Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive in 2013 littp://arcliive.org/details/lettertonewyorkcOOIienr is^ LETTER NEW- YORK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE "DISCRETIONARY POWER," "IT CANNOT BE ENTRUSTED TO ANY ONE WITHOUT DANGER OF ABUSE," CONSEQUENTLY THE NECESSITY AND PROPRIETY OF THEIR PROMPT IN- TERFERENCE TO HAVE THAT "DANGEROUS POWER" TAKEN BY LAW FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POT AND PEARL ASHES, HIS DEPItTIES, AND ALL OTHER INSPECTORS OF "PROVISIONS, PRODUCE, OR MERCHAN- DISE," WHO MAY BE FOUND TO POSSESS IT. AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING COPIES OF "OFFICIAL" COMMUNICATIONS MADE TO THE "CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES," ON THE "ABUSE OF THAT POWER," AND OTHER DEFECTS IN THE INSPECTION SYSTEM, Which have been, (in whole or in part) SUPPkESSED BY UNDUE INFLUENCE. BY ROBERT R. HENRY, Lhte one of the Inspectors of Pot and Pearl Ashes for New- York, under th« Old System of LispectioD. NEW'YORK : PRIiNTEO FOR THE AUTHOR. 1830. 34^ iEx ICibrta SEYMOUR DURST "t ' 'Tort nifUiv ,yifn/i€rr, owing' to the 'sad mistakes' made by John Duer, Esq, in omitting, in his l 5th sec- tion, the prohibitory words, " or persons in the inspectors employ b ivingor selling ashes, fit or unfit for inspection, directly or indirectly. ' It is scarcely to be credited, but such is the fact, as will be found by collating the 85th and 76th sections with the 14th section of act 5th April 1822. I applied to Mr. Duer personally on the 23d March, 1829, and subsequently to the constituted authorities at Albany, to have the sad mistakes in the chapter of blunders (which I have specifically pointed out by affidavit) cor- rected, but it has not been deemed fit or proper to rectify them, as the statute book will show. There appears to be an apathy and inditference to this subject which is inexplicable. See documents ** official" in the Appendix. With the ' discretionary power' to issue 'duplicate bills',when and to whom they choose, the deputies who can sign bills, (or inspectors of the old dy- nasty if restored to office,) may use of the trust property, having an under- standing with the clerks, foremen, coopers, or labourers, and Inspector tieneral Seaman be kept profoundly ignorant that any such fraudulent operations are going- on, which may be concealed from him by the deputy and the clerk or foreman supplying the place of those which may have been used, by purchase or substitution, from other of the " trust ashes," as was done for years and years under Ihe old dynasty, with thousands of barrels, Devereux, Gebhart's, and others; ashes having been given to Hart, Thomas, Card, and others as substitutes for their ashes which had been used, without consent, under the " discretionary power," which dangerous power I apprised the Chamber of Commerce (see my letters to their presi- dents in the Morning Courier of July or August 1827) on the 13th June, 1826, was then in full operation, and before and subsequently the consti- tuted authorities, by letters, &c. (the first dated 4th March, 1825, the last on the 29th March last), but strange to tell, a deaf ear has been lent to all I have said, particularly since 1st January, 18£9, owing by the by to the deep finesse of Governor Van Buren's sending back my oflQcial letters to the Comptroller to conceal from the Legislature and the public that he had borrowed his ideas from the poor inspector on the subject of " discre- tionary power." Whoever may doubt the fact, I refer him to my letter of 22d a 23d October, 1828, and the letter and affidavit of 1st January, 1829, copies of which will be found in tlie Appendix, and his doubts that the message was predicated on them will be dissipated merely by collating them. This mode of keeping me down by suppressing my official reports is certainly unfair, to say the least. If I should die or give up this unpro- fitable controversy, (which has ruined me in pecuniary matters) as I have now no immediate personal interest in the inspection system, further than having the " spurious journal entries" rectified, (which is a mere point of honour) the law will probably continue, much as it is, until some tremen- dous breaches of trust show the impolicy of having lent a deaf ear to the " poor inspector" and ex-inspector's admonitions. Temptations to do wrong ought never to be held out, which they are as the law now stands in fact and truth. See Appendix. Had it not been for the fortuitous circumstance of a letter from Messrs. De Rham & Moore's Antwerp correspondent of 29th May, 1827, pub- lished in the Morning Courier of 20th July, 1827, 1 would have been una- ble to introduce into the general provisions my all important 174th, 175th, and 176th sections, and to prevail on the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler to have the penalty of the 177th section raised from ^250 to ^2500 and imprison- ment, (see 6th and 11th section of Hart's engrossed bill of 14th November, 1828, amended by Butler) ; but here again, by another legislative mistake in the 174th section, using ' preceding' for my word ' consecutive,' and the exercise of another species of " discretionary power" by Comptroller Wright in dispensing with the filing of the all important oath required by my 173th section, the whole inspection law is virtually rendered a dead letter, particularly as the inspector general and his deputies can act as they please, that positive and negative oath out of the question, on which subject I refer to the ' specific charges' and the concluding paragraph in my letter to Governor Throop of 31st December last, in which it will be found I mor€ than suggest corruption, maugre all which the regency thought it adviseable to pocket the insulting allusion, and suppress the letter and that ef 1st January last in which it was enclosed, rendering the suppression of the subsequent letters, &c. to the speaker and president of the senate ne- ■cessary, as a matter of course. See copies in Appendix. Being a plain matter of fact man, I perhaps cannot make myself better understood on the all important subject of " discretionary power," than by a case in point accruing in my own business (independently of those men- tioned in the letters and affidavits of the 1st, 13th, and 21st January, and 7th February, 1829, in Appendix) and if altogether they do not show the Chamber of Commerce the absolute necessity of their prompt interference 8 as the g-uardlans of the mercantile interests of this city, and of the state indirectly, the first moment the legislature meet to have the " discretion- ary power'' taken from inspectors of all descriptions, or limited in its exercise, (even if it should be for my interest not to act further in the bu- siness, as my children in Georgia and friends here think I have already devoted too much of my time and money for the benefit of the public), then I am g-reatiy mistaken in the judgment I have formed of their sound mercantile good sense and discretion, although the advice does come from the ' poor ex-inspector;' whose ' advice,' when in office (October 1827) they found themselves constrained from a sense of duty to their consti- tuents to seek through their committee, Jeromus Johnson and James Boyd, jun. Esquires, to ascertain what amendments were fit and proper to have made to the inspection law, and those which he did suggest to the commit- tee were adopted. In the New- York Gazette of July 10, 1826, will be found an extra no- tice relative to one hundred and ninety-three casks of " unclaimed ashes," then in my hands, being the first official notice which had ever appeared relative to that species of property from an inspecter of ashes ; which act of mine Major Cooper remarked to Mr. Brown, bad entirely destroyed the confidence of co-inspectors in me, I opine because it disclosed one of the illegal items of the "contingent fund," and was an indirect reproach on him, Snow &. Bogart, Dox & Stoddard, for neglect of that duty, under the twelfth section of the act of February 25, 1813, and the seventeenth section of act of Aprils, 1822. See journals of the Assembly, 1828, from 54 to 63 inclusive. There was no obligation on my part, to be at the expense of this " extra notice," but I thought it unfair to take the owners by surprise, who might not notice the auctioneer's advertisement if made under the seventeenth section, and their property might be sacrificed in consequence of it. Another reason I repeat, was, a notice of any kind being a new thing, the unclaim- ed ashes having been sold at private instead of public sale, for glass houses in Ulster county, Hartford, Coventry, and to soap boilers, or were bestow- ed as largesses, to obtain and retain patronage, and to such an amount, that in October 23, 1828, I made an indirect overture to the Comptroller, to secure to the state from twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars for the "people's legal" and "equitable" right to the ashes, or proceeds held or placed, directly or indirectly, in abeyance, (which letter was submitted to governor Van Buren, and then sent back to the office instead of accompa- nying the message,) and to Comptroller Wright, in June 18, 1829, 1 offer- ed to find satisfactory security for fifty thousand dollars, which letter, I aver, has also been withheld from the last legislature, as the journals will show. The delivery of the letters to both comptrollers I can prove, if ne- cessary, by the gentlemen who had taken them in charge. If these dis- cretionary acts are not violations»of constitutional duty, then I am greatly mistaken. The consequence of the extra notice was, eighty-seven casks of the ashes were " legally" claimed by A. P. Hamlin, Esq. (by the exhibi- tion of original bills,) who was so irritated at my advertising, that he would have taken them out of my possession, had I not shown him the law of 1822, which made the duty imperative to report to an auctioneer, but which I had not done as yet. Mr. Hamlin had been told by Messrs. Snow & Cooper, that it was " discretionary" with the inspector to report or not, and he was shown the twelfth seciion of the act of February 25, 1823, in which a "discretion" was allowed ; but in consequence of representations made to the legislature, it was taken from inspectors by the seventeenth section of the act of April 5, 1822, to