examination, will be properly 
 appreciated and understood. 
 
 While they have not professed to confine themselves to the rigors of a 
 strictly legal examination, they have not lost sight of the interests either 
 of the Government or of individuals ; and if, in any instance, they have 
 lost sight of either, it has been a result which could not possibly be 
 avoided, arising chiefly, perhaps, from the conflict in the testimony, and 
 the difficulty of interpreting the motives of individuals, when concealed 
 with caution and ingenuity. All their results and all their conclusions, 
 however, have been unanimous, and have been arrived at with great 
 labor and investigation, and after much consumption of time. 
 
 The first intimation that the records of the Treasury Department furnish 
 of a desire, upon the part of the collector, to procure new furniture for 
 the custom-house, is on the 12th of September, 1840, (A,) when Mr. Hoyt 
 wrote to Mr. Woodbury as follows : " I am reminded to ask you from 
 what fund axe the expenses to be paid fox furnishing the new building: 
 
2 
 
 Hep. No. 1065. 
 
 with what furniture may be required ? Are they to be paid by the com- 
 missioner, or are they to be charged to any other and what account ?" 
 " It seems to me that it is a proper charge for the construction, and to be 
 paid from the appropriation." 
 
 In answer to this Mr. Woodbury says, in a letter of the 14th September, 
 1S40, (B,) that, "With respect to the furniture required for the other 
 portions of the building, no expenses can be incurred without a special 
 appropriation having first been made by Congress for the purpose, or 
 unless the officers who occupy the rooms should think proper to defray 
 such expenses out of their emoluments. It will, in any other event, be- 
 come necessary to use the old furniture now in the custom-house." 
 
 Oil the 10th November, 1840, (C,) Iloyt wrote again to the Secretary. 
 He said : " I suggest that you ask Congress for an appropriation to pur- 
 chase furniture for the building,'' &c. ; and gave it as his opinion that it 
 would "require from five to seven thousand dollars, in addition to the 
 furniture we now have that could be used, to jit up all the rooms. ,} 
 
 " Mr. Frazee is of opinion that a larger sum would be required than I 
 have named, and his judgment probably is better than mine in that mat- 
 ter. He thinks none of the old furniture is iit to be used, but I differ in 
 opinion with him on that question." 
 
 In reply to this letter, Mr. Woodbury, on the 13th of November, (D,) 
 said that he would "be happy to submit the matter to the consideration 
 of the appropriate committee at the meeting of Congress." He required, 
 however, that, in the mean time, u Mr. Frazee should furnish the Depart- 
 ment with a detailed estimate of the amount of money required for the 
 object stated, to be laid before the committee." 
 
 On the 12th of December, 1841, (E,) and after the commencement of 
 the session of Congress, Mr. Hoyt enclosed to the Secretary, in answer to 
 his letter of the 13th of November, a letter from Frazee to himself, dated 
 the 10th December, (F.) accompanied by an estimate of the entire cost of 
 the furniture, made by John Horspool, which amounted to S18.953 (G.) 
 In this letter Mr. Hoyt says: "I still think that £15,000 would be suf- 
 ficient. I do not concur with Mr. Frazee in the opinion expressed by him, 
 that but little of the old furniture can be used ; I think it w| answer for 
 the smaller rooms in the second and third stories." 
 
 Mr. Frazee, in his letter, says that, " to cover the entire cost of all the 
 furniture required to furnish every department of the revenue busi- 
 ness complete, you will want an appropriation of at least £20,000." And 
 he recommends that the work be ordered in advance of or in anticipation 
 of the necessary appropriations, as "such has been the case in relation 
 to other work about the building." 
 
 Thus stood the facts when they were submitted by Mr. Woodbury to 
 Congress ; and it is presumed that the House of Representatives was suf- 
 ficiently advised of them, when, on the 24th February, 1841, it was 
 brought to a vote upon this appropriation. On that day the amendment 
 made in Committee of the Whole to the civil and diplomatic appropriation 
 bill, appropriating "for furniture for the custom-house, New York, eight- 
 thousand dollars," came up in the House, upon the question of concur- 
 rence, and it was lost by a majority of twenty-five votes. ' 
 
 During the progress of these events, a difficulty had grown up between 
 Mr. Hoyt and Walter Bowne, Esq., who was at that time the commis- 
 sioner, in regard to the mode of finishing the building. In consequence 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 3 
 
 of this difficulty, Mr. Bowne had, on the 5th December, 1840, dismissed 
 • Mr. Frazee from his office of superintendent ; so that, when he wrote his 
 letter of 10th December to Mr. Hoyt, accompanied by Horspool's esti- 
 mates, he had not the superintendence of the building. 
 
 On the 17th of February, 1841, (H,) Mr. Woodbury referred these mat- 
 ters of dispute to William S. Coe, Esq., naval officer at New York, for 
 adjustment ; but the sickness of this gentleman caused him, on the 22d of 
 February, (I.) to refer them to G. W. Coe, Esq., deputy naval officer, 
 to Ely Moore, Esq., surveyor. These gentlemen reported on the 2\ 
 February, (J,) sustaining Mr. Hoyt, and pronouncing the dismissal of Mi 
 Frazee as "an act of gross injustice." In their report they say: "In 
 reference to the furniture, we would state, that, as the counters, which 
 are already put up in several of the rooms, however objectionable they 
 may be, are only intended for temporary use until suitable furniture can 
 be made, we forbear making any particular remarks on this part of the 
 subject. We would observe, however, that, the design and planning of 
 the new furniture, agreeably to the economy and arrangement which may 
 be suggested by the officers of the various departments, are things which 
 should, in our judgment, command the taste, skill, and superintendence of 
 the architect of the edifice, and that he also be permitted to select the 
 mechanics who are to execute and put up this kind of work." 
 
 The committee have thus laid before the House a full statement of the 
 facts upon which the letter of Mr. Woodbury, of 3d ot' March, 1S41, (K,) 
 to Mr. Bowne, was predicated, that the object and intention of that letter 
 may be understood, for a very material portion of the inquiry submitted 
 to them turns upon the interpretation of its language. In speaking of 
 the recommendations contained in the report of the deputy naval officer 
 and surveyor, it says : " In accordance wi$h their recommendation, I 
 deem it proper to authorize Mr. John Frazee to be continued in the sit- 
 uation of superintendent and architect of the bnilding,/W??>? the date of the 
 passage of the general appropriation bill, until the custom-house, and the 
 furnishing of the respective rooms, shall have been completed; and it is 
 desirable that Mr. Frazee's plan for the interior arrangements of the 
 building should be carried into effect, so far as regards the arrangements 
 of the fly -doors, furniture, and painting of the iron work" 
 
 Could Mr. Woodbury have intended this letter as authority for the ex- 
 penditure of money to procure furniture ? The committee can find in it no 
 language capable of such construction. Standing alone, it certainly con- 
 veys no such meaning ; but, when taken in connexion with his previous 
 correspondence with Mr. Hoyt, there is no possible apology for so inter- 
 preting it. In his letter of September 14 he had expressly told the collect- 
 or " that no expense can be incurred without a special appropriation hav- 
 first been made by Congress for the purpose;" and he had subsequently 
 laid before Congress an estimate for such appropriations, which failed in 
 the House of Representatives. With a knowledge of this failure, it is not 
 probable that he would have been reconciled to do that which before he 
 had refused. The committee are clearly of opinion that not a word is to 
 be found in the correspondence of Mr. Woodbury justifying the expendi- 
 ture of a single dollar for furniture, or looking to any thing else for that 
 purpose than an appropriation by Congress. This letter contemplates the 
 continuance of Frazee in office " from the date of the passage of the general 
 appropriation bill." Why consider his services as requisite from this time, 
 
/ 
 
 4 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 unless be had looked alone to the expenditure of money embraced in that 
 bill? That bill appropriated other money for the custom-house; and it 
 was for the purpose of superintending the expenditure of this amount that 
 he restored him to office. The restoration looked to this alone, and not to 
 the furniture. He was to continue in office * until the custom-house, 
 and the furnishing of the respective rooms, shall have been completed." 
 How completed ? By appropriations by Congress ; for he had already de- 
 clared that no furniture should be purchased in any other way. 
 
 The "plan" of Mr. Frazee, "for the interior arrangement of the build- 
 ing" was to be carried into effect, so far as regards the arrangements of 
 the fly-doors, furniture, and painting of the iron work." How and when 
 to be carried into effect ? Certainly not without an appropriation made by 
 Congress. This whole sentence is, so far as the Secretary had the power, 
 a mere approval of K razee's "plan for the arrangements of the fly-doors, 
 furniture, and painting of the iron work." 'It goes no further, and em- 
 braces nothing else. It is by no means ambiguous or uncertain. It simply 
 and plainly means that, whenever an appropriation is made by Congress, 
 the " plan" and " arrangements" of Frazee are adopted by the Secretary, 
 for the " fly-doors, furniture, and painting of the ironwork." The esti- 
 mate of Horspool had been made under the direction of Frazee, and it 
 contemplated certain furniture for each department of the building. The 
 " arrangements" of this plan Mr. Woodbury intended to approve. 
 
 This was the condition of things when Mr. Ewing came into office. On 
 the 19th of March, 1841, it was announced, in the National Intelligencer, 
 that Edward Curtis, the present collector of the port of New York, was 
 appointed to that office. It is believed that lie did not enter on the duties 
 of his station until the 23d or 24th of the month. On the 25th of March, 
 (L,) before he had been thrct days in office, he wrote to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury that "there was a long-continued controversy between John 
 Frazee, architect of the new custom-house, and Walter Bowne, Esq., the 
 acting commissioner. The late Secretary, after much inquiry and exam- 
 ination, decided that Mr. Frazee should go on to finish the custom-house, 
 and furnish it in his own toc/y, and without the interference of Mr. Bowne, 
 who differs in opinion with the architect." The committee have searched 
 w r ith much care for the letter of Mr. Woodbury, from which this autho 
 for Frazee to " go on to finish the custom-house, and furnish it in his own 
 tvay," is derived. They have not found it, and believe that none such 
 exists. They have already shown that his letter of the 3d of March could 
 not be warped into this construction. From whence, then, did Mr. Curtis 
 derive authority for this declaration ? The committee are at a loss to know. 
 He must have been conversant with the manner in which the dispute be- 
 tween Hoyt and Bowne had been reconciled, for he speaks of the result 
 in his letter of the 25th of March. He therefore knew the state of facts 
 upon which Mr. Woodbury's letter of the 3d of March was predicated. 
 He had, besides, been a member of the House of Representatives when the 
 proposition had failed, on the 24th of February, only one month before, 
 to appropriate only $S,000 to this work, and had himself voted with the 
 minority. He knew all the facts. In view, therefore, of all these things, 
 the committee are constrained to conclude that Mr. Curtis, by his letter of 
 the 25th of March, 1842, intended to deceive and mislead the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, in order to obtain, by his assent, the expenditure of money 
 
Eep. No. 1065. 5 
 
 which he knew Congress had refused but a month before ! How this can 
 be reconciled with a conscientious discharge of his obligations as a public 
 officer, the committee leave to the House and the country to determine. 
 
 This letter of Mr. Curtis was answered by Mr. Ewing on the 2d of 
 April, 1S42, (M,) at which time he enclosed to him the schedule and estimate 
 that had been previously made by Horspool. In his answer he said : " It 
 is desirable that you should carefully examine the subject, and, if neces- 
 sary, advise with some person familiar with such matters, with the view 
 of determining whether all the articles specified will be absolutely requir- 
 ed, and also as to the reasonableness of the prices affixed to them." 
 
 "I wish you, moreover, to ascertain whether some of the old furniture 
 cannot be used, as suggested in Mr. Hoyt's letter, and report to me your 
 opinion on the subject at as early a day as may be practicable." 
 
 The language of this letter shows that Mr. Ewing had not very care- 
 fully examined the previous correspondence between Mr. Woodbury and 
 Hoyt, or else the unqualified declaration of Mr. Curtis, that Frazee was 
 authorized to " go on" with the work, threw .him off his guard. > There 
 could have been no better time for effecting such a purpose. The Secre- 
 _ tary had been a very short time in office, and was consequently not very 
 familiar with its complicated affairs, and there was much to confuse and 
 disturb his mind in the dangerous illness of the then President. Under 
 such a state of things, it was not likely that he should escape the conse- 
 quences of a stroke of policy as bold as it seemed to have been determined. 
 He therefore confidingly intrusted the matter to the re-examination of 
 he collector. 
 
 But on the 1st of April, 1841, (N,) and while his letter of the 25th 
 March was yet unanswered, Mr. Curtis again wrote the Secretary. In 
 this letter he said : " The collectors have always been allowed to purchase 
 necessary far nit are out of the emoluments of the office. If the fees, &c, 
 at this time, (had the act of 14th July, 1832, not gone into effect,) would 
 be sufficient to defray all the ordinary expenses, and also purchase the 
 furniture wanted for the new custom-house, I can see no reason why 
 the collector may not, with the approbation of the Secretary, go on and 
 furnish the custom-house, as the act of 21st July, 1S40, reviving and 
 continuing the relief section, as it has been termed, places at the disposal 
 of the collector, for the expenses of his office, the same amount of funds that 
 he would have had under the operation of the laws as they existed prior 
 to the 14th July, 1832." 
 
 It appears to the committee as not a little singular, if" the collectors have 
 always been allowed to purchase furniture out of the emoluments of the 
 office," that the fact should not have occurred, during a correspondence of 
 nearly six months, to Mr. Woodbury or Mr. Hoyt ; and especially to the 
 latter, who seemed so anxious about it, and who has not less either of 
 talent or ingenuity than Mr. Curtis. But, so far from any such opinions 
 being entertained by them, they looked during this whole correspondence 
 alone to an appropriation by Congress. Mr. Woodbury, in his letter of 
 14th September, 1840, had said that no furniture could be procured with- 
 out an appropriation, " ma/ess the officers ivho occupy the rooms should 
 think proper to defray such expenses out of their emoluments ;" and the 
 committee are of opinion that it will be found that no other "emoluments" 
 have heretofore, by the sanction of law, been applied to this purpose. Mr 
 Curtis pretends that this construction can be put upon the act of 21st July 
 
6 
 
 Bep. No. 1065. 
 
 1840, reviving the laws as they existed prior to the 14th July, 1832. 
 This act was passed during Mr. Hoyt's administration of the custom- 
 house, and while Mr. Woodbury was Secretary of the Treasury ; and if 
 it had been liable to that interpretation, it would not have been likely to 
 escape their observation. Do not these emoluments pass into the pubii*: 
 Treasury ? Are they not the property of the Government? If they are 
 capable of being disposed of at the pleasure of the collector, the extent of 
 his power cannot be readily estimated. The annual average of these fees 
 and emoluments for the last sixteen years has been $44,4 17 55, and since 
 the passage of the act of the 14th of July, 1832, there has been paid out of 
 the Treasury, to make up the deficiency in them occasioned by that act, 
 the sum of $285,384 65, the amount for the year 1840 alone ben;? 
 §60,755 SO (0.) If it were, therefore, admitted, for the sake of argument", 
 that these fees were subject to appropriation and expenditure by the col- 
 lector, as his ideas of taste and neatness in the arrangement of the custom- 
 house may dictate, is there not a most lamentable defect in our laws which 
 require annual appropriations from the Treasury to make good the deficit 
 which his expenditures may create ? But the committee do not think the 
 construction of the collector justified by the terms of the law, and are com- 
 pelled to regard all the expenditures under this construction as in violation 
 of its import. To remedy all defects, and to place this matter beyond the 
 mere caprice of the collector and his subordinates, the committee do not 
 hesitate to recommend that the salaries of all the officers of the custom- 
 house be fixed by law, and that they be paid from the Treasury of the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. Curtis further said, in this letter of the 1st of April : " If you will 
 give me authority, I will proceed to furnish the building, pursuing the plan 
 proposed by Mr. Frazee, the architect, to the late Secretary, and which 
 was approved by him." 
 
 And, further : " I shall, of course, observe the utmost economy in fur- 
 nishing the new house, consistent with the plans of the architect, which, I 
 have before said, were approved by the late Secretary, whose letter I have 
 seen, directing Mr. Frazee to pursue his plan, &c, and not that of Mr. 
 Bowne." This letter is very carefully worded, and evidently with the 
 intention of keeping the Secretary unadvised, as far as possible, of the facts ; 
 for, while he could not have anticipated the deception which was practised 
 upon him, the crisis of the President's disease had so nearly arrived, as to 
 alarm not only the Cabinet, but the country. 
 
 It again, in effect, when he declares that he has seen the letter of the 
 Secretary, directing Mr. Frazee to pursue his plan, &.c, reiterates the dec- 
 laration in his letter of the 25th of February, that Mr. Woodbury had di- 
 rected Frazee to " go on'' and "finish and furnish 7 ' the building u th his 
 own way." The committee repeat that they have seen nothing authoriz- 
 ing this declaration, and can but wonder at the pertinacity with which it 
 is insisted on. 
 
 On the 5th of April, (P,) Mr. Ewing wrote to Mr. Curtis as follows : 
 " In consideration of the circumstances stated in your letter of the 1st in- 
 stant, I deem it proper to authorize you to furnish the new custom-house 
 plainly and substantially, using so much of the old furniture as may be 
 convenient, and taking care to exercise proper economy in the matter." 
 
 What were the several "circumstances" in Mr. Curtis's letter of the 1st 
 instant, alluded to by Mr. Ewing? The first was the declaration of Mr. 
 
Rep. lS T o. 1065. 
 
 7 
 
 Curtis that "the collectors have always been allowed to purchase necessary 
 furniture out of the emoluments of the office" and the second that he had 
 seen the letter of Mr. Woodbury, "directing Mr. Frazee to pursue his 
 plan" <$*c, or, in other words, as he had already said in his letter of 25th. 
 February, directing him to "go on" and "finish and furnish" the house 
 in his own way. 
 
 Now, the committee do not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate for the 
 public interest that this consent, contained in Mr. Ewing's letter of the 5th 
 April, was given: and they have as little hesitation in declaring it to be 
 their opinion that it would not have been given if he had been advised of 
 all the facts, and especially of that most important one, that the proposition 
 to appropriate only $8,000 for this purpose had failed in the House of 
 Representatives. This latter fact was carefully kept from his view by Mr. 
 Curtis throughout his correspondence, and the position of the Secretary 
 "was taken advantage of to practise, to say the least of it, the most disingen- 
 uous artifice. 
 
 But, before this letter of Mr. Ewing of the 5th April reached Mr. Curtis, 
 he prepared his letter of the 7th April, (Q,) in answer to Mr. Ewing's of 
 the 2d April, which enclosed to him the schedule and estimate of Horspool. 
 
 In this letter he says : " I do not find, upon inquiry, that the prices stated 
 in the schedule are much out of the way, but I do not expect to employ 
 the person who made out that estimate, and have no doubt I shall save 
 something by employing other persons. It will be seen, by reference to 
 the correspondence with Mr. Frazee, &c, that a question arose whether 
 Mr. Frazee's mode and plan of furnishing should be adopted, or those pre- 
 pared by Mr. Bowne, the commissioner. The correspondence shows that 
 your predecessor adopted that of Mr. Frazee, and " directed him to go on 
 tvith it." 
 
 Here again the quo animo of the collector is evident, from the earnest- 
 ness with which he presses upon the Secretary the declaration that Mr. 
 Frazee was " directed to go on" with the work. He had resolved, no 
 doubt, upon effecting his purpose, and was not to be intimidated by ordina- 
 ry impediments. He found it essential, or seemed to think that he had, to 
 keep before Mr. Ewing his interpretation of the opinions of his " predeces- 
 sor" as inducements for his own ; and, while he hesitated not as to the mode 
 of interpreting those, of th£ latter, he most industriously sought to mould 
 the former to his will. How well he effected that object the committee 
 have already shown. The consequences of it are to be exhibited hereafter. 
 
 Before this letter of the 7th April was despatched, Mr. Curtis received 
 that of the 5th from Mr. Ewing. He consequently added to it, by way of 
 postscript, that, " in pursuance of that instruction and the suggestions of 
 this letter, I shall forthwith proceed to furnish the new custom-house." 
 
 The committee, having thus laid before the House all the facts upon 
 'which authority to contract for furniture for the custom-house is claimed to 
 rest, will state, as briefly as the nature of it will permit, as derived from the 
 parol testimony which they have taken, the manner in which the matter 
 has been conducted. 
 
 On the 10th April, (R,) three days after Mr. Curtis received the last letter 
 of Mr. Ewing, he addressed to a Mr. Joseph Hough, a broker and lottery 
 dealer of New York, a letter, from which the following are extracts : 
 
 "I am directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to proceed to furnish. 
 
8 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 the custom-house. The plan and style of furnishing was settled by Mr. 
 Woodbury, the late Secretary, &c. 
 
 "I wish you to assist me ; for, although I have ?nade inquiry among 
 the cabinet makers, yet I have not the time personally to make full inqui- 
 ry, nor to go through the whole operation of talking the matter through to 
 the end with half a dozen contending mechanics. You must do this. In 
 order that you may understand and be able to make others understand, I 
 send you the estimates of the furniture required, made out by Mr. Hors- 
 pool, and which were forwarded by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Frazee to Mr. 
 Woodbury. I do not feel disposed to pay the prices estimated by Mr. Hors- 
 pool ; indeed, from my inquiry, I do not think I shall be compelled to go 
 up to these prices. If you cannot, however, find some one who will do 
 the work in the most perfect manner, and with despatch, for less than Hors- 
 pool, then he must have the contract ; but you must avoid this." 
 
 This selection of Mr. Hough, as an agent to procure a cabinet maker, 
 certainly has something about it most strikingly singular. Why he, a bro- 
 ker, who says he was " not particularly acquainted with the article of 
 furniture" should have been selected from amongst a population like that 
 of the city of New York, is rather inexplicable. An unprejudiced mind is 
 compelled to view it, at first blush, with suspicion ; and it may perhaps be, 
 that the influence of this feeling has given a coloring to the opinions of the 
 committee in regard to the transactions which have grown out of it. Those 
 opinions, however, are the result of the most anxious thought and the so- 
 berest investigation. 
 
 We must depend upon the circumstances elicited during the investiga- 
 tions of the committee for the motive which induced the selection of Mr. 
 Hough. When inquired of on this subject, Mr. Hough says: " There 
 never teas any understanding between myself and Mr. Curtis, other 
 than what is contained in his letter and my reply." Now, this letter is 
 a mere request that he will accept the agency for the selection of a certain 
 cabinet maker, and his reply (S) informs him that it has been executed. By 
 the terms of these letters, the agency was at an end upon the execution of 
 this trust. But when questioned afterwards upon the continuation of his 
 agency, he says: " My agency consisted entirely in this, that the work 
 should not be delayed, but that the furniture should be ready as required; 
 which agency expired when the work was completed, about two months 
 since" And, at another time, he says : " I made up my own mind that I 
 ought to be paid a commission of one per cent, upon the amount dis- 
 bursed." There is an irreconcilable discrepancy in these statements. If 
 nothing passed between Hough and Curtis, except what is contained in the 
 correspondence between them, it is very manifest that his agency expired 
 as soon as Storm had been contracted with; and if he discharged any addi- 
 tional agency, such as seeing that the work should not be delayed, " there 
 must have have been some additional" understanding between him and 
 Curtis. Did Curtis wait from the 10th to the 20th of April, without hear- 
 ing from him ? How did he know that he was willing to undertake the 
 agency, especially when the execution of it required a departure from his 
 ordinary avocations ? Upon the whole, the committee do not hesitate to 
 believe that there was some other motive than is deducible from the terms 
 of Curtis's letter and Hough's reply. Upon any other hypothesis, the trans- 
 action is wholly unexplainable. 
 
 But there is something on the face of this correspondence itself which 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 9 
 
 has stricken the committee with some surprise. The letter from Curtis 
 says: " You must call the manufacturers to the new custom-house, and 
 there, with them, wait upon Mr. Frazee, who will exhibit the plans and 
 drawings of the furniture to be made." This instruction was not only- 
 proper, but just such an one as gave a fair opportunity for competition 
 among the cabinet makers, and for a reduction in the price of the furniture. 
 Bat how was it executed ? Hough, in his letter, says: "I have made in- 
 quiry among the cabinet makers, and have finally selected Mr. Abraham 
 Storm, as one likely to give satisfaction, both as to style of work and 
 economy of expense, and have his estimate for furnishing the new custom- 
 house, which I herewith hand you " If there were, therefore, no under- 
 standing between them, "other than what is contained" in these letters, 
 there appears to the committee to have been a full determination, upon the 
 part of each, to deprive, not only Horspool, but all others, of the job, except 
 such as were particularly acceptable to Mr. Hough. The cabinet makers 
 were not called together at the custom-house, and this Mr. Curtis must 
 have known. The " plans and drawings of the furniture," which Hough 
 was told would be furnished by Frazee at the custom-house, were never 
 exhibited to Storm — Curtis only furnishing Hough with HorspooPs esti- 
 mate of prices, in order thnt he might be enabled to '•' avoid" contracting 
 with Horspool himself. Without these " plans and drawings," Storm could 
 not bid for the work advisedly; yet it will be seen, by the terms of his con- 
 tract, (T,) that they were never furnished, for it contains nothing but the 
 names of the several articles, just as they were in Horspool's estimate, 
 which was made out long before Curtis's letter of instructions to Hough 
 was written. The committee think that it was the duty of Mr. Curtis, 
 after Mr. Hough neglected these several essentials to a fair and open con- 
 tract, which would have done full justice to all the cabinet makers as well 
 as to the Government, to attend to them himself, and that the neglect of 
 them is highly censurable. 
 
 But Mr. Hough says, in this letter: " I have made inquiry among the 
 cabinet makers" In his testimony before the committee he says : " i 
 consulted no cabinet maker ; I informed jnyself from other sources" 
 Which of these statements is true, the committee have no means of deter- 
 mining, but incline to think the latter to be so, from the fact that it seems 
 more reconcilable with some other features of this transaction. Why Mr. 
 Hough should have made one statement in his letter, and another in his 
 testimony, directly in conflict with it, is more difficult of interpretation. 
 
 He also tells Mr. Curtis that he has procured Storm's " estimate for fur- 
 nishing the new custom-house, which I [he] herewith hand you." This 
 statement he confirms in his testimony. But Storm swears that he did not 
 furnish Hough with "an estimate of prices," (and reiterates the declaration,) 
 but that he furnished it to Mr. Curtis. If he did not furnish it, Hough writes 
 untruly in his letter to Curtis, and so swears before the committee ; and if he 
 did, Storm swears falsely. Which of these conclusions is the true one, is 
 probably not very material to a full understanding of the matter submitted 
 to the committee, except as an index to other things which follow. 
 
 Another singular state of facts is developed by this correspondence be- 
 tween Curtis and Hough. After saying, " I have made inquiry among the 
 cabinet makers," &c., Curtis says, "I do not feel disposed to pay the prices 
 estimated by Mr. Horspool," &c. Now, it is perfectly manifest,' from these 
 deductions, that Mr. Curtis must have ascertained, from his " inquiry among 
 
10 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 the cabinet makers," lhat the work could be done cheaper than the esti- 
 mate of Horspool. Why, therefore, did he not inform Hough of this fact, 
 and desire him to call on those who would do it cheaper ? Mr. Shipman, 
 a cabinet maker of capital and experience, had already desired the job. 
 Why was not Hough referred to him? Instead of pursuing this open and 
 ingenuous course, Hough, a lottery broker, " not particularly acquainted 
 with the article of furniture," was permitted to exercise his discretion. He 
 says he called on no cabinet maker but Storm, whom he "selected;" 
 and the committee are constrained to conclude that it was because he 
 was thus " selected" that Curtis contracted with him, and not from any 
 knowledge he himself possessed of his means, capacity, or ability to execute 
 the contract. Why he was thus "selected," and why he was thus con- 
 tracted with, the sequel will develop. 
 
 There is one very specific and rather curious instruction in this letter of 
 Mr. Curtis. He says : " If you cannot, however, find some one who will 
 do the work in the most perfect manner, and with despatch, for less than 
 Horspool asks, then lie must have the contract; but you must avoid this" 
 Why should he avoid giving it to Horspool, or deprive him of the opportu- 
 nity of entering into fair competition with other workmen ? Was he not as 
 honest and competent as Storm ? He had been originally selected to make 
 the estimate by Frazec, and it was this estimate which was laid before the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, and which Mr. Curtis says Mr. Woodbury ap- 
 proved. 
 
 The committee think, if there was to be no competition in the matter, 
 that Horspool should have had the opportunity of refusing or accepting the 
 job. But they find that, instead of being thus fairly dealt with by the offi- 
 cers of the Government, his estimate is extorted from him, under the belief 
 that he shall have a chance for the work ; and this Very estimate is placed 
 in the hands of a selected favorite of the collector, who is specially instruct- 
 ed to "avoid" him, and it is ultimately made the means of underbidding 
 him. 
 
 The committee can find no softer terms by which to characterize this 
 conduct, than that it is unfair, unjust, and oppressive. 
 
 But how did Hough contrive to " avoid" Horspool? By failing to give 
 public notice, which the interest of the Government required should be 
 done, and by secretly and privately selecting Storm. He says: u I gave 
 no notice whatever." "I consulted no cabinet maker," but " made sue': 
 inquiry" as "satisfied myself" which I derived "from other sources." 
 W 7 hat " other sources" of information had he ? Did he call upon gentle- 
 men of his own occupation, to ascertain the prices for which he could pro- 
 cure cabinet furniture ? Certainly, if there had not been something about 
 this business that the parties did not desire should see the light, there could have 
 been no hesitation about consulting the cabinet makers themselves. They 
 were the proper persons to furnish correct information. But they are stu- 
 diously avoided, and Storm is "selected" by information from " other 
 -sources." And how was he selected? Hough says, when he called on 
 Storm, he " submitted a list of the furniture" Storm says that he not 
 only did not submit such a list, but merely told him that Mr. Curtis desir- 
 ed to see him ; and this he states more than once. Hough swears that 
 lie called on Storm some "half dozen" times before the contract was made 
 -with Curtis. Storm swears that there was " only one" such interview. 
 Hough swears that he had several interviews with Storm, " without men- 
 
Bcp. No. 1065. 
 
 11 
 
 lion of Mr. Curtis. 99 Storm swears that he mentioned him at the first and 
 only interview they had. These discrepancies are totally irreconcilable 
 with tlje truth. One or the other of these witnesses speaks falsely. If the 
 transaction between them had been a fair and honest one, there was no 
 need for hesitation or concealment ; there was none for that deep reluctance 
 with which the few facts that were extorted from them by piecemeal 
 were told. The truth fears no exposure, but error and falsehood are al- 
 ways seeking concealment. Why it was sought in this case must appear 
 from the facts. In the course of their commentary upon these facts, the 
 committee will have occasion to exhibit some other most striking and sin- 
 gular discrepances between the testimony of Hough and Storm. 
 
 Before the committee proceed to expose what they believe to have been 
 the motive for the secret management of this matter, they will remark that 
 it is their full conviction that Hough and Storm came before them with a 
 concerted story in regard to their connexion, and that it was only by the 
 most persevering course of examination that any thing approximating the 
 truth was obtained from either of them. How else can their repeated con- 
 tradictions be accounted for ? And it may be further necessary to remark, 
 that all the facts may be properly appreciated, that the conduct of the col- 
 lector, as connected with the examination itself, is not altogether without 
 suspicion. It will be perceived, by an examination of the evidence, that 
 the testimony of Mr. McAuley was very material to a full understanding of 
 this matter. Yet he could not pass through New York, on his way to this 
 city, without a visit from Mr. Curtis! 
 
 Now, this Mr. McAuley is evidently an unwilling, though the commit- 
 tee think an honest witness. When interrogated on the subject of his being 
 conversed with in New York about this investigation, it required several 
 ^questions to extract from him the admission of the fact that Mr. Curtis had 
 called on him. 
 
 W T hy should Mr. Curtis desire to converse with a witness who had been 
 subpoenaed by this committee, and to attempt to create impressions upon his 
 mind ? For he tells him that he does not believe that Hough ever received 
 a cent from Storm. 
 
 This may be consistent with the entire innocence of the collector ; but, 
 in transactions between individuals, the law would regard such an inter- 
 ference with a good deal of suspicion. And by repeated and tedious in- 
 terrogatories the fact was reluctantly extorted from Storm and Hough, 
 that he had been carrying on a private correspondence with Hough while 
 attending the sessions of the committee. This private letter was handed 
 by Mr. Curtis to McAuley, and was directed to Storm, enclosed in a blank 
 envelope. Why not direct it to Hough at once ? Wherefore the necessi- 
 ty for circuity in a plain and honest business transaction ? When the let- 
 ter is traced to Hough, he says he would have no objection to exhibit a 
 copy of it, but it is torn up ! Why tear it up ? If it were a business letter, 
 he certainly would not have done so. If it was upon the subject of this 
 investigation, (and Hough admits that a part of it was,) then the very fact 
 of destroying it shows that there was something in it which either Hough 
 or Curtis, or both, were afraid to have exposed. The committee think that 
 these circumstances are by no means creditable to the collector ; and that, 
 if he had felt conscious rectitude of motive, he would have permitted the 
 investigation to have gone on without interference from him. Innocence 
 has no fear of truth or its consequences. 
 
12 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 It will be perceived that there is so much and so striking discrepancy 
 between the statements of Hough and Storm, as to the number and char- 
 acter of the interviews between them before the contract for furniture was 
 made, that it is impossible to confide in either. Enough, however, is shown 
 to justify the belief that, when the proposition was first made to Storm, he 
 gave no satisfactory answer, and could not determine what to do with- 
 out reflection and consultation. This consultation was had with several 
 persons, and especially with Mr. Charles McAulcy, whom he visited im- 
 mediately. McAuley swears that he (Storm) told him that Hough had 
 "asked him if he would divide the profits with him if tie would give him 
 a job of from 20,000 to 25,000 dollars" and advised with him what to do. 
 He gave him no advice, but recommended him to call on Moses H. Grin- 
 nell. When Hough and Storm were questioned in regard to this matter, 
 they positively denied it; but the committee are compelled to regard their 
 frequent contradictions of each other as entirely destroying their credibility, 
 especially in all matters connected with this combination to cheat the Gov- 
 ernment. Even in regard to the fact of having known each other before, 
 they are involved in a positive contradiction. Storm says, that before the 
 contract he had known Hough "for some lime as a bowing acquaintance" 
 fyc, and Hough swears that he had no acquaintance with Storm. These dis- 
 crepancies are found to exist throughout nearly all the material portions of 
 their testimony, except that which relates to what they state in regard to 
 Storm's proposition to Hough to make him an advance of money to prose- 
 cute the job. The manner in which this is stated proves evidently that it 
 was a concerted story, made either before they left New York or after they 
 came to Washington, to prevent the detection of the fraud which they 
 had practised. No one can doubt this when it is seen that they cannot 
 identify the time when this proposition was made — Storm swearing that it 
 was " after the contract was entered into" and Hough, with equal pos- 
 itiveness. that it was before that time. It would be useless to pursue these 
 discrepancies, for it would make this report too voluminous, and tend to no 
 practical result, as the most cursory observation must satisfy all, who take 
 the pains to examine the evidence, that both of these men are unworthy of 
 credit, whatever may have been their previous standing in society. Mr. 
 Hough is said to have sustained a good reputation, and he has furnished 
 evidence of this fact in the testimonials of several gentlemen of the highest 
 standing in the public councils and in private life, (U ;) and Storm has 
 also furnished testimony of his previous standing, in the testimony of Mr. 
 Barclay. But this, it seems, is no guarantee against the thousand tempta- 
 tions which beset the pathway of all who are associated with the New 
 York custom-house, and which appear to have seduced them into practices 
 which there, perhaps, are only considered as evidences of tact and ingenu- 
 ity, rather than of criminality. However this may be, they must be con- 
 tent to abide the judgment of the country upon the facts here developed. 
 The committee have no desire to do them wrong. They have hesitated 
 long before coming to these conclusions, and have studied anxiously to 
 avoid them. If they are wrong, theirs is an error of judgment, not of in- 
 tention. 
 
 It is impossible that they can arrive at any other conclusion, in regard to 
 this matter, than that Storm did communicate to McAuley and Ruckelthe 
 true proposition made to him by Hough : which was, that Hough should 
 receive a part of the profits of the job. And they are inclined to think 
 
Hep. No. 1065. 
 
 13 
 
 that McAuley stated to Joseph R. Bleecker, much more correctly than fcfe 
 since remembers, or is willing to tell, the conversation between him and 
 Storm ; and when he said that Storm told him that u he could add on to 
 the different articles enough to make up the bonus"' which Hough was 
 to receive, and that " he should clear six thousand dollars, and Hough 
 would receive as much ?nore" This belief is more than warranted from 
 the fact that, after the contract was entered into, and the prices and char- 
 acter of the work ag^ed upon, continual changes were made in both. The 
 contract bound Storm to execute the job for S IS, 555, and the account now 
 rendered is for §25,937, leaving $1,382 which he yet claims, and which is 
 still in the hands of Mr. Curtis, the collector. This would make a very 
 handsome profit for Mr. Hough, and would compensate him very fully for 
 his most valuable services in superintending and seeing that the work was 
 faithfully executed — a duty which he was so well qualified, from previous 
 habit, to discharge. 
 
 Since this investigation, and after Storm and Hough returned to New 
 York from their attendance upon the committee, both Mr. Curtis and Storm 
 have forwarded to the committee and to the Secretary of the Treasury 
 statements made by persons, respectable no doubt, in regard to the value 
 of this work. These statements are entirely ex parte, and have not been 
 regarded by the committee ; nor, viewing the foregoing facts as they have 
 done, do they consider them at all material. If, as they do not doubt, 
 Hough and Storm each entertained a fraudulent design when their con- 
 tract was entered into, it is not very difficult to determine that this design 
 still exists, and that they would not hesitate to make as many innocent per- 
 sons as possible auxiliary to it. The estimates of value made at this time 
 must necessarily depend more or less upon the statements and representa- 
 tions of Storm. Therefore, it may very easily happen that his appraisers 
 may have been led into error by him ; and this the more easily, as they are 
 said to be very honest and, of course, unsuspicious men. Whatever may 
 be the character of their appraisements, the committee cannot notice them, 
 as they do not come before them in a manner to be recognised as evidence. 
 Besides, it is not now considered important what the value of the work is, 
 for, as it will afterwards appear, there was no authority under the law or 
 the contract to construct it as it now is. 
 