which, however, no attention has been paid. Mr. Hamlin, on leaving me, remarked, he should leave his ashes in my custody, as he found me a "safe trustee," and which he did until compelled lo remove them from No. 7, Washington-street, about the beginning of May, 1827, when I left it. Messrs. Snow «& Cooper had been so imprudent as to tell Mr. Hamlin and Moses Hart, Esq. of Canada, that they had had ashes for years and years on hand, (or rather the pro- ceeds being- a perishable article,) but had never advertised, and their crim- inal neglect was instantly apparent to men of their intelligence, tlie mo- ment they cast their eye on the law. Would the collector of this port, if it was found he had withheld his notices, had sold the "unclaimed property'* at private sale and pocketed the money, find any person to countenance him in such discretionary acts? The residue of the ashes, one hundred and six casks, were oflScially reported to Martin Hoffman and Sons, the auctioneers, under the seventeenth section, (see journals of the Assembly, 1828, page 60,) but were "legally" claimed by David Stebbins, Esq. who, full of "ire" at my supposed "abuse of power," was for removing them immediately, until I convinced him, (as I had done Mr. Hamlin,) that I had no occasion to give the extra notice, and that the report was an imper- ative duty and an act of " sound discretion'' on my part ; as he should have called once in eighteen months to inquire into the condition of a perisha- ble article, and whether I had not made use of any under the "discretiona- ry power,'' as was the practice of others. Deeming me a "safe trustee'' he also left the ashes in my possession with orders to re-inspect them, which 'I refused to do until he sent a person with the bills to ascertain whether the identical casks were on hand and untouched, alias had not been used un- der duplicates; for if so, the gain in his pearls, from the effects of atmos- phere, would have been lost to him, if their place had been supplied by sub- stitution. We will suppose that I had followed the example of the senior inspect- ors, Messrs. Snow, Cooper and Bogart set me, of withholding both notices, and as I was notoriously the " poor inspector," I had used, (when occasion required,) a part of the whole of Messrs. Hamlin, Stebbins and others "trust ashes," until "claimed or demanded" under bills issued to my "convenient friends," with the " mystical" word "duplicate" written on it, which " barred all inquiry," as the "constituted authorities" refused to lim- it the discretionary power, saying if abused, complain to a grand jury, not the legislature, because it is a violation, not an evasion of law, if it ever has been practised; (see report of the Joint Committee journals of the Senate, October 30, 1828, page 63,) and when they called lo "claim or demand," they should find I was dead, had used the ashes from time to time, " as my necessities required it," and should be told by my clerk and foreman, (who may have had a share in the " prize," to induce them to wink at my illegal and fraudulent acts,) that in consequence of my demise they could not now undertake to substitute other "trust ashes," which would be done if I was living, (to cover the transaction,) and as I had died bankrupt, on whom would the loss fall? Could Messrs. Hamlin, Stebbins and others trace into what broker, shipper, or other purchaser's hands, feven a bona fide one,) they had passed the doctrine laid down in the Fulton Bank case, that "trust ashes" could not be hypothecated by agents, &c. be- yond their actual lien, might apply and a recovery had ; but as I had taken special care to cover my illegal acts by having the ashes re-inspected, and mixed with others of" my stock," (see Conkling's letters,) had used a "fac- titious mark" in the "duplicate" bill (issued to my "convenient friend," under the " discretionary power"), sav Andrew Jackson, it was impossible so that my friend and the purchasers were safe. " Lead us not into tempt- ation," for who knows the consequences. Many a person, I believe, pass- es through this life an honest man, merely from the fortuitous circum- stance of not having "temptation" placed in his way. Had "Duer's" seventy-sixth section been in operation instead of Ephraim (not Truman) Hart's fourteenth section ; the first of which allows, the other forbids clerks, foremen, &c. buying and selling, I firmly believe I would not 10 now have been able to say, (as I hare svrorn in my affidavit of January 1» 1829), that I had not, directly or indirectly, touched the "trust ashes" illegally even for a " temporary purpose," for my necessities at times were so great, that, had it not been for the good " advice" I got at home, "touch not, handle not the forbidden thing," I could have given way to other advice directly the reverse, for I was repeatedly advised to do as Messrs. Snow, Cooper and Bogart had always done with the "unclaimed ashes," (both fit and unfit for inspection), sell them under duplicate bills ; because with that contingent fund always at command, I could not compete with them ; as they could afford to take ashes free of storage, pay cartage, make presents of coats, hats, pantaloons, and give largesses on ashes to obtain and retain patronage, which I could not afford out of my "legal" income, and my ruin would follow as a matter of course, by attempting competi- tion under such circumstances; (see Conkling's letters, suppressed by governor Throop, shewing the practice was in operation in Snow & Coop- er's office as late as 25th September last.) But as my ruin as a merchant is well known to have arisen from " breaches of trust" and " abuses" of "discretionary power," (of which I could give striking cases in point, of both, if it was fit or proper), I lent a " deaf ear" to all such "advice'', as I knew it was predicted on " sinister motives," and not knowing but one deviation would lead to another and ultimately, (having generally forty thousand dollars worth of "trust prop- erty'' under my control), to make a grand sweep with duplicates issued under the baneful " discretionary power," and abscond with the proceeds. This is not a fanciful description ; let the law stand as it is, and ere long it •will become a reality, although 1 may not be here to witness it. Preven- tion, I say, of an evil is to be preferred rather than provide a remedy for one. My invariable rule was not to touch the " trust property" (of any description), even for a " temporary purpose," as Messrs. Conkling, Leonard, Powers and Heiddy, (who were in my employ) knew, although 1 was at my " wits ends" from day to day, to devise ways and means " legal- ly" to obtain funds, as the holders of bills could lawfully keep me out of my fees and advances for twelve months, under the act of 1822, and as much longer as they thought proper, merely by apprising me, before the -expiration of the year, that they held the bills, so as to prevent me adver- tising them as "unclaimed." I could mention instances of oppression where I was kept out of my just dues to increase my pecuniary difficul- ties, and force me, if possible, to abdicate. My predictions to the chamber, between June 9, 1825, and March 23, 1827, relative to the "discretionary power,'' exercised by Messrs. Snow, Cooper, Remsen and Durment, in effacing the old, and substituting new brands on ashes, not actually re-inspected, and to cover the, (what shall we call it), transaction, to cancel the olJ, and issue new bills, proved to be prophetic, as the advices from Antwerp, Havre, and other ports, published in the Morning Courier, commencing July 20, 1827, too conclusively ^hew. I will now venture another prediction. Let the present " discretionary power," of issuing duplicate bills, remain with the Inspector General, and every subordinate whom he may authorize to "sign bills," without limita- tion, as at the present moment; let "Duer's" plan (see his eighty-fifth section, adopted word for word, in the legislature, seventy-sixth section), to buy and sell ashes, fit and unfit for inspection, remain unaltered ; leave to insi)ectors the "old power" to issue copies unsigned, instead of requir- ing them to verify, all to be issued by signature and by oath when the ab- sentee has reason to suppose he has been "cheated,'' (as I have frequently proposed, but has been virtually rejected by suppressing the reports, me- morials, letters. &c. containing the overtures,) and mark my word, al- though I may not live to see it, that some tremendous " breaches of trust" n will convince the holders of ashes, the Chamber of Commerce, and the " constituted authorities," of the impolicy of not attending^ to the warnings of the " poor inspector"; because, forsooth, he was supposed to have "sin- ister motives'' at bottom, and was not acting- on " purely disinterested principles." Who, let me ask, ever does act without a motive ? Is it not present or posthumous fame we are one and all looking for ? Even the in- ducement to act a religious and moral part here is with the hope we shall profit by it hereafter. What nonsense, therefore, to talk about purely disinterested motives, when every body knows the idea is Utopian. 