 By reference to the contract, it will be seen that Storm was bound to 
 finish the entire job for $1S,555, and that the collector, Mr. Curtis, only 
 retained the power to alter the character of the work. Now, it does not 
 any where appear that authority was given by Curtis to Stormib alter any 
 portion of it. Frazee, the architect and superintendent, swears that he gave 
 the directions, and in this he is corroborated by Storm. These directions Storm 
 was under no obligations to obey, and all alterations in the work made by 
 him, in consequence of them, were made at his own hazard. The Govern- 
 ment, certainly, is not bound by any thing done by Frazee under this con- 
 tract, with which he had nothing to do, and of which fact Storm was well 
 aware. If it were, and the precedent should be now established, it would 
 inevitably lead to the most wasteful and extravagant expenditure of pub- 
 lic money. For the whole of this extra work there is no shadow of claim 
 against the Government, and the committee have not hesitated to recom- 
 mend that it should not be paid. If the work were necessary to the cus- 
 tom-house, or if it were indispensable to the furniture, an equitable case 
 for compensation would be presented-, which they would not feel at liberty 
 
14 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 to disregard. But it is not so. The whole is extravagant beyond exam- 
 ple, as they have every reason to believe. 
 
 In view of the whole case, so far as Mr. Storm is concerned, they think 
 that he has had ample justice done him, and that he has been paid alf he can 
 rightfully demand. His contract was not authorized by law, but was made 
 m the face of a positive refusal of the House of Representatives to grant 
 authority to make it ; and to give it now the force and validity of one made 
 by such authority would be to invite the most unnecessary expenditures 
 of money by all the public officers of the country wwmight have the har- 
 dihood to make contracts for that which they considered necessary to their 
 comfort and convenience. 
 
 The committee think that it is the duty of Congress to put a stop to such 
 things at once, for the most ample treasury will not furnish the means of 
 meeting the requisitions which they will make upon it. And, while they 
 thus insist upon a strict adherence to this rule, they can well conceive that 
 it will be urged that injustice will result to the honest workmen, who are 
 thus circumvented by cunning office holders, or those whom they employ 
 to do their work, when they themselves do not desire to be known in the 
 settlement of the private conditions of a contract. But even if this were a 
 case of that kind, and Storm was not shown to have entered upon the 
 contract with a fraudulent design, he is not without his remedy. The 
 law, open alike to all, will afford him redress, if he can go into her sanctuary 
 with clean hands. But of the Government he can expect nothing more. 
 In this business, she has endured imposition enough ; and it is time that all 
 men connected with public affairs should be taught that the public 
 money is guarded by legislative power, and that the purse-strings shall not 
 be loosened as the interest of private individuals may require. And there 
 could possibly arise no case in which the necessity for the adoption of the 
 rule now insisted on by the committee is more clearly exemplified than this. 
 When the subject was first presented to the House of Representatives, while 
 Mr. Curtis was a member, the sum of $8,000 alone was asked. After- 
 wards it was estimated at $18,555, for which Storm agreed to do it ; and 
 now the Government is asked to pay the sum of #25,937 ! 
 
 The committee do not hesitate to say that, in regard to this contract with 
 Storm, and the execution of it, the conduct of Mr. Curtis, the collector, 
 was in the highest degree censurable. They have already said that the 
 very fact of selecting a broker to make a furniture contract was suspi- 
 cious. They repeat that they can look upon it no more charitably. And 
 this suspicion is not diminished when they consider the fact that his agency 
 continued until the job was finished, without any understanding as to his 
 compensation. There is sometfung in this rather inexplicable. It is not 
 likely that Mr. Hough would have thus neglected his own business with- 
 out compensation ; and, there being no compensation agreed on, it is not 
 improbable that there was a private understanding between Curtis and 
 him in regard to it ; for that something of a very private nature has passed 
 between them is evident from the fact of Curtis's having written to Hough 
 after he came to Washington, which letter Hough says he destroyed! 
 Did Curtis know what had passed between Storm and Hough in regard 
 10 the contracts? This is all that points towards Hough's compensation ; 
 and therefore was most probably known to him, or he would have said 
 something to Hough about his expectations in regard to pay. A perfect 
 silence having been maintained on this subject by both of them, there must 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 15 
 
 have been some other source from which compensation was expected. 
 And if there was, the silence of Curtis is evidence of the fact that he knew 
 it ; for, looking to this quarter, it was unnecessary to have an additional 
 understanding. The testimony shows this other source to have been the 
 interest which Hough had in the profits of Storm's contract. This interest, 
 being in the shape of a bonus, to be raised by adding to the prices of the 
 work, the committee therefore conclude was not unknown to the collector;, 
 for they can imagine of no other motive for Hough's selection, than that 
 he should have an opportunity of making money, that being his only oc- 
 cupation. Hough says that he had "been intimately acquainted with 
 Mr. Curtis for twenty-five years" and that he had x " been employed by 
 him in extensive transactions." Wherefore, then, the diplomatic style of 
 correspondence upon so plain a business transaction as this, they have 
 adopted, and which Hough swears contains all the " understanding" be- 
 tween Curtis and himself? Was there any necessity for it ? And if there 
 had been, is it probable, or indeed possibles that it contains all the " un- 
 derstanding" between these gentlemen ? Was there nothing said, by either 
 • of them, in regard to Mr. Hough's violation of his instructions, and his 
 failure to consult other mechanics ? If not, Mr. Curtis was evidently 
 guilty of neglect. Was no motive assigned for the selection of a man 
 totally without capital, and who had to borrow the money to carry on the 
 contract? If there was not, Mr. Curtis was culpably negligent of his duty 
 in thus hazarding a loss to the Government. The committee, however, 
 can find more reconciliation with probabilities in the conclusion that the 
 whole facts were fully known to the collector, and that Storm was selected, 
 from the fact of his being in a condition that his necessities might tempt 
 him to be made the instrument of a fraudulent purpose. Why not openly 
 proclaim to other workmen, that it was desired to make the contract ? 
 Why not go to men of capital, who were extensively engaged in business, 
 and who would not likely have yielded to the approaches of dishonesty ? 
 These are matters which it will be found difficult to reconcile with the in- 
 nocent intention of those who too successfully converted a poor and until 
 then an honest man into an instrument by which they or their friends 
 might profit. 
 
 Mr. Curtis has more than once attempted to explain this transaction, but 
 nowhere has he assigned a reason for this selection of Hough, or for his 
 neglect in not permitting other workmen to have an opportunity of taking 
 the job. His brother, George Curtis, Esq., who acted as his representa- 
 tive, called upon the committee, (V,) and was permitted to examine all the 
 evidence, and an opportunity was offered him of interrogating any of the 
 witnesses, or of introducing other and exculpatory testimony (W.) Hav- 
 ing done neither, the committee conclude that the collector can even now, 
 in his own bosom, find no excuse or apology for an act which, per se, is so 
 exceptionable, and that his whole defence is contained in his letters to the 
 Secretary of the Treasury. In the one of 30th May last, addressed to Mr. 
 Forward, (X,) he evidently endeavors to throw the responsibility of the 
 increased amount of the job upon the shoulders of Frazee. He says that 
 he did not learn the " material changes calculated to enhance the ex- 
 pense beyond the contract" until "after the naval office was finished." 
 The extra work on the naval office constitutes but a small portion of the 
 increase in Storm's charge over and above his contract price. Why was 
 Frazee permitted to do as he pleased, when he had no power to alter any 
 
16 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 part of the job? It seems to tlie committee that the whole matter has 
 been so arranged as to prevent the fixing of responsibility upon any body. 
 Curtis makes a contract which Frazee violates, and the Government is the 
 sufferer, while all the parties are gainers. 
 
 Curtis says, when lie made the discovery that the extra work had been 
 done, the job was so far completed that it was M too late" for Storm to re- 
 trace " his steps." Where was he all this time ? What had become of his 
 supervising care, which the Secretary of the Treasury had endeavored to 
 enlist, when he requested that the strictest economy should be observed ? 
 Where was Hough, his directing and governing agent, with whom he had 
 been so often before engaged in business ? To say the least of it, it is not 
 very probable that the collector was wholly ignorant of these things, which 
 were going on almost directly before his face, or that he did not countenance 
 them, especially when he now considers them so essential to the character 
 of the building, and so vastly superior to any thing of the kind in the coun- 
 try. Does it not rather seem more consistent with other portions of this 
 transaction to suppose that this ignorance of the collector was necessary to 
 the consummation of the bargain between Hough and Storm ? How else 
 can we account for his permitting the agency of Hough to continue, after 
 the contract with Storm had concluded, and when his original letter looked 
 to no such result ? It must have been a part of the secret understanding 
 by which the common purposes of the parties were to be consummated, 
 and can be characterized by no other name than a most studied ignorance. 
 Although it is extremely difficult, from the several statements of Frazee on 
 this subject, to tell his real meaning, yet the committee think the statement 
 made by him near the commencement of his examination, and before he 
 had an opportunity to perceive the object for which he was interrogated, 
 is most likely to be true, viz : that Mr. Curtis " always approved of all the 
 changes and modifications of the work that were ?nade.' y But this ap- 
 proval was given to Frazee, and not to Storm, and therefore does not ben- 
 efit him." Now, the question must assume one of two aspects: Frazee 
 must either have ordered these changes of his own accord, in which event 
 Storm was not bound by them, or Curtis must have approved them, and 
 made Frazee the instrument of their execution, himself being masked be- 
 hind the battery. If the latter supposition be true, Curtis is the guilty party, 
 and should be held liable for the injury to whomsoever shall sustain it. 
 
 Mr. Curtis says that, at the time of making the discovery that the char- 
 acter of the work had been changed and the price enlarged, he notified 
 Storm <k distinctly that I [he] had no power to exceed the maximum com- 
 pensation in the contract, and that the furniture must be delivered at his 
 risk for any excess beyond the contract aggregate." If this be true, it 
 furnishes an additional argument why Storm should not be paid any more 
 than he has received. But the committee are very much inclined to think 
 that the facts will show the memory of Mr. Curtis to have been rather 
 treacherous in regard to this matter. Storm swears that he told him " he 
 had paid as far as he felt himself authorized by the contract," only 
 at "about one month ago; 17 that is, about one month before he was 
 sworn as a witness before this committee. And Storm seems to be corrob- 
 orated in this matter by the language which he uses to Curtis himself, in 
 his letter of the 17th June last, (Y,) after he returned from Washington, 
 to New York) in which he urges an immediate payment of the money, to 
 save him from ruin. Why the original of this letter, directed to Mr. Cur- 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 17 
 
 tis, has been placed before the committee, they are at a loss to conceive, un- 
 less it was deemed essential, after Mr. Storm returned from Washington, 
 to have it appear that he had suffered greatly by the contract, and that the 
 work was worth greatly more than he had received, thereby resisting the 
 conclusion that any portion of the remaining balance was reserved for com- 
 pensation to Hough. Why was such a letter written, if it was well un- 
 derstood between Curtis and Storm that no more money could be paid upon 
 the contract ? But it appears to the committee that this whole excuse was 
 an afterthought, and never dreamed of until this matter was agitated in 
 Congress. A resolution introduced into the House of Representatives by 
 Mr. Proffit, of Indiana, at the extra session of Congress in 1S41, turned at- 
 tention to it; and that by which this committee was raised, on the 13th 
 May, gave ample warning to the parties that it was necessary to avoid 
 exposure ; and it is a remarkable fact, too, that the time that this com- 
 mittee was raised is just about the time that Storm first received this in- 
 formation. But, if it was net intended by Mr. Curtis to pay Storm the 
 balance of his bill, why was not his account embraced with those placed 
 before the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
 and the Finance Committee of the Senate ? The greater part of his work 
 was then done ; and if he is now entitled to pay, he was equally entitled to 
 it at that time. But not a word was said about his claim, while it was 
 known that it could be inserted in no other bill during the session, until 
 after this committee was raised ; and then Mr. Curtis, on the 30th of May, 
 writes to the Secretary of the Treasury that he had informed Storm that 
 no further payments could be made ! The veil by which all this is at- 
 tempted to be concealed is rather Jlimsy^ but still it is ingenious. While 
 it is unpleasant to be compelled to make such exposures, it must be consid- 
 ered as fortunate for the public interests that attention was turned to these 
 things at the proper time. It may tend to arrest that tide of profligate ex- 
 penditure which ebbs and flows as the interest or caprice of office holders- 
 may dictate, and which, if not checked, would soon exhaust all the foun- 
 tains of the nation's wealth. 
 
 As if the evident improprieties connected with the incipiency of this mat- 
 ter were not enough, the same system of deception has been continued, 
 even since these claims have been before Congress. Mr. Frazee, the ar- 
 chitect and superintendent, was made the agent of their prosecution here; 
 and he was informed, immediately upon their presentation, that they could 
 not be allowed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of 
 Representatives, unless he furnished them with evidence of the authority 
 given the collector to prosecute the work. This evidence he attempted to 
 furnish, by laying before the chairman of the committee what he pretend- 
 ed was a true copy of the letter of Mr. Woodbury to Walter Bowne, Esq., 
 of the 3d of March, 1S41, (K.) The copy was as follows : 
 
 Treasury Department, March 3, 1S41. 
 Sir : The Department having called upon the naval officer and surveyor 
 at New York to report their joint views in regard to the difference of opin- 
 ion existing between yourself and Mr. Hoyt, respecting certain matters 
 connected with the new custom-house building, they have according > 
 complied with my request. 
 
 In accordance with their recommendation, I deem it proper to authorize 
 Mr. John Frazee to be continued in the situation of superintendent and ar- 
 2 
 
18 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 chitect of the building, until the custom-house and the furnishing of the re- 
 spective rooms shall have been completed. And it is desirable that Mr. 
 Frazee's plans, for the interior arrangements of the building, should be 
 carried into effect, so far, especially, as regards the construction and ar- 
 rangement of the fly-doors, furniture, and the painting and bronzing of the 
 iron work. 
 
 J am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Walter Bowne, Esq., 
 
 Commissioner of New Custom- House, N, Y. 
 
 The House will not have forgotten the debate which arose upon the 
 phraseology of this letter, nor the exposure which took place when it was 
 detected that it was very far from being a true copy of the original. In- 
 stead of having been so written by Mr. Woodbury, it will be seen, by 
 reference to the original, that it contains nothing authorizing the " construc- 
 lioir' of the work, or the " bronzing of the" iron work ; those words being 
 interpolated by Frazee in his fraudulent copy. The committee would be 
 gratified if they could confide in the statement of Frazee, made on 12th 
 May, explaining to Mr. Fillmore (Z) the manner in which he wrote this 
 letter. But it is impossible to do so, when it is perceived, by the state- 
 ment of Mr. Pro flit, that he informed Frazee, some clays before, that there 
 was no such authority given by Mr. Woodbury's letter, and that he had 
 examined the original in the Treasury Department. After this fair notice 
 of the contents of the letter, no other than a fraudulent motive can be as- 
 signed for thus writing the copy. The bills could not be passed without it, 
 as the entire authority was questioned, and the bronzing done at his order 
 constituted an enormous item. 
 
 To secure this temporary success, he perpetrated this most deliberate 
 fraud, upon which the committee feel no inclination to dwell. They re- 
 gret, also, that his testimony furnishes no excuse or palliation of the act. 
 
 One item in the account submitted to the committee is a claim of Frazee 
 for services up to the 1st May, 1S41, and since that time. In the aggre- 
 gate it amounts to $3,429, besides what he claims for expenses. &c, in at- 
 tending, at Washington, to effect the adjustment of this business before Con- 
 gress. Under no circumstances can the committee feel justified in allowing 
 the latter. Nor do they think he should be paid any thing after the 1st 
 May, 1841, as it was upon that condition that he was continued to super- 
 vise the work. Mr. Curtis, in his letter of April 7, 1841, (Q.) to Mr. Ewing, 
 says that Mr. Frazee had consented, from the great pride which he felt as 
 the architect of the building, to'" superintend the completion of the build- 
 ing, and the fitting up of the furniture, without compensation after the 
 first of May" Frazee attempts an explanation of this matter in his testi- 
 mony, but he exhibits no facts which authorize the committee to disregard 
 his original promise, especially when it is recollected that it must have en- 
 tered into the consideration of the Secretary of the Treasury. In a letter 
 of June 10, 1842, (AA,) to the chairman of this committee, Mr. Curtis also 
 makes an explanation, which by no means diminishes the force of the in- 
 formation in his letter of April 7, 1841. There was nothing in that of 
 qualification or condition. Indeed, nothing of either was heard until it be- 
 came necessary to sap the public Treasury. If the Department was de- 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 19 
 
 ceived in regard to what Mr. Frazee did say to Mr. Curtis, and he has 
 thereby been the sufferer, he has his remedy, and to that he should resort. 
 The committee do not consider that he has any claim upon the Government 
 beyond $522, for his services up to May, 1S41, which is the amount they 
 have reported. 
 
 Mr. Curtis seems desirous that the committee should consider that Mr. 
 Frazee is a poor man. If this consideration could legitimately belong to 
 this investigation, the committee could possibly have no interest in ex- 
 cluding it. But it does not. They cannot decide questions of this sort 
 from motives of kindness or humanity, however much they might be gov- 
 erned by these in the ordinary associations of life. There are matters of 
 stern justice, in which the interest of individuals must give way to the per- 
 formance of public duty. 
 
 The claim of John G. Tibbetts, filed before the committee, is for the sum 
 of $9,327 72. This bill is for iron work — for railing and desk frames. 
 The price at which these things are charged is eighteen and a half cents 
 per pound, at which price he was originally paid for iron work on the 
 building, under a contract, made on the 4th January, 1S37, with the Gov- 
 ernment commissioners, Messrs. Bowne, Ringgold, and Jackson, (BB.) He 
 claims that he should now be paid under this contract. The committee do 
 not think so. One condition of the contract was, that he should furnish all 
 the "iron work required for the building." It is only under this clause 
 that he can set up this claim, with the slightest plausibility. What is the 
 iron work required for a building? It is certainly not furniture, or any 
 thing else which is not attached to the building. If iron desk frames were 
 necessary for a building, so would be a shovel, or a kettle, or a chair, or 
 any other article of the kind ; and certainly no court would so interpret this 
 contract as to embrace these things. 
 
 But this view of the case is put at rest by the facts that the contract with 
 Bowne, Ringgold, and Jackson, had expired, and they were no longer act- 
 ing as commissioners ; nor had they any successors. If there had been, in- 
 deed, their successors would not have been bound by the contract, for the 
 building was finished. Suppose the furniture had not been made for ten 
 years from that time, would the Government have been bound to furnish 
 Tibbetts with an opportunity of making it ? Certainly not. And if the con- 
 tract were good, as to him, for a single month, it would have been forever, 
 in the absence of revocation. 
 
 But, to conclude all argument or cavil on this subject, the testimony 
 shows that, during the actual existence of this contract, Tibbetts was paid 
 25 cents per pound for the sub-Treasury safe now in the custom-house. 
 The committee cannot but think that a safe of that sort is as much for a 
 building as furniture, and that there is no reason for this misinterpretation 
 of the contract. One of the commissioners has written the committee that 
 he understands the contract as is insisted by Mr. Tibbetts, but the committee 
 must respectfully decline the adoption of his opinions, confining themselves 
 rather to the legal rules of interpretation. 
 
 In this view of the case, the committee have allowed what they consider 
 equitably due Mr. Tibbetts, notwithstanding they might find ample justifi- 
 cation in dealing much more rigidly with him, from the fact that he knew 
 that there was no authority of law for any of the work. And this argu« 
 ment might, indeed, be applied to all the workmen; for Frazee says, in one 
 of his letters, that he so informed them all. The committee, however, have 
 taken a more liberal view of this case, and have adjusted the claim accord • 
 
20 dep. No. 1065. 
 
 ingly. They have allowed him, taking the average prices fixed by the 
 witnesses, and estimating the weight of the work as in Tibbetts's bill, but 
 $6,365 92, or $2,961 80 less than he claimed. This the committee think a 
 full and equitable allowance, and most especially when he sold to Mr. Felt, 
 one of the witnesses, desk frames of precisely the same sort as those fur- 
 nished the custom-house for 7£ cents per pound ! 
 
 Much that was intended as evidence has been laid before the committee 
 by Mr. Tibbetts, in regard to his contract, but very little of any import, and 
 none that was not cx parte, except the parol testimony taken before the 
 committee. One paper, (CC,) purporting to be a letter from the commis- 
 sioner, of date the 18th April, 1S42, was a private letter to Mr. Frazee, 
 who acknowledges that he attached to the name of Mr. Talman the word* 
 "commissioner new custom-house, New York," for the purpose of giving 
 it official character, and using it as evidence ! Some of the other papers 
 the committee have attached. 
 
 The account of Mr. John Horspool, as filed before the committee, was for 
 $7,S65 50, for painting and bronzing the iron work. It has been already 
 shown that no authority was ever given for this work, and that it was 
 wholly unauthorized. The only authority for the execution of the work 
 is a pretended contract with Frazee, the architect, (DD.) The committee 
 can give no such construction to this instrument as to make it binding on 
 the Government, for Frazee had no power to contract. But they do not 
 hesitate to believe that Horspool acted in good faith in supposing the con- 
 tract binding, and therefore they have allowed him the amount of it, 
 ($4,350.) The balance of the bill they regret they cannot allow ; but, by 
 the rule they have adopted, it must be excluded, as it is totally without au- 
 thority from any body having a right to direct it. 
 
 The amount of claims filed before the committee is S31,654 14. No evi- 
 dence whatever has been offered them, nor have they any explanation, in 
 regard to a claim of Messrs. Weiiman & Wykoff, of $501 50, for hard- 
 ware. They are therefore compelled to exclude it from their consideration. 
 The claims of the mechanics and laborers they have allowed, without re- 
 duction, as they deem it impracticable and unnecessary to scrutinize them 
 as they had done the others. 
 
 The following amounts they have reported to the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury as justly due, viz : 
 To John G. Tibbetts, for iron work - - - $6,365 92 
 
 J. Hodgkin, painting and bronzing ... 4,350 00 
 Summer & Stevens, galvanizing - 324 00 
 
 J. Stone, door springs, &c. - - - 689 03 
 
 S. Shindler, lumber ----- l,9S5 74 
 J. R. Walter, plumbing- - - - - 138 60 
 
 Gallier& Murphy, carving - - - - 289 2S 
 
 0. Gray, materials, &c. - - - - - 95 88 
 
 J. L. Piatt, glass lights - - - - - 90 16 
 
 G. Thomas, cartage - - - - - 113 50 
 
 H. Mortman, brushes, &c. - - - - 15 5 J 
 I). Felt & Co., stationery - 24 69 
 T. Funnigan, sand - - - - - 16 50 
 Mechanics and laborers - - - - 6,746 
 John Frazee, superintendence - 522 00 
 
 #21,768 46 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 21 
 
 It will thus be perceived that the committee have reduced the claims 
 filed $9,885 68. Add to this the $7,382 which the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury has withheld from Abraham Storm, at their request, and the aggre- 
 gate amount saved to the Government, by this investigation, is #17,267 C8. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, September 12, 1840. 
 
 Sir: From an interview I had to-day with the receiver general, in rela- 
 tion to fitting up his room in the new custom-house, I am reminded to ask 
 you from what fund are the expenses to be paid for furnishing the new 
 building with what furniture will be required ? Are they to be paid by the 
 commissioners, and charged to construction, or are they to be charged to 
 any other, and what, account ? 
 
 We are furnishing th,e building to completion as fast as possible, and the 
 superintendent has frequently called upon me for directions as to the 
 furniture. 
 
 I would be glad of an answer to this at your earliest leisure. It seems 
 to me that it is a proper charge for the construction, and to be paid from 
 the appropriation. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 J. HOYT, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Levi Woodbury, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 B. 
 
 Treasury Department, September 14, 1840. 
 
 Sir : Your letter of the 12th instant, in reference to the furniture requir- 
 ed for the new custom-house, has been received. 
 
 In regard to the room designed for the accommodation of the receiver 
 general, it is is to be observed that he has already been authorized to pro- 
 cure some furniture for the rooms he now occupies in the Bank of Ameri- 
 ca, which it is presumed will answer for his new quarters; but any 
 further articles of the kind which may be needed he can procure, on first 
 advising the Department of what is required, to be paid out of the appro- 
 priation contained in the Independent Treasury act of the 4th of July last. 
 The expense of the vault, or any other permanent fixture placed in his 
 room, should be charged to the appropriation for the construction of the 
 custom-house building. 
 
 With respect to the furniture required for the other portions of the build- 
 ing, no expense can be incurred without a special appropriation having 
 first been made by Congress for the purpose, or unless the officers who 
 
22 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 occupy the rooms should think proper to defray such expenses out of their 
 emoluments. It will, in any other event, become necessary to use the old 
 furniture now in the custom-house. The appropriation made towards the 
 erection of the building, it is thought, could not be equally appropriated, 
 or any portion of it, (while the building itself is unfinished,) for the object 
 mentioned. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Jesse Hoyt, Esq.. 
 
 Collector , <$'C, New York. 
 
 C. 
 
 Custom-House New York, November 10, 1S40. 
 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of the 27th October, stating that the com- 
 missioners of the new custom house building at New York have reported 
 to the Department that the building was completed and made ready for the 
 reception of the officers of the customs in this district, I have to say that, 
 as one of these commissioners, I had no knowledge that such a report was 
 to be made, and if I had known it I could not have concurred in it. [ 
 visited the building yesterday, with the naval officer and several of the 
 gentlemen attached to this office, and we found the building in a very unfit 
 state for our reception, as well for the reason that the plastering is not yet 
 all on, as because of the extreme dampness of the rooms, which would be 
 so prejudicial to health, that none of the gentlemen were willing to risk the 
 exposure. I wrote a note to Mr. Frazee, the superintendent, this morning, 
 and I send you a copy of his reply. 
 
 I suggest that you ask Congress for an appropriation to purchase furni- 
 ture for the building; most of that which we have in the building we now 
 occupy is wholly unfit, and could not be made so, for the reason that the 
 shape of the rooms in the two buildings is so unlike. I think it would 
 require from five to seven thousand dollars, in addition to the furniture we 
 now have that could be used, to fit up all the rooms. I think the appro- 
 priation should be made early in the session, to the end that all suitable 
 accommodation should be afforded for the transaction of the public business. 
 
 Mr. Frazee is of opinion that a larger sum would be required than I 
 have named, and his judgment probably is better than mine in that matter. 
 He thinks none of the old furniture is fit to be used, but I differ in opinion 
 with him on that question. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOYT, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Levi Woodbury, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 * 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 2a 
 
 D. 
 
 Treasury Department, November 13, 1S40. 
 Sir: Your letter of the 10th instant, enclosing copy of one addressed to 
 you by Mr. Frazee, architect ot the new custom-house building, has beeu 
 received. 
 
 It appearing to be the opinion of yourself and the architect that the 
 building is not yet in a suitable condition to be occupied for custom-house 
 purposes, your removal must necessarily be postponed for the present. 
 
 In regard to the furniture required for the respective rooms, I shall be 
 happy to submit the matter to the consideration of the appropriate com- 
 mittee at the meeting of Congress. In the mean time, it is desirable that 
 Mr. Frazee should furnish the Department with a detailed estimate of the 
 amount of money required for the object stated, to be laid before the 
 committee. 
 
 I am, &.c. 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Jesse Hoyt, Esq., 
 
 Collector. 8>-c. , New York. 
 
 E. 
 
 CrvrOM-HousE, New York, December 12, 1840. 
 
 Sir : In pursuance of the request in your letter of the 13th November 
 last, I now forward you a letter from Mr. Frazee, addressed to me, enclos- 
 ing an estimate made by Mr. John Horspool,for the furniture of the new cus- 
 tom-house. I^have retained it for a day or two, for the purpose of making 
 some further inquiries. 
 
 This estimate overruns what I had formerly stated I deemed to be suffi- 
 cient for the purpose. In expressing my own views, on a former occasion, 
 I had consulted no one, but it was from a very superficial knowledge of the 
 subject. The estimate now sent is a detailed one, and such as I presume 
 you desired. I still think that $ 15,000 would be sufficient. I do not con- 
 cur with Mr. Frazee in the opinion expressed by him, that but little of the 
 old furniture can be used. I think it will answer for the smaller rooms in 
 the second and third stories. 
 
 I am, sir, verv respectfuilv, your obedient servant, 
 
 J. HOYT, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Levi Woodbury, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 F. 
 
 New Custom-House, New York, December 10, 1840. 
 Dear Sir : I herewith submit you Mr. HorspooPs estimate for the cabi- 
 net furniture required for this buiiding, made out from drawings and de- 
 
24 
 
 Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 scriptions given by me, and in accordance with your instructions, and the 
 arrangements made by yourself and the principal officers of the different 
 departments. 
 
 Several rooms in the basement, and all those (ten in number) in the attic, 
 are left unnoticed in this estimate, which you will perceive amounts to 
 nearly $19,000 ; but as there will be wanted in some of the principal offi- 
 ces some light iron railing, also some little upholstering, and, in all proba- 
 bility, the attic rooms will require cases and shelves — all these considered, 
 and it being well ascertained that but very little of the old furniture can, 
 with either economy or propriety, be used — it strikes me, therefore, that, to 
 cover the entire cost of all the furniture required to furnish every depart- 
 ment of the revenue business complete, you will want an appropriation of 
 at least $20,000. 
 
 As you are, no doubt, anxious to have every thing dene that can be done 
 to facilitate your coming in the building, why not have men employed in 
 makirig the furniture without delay, in anticipation of the necessary appro- 
 priation being duly made ? Such has been the case in relation to other 
 work about the building, and why not pursue the same course in this ? 
 But it rests with you to direct. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, yours, &c. 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE. 
 
 Jesse Hoyt, Esq., Collector. 
 
 G. 
 
 New Yof.k. December 9, 1S40. 
 Sir : The following estimate of the cost of the furniture wanted for the 
 new custom-house has been carefully made from your designs and descrip- 
 tion of the various articles stated, and the prices are put quite as low as- 
 such description of cabinet work can be done for, with a small profit. 
 Very respectfully, yours, 
 
 JOHN HORSPOOL. 
 
 Mr. John Frazee, Architect, §c. 
 
Sep. No. 1065. 
 
 ESTIMATE. 
 
 25 
 
 Surveyor's room in basement. 
 
 6 large mahogany book cases, filled with parti- 
 tions, with doors, 6 feet 6 inches long, 6 feet 7 
 inches high, each $9S - $588 00 
 
 S large mahogany book cases, 13 feet long, each 
 
 $196 ------ 1,56- 00 
 
 4 large mahogany writing desks, 6 feet 6 inches 
 long, with falls, book cases below, with sepa- 
 rate partitions for books, each $70 
 
 4 large mahogany writing desks, 12 feet long, to 
 go on counter, each $95 - 
 
 4 iarse mahogany writing desks, 1 feet long, each 
 
 $75 - - - - 300 00 
 
 8 mahogany counters, with book cases under, 
 with separate partitions for books, each $75 
 
 Surveyor's private room. 
 
 3 large mahogany book cases, 10 feet long, filled 
 with partitions, with doors, &c, in front, each 
 #147 - - - - - 
 
 1 mahogany desk to sit to 
 
 1 table, (do.,) 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, with draw- 
 ers in frames, cloth on top • •" 
 
 441 00 
 45 00 
 
 25 00 
 
 Naval office on principal Jloor. 
 
 3 large mahogany double desks, 6 feet long, with 
 writing falls and book cases underneath, with 
 separate partitions for books, fronting on both 
 sides, each $90 - 
 
 3 large mahogany double desks, 9 feet long, with 
 drawers on each side, top covered in cloth, each 
 $S3 - - - - -t 2 19 00 
 
 2 large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 11 
 feet high, filled with pigeon holes, showing 12 
 doors in front, with suitable base and cornice, 
 each $400 - - - - m c 00 
 
 6 large mahogany book cases, 6 feet long, 11 feet 
 high, filled with pigeon holes, with 6 doors in 
 front, and writing table below, with drawers, 
 top covered in cloth, each $196 - - 1,176 00 
 
 1 large book case, (mahogany,) same as above, but 
 
 9 feet long, with 8 doors above - - 294 00 
 
26 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 ESTIMATE— Continued!. 
 
 Receiver's room on principal Jloor. 
 
 3 large book cases, as above, 6 feet long, each 
 #196 ------ 
 
 4 mahogany tables, with drawers, top covered in 
 cloth, 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, each $25 
 
 2 writing desks (low) to sit to, each $45 
 1 mahogany counter, 40 feet long, with panelled 
 front, rear filled in with drawers 
 
 Collector's room on principal Jloor. 
 
 2 mahogany book cases, as above, 6 feet long, G 
 
 doors each, each #196 - 
 2 mahogany desks to sit to, each $45 
 1 mahogany desk, with chair, for collector 
 
 Three rooms on principal Jloor. each containing 
 
 1 large mahogany book case, as above, 6 feet 
 long, 6 doors - 
 
 2 large mahogany tables, 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, 
 with drawers in frame, top covered with cloth, 
 each $25 - - - - - 
 
 Three rooms like this 
 
 Eastern side oj rotunda, principal Jloor. 
 
 2 large mahogany book cases, as above, 6 feet 
 
 long, 6 doors each, each $196 - 
 2 large mahogany desks (low) to sit to, each $45 
 
 Rot undo in centre. 
 
 1 mahogany octagon book case in centre, S feet 
 
 high, 6 feet diameter, with proper cornice, doors, 
 
 cells, &c. - 
 20 large mahogany circular desks, 5 feet long, 
 
 with drawers, book case below, with partitions 
 
 for books, each $S0 - 
 
 $58$ 00 
 
 100 00 
 90 00 
 
 275 00 
 
 392 00 
 90 00 
 100 00 
 
 196 00 
 
 50 00 
 
 246 00 
 
 392 00 
 90 00 
 
 250 00 
 
 1.600 00 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 ESTIMATE— Continued. 
 
 27 
 
 ^ Auditor's two rooms on second floor. 
 
 12 large mahogany book cases, S feet long, 11 
 feet high, filled in with pigeon holes, with 6 
 doors in front, and writing tables below, with 
 drawers in frame, and cloth on top, each $196 
 
 4 large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 12 
 doors, each $400 - 
 
 1 large mahogany book case, 9 feet long, S doors 
 
 1 large mahogany ta*ble. 9 feet long, 4 feet 6 inches 
 wide, with drawers in the frame, cloth on top - 
 
 € large mahogany double desks, 6 feet long, with 
 frame on top, with falls, each $74 
 
 6 large mahogany double desks, 9 feet long, with 
 drawers on each side, top covered in cloth, 
 each #84 - 
 
 4 mahogany tables, 6 feet long by 4 feet 6 inches 
 wide, top covered in cloth, each $35 - 
 
 Four rooms on second story ^ each containing 
 
 1 large book case, as above, 6 feet long, 6 doors, 
 &c. 
 
 2 mahogany tables, with drawers in frame, and 
 cloth on top, 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, each $25 
 
 Four rooms at - 
 
 Cashier's room on principal floor. 
 
 1 mahogany counter, 30 feet long, with drawers, 
 1 large book case, 13 feet long, as above describ- 
 ed, but with 12 doors, - 
 1 large book case, 6 feet 6 inches long, with 8 
 doors - 
 
 1 mahogany writing desk, 4 feet long, with fall, 
 book case below, with separate partitions for 
 books ------ 
 
 Amount 
 
 52,352 00 
 
 1,600 00 
 294 00 
 
 45 00 
 
 444 00 
 
 504 00 
 140 00 
 
 196 00 
 50 00 
 
 246 00 
 
 196 00 
 400 00 
 226 00 
 
 47 00 
 
 $3,027 00 
 
 9S4 00 
 
 869 00 
 
 1S,953 00 
 
28 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 H. 
 
 Treasury Department, February 17, 1S41. 
 
 Sir : There existing a difference of opinion between Walter Bowne 
 and Jesse Hoyt, commissioners for the new custom-house, in regard to cer- 
 tain matters brought to the consideration of the Department by Mr. John 
 Frazee, superintendent and architect, I will thank you, after making due 
 examination and inquiry into the questions involved in the controversy, to 
 report to me your opinions on the respective points presented. 
 
 The enclosed letters from Messrs. Bowne and Hoyt will advise you of 
 the matters in dispute, and I would also refer you to my letter to these 
 gentlemen, under date of the 30th ultimo, containing the substance of 
 Mr. Frazee's views in the case. As it is desirable to have an early de- 
 cision in the matter, I should be pleased if you would give it immediate 
 attention. 
 
 Please to return the enclosures with your answer. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 William S. Coe, Esq., 
 
 Naval Officer, New York. 
 
 I. 
 
 Treasury Department, February 22, 1841. 
 Sir : I regret to learn, by your letter of the 19th instant, of the illness of 
 the naval officer, which renders him unable to attend to the business re- 
 ferred to in my letter of the 17th instant. I should be pleased if the sur- 
 veyor and yourself would investigate the matter, and report to me the 
 result. 
 
 ] will thank you, therefore, to show the surveyor this letter, and express 
 to him the desire of the Department that he may consent to unite with 
 you in the examination of the matter in question. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 Sccretdry of the Treasury. 
 
 G. W. Coe, Esq., 
 
 Deputy Naval Officer, New York. 
 
 J. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, February 26, 1841. 
 Sir : In compliance with the request expressed in your letter of the 
 22d instant, the undersigned have duly investigated the matters in contro- 
 versy between Walter Bowne and Jesse Hoyt, Esquires, touching the com- 
 pletion of the newcustom-house, the manner of finishing certain portions 
 cf the work, and also the discharge of Mr. Frazee, the architect and su- 
 
Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 id 
 
 perintendent of the building, we beg leave to submit the following views 
 and statements as the result of our investigations : 
 
 1. As relates to the building being finished. — We have been satisfacto- 
 rily informed that stonecutters, masons, carpenters, painters, ironworkers, 
 and laborers, have been constantly at work upon the building during the 
 present winter. We find also that workmen in most of these several 
 branches are still engaged upon the building, and that there is more or 
 less work to be done in the several branches above enumerated, before the 
 building can be considered as finished. 
 
 2. As relates to the dismissal of the architect and superintendent. Mr. 
 Frazee. — It is our most deliberate opinion and judgment that the super:: - 
 tendent of so important a structure as the new custom-house is the last 
 person that should be discharged from the work ; for we hold that his su- 
 pervision over every part of the work is necessary to the well finishing of 
 the edifice, and also to ensure public confidence in its perfect completion. 
 The pay list of the workmen, as we have seen, shows that, at the fime 
 Mr. Frazee was dismissed, December 5, 1840, there were upwards of 
 thirty workmen engaged upon the building, and that nearly the same 
 number were continued upon the work for several weeks afterwards ; and, 
 as has already been stated, a number of workmen are still employed upon 
 the building. Thus it appears that, during a period of nearly two mont 
 this important edifice has been progressing towards completion without 
 the superintendence of any person properly qualified to direct the wovl:- 
 meri in the various and difficult branches in which they were engaged. In 
 view of these facts and considerations, we feel constrained to regard the 
 resolution of Mr. Bowne, dismissing the architect and superintendent 
 without cause or provocation, as an act of gross injustice to one of the first 
 artists- of the age, as well as detrimental to the public interests. And o>- 
 there appears to be much work still to be done upon the building, which 
 requires the professional skill and superintending services of Mr. Frazee, 
 we would recommend that he be immediately reinstated. We would also 
 most respectfully beg leave to state it here as our deliberate opinion, that 
 justice cannot be done Mr. Frazee without allowing him his usual com- 
 pensation during the whole interval of time since his dismissal on the 5th 
 December^ 1S40, he having been improperly dismissed without cause, and 
 thereby unexpectedly thrown out of employment, greatly prejudicial to 
 his interests. 
 
 3. With regard to the fly-doors, constructed under the direction of Mr. 
 Bowne, at the two entrances, we would state that we fully concur in 
 opinion with Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Frazee, that the constructing of the wood- 
 en doors outside of the iron ones greatly impairs the beauty and 
 harmony of the architecture at these entrances; besides, they are so ill 
 constructed as entirely to defeat the objects for which they were designed. 
 We would therefore recommend that they be taken down, and that proper 
 casements and fly-doors be constructed, by the direction and under the su- 
 perintendence of Mr. Frazee. 
 
 4. With respect to the finish to be put upon the iron work, we would 
 remark that, in our opinion, there is no other way of giving to it a finish 
 in suitable keeping with the other parts of the building but that of bronz 
 ing; and such is the general opinion expressed here by all those whose 
 attention has been called to the subject. And as to the most suitable time 
 for putting on the bronze finish, as well as the manner and style of its 
 
30 
 
 R(p. No. 1065. 
 
 execution, it should, we conceive, be left entirely to the judgment of the 
 architect. 
 
 5. In reference to the furniture, we would state that, as the counters 
 which are already put up in several of the rooms, however objectionable 
 they may be, are only intended for temporary use, until suitable furniture 
 can be made, we forbear making any particular remarks on tins part of 
 the subject. We would observe, however, that the design and planning 
 of the new furniture, agreeably to the economy and arrangement which 
 may be suggested by the ollicers of the various departments, are things 
 which should, in our judgment, command the taste, skill, and superintend- 
 ence of the architect of the edifice, and that he also be permitted to 
 select the mechanics who are to execute and put up this kind of work. 
 
 The foregoing are the conclusions at which we have arrived, after due 
 investigation and reflection. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 With great respect, your obedient servants, 
 
 GEORGE W. COE, 
 
 Deputy Naval Officer. 
 ELY MOORE, Surveyor. 
 
 Hon. Levi W t oodbury, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 P. S. The copies of the reports and letters enclosed to the naval officer 
 are herewith returned. 
 
 K. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 3, 1841. 
 
 Sir : The Department having called upon the deputy naval officer and 
 surveyor at New York to report their joint views in regard to the differ- 
 ence of opinion existing between yourself and Mr. Hoyt respecting certain 
 matters connected with the new custom-house building, they have accord- 
 ingly complied with my request. 
 
 In accordance with their recommendation, I deem it proper to authorize 
 Mr. John Frazee to be continued in the situation of superintendent and 
 architect of the building from the date of the passage of the general ap- 
 propriation bill until the custom-house and the furnishing of the respective 
 rooms shall have been completed ; and it is desirable that Mr. Frazee's 
 plans for the interior arrangements of the building should be carried into 
 effect, so for as regards the arrangements of the fly-doors, furniture, and 
 painting of the iron work. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Walter Bowne, Esq., 
 
 Commissioner, fyc, New York. 
 
Eep. No. 1065. 
 
 31 
 
 L. 
 
 Extract from a letter to the Secretary. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, March 25, 1S41. 
 
 Sir: There was a long-continued controversy between John Frazee, 
 architect of the new custom-house, and Walter Bowne, Esq., the acting 
 commissioner. The late Secretary, after much inquiry and examination, 
 decided that Mr. Frazee should go on to finish the custom-house, and fur- 
 nish it in his own way, and without the interference of Mr. Bowne, who 
 differs in opinion, with the architect. 
 
 [The residue of the letter relates to other topics.] 
 
 M. 
 
 Treasury Department, April 2, 1S41. 
 
 S;r : I transmit herewith copy of a communication, dated 12th of De- 
 cember last, and addressed to my predecessor, by Mr. Hoyt, late collector, 
 enclosing a schedule and estimate of the cost of furniture required for the 
 new custom-house. 
 
 It is desirable that you should carefully examine the subject, and, if 
 necessary, advise with some person familiar with such matters, with the 
 view of determining whether all the articles specified will be absolutely 
 required, and also as to the reasonableness of the prices affixed to them. 
 
 I wish you, moreover, to ascertain whether some of the old furniture 
 cannot be used, as suggested in Mr. Hoyt's letter, and report to me your 
 opinion on the entire subject at as early a day as may be practicable. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 THOMAS EWING, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Edward Curtis, Esq., 
 
 Collector, New York. 
 
 N. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, April 1, 1S41. 
 Sir : The new custom-house is nearly completed ; and after the ap- 
 proaching warm weather shall have dried the walls a little, it might be 
 occupied even before it be entirely completed. The collectors have always 
 been allowed to purchase necessary furniture out of the emoluments of the 
 office. If the fees, &c, at this time (had the act of July 14, 1832, not gone 
 into effect) would be sufficient to defray all the ordinary expenses, and also 
 purchase the furniture wanted for the new custom-house, I can see no 
 reason why the collector may not, with the approbation of the Secretary, 
 go on and furnish the custom-house, as the act of July 21, 1840, reviving 
 and continuing the " relief section," as it has been termed, places at the 
 disposal of the collector, for the expenses of his office, the same amount of 
 
32 
 
 Rep. No. 10C5. 
 
 funds that he would have had under the operation of the laws as they 
 existed prior to the 14th of July, 1S32. 
 
 I respectfully call your attention to this subject. We are now occupying 
 four stores as a custom-house, and are imminently exposed to fire. For 
 the want of light, we arc obliged to burn gas in many of the rooms, and 
 our papers and other valuable property, as well as books, are but poorly 
 secured. The late collector (Mr. Hoyt) has frequently represented this 
 subject to the Department. The new building is fire pi oof, having no 
 wood in its construction. 
 
 If you will give me authority, I will proceed to furnish the building, 
 pursuing the plan proposed by Mr. Frazee, the architect, to the late Secre- 
 tary, and which was approved by him. 
 
 The Attorney General, on his recent visit to this city, did us the lienor 
 to pass through the building we now occupy, and I respectfully refer you 
 to him to attest the insecurity and inconvenience to which we are sub- 
 jected. I shall of course observe the utmost economy in furnishing the 
 new house consistent with the plans of the architect, which, I have before 
 said, were approved by the late Secretary, whose letter I have seen, di- 
 recting INIr. Frazee to pursue his plan, &c, and not that of Mr. Bowne. 
 
 I can move into the new building if I receive an order to pay the bills 
 for the furniture, as I have suggested, in about eight or ten weeks hence. 
 
 I shall be much obliged by your early attention to this subject. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 E. CURTIS, Collector, 
 
 Hon. Thomas Ewing, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 0. 
 
 Collector's Office, New York, December A, 1841. 
 Gentlemen: I have the honor to transmit, herewith, my answers to 
 the 5th, 6th, 7th, Sth, and 9th questions submitted to me. 
 I am, gentlemen, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector, 
 
 Messrs. Poindexter, ^ 
 
 STEUART,and v Commissioners. 
 Bradley, ) 
 
 5. Question. In your letter of the 20th instant, you state that the pay- 
 ment of $7,000 has created no deficiency, and that no deficiency exists in 
 the amount of fees and emoluments in the payment of the charges by taw 
 made on that fund. Be pleased to state the aggregate amount of fees arid 
 emoluments for each year, from January 1, 1825, to 30th September last, 
 and the aggregate amounts of clerk hire, fuel, stationery, and other inciden- 
 tal expenses, and the sum or sums, if any, paid into the Treasury as S ur- 
 plus fees or emoluments," in each year, and the sum or sums of money, if 
 any, paid out of the Treasury, in each year, to make up deficiencies? 
 
 Answer. This is not deemed a deficiency, nor can it be so considered, 
 because, whatever the tariff act of July 14, 1S32, has taken away, the sub- 
 sequent annual appropriation acts, and the now permanent appropriation 
 
Rep. Xo. 1065. 
 
 33 
 
 act, have made good. When any item of expense is charged to the fund 
 derived from the fees and emoluments of the collector, &c, it is charged 
 to that fund which is composed of the fees and emoluments actually col- 
 lected at the custom-house under the existing tariff laws, together with a 
 sum annually derived from the Treasury sufficient to preserve the whole 
 fund equal to what it would have been if all the fees and emoluments had 
 been collected, which would have been collected had not the tariff of 
 duties been modified by the act of July 14, 1832. It was under the ad- 
 vice of one of the most experienced and intelligent persons employed 
 in the department of the Treasury, then at the custom-house, that my 
 letter of the 1st of April suggested to the Secretary that the expense of 
 the furniture could lawfully be charged to the fund derived from fees 
 and emoluments. The charge of the §7,000 paid for furniture can be 
 no more said to have created a deficiency m that fund than the payment 
 of the salaries of clerks, or the payment of any other other expense 
 chargeable upon the fund to a like amount would create a deficiency. 
 At the time of that payment the fees actually collected for this year far ex- 
 ceeded that sum, and the charge of the cost of the furniture to that fund of 
 course diminishes that fund, but does not create a deficiency. All expenses 
 of office are first paid, and among them the furniture is included, and for 
 the payment of salaries resort is had to the appropriation act if necessary. 
 The required statement is annexed. 
 
 Statement of the fees and emoluments, and of the expenditures of the 
 collector's office, in the district of New York, from the commencement 
 of the year 1825 to the termination of the year 1840, exhibiting the 
 sums paid into the Treasury as surplus, and also the sums drawn from 
 the Treasury agreeably to the provisions of the acts of Congress con- 
 sequent upon the tariff act of July 14, 1832. 
 
 Period of time. 
 
 Fees & emol- 
 uments col- 
 lected under 
 
 existing laws. 
 
 Expenditures. 
 
 Payments in- 
 to the Treas- 
 ury. 
 
 Drawn from the 
 Treasury to make 
 good the fees and 
 emolum'is taken 
 awav bv the act 
 of July 14, 1832. 
 
 1825 
 
 
 #39,629 34 
 
 $31,465 
 
 06 
 
 $8,164 28 
 
 
 1826 
 
 
 41,783 86 
 
 31,771 
 
 92 
 
 10,011 94 
 
 
 1827 
 
 
 37,298 99 
 
 32,887 
 
 70 
 
 4,411 29 
 
 
 "1828 
 
 
 40,869 29 
 
 32,136 
 
 90 
 
 8,732 39 
 
 
 1829* 
 
 
 25,318 85 
 
 24,176 
 
 09 
 
 1,142 76 
 
 
 1830 
 
 
 39,778 30 
 
 39,778 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 
 57,983 94 
 
 57,983 
 
 94 
 
 
 
 1832 
 
 
 64,072 90 
 
 64,072 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 J 833 
 
 
 63,585 43 
 
 76,414 
 
 60 
 
 
 $12,829 17 
 
 1834 
 
 
 42,187 34 
 
 73,790 
 
 18 
 
 
 31,602 8i 
 
 1835 
 
 
 48,402 80 
 
 73,574 
 
 80 
 
 
 25,172 00 
 
 1836 
 
 
 54,561 20 
 
 77,278 
 
 94 
 
 
 $2,717 74 
 
 1837 
 
 
 33,331 83 
 
 76,637 
 
 70 
 
 
 43,305 87 
 
 1838 
 
 
 39,038 69 
 
 81,741 
 
 17 
 
 
 42,706 48 
 
 1839 
 
 
 49,631 92 
 
 95,926 
 
 67 
 
 
 46,294 75 
 
 "1840 
 
 
 33,206 12 
 
 93,961 
 
 92 
 
 
 60,755 80 
 
 * The year 1829 is only from 1st of May, when a change of collect >r took ^lace; the previous 
 part of the year cannot be found. The portion of the year 1S41 is n^t give 1, as the account ii 
 not made up until the expiration of the year. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 6. Question. Are there any officers of the customs appointed by you 
 who are indebted to you or to George Curtis, individually or jointly ; and, if 
 so, were they so indebted prior to their appointments, and have you or he 
 received any payment or payments in extinguishment of such debts? 
 
 7. Question. Are there any officers of the customs for whom you are 
 responsible as endorser or security, or for whom your brother George 
 Curtis was so responsible ? if so, state whether you or your brother George 
 Curtis have received payment or extinguishment of such debt for which, 
 you or the said George Curtis have become liable as endorser or security. 
 
 Answer to the 6th and 7th questions. One answer will be sufficient. 
 .Both questions look to a state of facts which may be equally innocent, 
 whether they required affirmative or justified negative answers. I regard 
 the questions as without import, except as implying a charge of improper 
 motive on my part in the making of appointments. Regarding them in 
 this sense, I meet the whole matter by a full denial of any improper mo- 
 tive whatsoever in making appointments to office ; and I trust the com- 
 mission will yet investigate the propriety of the accusations implied in the 
 above questions, if time has not allowed the opportunity during the last 
 six months. 
 
 8. Question. Was not George W. Wells removed from the office of as- 
 sistant cashier by direction of the President or Secretary of the Treasury ? 
 and, if so, you will please state the date of his removal. You will also 
 state whether you have appointed him to any other office of the customs, 
 and whether such appointment was made with the approbation of the Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury first had and obtained ; if so, furnish copies of the 
 correspondence, of the nomination and approval of said Wells. 
 
 Answer. George W. Wells was not removed from the office of assist- 
 ant cashier by direction of the President of the United States, nor by 
 order of the Secretary of the Treasury. By my written report to the 
 commissioners of 17th November last, they were advised of the date at 
 which George W. Wells left the place he held in the office of the cash- 
 ier, and were also advised that he was on the 15th of November appointed 
 by me to fill the vacancy, as clerk, made by resignation of Alexander 
 Fleming. The approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury was not 
 sought, because the law does not require the approbation of the Secretary 
 to such a case. 
 
 9. Question. Have you made any charges to the President or Secretary 
 of the Treasury, either directly or indirectly, against the official acts of Jo- 
 seph R. Bleecker, late assistant cashier, or against his private character, to 
 justify his removal, or prevent his reappointment, or for any other pur- 
 pose ; or have you requested any other person to exhibit such charges, 
 either to the President or Secretary of the Treasury ? If yea, furnish the 
 commissioners with a copy of your correspondence on this subject : and, 
 if not in your possession, state particularly the substance of the charges 
 made against the said Joseph R. Bleecker. 
 
 Answer. I have not " requested any other person/' by letter or other- 
 wise, to exhibit charges to the President or to the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, either directly or indirectly, against the official acts of Joseph R. 
 Bleecker, late assistant cashier, or against his private character, to justify 
 his removal or prevent his reappointment, or for any other purpose. It 
 would be very hard, I think, if the collector, who gives bonds for a large 
 amount, could not have the selection of his own confidential agents to take 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 35 
 
 charge of the cash transactions of his office. The law gives him this priv- 
 ilege, and I know of no functionary of the Government who can lawfully 
 interfere with the discretion of the collector in this respect. 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury can fix the amount of the compensation 
 of clerks, but has no control over the selection of the individuals. All offi- 
 cers are responsible to the President, for justice and fair dealing towards 
 these subordinates : but the law does not permit him to select the clerks of 
 the collectors of the revenue ; the President has not been disposed to assert 
 any such power, so far as I know or believe. He has never directed any 
 person to be removed from any office, nor has he directed any person to 
 be appointed or reappointed. I do not consider that I am bound to admit 
 or deny that I have had private correspondence with the President or the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, on this or any other subject. If requested by the 
 commissioners, I have no objection to state why I should not now consent 
 to the reappointment of Mr. Bleecker as a clerk in this department. 
 
 P. 
 
 Treasury Department, April 5, 1841. 
 Sir: In consideration of the circumstances mentioned in your letter of 
 the 1st instant, I deem it proper to authorize you to furnish the new cus- 
 tom-house plainly and substantially, using so much of the old furniture 
 as may be convenient, and taking care to exercise proper economy in the 
 mattsr. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 T. EWING, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Edward Curtis, Esq., Collector, $c. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, April 7, 1S41. 
 
 Sir : I have received your letter of the 2d instant, transmitting to me a 
 communication made by my predecessor, Mr. Hoyt, to Mr. Woodbury, 
 dated the 12th December last, accompanied by a schedule and estimate of 
 the cost of furniture required for the hew custom-house. I am now di- 
 rected to examine the subject, and report whether all the articles specified 
 will be absolutely required, and whether the prices stated are reasonable, 
 
 The whole of the furniture specified in the schedule will be required to 
 furnish the several departments of the custom-house, exclusive of the 
 rooms, ten in number, in the third story of the building. In these rooms, 
 all of which will be occupied, the old and dilapidated furniture now in use 
 may be placed. Some of it is fifty years old, and none of it was ever fit or 
 appropriate for such a building as the new custom-house. 
 
 In addition to the articles mentioned in that schedule, some little expense 
 must accrue, to pay for cases, shelves, &c, in the upper stories of the build- 
 ing, for the safe keeping of papers and books ; and some iron railing will 
 be required, in suitably arranging the principal offices for the convenient 
 transaction of business. 
 
 I do not find, upon inquiry, that the prices stated in the schedule are 
 
36 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 much out of the way, but I do not expect to employ the person who made 
 out that estimate, and have no doubt I shall save something by employ- 
 ing other persons. 
 
 It will be seen, by reference to the correspondence between Mr. Frazee, 
 the architect, and Mr. Woodbury, that after Mr Frazee furnished the late 
 Secretary with this schedule, " made from drawings and descriptions furnish- 
 ed by me, [him.] and in accordance with instructions and arrangements 
 made by yourself [Mr. Woodbury,] and the principal officers of the differ- 
 ent departments of the custom-house, " a question arose, whether Mr. 
 Frazee's mode and plan of furnishing should be adopted, or those pre- 
 pared by Mr. Bowne, the commissioner. The correspondence shows that 
 your predecessor adopted that of Mr. Frazee, and directed him to go on 
 with it. 
 
 I am of the opinion that this decision of the late Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury ought not to be disturbed. Mr. Frazee feels a just pride as the archi- 
 tect of the building, and hence his consent to superintend the completion 
 of the building and the fitting up of the furniture, without compensation 
 after the first of May. 
 
 I must be allowed to repeat, that the insecurity in regard to fire of our 
 present condition is daily more impressed upon me. In cloudy days there 
 is not a room in the building in which artificial light is not required, and 
 in the principal departments of the collector and the naval officer gas lights 
 are daily used by the clerks. From the nature of our business, great masses 
 of papers accumulate rapidly, and must be retained at hand for constant 
 reference. The establishment is now a vast tinder box. 
 Very respectfully, &c. 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Thomas Ewtng, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 P. S. Since the foregoing was prepared, I have received your letter of 
 the 5th instant. In pursuance of that instruction, and the suggestions of this 
 letter, I shall forthwith proceed to furnish the new custom-house. 
 
 Custom-House, New York, April 23, 1S41. 
 
 Sir : The four large stores at present occupied as a custom-house were 
 formerly rented by the United States, paying therefor an annual rent of 
 four thousand dollars each, and the taxes, amounting in addition to some 
 four hundred dollars. Last year Mr. Hoyt rented the same stores by the 
 month, at the rate of three thousand dollars rent per year. 
 
 The universal custom in this city is to rent all tenements from 1st May 
 to 1st May following. I have kept on foot a negotiation with Mr. David 
 Low, who owns two of these stores, and has charge of the other two, 
 ever since I came into office, with a view to continue our occupation of 
 these buildings, paying rent by the month, and with the right to quit when 
 it suited us to go into the new building. Having recently obtained au- 
 thority to finish the new custom-house, I was the more anxious to rent the 
 stores by the month, but Mr. Low seems to well understand two things : 
 first, that we cannot move into the new building on the 1st May ; and, 
 second ; that it is out of the question to quit his stores and go to other tene- 
 
Eep. No. 1065. 
 
 37 
 
 merits for the period to intervene between the first of May and the time 
 ■when the furniture will enable us to go into the new custom-house. He 
 has, therefore, obstinately declined renting the stores by the month, and 
 has insisted upon our taking them for the year, or not at all, and at the 
 same rent paid last year. 
 
 Yesterday, upon "threatening to do the impossible thing of moving into 
 other stores, which perhaps might or might not be obtained, he finally 
 came to this : that we might take two of the stores for one year at the same 
 rent as last year, and the other two for three months, at the like rate per 
 annum, and to pay taxes instead of the United States as last year. I gave 
 him to understand that I would accede to this proposition, for in truth we 
 can do no better, under the circumstances in which we are placed. 
 
 Mr. Storm, who has taken the contract to furnish the custom-house, will 
 put on 40 or 50 hands to the work : and yet he will not probably com- 
 plete the furniture so that we can move in much before the month of Au- 
 gust ; and the physicians tell me there must be three months of summer 
 heat upon the new custom-house, before its walls will be dry enough to be 
 safely occupied. 
 
 We shall, therefore, pay for two of the stores no longer than we occupy 
 them ; and as to the other two, which will be vacant after the 1st of August, 
 and on our hands, I hope either to re-let them to others, or to use them in 
 lieu of some other stores now used by the United States. Had the work of fur- 
 nishing the new custom-house been commenced, as well it might have 
 been, last winter, then we should not have been at the mercy of our land- 
 lord. 
 
 Having done the best I can for the Government, and acted in this as if 
 it were my own afTair, I see no way but to submit to the necessity of our 
 condition with Mr. Low. The annual rent is greater than it ought to be, 
 or would be to an individual as an occupant, and he puts upon us two 
 stores nine months longer than I would have hired them, though they may 
 not be lost to us ; and, if I could have devised any way to have escaped his 
 terms, I should have rejoiced to have defeated his purposes. 
 
 The Department can appreciate the facts which I have stated, and will 
 see that I have yielded to a necessity which will probably compel its sanc- 
 tion to my reluctant acts. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Thomas Ewing, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 R. 
 
 New York, April 10, 1S41. 
 Sir : I am directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to proceed to fur 
 nish the custom-house. The plan and style of furnishing was settled by 
 Mr. Woodbury, the late Secretary, who approved of the drawings laid be- 
 fore him by Mr. Frazee, the architect, and decided in favor of his plan and 
 style of furnishing, in preference to the views of Mr. Walter Bowne, the 
 commissioner of the custom-house. I wish you to assist me ; for although 
 I have made inquiry among the cabinet makers, yet I have not the time 
 
38 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 personally to make full inquiry, nor to go through the whole operation of 
 talking the matter through to the end with half a dozen contending me- 
 chanics. You must do this. In order that you may understand and be able 
 to make others understand, I send you the estimate of the furniture requir- 
 ed, made out by Mr. Horspool, and which were forwarded by Mr. Hoyt 
 and Mr. Frazee to Mr. Woodbury. I do not feel disposed to pay the prices 
 estimated by Mr. Horspool ; indeed, from my inquiry, I do not think I shall 
 be compelled to go up to these prices. If you cannot, however, find some 
 one who will do the work in the most perfect manner, and with despatch, 
 for less than Horspool asks, then he must have the contract ; but you must 
 avoid this. 
 
 You must understand that the work must be of the best quality, and 
 with a right on my part to reject any or all of the work which the archi- 
 tect and myself shall consider unfit or defective. 
 
 You will call the manufacturers to the new custom-house, and there 
 with them wait upon Mr. Frazee, who will exhibit the plans and draw- 
 ings of the furnituie to be made. 
 
 Under his directions and superintendence, and to his satisfaction, the 
 whole work must be done, as to quality of wood and workmanship ; and it 
 must be done in the most expeditious manner consistent with good work- 
 manship. 
 
 When you are prepared with any man or men with whom you think, 
 upon the whole, it will be most prudent to contract for all the work, or a 
 portion of it, bring the men to me, and, if I am satisfied with the prices, 
 as I presume I shall be satisfied with your judgment, I will close the con- 
 tract. 
 
 For your services in this matter I will pay you any reasonable charge. 
 Let me hear from you forthwith. 
 
 Very respectfully, yours, &c. 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Hough. 
 
 S. 
 
 New York, rfpril 20, 1841. 
 
 Sir : In compliance with your request in your letter to me of the 10th 
 instant, I have made inquiry among the cabinet makers, and have finally 
 selected Mr. Abraham Storm, as one likely to give satisfaction, both as to 
 style of work and economy in expense, and have his estimate for furnish- 
 ing the new custom-house, which I herewith hand you. 
 
 This estimate is made on the list and description of articles, as made by 
 Mr. Frazee. If this estimate should be found satisfactory, Mr. Storm is 
 ready to commence work at once, with sufficient help to complete the job 
 in the shortest time possible. 
 
 Any variation from the list and description, as given by Mr. Frazee, 
 will be done at the same relative cost. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. HOUGH. 
 
 Hon. Edward Curtis. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 39 
 
 T. 
 
 Articles of agreement between Edward Curtis, collector of the port of 
 Neio York, of the one part, and Abraham Storm, of the city of New 
 York, cabinet maker, of the other part. 
 
 It is agreed as follows : 
 
 First. The said Abraham Storm agrees to furnish the new custom-house, 
 in the city of New York, with furniture, according to the description and 
 at the prices contained in the schedule hereunto annexed. 
 
 Second. The said Abraham Storm agrees that the said furniture shall be 
 composed of the very best materials and workmanship. 
 
 Third. The said Abraham Storm agrees that the said furniture shall be 
 manufactured in conformity with the plans, drawings, and directions of Mr. 
 Frazee, the architect of the custom-house. 
 
 Fourth. The said Edward Curtis, the collector, reserves to himself the 
 right to dispense with any portion of the work contained in the annexed 
 estimate ; also, the right to vary from the said estimate ; and, in case of 
 variation, the prices ot the substituted work are to conform, as near as may 
 be, to the prices of the within estimate, according to their relative value. 
 
 Fifth. The said Edward Curtis, the collector, reserves to himself the 
 right to reject any portion of the said work which, in his opinion, and in 
 the opinion of Mr. Frazee, the architect of the custom-house, shall be defi- 
 cient in point of form, material, or workmanship. 
 
 Sixth. The said Abraham Storm agrees to proceed immediately with the 
 manufacture of the said furniture, and to complete the same with all the 
 despatch which is consistent with a faithful execution of this contract. 
 
 Seventh. The said Edward Curtis, the collector, agrees to make payment 
 to the said Abraham Storm, according to the annexed estimate and the 
 terms of this contract, so fast as the said furniture, or any portion thereof, 
 shall be delivered and approved of by the said Edward Curtis, the collect- 
 or, and Mr. Frazee, the architect. 
 
 In testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals, this 
 24th day of April, A. D. 1S41. 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector, [l. s.] 
 ABRAHAM STORM. [l. s.] 
 
 Sealed and delivered in presence of — 
 George Curtis. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 Surveyor's room in basement. 
 
 6 large mahogany book cases, filled with parti- 
 tions, with doors, 6 feet 6 inches long and 
 high, each $98 - 
 
 8 large mahogany book cases, 13 feet long, each 
 $192 - - - 
 
 $588 00 
 1,536 00 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 SCHEDULE— Continued. 
 
 Surveyor's office — continued. 
 
 4 large mahogany writing desks, 6 feet 6 inches 
 long, with falls, book case below, with sep- 
 arate partitions for books, each #68 
 
 4 large mahogany writing desks, 12 "feet long, 
 to go on counters, each $92 
 
 4 large mahogany writing desks, 10 feet long, 
 each $75 - 
 
 8 mahogany counters, with book cases under, 
 with separate partitions for books, each #72 
 
 Surveyor's private room. 
 
 3 large mahogany book cases, 10 feet long, 
 filled with partitions, with doors, &c, in front 
 1 mahogany desk to sit to - 
 
 1 mahogany table, 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, with 
 drawers in frame, cloth on top 
 
 Naval office oji principal floor, 
 
 3 large mahogany double cases, 6 feet, with 
 writing tables and book cases underneath, 
 with separate partitions for books, fronting 
 on both sides, each #90 ... 
 
 3 large mahogany desks, double, 9 feet long, 
 with drawers on each side, top covered with 
 cloth, each $81 
 
 2 large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 11 
 feet high, filled with pigeon holes, showing 
 12 doors in front, with suitable case and cor- 
 nice, each #396 - 
 
 6 large mahogany book cases, 6 feet long, 11 
 feet high, filled with pigeon holes, with 6 
 doors in front and writing table below, with 
 drawers, top covered in cloth, each #192 
 
 1 large book case, mahogany, same as above, 
 but 9 feet long, with 8 doors above 
 
 Receiver's room on principal floor. 
 
 3 large book cases, as above, 6 feet long, each 
 #194 - 
 
 4 mahogany tables, with drawers, top covered 
 in cloth, 5 feet long. 3 feet wide, each #25 - 
 
 2 writing desks (low) to sit to, each #45 
 
 1 mahogany counter, 40 feet long, with panels 
 front, rear filled with drawers 
 
 #272 00 
 36S 00 
 300 00 
 576 00 
 
 435 00 
 45 00 
 
 25 00 
 
 270 00 
 
 243 00 
 
 92 00 
 
 1,152 00 
 
 290 00 
 
 5S2 00 
 
 100 00 
 90 00 
 
 270 00 
 
 1,332 00 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 SCHEDULE — Continued. 
 
 41 
 
 Cashier's room on principal floor. 
 
 1 mahogany counter, 30 feet long, with draw- 
 ers, &C. - - - - - I #195 00 
 
 1 large book case, 13 feet long, as above de- ! 
 
 scribed, but with 12 doors - - - I 396 00 
 
 1 large book case, 6 feet 6 inches long, with 8 
 
 doors - - - - - 220 00 
 
 1 mahogany writing desk, 4 feet long, with full \ 
 
 book case below, with separate partitions for j 
 
 books - - - - - I 45 00 
 
 Collector's room on principal floor. 
 
 2 mahogany book cases, as above, 6 feet long. 
 
 6 doors, each $192 - 
 2 desks to sit to, each $45 
 1 desk, with chair, for collector 
 
 Three rooms on principal floor, each — 
 
 1 large mahogany book case, as above, 6 feet 
 long, 6 doors - 
 
 2 large mahogany tables, 5 feet long, 3 feet 
 wide, with drawers in frame, top covered 
 with cloth, each $25 ... 
 
 Three rooms, each 
 
 Eastern side of rotundo, principal floor. 
 
 2 large mahogany book cases, as above, 6\feet 
 
 long, 6 doors, each $192 - 
 2 large mahogany desks (low) to sit to, each $45 
 
 Rotundo in centre. 
 
 1 mahogany octagon book case in centre, 8 feet 
 high, 6 feet in diameter, with proper cornice, 
 doors, cells, &c. - 
 
 20 large circular mahogany desks, 5 feet long, 
 with drawers, book case below, with parti- 
 tions for books, each, $77 - 
 
 384 00 
 90 00 
 75 00 
 
 192 00 
 
 50 00 
 
 242 00 
 
 384 00 
 90 00 
 
 245 00 
 
42 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 SCHEDULE — Continued. 
 
 Auditor's two rooms on second floor 
 
 12 large mahogany book cases, 6 feet long, 11 
 feet high, filled in with pigeon holes, with 6 
 doors in front, and writing table below, with 
 drawers in frame, cloth on top, each $192 - 
 
 4 large mahogany book cases, 14 feet long, 12 
 doors each, each $396 ... 
 
 1 large mahogany book case, 9 feet long, 8 
 doors - 
 
 1 large mahogany table, 9 feet long, 4 feet 6 
 inches wide, with drawers in frame, cloth on- 
 top ------ 
 
 6 large mahogany double desks, G feet long, 
 with frame on top, with falls, each $70 
 
 6 large mahogany double desks, with drawers 
 on each side, top covered with cloth, each 
 $80 - 
 
 4 mahogany tables, 6 feet long, 4 feet 6 inches 
 wide, top covered in cloth, each $35 
 
 $2,304 00 
 
 1,584 00 
 
 290 00 
 
 45 00 
 
 420 00 
 
 4S0 00 
 
 1 10 00 
 
 Four rooms in second story, each — 
 
 1 large book case, as above, 6 feet long, 6 doors 
 
 2 mahogany tables, with drawers in frame, 
 cloth on top, 5 feet long, 3 feet wide, each $25 
 
 Four rooms, each 
 
 242 00 
 
 Amount 
 
 U. 
 
 Washington, June 8, 1842. 
 We the undersigned, do certify that we have been acquainted with Mr. 
 Joseph Hough, of the city of New York, for many years past, and do not 
 hesitate to bear our testimony to his high character for integrity, intelli- 
 gence, and general business habits and capacity. 
 
 SILAS WRIGHT, Jr. 
 SAMUEL S. PHELPS. 
 WILLIAM SLADE. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 43 
 
 V. 
 
 Washington, June 8, 1842. 
 
 Sir : Understanding that testimony has been taken, before the commit- 
 tee of which you have the honor to be chairman, touching the furnishing 
 of the New York custom-house, I have to request that you will be kind 
 enough either to state to me the substance of such testimony, or exhibit to 
 me the testimony itself, to the end that I may take such steps as may be 
 deemed necessary, on the part of my brother, the present collector, in case 
 it shall appear that he is in any way implicated by such testimony. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 
 
 GEORGE CURTIS. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman of Select Committee H. B. 
 
 W. 
 
 Committee Room, June 8, 1S42. 
 Sir : Your letter of this morning, requesting me to inform you of the- 
 substance of the testimony taken before the committee of which I am 
 chairman, in relation to the furnishing of the New York custom-house, or 
 requesting a personal examination of it, has been laid before the commit- 
 tee, and I am authorized to say that an opportunity will be very cheerfully 
 afforded you of making such examination. 
 
 The committee are exceedingly desirous of understanding truly all the 
 circumstances connected with their investigation, and will afford all proper 
 means of a full development of them. 
 
 I am, very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 
 
 R. W. THOMPSON, Chairman. 
 
 George Curtis, Esq., Present. 
 
 X. 
 
 Collector's Office, New York, May 30, 1842. 
 
 Sir : Mr. Storm, the maker of the mahogany furniture for the collect- 
 or's office, the naval office, the surveyor's office, and the various apart- 
 ments of the custom-house, has delivered all the furniture, with the excep- 
 tion of some minor articles, and has this day delivered to me his final bill, 
 which I forward to the Department. 
 
 Having seen it stated that no authority has been given to furnish the 
 custom-house, except a simple order to the collector to furnish the building 
 "plainly and substantially," I will advert to the circumstances relating to 
 this subject. 
 
 This work has been done under the contract entered into by me with 
 Mr. Storm, on the 24th of April, 1841, in pursuance of the correspondence 
 on this subject, consisting of the letters of your predecessor of the 2d and 
 5th of April, and of mine to him of the 1st and 7th April, 1841 ; reference 
 being had also to the schedules and estimates of furniture (amounting to 
 about nineteen thousand dollars, by the estimate of Mr. Horspool) transmit- 
 ted to me by the Department in the letter of the 2d of April. The contract 
 gives to Mr. Frazee, the superintendent and architect, such control over the 
 
44 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 subject as he claimed, and I considered him possessed of, and entitled to, 
 by the terms of the letter of the Secretary to Mr. Frazee, of the 3d of 
 March, 1841, enclosing a copy of his letter of that date to Walter Bowne, 
 commissioner, " continuing Mr. Frazee in the oflice of superintendent and 
 architect until the finishing and furnishing of the respective rooms shall 
 have been completed and stating, also, " that it is desirable that Mr. 
 Frazee's plans for the interior arrangements of the building should be car- 
 ried into effect, so far as regards the ily-doors, furniture, and painting of 
 the iron work." 
 
 That the late Secretary well understood that I did not intend to take 
 upon myself the powers delegated to Mr. Frazee, as superintendent and 
 architect, in respect to the furnishing of the building erected by him, is 
 apparent from the tenor of the correspondence ; and how I understood 
 the authority of the letter of the 2d of April is manifest by the postscript 
 to mine of the 7th of April. His letter of the 2d of April was written 
 before mine of the 1st was received by him, and these letters crossed in 
 the mails. 
 
 I have always considered myself restricted, as to payments, to the 
 amount of the contract ; and that any changes which the architect might 
 adopt in the furniture, or whatever his plans might be, the compensation 
 to Mr. Storm could not exceed the sum stated in the contract ; and so I 
 supposed the matter to be understood both by the architect and Mr. Storm, 
 until after the naval oiiice was furnished, when I learned that material 
 changes, calculated to enhance the expense beyond the contract, had been 
 ordered by the architect and complied with by Mr. Storm, and additional 
 articles ordered to be made. I then called upon Mr. Storm, and regret- 
 ted to find that it was too late to retrace his steps in respect to these modi- 
 fications, and in regard to the additional furniture ; and that these modifi- 
 cations had been adopted in the furniture already delivered, and in respect 
 to that portion also which was not yet finished. I notified him, how- 
 ever, distinctly, that I had no power to exceed the maximum compensa- 
 tion in the contract, and that the furniture must be delivered at his risk, 
 for any excess beyond the contract aggregate. At different times, as the 
 work has progressed, Mr. Storm has received payments, and the full 
 amount provided for in the contract has been paid. You will see that his 
 account exceeds this sum by several thousand dollars — the excess is re- 
 ferable to an increase in the dimensions and number of articles of furniture 
 originally contemplated to be required, and material modifications in the 
 style and plan of the furniture, and chiefly that of adding glass doors to 
 all the cases, and brass railing to the tops of the desks. In my letter of 
 the 16th of February last, I advised you, by transmitting a copy of corres- 
 pondence between Mr. Frazee and myself, that with regard to the iron 
 standards on which the desks and cases are secured, I have had no agency 
 or responsibility ; this matter has, with the mason work, iron railing, car- 
 penters' work in making the fly-doors, other wood work of the building, 
 and the painting and bronzing, been conducted by the architect since the 
 3d of March, 1841, and, of course, without my interference. The apart- 
 ments of the naval officer and the surveyor are provided with such arti- 
 cles of furniture as those gentlemen thought requisite and proper ; and 
 the whole work has been done in the most perfect manner, in respect to 
 materials and workmanship. No work can be more substantial ; and, 
 though not so plain as it might have been, is as plain as is consistent with 
 
Rep. Xo. 1065. 
 