1 now declare I have " sinister motives'' at bottom in this communica- tion, viz : to avail myself of " differences of opinion," here and at Albany, on the subject of " discretionary power,'' and suppression ; for without I avail myself of such differences, I find I shall never succeed in my legiti- mate views, having by " over fastidious motives" allowed myself to be kept at bay at Albany, for nearly three years, by the by, through the per- sonal influence of Mr. Van Buren and his political friends. If governor Van Buren and lieutenant governor Throop were severally asked whether they did not suppose that "constitutional'' duty required, that the communications to the comptroller, and the letters to the execu- tive, of 30th December and 1st January last, relative to the abuse of" dis- cretionary power," and the sums Mr. Henry offered (on the 22d or 23 Oc- tober, 1828, and June 18, 1829), to secure to the state, for their "legal" and equitable right to the "unclaimed'' ashes, or the proceeds held or placed, directly or indirectly, in abeyance, should not have been laid before the legislature of 1829 and 1830? The answer undoubtedly would be in the affirmative, but that it was fit and proper to exercise a " discretionary power'' in withholding them, otherwise their " party friends" would have suffered the consequences, mentioned by Mr. Henry in his "specific charges," first, seventh and eighth, which, as "heads of the party," it was their duty to prevent if possible. How far " constitutional'' duty should give way to "party duly,'' I am not casuist enough to say; but perhaps the governor and lieutenant governor being "sophists" in principle and practice, may be able to show it would "square" with the "fitness of things." One of the reasons for lieutenant governor Throop's withhold- ing the communications to him from the legislature, was to render abor- tive the intention of the honourable James McCall, (an influential gen- tleman of " the party"), to make me Inspector General ; (see his letter of August 26, 1828, in that to the lieutenant governor), on the principle that I was the proper person to put in operation my own system of inspection, when there would have been little cause for complaints against it, which now existed in the minds of many ; but it was thought differently at Alba- ny, and as neither Messrs. Snow, Bogart, Cooper, Durment and Remsea could with any propriety be appointed, although party men, Mr. Seaman, an officer of customs, was placed at the "head of department," who, it is said, (for I have no personal knowledge of the gentleman), was at the time of his nomination and appointment, "profoundly ignorant," both of the " theory and practice" of inspection, and of course had to learn his " syn- tax" from the ex-inspectors, (his deputies), who had been rejected (as wanting in principle), for principals. Whether it,was an act of wisdom on the part of the governor and senate to make such an appointment oa " party principles," time must determine. Not the least responsibility attaches to Inspector General Seaman, and of course not on his deputies, for any acts of omission or commission done or suffered to be done under the Revised Statute chapter 17, as it now stands, which is shown by details in the documents given in the Appendix, but to exhibit it in a more compressed shape, I state (disprove it who can), that on the 1st January next, the inspector general not having been in office one year, he can have no unclaimed ashes to report to any auction- 12 eer, and of course sections 171, 172, 173 are, as to him for this year, a dead letter, as is also my 174th section : because, not having rendered ori- ginal bills to an auctioneer, he cannot possibly have any ' duplicates' to transmit to the Comptroller, and as the filing the report and affidavit re- quired by the 175th section has, by the wisdom of the legislature, been made to depend on the contingency of his having ' duplicates' to file with the Comptroller, he gives my all important 175th section the go by, when merely by filing my oath No. 176, that he has no unclaimed ashes on hand, he avoids the penalty of the 177th section as amended by the 11th section of act of 14th November, 1828. Responsibility. — None attaches to the inspector general or his deputies under the 17th chapter of the revised laws, but what may be avoided by the mistake in the 174th section. Consequences. — The inspector general and his deputies who " sign bills on his behalf," may have done or sufiered to be done, every act forbidden^ (positively and negatively,) or required by my 175th section, the sum and substance in fact of every section from 61 to 82 inclusive, also of the general provisions from 171 to 186, and yet they, one and all, go 'scot free,' as the only oath filed is that required by 176th section ; which is merely a disclaimer as to a particular fact — for instances : CJn branded ashes from Albany may have been passed here as formerly, without emptying out and duly inspecting the same, agreeably to the pri- vate marks, contrary to the 64th section merely by re-weighing them for the purpose mentioned in my letter of 12th June, 1829, to my brother, the late John V. Henry, Esq., copious extracts from which will be found ia my letter to Governor Throop, suppressed, in the Appendix, and to which I beg leave to draw the particular attention of the Chamber here and the Chamber of Commerce in Albany, whose duty it is to inquire into the reason why the 64th section is not attended to; on which subject I refer again to the report of joint committee, Journals of Senate, page 65. His deputies, clerks, foreman, coopers, and labourers, may have bought and sold ashes, consequently ashes purchased by them in one ofl5ce may have been ' sherryed' at another office, say 2d and 3d and even condemned, raised to superior sorts, say even first. See Richard Farrall's certificate of 24th December, 1806, a copy of which will also be found in the letter to Governor Throop ; also some curious information respecting red and black D's, and other ' secrets worth knowing,' growing out of the no branding system. Again : Ashes may have been shipped contrary to the72d, 73d, and 74ib section of the Revised Statute chapter 17, as was formerly done under the 10th section of act of 5th April, 1822. See also copy of letter to Gover- nor Throop, suppressed, for some very interesting information on that sub- ject : in short, I repeat, every section in the law may have been directly or indirectly violated, and both master and man go ' scot iree^^ merely from the legislature, without reflection, having made the filing of my ail important oath No. 175 to depend on a contingency which need never happen, (filing duplicates with the Comptroller under the 174th section) unless the inspector and his deputies see ' fit and proper,' as any unclaimed ashes can be made way with, before the return day 1st January in each year,under 'duplicate bills,' and that legally as long, I repeat, as the discre- tionary power to issue such bills, witiiout limitation, remains with either the inspector general or his deputies. What a defective law ! ! ! Let any person read the law and then I ask emphatically — the report and oath required by my 175th section out of the question — what binds the inspectors ? Nothing but conscience, which too frequently ' kicks the beam' when she comes in competition with interest. Let therefore the " discretionary power" be taken from the inspector general and his deputies, alter the 175th section so as to compel him annu- 13 ally to j51e that oath under forfeiture of ofRce, " That he had duly ac* counted with the owner or ag-ent for all the ashes delivered to his care, as the law directs ; and that he had not, by himself or any person in his em- ploy, made out any invoice, weigh-note, or bill of inspection of a later date than the time such ashes were duly inspected, and that the same were emptied out of the cask or casks and duly examined at the date of every such invoice, weigh-note, or bill of inspection ;"" which done and the ' sad mistakes' in the 76th sections and others corrected, absentees both at home and abroad are safe, but not till then ; as ' discretionary powers,' Governor Van Buren justly says, " cannot be confided to any one without dang-er of abuse." See specified charg-es for practical illustrations ; also the Governor's own acts in sending back, &c. It was 'decreed,' from time immemorial, that three times in the course of eighteen years ' breaches of. trust,' alias, illegal exercise of a ' discretion- ary power' by public officers, should come within my personal knowledge; and that in each case as a stockholder, a merchant, and an inspector, I thought it fit and proper to interfere, because in all three cases my interest was immediately afiected, particularly in the first and last. 1 refer to the cases of Messrs. George C. Sharpe and R. Clinch of the New-York State Bank of Albany ; of Archibald Clark, Esq. collector of the port of St. Marys, Georgia ; and of Messrs. Robert Snow, Samuel Cooper, Isaac H. Bogart, John H. Remsen, William Dumont, Gerrit Dox, and John Stod- dard, inspectors of ashes for New-York and Albany, and in neither case was my warning attended to till the evil was past remedy, because forsooth, it was supposed I was governed by 'sinister' motives ; but in every case my predictions have proven true by the issue. The cases of the collector aojd inspector I shall not touch further, only that of ' the clerks,' by whom it is said a loss, beyond their bonds, was sustained of ^50,000, which would not have taken place had it not been for an imprudent expression of the cashier. The facts unfortunately show that whenever I have made predictions rela- tive to the illegal exercise of ' discretionary power,' they have proved too true. In the course of preparation for a certain trial it was necessary I should make minute inquiries into the raonied operations of Mr. Sharpe, particu- larly into his speculations in "provisions, produce, and merchandise," but especially of pot and pearl ashes, and as I could not personally, without giving alarm (and for other reasons) I had to employ agents whom neither he nor his co-adjutors could suspect, whom I paid munificently, and conse- quently commanded their best services. In the course of their inquiries it was found that many clerks had formed ' entangling alliances,' and spent sums such as their incomes would not admit of, and it was not long before I found that Sharpe and Clinch were playing into each other's hands, and dup- ing the cashier. I accordingly called on the cashier, (the day can be made certain by interrogatories delivered to Matthew Allen, Esq. now of this city on file in the clerk's office) and told Mr. Yates 1 believed he was hood- winked by Sharpe if not by Chnch. He took fire at the suggestion, al- though I told him I had a right as a large stockholder to say what I had, however disagreeable to him, and he threw out an idea as to my motive, which induced me to say I would communicate nothing farther, but that as soon as the rules of the bank would admit of it, my stock should be sold out. My brother wished to take some of it, but I advised him not, telling him the bank was not safe with such clerks, who I was convinced were un- faithful, and that something would happen to depreciate the stock. Some years afterwards, I took up a paper at St. Marys, containing the observa- tions of Mr. Sharpe of this city, in the legislature, relative to State Bank stock, and found that mv predictions were verified, the