 45 
 
 the style of the building in which it is placed. But you have seen it very 
 recently, and can judge of the fitness of its character and appearance. I 
 know of no candid person who regards it as inappropriate. Such of the 
 old furniture as is fit is in use. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Hon. Walter Forward, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 P. S. To evince the opinion of the merchants dealing with the cus- 
 tom-house, I send a statement, signed this morning, by fourteen among 
 the most eminent of the importers and ship-owners. The signatures 
 might have been extended to hundreds. No person will dissent from this 
 expression, after an examination of the furniture. It is submitted as evi- 
 dence that the furniture is appropriate, and not extravagant. 
 
 E. C. 
 
 Y. 
 
 June 17, 1S42. 
 
 Dear Sir : 1 am in trouble in regard to money matters ; and unless I 
 can get some from you, I shall be compelled to close my business, for to 
 meet my liabilities I cannot. I therefore hope you will do something in 
 the matter this week. I have been threatened to be prosecuted if I don't 
 pay this week. Persons are clamorous ; they think that, as I have been to 
 work for the Government, I must have money. 1 have rendered to you a 
 statement of all the money paid out by me for materials and labor on the 
 custom-house furniture, which amounts to §22,14.5 IS; part of this is bor- 
 rowed, and now due. I do hope you won't let me sink now, for what is 
 coming to me, after having obtained some credit by the contract. Any 
 thing that can be done, even at the greatest sacrifice, rather than have my 
 credit injured, I will submit to. 
 
 Respectfullv, yours, 
 
 ABRAHAM STORM. 
 
 Mr. Edward Curtis. 
 
 P. S. The statement of my disbursements, which I have sent you, can 
 be sustained by my bills, my books, and my oath. I ought not to be ruined 
 with the other mechanics, whom D wight is persecuting to their ruin. 
 
 Z. 
 
 May 12, 1842. 
 
 Sir : The copy I gave of Mr. Woodbury's letter to Walter Bowne Esq.,, 
 was written here from memory, as I had no copy of that letter with me. 
 My design was to imbody Mr. Woodbury's intentions fully, as relates to 
 the making of the fly-doors, furniture, &c, as well as the arranging these 
 things, because I knew it was the intention of Mr. Woodbury that these 
 things should be made or constructed according to my designs — as also 
 the bronzing of the iron work ; for the bronzing was one of the items in 
 dispute, and I knew Mr. Woodbury agreed with Mr. Hoyt and myself in 
 relation to that thing. Messrs. Coe and Moore, the naval officer and sur- 
 veyor, had also reported in favor of having the iron work bronzed. 
 
46 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 I beg you will excuse any discrepancy I have made in regard to the 
 exact wording of the copy I made entirely from memory ; and I sincerely 
 ask your most deliberate consideration upon the justice of our accounts 
 rendered. 
 
 I will, if necessary, call on Mr. Woodbury, and get a statement from 
 him, as to what were his precise intention and purpose in the said letter 
 to Mr. Bowne, of March 3, 1841. 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Fillmore. 
 
 AA. 
 
 New York, June 10, 1842. 
 
 Sir : Mr. George Curtis, my brother, has returned from Washington 
 this evening, and stated that you wished to hear from me in explanation 
 of a remark in my letter to the Secretary of the 7th of April, 1841, to the 
 effect that Mr. John F razee, superintendent and architect of the new cus- 
 xom-house, had offered to render his services, after the 1st of May, 1S41, 
 without compensation. 
 
 Mr. Frazee did make a communication to me, that, after the 1st of May, 
 1841, he would serve, gratuitously, until the furnishing and finishing of 
 the custom-house was completed. The communication was made some 
 time in March, 1S41, and at the same time Mr. F. stated, in conversation, 
 that if paid for that time (a few months) during which Mr. Bowne kept 
 him out of his pay, he was willing to serve three or four months for 
 nothing, for the sake of having the furniture conform to his ideas of pro- 
 priety, and to have the building finished completely and properly. 
 
 It was then thought that every thing could be made ready for occupa- 
 tion some time in July, 1841. 
 
 I was wholly uninformed as to the length of time his services would 
 be required, and I neither had, nor professed to have, any power to treat 
 with Mr. Frazee on the subject, his appointment as superintendent and 
 architect being derived from the Secretary. 
 
 Subsequently, and when it was found that the services of Mr. Frazee 
 were required for a much longer period than was anticipated, he sometimes 
 adverted to the subject in conversation, and stated that he had expected 
 to lose three or four months' time, but he could not afford to lose more 
 time ; that he was poor, and unable to work for nothing. 
 
 It is proper for me to add, that I merely communicated to the Secretary 
 the suggestion of Mr. Frazee, and that no notice was taken of it by the 
 Department, according to the best of my recollection. 
 
 Mr. Frazee was a stranger to me when I became collector. I now know 
 him to be a poor man, and utterly destitute of all property or means, hav- 
 ing accumulated nothing. He is an artist of great merit, and the building 
 erected and completed under his superintendence is the finest structure on 
 this continent, and must endure for ages. 
 
 I am, sir, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee H. R. 
 
Bep. No. 1065. 
 
 47 
 
 BB. 
 
 Articles of agreement made this 4th day of January, IS 37, by and be- 
 tween Walter Bowne, Benjamin Ringgold, and Daniel Jackson, commis- 
 sioners on the part of the Government of the United States, for the build- 
 ing of a custom-honse in the city of New York, of the first part, and John 
 G. Tibbetts, of the city of New York, blacksmith, of the second part, wit- 
 nesseth : That, for and in consideration of the payments hereinafter stipu- 
 lated to be made to the party of the second part, by the parties of the first 
 part, commissioners, as aforesaid, the said party of the second part doth 
 hereby Covenant and agree, to and with the said parties of the first, and 
 their successors, that he will furnish, make, prepare, and finish, of wrought 
 and cast iron, all the doors, complete, with hinges, bolts, and locks, (the 
 locks such as may be required, agreeably to specification,) window frames, 
 sashes and shutters, railing for the stairs and galleries, holdfasts, cramps 
 and chains, grates and gratings, and all other iron work required for the 
 building ; and the said iron work is to be constructed according to the 
 drawings, specifications, and directions, which may from time to time be 
 given by the superintendent of said building ; and that all the iron work 
 shall be delivered within a reasonable stipulated time, given by the said 
 superintendent for preparing the same, free of any expense, at the site of 
 the said custom-house, and shall be subject to the inspection, approval, or 
 rejection of the said superintendent ; and in case of any part being re- 
 jected, the same to be removed, without delay, from the site of the build- 
 ing, and to be replaced with others fully approved in their stead, at the 
 expense of the said party of the second part ; and the said parties of the 
 first part, commissioners as aforesaid, do covenant and agree that they will 
 pay unto the said party of the second part the sum of eighteen and one- 
 half cents per pound for all the said iron work, so required throughout, 
 and which shall be weighed at the building when delivered and approved. 
 And the said parties of the first part, or their successors, commissioners as 
 aforesaid, agree to pay unto the said party of the second part, when work to 
 the value and amount of one thousand dollars, or upwards, is delivered and 
 approved, eighty per cent, on such sums, from time to time, until the whole 
 work shall be completed, and then to pay the balance of twenty per cent, 
 on the certificate of the superintendent, that all the aforesaid work is fin- 
 ished to his satisfaction. And it is further mutually agreed, that in case of 
 •failure of the said party of the second part to furnish and deliver the said 
 iron work, as hereinbefore specified, that it shall and may be lawful for 
 the said parties of the first part, or their successors, to declare this contract 
 forfeited, and to procure the said iron work to be made by some other per- 
 son or persons, at the cost and charges of the said parties of the second 
 part. And for the faithful performance of all which agreements, the party 
 of the second part doth hereby bind himself and his heirs in the penal sum 
 of two thousand five hundred dollars, liquidated damages. In witness 
 whereof, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals, the day and year 
 first above written. 
 
 JOHN G. TIBBETTS. [l. s.] 
 WALTER BOWNE. [l. 
 BENJ. RINGGOLD, [l. 5.] 
 DANIEL JACKSON, [l. s.J 
 
 Witness: Wm. W. Swan. 
 A true copy ; W. S. 
 
48 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 A security bond for five thousand dollars, by three respectable and re- 
 sponsible persons, was taken for the faithful performance of the above 
 contract. W. S. 
 
 Comptroller's Office, April 16, 1842. 
 
 A true copy, from the one on file in this office. 
 
 J. BARTRAM NORTH, Clerk. 
 
 CC. 
 
 New York, April 13, 1842. 
 Dear Sir : At the request of Mr. Tibbetts, 1 have examined the minutes 
 of the proceedings of the former commissioners of the custom-house, and 
 find it there entered, that several proposals had been received for doing 
 the iron work of the new custom-house; that the proposal of John G. 
 Tibbetts, at \S\ cents per pound, was the most favorable, and a resolution 
 to contract with him, &c. The contract was executed, and bonds for se- 
 curity given by him, &c. I cannot find the proposals of other applicants; 
 they do not appear to have been preserved. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, 
 
 GEO. F. TALMAN, 
 Commissioner New Custom-House, N. Y. 
 
 J. Frazee, Esq., 
 
 Washington City. 
 
 Treasury Department, March 26, 1842. 
 Sir : In reply to your note of to-day, I have to state that, on the 6th 
 April, 1841, G. F. Talman was appointed commissioner and disbursing 
 agent to pay off the balance of claims due for materials and work done on the 
 the new custom-house building in New York, and he was allowed a com- 
 mission of one per cent on the money appropriated by Congress. These dis- 
 bursements have been made, and his accounts have been rendered and ad- 
 justed at the Treasury, on the 30th April last. There is no person now 
 acting as commissioner on the building of the custom-house at New York. 
 With great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. FORWARD. 
 
 Hon. George Poindexter, Washington. 
 
 DD. 
 
 New York, April 10, 1841. 
 
 Sir: In compliance with your request, I submit an estimate for painting 
 and bronzing the iron work of the New York custom-house. 
 
 For the sum of four thousand three hundred and fifty dollars I will fur- 
 nish the materials and execute the painting and bronzing of said iron workj 
 in manner as follows : 
 
Rep. TS T o. 1065. 
 
 49 
 
 The iron work of the first and second stories to be finished with gold 
 bronze. The sashes and shutters to be well painted with four coatings, fin- 
 ished to a fair surface, and to have two coats of varnish after the gold is 
 put on. The gallery and stair railings to be finished in the same style. 
 The doors to have eight coatings, and each coat rubbed down to a smooth, 
 surface ; then bronzed, and finished with two coats of best copal varnish, 
 well rubbed down. The iron work of the basement and attic stories to be 
 .painted only, in imitation of light bronze. The railings of the porticoes and 
 areas to be well painted, and finished with copper bronze. The whole 
 work shall be done in the best possible manner, and to your entire satis- 
 faction. 
 
 Trulv, yours, 
 
 JOHN HODGKIN, 
 rainier, 378 Broome street. 
 
 Mr. John Frazee. 
 
 Accepted the above proposal of Mr. Hodgkin, and have agreed with him 
 that he shall supply the materials and do the above-mentioned work upon 
 the new custom-house, in the manner and upon the terms of price stated in 
 his proposal. 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE, 
 Superintendent and •Architect. 
 
 EE. 
 
 New Custom-House, New York, January 25, 1842. 
 
 Sir : 1 have received your letter of the 20th instant, with a copy of one 
 from the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, upon the sub- 
 ject of the difference in amount between my estimate of June last and the 
 one submitted in December, for completing this building. 
 
 With my estimate, made December 3, I handed our commissioner a 
 written statement, explaining the causes for the large additions in this esti- 
 mate, and desired that the explanation and estimate might be forwarded 
 together to the Treasury Department. But Mr. Talman seemed to think, 
 the explanation unnecessary, observing that if any explanation should be 
 required, it could easily be furnished at any time when called for.* 
 
 What additions entire, and on what items of work have additional ex- 
 penses been made upon the estimate of December, may easily be seen by 
 comparing the two estimates together. Why these additions were made, I 
 will now proceed to show. Annexed is a list of the principal additions, 
 and I will explain, with reference to each number, beginning with No. 1. 
 Here is an addition of $1,S32 40 upon this item, and which consists chiefly 
 in carpenters' work, in making pine cases, shelvings, and drawers for the 
 basement offices and rooms of the attic and upper lofts. Nothing of this 
 was contemplated by me when making the estimate in June. I had sup- 
 posed that all the cases, &c, whether made of mahogany or pine, would 
 be furnished by the cabinet maker. Subsequently, however, it was thought 
 
 • Mr. Talman is now absent from this city. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 best, both upon the ground of economy and expediency, by the collector 
 and myself, to let our carpenters make all the pine cases, drawers, &c.,. 
 above mentioned. 
 
 No. 2. Here the sum of #6,650 above the former estimate, arises from 
 having the stands which support the desks, tables, and side cases, through- 
 out the first and second stories, made of iron, and taken into the estimate 
 for the building, instead of being put in the furniture account. It was a 
 suggestion of mine, since the June estimate was made, to have all these 
 stands and supports made of cast iron. It met with the approval of the 
 collector and other officers of the customs, and now, since the work is 
 done, it is highly approved and admired by every one. 
 
 No. 3. The sum of S70S for patent springs on which to revolve the fly- 
 doors, including the handles. Upon trial, we found that, in hanging the fly- 
 doors to shut upon a rabbit, the report was so loud as would be extremely 
 annoying in the transacting of business. For this evil I knew of no remedy 
 but the revolving spring, in the use of which no rabbit is required to stop 
 the door ; consequently, it makes no noise or report whatever. 
 
 No. 4. Here is an addition of Si, 550 14 above the former estimate, on 
 the article of lumber. This sum embraces all the lumber that has been 
 and is yet expected to be used in the pine cases, drawers, fcc., above stated,, 
 and was not considered in the former estimate. 
 
 No. 5. Here is $ 1,300 for carpenters' work yet required in the making and 
 completing the number of pine cases, Stc, that are wanted. 
 
 No. C. $3,500, the amount of bills chiefly due for painting and bronzing 
 the fly-doors, iron desk stands, table supports, &c, and the railings in the 
 different offices. This amount also covers a great number of miscellaneous 
 items not before mentioned, among which are the painting of the pine cases, 
 &c., the lettering the directory signs, the labelling over the doors of the 
 different offices, and upon the principal desks in each oflice, all which were 
 not embraced in the former estimate. 
 
 No. 7. #1,647 due the architect, in addition to the sum put down in the 
 former estimate, that estimate not embracing any prospective pay to the 
 architect. 
 
 No. 8. $254 28 for carvings which I deemed necessary upon the encase- 
 ments to the fly-doors at the principal entrances to the building; and No. 9 
 is $90 16 for large glass lights over these and the large middle fly-doors.. 
 These items should have been in the former estimate, but somehow they 
 were entirely overlooked. 
 
 No. 10. #500 added upon the item of contingent expenses. 
 
 The foregoing sums amount in all to Si 8,031 9S. The difference be- 
 tween the two estimates is S18,155 15. There are additions upon several 
 items of work which I have thought it unnecessary to extract merely for the 
 purpose of making the two amounts square precisely. Trusting the above 
 explanation will be deemed sufficiently full and satisfactory, both to your- 
 self and to the Committee of Ways and Means, I submit the same for your 
 consideration and approval. 
 
 I am, with due respect, your very obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE, 
 Architect and Superintendent. 
 
 Hon. Walter Forward, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
Bep. Ho. 1065. 51 
 
 List of items copied from the estimate of expenses for finishing the new 
 custom-house, New York, made December 3, 1S41, by the architect. 
 
 No. 1. Amount due to carpenters, stonecutters, masons, and 
 
 laborers, as per labor pay list - §3,070 40 
 
 Remarks. In the estimate of June, 1641, the amount for car- 
 pentry and other work is #838; lumber, $400 - - 1,23S 00 
 
 Sum additional - 1,S32 40 
 
 No. 2. John G. Tibbetts's bill for iron work #s,500 00 
 
 Rem. For iron work in the June estimate ... 1,850 00 
 
 Sum additional - 6,650 00 
 
 No. 3. J. Stone's bill, for door-springs and handles - - $70S 00 
 
 Rem. Not in the estimate of June. — — : 
 
 No. 4. Amount of bills for lumber #1,350 14; for lumber yet 
 
 wanted, #600 - - - - - Si, 950 14 
 
 Rem. For lumber in the estimate of June ... 400 00 
 
 Sum additional .... 1,550 14 
 
 No. 5. For carpentry work yet required in making pine cases, 
 
 &c. - - - - - - - - Si, 300 00 
 
 Rem, Not in the June estimate. ~ 
 
 No. 6. Amount of bills for painting and bronzing fly-doors, 
 
 desk stands, railings, and a variety of other items - - #3,5 00 00 
 Rem. Not in the June estimate. ==== 
 
 No. 7. One year's pay due the architect - - - #2,817 00 
 
 Rem. In the estimate of June is - 1,170 00 
 
 Sum additional - - - i,647 00 
 
 Nos. S and 9. Carving for the encasements to fly-doors, #254 2S; 
 
 and glass lights for said doors, #90 16 - - - #344 44 
 Rem. Not in the June estimate. 
 
 No. 10. Contingent expenses, #1,000. Rem. In June estimate 
 
 is #500 - #500 00 
 
 Making the total amount of all the additions, together - 18.QS1 9S 
 
 J. FRAZEE, 
 
 Architect and Superintendent. 
 
52 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 FF. 
 
 New York, June 4, 1841. 
 
 Sir : I have the honor to enclose, herewith, a statement and estimate of 
 the work and expenses necessary for the completion of the new custom- 
 house in this city, made by Mr. Frazee, the architect and superintendent. 
 
 The appropriation made at the last session of Congress has been ex- 
 pended, as will appear by my vouchers and accounts, forwarded to the 
 First Auditor of the Treasury. It may be proper to remark that the last 
 appropriation did not provide for any of the items of the present estimate, 
 being founded on expenditures that had been made at the time of the esti- 
 mate, without any reference to painting and bronzing the iron work. The 
 fly-doors are rendered necessary by the weight of the iron doors, making 
 them unfit for constant use. I have not deemed myself authorized, as com- 
 missioner, to make contracts for the performance of any of the work men- 
 tioned in said statement; but a part of it has already been done, and the re- 
 mainder commenced, and now in progress, under the order and direction of 
 Mr. Frazee, the architect and superintendent, who was authorized so to do 
 by the late Secretary of the Treasury, upon condition that the payments 
 should be made after an appropriation by Congress. I shall be pleased to 
 give any further particulars or explanations that the Department may re- 
 quire. 
 
 I have not yet been able to obtain definitive propositions from the owners 
 of the land adjoining the new custom-house, on the eastern side, but expect 
 to be able to obtain them within a few days. 
 
 I have the honor to remain your most obedient servant, 
 
 GEO. F. TALMA N. 
 
 Hon. Thomas Ewing, 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Estimated expenses for completing the new custom-house* New York. 
 
 For carpentry and other work in constructing the casements 
 and fly-doors at the principal entrances, and also the fly- 
 doors for the entrances to all the public offices of the 
 building ....... $1,238 25 
 
 Plumbers' bill rendered, $104 32: plumbers' work to do. 
 
 $50 - - - 154 32 
 
 Five months' pay due the architect and superintendent - 1,170 00 
 
 Contract with John Kodgkin, for furnishing the materials and 
 painting the iron work throughout the interior and exterior 
 of the building, and bronzing the iron doors, corridors, rail- 
 ings, sashes, and shutters of the first and second stories - 4,350 00 
 
 For covering with a solution of zinc the iron trellis work 
 over the hot water pipes, to prevent corrosion — 4,320 lbs. 
 at 6 cents per pound - • 259 20 
 
 Orlando Grav's bill rendered, for painting and painting ma- 
 terials - 76 35 
 
 Bills rendered for stonecutting , - - - 244 00 
 
 For stonecutting yet to be done, in preparing the large tab- 
 let on the Pine street front, and cutting letters thereon, 
 trimming out the jambs of the attic windows, and form- 
 ing a drip on each sili, and other small jobs - - 175 00 
 
Hep. No. 1065. 
 
 53 
 
 For the iron railings required in the principal offices, (in the 
 place of counters,) to separate the public from the clerks' 
 line of desks . . - #1,850 00 
 
 Contingent expenses, say ----- 500 00 
 
 $10,017 12 
 
 June 1, 1841. ~ 
 
 Estimated expenses for finishing the new custom-house, New York. 
 
 Amount due to carpenters, stonecutters, masons, and labor- 
 ers, as per labor pay list ----- $3,070 40 
 
 To pay contract with John Hodgkin, for painting and bronz- 
 ing the iron work of the building - - - - 4,350 00 
 
 To pay bills for painting and bronzing the fly-doors, iron desk 
 stands, table stands, case stands, and iron railings in the 
 various offices, (not under contract) - - 3,500 00 
 To pay bill for coating with a solution of zinc the iron trel- 
 lis work over the hot water pipes - 288 00 
 To pay bill for patent springs and handles for the fly-doors - 708 00 
 To pay bill for plumbing - - 104 32 
 To pay bills for lumber ----- 1,350 14 
 
 For lumber yet wanted - - ... - 600 00 
 
 To pay bill for hardware - - - - - 182 7S 
 
 For carpenters' work yet wanted, in making pine -cases (for 
 
 papers) in the upper stories, and other fixtures - - 1,300 00 
 
 To pay bill for iron work ----- 8,500 00 
 
 One year's pay due the architect - 2,817 00 
 
 Gallier & Murphy's bill for carving - - - - 254 28 
 
 Bill for glass lights - - - - - - 90 16 
 
 Bill for stationery - - - - - - 22 19 
 
 Bill of sundries — pails, brooms, brushes, soap, oil, &c, for 
 
 the building ' - - - - - 35 00 
 
 Contingencies - .1,000 00 
 
 $28,172 27 
 
 GG. 
 
 Collector's Office, 
 New York, November 9, 1841. 
 
 Gentlemen: I have received a copy .of your order of the 8th instant, 
 requesting me £i to furnish copies of the contracts for the furniture, and also 
 for the railings and other iron work of the New York custom-house, togeth- 
 er with a statement of what amounts have been paid for the same, and out 
 of what fund the same has been drawn." 
 
 I have the honor to state, in reply, that no contract has been made or en- 
 tered into by me for " railings or other iron work of the New York custom- 
 house," and no account has been paid by me for any such work or mate- 
 rials, out of any fund. 
 
54 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 I transmit, herewith, a copy of a contract for furnishing the new custom- 
 house, dated the 24th day of April, 1841. This contract was entered into 
 in pursuance of instructions from the Department of the Treasury, and the 
 sum of $7,000 lias been paid on account, and charged as expenses inciden- 
 tal to the collection of the revenue, to the fund derived from the fees and 
 emoluments of the collector, &c. 
 
 The subject of furnishing the New York custom-house was, by a former 
 Secretary of the Treasury, committed to the charge of John Frazee, archi- 
 tect of the custom-house, whose plans, drawings, and descriptions of the 
 furniture, were submitted to and adopted by the Department. 
 
 Mr. Frazee's schedule and estimate of the cost of the furniture were 
 transmitted to me by the late Secretary of the Treasury, and are the same 
 which form the schedule annexed to the contract now transmitted to you, 
 with this difference only — that the contract prices are a few hundred dollars 
 less, in the aggregate. By virtue of the right reserved to the collector and 
 John Frazee, the architect, to reject and vary the schedule, the architect has 
 made variations to a considerable extent, as I am informed; and I directed, 
 immediately after the making of the contract, that the furnishing of the 
 basement room should be dispensed with altogether, and the room origin- 
 ally designed for the use of the receiver general has been fitted up for the 
 surveyor, instead of the basement rotundo. 
 
 The rooms in the third story will be furnished with such of the old fur- 
 niture as will bear moving. 
 
 I have no means at present of determining to what extent the variations 
 from the schedule, and the omission to furnish the basement rotundo, will 
 reduce the total cost of the furniture ; but the powers of the collector and 
 of the architect, under the contract, will secure the Government against the 
 payment of higher prices than shall be deemed reasonable by competent 
 mechanics, whose advice will be sought. 
 
 I am, sir, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Messrs. Poindexter, ^ 
 
 Steuart. and ^ Commissioners. 
 Bradley. S 
 
 HH. 
 
 Treasury Department, June 6, 1842. 
 Sir: In reply to your letter of the 4th instant, I have to say that I was 
 lately at New York," and visited the custom-house. In passing through the 
 building, my attention was called to the furniture, including desks, &c. The 
 work appeared to me to be very substantial, and tastefully executed. 
 
 In these matters, however, I do not pretend to any skill, and my obser- 
 vations at the time were so cursory that I can do nothing more than indicate 
 the general impression made upon my mind. 
 I am, with great respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. FORWARD. 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee. 
 
 The collector at New York has been instructed as requested by the com- 
 mittee. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 55 
 
 II. 
 
 The undersigned, citizens of the city of New York, having been request- 
 ed by the principal officers of the customs at this port, do certify our opin- 
 ion, to all whom it may concern, that the furniture provided for, and now 
 placed in the several apartments of the custom-house, is fit and appropri- 
 ate ; that it is of the most substantial and perfect workmanship, and not 
 more expensive in its character than the fine building in which it is placed, 
 and the accommodation of business, require. 
 
 SPOFFORD, TILESTON, & CO. 
 
 E. RIGGS. 
 
 DAVIS, BROOKS, & CO. 
 
 GOODHUE & CO. 
 
 BROWN & BROTHERS. 
 
 C. BOLTON, FOX, & LIVINGSTON. 
 
 JOHN GRISWOLD. 
 
 BOORMAN, JOHNSTON, & CO. 
 
 JAMES McCALL & CO. 
 
 HOWL AND & ASPINWALL. 
 
 BARCLAY & LIVINGSTON. 
 
 ANDREW FOSTER & SONS. 
 
 EBENEZER STEVENS & SONS. 
 
 F. SHELDON & CO. 
 DANIEL STANTON. 
 
 May 30, 1S42. 
 
 JJ. 
 
 Treasury Department, June 16, 1S42. 
 Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
 14th instant, requesting information relative to furnishing the New York 
 custom-house, and, in reply, would state Mr. Curtis took charge of the 
 -custom-house on the 23d March, 1841. The furniture of the custom-house 
 has heretofore been paid for out of the " fees and emoluments of the office." 
 
 I have this day requested Mr. Curtis to furnish me with a copy of Mr. 
 A. Storm's account for furniture, which shall be transmitted to you so soon 
 as received. 
 
 I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 
 
 W. FORWARD, 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman Committee N. Y. Custom-House, Ho. of Reps. 
 
 KK. 
 
 Collector's Office, New York, 
 
 December 3, 1841, A\ P. M. 
 Gentlemen : I send, enclosed, my answers to the 3d and 4th questions, 
 fpart of a series of nine questions submitted to me on the 26th ultimo. 
 
56 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 This evening I will draw my replies to the residue of the questions, and 
 .send them to you to-morrow, as soon as they can be copied. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, yours, very respectfully, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Messrs. Poindexter, ~) 
 
 Steuart, and > Commissioners, fyc. 
 Bradley, ) 
 
 3. Question. Please state what amount has been paid by you for iron 
 railing, referred to in your letter to the Secretary of the Treasury on the 
 7th April last; also, what amount has been paid for iron desk stands or 
 other iron furniture for the new custom-house, and how much per pound 
 has been paid. 
 
 Answer. Nothing has been paid by me for iron railing of any descrip- 
 tion for the new custom-house, nor for iron desk stands or other iron fur- 
 niture. 
 
 4. Question. You were authorized by the late Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, in his letter of the 5th April last, to furnish the new custom-house 
 u plainly and substantially, using so much of the old furniture as may be 
 convenient, and taking care to exercise proper economy in the matter ;" 
 is it by this authority you have procured the new furniture recently placed 
 in the new custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. By the authority of the late Secretary, of the 2d and 5th April, 
 taken in connexion with my letters to him of the 25th March and of the 
 1st and 7th of April, the contract for the furniture was made with Mr. 
 Storm, (a copy of which you have in your possession,) founded upon a 
 schedule and estimate transmitted to me by the Secretary, with his letter 
 of the 2d April. I was directed to inquire whether all the articles of furni- 
 ture in that schedule and estimate were required, whether the prices were 
 reasonable, and whether some of the old furniture could not be used in the 
 new house. All these inquiries were responded to by me, and the Secre- 
 tary advised that all the articles described in that schedule would be want- 
 ed, that the old furniture would answer for the third story rooms, that the 
 contract would be made (as it was made) at lower prices than those stated 
 in the schedule sent to me, and that, under his letter of the 5th April, the 
 new custom-house would be furnished with all the economy consistent 
 with the plans of the architect, which plans had been approved by the 
 former Secretary of the Treasury, who, by his letter of the 3d of March, 
 1841, to Walter Bowne, Esq., had directed Mr. Frazee, the superintendent 
 and architect, to be continued until the building was finished and furnish- 
 ed, and that his plan of finishing and furnishing the building was to be 
 adopted. The articles contracted for are the same contained in the sched- 
 ule and estimates sent to me by the Department, except I have dispensed 
 with the furniture designed for the large room in the basement story. 
 Nobody will contend that the old furniture could have been with any pro- 
 priety used in the new building, except as I propose to use it, in the 3d 
 story. The plan of Mr. Frazee, the architect, has been followed, so far as 
 I have had any connexion in the matter, and the furniture provided under 
 the contract I entered into, some of which is now in the custom-house, is 
 plain and substantial, in reference to the building in which it is placed ; 
 and proper economy has been exercised in the matter, so far as I had any 
 control. The style of the furniture is more plain, more substantial, and 
 
Eep. No. 1065. 
 
 57 
 
 jess expensive, than that found in many of the public offices at Washing- 
 ton. " Plainly and substantially" are relative terms, as applied to the fur- 
 niture of a building, and they were used by the Secretary, in his letter of 
 the 5th April last, in relation to the furniture of a building erected at the 
 expense of $ 1,000,000, and to stand for ages the house of the customs at 
 ihe principal port of the Union. 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS. 
 
 LL. 
 
 Collector's Office, New York, 
 
 Saturday, November 20, 1841. 
 
 Gentlemen : I have received a copy of your order of the 18th instant.,, 
 by which the collector is requested to furnish the commissioners with the 
 authority from the Treasury Department by which he was authorized to 
 pay the sum of $7,000, paid on account, and charged as expenses inci- 
 dental to the collection of the revenue, out of the fund derived from fees 
 and emoluments of the collector, &c, for and on account of furniture for 
 the new custom-house, and whether the payment of the said sum of §7,000 
 has or has not created to that extent a deficiency in the payment of the 
 charges by law to be made on that fund. 
 
 I have the honor to refer the commissioners, in reply to the inquiry con- 
 cerning the authority to pay the said sum of $7,000, to the correspondence 
 between this office and the Treasury Department, copies of which are 
 herewith transmitted, consisting of the collector's letter to the Secretary of 
 the Treasury of the 25th March, 1841, the letter of the Secretary to the 
 collector of the 2d April, 1S41, collector's letter to the Secretary of the 1st 
 April, 1S41, the collector's letter of the 7th April 1S41, the Secretary's let- 
 ter of the 5th April, 1841, and the collector's letter to the Secretary of the 
 23d April, 1841. 
 
 I believe that the subject of the furniture is mentioned incidentally in 
 other letters between the collector and late Secretary of the Treasury, 
 but I have not had time to look further into the correspondence, and have 
 nothing to add, except that, in reply to a letter from the Secretary of the 
 Treasury of the 9th of September last, the fact of the payment of the said 
 sum of $7,000 was stated, and also that it had been charged to the fund 
 derived from the fees and emoluments of the collector, &c, as an expense 
 incidental to the collection of the revenue. 
 
 In regard to the inquiry of the commissioners, " whether the payment of 
 the said sum of $7,000 has or has not to that extent created a deficiency 
 in the payment of the charges by law to be made on that fund," I have 
 the honor to state that, so far as I can learn, the said payment has not cre- 
 ated a deficiency, and that no deficiency exists. 
 
 The collector is entitled by law to all the fees and commissions, arising 
 from the importations of the year, that would have accrued to him if the 
 act of the 14th July, 1832, had not gone into effect. In that case he would 
 have received commissions on all merchandise now free, or which, at any 
 time during this year, have been free, that were dutiable prior to the act 
 of the 14th July, 1832. He would also have received fees on all sums 
 
58 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 over S50 and under $200 that were then bondable. When the act of the 
 14th July, 1S32, went into operation, these bonds were allowed on each 
 entry over $50, whereas now there are bnt two bonds on all entries over 
 $200. Then woollen goods were entitled to bond ; now the duties must 
 be paid in cash, no matter what the amount of the particular importation. 
 
 We do not, therefore, speak of deficiency from fees and emoluments, as 
 at the close of the year the whole amount is derived from the importations 
 of that year ; and, in the case of the £57,000, it is not supposed that it will 
 exceed the aggregate arising therefrom. It is, perhaps, proper to add 
 that the 5th section of the act of the 3d March, 1841, with its proviso, is 
 regarded as appropriating to the fund above referred to for incidental ex- 
 penses a new income ; therefore, the private emolument of the collector 
 derived from the profits on the storage of merchandise in the public stores, 
 [is] an income quite sufficient of itself, in a prosperous time of commerce, to 
 pay the whole expense of furnishing the new custom-house in a short 
 period. So that it is quite certain that the actual revenue derived from 
 duties will not be diminished by the outlay for furnishing the new custom- 
 house. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Messrs. Poindexter, ~) 
 
 ; tkuart, and > Commissioners. 
 Bradley, J 
 
 Test imony of Joseph Hough. 
 Being sworn, deposed : 
 
 1. Question by committee. What is your occupation ? 
 Answer. A broker. 
 
 2. Question by committee. Were you employed, in April, 1S41, to make 
 contracts for furniture for the New York custom-house; and if so, by whom 
 were you employed ? 
 
 Answer. I received a letter from Mr. Curtis on the 10th of April, of 
 which the following is a copy, (marked R.) Annexed to the same is my 
 reply to Mr. Curtis. 
 
 3. Question by committee. In what manner did you notify the cabinet 
 makers that these contracts would be made ? 
 
 Answer. I gave no notice whatever. Yet I made such inquiry, in rela- 
 tion to different cabinet makers, to make such a selection as the nature of the 
 work would require, and deeming it better that the person selected should 
 be able to devote his entire time to it, throwing aside his ordinary business; 
 that, after having satisfied myself, I applied to Mr. Abraham Storm, who 
 is considered among the first class of workmen, and, after several conver- 
 sations were introduced, I submitted a list of the furniture required to 
 make an estimate, and, finding that the estimate came within the estimate 
 that had already been made by Mr. John Horspool, and approved by the 
 former Secretary of the Treasury, and which I was particularly referred 
 to in my instructins, submitted the same, with my recommendation, to 
 J\Ir. Curtis. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 59 
 
 4. Question by committee. How many cabinet makers did you consult be- 
 sides Mr. Storm ? 
 
 Answer. I consulted no cabinet makers. I informed myself from other 
 sources, 
 
 5. Question by committee. Have you been accustomed to making large 
 contracts for furniture ? 
 
 Answer. I am not particularly acquainted with the article of furniture. 
 I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Curtis for some twenty-five 
 years. I have been extensively engaged in business, mercantile and manu- 
 facturing, and have been extensively engaged in building machinery, and 
 claim to have a general business knowledge. I have transacted a great 
 deal of business with Mr. Curtis, and have been employed by him in ex- 
 Tensive transactions, and I believe that he has the utmost confidence in me in 
 all business matters. 
 
 6. Question by committee. Was there any understanding between you 
 and Mr. Curtis, other than is contained in his letter of April 10, 1841, and 
 your reply of the 20th, as to the motive he had in selecting you to make 
 xhese contracts, instead of pursuing the ordinary mode of letting them to 
 the lowest bidder ? 
 
 Answer. There never was any understanding between myself and Mr. 
 Curtis, other than what is contained in his letter and my reply above refer- 
 red to. The course which was pursued was in accordance with my judg- 
 ment, as to what was best to be done ; that I did not consider the contract 
 as one of such a nature as would be suitable to advertise for proposals, 
 knowing that it must eventually undergo many alterations as to the par- 
 ticular articles, the quantity, and particularly the style of finish ; that the 
 head of each bureau might wish some alteration made, to suit his con- 
 venience. 
 
 7. Question by committee. Was the estimate of furniture alluded to in 
 Mr. Curtis's letter ever, at any time, within your knowledge, submitted to 
 any other cabinet makers than Mr. Horspool and Mr. Storm? 
 
 Answer. They were not, to the best of my knowledge. 
 
 8. Question by committee. Did you compare the prices embraced in the 
 proposals of Mr. Storm with the prices of similar work in New York ; and 
 if so, were the same higher or lower than the customary prices ? 
 
 Answer. I was satisfied that the prices were not higher than was cus- 
 tomary for the same style of work in New York. 
 
 9. Question by committee. How long did your agency continue ? 
 Answer. My agency consisted entirely in this — that the work should not 
 
 be delayed, but that the furniture should be ready as required ; which 
 agency expired when the work was completed, about two months since. 
 
 10. Question by committee. What compensation were you paid for these 
 services, and by whom were you paid ? 
 
 Answer. Nothing has ever been said by Mr. Curtis on the subject, except 
 what is contained in his letter of instructions, but I made up my own mind 
 that I ought to be paid a commission of one per cent, upon the amount dis- 
 bursed, which is $25,000 or $26,000. I have not received one cent com- 
 pensation. 
 
 Ill Question by committee. Do you know whether Mr. Storm has been 
 paid ; and if so, out of what fund ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Storm has been paid the amount of the original contract, 
 which was some $18,500; and, as I understand, under an order of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
60 
 
 Rep. No. 10G5. 
 
 12. Question by committee. Did Mr. Storm receive no payments by the 
 ^eek or month, during the prosecution of the work ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Storm received payments from time to time, but never in 
 advance of his work. 
 
 June 6, 1842. 
 
 Testimony of Mr. Joseph Hough, in continuation. 
 
 13. Question. Had you anything to do with making ihe contract for 
 furniture with Mr. Storm? 
 
 Answer. Nothing more than is contained in my letter of instructions to 
 select such person as I thought would be suitable, and to refer him to Mr. 
 Curtis. 
 
 14. Question. Did you ascertain from Mr. Storm the prices at which he 
 would do the work, before you referred him to Mr. Curtis? 
 
 Answer. I did, as I have before fully stated. 
 
 15. Question. Did you exhibit to him the estimate which was furnished 
 you by Mr. Curtis, accompanying his letter of April 10 ; and if so, were 
 the prices at which he agreed to do the work higher or lower than that 
 estimate ? 
 
 Answer. I showed Mr. Storm simply the list of articles to be furnished. 
 The prices or estimate at which he proposed to furnish the articles were 
 less by some few hundred dollars than the estimate of Mr. Horspool. My 
 impression is that it was some five hundred to a thousand dollars under. 
 
 16. Question. Did you and Mr. Storm talk over and agree upon the 
 prices of the work, before he went to Mr. Curtis to execute the contract ? 
 
 Answer. We did not. 
 
 17. Question. State fully and particularly all that passed between you 
 and Mr. Storm, when you first saw him after receiving Mr. Curtis's letter 
 of April 10? 
 
 Answer. As near as I can recollect, the first question was, whether he 
 would like to take a job of furnishing the custom-house ; whether he was 
 prepared with stock, with sufficient help, and other means requisite or 
 necessary to carry on such a job. Mr. Storm answered generally in the 
 affirmative. That was the substance of the conversation, as far as I can 
 recollect. 
 
 18. Question. How many interviews or conversations did you have 
 'with Mr. Storm relative to furnishing the New York custom-house, be- 
 tween the reception of Mr. Curtis's letter of 10th April, 184 1 , and the 
 making of the contract between Curtis and Storm ? 
 
 Answer. Some half dozen. I cannot say precisely. 
 
 19. Question. Did any thing pass between Storm and yourself, either 
 before or after the contract, upon the subject of your taking a part with 
 Mr. Storm in the contract? and if so, state what it was. 
 
 Answer. I cannot say at what period of the negotiation Mr. Storm 
 manifested some uncertainty as to pecuniary means, and asked me if I 
 would like to take an interest, and furnish him with the needful. I do not 
 recollect whether 1 gave him my answer at that time, but think that it 
 
Hep. No. 10G5. 61 
 
 » 
 
 was at a subsequent interview, that I should decline having any thing to 
 do with it. 
 
 20. Question. Can you not state positively whether this proposition was 
 made before or after the contract was made ? 
 
 Answer. It was before. I told him that he had better see some of his 
 friends, and ascertain whether he could command sufficient means to go 
 through with the job ; and, at a subsequent interview, he told me he had 
 succeeded to his wishes, and was ready to take the contract if he could 
 get it. 
 
 21. Question. Between the time that Mr. Storm made his proposition 
 of partnership and the reply which you made to it, did you see and con- 
 verse with Mr. Curtis on the subject; and if so, what conversation did 
 you have with him ? 
 
 Answer. I had no conversation with Mr. Curtis upon the proposition 
 made to me by Mr. Storm. 
 
 22. Question. You say you think you ought to be paid a commission of 
 one per cent, on the amount disbursed for furniture for the custom-house. 
 Will you state how often you were accustomed to examine the progress of 
 the work : how often you visited the shop of Mr. Storm ; and whether 
 you gave Mr. Storm any directions in regard to the character of the work, 
 the time of its execution, or any thing in relation to it ? 
 
 Answer. I examined the work sometimes once a week, sometimes once 
 a fortnight : the latter part of the time less frequently. I visited the shop of 
 Mr. Storm as often as I inspected the progress of the work. I gave no 
 directions with regard to the character of the work. My only duty con- 
 sisted in seeing that the work was delivered as fast as they were ready to 
 receive it. The directions in relation to the style of work were given by 
 the architect, and he alone should be held responsible for the excess of 
 prices over and above the estimates. The first discovery of any variation 
 or material alteration from the original estimate was not made until after 
 the most of the work was finished or under way; it was then discovered by 
 the collector, on demanding a bill of what had been furnished. It was 
 then discovered that it was too late to make any material retrenchment. 
 The fact was, Mr. Frazee was so intent upon having the building finished 
 and furnished to correspond in style with the building, that he seemed to 
 have forgotten all reasonable bounds of prudence. The collector knew 
 no more of what he was doing, either in the finishing or furnishing of the 
 building, than a stranger. In reference to the principal items of addition- 
 al expense, I would name, in the first place, the glass for the cases, cloth 
 for the desks, the brass railing on the desks, the drapery, and some ad- 
 ditional expense incurred by the heads of the different bureaus, to gratify 
 their taste. I superintended the time of execution, and gave Mr. Storm 
 directions as to the time of delivering, &c. 1 never knew of any variations 
 from the original plans or estimates until the same was discovered by the 
 collector, as before stated. 
 
 23. Question. Will you state whether you proposed to Mr. Storm to 
 share the profits with him in the job ? 
 
 Answer. I made no such proposition. 
 
 24. Question. Was Mr. Storm in the habit of making his deposites with, 
 you ; and if so, did he ever overdraw, and to what extent ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Storm made me his broker during the time he was en- 
 gaged in this work. There have been no overdrafts until some two months 
 since. 
 
€2 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 • 
 
 25. Question. Did you, at your first interview with Mr. Storm, tell him 
 that Mr. Curtis desired to see him? 
 
 Answer. I think my first and perhaps one or two subsequent inter- 
 views were confined to the inquiries as before slated, without mention of 
 Mr. Curtis to Mr. Storm. 
 
 26. Question. How long after you received Mr. Curtis's letter before 
 you applied to Mr. Storm to know if he desired to undertake the job ? 
 
 Answer. I should think within two or three days. 
 
 27. Question. Who first mentioned to you the name of Mr. Storm, as a 
 .suitable person to do the work? 
 
 Answer. No one. 
 
 2S. Question. Had you had a previous acquaintance with Mr. Storm ; 
 and if so, how long had you known him, and were you intimately ac- 
 quainted with him? 
 
 Answer. I had no personal acquaintance with him, or any of that class 
 of cabinet makers — that is, those who make the first class of furniture. 
 
 29. Question. Had you ever seen him before ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say. I had no acquaintance with him. 
 
 JOSEPH HOUGH. 
 
 June 7, 1842. 
 Testimony of Mr. Joseph Hough — re- examined. 
 
 30. Question. Have you received a letter from Mr. Edward Curtis since 
 you came to Washington ? 
 
 Answer. Supposing I have received a dozen ? 
 
 31. Question. Have you had any correspondence with Mr. Edward Cur- 
 tis, collector, since you came to Washington, on the subject of this investi- 
 gation ? 
 
 Answer. I have not ; nor have I ever had ten words with him upon the 
 subject of this investigation. 
 
 32. Question. Did not Mr. Storm hand you a letter from Mr. Edward 
 Curtis since you came here, in which the subject of Storm's contract was 
 named ; and if so, have you any objection to furnish the committee with a 
 copy of said letter ? 
 
 Answer. I received a letter from Mr. Curtis, but cannot say whether 
 from Mr. Storm or Mr. McAuley. In that letter Mr. Curtis says : " Mc- 
 Auley has told Storm so and so about this matter. What does this mean ?" 
 I have torn up the letter. 
 
 33. Question. Have you conversed recently with Mr. George Curtis upon 
 the subject of this investigation ; and if so, when and where, and what 
 was said in said conversation ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen Mr. George Curtis several times since he has been 
 in the city, and have conversed with him generally upon the subject of this 
 investigation, but cannot state any particulars as to when and where. 
 
 34. Question. Have you heard Mr. George Curtis mention the particular 
 business that brought him to Washington at this time ? 
 
 Answer. I have. He told me, the first time I saw him, that there were 
 rumors afloat that were injurious to his brother, in regard to this investiga- 
 
Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 tion; and he came on, either at his own or his brother's instigation, to look 
 into the matter on the part of his brother, or to attend to any thing that 
 might be necessary on the part of his brother. 
 
 35. Question. Have you told Mr. George Curtis, during this investiga- 
 tion, what its progress was, and advised with him in regard to it ? 
 
 Answer. Not a word ; neither has he given any advice, in any way or 
 shape, nor have I asked him for any. 
 
 36. Question. Do you think that Mr. Storm could have overdrawn upon 
 you during the progress of his job to as large an amount as $200 at one 
 time ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot state, as I have never examined his account. He 
 might have done to a greater, as I should not have refused his drafts, even 
 to the amount of $500. 
 
 JOSEPH HOUGH. 
 
 June 6, 1842. 
 Testimony of Abraham Storm, being sworn. 
 
 1. Question by committee. Where do you reside, and what is your oc- 
 cupation ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in New York, and am a cabinet maker by profession. 
 
 2. Question. Did you contract for furnishing furniture to the New York 
 custom-house ; if so, with whom did you contract, and can you furnish a. 
 copy of your contract ? 
 
 Answer. I contracted for doing the work for the New York custom-house 
 with Mr. Edward Curtis, collector. I cannot furnish a copy of the contract,, 
 not having brought it with me. 
 
 3. Question. By whom was the proposition to contract for said work first 
 made to you ? 
 
 Answer. The first that I learned of it was from Hough. No, sir ; I be- 
 lieve I am a little wrong ; I think the first that I heard about making prop- 
 ositions for the contract was from Mr. Robert B. Minturn. 
 
 4. Question. What passed between you and Mr. Hough on the subject^ 
 when he first proposed to you to take the job ? 
 
 Answer. All that passed between Mr. Hough and myself was, that Mr. 
 Hough said he was requested to call on me, and inform me that the col- 
 lector wished to see me. I called on the collector, and he wished me to 
 give him an estimate for the articles named in the schedule which he show- 
 ed me, for the New York custom-house. I furnished the collector, several 
 days after that, with such schedule, and upon it we made the contract for 
 the furniture. 
 
 5. Question. Was there any proposition for a contract made by Mr. Hough, 
 to you ; and if so, what was it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect the conversation which we had at the time. I 
 did not think it of much importance, and therefore did not charge my mem- 
 ory with it. I asked Mr. Hough, after the contract was entered into, if he 
 would like to take a part in it, and furnish means, for which I was willing 
 to pay him ; but he declined doing so, and advised me to call on some of 
 my friends. I then called on Messrs. Grinnell, Minturn, & Co., being my 
 
64 
 
 Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 friends, and asked their advice on the subject. They agreed to loan me 
 whatever funds I should need, without any remuneration whatever, except 
 7 per cent, interest per annum. They furnished the means without any 
 security. 
 
 6. Question. When Mr. Hough called on you, did he present you with a 
 schedule of the work ; and if so, was it the same that was furnished by Mr. 
 Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. Iam not certain on that subject. The conversation with Mr. 
 Hough was of such a nature that I did not charge my memory with any 
 of it. 
 
 7. Question. Did you furnish Mr. Hough with an estimate of the prices 
 for which you would do the work ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 8. Question. Did you inform Mr. Hough that you would be enabled to 
 devote your entire time to the work ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 9. Question. Did Mr. Hough say any thing to you on the subject of the 
 price ; and if so, what did he say ? 
 
 Answer. He said nothing at all in regard to the price of the furniture. 
 
 10. Question. How many conversations did you have with Mr. Hough 
 before you saw Mr. Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. I had but the one. 
 
 11. Question. After the contract was made with Mr. Curtis, and during 
 the progress of the work, did Mr. Hough have any thing more to do with 
 it ; and if so, what ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Hough called frequently to see how the work progressed, 
 and went through my workshops to see if the requisite number of hands 
 were employed as stated to him, and seemed satisfied that the work was 
 progressing as it should. 
 
 12. Question. Was that all the agency Mr. Hough had, to your know- 
 ledge, and how often did he call ? 
 
 Answer. That was all the agency he had, to my knowledge. He some- 
 times called once a week, sometimes once a fortnight, it might be oftener, 
 until the furniture was completed — about a year. 
 
 13. Question. Before the first conversation between you and Mr. Hough 
 closed, did he tell you that you should have the contract ? 
 
 Answer. He did not. 
 
 14. Question. Who did Mr. Hough say had requested him to call on 
 you ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis, the collector. 
 
 15. Question. Have you repeated the conversation that you had with 
 Mr. Hough at the first interview to any body ; and if so, to whom ? 
 
 Answer. I believe I repeated it to Mr. Charles McAuley, and asked his 
 advice on the subject, he being a particular friend of mine. He referred me 
 to Moses H. Grinnell, my former friend. 
 
 1 6. Question. Did you tell Mr. McAuley that Mr. Hough had proposed 
 to divide the profits of a g20,000 or $25,000 job with you ? 
 
 Answer. I don't think I did. I cannot speak positively on this point, 
 having taken no note of the conversation. I did not calculate that Lt 
 would go any further, and therefore did not treasure it in my memory. 
 
 17. Question. Did you say any thing to Mr. McAuley on the subject of 
 s uch a proposition made by Mr. Hough • and if so, what was it ? 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 65 
 
 Answer. I do not think I said any thing to Mr. McAuley in" regard to 
 any division of profits ? 
 
 18. Question. How long after the conversation with Mr. Hough was it 
 before you conversed with Mr. McAuley ? 
 
 Answer. The next day, or within a few days after, before any thing 
 was done in the matter. 
 
 19. Question. Did Mr. McAuley ask you how much profit you would 
 make on the job ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 20. Question. Did you say any thing to Mr. Samuel Ruckel, or in his 
 presence, on the subject of your conversation with Mr. Hough ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Samuel Ruckel was present at the time that Mr. McAuley 
 and I had the conversation above alluded to. 
 
 21. Question. Have you conversed with Mr. McAuley or Ruckel on 
 this subject, since the conversation alluded to ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 22. Question. Have you not told Mr. Ruckel, within the last three or 
 four months, that the proposition made to you by Mr. Hough, before you 
 made the contract with Mr. Curtis, was not accepted by you ? 
 
 Answer. Not that I recollect of. 1 have told him since I have been 
 here that there was no one in the contract but myself. I am positive that 
 I have not said to Mr. Ruckel, or any body else, that the proposition made 
 by Mr. Hough was not accepted by me. 
 
 23. Question. Have you had a conversation with Mr. Hough recently 
 on the subject of the conversation between you and himself about the 
 furniture ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 24. Question. Have you conversed recently with Mr. Ruckel on the 
 subject of this investigation ; and if you have, did you tell him in that 
 conversation that Mr. Hough did not receive any thing from you, and that 
 Mr. McAuley was wrong in his conjectures about the matter? 
 
 Answer. I had a conversation one day last week with Mr. Ruckel, and 
 did so inform him. 
 
 25. Question. Are you very certain that in that conversation you said 
 nothing to Mr. Ruckel about Mr. Hough making a proposition to you 
 about receiving something from you, but that it was objected to by you. 
 
 Answer. I am certain that I did not. 
 
 26. Question. What was it that you desired the advice of Mr. McAuley 
 about ? 
 
 Answer. It was in regard to this contract, whether he thought I had 
 better take it or not. Mr. McAuley was the first person I spoke to on this 
 subject, after Mr. Hough called on me. 
 
 27. Question. Did you tell Mr. McAuley, when you called on him for 
 his advice, what the terms of the contract were ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 28. Question. How much have you received on your contract, who 
 has paid the same, and how much do you now claim as due you ? 
 
 Answer. I have received on the contract $18,500 and odd dollars, paid 
 to nis by Mr. Curtis. I think the amount due is $8,000. I have not the 
 bill with me, having rendered it to Mr. Curtis. 
 
 29. Question. Did Mr. Curtis propose to you, at any time, to permit Mr. 
 
 5 
 
66 Rep. No. 106;:. 
 
 William B. Shipman to make a part of the furniture work ; and if so, what 
 was the proposition which he made ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis made such a proposition, about the time of signing 
 the contract; as persons had given him to suppose that there might be 
 some doubts about having the contract fulfilled by me. I removed those 
 doubts, and there was nothing more said about it. 
 
 30. Question. Did you converse with Mr. Shipman upon the subject of 
 his having a part of the job: and if so, did you tell him any thing upon 
 the subject of your consulting Mr. Grinnell, and what was it? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Shipman called on me, as he stated, at the solicitation of 
 Mr. Curtis, the collector, and wished to know if I would not divide this 
 contract with him, and let him have half of it to do. I told him that I 
 would call on Mr. Grinnell, my friend. I called on Mr. Grinnell, and he 
 advised me, by all means, if I felt myself competent to undertake the task, 
 to do the whole of it. I informed Mr. Shipman of this, and told him, un- 
 der those circumstances, it would be impossible for me to divide it. He 
 then seemed very angry at the collector, because he did not insist upon 
 having it divided. He said the collector had not used him well in this 
 contract. I told him I knew nothing of what had occurred between him 
 and the collector ; he must, therefore, not blame me for keeping all I could 
 get. 
 
 31. Question. When was the last payment made you by Mr. Curtis, 
 and how much was then paid ? 
 
 Answer. I think the last payment was #2,000, probably two or three 
 months since. 
 
 32. Question. Before you made your estimate of prices, did you see the 
 estimate of Mr. John Horspool ; and if so, who exhibited it to you? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 33. Question. Was there any estimate of prices exhibited to you before 
 you made your estimate ? 
 
 Answer. There was none. 
 
 34. Question. With whose aid did you fix the prices of the work in 
 your estimate ? 
 
 Answer. None but my own. 
 
 35. Question. Did you first inform Mr. Hough or Mr. Curtis of the 
 prices for which you would do the work ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis. 
 
 36. Question. What was the whole amount of your estimate as em- 
 braced in the contract, and what is the whole amount which you now esti- 
 mate for the job ? 
 
 Answer. The whole amount of the original contract was $13,555. The 
 furniture, as far as finished, comes to $26,000 and odd dollars. The bal- 
 ance to be furnished will not exceed three hundred dollars. 
 
 37. Question. What amount of money did you borrow of Messrs. Grin- 
 nell & Minturn during the prosecution of the work, and do you now owe 
 them a balance on such loans; and if so, how much ? 
 
 Answer. I obtained from Grinnell, Minturn, & Co., some $2,000, per- 
 haps more. They have received of that, I think, a little over $1,000. 
 
 38. Question. Did you borrow any thing, during the progress of the 
 work, of Mr. Hough : and if so, how much ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. When I received my money from Mr. Curtis I de- 
 posited it with Mr. Hough, and checked upon it as I wished it ; and when 
 
 \ 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Mr. Curtis did not pay me, Mr. Hough permitted me to overdraw the 
 balance. 
 
 39. Question. Had you any acquaintance with Mr. Hough, previous to 
 the interview with him in regard to the furniture ; and if so, how long 
 had you known him ? 
 
 Answer. I was not particularly acquainted with Mr. Hough before the 
 interview. I have known him for some time as a bowing acquaintance, and 
 had done some little business w t i him, but nothing by which he would 
 remember me more than any other person with whom he had had small 
 business. 
 
 40. Question. At the time you made the contract, had you a shop in 
 New York, what was your capital, and how many hands had you em- 
 ployed ? 
 
 Answer. I had a shop in the city of New York, No. 536 Broadway. I 
 employed, previous to the contract, six men, with a capital of about $5,000. 
 
 41. Question. Did you understand, from Mr. Curtis or Mr. Hough, that 
 it was the business of Mr. Hough to see that the furniture was ready to be 
 delivered as wanted, and did Mr. Hough exercise any such agency during 
 the prosecution of the work ? 
 
 Answer. I never understood that Mr. Hough acted as agent in anyway. 
 
 42. Question. Has Mr. Curtis assigned to you any reason why the bal- 
 ance, which you now claim on the contract, has not been paid ; and if so, 
 what reason has he asssigned ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis assigned, as the reason for not paying the balance, 
 that he had paid as far as he felt himself authorized by the contract. This 
 was at the last time I asked him for money, about one month ago. 
 
 43. Question. Who directed the variations in the furniture from the 
 original contract, what was the cause of such variations, and when were 
 such variations first suggested ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Frazee directed the alterations from the original contract 
 before any thing was completed. The cause I do not know, unless to car- 
 ry out Mr. Frazee's plans. 
 
 44. Question. After the work was varied from the terms of the contract, 
 were the prices, in any instance, made lower; or were they, in every in- 
 stance, higher than the original contract price ? 
 
 Answer. In every instance the prices were higher. 
 
 45. Question. At the time you made your contract, had Mr. William B. 
 Shipman a cabinet shop in New York ; and if so, what do you suppose 
 was his capital, and how many hands had he in his employment ? 
 
 Answer. He had a shop in New York. I cannot say as to his capital. 
 His establishment was larger than mine. At the time of the contract he 
 had, I presume, as many hands as I had. He might have had more, say 
 some 8 or 10. 
 
 46. Question. Has Mr. Curtis told you that he would pay you the bal- 
 ance of your bill so soon as he received the money in the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. No, he has not. 
 
 47. Question. When did you hold the last conversation with Mr. Curtis 
 on the subject of your contract ? 
 
 Answer. A month or three weeks ago. 
 
 48. Question. Can you not repeat the conversation with Mr. Curtis at 
 the first interview ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 49. Question. To whom do you consider yourself indebted for procuring 
 you the contract ? 
 
 Answer. To my friends, Messrs. Grinnell, Minturn, & Co. I will name, 
 amongst them, Mr. George Griflin, of New York. 
 
 50. Question. Did you pay your hands daily, weekly, or monthly ? 
 Answer. Weekly. 
 
 51. Question. Did you pay them in money, or by drafts or checks ; and 
 if the latter, on whom did you draw ? 
 
 Answer. I paid them in money. 
 
 52. Question. What did you think as to the circumstance of Mr. Hough's 
 continually visiting your shop ? 
 
 Answer. I presumed he came at the solicitation of the collector. 
 
 53. Question. Can you state, positively, whether Mr. Hough did submit 
 to you an estimate of the work in the first interview ? 
 
 Answer. He did not. I am positive he said nothing about the prices. 
 
 54. Question. Through whom was the order for the alteration of the 
 furniture communicated to you. 
 
 Answer. Mr. F razee. 
 
 55. Question. What profit do you suppose you will make on the job ? 
 Answer. I could not undertake to say; I think I ought to make 10 pel 
 
 cent. 
 
 56. Question. Could the agency or services of Mr. Hough, as known to 
 yon, have been of the least advantage to the Government or to yourself? 
 
 Answer. They could have been of no advantage to me. They might 
 have been to the Government, as I understood Mr. Curtis had selected him 
 to procure some person or persons to do this work. 
 
 57. Question. Could they have been of any possible advantage to the 
 Government after the execution of the contract ? 
 
 Answer. They could not. 
 
 58. Question. You have stated that the last conversation you had with 
 Mr. Curtis on the subject of your contract was a month or three weeks ago; 
 state what that conversation was. 
 
 Answer. I asked him if he could let me have some money, and his re- 
 ply was, he could not. 
 
 59. Question. At the time the original plan of the work was changed, 
 after you had made the contract, do you know whether Mr. Curtis was in- 
 formed of such change ; and if not, then how long after was it before he 
 •was so informed ? 
 
 Answer. He was not informed of the change, that I know of, until after 
 ihe naval and surveyors' offices were furnished. He then blamed me very 
 much, indeed, for not informing him of the change. I told him that I could 
 not conceive that I had any right to do so at all; for I supposed that Mr. 
 jFrazee informed him in relation to the matter altogether. He seemed quite 
 angry with me, and wished me to retrench if there was a possibility for it. 
 3 told him that it would be impossible to do so — that every thing was in 
 such a state we could not alter it. This was some time in the latter part of 
 last summer. 
 
 60. Question. How many conversations did you have with Mr. Hough 
 upon the subject of the furniture for the custom-house before you made the 
 contract with Mr. Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. I believe only one; I recollect of no other. 
 
Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 69 
 
 61. Question. Did Mr. Hough, at your first interview on the subject of 
 the furniture, exhibit to you a list of the articles of furniture to be furnished? 
 
 Answer. I think not. 1 called on Mr. Hough at his office some time af- 
 terwards, and he then handed me a list. 
 
 62. Question. When Mr. Hough first called on you, did he say any thing- 
 to you on the subject of your stock, materials, hands, &c? 
 
 Answer. Yes, he did. He asked me what number of hands I employed,, 
 and what number I could employ, in my place. I told him I could em- 
 ploy twenty in it; but if 1 got the contract, and it was necessary, I would 
 employ forty men. 
 
 63. Question. What did Mr. Robert B. Minturn say to you when he 
 first advised you to propose for the contract? 
 
 Answer. When I heard of Mr. Curtis's appointment as collector of the 
 custom-house, I called on Mr. Minturn, and asked him if he knew whether 
 the contract for furnishing the custom-house was given out yet. He told 
 me he did not know, but he thought not; but he would give me a letter of 
 introduction to Mr. Curtis; which he did, and I presented it. 
 
 ABRAHAM STORM. 
 
 June 7, 1S42. 
 Testimony of Abraham Storm, in continuation. 
 
 64. Question. Have you, since you left the city of New York, held a cor- 
 respondence with Mr. Edward Curtis, the collector, on the subject of the 
 investigation of this committee ? 
 
 Answer. I have not — with no person. 
 
 65. Question. Did you receive a letter from Mr. Edward Curtis by Mr. 
 McAuley ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 66. Question. Have you any objection to furnishing the committee with, 
 a copy of that letter ? 
 
 Answer. The envelope was directed to me. It contained an enclosure 
 for another person. I would furnish the letter if it had been for me. 
 
 67. Question. To whom was the letter directed, after the envelope was 
 taken off? 
 
 Answer. Joseph Hough. 
 
 68. Question. Did you deliver the letter to Mr. Hough ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 69. Question. Have you conversed recently with Mr. George Curtis upon 
 the subject of your contract for furniture, or the balance due you ; and if 
 so, what was said conversation, when was it had, and how often have 
 you so conversed ? 
 
 Answer. I never had any such conversation. I never spoke to George 
 Curtis in my life. 
 
 70. Question. Did you direct your foreman, before you left New York, to 
 call on Mr. McAuley as he came on here ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 71. Question. Have you heard the letter delivered to Mr. Hough by you 
 ead, or been otherwise informed of its contents ? If so, do you feel at lib- 
 erty to state them ? 
 
 Answer. I have never heard it read, or been informed of its contents. 
 
70 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 72. - Question. Was there anything written upon the envelope of the let- 
 ter addressed to you, and was the direction in the handwriting of Mr. Cur- 
 tis, the collector ? 
 
 Answer. There was nothing written on the inside of the envelope. I 
 think the direction of the envelope was not in'Mr. Curtis's handwriting. 
 
 73. Question. In what sums was Mr. Curtis in the habit of paying you, 
 from time to time, during the progress of your job ? 
 
 Answer. I believe the lowest sum I received was Si ,000, and the high- 
 est $3,000. 
 
 74. Question. To what amount have your ever overdrawn upon Mr. 
 Hough, since you first commenced making deposites with him ? 
 
 Answer. I think sometimes from S200 to $500. I do not think it ex- 
 ceeded 55500 at any one time. 
 
 75. Question. How long was it after you commenced the job before you 
 received the first payment from Mr. Curtis? 
 
 Answer. It was after the furniture went into the naval oflice. I cannot 
 state the time precisely. 
 
 76. Question. Did you see Mr. Curtis before you left New York for this 
 city, within a few days; and if so, had you any conversation with him on 
 the subject of this investigation ? 
 
 Answer. I saw Mr. Curtis on Saturday before last. I had no conversa- 
 tion with him in regard to this investigation. He stopped in as he was go- 
 ing by my place, and I then told him that I was subpoenaed to come on 
 to Washington. He said he hoped I would come. I told him I did not 
 know how it would be, as I was unwell and my family unwell; I thought 
 I would not come. He called again on Sunday afternoon, and urged so 
 hard that I consented to come. 
 
 ABRAHAM STORM. 
 
 June 4, 1842. 
 
 Testimony of William B. Shipman. being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and where do you- 
 reside ? 
 
 Answer. Cabinet maker; in the city -of New York. 
 
 Question. Will you state if you were called upon by any person, and if 
 so, by whom, to furnish the cabinet work of the New York custom-house, 
 and what was the nature of the offer or the proposal made to you ? 
 
 Answer. I was not called upon at all. 
 
 Question. Have you had at any time any conversation, with any person, 
 upon the subject of contracting for the cabinet work for the New York 
 custom-house; and if so, with whom was that conversation held, and what 
 -was it ? 
 
 Answer. The principal conversation I had was with Mr. Curtis, the col- 
 lector. I applied to Mr. Curtis for permission to make an estimate for the 
 furniture of the custom-house. He told me at the time that he had no 
 authority to furnish it, (this was between the 7th and 15th of April 1841,) 
 but that as soon as he got authority he would let me know. A few days 
 previous to the 22d of April, 1841, 1 called upon him again. He told me then 
 that he had two estimates for the furniture, one of which he had concluded 
 
Sep. No. 1065. 
 
 71 
 
 to accept. 1 expressed a disappointment at not having an opportunity of 
 estimating for the work, and he expressed his regret at not thinking of my 
 application, and asked me if I thought I could do it lower than the esti- 
 mate, but did not tell me what the estimate was. I replied, that I should 
 like to have an opportunity of trying. I asked him who these estimates 
 were from. He said one was from Mr. Horspool, and the other from Mr. 
 Storm. Mr. Storm's, he said, was so much lower than Mr. Horspool's, that 
 he had concluded to close with him. I was told by Mr. Horspool, after- 
 wards, that his estimate was about $18,509 for the whole job. 
 
 Mr. Curtis, at this time, told me that he called a friend in to select a 
 person suitable to make this furniture, and that his friend had named Mr. 
 Storm as a suitable person to do it. He also stated, that while on a visit 
 to Mr. Grinnell's, it was proposed to him there, by Mrs. Grinnell, that Mr. 
 Storm should make the furniture. I suggested to Mr. Curtis the propriety 
 ot having two or more cabinet makers to make the furniture, on account 
 of the shortness of time, as it was to be finished by the 1st of August. I 
 did not think that any one cabinet maker could take that job, and do the 
 work as it ought to be finished in so short a time. He said, then, he would 
 speak to Mr. Storm about giving me a part of it to do, and if I would call 
 the next day he would let me know what he would do. I accordingly 
 called on Mr. Curtis, and he informed me that Mr. Storm spoke favorably 
 of letting me take a part of the work. I called on Mr. Storm afterwards, 
 and he told me that he would have no objections to my having a share of 
 it, provided Mr. Grinnell was willing; as he got him the job, he would have 
 to consult him about it. I called again on Mr. Storm. He told me that 
 he asked Mr. Grinnell about it, and Mr. Grinnell made answer : " Mr. 
 Storm, we have got you the job, and you must do it, and wc will see you 
 out in it." 
 
 Mr. Storm also read me the contract with Mr. Curtis for the furniture, 
 which embraced the making of the whole for the custom-house. I then 
 thought it useless to proceed or inquire further. 
 
 . Question. Did you hear at any time that Mr. Hough was in any way 
 connected with the business of the contract for furnishing the New York 
 custom-house? 
 
 Answer. I did, at or about the time the matter was pending; and then I 
 supposed that he was the friend who was alluded to by Mr. Curtis in the 
 interview between him and myself. 
 
 Question. How did you learn that furniture was to be furnished for the 
 custom-house at that time ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say distinctly. 
 
 Question. Were you acquainted with Mr. Curtis at that time? 
 
 Answer. I was not, but became acquainted with him by means of a 
 letter of introduction from a friend, which related to the subject of furnish- 
 ing the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Was that friend a particular acquaintance or friend of Mr. 
 Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. I believe he was. 
 
 Question. Did you consult with that friend after he had given you the 
 letter of introduction to Mr. Curtis? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Was this friend advised of Mr. Hough's agency in this matter? 
 Answer. No, not until 1 told him. 
 
72 
 
 Bep. No. 1065. 
 
 Question. What then was his opinion of the probability of your getting- 
 the contract ? 
 
 Answer. He thought it useless to do any thing further about it. 
 Question. Why ? 
 
 Answer. As he said, Mr. Hough had done Mr. Curtis favors that he 
 thought put him under obligations to Mr. Hough. 
 
 Question. Was this friend of vours a man of hiah standing in New 
 York? 
 
 Answer. He was. 
 
 Question. What was the name of that friend ? 
 
 Answer. J. Prescott Hall, of the city of New York. 
 
 Question. Cannot you define more particularly the time of your first 
 interview with Mr. Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. It must have been about the 10th of April, 1841 ; the interviews 
 could not have been longer than 10 days apart, and the last interview was 
 between the 20th and 22d of said month. 
 
 Question. How long have you known Mr. Storm ? 
 
 Answer. Since 1825 or 1S26. 
 
 Question. Was he ever in your employ? 
 
 Answer. He was in my employment for five years as foreman. 
 Testimony of Charles McAuley, being sworn. 
 
 1. Question by committee. What is your occupation, and where do you 
 reside ? 
 
 Answer. I am an upholsterer. I reside at Cornwall, Orange county, 
 New York. 
 
 2. Question. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Abraham Storm, 
 in relation to a contract for furniture for the New York custom-house ? 
 and if so, 'state when, v/here, and what said conversation was. 
 
 Answer. I had a conversation with Mr. Abraham Storm at my store, 
 the time I do not particularly recollect, something over a year since, at 
 any rate prior to the closing of the contract for furniture for the New York 
 custom-house. He told me, immediately after Mr. Curtis' was appointed 
 as collector at New York, that he made application for the work of the 
 furniture of the building; that some two or three days after Mr. Hough, a 
 broker, residing in Broadway, called upon him and asked him if he would 
 divide the profits with him if he would give him a job of from $20,000 to 
 {§25,000 ; that Mr. Storm ascertained from him what the job was, and told 
 him to call the next day, and he would give him an answer. Mr. Storm 
 called on me that evening at my house, and stated these circumstances, 
 knowing that I felt friendly towards him, to get my advice in regard to the 
 business. It was rather a matter of astonishment to me, as well as to Mr. 
 Storm, that an offer should have been made through Mr. Hough. 
 
 I was not able to give him any advice, except recommending him to lay 
 this whole matter before Moses H. Grirmell, who had given him letter- o: 
 recommendation to Mr. Curtis in regard to the work. Mr. Storm was a 
 cabinet maker in Broadway. 
 
 3. Question. Did Mr. Storm say any thing to you in relation to his be- 
 ing enabled to add to the price of the work as it progressed, or to add to 
 the different articles enough to make up the profit on the job, either then 
 or at any subsequent time. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Answer. No ; that same evening, before Mr. Storm went away, he had 
 probably half an hour to spare. In talking over this matter with him, E 
 asked him, that in case Mr. Hough obtained this job for him, what they 
 would make by it ? The precise amount which he named I do not now 
 remember. I do not recollect particularly where these conversations took 
 place, but my impression is that they were at my store. 
 
 4. Question. Did you or not, at the house of Mr. Joseph R. Bleecker, 
 in the city of New York, say to Mr. Bleecker that Mr. Storm had told you 
 that he (Storm) would clear six thousand dollars from the contract, and 
 that Hough would receive as much more ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say that I did. I stated to Mr. Bleecker precisely 
 what I have stated to this committee, but said to Mr. Bleecker that, at the 
 time Mr. Storm told me what I have above stated, I asked Storm what he 
 would probably make by the job in case he obtained it. I do not now 
 recollect what the amount was, and cannot say whether I stated it to Mr, 
 Bleecker or not. 
 
 5. Question. How long was it after the conversation with Storm before 
 you held the conversation to which you have alluded with Mr. Bleecker ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say positively. It was the first time, I believe, that 
 I visited the city afterwards. Mr. Bleecker was sick, and I called to see 
 him. 
 
 6. Question. Who was present when you had the conversation with 
 Mr. Bleecker ? 
 
 Answer. Mrs. Bleecker was present, I think. 
 
 7. Question. Have you held another conversation with Mr. Bleecker 
 since then, at which Mr. Samuel Ruckel was present, or do you recollect 
 whether Mr. Ruckel was present at any conversation held with Mr. Bleecker 
 on the subject of Mr. Storm's contract. 
 
 Answer. I do not remember ; Mr. Ruckel might or might not have been 
 present. 
 
 8. Question. Did you ever hold a conversation with any other person, 
 than Mr. Bleecker on the subject of what Mr. Storm had said to you, 
 and if so, with whom ? 
 
 Answer. I suppose that I have spoken to more than one, but to whom 
 I cannot say. 
 
 9. Question. Have you conversed with any body in the city of New 
 York recently on this subject ? 
 
 Answer. I conversed with Mr. Bleecker as I came through the city of 
 New York. 
 
 10. Question. Did you converse with any body beside Mr. Bleecker on 
 this subject as you came through New York ? If so, state who it was. 
 
 Answer. Yes, with Mr. Edward Curtis, the collector. 
 
 11. Question. State the substance of the conversation you had with Mr. 
 Curtis, and how that conversation was introduced. 
 
 Answer. He (Mr. Edward Curtis) called at my store in New York, on 
 Wednesday morning of this week, before I left the city, at about 8 o'clock; 
 I left at 9 o'clock. He asked me if I was coming on to Washington as a 
 witness. I answered, yes. He then asked me what I knew about the mat- 
 ter ; and I then related to him the conversation that I had with Mr. Storm 
 at my house. He then asked me if I knew that Mr. Storm paid Mr. 
 Hough any thing, and I answered no; that I had had no conversation with. 
 Mr. Storm since ; that I knew nothing about the matter. Mr. Curtis then said 
 
74 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 he did not believe that Mr. Storm had paid Mr. Hough any thing : that lie 
 (Mr. Curtis) had employed Mr. Hough to attend to this business for him. 
 He said he had found Mr. Hough to be an honest and honorable man in all 
 his dealings — a man in whom he had entire confidence ; and that this bu- 
 siness was got up by some of his (Mr. Curtis's) political enemies, mention- 
 ing Mr. Bleecker and a person by the name of D wight, or some such name. 
 He said he was afraid it was going to be a mischievous affair : and thus 
 the conversation closed. 
 
 Mr. Curtis appeared to be somewhat excited when I told him Mr. Hough 
 had spoken to Mr. Storm about dividing the profits. He said he did not 
 believe that there had been a bargain of that kind made. 
 
 12. Question. Did you ever hear Mr. Storm say that there was any 
 thing due him on that contract ; and if so, how much? 
 
 Answer. Yes ; he said there was in the neighborhood of S8.000 due him. 
 This conversation, I think, was since the day I came to Washington. 
 
 Monday Morning, June G, 1S42. 
 
 Mr. McAuley desired to state that he is not now certain whether the 
 interrogatory propounded by him to Mr. Storm, as mentioned in his an- 
 swer to the third question, was as to the profit which they" (meaning 
 Hough and Storm) or which " Ac" (Storm) would make. 
 
 13. Question. Did you not use the word * they" in your original testi- 
 mony on Saturday last ? 
 
 Answer. Yes, sir. 
 
 14. Question. Have you conversed with Mr. Hough or Mr. Storm on 
 this subject since Saturday ? 
 
 Answer. I have not conversed with any person on the subject, but have 
 been merely considering the testimony in mv own mind. 
 
 CHARLES McAULEY. 
 
 June 7, 1842. 
 
 Testimony of Charles McJiuley, in continuation. 
 