clerks having over- 3 14 drawn under the " discretionar}^ power," upwards of ^50,000. On my return to Albany in July, li)22, 1 asked a person who knew, if the frauds were not effected by falsifying- balances, which he said was the fact. 1 then told him what had past, and that the loss would not have happened if the cashier would have listened to me ; but he would not, as he supposed I was acting from " sinister motives," and thought he was too acute to be made a dupe of; but the result proved that he was not. I will give a strong case in point relative to the exercise of the " discre- tionary power" of substitution, out of many that might be mentioned. Nicholas Devereaux, Esq. of Utica, will no doubt recollect calling at my office with Abraham Heddy, in 18'25, in search of fifty casks of stray ashes, which he was told were probably in my hands. It was upon the point of my tongue to tell him they no doubt were in Hart,Thomas&; Card's hands as substitutes, and to refer him to my letter of 13th June, 1825, to the president of the Chamber, (see Morning Courier of 24th July, 1827,) when he naturally would have requested a sight of the ' books of substitu- tion,' but I did not, as ' sinister motives' would have been imputed to me. Mr. D. told me of his own accord, that if not satisfied relative to his ashes (which actually came to market in the preceding Sept.) I would see him again on the subject of inspection ; but that I knew would not happen, as he would be ' satisfied,' as Mr. Alexander Black had been the preceding January or February, to whom I refer for particulars. Mr. Devereaux was, I have reason to believe, ' satisfied' with some of Frederick Geb- hard, Esq.'s ashes ; and when Weeks his carman called, he was ' satisfied' with others (forty-six casks) in lieu of ashes marked S. Jones, &c. which could not be found, and so on to the end of the alphabet. AVhat prevents the Deputy playing the same game now as he did when Principal? Nothing; nay he can do it with more safety, as his clerk, foreman, cooper, &c. have now the legal right, under Duer's system, to buy and sell, (which they had not under the old system) and as Mr. Snow lias the right to sign the bills, all he has to do is to write ' duplicate,' and the bill may be offered by either of his men to Messrs. Crassous, Merle, Cornell, &c. and neither have now a right to make any inquiry ; but not so under the 14th section, act of 1822; for then if satisfied the signature was genuine, they were certain the foreman, cooper, clerk, &;c. were acting fraudulently. All this may be done with safety and the inspector general be perfectly innocent, as ' we of the old school' know how the thing can be covered, viz. by exercising the ' discretionary power' of substitution. If the public are willing this state of things should continue so — so be it. I beg particular attention to the documents in the Appendix to show that when 1 have applied for amendments relative to the " discretionary powers" of substitution and duplicates, &c. I have been told by the execu- tive and legislative branches, go to the judiciary ; and when application has been made to the latter, I am told to go to the former. Thus between the three brandies I have been * kept at bay,' and such self-evident amend- ments as requiring the inspector to certify his copies by signature, (and if necessary by oath) and the repeal of the Duer system, alias taking from clerks, foremen, coopers, and labourers the right to buy and sell, and above all, the limitation of tlie much to be dreaded " discretionary power," has virtually been refused me, through the finesse of suppressing the reports, &c. in whole or in part, containing the several overtures. The thing ap- pears so incredible that my mere assertion should not be taken, and there- fore it is indispensably necessary I should give official evidence to prove the fact to be so, as I am personally known to so few of those whose inte- rests are in jeopardy, as the law now stands. My object in making this communication is, that should death or casu- 15 alty remove me, the evidences of the unwearied pains, expense, and trouble I have taken to have the " Chapter of blunders," (commonly called the Revised Statute, chapter 17) amended, should appear ; the errors in which are too many and g^reat to admit of its answering the purposes of the public as it now stands. R. R. HENRY. JSTew-York, 23d August, 1830. Note — I take it for granted, that neither Inspector General Seaman, his deputies Messrs. Robert Snow, John Brower, Cornelius V. V. Leon- ard, their clerks, foremen, &c. nor ex-inspectors Samuel Cooper, John H. Remsen, and William Dumont, nor thair clerks, foremen, &c. will deny that sales of " trust property" under " duplicate bills'' issued to brokers, clerks, &c. have been made under the " discretionary power," and that purchases have also been made to supply the places of ashes taken as sub- stitutes ; for if denied, I will quote specific cases, (giving head-marks, with the names of sellers, purchasers, &c.) more than enough to satisfy the most sceptical. But as my object is to provide a remedy against the abuse of the " discretionary power" for the future, and as far as possible to bury the past in oblivion, I withhold particulars farther than may be found in the Appendix (relating to the " old dynasty" of inspectors) ; but the least doubt of my veracity will compel me, in self-defence to quote particulars, as I am extremely tenacious on that subject, and can quickly convince * doubters' that I speak with book in hand. APPENDIX, Presented February 27, 1830. TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK, IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY CONVENED, The memorial of Robert R. Henry, (late one of the Inspectors of Pot and Pearl ashes for the City of New-York,) Respectfully sheweth, That on the 24th January, 1829, he for- warded his report under the 185th section of the Revised Statutes, chapter 17, under cover to the Honourable Speaker of the Assembly, per Wil- liam James, Esq. (which must have been delivered on or about the 26th January,) which report, for reasons which it will explain (when examined), it was found necessary to suppress. That, being- satisfied such was the fact, your memorialist forwarded a duplicate of the report, per mail, (under cover of a letter to the Honoura- ble the President of the Senate, dated January 31, 1829,) giving- him therewith a copy of the letter to the Speaker, which, (through courtesy), it was presumed, had, (with the original report), miscarried, which dupli- cate report it will appear by the journals of the Senate of February 4th, 1829, page 153, was received; but for causes (which the report will in part explain), it was found necessary to suppress, after the words " A prac- tice,'' together with the letter to the President, in lieu of which the letter to the speaker, (or the copy of it), with the address altered, was substitut- ed and entered on the journals, so as to give the duplicate the ostensible appearance of being the original assertions which should not be credited; of the report and letters in the hands of the clerk of the Senate would not establish that fact beyond the possibility of denial, putting out of question the fact, that the report and letter, as entered in the journals, cannot be produced by the clerk. Should such transactions meet with countenance in any quarter, which brings the journals into disrepute directly ? And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that from the journals of the senate, 153, it appears that the said duplicate report was referred to the committee on manufactures, by whom no report on its merits has been made, (as their journals will shew), which suppression was indispen- sably necessary to cover transactions specially referred to in the report and documents on the Comptroller's executive and legislative files. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that it appears from the journal of the Assembly of February 6, 1829, page 389, that the ori- ginal report was presented to the House, and all of it after the word '< independently" was suppressed, together with the letter to the speaker, (of January 24, 1829), which it appears was loaned to the clerk of the Senate, to put on their journals, althougli the clerks (of both houses) state expressly to the public, that 17 " A communicalion from Robert R. Henry, inspector of Pot and Pearl ashes for the city and county of New-York, was received and read, in thd words following-, to wit :" when the clerk knew that five half sheets, containing the most important parts of the report, and the entire letter, was suppressed. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that from tlie journals 389, it appears that theorig-inal report was referred by the Assembly to a select committee, consisting- of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Day- ton, (but for what purpose is not said), one of whom was deeply implicat- ed in the suppressed parts of the report, as one of the joint committee, of which the honourable Truman Hart was chairman, (whose report will be found on the journals of the Senate, extra session, October 30th, 1828, page 65), and also as chairman of the select committee, whose report will be found in the journals of the Assembly, of November 11, 1828, page 89. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that on the journals of the Assembly, for February 9, 1829, p. 398, it appears thatMr. Johnson, from the select committtee, reported, " That, in their opinion, it was only necessary to have entered on the journals so much of said report as is contained in the first page, and on the second to the word " independently," and that the residue of said report does not deserve any further consideration." Which report was agreed to by the Assembly, without being aware that they were rejecting the " emoluments derived from his office," which the inspector is imperatively required to report, by the 185th Section, (sepa- rately from the fees), to the amount of 354 y|^ dollars, which fact can be ascertained merely by collating the journals (of the Assembly) with the Senate's — also, from the report itself, the motives for all which suppressions will be apparent, when the documents in the hands of the Comptroller, (and the executive files), are examined, which will shew that governor Van Buren's message, on the danger of "discretionary powers,'' was pre- dicted in communications made to the Comptroller by your memorialist, dated 22d and 23d October, 1828, and 1st January, 1829, specially refer- red to in the suppressed parts of the report. The reasons why those docu- ments did not accompany the message, will be ascertained when the letter and the affidavit of the 1st January, 1829, are called for and read, which it is presumed will be done, as the treasury has a deep interest in their contents. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that on the 9th Feb- ruary, 1829, he forwarded, per mail, a letter to the Honorable Speaker, enclosing the memorial alluded to in the suppressed parts of the reports (to the Senate and Assembly), all under cover of a letter to the honorable Mr. Johnson, of the Assembly, open for his perusal and delivery, but the postage not being paid, Mr. Johnson declined taking it from the post-of- fice, but with his consent the package was taken out by Peter Seton Hen- ry, Esq. and was handed to Mr. Johnson on the 27th February, 1829, by whom, (or the late Speaker), it was withheld from the House until the 6th April last, when the following most extraordinary entry appears on the journals, relative to the memorial, but nothing is said as to the important letter to the speaker, which was totally suppressed for reasons which tlie copy in the communication to the Governor of the 31st December last, will make apparent, and to which your memorialist now specially refers for particulars. 960. IN ASSEMBLY. Monday, April 6th, 1829. " The memorialof Robert R. Henry, an Inspector of Pot and Pearl ashes, of the City of New-York, praying for certain amendments to the law pass- ed November 14thl828, entitled, "An act respecting the Inspection of Pot 18 and Pearl ashes and the duties of Inspectors and Auctioneers," was read ; thereupon ordered, that the clerk communicate the memorial to the Sen- ate." ! ! ! And your memorialist further beg-s leave to state, that on the journals of the Senate, there appears the following- entry relative to the memorial, (but not a word about the letter), shewing from the reference itself (most conclusively) that something else besides amendments to a potash law was prayed for, and which your memorialist takes it for granted the present legislature will ascertain, as the interests of the state for the time to come are deeply involved, putting the past out of consideration. 413. IN SENATE. Tuesday^ April 1th, 1829. " The memorial of Robert R. Henry, relative to so much of the Revised Statute as relates to the inspection of Pot and Pearl ashes was communicat- ed from the Assembly, and was referred to the Committee on the Judi- ciary." ! ! ! And your memorialist respectfully begs leave to ask, whether in the le- gislative annals of this state, there ever was such proceedings on a memo- rial merely praying for " certain amendments'' to a potash law, which, af- ter being read (by its title only), in the Assembly, should be sent to the Senate, where, (instead of being referred to the appropriate committee on manufactures), it should be submitted to the Judiciary Committee ? The reason for all this finesse and management, (also on the fourth, sixth and ninth February, 1829,) will be satisfactorily explained merely by calling for and reading the memorial, (which has also been suppressed), when of course the reports to which it is supplementary will also be read, all which will disclose " secrets worth knowing" when taken in connexion with what follows. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that in the Comercial Advertiser of the 7th April last, there appeared a letter from Colonel Stone's correspondent at Albany, (said to be the Hon. Benjamin P. John- son of the Assembly) which will throw some light on the above mysterious " journal entries," and on those made on the 4th, 6th, and 9th February last, to which they appear to be the covers ; but that point can be best de- termined when the reports, memorial, &c. which have been and will be referred to are read. Letter from the Hon. Benj. P. Johnson to Col. Stone. " Albany, Monday, April 6. "A memorial from Robert R. Henry, inspector of pot and pearl ashes was presented this day by the Honourable Speaker. He remarked that every citizen had a right to petition the legislature, but he did not know how for he was bound to present all communications enclosed to him. This one reflected upon the conduct of an honourable member of the other body, and the House could determine what course was best to adopt in re- lation to it. After a ^ew remarks, Mr. Johnson moved that the Clerk communicate the said memorial to the Senate, which was done." ! ! ! ! And your memorialist further begs leaves to state, that on the 1st Janu- ary last he made an official communication to his Excellency Enos T. Throop, accompanied by another, dated 31st December, 1829, relative to the above transactions, and others immediately connected with them (before and subsequently) entitled, " A communication from Robert R. Henry, inspector of pot and pearl ashes, relative to illegal practices in some, and corrupt practices in other officers of the government, with references to documents in their own offices, by date, &c. for positive proofs, and show- ing the necessity for amendments to the inspection law," which official communications your memorialist was under the impression the Governor 19 would deem it a constitutional duty to make known to the Legislature; but sympathy for the persons directly and indirectly implicated (both in and put of the Houses) has probably induced the Governor to witlihold them until called for legislative!}', which should be done, as the communications point to some " sad mistakes'' made both by the revisers and legislature in the Revised Statute, chapter 17, (particularly in the 76th section) not only as to ashes, but " provisions, produce, and merchandise" generally,which cannot bo too speedily rectified for the public good ; some of which were ' hinted' at by Governor Van Buren when he recommended a careful re- vision of the Revised Statutes. The 14th section of the act of 5th April, 1822, collated with the 76th section will show that conclusively. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that on the 5th January last he transmitted officially to the Comptroller the affidavit required by the 176th section of the Revised Statute, chapter 17, '* general provisions," with a letter of the same date, in which I specifically point out my own case to show him oflicially and as trustee vphat a " worthless thing" the statute practically is, because with the aid of " duplicate" bills (the defects in the 64th, 76th, 171st, 174th, 176th, and other sections) and the " discre- tionary power" unlimited, (as it now is) the inspector or his deputy can act as he or they see fit or proper ; and for additional facts to support the aver- ment, refer to the communications mentioned in the suppressed parts of my reports, particularly the letter and afiidavit of the 1st January, 1829, to the Comptroller; the letter of 1 1 th November, 1828, to Lieutenant Governor Pitcher (with the enclosures), but specially to the letters to the Comptroller of SOth May and 18th June last, in Avhich the people in their corporate (as well as private) capacity, have a deep interest, both past and as it respects their future safety. And your memorialist further begs leave to state, that on the 13th Janu- ary last he wrote to the Hon. Francis Granger relative to the necessity of instantly amending the laws regulating the inspection of " provisions, pro- duce, and merchandise," on which subject I say to Mr. Granger — " Either legally or illegally I got rid of all the unclaimed ashes in my pos- session in 1828, so that I have had no report to make in "1829 to any auc- tioneer under the 171st section, of course I have had no duplicates to trans- mit to the Comptroller under the 174th section the '' preceding year," and as the fihng of the ail important 175th section is made to depend on that contingency, I give the oath the go by ; and in order to escape the penalty of the. 177th section (6th and 11th of Hart's) I have transmitted the affida- vit required by the 176th to the Comptroller (a copy of which and the letter I send herewith) so that if I have been in the habit of violating the duties enjoined positively (and prohibited negatively) by the 175th section, 1 go ' scot free,' and could in this way, from year to year, avoid filing the oath 175, as long as the legislature allows the inspector the power to issue *' duplicates" under the " discretionary power" without limitation — a power which Governor Van Buren justly remarks, " cannot be entrusted to any one without danger of abuse." For other particulars refer to the letter and affidavit, which give ample collateral evidence that the Revised Statute is a " chapter of blunders," as the palpable defects in the several sections are specifically pointed out in the affidavit in Mr. Granger's hands, (particularly in the 76th section, the revisers' 85th) will conclusively show, and consequently the indispensable necessity for amending them forthwith, but specially the 12th section of article 1, relative to "flour and meal.'' See communications to the Governor and Mr. Granger for parti- culars, which will also show that the law relative to beef, pork, &c. re- quires modification. And your memorialist therefore, (for the reasons given) prays that the " spurious report" and " letter" entered by the Clerk of the Senate on their journals 153, on the 4th February, 1829 ; the " spurious report'' entered 20 by the CJerk of the Assembly on Iheir journals 389, on the 6th February, 1829, may both be stricken out or amended by having the real reports (and letters) made by your memorialist, in his official capacity, entered on the journals; and which he asks on the principle of common justice. Also, that the memorial referred to the committee on the judiciary, (Journals of the Senate 413, of 7th April last) be submitted to the judiciary or some other appropriate cctnmittee with directions to report speedily on its merits. Also, that the Governor, Comptroller, &c. may be called on to submit the communications made to them ; and that such amendments may be made to the laws as the Legislature, in their wisdom may deem fit and proper, to protect the rights of the people of this state and absentees, (both at home and abroad) for the time to come, who, as the laws now stand, are at the mercy of inspectors and their subordinates, as the documents referred to will conclusively shew. And your memorialist as in duty bound will ever pray. R. R. HENRY. New-York, 19th February, 1830. The Hon. Peter Gansevoort, in Assembly, Albany. New- York, 20th February, 183a» Dear sir, I wrote you on the 11th inst. per mail, to which I refer for particu- lars. Enclosed you have a letter for the hon. speaker, (with a memorial) which I have left open for your perusal and delivery as it saves me the repe- tition of nearly the same to you. Should it not b'e presented, a duplicate will be sent to the senate, so that it is vain to attempt to smother inquiry as heretofore, as I am a *' free agent'' once more, and will apply to be heard, if necessary, by myself or counsel, when I attend personally at Albany, which I shall do, life, health, fcc. granted me by a good providence. The more suppressions now for me the better, as they are prima facie evidence of guilt, and add additional importance to the affair. In great haste, dear sir, your most obedient servant, R. R. HENRY. TJie Hon. Erasius Root, Speaker of the Assembly . New- York, Februajiy 19, 1830. Sir, Will you have the goodness to submit the memorial herewith to the house over which you preside. It contains matter which you will admit they should instantly know, to enable them to act understandingly on the bill relative to pot and pearl ashes, which I observe has been introduced by the Hon. G. P. Gansevoort. The memorial I have drawn with such a fastidious regard to decorum, that not even the parties directly or indirect- ly implicated can complain, and must admit, that the averments should be inquired into for their own honour. 21 On the subject of the " Spurious Reports, &,c." (Journal of Senate 153, and Asssembly 389,) I say to the governor on the 31st of December last : " Happily for the public, this affair is instantly settled by the clerk of the senate producing the letter and report as entered on their journalsj and the clerk of the assembly the report as entered on their journals. If they can, I will be in an awkward predicament indeed; but if they cannot, the reverse will be the case. Such traosactions, every person should dis- countenance," and I ask, " what should the address on an official letter falsified be called technically ? for morally there can be no doubt." I have long- foreseen that the suppressions (here and elsewhere) would lead my opponents to do acts by which they would stand self convicted, but I had no idea they would have committed themselves so absolutely as they have done by the " Spurious Reports," and letter imprudently entered on the journals, from which, neither "Back stairs" or "Lobby" influence can now shield them, as the journals cannot be yazood. Happily for me, there can be but one opinion as to the dangerous nature of such like "journal entries," and that the practice cannot too soon be put an end to, on ac- count of its demoralizing tendencies, strikingly exemplified in the present cases, where official documents have been altered and mutilated to suit the purposes of parties implicated. There appears to be a peculiar fitness and propriety in the legislature being made acquainted with the contents of the memorial at this particular crisis, and because I understand a petition is now afloat relative to the inspecting of ashes, growing out of an inspector general (taken from the custom house) being appointed, who has had no practical knowledge whatsoever, and, consequently, must depend entirely on others, whose judgment no one can doubt, but whose applications for the office have one and all been rejected by the governor, who found him- self constrained by a sense of "duty, honour, and conscience" to reject them, (being wanting in principle) maugre the powerful appeals of their respec- tive friends and partizans, and their personal claims as active party men, on which principle, Mr. Seaman was appointed, I understand. For the grounds of the governor's refusals, I refer to my communications to him and Mr. Granger, dated 31st of December, and 1st and 13th Janu- ary last, in which you will find that the special reason which caused the rejection of Messrs. Snow and Dumont, was the suppression of emoluments derived from their office, to the aggregate of ;g!73G3,6!2, (see also their reports on the journals of the assembly, 186, 314 and 340) and that the same forget- fulness attaches to the inspector general of" flour and meal" (and all others in the stale save the poor inspector) as the journals will shew to the amount of ^2024, (see also journal of the senate 93) to cover whose omissions of positive duty, the "emoluments" reported by me ^354.50, was suppressed on the journals of the assembly, (but by mistake not on the senate's) to save the inspector of " provisions, produce and merchandise" from exposure, I refer to the calculations made in their reports, (furnished the governor and Mr. Granger) which shows in figures the sad blunders made by those in- spectors, and the necessity of forthwith amending the 185th section, (and others) which result from the deceptive nature of the reports made under that section last session, and which I have no doubt has this session ; but that fact, I cannot satisfactorily ascertain until I go personally to Albany, and also, whether inspectors have filed my oath No. 176 (on the 1st of Ja- nuary last) exactly conformable to the letter and spirit of that section, one of which oaths, if collated with mine, will, I opine, be found deficient in important particulars, but whether it has been accepted I know not. As I must, from necessity, again become a dealer (in some shape) in " provisions, produce, and merchandise" here, or in Georgia, I have now a direct and deep interest (as I may be an absentee) in perfecting the in- spection system generally (with all absentees either at home or abroad) for which collector Swartout's inspector general, I am told, has already shewa 4 22 the necessity, even to friends, and that other qualifications than being a " party man" are requisite to constitute a judge of the various qualities of ashes, which can only be acquired by experience and close observation. If, sir, you have a friend or relative in trade, you may have a direct interest in this question as their endorser, &-c. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, (signed) R. R. HENRY. To the President of the United States, Washington City. New- York, March 2, 1830. Sir, My communication to your excellency of the 16th ult. has, I find, been received by the member of congress to whom I enclosed it open, for his perusal, and he informs me under date of the 20th, that it had been transmitted to you ; consequently, I refer to it for particulars. Towards the close of it I proposed to your excellency, that the testimo- ny, &c. in Collector Clark's case should be referred oflBcially to the attor- ney general — to him in his private capacity, with Judge Wayne, or to either of them individually, to the Georgia representation collectively, or to either of them individually, or to the Hon. John Forsyth, (Gov. Troup being absent) either of whom certifying to me, upon honour, that they had read the testimony, taken by the district attorney of Georgia, in 1822 and 1823, and the other documents in the case, and that I had failed in making good the requisition of the secretary of the treasury of the 10th of Novem- ber, 1821, that one or any of the charges made good would be suflBcient, I would acquiesce in silence. I am happy to find that Governor Troup having satisfactorily arranged his affairs in Georgia, was on his way to Washington, and I hope has arriv- ed safely there. I now propose to your excellency, that that gentleman alone, or united with all, or either of those I have named, should decide on the case of Col- lector Clark. Nothing can be certainly more liberal and fair on my part, than to submit the decision to Mr. Clark's personal and political friends. All I am desirous of is, to have this perplexing affair off my mind. Deem- ing myself right, it cannot reasonably be expected that I will allow myself,^ ia this country, to be placed in the wrong (voluntarily) when I know the proofs are on file in Washington, to prove my averments to be true. So much having been said in my former communications (1 st, 2d and7th Ju- ly, 29th October, and 16th ult.) relative to transactions in Albany, &c. 1 en- close for your excellency's informatian a copy of my memorial of 19th inst. the letter to the hon. speaker, of the same date, and of the letter to the Hon. Peter Gansevoort, of 20th inst. to whom both were enclosed open for perusal and delivery. With great respect, I am, sir. Your most obedient servant, R. R. HENRY. NoTK. — Since writing the foregoing, I have seen the Albany Argus, No. 1265, for Saturday, 27th February, 1830, which contains the following " delphic" notice relative to the memorial (called a communication) but not a word relative to the important letter to the speaker, the key to '6d44,li(], irom which deduct store rents, clerk hire, foremen's wages, coopers, labour- ers', with numerous contingent charges." And he then assures the legislature (in his subsequent report, St 4) that be had " faithfully accounted for " the amount of fees and emolument de- rived from his office ;" but to show that he and others have not '* faithfully" accounted, take the following calculations predicated on oar respective reports as they appear on the journals. lleported by Snow, 13452 casks, ;g6544,86 average .483 page 186 " Dumont, 4998 " 2241,33 '^ .4482 «•' 340 " Henry, 1766 *' 805,06 '^ .4558 " 389 Reported, 20,216 casks. ^9591,23 average, .466 general. Consequently, that not any " emolument," (" independently of fees.") » included by either of us m the above sums, which it was essential to make apparent to show the deceptive nature of the report of Messrs. Snow and Dumont, (and Mr. McCarthy,), rendering the suppression ot my '* emolu- ments" on the journals of the Assembly (entered through mistake on the journals of the Senate,) indispensably necessary to shield them from expo- sure. Estimate for Mr. Snoiv. Inspected 13,452 casks. Average, .453 - - $G544,8G From which he says must be deducted the " store rents, clerk's hire, foreman's wages, coopers, labourers, and numerous contingent charges." Store rents, - - - at least $3,000 John Brower, clerk, . . _ 500 Wright, deputy, - - - - 500 Isaac Heddy, foreman, ^35 per month, - - 420 Wm. Chew, cooper, $30 «' - . 