 Question. Have you, at any time, ever told Mr. Bleecker that you would 
 be glad to see the whole matter in regard to the furniture contract of Storm 
 exposed, but would rather it should be kept quiet until Storm had received 
 all his money ? 
 
 Answer. I have told Mr. Bleecker that I would be glad to see the whole 
 matter connected with the custom-house exposed ; but that I would rather 
 it should be kept quiet until Storm had received his pay. 
 
 Question. Have you been informed of the progress of Storm's work from 
 time to time, and have you not also known how much money was received 
 by Storm at the several times that he was paid by the collector ? 
 
 Answer. No, I have known nothing about it. 
 
 Question. Why did you desire the matter kept secret until Storm should 
 receive all his money ? 
 
Rep. "JSTo. 1065. 
 
 75 
 
 Answer. Because, while I had no knowledge of there being fraud, I was 
 fearful it would delay him in obtaining his money. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with the foreman of Mr. Storm's 
 shop, after you were subpoenaed to come to Washington, and before you left 
 New York ? and if so, state what that conversation was, and how it was 
 introduced. 
 
 Answer^ I met the foreman of Mr. Storm's establishment in the street, 
 and asked him if Mr. Storm had gone on to Washington. This was on 
 my way from the boat to the store, after I had left home for Washington. 
 He replied, that he started that morning, or, at any rate, that he had gone 
 on. He asked me, I think, why I was a witness, or what I knew about 
 it; and I stated to him what I have detailed as the conversation with Mr. 
 Storm, in answer to the second question of my examination before this 
 committee. He then replied, that if any bargain had been made between 
 Mr. Hough and Mr. Storm, he knew nothing about it. 
 
 Question. Did the foreman of Mr. Storm, in this conversation, tell you 
 that Mr. Storm desired to see you before any body else saw you ? ' 
 
 Answer. No. He said that he wished that Mr. Storm could see me be- 
 fore any other person. 
 
 Question. Did he tell you that the committee would get nothing out of 
 Storm ? 
 
 Answer. No, not that I remember. 
 
 Question. Did he hand you a letter from Storm ? 
 
 Answer. No. I brought a letter in my hat from Mr. Curtis, who gave it 
 to me, for Mr. Storm ; which letter I delivered to him. 
 
 Question. What did Mr. Curtis tell you when he gave you the letter? 
 
 Answer. He asked me if I would hand it to Mr. Storm. This was at 
 my store, when the conversation already detailed took place. 
 
 Question. Although you had no direct knowledge of there being fraud 
 connected with Storm's contract, did you not, from all the circumstances 
 which came to your knowledge, believe that it existed ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot answer that question. There was a great deal of talk 
 going on in the city, and I thought it was better for all parties that an ex- 
 amination should take place. I certainly felt some interest in it, because 
 the fraud was charged against the political party with which I was con- 
 nected. 
 
 Question. Have you repeated the conversation that you had with Mr. 
 Storm's foreman, in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Bleecker? 
 
 Answer. I have not to Mrs. Bleecker, in Washington. I might have 
 mentioned it at my store in New York in the presence of both of them, as 
 they came to my store shortly after I had the interview with Storm's foreman. 
 
 Question. Have you or not told Mr. Bleecker that Storm meant to be 
 honest, but that his job was too great a temptation for him to withstand ? 
 
 Answer. No ; I have not, at any time. 
 
 Question. Have you conversed recently with Mr. George Curtis, upon 
 the subject of Storm's contract; and if so, what was said conversation, 
 when was it had, and how often have you so conversed ? 
 
 Answer. I have never spoken to Mr. George Curtis in my life. 1 should 
 not know him if I met him. 
 
 Question. Has Mr. Bleecker, in any of the conversations that you have 
 had with him, told you that it was probable that Storm would deny every 
 thing ; and if so, what was your reply ? 
 
76 
 
 Sep. Xo. 1065. 
 
 Answer. He mentioned something to that amount. He stated that Storm 
 would deny ; and my reply was, that the committee would be compelled 
 to question Storm very closely or minutely, as lie was a very stubborn man. 
 
 Question. Has Mr. Storm at no time told you how much he would make 
 by the furniture job ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 CHARLES McAULEY. 
 
 June 4, 1S42. 
 
 Testimony of Samuel Iiucke/, being sworn. 
 
 Question by the committee. What is your occupation, and where do you 
 reside ? 
 
 Answer. Upholsterer. I reside in the city of New York. 
 
 Question. Have you ever had a conversation with Mr. Charles Mc- 
 Auley, or heard him say any thing in relation to a conversation between 
 him and Mr. Storm, in regard to Mr. Storm's contract for furnishing the 
 furniture of the New York custom-house ? If so, state what that conversa- 
 tion was, and when and where it took place. 
 
 Answer. I had a conversation with Mr. McAuley, who stated that he 
 understood that Mr. Storm had obtained a contract for furnishing the New- 
 York custom-house. He appeared to be pleased that Mr. Storm had ob- 
 tained the work. 
 
 Question. Have you ever heard Mr. Storm say, at any time, any thing in 
 relation to his furnishing furniture for the custom-house at New York ; 
 and if so, what was it ? 
 
 Answer. I have. At the time Mr. Storm was applied to first, he called 
 on Mr. McAuley and stated that a gentleman by the name of Hough, a 
 broker in Broadway, New York, had called on him, and desired estimates 
 for furnishing the custom-house, and wished Mr. McAuley's advice as to 
 what he should do in the matter. Mr. McAuley advised him to see Moses 
 H. Grinnell, or Mr. Minturn, Mr. Grinnell's partner, and take their ad- 
 vice, and, whatever it was, to be governed by it. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Storm, at that or any subsequent time, state in 
 your presence what proposition Mr. Hough had made to him in relation, 
 to the furnishing of the furniture for the custom-house? If so, state what 
 that proposition was. 
 
 Answer. I understood, from Mr. Storm, that Mr. Hough wished a cer- 
 tain per centage or bonus from him (Mr. Storm) upon the amount of profits, 
 and that he had made that proposition to Mr. Storm. The amount of per 
 centage I did not know, neither do I know that the proposition was ac- 
 ceded to. 
 
 Question. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Storm on the sair. ? 
 subject since that time ? and if so, state whether, in any of those conver- 
 sations, Mr. Storm has told you the terms of the contract or understanding 
 between him and Mr. Hough, or any thing about what Mr. Hough was to 
 receive. 
 
 Answer. I have had conversations, and understood from Mr. Storm that 
 Mr. Hough did not receive one penny from Mr. Storm : nor did he (Storm) 
 
\ 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 77 
 
 expect to pay him any thing; that Mr. Hough's proposition was not acced- 
 ed to. 
 
 Question. When did Mr. Storm tell you that Mr. Hough's proposition 
 was not acceded to ? 
 
 Answer. Some time within the last three months. 
 
 Question. Have you related the substance of what Mr. Storm told you 
 recently to any person ; and if so, to whom ? 
 
 Answer. I have to Joseph R. Bleecker, and to no other person. 
 
 Question. Were you at the store of Mr. McAuley last Wednesday morn- 
 ing : and if so, did you see there Mr. Edward Curtis, collector of New 
 York ? 
 
 Answer. No. I was in this city last Wednesday morning. 
 
 Question. Have you seen Mr. Edward Curtis since you were subpoenaed 
 to appear before this committee ; and if so, have you held any conversa- 
 tion with him ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen him, but have not spoken to him ; I saw him in the 
 street. 
 
 Question. Have you ever conversed with Mr. Curtis upon the subject of 
 Mr. Storm's contract ? 
 Answer. No. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Storm speak as if he was disposed to accede to Mr. 
 Hough's proposition ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I can answer this question. 
 
 Question. What was it Mr. Storm desired Mr. McAuley to advise him 
 about ? 
 
 Answer. As I understood it, as to whether Mr. Hough was empower- 
 ed to make the contract or not. 
 
 Question. W T ere you present at Mr. Bleecker's house, at a conversation 
 between Mr. Bleecker and Mr. McAuley, on the subject of what had pass- 
 ed between Mr. Storm and Mr. Hough, in relation to the furniture con- 
 tract ? 
 
 Answer. I was. 
 
 Question. State what Mr. McAuley told Mr. Bleecker in that conver- 
 sation. 
 
 Answer. Mr. McAuley mentioned to Mr. Bleecker, that Mr. Storm was 
 applied to by Mr. Hough to furnish the custom-house at New York, and 
 he stated that it was his belief, or that it was probable, that Mr. Hough re- 
 ceived or was to receive a compensation ; that Mr. Storm would make 
 something, and Mr. Hough would make something, out of the job. 
 
 Question. Did you hear from Mr. Storm or Mr. McAuley in what man- 
 ner it was expected that Mr. Hough would make any thing out of the job ? 
 
 Answer. I never heard Mr. Storm say that Mr. Hough would make 
 any thing out of it. 
 
 Question. Did you hold a conversation with Mr. Storm, on the subject 
 of this investigation,, about the time you left New York for Washington ? 
 and if so, state what that conversation was. 
 
 Answer. We have had conversations as to what would be made out of 
 this investigation. Mr. Storm said Mr. Hough did not receive any thing 
 from him; that Mr. McAuley was wrong in his conjectures : that Mr. 
 Hough did make a proposition, but that it was objected to by Mr. Storm 
 "before the contract was closed. He did not state, in this conversation, what. 
 the understanding with Mr. Hough was. 
 
78 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Storm tell you at any time how much was due him 
 for this work ? 
 
 Answer. I have understood from him that there was due him about 
 $8,000. 
 
 Question. Have you ever understood, from Mr. Storm, why the payment 
 -of this $8,000 had been so long deferred ? 
 
 Answer. I understood from him that the reason was, that there was no 
 money in the custom-house at New York. That Mr. Curtis had paid the 
 amount of the original contract, and that so soon as money could be col- 
 lected at the custom-house he would be paid. That he had called upon 
 Mr. Curtis for the money, and that Mr. Curtis had told him that he had 
 no money to pay him with. 
 
 Question. Have you ever learned, from Mr. Storm or any body else, 
 whether advances of money were made to him during the progress of the 
 work ; and if so, by whom were they made ? . 
 
 Answer. I think I understood from him that Mr. Grinnell had offered 
 to lend him some. money, if he should require it. I know of no advances 
 of money beiii£ made to him. 
 
 SAMUEL RUCKEL. 
 
 Testimony of Joseph R. Bleecker, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Charles 
 JVlcAuley in relation to the contract of Mr. Abraham Storm for furniture 
 for the New York custom-house ? and if so, state what that conversation 
 was, and when it was held. 
 
 Answer. I had a conversation with Mr. Charles McAuley at my house, 
 on the evening of the 2d of February, 1842, in which he gave me the fol- 
 lowing information, unasked by myself: 
 
 A lottery office keeper, by the name of Joseph Hough, residing under 
 .the American museum, Broadway, New York, called on Abraham Storm, 
 cabinet maker, Broadway, and asked him if he would like a $20,000 job, 
 on the condition of paying him 25 per cent, out of it ; and that, after he 
 gave in his estimate, he could add on to the different articles enough to 
 make up the bonus. Storm called on Moses H. Grinnell, and told him of 
 -the proposal. Grinnell advised him to take it. Storm then went to Cur- 
 tis, the collector, with his estimate. Mr. Curtis told him he had heard of 
 him, and gave him the work to do. 
 
 The work is now 25 per cent, higher than estimated for, in the shape of 
 alterations and extras. 
 
 Storm told McAuley he should clear six thousand dollars, and Hough 
 would receive as much more. I reside in the city of New York, 
 
 Question. Have you held any other conversations with Mr. McAuley 
 on the subject — how often, and when the last ? 
 
 Answer. I have held conversations with Mr. McAuley twice on this 
 subject since the one alluded to in my first answer. The last was on the 
 evening of the 31st of May, at his store in Hudson street, New York, at 
 which time he fully repeated his former declaration to me. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation with Mr. McAuley, or Mr. Samuel 
 iluckel, relative to the contract for furniture with William B. Shipman ? 
 If so, state what it was. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 79 
 
 Answer. Mr. Rnckel has informed me that Mr. Shipman had been 
 promised the work by the collector; and, after Storm had made his ar- 
 rangement to take the contract, the collector wished Storm to divide with 
 Shipman the work, which Storm declined. I had no conversation with 
 Mr. McAnley on the subject. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. McAuley inform you that Storm had consulted him 
 upon the propriety of making the contract? 
 
 Answer. Mr. McAuley informed me that Storm came to his place at 
 Cornwall, New York, and stated to him the proposal made by Hough. 
 McAuley advised him to have nothing to do with it, as he did not consider 
 it a fair transaction, and advised him to call upon Moses H. Grinnell, and 
 ask his advice on the subject. 
 
 Question. Were there any person or persons present when you had the 
 conversation with Mr. McAuley stated in your first answer ; and if so, who 
 were they ? 
 
 Answer. My wife was present at the conversation, and Samuel RuckeL 
 Question. What is your occupation, and how long have you been en- 
 gaged in it ? 
 
 Answer. I am custom-house broker, and have been engaged in that oc- 
 cupation since last October. 
 
 Question. What was your occupation before last October ? 
 
 Answer. I was employed in the custom-house at New York as assistant 
 'Cashier, and had been in the custom-house upwards of 17 years. 
 
 Question. Were you sworn as a witness by the commission composed 
 of Messrs. Poindexter and others ; and if so, do you now adopt the state- 
 ment made before them ? 
 
 Answer. I was sworn before them, and adopt the same statement now. 
 
 Question. Were you removed from office by the present collector after 
 said statement was made ; and if so, h©w long after ? 
 
 Answer. I was removed after the said statement was made. My testi- 
 mony was taken on 10th June, and I was removed on the 7th July, 1841. 
 
 Question. What reason was assigned by the collector for your removal ? 
 
 Answer. The reason assigned was, that I was a stranger to him, and he 
 preferred having his friends around him. 
 
 Question. Was a certificate of good behaviour given you by the collect- 
 or ; and if so, what was it, and where is it ? 
 
 Answer. A certificate was given in the shape of a letter, which I will 
 hand the committee, to be imbodied in my answer : 
 
 Collector's Office, July 3, 1841. 
 
 Sir : On the 7th instant I propose to place a friend of mine in the post 
 now filled by you in the custom-house. I have to remark that I have not 
 dispensed with your services for any political reasons, nor because I have 
 any occasion to doubt your integrity. 
 
 I hold that, in regard to the clerks around me in this office, I have a right 
 to select my friends, and that strangers to me, who were employed by my 
 predecessor, have no right to complain if I prefer to commit my interests, 
 and those of my sureties, to the care of persons of my own selection, and 
 who, from pre-existing connexion with me, or my friends, may be well 
 • supposed to take a greater interest in my behalf. I have made this ex- 
 
80 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 planation to you, that you may see that I part with you in no spirit of un- 
 kindness. 
 
 Wishing you prosperity and happiness, I am ever yours, respectfully, 
 
 EDWARD CURTIS, Collector. 
 
 Mr. Joseph R. Bleecker. 
 
 P. S. I regret to learn that you have been ill for a few days past. Voui 
 pay will continue to the 7th instant. 
 
 Question. Has Mr. McAuley, at any time, said any thing to you about 
 his wishing to have the matter connected with the furniture contract, &.C., 
 kept secret until Mr. Storm could get his pay ; and if so, what did lie say 
 in such conversation, and when was it ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. McAuley has once or twice expressed to me his wish that 
 the matter should be kept still until Mr. Storm got his money ; but that lie 
 wished to see the fraud exposed as much as I did myself. He thought, if it 
 "was told before Storm got his money^it might prove injurious to him, and 
 that it was for his sake that he wished it kept secret. He said he did not 
 wish me to say any thing about it, for he did not wish to be compelled to 
 say any thing about it himself. 
 
 Question. Had you any conversation, in the store of Mr. McAuley. be- 
 fore you left the city of New York for Washington, and after you were 
 both subpoenaed to attend here, in regard to what the foreman or Mr. Storm 
 had said to him ; and if so, what was it, and who was present? 
 
 Answer. I had a conversation with him on the evening of the 31st of 
 May, at which my wife was present a part of the time, and in which Mr. 
 McAuley stated to me that he had seen the foreman of Storm that after- 
 noon ; and that the foreman told him that Storm wished to see him (Mc- 
 Auley) before any one else saw him ; and that he also told him (McAuley) 
 that the committee would get nothing out of Storm. 
 
 Question. Have you, at any time, heard Mr. McAuley say any thing — 
 and if so, what — in regard to his belief of Storm's honesty, but that this 
 furniture job had tempted him beyond his resistance ? 
 
 Answer. In the course of the conversation, to which I have alluded on 
 the 31st of May, he remarked that he thought Storm meant to be honest, 
 but that this job was too great a temptation for him. 
 
 Question. Have you ever told McAuley that it was your impression that 
 Storm would deny every thing about this furniture contract that passed be- 
 tween him and Hough; and if so, what was his reply ? 
 
 Answer. I told him that I thought Mr. Storm had received his lesson, 
 and that he would deny every thing about it ; and he remarked that he 
 could not do it. 
 
 JOSEPH R. BLEECKER. 
 
 June 1, 1842. 
 
 Testimony of Mrs. Ann M. Bleecker, wife of Joseph R. Bleecker. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect a conversation between your husband and 
 Mr. Charles McAuley, at your house, on the evening of the 2d of February. 
 
Sep. No. 1065. 
 
 81 
 
 1842, on the subject of a contract o£ Mr. Abraham Storm, for furniture for 
 the New York custom-house ? and if so, state what said conversation was. 
 
 Answer. I can't say what evening of the month it was, but I recollect 
 the conversation. As near as I recollect, Mr. McAuley said that Mr. Storm 
 had told him that a person by the name of Hough, who had an office under 
 the American museum, had called on him, (Storm,) and asked if he would 
 like to have a job of work ; and he (Storm) was either to divide the profits 
 with Hough, or was to allow him $6,000. I don't recollect which it was. 
 I do, however, recollect that $6,000 was named. It was understood that 
 Storm was to lose nothing himself, but was to add on to the price of his 
 work, so as to be able to pay Hough. 
 
 Question. Was any thing said in relation to Storm's calling on Moses 
 H. Grinnell, and as to what Grinneli advised him in regard to the job ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. McAuley said that he advised Mr. Storm to call ou Mr. 
 Grinnell for his advice, and I have since heard him say the same thing. 
 
 Question. Have you heard Mr. McAuley, at any other time since this 
 conversation, repeat the same facts; and if so, when and where ? 
 
 Answer. I heard him repeat the same things at his store in New York, 
 on the evening before we left home, in presence of my husband, which was 
 about the 1st of the present month. 
 
 Question. Was any thing said in this last conversation, between your 
 husband and McAulev, about the probability of Storm's denying all about 
 it? 
 
 Answer. I recollect of having heard somebody say that the question was 
 asked Mr. McAuley, whether Storm would deny every thing, but t 
 remember whether 1 heard it asked or not. The answer of Mr. McAuley, 
 which I either heard or understood was given, was, that Storm could not 
 deny it. 
 
 Question. Did you hear Mr. McAuley say any thing about Mr. Storm's 
 foreman calling on him. 
 
 Answer. On the evening that I have spoken of, when I was at Mr. 
 McAuley's store, I heard him say that Mr. Storm's foreman had called on 
 him, and told him that Mr. Storm wanted to see him (McAuley) before 
 any body else saw him ; and that he (the foreman) told McAuley that the 
 committee would get nothing out of Storm ; and I have the impression on 
 my mind, but am not very positive about it, that Mr. McAuley said that 
 Storm had written him a letter on the same subject. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect any conversation between Mr. McAuley 
 and your husband, or between McAuley and Mr. Ruckel, previous to the 
 month of February, 1S42, on the subject of Mr. Storm's contract ? 
 
 Answer. I can't recollect distinctly in regard to the time, I have heard 
 so much on the subject. It has been a great deal talked of, and a good 
 deal at our table, between my brother (Mr. Ruckel) and ourselves. I 
 knew, before the time spoken of, that Mr. Storm had obtained the contract 
 for the furniture, but I had not before known any thing of Mr. Hough. 
 
 ANN MATILDA BLEECKER. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 June 8, 1842. 
 
 Testimony of John Frazee, being sworn. 
 
 Question by the committee. Will you state the circumstances, as near 
 as you can now detail them, which induced a change in the estimate you 
 made for finishing the New York custom-house, from June to December, 
 1841. 
 
 Answer. The first prominent article of additional expense was that of 
 introducing the iron desk stands. I had seen some stands, in the Bank of 
 America, made of iron, which suggested to myself and Mr. Lord, (the 
 naval officer,) together, the propriety of having something of that kind to 
 support the desks. I then made a sketch in pencil, and exhibited it to Mr. 
 Lord and some of the other officers, and I don't know but to Mr. Curtis. 
 I had commenced in the naval office first, and that will account for my 
 showing the sketch to and consulting with Mr. Lord. All persons to whom 
 I showed this sketch were delighted with and highly approved of it. I 
 made the drawings then of full size, and ordered Mr. Tibbetts to go on 
 with the work, make patterns, and commence castings. Mr. Tibbetts at 
 that time was engaged on the work of the custom-house generally ; and 
 1 supposed he was the only person to whom I should apply to do the 
 work. 
 
 Question. Who directed the change in the plan of the furniture supplied 
 to the custom-house by Mr. Storm? 
 
 Answer. The changes were made by myself, after consulting with the 
 officers as to what they wanted. We commenced in the naval and sur- 
 veyor's offices first. I got up the furniture pretty much according to their 
 ideas, as to the number of desks, cases, &c. ; the style of the work was my 
 own. When we came into the collector's department, (the great room,) we 
 found that the plan upon which Mr. Horspool made his estimate would 
 not do. It did not give sufficient room for the number of desks and cases 
 required to do business. In consultation with the deputy collectors, 
 whom Mr. Curtis sent in to make the arrangements, it was found necessary 
 to adopt the present plan. Then I ordered the furniture to be made ac- 
 cording to the plan. 
 
 Question. At what time did you make the changes in the furniture con- 
 tract with Storm ? 
 
 Answer. I do not remember the time. It was late in the summer. I 
 think it was in the latter part of the summer that the greatest changes were 
 made. I do not know but what the alterations were made in the great 
 room as early as the 1st of August. 
 
 Question. Were those changes made by you with the knowledge and 
 consent of Mr. Edward Curtis, the collector ; or were they made by you 
 without his advice, knowledge, or consent? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis was consulted with occasionally ; he came in sev- 
 eral times. He approved of the plan which the deputies and myself had 
 adopted, changing the original plan. He said I had my instructions from 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, and he did not wish to interfere with them. 
 
 Question. Were the prices of said furniture, by such changes, made 
 lower, or we're they in every instance made higher than the original con- 
 tract price ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I could keep the parallel of prices in my 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 83 
 
 mind, because the plan was altogether different. The modification en- 
 larged the plan, and the work of the desks was more expensive than origi- 
 nally contemplated, not from any design, but from necessity. The desks, 
 in the first instance, were not, I think, to have been covered with cloth. 
 Subsequently, we concluded to cover them with cloth, and also to add on 
 the brass railing to the tops. Also, the glass fronts were added to the cases, 
 in place of close panellings of wood. 
 
 Question. Was the change of your plan communicated to the collector 
 when first made ; and if so, was it then approved by him ? 
 
 Answer. He always approved of all the changes and modifications in 
 the arrangement of the work that were made, I think. 
 
 Question. Was there any material alteration in the construction of the 
 furniture made by you, without the knowledge or approbation of Mr. Ed- 
 ward Curtis, the collector ; and if so, what alteration was so made, and 
 when was it made ? 
 
 Answer. The alterations were for the most part suggested in the progress 
 of the work. I consulted with the clerks of each department as to the 
 number of holes and book compartments that were to be made — things 
 which neither the collector nor myself knew any thing about. We made a 
 great many articles of furniture which were not contemplated in the origi- 
 nal estimate. I do not know whether Mr. Curtis was consulted in all 
 those things, but I think not ; indeed, I am pretty certain he was not. He 
 was always very busy, and I did not wish to trouble him with every little 
 thing. He always seemed to be satisfied with every thing that I did. He 
 ordered one change of a principal character, which was, not to put so ex- 
 pensive glass into the cases of the second and third stories as had been put 
 into the first, which we complied with. The glass, he thought, was more 
 expensive than ought to be put into those stories. I thought differently, 
 and think so still. 
 
 Question. Was any objection made to you by the collector, after he un- 
 derstood your changes in the furniture ; or did he approve what you had 
 done, after he was so informed? 
 
 Answer. He made no objections to any alterations in the furniture, that 
 I know of. Mr. Storm, towards the latter end of the furnishing, stated to 
 me that Mr. Curtis told him he must not make any more furniture without 
 his orders, as he had already exceeded his contract. The furniture was 
 pretty much all made or commenced at that time; this was in the last 
 winter. I went to Mr. Curtis afterwards, and asked him what we must 
 do ; the officers said they wanted such and such pieces of furniture. He 
 said, never mind, they must do without them. 
 
 Question. Was the letter marked K, (and now exhibited,) purporting to 
 be a copy of a letter written by Hon. Levi Woodbury, late Secretary of 
 the Treasury, to Walter Bowne, Esq., and dated March 3, 1841, written 
 by you ; and if so, when, where, and for what purpose was it written ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I have given any other copy of the letter 
 than the one I wrote here from memory. I believe this is the one. I think 
 Mr. Curtis took a copy from the copy that I had of the original letter in 
 New York. The copy 1 had from Mr. Woodbury, I left in New York. 
 I thought I knew the letter well enough to copy it from memory. I had 
 read it a good many times — not for the purpose of remembering it. I 
 showed it to people a good many times, who called in the building com- 
 plaining of Mr. Curtis. They complained that he was making the furni- 
 
84 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 ture extravagant. I told them the style of the work was my own, and I 
 was responsible for it, and not Mr. Curtis. I took my letter frequently 
 from the desk, to show that I had my authority not from Mr. Curtis, but 
 from the Secretary of the Treasury. I wrote the letter, some time after I 
 came here in April, because I heard from somebody that my authority was 
 questioned. I think the letter was written for the committee of the Senate, 
 or of the House, for the purpose of showing my authority to go on and 
 accomplish the work as it had already been done. 
 
 Question. Was letter marked Z (and now shown you) addressed to the 
 Hon. Millard Fillmore, and dated May 12, 1S42, written by you? 
 
 Answer. Yes. 
 
 Question. Had you been informed by either of the committees, or any 
 one else, before you wrote letter Z, that your authority was denied ? 
 
 Answer. Yes ; I had heard it from several persons. 
 
 Question. Were you advised by any one that it would be necessary for 
 you to produce any authority of this description. 
 
 Answer. Mr. Evans told me that I had better hand in my papers, or 
 make any communication I might think proper. 
 
 Question. Did you inform the person to whom you delivered the letter 
 that you had copied it from memory, or did you inform any other person 
 of that fact ? 
 
 Answer. My impression is that I did not. 
 
 Question. Was it suggested by any member of either of the committees 
 that there would be a dilFiculty in passing the accounts, without an exhibi- 
 tion of the authority for your action. 
 
 Answer. I think, in a conversation I had with Mr. Wright, that lie told 
 me that our accounts were going to be contested ; that we had been 
 acting without authority. I do not know that Mr. Evans said any thing 
 of the kind, but Mr. McKeon did; about that time I was advised to see 
 Mr. Promt. 
 
 Question. Did you not know, at the time you wrote the copy, that the 
 original was on file in the Treasury Department ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that I thought about it at all. If I had known 
 what I know now, I should have procured a copy from the Department. 
 
 Question. Did you hear the first discussion which arose in the House of 
 Representatives on the subject of the discrepancy between your copy and 
 the original letter of Mr. Woodbury, as reported by Mr. Poindexter; and 
 if so, how long after that was it before you wrote your letter to Mr. 
 Fillmore ? 
 
 Answer. I was in the gallery at the time the discussion was going on 
 I remember some remarks, which I did not hear distinctly, made by Mr. 
 Fillmore, as to the discrepancy between the letter he had and the letter 
 given in Mr. Poindexter's report. I did not pay any great attention to it. 
 I could not hear every word distinctly. It did not strike me at the time 
 that any thing that occurred in debate was material. The next morning I 
 was in the gallery after the House opened, and was sent for by Mr. 
 McKeon. I think it was the next morning I called down below, in the 
 lobby, and Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. McKeon were there. They had my 
 letter, and the copy they had got from the Department. Mr. McKeon 
 asked me who made the copy. I told him that I made it myself. He then 
 asked me what I took it from. 1 told him that I took it from memory. 
 Mr. Roosevelt expressed some surprise that I could copy a letter from 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 85 
 
 memory, and copy it so near. I toid him I thought I knew every word 
 of the original letter, or nearly so; and, as evidence of my knowledge 
 of the letter, I commenced repeating the letter there while he held the let- 
 ter in his hand ; and I thought that they were satisfied that 1 could repeat 
 the letter correctly, or nearly so. We had some discussion together. Mr. 
 Roosevelt and Mr. McKeon thought I had better write a note of explana- 
 tion to Mr. Fillmore, or there might be some trouble about it. Mr. Fill- 
 more was then upon the floor, speaking, and they said I must write it 
 quick, or it would be too late. I then wrote the letter, and handed it in to 
 Mr. Fillmore. I wrote the letter in the Sergeant-at-arms' room. 
 
 Question. Why did you interline the word "having" in the first line of 
 your copy? 
 
 Answer. Because I considered it would not read well. I remember- 
 ed the word "having." 
 
 Question. Had you conversed with any body, within a few days before 
 you copied Mr. Woodbury's letter, in regard to the contents of the origin- 
 al; and if so, was it suggested to you that it contained no authority upon 
 the subject of bronzing the iron work in the custom-house, or that it related 
 to nothing more than the arrangement of the furniture? 
 
 Answer. I had a good deal of conversation, and I don't know but that 
 something was said by Mr. Prornt on the subject of bronzing. I think I 
 told him that the word " bronzing" was in the letter, and he denied it. 
 The reason I thought so was, that it had been used in the report of the 
 deputy naval officer and surveyor. Mr. Proffit told me that we had been 
 working without authority, and ought not to be paid. 
 
 Question. Did not Mr. D wight and yourself hold a conversation in the 
 Treasury building, before you wrote your copy, in which he informed you 
 that the letter of Mr. Woodbury only applied to the arrangement of the 
 furniture, and that it did not authorize the bronzing of the iron work? 
 
 Answer. No, I think not. I think the conversation I ha'd with Mr. 
 Dwight was after that time. I may be mistaken, even in that. Mr. 
 Dwight and I had a conversation upon the general subject. I told Mr. 
 Dwight that I thought it was a pity that we mechanics should be abused, 
 owing to the disputes between Mr. Curtis and others. I called to see Mr. 
 Forward at the Treasury, to see if I could obtain papers which I had sent 
 to the President of the United States, and which his son John told me 
 were in the Treasury Department. It was at that time that I conversed 
 with Mr. Dwight — some time in May last. 
 
 Question. Were you in this city while the civil and diplomatic appropria- 
 tion bill was pending in the House of Representatives, and before it had 
 been sent to the Senate ; and if so, did you make an effort to have the bill 
 amended in the House, so as to cover the balance due for the custom- 
 house ? 
 
 Answer. I am not certain as to the time. I arrived in the city on the 
 ISth or 19th of April; certainly on the 19th. I think the appropriation 
 bill was taken out of committee about that time. I won't be certain. I 
 think I did not get any amendment offered to the bill. I think Mr. Tib- 
 betts, when I got here, told me I had arrived too late. I was then told by 
 Mr. McKeon that it could be brought forward in the Senate. 
 
 Question. To what did the dispute between Mr. Bowne and yourself 
 relate, which caused your dismissal from the office of architect ? 
 
 Answer. We had no great dispute about it. Mr. Bowne says, in his 
 
86 
 
 Rep. TSTo. 1065. 
 
 letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, that he dismissed the architect he- 
 cause he thought the services of the architect were no longer needed. In 
 the correspondence between Mr. Bowne, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and Mr. Hoyt, Mr. Bowne stated that the architect wished to bronze the 
 iron work, but that he did not accede to it ; he had directed it to be paint- 
 ed white, as he thought t he bronzing would make the building too dark. 
 I thought he would not have dismissed me so soon, had he not have 
 thought that I was going on to bronze the iron work. 
 
 Question. Was it understood by yourself and the cellector, at the time 
 you received Mr. Woodbury's letter of 3d March, 1S41, that the Secre- 
 tary intended by it to endorse the recommendation in the report of the 
 deputy naval oflicer and surveyor, and no more ? 
 
 Answer. My view of it was, that the work suggested and recommend- 
 ed by the naval officer and surveyor was intended, by the Secretary of the 
 Treasury should be carried into effect, because, he says, in accordance 
 with their recommendation, I deem it proper, &c. I do not think he in- 
 tended to comply entirely with their recommendation in relation to my 
 being paid for the interval of time between the time of my being dismiss- 
 ed and the 3d of March. I think he ought to have done it, from the rea- 
 sons set forth in the naval officer's report. 
 
 Question. Where did you derive authority from, to make the iron desk 
 frames ? 
 
 Answer. From the force and import of Mr. Woodbury's letter. Fur- 
 thermore, the collector, the commissioner, and the other officers of the 
 customs, approved of it. 
 
 Question. If the import of Mr. Woodbury's letter embraced the iron 
 desk frames, as a portion ofthe arrangement of the furniture mentioned 
 in his letter of 3d March, why did you subsequently estimate it as " be- 
 longing to the building." under the contract with Mr. Tibbetts? 
 
 Answer. *I did not see what difference that could make in Mr. Tibbetts's 
 contract. My conclusion was, that Mr. Tibbetts was to do all the iron 
 work about the building. I had no motive in giving Mr. Tibbetts that 
 work, more than I had in giving him any other work. He was at work in 
 the building with his hands, as I have already stated. 
 
 Question. Did you consult the collector upon the subject of making the 
 desk frames of iron, before you ordered them to be made ; and if so, did 
 he sanction and authorize it ? 
 
 Answer. I think I showed him the design long before they were order- 
 ed to be made. I know he approved of them, as well as the other officers. 
 I was sensible, at the time, that they would cost more than wooden frames. 
 I did not wish to do any thing that was not approved of by the officers of 
 the custom-house. 
 
 Question. Who were the persons who complained of the extravagance 
 of Mr. Curtis ? 
 
 Answer. A number of people during the year — I do not remember par- 
 ticular individuals ; a number of persons, in and out, said he was furnish- 
 ing the building in an extravagant style. 
 
 Question. Did Mr. Curtis show you his letter to the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, dated 7th April, herewith shown to you, marked Q, before he 
 sent it to Mr. W T oodbury ? 
 
 Answer. I think I never saw that letter before ; I don't remember that Mr. 
 Curtis ever showed me any letters he sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 87 
 
 Mr. Curtis and T had several consultations about furnishing the building at 
 that time, and it strikes me that he showed me a letter from the Secretary 
 of the Treasury respecting the furnishing of the building. 
 
 Question. Was letter marked CC received by you from Mr. Talman; and 
 jf so, were the words commissioner New York custom-house. New York/' 
 attached to his name ? 
 
 Answer. The letter was received, and I wrote the words merely to de- 
 signate his office. It was a private letter to me, and I only put the words 
 to show who the person was. 
 
 Question. Do you claim that any amount is now due you for services as 
 architect on the custom-house ; and if so, how much ? 
 
 Answer. I think I am entitled to the amount on the bill, of $3,429, for 
 my services for 381 days, at $9 per day, in addition to my expenses in 
 Travelling to Washington in April and May, and which I think ought to be 
 paid, as the commissioners always paid me my expenses to Washington to 
 ask appropriations for the building. 
 
 Question. Did you not tell Mr. Curtis that your services would be ren- 
 dered without compensation after the 1st of May, 1841, until the comple- 
 tion of the building and the fitting up of the furniture ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Curtis, in a conversation with him on the subject of the 
 building, stated to me that it was the wish of the Secretary of the Treasu- 
 ry that he should curtail the expenses as much as he could in the revenue 
 department. He alluded to other expenses, and asked me what I received 
 a day. I told him my pay was $9 a day, authorized by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury. He then asked me if I could not render my services for a 
 jess amount during the further progress of the building. I told him I did 
 not think I could, as my family was large, and the payment as small as 
 what I thouglHl ought to take. I then added, that if the Government would 
 pay me for the interval of time that I had just lost — about three months — 
 I would render my services from after the 1st of May, until the building 
 was completed, provided that the time did not extend beyond the 1st of 
 July or the 1st of August. Mr. Curtis expressed his opinion that I would 
 get my back pay, and said that if there was any thing that he could do to 
 aid me in getting the back pay, he would do it. He said that he was satis- 
 fied that, in justice, I ought to have it. We conversed together as to the 
 probable time it would take to get into the building. He said he thought 
 he ought to get in in July, or by the 1st of August. I told him that would 
 depend upon the number of cabinet makers employed upon the furniture 
 and other work to do. I thought if I gave the Government a couple or 
 three months of my services, it was enough. This was very soon after Mr. 
 Curtis came into office. 
 
 Question. Was Mr. Curtis, the collector, consulted as to covering the 
 desks with cloth, and adding the brass railings at the top ; and if so, did he 
 approve or disapprove of the change ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know that he was consulted about them particularly. 
 He was not consulted about it until after the naval office was thus fur- 
 nished. 
 
 Question. Was the collector consulted as to changing the wood panel 
 doors to glass fronts ; and if so, did he approve or disapprove of such 
 change ? 
 
 Answer. I think he was not consulted at the time. I don't remember 
 hearing him say any thing about the glass fronts until he ordered a cheaper 
 
88 
 
 Eep. No. 1065. 
 
 kind of glass to be got for the upper stories. He then stated that the glass 
 was a greater item of expense than he anticipated. He thought a cheaper 
 kind ol glass would answer for the upper stories. 
 
 Question. Were you in the habit of issuing certificates to the workmen 
 on the custom-house ; and if so, can you state to whom you have issued 
 them ? 
 
 Answer. I was in the habit of doing so during the past year. I issued 
 certificates to the following individuals, which, as I understood, were often 
 sold by them at a very heavy discount. 
 
 Question. Have you examined the bill of John Hodgkin, for bronzing, 
 and do you know that all the items therein have been furnished to the 
 custom-house ; and if so, do you know whether or not the charges for 
 them, as well as for the labor, are in accordance with the market value of 
 such articles and labor in New York ? 
 
 Answer. I believe all the items therein contained have been furnished, 
 but had to depend upon the integrity of Mr. Hodgkin and his foreman a 
 good deal, though I was very careful with them, requiring the separa.e 
 articles to be kept distinct, and all of them to be purchased at. the lowest 
 possible rate. I am satisfied, from the inquiries I made at several places, 
 that the charges are in accordance with the market value of such articles 
 and labor in New York. 
 