3H0 Cont. labour on 13452 casks at least 10 cents per cask, - - - - 1345,20 $6125,20 Net income, if his report is true, . . _ 5419, 6fi Which, added to the following items he has *' Re- membered to forget'' to report to the legislature under the 185th section, shows his real income. Storage on 6689 casks, (less than half,) Gs. $5016,20 " Emoluments" derived from extra cooperage, con- demned casks, hoops, marking and numbering, profit on casks, (putting the sales of " unclaimed" ashes under '^duplicate" bills out of the question,) say on 13452 casks, 5 cents, my average, 672,60 Scrapings. Mr. Snow has reported 8306 casks pot ashes as having been inspected, which gave 3 per cent, of scrapings, say 1 cask ia 33, conse- quently he has not accounted for I -33d part of pot ashes inspected, say 250 casks, a 46 cents, which gave fees, 115 §5503,80 Net income including " emoluments" omitted, $6223,46 50 Estimate for Mr. Dwnont. Inspected 4998 casks. Average 4482 - - $2241,3S From which he says "clerk's hire, labour and "store rent" must be deducted. Store rent, . - - at least, $1,100 C. V. V, Leonard, clerk, - - 500 Wm. Cantine, foreraao, $30 per month, 360 cooper. 30 - - 360 Cont. labour on 4998 casks, a 10 cents, 499,80 $2819,80 Loss (on the business) if his report is true, - - $577,47 Which taken from the following items, which he has suppressed in his report : Storage on I 3 his quantity, 1666 casks, a 65. ^1250 « Emoluments" on the whole, 4998 '* a 5 cts. 250 Scrapings on S698 casks pots. 112 " a 46 cts. 59.82 1559,82 Net income, including " emoluments" omitted, $982,35 Estimate for Mr. Henry. 1766 casks inspected, (per journals of Assembly, 389) ave- rage .4558, - - - ' - $805,06 LESS. Store rent, 4 months, a $1100 $366,66 C. V. V Leonard, 4 months, clerk, 500 166,66 James Powers, 4 " cooper, 360 120 Cont. labour OH 1766 casks, 10 cts. 176,60 Loss (on the business,) if my report as entered by Mr. Sager on the journals of the Assembly, 389, is true, 24,86 Which abstracted from the " emoluments derived from his oflBce," suppressed in the journals of the Assem- bly, 389, but entered in the journals of the Senate, 153, viz: Storage, (one quarter,) - - S275 " Emoluments," for extra cooperage, &c. 79,50 354,50 Net income, including" emoluments," if my report as enter- ed in the journals of the Senate, 153, is true, ^^329,64 I solemnly aver, sir, the reports to both houses, (excepting as to letters to the President and Speaker.) are word for word the same, and are so much alike one might be taken for the other. — Why then the discrepen- cies.? Why should 1 be made to appear in the journals (to cover Messrs. Snow, Dumont and McCarthv, &c. from exposure by the by) to have been so base and depraved as to report differently the state of my inspection business 't 1 appeal to the reports to show they are truly reported, and that there is no variation in them, allhough the letters are diJfTerent, from causes which will appear on examination, which I must pray for, as char- pi acter is now my only patrimony, which I cannot sacrifice to save that oi: others, who having money, can do without it, consequently with whom a " little character" will go a great way. I was regretting I had no other course to pursue to obtain " summary" redress, than by application to the Houses, to have the " journal entries," rectified, which would expose both the clerks ; but as to the honorable Mr- Hart and Mr. Johnson, who had lead them astray from the ' straight path,'"" I had no commiseration for them, neither for the Comptroller and others who would be incidentally exposed. When I was asked; " Why regret ? " The clerks have not scrupled to record you as a vil- lain, which you are, if the reports are truly entered by them. Because to the Senate you have "officially" stated your income on 1766 casks of ashes (fees and emoluments including storage) to have been $11 59 56, and to the Assembly at S805 06 ; that I asked for nothing but to have the "journal entries" rectified, and as to consequences, I had no more to do with ihem than a juror had with those which might result from his verdict. If I was to submit the reports and estimates of Mr. Inspector Snow to his clerk, John Brower, Esq. and the report and estimate of Mr. Inspec- tor Dumont to Cornelius V. V". Leonard, Esq. his clerk, (formerly mine) who drew the report, I know I would be told by Mr. Leonard, particularly, that on the 11 th November 1826, (when he copied my letter to Mr. Snow relative to the largess of 100 casks of "unclaimed" ashes bestowed on Trotter & Douglass) and on SOth April 1828, when he copied my letter to Hugh Maxwell, Esq. and on many intermediate occasions, he has told me substantially, that a law having been abrogated or having expired by limi- tation, &!.'. all accountability (for acts done or suffered to be done however illegal) of the inspector, was at an end ; consequently that the act of 25th February 1813 having been repealed by the act of 5th April 182^;i, Messrs. Snow and Cooper were not responsible to the state for the 100 casks of " unclaimed" ashes bestowed by them (1 aver illegally and fraudulently) to hold till the original bill was presented onlv by the owners, (who, by the by, have never appeared to claim or demand them) neither for the "un- claimed" ashes abstracted, alias cribbed, from the casks of absentees, as there was no mention of " scrapings or crustings" in the law of 1813, al- though there was in that of 1822 ; and further, that Messrs. Snow, Cooper, and Bogart^s commissions havmg been renewed, (again and again) were, in fact, acts of amnesty for all past transactions, even under the act of 1822, (provided nothing was done on that day before the law expired) which Mr. L. said he would not notice in making out any reports for Mr. Dumont, under the Revised Statute, Chapter 17, having the " sad mistakes" in the " 76th and 177th" sections, &c. in view, the latter of which allowed the inspector to commute for the " unclaimed" property for the petty sum of ^250 until, to their utter astonishment, the consideration money was raised (by Mr. Butler) to S2500 and imprisonment. See my Letter and Affi.iavit of 21st January last to Comptroller Wright, who appears to be determined to defeat my views for the public good. I have no doubt that Messrs. Brower and Leonard, and others, would also now tell me, that since the above repoits were made, Messrs. Snow, Dumont, Cooper, and Bogart's commissions have been renewed, which precludes any inquiry relative to their reports made previously ; but should any malpractices have been committed since the renewal of the commis- sions in March last, that would alter the case entirely ; and should I pro- duce the following written evidences of them, (which show I can oral proofs) I would then be told, an inspector general will be nominated to the Senate (immediately on the meeting of the legislature) by your excellency, which would supersede all our commissions, and be a quietus to ever}' thing. Tf the executive and legislative autiiorities will even indirectlv sanction such palpable frauds and evasions of law as are detailed in the foUowmg^ letters, when officially made known to them, I must submit of course ; as it will show there is some truth in what the Hon. Mr. Leigh and the Hon. Mr. Randolph have said (see New-York Daily Advertiser of 14th Novem- ber last) in the Virginia convention. [No. 156.] 25th September, 1 82y. Dear bn; I think the following, in some measure, accounts for the zeal of some of Mr. Snow's friends, for which reason I communicate it. t was yesterday informed, by a man of undoubted veracity, that it is Mr. Snow's practice, when inspecting small parcels of ashes, to collect the scrapings as in other cases, but not to account for them ; and that he dis- poses of them in rectifying the errors of his clerks, and restoring the value of such as he has legally accounted for, that remain with him until it is damaged by mixing some of his "stock" with it, and that on other occasions he allows men in his employ to sell it, and divide the prize amongst them. Tf it was possible that Mr. Snow was ignorant that he is bound by law and oath to have such scrapings advertised once a year, and sold, and tlie proceeds paid into the state treasury, I would recommend to him in future to return such scrapings to the barrels from whence they came, for hones- ty's sake, that the real owners may not be defrauded, and he may escape the just censure of all who are not immediately benefited by (to say the least) such unlawful proceedings. Yours respectfully, [Signed] N. CONKLING. R. R. Henry, Esq. [No. 157.] New- York, 26th September, 1829. Dear Sir, I this morning went to the office of Messrs. Hart, Herrick, && Co. with a Mr. Thayer, the owner of 15 barrels of ashes, the bill and copy of which 1 delivered them yesterday, accompanied by a bill for the scrapings. One of the clerks asked Mr. Thayer if those Avere not old ashes, and on his receiving for answer they were made this summer, he replied he could not see how they yielded so much scrapings. I then told him that ashes coming to our office contained no more scrap- ings than those sent to other places for inspection, but that we always ac- counted for what there was. He then informed me, in an under tone, that lie did not speak on that account, but it was Mr. Cooper's practice with Ihem not to account for separate parcels of scrapings, but to let them ac- cumulate until they amounted to a full barrel, or two or three barrels, and then give them a bill for the whole. Comment is needless. Yours respectfully, [Signed] N. CONLKING. R. R. Henry, Esq. As to the inspectors, 1 am aware that Hart's 5th section (unless repealed on the principle of its being fraudulently obtained) Ic^galizes all (ho illeg-ol 53 and irauduient sales and conversions up to its date, the 14th November 1828, if not to the 14th May 1829, the six months given them by the act to pay the proceeds of " unclaimed" ashes, (which the joint committee say they have undoubtedly in possession to a large amount) not a