 Question. Why is the bill of Mr. Hodgkin so much increased beyond 
 the $4,350 of his original proposition ? 
 
 Answer. The contract relates to the bronzing of the iron named in the 
 proposals. The increase is occasioned by the painting and bronzing of 
 the fly-doors, vestibules, desk stands, &c, which at that time could not be 
 calculated, and the bronzing of which had not been contemplated. Much 
 of these were miscellaneous, and could not be calculated. 
 
 Question. Have you examined the other bills handed by you to the 
 committee; and if so, are they correct? Was the labor therein charged 
 performed, and the materials furnished, and are the prices charged rea- 
 sonable ? 
 
 Answer. I have examined them, and think that they are reasonable ; I 
 believe them to be correct, and know that the work was most faithfully 
 performed. 
 
 Question. Was there an account kept of the daily labor of the stone- 
 cutters, masons, carpenters, and other laborers, ; and if so, how was it 
 kept, and have you compared the bill now rendered with it ? 
 
 Answer. There was such an account kept by the master workman, which 
 was regularly transferred to a memorandum book kept by me, (and which I 
 now exhibit to the committee.) I have compared the bill now rendered 
 with my book, and find it correct. The prices charged in the bills of the 
 stonecutters, masons, &c, were the prices agreed to be paid them by me, 
 which were according to the New York prices ; perhaps sometimes a little 
 higher, in consequence of having to pay higher wages for the best work- 
 men. 
 
 Question. In directing the items of the bill of Mr. Hodgkin, which suc- 
 ceed the charge of $4,350 under the contract with him, did you permit the 
 correctness of the charges to depend upon his discretion and judgment, both 
 as to quantity and price, after you had directed them, or did you require 
 an estimate of their quantity and value before they were ordered ? 
 
 Answer. I required no estimate; but had to depend very much upon the 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 I *4 
 
 89 
 
 honesty of Mr. Hodgkin, as it was impossible to anticipate ail the items, 
 believing him to be an honest and correct man. 
 
 Question. Can you state whether your conversation, to which you have 
 already alluded, with Mr. Proffit, was before or after your conversation 
 with Mr. Dwight at the Treasury Department? 
 
 Answer. I think it was before ; I had a conversation in the rotundo 
 with Mr. Dwight when I first came to Washington. I had another with 
 him in the Treasury building, which. I think, was after the debating in 
 the House of Representatives about the appropriation. 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE. 
 
 Statement of the amounts of certificates given to certain icorkmen em- 
 ployed on the new cnstom-house, New York, since March 3, 1841, as 
 certified by the superintendent. 
 
 To Jas. Matthews : 
 
 Manly : 
 Gallagher 
 
 To — 
 To — 
 
 To William Murray : 
 
 To William Kairns : 
 To George Wilson : 
 
 To H. Bruhre : 
 
 To ■ — Thornall: 
 
 To Cornelius Bedell : 
 
 To Charles Scott : 
 
 October 9, 1S41 
 February 5, 1842 
 May 21, 1842 - 
 
 December IS, 1S41 
 December 18, 1S41 
 December IS, 1841 
 March 19, 1842 
 
 December 18, 1S41 
 December 24, 1S41 
 May 21, 1S42 
 
 December 31, 1S41 
 December 31, 1841 
 December 31, 1S41 
 January 22, 1S42 
 March'?, 1842 - 
 
 January 22, 1842 
 March 7, 1842 - 
 March 26, 1842 
 
 To Benjamin Garthwait: December 31, 1841 
 
 January 29, 1842 
 February 5, 1842 
 
 To 
 
 Brooks 
 
 To William Franklin 
 
 To George Anson : 
 To J. De Clew : 
 'To Thomson 
 
 December 31, 1S41 
 February 12, 1842 
 March 19, 1842 
 
 February 26, 1842 
 February 26, 1S42 
 January 15, 1842 
 March 7, 1842 - 
 
 $117 
 
 00 
 
 133 
 
 13 
 
 102 
 
 38 
 
 72 
 
 28 
 
 44 
 
 16 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 66 
 
 63 
 
 150 
 
 00 
 
 37 
 
 13 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 SI 
 
 38 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 31 
 
 33 
 
 35 
 
 00 
 
 25 
 
 00 
 
 25 
 
 00 
 
 25 
 
 00 
 
 34 
 
 63 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 $352 51 
 75 66 
 59 06 
 
 116 44 
 51 84 
 
 116 63 
 30 00 
 164 00 
 
 237 13 
 
 162 71 
 
 85 00 
 25 00 
 
 59 63 
 560 50 
 50 00 
 
90 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 $50 00 
 
 $150 00 
 
 202 50 
 50 00 
 50 00 
 40 00 
 
 342 50 
 
 113 63 
 302 00 
 54 00 
 33 75 
 
 29 50 
 25 50 
 55 00 
 
 The above are from my memorandum account book, and are, I believe, 
 correct ; but I think I may have given out some two or three certificates 
 which I did not take account of. One, at least, I remember to have 
 given to Michael Kennedy, for about $250, less some few dollars. Fur- 
 ther I would not state from memory. 
 
 JOHN FRAZEE, Superintendent, $c. 
 
 Washington, June 9, 1842. 
 
 June 10, 1842. 
 
 Jolm Frazee examined. 
 
 Mr. Frazee, on this morning, desires to state, that from a conversation 
 with a friend in relation to his visit to the Treasury Department, which 
 conversation refreshes his memory, that his conversation with Mr. Dwight, 
 at the Treasury building, to which allusion is made in his testimony, 
 was before the debate in the House of Representatives, to which allusion 
 has also been made. 
 
 Testimony of Hon. George H. Proffit, being sworn. 
 
 Question. Did you hold a conversation with John Frazee, architect of 
 the New York custom-house, in this city, since the attempt was made to 
 obtain an appropriation to pay the balance pretended to be due for work, 
 &c, on said custom-house ; and if so, when was said conversation ? Did 
 you converse with him on the subject of the authority of the custom-house 
 officers to make a contract for furnititure ? Did you inform him of the 
 particular phraseology of the letter of Mr. Woodbury of 3d March, 1841, 
 in relation to the bronzing of the iron work of the custom-house ? And 
 if you did so inform him, was it before or after the debate in the House of 
 Representatives on that subject, pending the civil and diplomatic appropri- 
 ation bill ? 
 
 Answer. During the time the amendment, appropriating $2S, for 
 
 the New York custom-house, was pending in the Senate, and before it had 
 been proposed or debated in the House of Representatives, Mr. Frazee, 
 
 March 19, 1842 
 
 To J. W. Stinman : 
 
 To 
 
 To Benjamin Cole 
 
 To Gray : 
 
 To Dugan : 
 
 To J. Vandewater or 
 Vandevoort 
 
 January S, 1842 
 March 7, 1S42 ■ 
 April 9, 1842 
 April 9, 1842 
 
 Gillespie : March 7, 1842 
 
 March 7, 1S42 
 March 7, 1842 
 March 2G, 1842 
 April 30, 1842 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 91 
 
 Mr. Tibbetts, and another person, whose name I do not recollect, called 
 upon me at my room. Mr. Tibbetts and Mr. Frazee informed me that 
 they wished to explain to me the nature of the appropriation, its propriety, 
 and its justice. I had, previously, no acquaintance with these gentlemen. 
 They entered into many explanations relative to their claims against the 
 Government. I told them that I had no disposition to delay any payment 
 of money justly due them, but informed them that I was determined to pre- 
 vent any expenditure of public money without authority of law. I told 
 them that the expenditures for which they asked an appropriation had 
 been not only made without authority of law, but in direct opposition to a 
 vote of Congress, refusing an appropriation for furnishing the New York 
 custom house. I asked Mr. Frazee and Mr. Tibbetts if they did not know 
 that there was no appropriation made by Congress when the work for 
 which they now ask payment was commenced. They replied, that they 
 did know that there was no appropriation made. They also said that they 
 knew that Congress had actually refused an appropriation, but they con- 
 tended that the work, furniture, &c., ought to be paid for, because Mr. 
 Curtis and Mr. Woodbury had authorized it. I informed Mr. Frazee, who 
 was the principal speaker on the occasion, that Mr. Woodbury had not au- 
 thorized the expenditure. I told him that I had examined the letter of Mr. 
 Woodbury, which he (Mr. Frazee) said authorized the work, and that it 
 contained nothing of (he kind, and that it actually disapproved any expendi- 
 ture without authority of law. I alluded to the large amount charged for 
 "painting and bronzing iron work/' Mr. Frazee said that Mr. Wood- 
 bury's letter particularly mentioned the bronzing. I denied it. and told 
 him that it contained no such word as " bronzing." He said he could 
 show me a copy of the letter. I told him, in reply, that I had seen a copy 
 of the original, as on file at the Treasury Department, and that any copy pur- 
 porting to contain the words he said it contained was a false copy. I then 
 told them that I was so thoroughly convinced of the impropriety of the con- 
 duct of those engaged in this affair of furnishing and finishing the New 
 York custom house, that I had called on Mr. Fillmore, the chairman of the 
 Ways and Means, and informed him that if he offered any amendment, 
 making an appropriation for the New York custom-house, I should op- 
 pose it strenuously, unless a satisfactory explanation could be given : and 
 that Mr. Fillmore told me that application had been made to him, or to the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, and that he had declined to ask the House 
 for the appropriation. I told Mr. Frazee and Mr. Tibbetts, that if they had 
 thought proper to do work, &c, knowing that Congress had refused to 
 sanction it, they must take the consequence ; and that my opinion was, 
 that gross frauds had been committed by some person or persons, and that 
 the determination to expend the public money, in opposition to the express- 
 ed orders of Congress, was, of itself, a fraud ; and that any officer of the 
 Government who had countenanced such a proceeding was guilty of fraud, 
 in its worst sense. Mr. Tibbetts and Mr. Frazee left me, apparently much 
 dissatisfied with their interview. I was convinced, from the cool and de- 
 liberate manner in which Mr. Tibbetts and Mr. Frazee acknowledged that 
 they had performed work, &c, knowing that there was no appropriation 
 to pay them, that nothing but a severe rebuke from Congress could arrest 
 such impropriety of conduct ; and therefore it was that I immediately 
 vent into a thorough examination of these expenditures. I think Mr. Tib- 
 betts told me, in the course of this conversation, that he had called on Mr. 
 
92 
 
 Rep. No. 10G5. 
 
 Fillmore, to ask the appropriation of $28, , when the bill was origi- 
 nally before the Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives, 
 and that Mr. Fillmore had declined to recommend it. 
 
 Testimony of George Barclay, taken at the request of Mr. Geo. Curtis, 
 
 being sworn. 
 
 Question by Mr. Curtis. Where do you reside, and what is your occu- 
 pation ? 
 
 Answer. I reside in New York, and am a merchant, of the firm of Bar- 
 clay & Livingston. 
 
 Question by same. Are you acquainted with Mr. Abraham Storm, cabinet 
 maker in New York ? 
 
 Answer. I am. 
 
 Question by same. What is his character and standing in the line of his 
 business? 
 
 Answer. He was recommended to me as one of the best cabinet makers 
 In the city of New York, as a man who had lately began business, a per- 
 son of strict integrity, and one on whose work I might implicitly rely. I 
 consequently ordered furniture from him without any previous agreement 
 as to price. That furniture gave entire satisfaction to my wife, and I ac- 
 cordingly paid his bill for the same. I am aware that many of the first 
 individuals in the city of New York, have employed him in a similar man- 
 ner, in consequence of his good work. 
 
 Question by Mr. Curtis. Does your business frequently lead you to the 
 custom-house, and have you had ample opportunity to look at the furni- 
 ture ; and if so, what is the character of said furniture? 
 
 Answer. I frequently visit the custom-house on business, and have been 
 particularly struck with the solidity and good quality of the furniture, which 
 I believe is entirely of ma*hogany, with iron stands, to prevent fire and to 
 support it well. 
 
 Wnestion by Mr. Curtis. From your knowledge of Mr. Storm, do you 
 consider him a proper and competent person to have been selected to make 
 that furniture ? 
 
 Answer. Judging from the furniture made for myself by him, from the 
 character I received of the individual before I employed him, and from the 
 quality of the furniture which I have repeatedly seen in his wareroom, I 
 should consider him a very competent person to be employed to make such 
 furniture for the custom-house. 
 
 Question by the committee. At what time was Mr. Storm engaged in 
 the manufacture of furniture for you ? 
 
 Answer. Some time in the last summer or autumn. 
 
 Question. Do you recollect by whom Mr. Storm was recommended to 
 you? 
 
 Answer. He was recommended to me by my own grocer, Mr. Smith. 
 
 Question. Have you any knowledge of what the pecuniary means of 
 Mr. Storm were about April, 1841 ? and if so, state what they were. 
 
 Answer. I have no knowledge of his pecuniary means, but believe that 
 he was a young man who had lately commenced business on his own ac- 
 count, and therefore I presumed his means were not extensive. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Question. Do you not consider that there are a great number of cabinet 
 makers in the city of New York, who, taking their capital and qualifica- 
 tions into consideration, were as competent to manufacture the furniture 
 for the custom-house as Mr. Storm ? 
 
 Answer. There is no question of it. 
 
 Question. When did your acquaintance with Mr. Storm take place, and 
 when was he first recommended? 
 
 Answer. I think some time in March, April, or May, of 1S41. 
 
 June 4, 1S42. 
 
 Testimony of David Felt, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. Do you reside in the city of New York ? 
 Answer. Yes. 
 
 Question. Please state whether you have purchased of Mr. John G» 
 Tibbetts any iron desk frames; and if so, what did you pay for them per 
 pound ? 
 
 Answer. I purchased of him, in 1841, two high stand desks, and one 
 low, at 7i cents per pound. 
 
 Question. Will you state whether they were of the same pattern of those 
 in the New York custom-house? 
 
 Answer. They were. 
 
 Question. Does the 11 cents embrace simply the value of the frame per 
 pound, or of the putting up and all ; and if not, how much did you pay 
 for putting them up, and to whom ? 
 
 Answer. They were put together and delivered to me at that price. 
 When delivered, they were put together ready to be placed where required. 
 
 Question by committee. Were those frames bronzed ; and if so, by whom; 
 and what price did you pay for the bronzing ? 
 
 Answer. They were brouzed by Mr. Peach. The price paid for the 
 three, including an iron railing of about 10 feet and a safe door, was $16.. 
 
 Question. How does that bronzing compare with the bronzing of the. 
 desk frames and railing in the custom-house. 
 
 Answer. It was intended to have been the same. I do not think it quite 
 so well done, particularly the door. As Peach complained of having a 
 very hard bargain of it, I did not urge the very high finish that I should 
 otherwise. To the superficial eye it would appear the same, as it was 
 made of the same material. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. In what way did you buy the desk stands ; 
 was it by the pound or by the job ; and how did you come by the weight? 
 
 Answer. I bought them by the job. I weighed them myself. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. "Was it not understood, at the time, that I sold 
 them to you for a great deal lower than they were worth, for the purpose 
 of getting them introduced into use ? 
 
 Answer. When I wanted this work done, I called on Mr. Tibbetts and 
 told him that 1 desired to have it done cheap, and that if he would do it 
 so, it might be the means of bringing his pattern into use. We made an 
 estimate of the work at 8 cents per pound, and found that it came to about 
 $60 ; and I then offered him $50 for the job, which he accepted, and told 
 
94 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 me not to say any thing about the price, as he could not afford to do it for 
 that. He also agreed to furnish railing for my use, to Mr. Winant, who 
 was engaged in putting it up for me. The #50 which I paid him brought 
 the job to the 1\ cents per pound. 
 
 Question by same. Did you or did you not let me know that you wanted 
 some railing done at the time ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question by same. Did you not say to me that you would call the next 
 day and let me know about the railing. 
 
 Answer. I did call the next day, and stated to Mr. Tibbetts that Mr. 
 Winant was doing the iron work, and that 1 should prefer to have him 
 finish, and therefore desired to have him sell the castings to Mr. Winant, 
 which he consented to. 
 
 DAVID FELT. 
 
 June 5, 1S42. 
 
 Testimony of Lorrain Freeman, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how long have 
 you been engaged it. it ? 
 
 Answer. The house smith business is my occupation — the same as Mr. 
 Tibbetts, except the casting business; have been engaged about 12 years. 
 
 Question by committee. Did you bid for the job procured by Mr. Tib- 
 betts, on the New York custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. I did put in proposals; and paper marked B is the amount of 
 my bid per pound. 
 
 Question by committee. To whom were your proposals furnished ? 
 
 Answer. There were two proposals, first directed to the superintendent, 
 and the last to the commissioners, Messrs. Bowne, Ringgold, and Jackson. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you ever constructed such work as the 
 desk stands in the custom-house. 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question by committee. What do you suppose to be the value of those 
 desk stands per pound, as they now stand, including all the cost and 
 labor? 
 
 Answer. I cannot tell the value of them unless I knew the cost of the 
 pattern. I think the cost of the pattern would be about $100. The rough 
 castings are worth about five or six cents per pound. 
 
 Question by committee. Did your proposals embrace wrought or cast 
 iron alone, or" both wrought and cast? 
 
 Answer. They embraced both wrought and cast, as I understood it — 
 all the work about the building. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Would you, under the contract, have felt 
 yourself bound to do all the work, even to an iron chair, if called for by 
 the superintendent ? 
 
 Answer. I would. 
 
 Question by same. If yon had known all about the cost of the patterns, 
 would you have been willing to do it for less than 18| cents per pound? 
 
 Answer. I would not have done it for less, at that time, than my bid of 
 IS! cents per pound. 
 
 Question by committee. Did your original proposals contain separate 
 
 items of the job ? 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 95 
 
 Answer. I cannot recollect whether they were separate or general, as 
 I kept no copy. 
 
 Question by committee. Did you not embrace in your proposals all the 
 castings that you supposed would be necessary about the building ? 
 
 Answer. I had to get at it the best way I could, estimating the propor- 
 tion of castings from the specifications. 
 
 Testimony of James Kelsey, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how long have 
 you been engaged in it ? 
 
 Answer. Working at the house smith business. It has been about 16 
 years since I commenced the business. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Did you put in proposals for the contract for 
 iron work for the custom-house at New York ? 
 
 Answer. Yes ; I did. 
 
 Question by same. Did you include all the cast or wrought iron work 
 necessary on or about the building ? 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. What was your price per pound ? 
 
 Answer. It was 25 cents per pound, to the best of my knowledge. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. According to your usual mode of making 
 contracts, would you or would you not include all the desk frames and 
 railings for the inside of the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. I would. 
 
 Question by committee. Did your proposals embrace any articles that 
 were not in the specifications ? 
 
 Answer. They embraced all the iron work about the building. 
 
 Question by committee. Were you or were you not furnished with a 
 copy of the specifications when you made your bid ? 
 
 Answer. Mr. Frazee exhibited to me a copy of the specifications and 
 drawings at the custom-house, before I made my bid. 
 
 Question by committee. According to your recollection, was there 
 any thing either in the specifications or drawings like desk frames ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect, but believe not. 
 
 Question by committee. Did you hear any thing said, before or at the 
 time of your bidding, either by Mr. Frazee or any officer of the custom- 
 house, about the building of iron desk frames ? 
 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 Question by committee. Is it usual, when contracting for all the iron 
 work necessary about a building, to embrace in the contract any thing else 
 than that which is attached to the building itself ? 
 
 Answer. It is not. 
 
 Question by committee. Would you not consider a sub-treasury safe as 
 much belonging to a building like the New York custom-house as a chair 
 or a desk frame ? 
 
 Answer. I don't think I would ; it is [not] customary to have sub-treas- 
 ury safes ; that's the first one I ever heard of. 
 
 Question by committee. Is it customary to have iron desk frames about 
 the building ? 
 
 Answer. It is not. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Question by committee. Why then do you consider a sub-treasury safe 
 as less belonging to the building than an iron desk frame ? 
 Answer. I do not so consider it. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Is not the sub-treasury safe a complete house 
 of itself, in form ? 
 Answer. It is. 
 
 Question by committee. Do you know who superintended or directed 
 the building of that safe ? 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 Question by committee. Was it erected or built inside of the custom- 
 house ? 
 
 Answer. It was built at Mr. Tibbetts's shop, and put together in the cus- 
 tm-house. 
 
 Question by committee. Can it be removed from the custom-house with- 
 out taking the safe to pieces ? 
 Answer. It could not. 
 
 Question by committee. Cannot the desk frames be removed from the 
 custom-house without taking them to pieces? 
 
 Answer. Some of the largest cannot without injury ; the balance can. 
 
 Mr. Kehey recalled. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Is heavy work, such as the hand rails, worth 
 more than the light ? 
 
 Answer. Yes ; I think it is. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. What is the difference between a hollow rail 
 made of wrought iron and a solid one of cast iron ? 
 Answer. About one-third. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Would you not prefer to make single-faced 
 doors than double-faced, and what do you conceive the difference of the 
 labor to be ? 
 
 Answer, I would. The difference of the labor I conceive to be from 25 
 to 30 per cent. 
 
 Question by committee. How long did you work for Mr. Tibbetts on 
 the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. About five years. 
 
 Question by committee. Were your wages paid you by the week or the 
 
 month ? 
 
 Answer. By the week. 
 
 Question by committee. By whom were your wages paid at the expira- 
 tion of each week ? 
 
 Answer. Bv Mr. Tibbetts, through his clerk. 
 
 Question by committee. Were you paid in money at the expiration of 
 each week ? 
 
 Answer. Generally speaking ; some weeks I was not. 
 Question by committee. When not paid in money, in what did you re- 
 ceive your pay ? 
 
 Answer. I charged it to Mr. Tibbetts. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 97 
 
 John C. Robertson sworn. 
 
 1. Question by committee. What is your occupation, and where do you 
 reside ? 
 
 Answer. House smith ; I reside in the city of New York. 
 
 2. Question. Have you examined the sub-treasury vault made by Mr. 
 Tibbetts in the New York custom-house; and if so, what do you estimate 
 it to be worth per pound ? 
 
 Answer. It was all together when I saw it, and I could not tell exactly 
 how it was made. 
 
 3. Question. Have you examined the desk stands put up in the New 
 York custom-house by Mr. Tibbetts ; and if so, what is their value per 
 pound, including cost of putting up ? 
 
 Answer. I have examined them. It depends altogether upon the pat- 
 tern. Independent of the patterns, they would be worth about 8 cents per 
 pound. I would be willing to furnish them for that. 
 
 4. Question. Have you examined the railing put up inside of the New 
 York custom-house in 1841 by Mr. Tibbetts ? and if so, state the value of 
 that per pound in that year. 
 
 Answer. I have examined it. There is a difference in the railing; some 
 is straight, and some circular. I should think it was worth from 10 to 121 
 cents per pound, at that time, on an average. 
 
 5. Question. Have you seen the deposition of Mr. John M. Winant in 
 the appendix to Mr. Poindexter's report, as printed by the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, and corrected in his deposition of this day, and now exhibited 
 to you, marked EE in said report; and if so, do you now adopt said state- 
 ment and calculation ? 
 
 Answer. I have, and, with the correction, adopt it. 
 
 6. Question. What do you think of the advantages to Mr. Tibbetts from 
 that contract, taken as a whole ? 
 
 Answer. The way Mr. Tibbetts finished it, I do not think he made as 
 much as a great many others would have done. 
 
 7. Question. Do you think he made unusual profits from that contract, 
 in the way he executed it ? 
 
 Answer. I do not. 
 
 8. Question. Did you ever examine the specifications of the contract ? 
 Answer. No. 
 
 9. Question. What is the difference between the wages of labor in 1837 
 and 1S42, for best workmen ? 
 
 Answer. 18 shillings or $2 25 in 1837, and 14 shillings or $1 75 per day 
 in 1842. 
 
 10. Question. What is the difference for ordinary laborers? 
 
 Answer. 10 shillings or $1 25 per day in 1837, and 7 shillings or 87£ 
 cents in 1842. 
 
 11. Question. Would you have undertaken to build such a sub-treasu- 
 ry safe at any thing under the price paid Mr. Tibbetts ? 
 
 Answer. I should not have done it for any thing less, but I should not 
 have undertaken so heavy a job at all. 
 
 12. Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Were you or were you not deceived in 
 the construction of the hand rails for the stairs ? 
 
 Answer. I am now informed by Mr. Tibbetts that all the top rails are 
 
 7 
 
98 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 wrought; and, if so, I was deceived in this. I thought they were cast, when 
 they were wrought, which I did not before understand. 
 
 13. Question by committee. What was the difference between the 
 wrought work and the cast work, of the character used in the rails ? 
 
 Answer. I should think the wrought rails were worth twice or three 
 times as much. 
 
 14. Question. At the time when he furnished these railings, state what 
 was the worth of cast and wrought railings, put up. 
 
 Answer. I think the cast, independent of the patterns, 10 cents per pound, 
 the wrought from 20 to 25 cents per pound, according to their weight — the 
 heavier it is, the cheaper. 
 
 15. Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Would not wrought railings, made in that 
 way, weigh less than if made of cast iron ? If so, state the difference. 
 
 Answer. They would. I cannot tell the difference, not knowing the 
 thickness. 
 
 Testimony of William Young, being sworn by the chairman. 
 
 Question by committee. Are you an iron manufacturer ; and if so, how 
 long have you been engaged in that business ? 
 
 Answer. 1 entered my apprenticeship to that business in 1807, and have 
 been connected with it ever since. I came from Ireland to this country m 
 1816, and In 1817 commenced the building and superintendence of the 
 West Point foundry, and continued the superintendence of it until 1S31, 
 when, in the month of September of that year, I went to the Ulster Iron 
 Works ; was president of that company until April, 1S40; I am now the 
 president of the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company. 
 
 Question by committee. Are you acquainted with the kind of iron used 
 by Mr. Tibbetts on the New York custom-house ? Was any of it furnish- 
 ed by you, and at what price ? 
 
 Answer. We furnished a part of the iron to Mr. Tibbetts in 1837 or 1S38; 
 the iron for the window sash we let him have at S cents a pound, he pay- 
 ing the cost of turning and fitting the rolls ; the cost of which, per pair, 
 complete, would be from $250 to $300 ; of which I think he paid about 
 #100 — the expense of turning and putting them up. 
 
 Question by committee. What, according to your opinion, would the 
 window frames be worth per pound, after completion, according to the 
 specification, at that time? 
 
 Answer. I would think about 18 cents. 
 
 Question by Tibbetts. Is there a difference in the value of the sashes 
 when solid and when hollow : and if so, what ? 
 
 Answer. I would think when hollow they would be worth 25 cents. 
 
 Question by committee. What was the value of boiler iron about the 
 time vou furnished Mr. Tibbetts with the iron you speak of— say 1837 or 
 1838? 
 
 Answer. I think from 9 to 10 cents per pound. In 1836 it was as high 
 as 13 cents. 
 
 Question by committee. What do you consider the value per pound of the 
 doors in the New York custom-house, built according to the specifications? 
 
 Answer. It would depend something upon the year. In 1836, the iron 
 was up to 13 cents per pound, and has been gradually reducing since. 
 
Rep. No. 1055. 
 
 99 
 
 Question. Suppose the iron to have cost 10 cents per pound, what, then, 
 would have been the value, exclusive of locks ? 
 
 Answer. I should put the price of them at 19 cents, and would not be 
 willing to contract for them at less ; at 10 cents per pound for boiler 
 plate. It is usual to allow 6 cents per pound for the work on steam boilers, 
 and there is more work, by one-half, on these doors. This estimate is ex- 
 clusive of locks and painting. 
 
 Question. What is the value of the railing in the custom-house, con- 
 structed according to the specifications ? 
 
 Answer. I could not determine the value of the railing without going 
 into an estimate of the expense of the patterns. When a small quantity of 
 work has been done, the cost of these patterns will increase the aggregate 
 cost of the work. Not having examined this work with a view to fix the 
 prices, I cannot give a very satisfactory opinion. It would be impossible 
 to do so, without examining the drawings furnished by the superintend- 
 ent. The specifications leave the plan entirely for the superintendent. I 
 will say, however, that, upon a small job, the patterns may cost more than 
 the iron. 
 
 Question. Have you examined or seen the desk frames, made by Mr. 
 Tibbetts, for the custom-house ? 
 
 Answer. No, I have not. They were not there at the time I was in New 
 York ; when I went through the house there was nothing of them there. 
 
 Question. Can you give any opinion of the value of those frames from 
 the bill now before you ? 
 
 Answer. It would be impossible to do so without an inspection of them. 
 
 Testimony of James P. Allaire, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how long have 
 you been engaged in it ? 
 
 Answer. I am a steam engine builder, brass and iron founder ; have 
 been in business about 35 years. 
 
 Question by committee. What was the value of boiler iron in the city 
 of New York during the year 1S38 ? 
 
 Answer. It has been varying from 1835 down to the present time, from 
 \2h cents down to 53 cents. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you seen the doors built in the custom- 
 house at New York, by Mr. Tibbetts ; and if so, what do you suppose to 
 have been their value per pound, estimating them at the prices of iron dur- 
 ing the years 1S37, 1S3S, and 1839 ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen them, and should suppose them to be worth 40 
 cents per pound, embracing locks and all. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you seen the desk stands, built by Mr. 
 Tibbetts, in the custom-house, and what do you suppose them to be worth 
 per pound ? 
 
 Answer. That would depend upon the quantity to be made. It would 
 be almost impossible to give an estimate, unless I knew the quantity, and 
 the terms upon which he made them. Many of the castings have cost him 
 twice as much for the patterns as the castings are worth by weight. Some 
 of the castings, such as the bracket beams, are heavy. Such castings as 
 the desk stands, furnished by a person engaged in the business of making 
 them as a pursuit, would be worth about 6 cents per pound. 
 
100 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Question by committee. What would be the value per pound of put- 
 ting them up ? 
 
 Answer. The labor on iron work generally is about equal to the value 
 of the iron. 
 
 Question by committee. Will you examine bill marked A, furnished by 
 Mr. Tibbetts, and state whether the prices therein are or are not according 
 to the market prices of such work and materials, at the times of furnishing 
 them ? 
 
 Answer. Take the work as a separate job, and have no other business 
 of the same sort, it is about as low as it can be done. It is very probable 
 that many of the patterns of this work may never be used again, in which 
 event they will be a dead loss. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you been accustomed to make desk stands 
 of iron ; and if so, do you consider such work as furniture, or as attached 
 to and belonging to a building ? 
 
 Answer. I have not been accustomed to make them, though I make 
 castings generally. I think such work is furniture. 
 
 Question. How are the desks and railings attached to the building ? 
 
 Answer. The railing is fast in the floor, but the desks are not, but fitted 
 in parts of the building, as wooden furniture would be. 
 
 Testimony of John Mills, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how long have 
 you been engaged in it ? 
 
 Answer. I am a machinist, and have been engaged about 20 years \ 
 served my time with Mr. Allaire. 
 
 Question by same. Have you seen the desk stands, built by Mr. Tibbetts, 
 in the custom-house, and what do you suppose them to be worth per pound ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen them, but can't tell the value. I think the state- 
 ment made by Mr. Allaire, in regard to the cost of the labor of making 
 them, is correct. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. What were the patterns made of? 
 
 Answer. Of block tin and copper. 
 
 Question by same. How often did you see us sometimes try before we 
 could get a perfect casting ? 
 
 Answer. I have seen you try as often as eight times. I think the wooden 
 pattern of the large double desk stand cost about $150. 
 
 June 5, 1842. 
 Mr. Mills recalled. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Is heavy work worth more than light, after 
 it reaches beyond the usual size? 
 
 Answer. 1 should think it was worth considerable more, in consequence 
 of having to call many mechanics off of their work to help to lift and 
 handle it. 
 
 Testimony of William Goadley, being sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how lout have 
 you been engaged in it ? 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 101 
 
 Answer. My occupation is grate and fender making, which I hare pur- 
 sued for about 14 years. 
 
 Question by committee. Are you acquainted with such work as the desk 
 stands in the New York custom-house; and if so, what is the value of them 
 per pound, including cost of patterns, and all the expenses of putting 
 them up ? 
 
 Answer. I should think that such castings, independent of the patterns, 
 would be worth from six to eight cents per pound ; that the expense of the 
 patterns for the large desk frames would be from Si 50 to $175. There 
 was a single desk pattern, I think, worth from $75 to $85. There was a 
 low double desk pattern, worth from $15 to $85. There were three pat- 
 terns for the railing, worth in all from Si SO to $200. There was another 
 double desk, worth from $75 to $85. There were two patterns for book 
 case feet, worth from $25 to $30 for the two. These embrace all the pat- 
 terns that I have any recollection of. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Would you consider that these articles were 
 embraced in the contract, had you been^the contractor ? 
 
 Answer. I would. 
 
 Question by committee. What do you suppose would be the cost of put- 
 ting up ? 
 
 Answer. I cannot say; I am not acquainted with the cost of such work. 
 Testimony of Robert G. Ennson, being siuorn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and how long have 
 you been engaged in it ? 
 
 Answer. My present occupation is a pattern maker. I have been en- 
 gaged in it, but not exclusively, for the last ten years. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you seen the desk frames and railing 
 furnished by Mr. Tibbetts for the New York custom-house ; and if so, 
 what would be the value of the patterns, per pound, of such work ? 
 
 Answer. I made all the patterns for them. It would be impossible for 
 me to say what the value per pound would be. The straight patterns for 
 the railing took me two months ; there was a circular one which took me 
 one month ; there was a second sweep, altered from the first, but I do 
 not recollect how long it took ; the carving of the pattern for the double desk 
 took me six weeks ; the chasing or cleaning up of the metal patterns is 
 about as much work as the carving. There is a single high desk pattern, 
 of about one-half the labor of the other. There is a low desk pattern, or 
 table, about equal to the high one, and a low double one ; a low single, 
 I think about eight or nine days' labor on it. There was a pattern for the 
 book case feet, on which there were a number of alterations, about nine or 
 ten days ; also two patterns of two varieties for single feet, took about four 
 days ; also a pattern for rotundo desk, about seven days. There was 
 about six weeks consumed by a carpenter in making flasks ; also, consider- 
 able time consumed by machinists in fitting them together. 
 
 Question by committee. What was the whole amount paid you by Mr, 
 Tibbetts for all the patterns furnished by you, on the desk stands and 
 railing ? 
 
 Answer. It would be impossible for me to answer this question. He 
 paid me $2 a day. 
 
 Question by committee. During the time of which you speak, were 
 you engaged on any other work for Mr. Tibbetts ? 
 
102 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Answer. So far as I can recollect, the time I name was the time spent 
 upon this particular work, though I was engaged ou other work. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you any knowledge of the value of the 
 desks, as they now stand ? 
 
 Answer. I have not. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Take the whole of the work together, as it 
 now stands, would you consider the desks, &c, as within the contract, as 
 you heard it read ? 
 
 Answer. I would so consider them. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Have you seen as good work in this or any 
 other country, in the same line of business ? 
 
 Answer. I have not ; and I have visited London and Edinburgh, and a 
 great many other places. 
 
 Question by committee. Have you ever made a contract for large jobs 
 of iron work ? 
 
 Answer. No. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Was not the sub-treasury safe made so that 
 it could be taken down and removed without injury? 
 
 Answer. It was so constructed that it could be taken down and removed 
 Avith safety. 
 
 Question by committee. Is the sub-treasury safe any less a part of the 
 building than the iron desk frames ? 
 
 Answer. It was not understood that this safe was to be constructed 
 under the authority by which the contract with Mr. Tibbetts was made. 
 About the time it was made, I saw a piece of paper, containing a plan 
 drawn by Mr. Frazee, which required the endorsement of a single name 
 for its adoption. I afterwards saw it with, I think, the name of Jesse 
 Hoyt ; under the authority of that instrument it was built. 
 
 June 4, 1842. 
 
 John M. IVinant, sworn. 
 
 Question by committee. What is your occupation, and where do you 
 reside ? 
 
 Answer. I am a blacksmith, and live in New York city. 
 
 Question. Did you purchase from Mr. Tibbetts iron railing for Mr. Felt; 
 and if so, at what price ? 
 
 Answer. I purchased the castings from him, and the top rail. I think I 
 paid him six cents a pound. 
 
 Question. \Y T ere they similar to those used in the New York custom- 
 house ? 
 
 Answer. They were cast after the same patterns, I believe. 
 
 Question* Have you examined the sub-treasury vault, made by Mr. Tib- 
 betts, in the New York custom-house ; and if so, what do you estimate it 
 to be worth per pound ? 
 
 Answer. I have examined it; I suppose it to be worth 181 cents per 
 pound, without the combination locks. 
 
 Question. Have you examined the desk stands put up in the New York 
 custom-house by Mr. Tibbetts • and if so, what is their value per pounds 
 including cost of putting up ? 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 103 
 
 Answer. I have examined them, and would eslimate them at eight cents 
 per pound, without the patterns. 
 
 Question. Have you examined the railing put up inside of New York 
 custom-house, in 1841, by Mr. Tibbetts? and if so, state the value of that 
 per pound, in that year. 
 
 Answer. I have ; in 1841 it was worth about ten cents per pound, ex- 
 clusive of the patterns. 
 
 Question. Have you seen your deposition in the appendix to Mr, Poin- 
 dexter's report, as printed by the House of Representatives, and now ex- 
 hibited to you, marked EE in said report; and if so, do you now adopt 
 said statement and calculation ? 
 
 Answer. I have, and adopt the same, with the exception of the follow- 
 ing : Russia iron should be refined iron, in the 5th line, on page 258 ; 
 and 1842 should be 1841, in the 6th line from the beginning, on page 257. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Did you pay more for the hand or top rail 
 than for the castings ? 
 
 Answer. I do not recollect about that. 
 
 Question by same. Did you know how the sub-treasury chest was con- 
 structed inside of the sheathing? If so, state how it was framed and fitted 
 together. 
 
 Answer. I suppose it to be flat bars with round holes, either punched 
 or drilled, filled on the insrae with round bars, about four or six inches 
 apart. 
 
 Question by same. Did those bars pass through the whole of the up- 
 right bars, top, bottom, and ends ? 
 
 Answer. I think they did. 
 
 Question. How could you tell that ? 
 
 Answer. Because I saw it before it was put together. 
 
 Question. Did not you consider it worth more in that way than if only 
 covered on one side ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question. Would not the iron cut to great waste in cutting out a chest 
 of that description, and is it not very laborious ? Does it not require a 
 great deal of exactness to drill all those holes ? 
 
 Answer. If the iron was ordered for it, it would not have cut to so 
 much waste. It is laborious, and requires exactness to drill the holes. 
 
 Question. Would you have made the circular rail in the rotundo as 
 cheap as you would have made the straight railing ? 
 
 Answer. Not taking the job separate. 
 
 Question. Did you ever see work so well faced and finished, generally, 
 throughout, as the doors and work of the New York custom-house ? 
 Answer. I never saw any finished as well. 
 Question. Did you not propose for that work ? 
 Answer. No. 
 
 Question. Did you know proposals would be received for the work at 
 the time ? 
 
 Answer. I did. 
 
 Question by committee. Did you know of any one else making propo- 
 sals for the work, and of the prices proposed ? 
 Answer. I did not. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. Why did you not offer proposals when you 
 saw it advertised ? 
 
104 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Answer. Because we thought we would not get it, at any shape. 
 Question. Who did you presume would have been accepted? 
 Answer. I presumed nothing about it, for I did not know any thing 
 about it. 
 
 Question by committee. Why did you presume you would not get it ? 
 Answer. Because I did not belong to that party. 
 
 Question by committee. Did you conceive this contract to be an advan- 
 tageous one to Mr. Tibbetts? 
 
 Answer. Taken as a whole, including the rough work and the fine work, 
 I should consider it a good job. 
 
 Question. Would you, at the time he took it, have taken it at any less 
 sum ? 
 
 Answer. I do not know what I would have done at that time. 
 Question. Was the contract an uncommonly profitable one ? 
 Answer. At that time I would not have said so, as stock and wages were 
 very high. 
 
 Question by Mr. Tibbetts. What per cent, have you reduced your jour- 
 neymen's wages since 1837? 
 
 Answer. An average of fifty cents a day. We paid them 18 shillings, 
 or #2 25, and now we pay 14 shillings, or $\ 75 cents, to our best work- 
 men. To laborers we paid 9 shillings a day thfi, and 7 shillings now. 
 
 Tettimony of Noah Brown. 
 
 Question. What is your occupation ? 
 
 Answer. Ship carpenter mostly, but have also carried on the business 
 of manufacturing boilers for steamboats, and other blacksmith business. 
 
 Question. Have you examined the iron work done by Mr. Tibbetts on 
 the New York custom-house? and if so, state what you suppose to be the 
 value of it per pound. 
 
 Answer. I did examine it, looked all over it, and thought it was handsomely 
 done ; I have been in the habit of doing iron work myself, and suppose it 
 to be worth from 16 to 20 cents per pound; the wrought is worth more 
 than the cast. 
 
 Question. What is the worth of the cast work done by Mr. Tibbetts ? 
 
 Answer. I should not be willing to make the patterns, and do it for less 
 than IS cents per pound ; the patterns are sometimes worth more than the 
 metal. 
 
 Question. What is the value of the wrought work ? 
 Answer. I should think the rails were worth about 20 cents per pound. 
 Question. Take the desk frames as they now stand, what is their value 
 per pound ? 
 
 Answer. I could not tell exactly ; if I were there, I could give a better 
 guess ; I should think they ought to have been worth from 18 to 20 cents. 
 
 Question. How long have you been engaged in the ship building busi- 
 ness? 
 
 Answer. A little over fifty years; I have built more ships than any man 
 in the United States ; have followed the blacksmith business with fifteen 
 fires going. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 105 
 
 New York, July 27, 1842. 
 
 Sir: At the request of Mr. John G. Tibbetts, I address you as chair- 
 man of the select committee of the House of Representatives, and take 
 leave to state that I was one of the commissioners for the building of the 
 New York custom-house, and made the contract for the iron work of the 
 building, &c. That, having been an ironmaster myself, I paid particular 
 attention to the contract for the iron work. Advertisements were issued, 
 inviting proposals for the work ; and that, after a careful examination of all 
 the bids, it was found that the proposal of Mr. Tibbetts was the lowest, 
 and the most favorable to the Government. That, in making the contract 
 with Mr. Tibbetts, I was aware of the fact that a very large portion of the 
 work (viz: iron doors, window sashes, locks, and other fixtures) would 
 cost him as a blacksmith far more than the contract price. The contract was 
 drawn by the U. S. district attorney, with the view, on the part of the com- 
 missioners, of giving Mr. Tibbetis the benefit of ail the iron work ivhick 
 might be required in or about the building, of any sort or description ; and 
 that, in my opinion, the iron stands for the desks, as well as the railing, 
 come within the contract and the intention of the commissioners. 
 
 You and the whole of Congress (if you could see it) would say, that 
 Mr. Tibbetts has faithfully performed the work in the most perfect man- 
 ner, and that it is unjust to withhold from him that which he is richly en- 
 titled to — pay for his services. 
 
 It is not improper for me to state that I have never received any com- 
 pensation for my services as commissioner, in any shape or form. 
 I am, with high respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 DANIEL JACKSON. 
 
 Hon. Richard W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee, Ho. of Reps. 
 
 P. S. As you and I are not acquainted with each other, I beg leave to 
 ask you to inquire through any of the following, viz : 
 
 Hon. William C. Rives, Thomas H. Benton, Silas Wright, John J. Crit- 
 tenden, and Mr. Tallmadge, the delegation from New York, S?c. 
 
 Again: if you are acquainted with Gen. Ward, pray ask him what he 
 knows of the custom-house; I think he feels more interest for our city 
 than either of its Representatives. 
 
 New York, July 5, 1842. 
 Sir: On the 2d instant, I addressed a letter to you in relation to the ex- 
 aminations and estimates of the fair prices and value of the furniture made 
 by me for the New York custom-house. I now take the liberty to send 
 you a copy of the separate estimates of Matthew King, John L. Fendall, 
 Thomas Williams, and William Wallace, contained in the accompanying 
 papers. It is proper to state that each of these persons acted separately, 
 and without knowledge of the prices I had charged in the bills. You will 
 observe that my charges, in the aggregate, are fully and more than sustain- 
 ed. The originals of these estimates are with the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, and are signed by the parties. I have also, in order to show the un- 
 questionable character and standing of these gentlemen, sent to the Secre- 
 
L06 
 
 Hep. No. 1065. 
 
 tary of the Treasury a written declaration, signed by six of the first cabi- 
 net makers of this city, attesting that full confidence may be safely placed 
 in the judgment of these persons. I send you a copy of the certificate. 
 Duncan Phyfe and William Mandeville, if not others, who have signed this 
 paper, must be personally known to Mr. Roosevelt, of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives; and I refer to him for information concerning them. 
 Yours, respectfullv, 
 
 ' ABRAHAM STORM, 
 Cabinet maker, No. 455 Broadway. 
 
 Hon. R. W. Thompson, 
 
 Chairman Select Committee, H. B. 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 107 
 
 C C X) c c 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o o o o 
 o o o o 
 
 000- -ooNwojn>o 
 
 O O — t^7W00iO'O>«i 
 O^CO 0* CO 0* C5 
 
 1— I 
 
 oooooooo 
 ocoooooo 
 
 ooooooooooooot^ooooo 
 
 Ot^^OOl^-00000000--«<-'0000 
 
 CO C: (C O O Ol O) O C IT) (O CO O) lO W h O) O H 
 « tX CO « O) H — « r-i 
 
 TfTf^oocorfCOOOOON'tO'OOO 
 COOOC2CC--'Ot^OCO^OC^C^ 
 
 O *0 O O 
 
 O c o 
 
 lO-fCOiOO^CCOOOOtOOClHOOO^Tf 
 OCOOHO)-#^iOCt5iO^O>!OTfHO)NH 
 O O) N CO CO O) ^-i r-t 
 
 ooooooooooooooo 
 ooooooooooooooo 
 
 oooooooooo»oo»ooo 
 ooooorf coioccoh^coioco 
 
 O* CO O* 'tf 01 O* Ci r-4 
 
 o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 »0 O <X> 
 
 CO CO — • 
 
 oooooocoooooooooooo 
 ooooooocooooooooooo 
 
 OtOW^voOOJO^OlCSiOOO^OOOCil^Tf* 
 OC5^0^0JlOvOCOCOCOCOO)TrCOHO)CNi-( 
 N W « rr CN O) Ci r-. r-t 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 •'5 ° r '3 
 
 WD 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CD CD 
 
 o 5 a> a 
 
 O 09 2 W 
 
 o 
 
 ~C3 co co 
 
 6 -5 g-S 
 
 0) 
 
 c • • • • 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 00 
 CD 
 00 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 m o o o o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 CD 
 
 so 
 o 
 
 CO r| 
 CD w 
 CO 
 
 X! S 
 
 .t3 CO 
 > CP 
 
 o o 
 tn to 
 
 co 
 
 '-a 
 
 In 
 
 cd 
 
 CO 
 
 CD — ; 
 
 cud cs 
 
 S3 
 
 S J2 1 1 © 
 
 CO 
 
 Tf CJ CD CC CD 
 
 CD 50 
 — CD CD ^ CD 
 
 g> EPS > 3 
 
 CD 
 
 § s 
 
 -do 
 
 "53 CO *-» 
 
 g CD 
 
 co O 
 
 o 
 
 ^ - J=J .2 
 
 ^C*O*Tf*Tf'Tf ( 00~«CO--«^O}COr-iC>* 
 
 ^ h CO W 
 
108 
 
 Bep. No. 1065. 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 O CO O CO 
 
 co o cr. 
 
 y> CO- 
 
 CO o c o 
 
 O O C O 
 
 CO >o iC h 
 O »0 CO 
 
 oooooooooo 
 oooooooooo 
 
 ooo«awxioooio 
 
 O »0 CM C< W 
 
 CO i— « <— « 
 
 O O O O 
 C O O O 
 
 CO O C) 
 
 co 
 
 o o c o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 en <o o co 
 
 CO O CD 
 
 CO — 
 
 »0 O O 
 
 Oi CO O 
 
 CO CI CO P- 
 
 CO CO CO 
 
 a> o co o 
 
 — CO 10 
 CO I- iO 
 
 I^VOOOOOOOOO 
 
 i^ao»oooooooo 
 
 0*COl^COOl»OC0 4 OCO>0 
 t» Tf CO r" C< (M h (X 
 CI fH CI 
 
 *oci-rooooooo 
 
 COCICOOOOOCOO 
 
 cot^cococr.coco»ocr5to 
 
 O — co — — CI C* CI CI 
 
 CO IM <>| 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 ^111 
 
 o o o o 
 c o o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 CM CO CO 
 
 00 
 
 ooocooooo 
 ooocooooo 
 
 io O o co go oi O Of O 
 mo o> h h n h oi 
 
 CI ~ — i 
 
 o o o o 
 o c o o 
 
 0} 
 CO o c 
 5& CO 
 
 o o o o 
 coco 
 
 «o CI CO 
 
 o >o « 
 
 oooooooooo 
 oooooooooo 
 
 OC0'fC0t^C>C0CiCX)»O 
 h I 1 O h --< CI ^ CI 
 
 CI 
 
 co 
 
 03 
 
 co 
 aS 
 
 CJ 
 
 o 
 o 
 pQ 
 
 cd 
 
 CUD 
 
 CO CO 
 
 a> 
 
 CO 
 
 cd 
 
 o 
 
 O c*5 
 
 * § 
 
 ci O 
 CO CJ 
 
 CO 
 
 o .S 
 
 II 
 
 * s 
 S3 
 
 Wo 
 
 CO co _o 
 
 c5 
 
 CD 0) 
 .0) .CD 
 
 G 
 
 lO CO £ 
 
 CD 
 CO 
 
 cS 
 o 
 
 J* 
 o 
 o 
 
 -° o 
 
 ^3 n3 
 
 ,24 
 
 CD 
 
 t3 
 
 S-l 
 
 cd 
 
 > 
 o 
 o 
 
 CD W 
 03 O 
 
 CD 
 
 ■Sit- 
 *s .1 
 
 CO 
 
 o o o 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 b3 
 CJ 
 M 
 
 □ 
 5 
 
 o 
 
 CD JD 
 
 CO +~ C 
 t- CO 
 
 -3 ~ CD 
 
 a, cd 
 cx2 
 
 «— »CIC|i— <— Hf— i"*^ 
 
Bep. No. 1065. 
 
 109 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 © CO to © © GO Ci 
 
 CO CO |> lO © 
 
 i— t r-« O) 
 
 O O N C5 O O O 
 
 © © CO © © © © 
 
 © © © »C O CO © 
 
 O © 00 CO 00 © 
 
 CO i-t CO 
 
 ©©OOCcN^OO©© 
 OOOOOCOOTfOO 
 
 oooo^«oioon 
 
 COO>CiOOCOt>COO* 
 00 N h W CO N h 
 
 t o o »o CO o o 
 
 O O O 00 to O O 
 
 0* © GO CO GO O 
 CO co W m 
 
 © Tf io *o o © © 
 
 O Ci I> CO © © © 
 
 CO O* C> Ci O CO C5 
 
 O (O h >0 00 © 
 
 CO <— CO 
 
 ©Tf©0©©©©© 
 
 OCOOO^COCOCO 
 
 TfTfCOOb-HOOOCO 
 O^C3O05O0J0)N 
 00 N h O) ^ o* — i 
 
 CO ^ O W O O 
 
 O* © © O* © © 
 
 O 1* W ^ »0 00 O) 
 
 CO CO CO *-* © h 
 
 1—1 ■— I © 
 
 Whb"OONCO 
 
 r> co C7i i-t © i-h co 
 
 w h w co c; w co 
 
 O CO Tf Cl oo to 
 
 tO ^ 0* 
 
 to«-^i>.or^coorrto 
 
 COC9C5©l>«OCOOO< 
 
 0)tOGO©Cit^^l>CO 
 O5©t^»O©00G0COC< 
 
 co N o* r-i co cx 
 
 © © © o o © 
 ©©©©©© 
 
 © © o © © © 
 
 CO to CO to © o* I 
 
 i— I •— < CO 
 
 © © © © 
 © © © © 
 
 © © 
 © © 
 
 © © © to © © 
 
 O co N co I CJ © 
 
 CO r-l CO 
 
 ©©©©©o©©© 
 o©©©©©©©© 
 
 ©voO©©©©©to 
 Q0G0©O©-fCO'* , CX 
 
 © o © o © © © 
 
 © © o o © © © 
 
 CO CO Ci CI © 00 Ci 
 
 to CO CO rj> © H 
 
 i-4 O) 
 
 © © O © © O © 
 
 © o © © © © © 
 
 © CO O) © Ci CO O 
 
 O »C h h 00 © 
 
 CO i-i CO 
 
 ©©©©©©©©© 
 ©©©©©©©©© 
 
 O)©CO©tO00CO00CO 
 
 r~ o* r-i o* co w h 
 
 3 
 
 bo 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 H3 
 
 CO 
 
 +j CO 
 
 CO 
 
 cp co 
 
 o 
 
 -Q X> ^ 
 
 h W CO 
 13 ^ CD 50 
 
 CD KM 
 
 13 bo bp 
 
 CP „ vo 
 
 ^ i2 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 ft) ^ i o 
 
 J2 co 
 
 co ^ 
 
 CP r-i CP 
 
 £PTe> 
 
 cc? a> 
 — — X! 
 rf d tZ) 
 
 © 
 ^5 
 
 d 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 i3 
 
 CO o~ 
 
 cp C 
 
 to 3 
 
 «N O 
 
 Is 
 
 CP 00 
 ^— CP 
 
 bfi > 
 a 
 
 - CP 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 • o 
 <-a 
 
 CO 
 
 rs 
 
 bp 
 i S 
 
 CO 
 CP 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 ©* 
 
 CO "cp 
 J-. CP 
 
 * 2 
 
 Ct ^ 
 
 CP 
 W CO 
 
 o* d 
 
 CM O 
 
 So 
 
 3.2 
 
 CP CP 
 
 bo too 
 •~ 
 
 -2 -o 13 
 
 CJ 
 
 1 
 
 Si 
 
 CO 
 
 1-4 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o ' 
 
 co co 
 bij^ 
 
 s -2 
 
 w co 
 
 CP ^ 
 
 co 
 
 — CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 -a 
 
 s 
 
 cc5 
 
 CO 
 
 I — 
 
 <p 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 CP as 
 
 CP CP 
 
 .0) ,CP 
 
 CO l> 
 
 o o 
 
 O 
 
 co cp 
 
 O l> 
 ^3 c 
 
 C O 
 
 h ^d 
 
 cp "S 
 
 CP 
 CP 
 
 .ti > 
 
 i> O 
 o 
 
 CP 
 13 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o d 
 
 co^: ^ 
 co .-d cp 
 ^2 > -d 
 o J 5 
 
 CO 
 
 cp co 
 ^ ~ to Tt* 
 
 CO 
 
 CP 
 
 CP 
 
 bD 
 
 o o 
 
 CP CO 
 
 e3 cp 
 *- 13 
 bpa> 
 
 5s3 
 
 > ° 
 
 « H « H H Tf 
 
 CO 
 ^5 
 CO 
 CP 
 
 bjo 
 c 
 
 'co 
 
 01 f» 
 
no 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 o «o o o o 
 
 05 t* O O O 
 
 X C >0 (O 
 — Tf GO CO CD 
 
 S9 
 
 C. O C O QO 
 go o © © 00 
 
 o o o o 
 o o c o 
 
 cm ot -r a a. cm co :o ct. 
 
 c o 
 
 c o 
 
 o o 
 
 CO O 
 
 CO CO 
 
 o o o c o 
 o o o o o 
 
 «0 Ci »0 CO f* 
 
 c t co n a> 
 
 o c 
 
 T O 
 
 O T 
 
 C CO 
 
 o o o o 
 o c c o 
 
 o> co io -r co co — «o 
 
 CM CO r- C. CM CO GO O". 
 CO T 9) — 
 
 O <«• 
 
 O co 
 
 t -r 
 
 O t- 
 
 CO CM 
 
 o c o c o 
 
 CO CO O o O 
 
 -i h to o h 
 I s - f X 
 
 c CM Ob CO OS c o c 
 
 ^- cm 85 c «3 -r co go A 
 cri r. p- 
 
 cm — < 
 I- CO 
 
 o o 
 
 cm 
 
 T3 
 
 S 
 
 S3 
 
 S3 
 c 
 
 c/5 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 c o 
 
 05 — 
 
 o g 
 c c 
 
 c o o o o 
 
 o o c o c 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 CM cm 
 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 01 co 
 
 c o o o o 
 o o o o o 
 
 V5 MO t h 
 — t GO CO 
 
 1» 
 
 oooococoo 
 ooooooooo 
 
 TfCOOO»0»00»Ot>- 
 CO CM T OJ 03 CN» CO OQ ~. 
 
 co -r c> — « 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 CM O 
 
 cm 
 
 CD ~ 
 
 bo u 
 ^ ° 
 
 Cv o 
 
 sf 
 
 31 
 
 UO QC 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 42 
 
 O 
 
 § § 
 
 ° J* 
 ~ t: 
 
 2 ° 
 
 s £ 
 '% 5 
 
 ° g «« 
 
 .5 f -> 5 
 £ 2 S 
 
 0) ^ < 
 
 c 
 
 CD 
 
 ESq 
 
 c 
 
 Q 
 
 — 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 3-8 o 
 
 7T C/T CO 1 
 
 « 3 
 
 o e .£ .5 o 
 
 ^ ° CO CO ~ 
 
 *j ;t3 
 
 CD CD CD CD > 
 
 .CD .CD .3) ^ 
 
 o 
 
 c es 
 
 -3 O 
 
 _i o 
 
 5 £ 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 ccJ W 
 
 CD CO 
 
 CO r- 
 
 M 
 
 K CO 
 
 CD CD 
 
 "73 co 
 
 « 8 
 
 -03 
 
 «o 
 
 ^ ^ l> GO CO 
 
 co" 
 
 CO CD 
 CD CO 
 
 fl , O C O 
 
 = c 
 co -a 
 
 £ I 
 
 CD CD 
 
 o f o 
 
 CD 
 
 n J CD 
 
 7=. > 
 
 CS CD 
 
 ** -a 
 
 — CM <— CM ^ t/2 
 
 i: cd 
 CD rt 
 
 Clfi CO 
 
 O P3 
 
 o o 
 
 O ^3 
 
 ^ GO 
 
 CD 
 
 r- C3 
 
 O « 
 
 C3 rjT 
 
 - CO 
 CD — 
 
 CD CD 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 a: 
 bifl 
 
Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 Ill 
 
 OCOCOOICOOOOXOCOOO 
 OOOCOCiiOOOOTfOOOOO 
 
 OONOM0C0OOt0-«0;iCO 
 OCOCOhTfOjHtoOGOOoi rr co 
 OI Oi Oi UO CO 0< i-i 
 
 O O O T 
 
 O O O CO 
 
 o o o c 
 
 CO U") C O 
 
 T h h CO 
 
 o o o x o o 
 
 o o oi o o o 
 
 o o >o o o ©* co 
 
 CO C OO CM OO CO ~* 
 
 J— t I— « I— I 
 
 ^—•OO^Ot>OOOOOC 
 COOCOTrtOOOOOOOOCO 
 
 o; co vo h O ?( h c n co c? 
 
 h CO O) CO CO CM 
 
 uo sO 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o *> c »o 
 
 i> oo co 
 
 O o c: <0 
 
 t « CO 
 
 o o *o o co o o 
 
 O O CO O *0 CO O 
 
 ©I 00 co »o CO 00 
 
 o oo «o oi oo co -« 
 
 ViOhOOOnhCOCOOOOOT 
 CT>C500COC0^fOl>t^OOCOC0 
 
 VOOOiO— 'COC^t^rrOOCM CO 
 H CO CO H h »o oi <-> 
 
 co c< io- <r 
 
 CO CO c. 
 
 -< i> co *o 
 
 *0 ^ l> C> 
 
 o* >■+ co 
 
 CO IO 
 CO CO 
 
 O Oi O i> 
 O O CO O 
 
 h X 00 O iO ifl 1* 
 »o J> 00 Oi o <o Oi 
 Oi Oi ^ — . 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 oooooooooooo 
 
 o oo »o o o o 
 
 X *0 CO T CO CI 
 
 01 Ci oi »o 
 
 c o 
 
 «o o o -r oi io o 
 
 CO Oi Oi Oi p- T CO 
 
 CO CO r- 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 «o o o o 
 
 oo *o O co 
 
 CO i— ' i-^ C-i 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 «o o o o o »o o 
 
 OO O CO' OI OO CO Oi 
 
 CO H H H 
 
 oooooooooooooo 
 oooooooooooooo 
 
 oir^coooiioooococo^-oo»oio 
 
 CO 'O t> o o> >- 1 CO CO CO OI ^ t*» 
 
 01 OI Oi ^ «» — 
 
 CO Oi 
 
 o o o o 
 
 o o o o 
 
 CO 00 — ' 00 
 
 CO rf o CO 
 
 CO ^ — CI 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 o o o o o o o 
 
 CO h OO 00 OO o CO 
 
 CO O O CO CO CO 
 
 CO fi Oi 
 
 CO 
 T3 
 
 co £3 
 cu 
 
 •§ » 
 
 J± ^ *J 
 
 P <u ,cd 
 
 03 %_ 
 
 ■M «0 ^ 
 
 ^> o 
 
 15 ^3 *> 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 co co r/ r 
 
 CD CD 5 
 
 cu S £ ^ 
 
 <OS o o 
 
 CD ^ 
 
 ^3 cj co w 
 
 <» _2 
 ^ o c 9 
 
 - a 8 o 
 
 .£ .5 
 
 CO CO I- £ 
 
 ,cd „cd co r4 
 
 ^ CO ^ ^ 
 +2 CC 
 
 o 
 
 _50 O 
 O K K> 
 
 ■ 5 
 
 I CD 
 
 CO 
 
 rt 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 I"? 
 
 o ^ 
 COD— 
 
 ?r co 
 > ^ 
 g & 
 
 5 a 
 
 01 
 
 o 
 
 cu 
 
 ^3 
 
 2 w « £ 
 CU CD 
 
 .2 ,a o 
 
 ^ oo co a 
 
 CD ■*-» •«-> 
 
 CD CD CD CO 
 
 CO *** CD 
 
 r-t O CO .CU 
 
 CO 
 
 _^ CC 
 
 *5 CD 
 
 2 o o -a 
 
 CD ^O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 2 s 
 
 CD 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CL 
 
 oT 
 
 
 
 
 
 as 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 »■> 
 
 £3 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CL T3 O . 
 
 COD ^ O 
 
 i-t H CO H r» H 
 
 CO 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 S3 
 
 CD CD 
 
 co oo 
 
 «— • f-« C| 
 
112 
 
 Rep. No. 1065. 
 
 00 
 S9 
 
 O 00 O O to 
 o t o oo «o 
 
 o o o 
 
 CO CI X 
 
 0> r» 
 0» T 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 O X O O O) "t N O 
 OC0C0O>O!OOO 
 
 COtOCCWCT'O 
 
 © <o oo co <© — tt 
 
 « « W N CO W 
 
 O O O C O 
 O V3 © © © 
 
 O *0 OS *C o» 
 r co >o o t 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 O Oi 
 
 O— ■'TOOOOO 
 O MO O '/J «0 O O 
 
 OOCOflOOOOlCHO 
 
 h »o (o to o n to v 
 
 X N CO N N ?l h 
 
 S9 
 
 -r c» o cm 
 c o o *o io 
 
 f >C C CO CO 
 X C (C - (O 
 
 I- o 
 r- O 
 
 — o 
 
 CO CI 
 
 C)h->OCOXiTftO 
 h CO C O Co ffi CO O 
 
 ojtcococr. incco 
 o»ocoocociC"r 
 
 VO CO CO CO 0* CO CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 C C O C O 
 
 o o o o c 
 
 o o o o o 
 
 »o c »o CO f 
 
 o © 
 c o 
 
 c o 
 
 uo O 
 
 oooococo 
 coooooco 
 
 ©lOiOOOOO"*) 
 OiOCOOMOCOf 
 to w CX CO ^ i-t 
 
 1—1 
 
 39t 
 
 O o o o o 
 © © © o o 
 
 O) Ci o *o (C 
 co co io i> -r 
 
 o o 
 o o 
 
 o o 
 
 iO o 
 
 oooooooo 
 oooooooo 
 
 OCO^iOtCO^O 
 
 Oxcocotocoof 
 
 tC O N Ol h N 
 
 2 ft? 
 
 GO 
 
 M 
 o 
 o 
 
 43 
 
 cd 
 
 «2» 
 
 OS 
 
 ><r *j 8 
 
 _D GO 
 ^- GO CP 
 
 CO J£ O 0& 
 
 -2 GO CJ 
 H p( It H W 
 
 Si 
 
 60 
 
 S- I 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 -3 
 
 CO 
 
 tB i 
 s 
 
 o 
 
 ft s 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 60 
 
 m 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 l| 
 
 CD "3" 
 
 f CD ~ 
 
 ^ GO 
 
 cd 
 o 
 
 GO 
 
 go o 
 
 as o 
 
 O ^ 
 
 CD 
 
 G 
 3 
 
 EO 
 CD 
 
 GO 
 
 CD 
 
 d 
 
 < 2 " 
 
 GO 
 
 .CD ,CD .CD ^ 
 
 CS l> 
 
 CD S 
 S3 c3 
 
 _ GO 
 ~ CD 
 
 - - 
 
 £ o o ^ '> 
 
 o 
 
 OJ CO CO o* 0) 01 CJ 
 
Hep. No. 1065, 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 73 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ■ ! 
 
 o 
 
 03 • 
 
 GO 
 
 03 o 
 
 3 g 
 
 32 
 
 of ^ 
 a S ° 
 
 - - W 
 
 ll , 
 
 J- * 
 
 CS « 03 
 
 7 as o 
 
 oo co 
 
 K O o 
 
 1 if 
 
 £ ^ 2 
 
 = 5 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 eS 1 
 
 f-H 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 2 J33 
 
 ro CS 
 
 t>D«- 
 q is 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 8 r ° 
 
 e 
 
 3 S w 
 
 03 03 H3 
 
 03 CO C 
 
 CO 03 £ 
 
 ctf co n 
 
 ° — 
 
 o ° 
 O O C 
 
 £.§1 
 
 Jj> CD J 
 V-i r-> CO 
 
 - «»•? £ 
 a co >■ y 
 
 rf * © bL 
 O < 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 01 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 r- 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 to 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 Tt 4 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 GO 
 
 rf Ci 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 """is 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -H CM 
 
 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 O O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 — > 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 t> 
 
 f_p 
 
 CO 
 
 00 to 
 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 Ci 
 
 CM 
 
 
 cm 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 l-H^ Ci^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p-T of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cm 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 U I 
 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 
 in 
 
 Ci 
 
 t «■ 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 X to 
 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 CM 
 
 so 
 
 Ci 
 
 CM 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 F-^ Ci 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-H Of 
 
 
 
 co" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — — 
 
 o 
 
 /— s 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 — • 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ©" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o o 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 o o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 tO 
 
 
 00 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 oo 
 
 Ci 
 
 CM 
 
 <* 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 *** °^ 
 
 
 
 Ci 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-T of 
 
 
 
 to" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 2^ g> 
 
 03 
 
 * - fi 
 cu g ^> 
 
 •3 -3 g 
 
 5 03 1= 
 
 03 > 
 
 ™ c 13 
 
 r- 03 
 
 lis 
 
 3 ® S 
 
 P CO w 
 
 £3 O 
 
 | A « 
 ,5 03 
 
 | II 
 
 — C N 
 03 'B« 
 
 ^ CD 
 
 CO 
 
 o on 
 .2 co r-i 
 
 03 
 
 2 ^ £ 
 
 C3 in^ 
 
 o o o 
 
 03 '§ ^ 
 03 ^ O 
 
 03 fl 
 
 3 S' o . 
 
 o ^ c 
 
 . g co w . 
 
 •~ o co 
 
 CO j S * 
 
 H'» cp S 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 
 
 to Ow t 
 
 « 'C ^ 
 
 CS o . 
 
 03 >- O 
 
 5- 1 3 ^ 
 
 I 7, 
 
 ' cu g a 
 
 w £ * -S 
 
 §^ S 
 
 ^ S S.2 
 
114 
 
 Kep. No. 1065. 
 
 June 6, 1842. 
 
 I certify that I have carefully examined the furniture now in the New York 
 custom-house, piece by piece, have taken the dimensions, and carefully 
 calculated the fair value and prices of the same, and have given my esti- 
 mate in the second column of the foregoing statement. The job has been 
 performed in the most perfect and excellent manner, in point of materials 
 and workmanship. I have been engaged in business, as a cabinet maker, 
 for the last 17 years, in this city. 
 
 The foregoing examination was made at the request of Mr. Curtis ; but 
 I have no personal acquaintance with him or with Mr. Storm. 
 
 WILLIAM WALLACE, 
 
 No. 170 Fulton street. 
 
 Mr. Wallace refers to Charles A. Boudouine, Joseph Hoxie, William S. 
 Coe, (late naval officer,) Gilbert Chichester, John Delamater, E. Bonnell & 
 Co., and Scott & Clarke, in respect to his character and standing. 
 
 June 25, 1842. 
 
 I do hereby certify that, at the request of Abraham Storm, I have care- 
 fully examined the furniture in the New York custom house, piece by 
 piece, have taken the dimensions of each article, and calculated the fair 
 value and prices of the same, without seeing the hills of prices of Mr. Storm, 
 and without any knowledge of or reference to his prices; that the prices 
 fixed by me are stated in the second (third) column, as above; and I do 
 declare that the prices fixed by me are just and reasonable, and no more 
 than a reasonable compensation, according to my best judgment. And I 
 further declare that the work has been done by Mr. Storm in the most per- 
 fect manner, and of the best materials. 
 
 MATTHEW KING. 
 JOHN L. FENDALL. 
 THOMAS WILLIAMS. 
 
 New York, July 1, 1842. 
 We, the undersigned, certify that we are personally acquainted with John 
 L. Fendall, Matthew King, and Thomas Williams, cabinet makers, who 
 have examined and appraised the furniture specified in the annexed sche- 
 dule ; that they are men of great personal respectability, belong to the first 
 class of cabinet furniture manufacturers in the city of New York ; and en- 
 tire reliance mav be placed upon their statements. 
 
 WILLIAM B. SHIPMAN, 
 Cabinet maker, No. 544 Broadway. 
 B. DEMING, 
 
 •ds to Williams and Fendall. 
 MILLER & CAMPBELL, 
 Cabinet makers, No. 44 Broadway. 
 WILLIAM MANDEVILLE, 
 No. 62 Charles street. 
 JOHN HORSPOOL, 
 
 No. 16 White street. 
 D. PHYFE, 
 
 No. 194 Fulton street. 
 
Rep No 1065,? Statement exhibiting; the emoluments and expenditures of the Collectors of the district ol \< n York, from the 1-f July, 1822, to the 31st December, 1840, 
 
 Vugr |I5, 5 
 
 Cnltwlora. 
 
 
 iil 
 
 m 
 
 b|1. 
 Jill 
 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 H 
 
 
 F.. F , 
 
 
 li 
 jy 
 
 Fee.. 
 
 Conimiaaiona on 
 
 Fee. for certifi- 
 
 The Tica.uiy, 
 
 
 Tolal. 
 
 ( Irrk hue. 
 
 Stationery. 
 
 Kfnl, lull. 
 
 Coni|ianiatum 
 
 Total 
 
 enui'.ttd for. 
 
 Ugbt-booac 
 
 
 oN^iril -, A ■ 
 
 propria! Ion. 
 
 
 
 
 Jonilhan Th'.inp.on 
 
 Do 
 Do 
 
 Sam rlwool 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 Do 
 Do 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 iff 
 
 Do 
 
 3.1 nn.l llh rjUartCN 18:2 
 
 Whole year ins 
 
 Do 1824 
 
 Do 1885 
 
 Do 1828 
 
 Do 1827 
 
 Do 1828 
 It) January lo 30th Ap.il. ISM 
 i.i May l*81al Daoaraber, 1889 
 
 W hole vea, 18.1(1 
 Do 1831 
 Do 1833 
 Do 1833 
 Do 1834 
 Do 1835 
 
 Do 1837 '- - 
 t.t January lo 28|h Marrll. 183S 
 ISlll March lo 31.1 Drc , 1838 
 
 Wknlt Ma 1639 
 Do 1840 
 
 •#3.853 14 
 7,987 58 
 8,116 74 
 7,088 53 
 7,980 84 
 
 10,089 f.o 
 2,797 90 
 609 37 
 
 1,524 43 
 1,390 II 
 1,30) 54 
 1,242 88 
 1,7114 25 
 1,764 25 
 
 #7,997 58 
 9,168 77 
 7.042 00 
 8,005 .111 
 
 111,190 57 
 2,776 18 
 
 :..iH8 *t 
 11,634 60 
 18,683 12 
 25,150 97 
 24,677 31 
 02, fill 36 
 19,207 III 
 21,1 15 23 
 25,344 75 
 18.069 '-'9 
 
 3,239 99 
 13,632 PI 
 22,756 48 
 16,254 41 
 
 f7,520 87 
 
 2:i]ri5l 56 
 16,131 33 
 
 667 25 
 2,484 40 
 1,103 38 
 
 161 28 
 161 04 
 161 16 
 
 $962 86 
 
 3^863 76 
 s)*« ■■- 
 '572 80 
 4, 705 38 
 
 377 82 
 578 04 
 
 9,629 03 
 30,894 42 
 
 60,997 60 
 
 (18,894 75 
 
 #18,373 03 
 32,412 13 
 31,867 82 
 43,790 37 
 46.882 98 
 40,189 60 
 II. "21 41. 
 14,171 25 
 28,633 85 
 45,627 78 
 58,899 99 
 64,991 8| 
 59,630 20 
 73,263 87 
 
 82)262 94 
 32,698 52 
 17,835 21 
 62,860 69 
 95,926 37 
 93,961 92 
 
 #7,325 00 
 17,331 37 
 18,912 3(1 
 26,131 42 
 28,999 01 
 39,247 26 
 28,899 84 
 8,133 00 
 21,487 04 
 35,685 66 
 48,328 46 
 52, 1.1, 9 88 
 
 63)877 67 
 62,245 76 
 70,204 8(1 
 61,863 65 
 16,253 19 
 63,851 26 
 82,210 26 
 81,448 77 
 
 #921 06 
 2,166 80 
 1,736 95 
 2,239 29 
 2,126 10 
 
 '76O 92 
 2,3118 61 
 3,935 83 
 6,111 69 
 
 9)026 81 
 5,070 67 
 4,603 69 
 6,012 92 
 6,497 01 
 1,083 35 
 
 T.S87 46 
 6,892 69 
 
 »37 78 
 399 33 
 2,(117 93 
 
 '(11(1 78 
 1,al3 18 
 
 00 87 
 396 41 
 
 lilt? 4:1 
 
 1,197 73 
 llli.'i 63 
 
 1)001 23 
 
 'l3ll 44 
 1,919 94 
 1,08(4 95 
 1,3.10 58 
 
 
 > 1111 
 
 onn on 
 
 000 00 
 000 00 
 
 nun on 
 linn nil 
 
 (Hill 1)11 
 1.1,6 6/ 
 
 lino mi 
 nnn no 
 0110 nil 
 
 noil nil 
 nnn on 
 .0(10 on 
 ,0110 (HI 
 
 066 116 
 033 88 
 nun 00 
 mm on 
 
 #300 00 
 400 00 
 4110 00 
 
 mil on 
 100 00 
 
 400 00 
 
 360 06 
 400 00 
 11111 00 
 400 00 
 400 00 
 400 00 
 400 00 
 400 00 
 983 49 
 09 87 
 303 39 
 400 00 
 400 00 
 
 #10,381 41 
 21.896 39 
 
 27,726 211 
 
 88,888 no 
 
 36,171 92 
 37,387 70 
 811,888 90 
 
 HI H6 
 
 27,109 48 
 45,768 10 
 68,087 68 
 (..'.,050 50 
 
 73)303 97 
 73,823 46 
 83,262 91 
 73,230 16 
 17,935 21 
 62,811(1 69 
 '16,926 117 
 
 #7,997 58 
 8,115 74 
 7,066 63 
 (.96(1 81 
 
 111,(180 6(1 
 
 7',609 37 
 3,717 63 
 1,631 43 
 
 1.300 II 
 
 1.301 61 
 1,212 99 
 
 l.TSI 35 
 
 " Surplua accruing .lurillR the Ut and 2J .inaiter* ol 1622. 
 
 T. I,. sMlTIf, Btgliitr. 
 
 Tar anprv Prr xRTMr.M-, Rioistek's OrriCE, June 21, 1842. 
 
 Note.— The above statement commences with the period at which the collectors' emolument accounts were rendered to this otliee. The expenses, as authorized by the act of 2d March, 1710, have always hecn paid out ol the fees and 
 emolument. 
 
izx Htbrta 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Ever thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library