cent of vt^hich is now in the treasury. I am also aware that by their mere averment that they have paid over such proceeds to the owners, without naming them, is prima facie evidence that they have done so, till the contrary is shown in a court oi law or equity. I am also aware, that by the comptroller accepting returns under the 4th section of Hart's law, and illegally dispensing with those required by the 6th section, and declining to report inspectors of *' provisions, produce, or merchandise," who are "- defaulters.'' un er the 174th, 175th, or 176th sections, they are released from ihe penalties under the 6th and 11th seciions of Hart's act, (as amended by the Honourable Benjamin F. Butler, see my letter of 11th September, 1828, to him) and the 177th section of the Revised Statute. I am also aware, that by the attorney general declining to prosecute not only those who are partially but also totally delinquent under the lo5th section, (agreeably to the 186th section) that they are also virtually released from that penalty, and that by the appointment of an inf pector general, we will one and all be released from every responsibility, excepting when original bills or receipts can be produced. Yet I know that all .these illegal escapes (hair-breadth ones) may all be prevented merely by your excellency declining to nominate to the senate an inspector general, until the legislature are made acquainted with the contents of this official communication, the charges in which I stand ready to substantiate against inspectors and all others (directly or indirectly) implicated with them both in and out of the houses, if either of them will venture to call for a legislative inquiry, but they dare not do so, A person in an official station may act most illegally, if not corruptly; and yet (directly) not touch a cent of money. For examples : A debtor fails, and gets his discharge ; after a lapse of years, he finds a former creditor in a situation to give or obtain for him an office of "honour, trust, or profit :" application is made for it, and a " broad bint" is given, that i{ he would renew the obligation to pay eventually out of the profits (the whole or part) of the " old debt," it could be obtained for him, which overture is of course acceded to, being so evidently for his advantage. Although not a cent of cash is to be immediately paid, (only out of the profits of an office to be obtained) and although many will say that the creditor had a right to avail himself of this fortuitous circumstance to ob- tain his debt, yet I contend it would be as illegal a transaction (to say the least) as Inspector Bogart's sale of the reversion of his office to Roderick Sedgwick, Esq. in August 1824, for ^500 per annum, (for his '-working tools," the nommal consideration) on the discovery of which, Mr. Bogart had a " broad hint" given hini, that out of respect for his father and family his resignation would be accepted, which was accordingly sent in, and I was appointed (m vacation) to fill bis place. Your excellency, no doubt, will find the documents relating to " this affair" on the executive files, and to '' another affair" in an official letter to the comptroller of 18th June last. Again. Major Samuel Cooper receives information that a quantity of ashes were shipped or shipping at or near J;ector-street wharf, contrary to the 10th section of the act of 5th April 1822, which it was his duty to have seized, instead of which he sends a written prohibition, which was served on the mate of the vessel after dark, by Mr. John H. Remsen, then in the Major's employ, the object of which was to compel the owner or agent to seek a personal interview, which took place the ensuing day, when $50 was offered (the probable amount of the fees of inspection, if made) for the privilege to complete the shipment, which the Major refused to accept ; but a " broad hint" was given to the agent, that if he would patronize him by giving a preference to his inspection-bills, he might go on, which was acceded to readily, as the agent found the inspector would at all times be 8 willing- to concert the old ashes into fresh ashes, by a ieg-erdernam oper^ tion, minutely detailed in my circular letter of 19th March 1828, a copy of which your excellency will find in the hands of the comptroller or the chairman of the joint committee, which contains " secrets worth knowing." Again. Messrs. Snow, Bog-art, and Cooper, see on a cask a red D, which is the " sign" the ashes belong to " country innocents," have not been inspected in Albany, and that the scrapings are not to be noted on the copies, but set aside for the benefit of whom it may concern ; and it is said when the D was black, the " sign" was that the absentees' " eye teeth" were cut, and the scrapings must be noted on the copies ; that when " hie- roglyphic or allusive private marks or characters" appeared on the casks, the " sign" was, the ashes have been inspected in Albany, (although not branded according to law) which practice is continued down to the moment I pen this paragraph, contrary to law, which 1 stand ready to prove, and for sinister purposes. See my communications to Governors Clinton and Pitcher, the Comptrollers, Joint and Special Committees : the documents in the hands of Messrs. McCall, Norton, Broughton, Granger, Maynard, Hayden, Hazelstone ; but especially the letters of 4th and 8th November, ] 828, to the Hon. Mr. Johnson — letters in the hands of the Comptroller, dated 6th March 1827 and t8th June 1829— letters to the Hon. John C. Spencer and Benjamin F. Butler of 11th September 1828, &c. Again. Mr. Inspector Snow is applied to, to cancel his " old bills'' and issue " new ones," altering the brands to suit. Consideration, not money, only exclusive patronage. The fees allowed Major Cooper and the junior inspectors,(Remsenand Dumont) for similar services, were generally 12|cts. saving to the owner or agent 36 cents per cask, besides converting his old ashes into new ashes. See my circular of 19th March 1828, and my letter to Hugh Maxwell, Esq. of 30th April 1828, (in the hands of the joint com- mittee) who declined acting, (on 31st May 1828) on the principle that " cheating" (in certain cases) had been ruled " not to be fraudulent." See his letters to Henry Eckford, Esq. in Noah's Enquirer of November 1827. Again. The comptroller permits Mr. Inspector Dumont to file his returns Under my 175th section with the clerk of the Assembly instead of in his of- fice, to oblige Mr. Dumont, who wishes to have something on the journals of 1829, page 340, &c. to counteract my *' Mr. Dumont do. do. do." to Mr. Snow. See journals of the Assembly, extra session, 1828. page 63, also to oblige the inspector's uncle, collector Swartwout, and to give Mr. Dumont a " factitious" character as an "inspector,'' and induce your excellency (some days hence) to nominate him to the Senate as Inspector General. No money enters into the transaction, but that it is not an "evasion, but a palpable violation'' of the 175th section, will be apparent on its examina- tion, which, if sanctioned by the legislature, renders the inspection law a " dead letter." Again. The attorney general has a duty imperatively enjoined on hira by the 186th section, to prosecute all "defaulters" under the 185th sec- tion, (who are totally or partially so,) which he has totally " neglected'' to oblige Messrs. Lowerie and other delinquents mentioned in the list which will follow. Not a cent of money enters into "this affair,'' yet it is a most flagrant violation of duty. The following are the charges I make and stand ready to support, if any of the persons, directly or indirectly implicated, will venture the hazard of calling for an inquiry, which they will not do, as they stand "self convic- ted" by the documents alluded to in the charges, putting the oral testimo- ny out of the question, which will be still more conclusive. 1st. The comptroller as such, and as trustee, receives from me ofiicially important communications, (they will be admitted to be such when examin- oi.) dated 22d and 2Sd Ocfoher, 1S28. and Ist, ICth and ?.1st Jann^rV ^8^*y, which should have been laid before the legislature, (as governoi' Vao Buren's message relative to " discretionary power" was predicated on one or more of them,) but the Comptroller finding if he did, that the hon- orable Truman Hart would be forthwith expelled, and his associates in the joint committee would be subjected to a vote of censure, he withheld them, in consequence of which the 5th section of Hart's law of 14th No- vember, 1828, stands unrepealed with all the other imperfections in the laws, particularly in the 64th, 76th, 171st, 174th and 176th sections of the Revised Statutes, chapter 17. 2d. The Comptroller, by withholding the above official documents, (also alluded to in the suppressed part of my report of 24th January last) enabled the honorable Mr. Johnson to hoodwink the members of the Assembl} ("not in the secret'') on the 9th February, 1829, and induced them to reject ihe " emoluments derived frpm his office," (see journals 389 and 398,) although imperatively required to be reported " independent of the fees." 3d. The Comptroller, by withholding the above official documents, (also alluded to in my memorial.) enabled Mr. Johnson and the clerks to hoodwink the members of the Senate and Assembly "not in the secret,"^ on the 6th and 7th April last. See journals 960 and 413, also Mr. John- son's letter in Colonel Stone's Commercial of 7th April last, which im- prudent and impolitic letter discloses the deceptive nature of said "journal entries.'' 4th. The Comptroller has a duty most imperatively enjoined on him, (he "shall," not may report,) by the 177th section, to report all in- spectors of " provisions, produce and merchandise," who are defaulters, under m\ 174th, 175th or 1 76th sections, (Hart's 6th and 11th sections amended by Butler) to district attornies, which he has neglected to do ; but in lieu of that duty he has issued a circular to delinquents of the 11th July last, maugre the '' circular'' of his predecessor, of 8th January last, which is a "flat contradiction" to the hypothesis assumed for issuing his. Consequences. If there are in the state one hundred " defaulters," the loss to the treasu- ry in the shape of fines, is 250,000 dollars, added to which on the first .January next, the inspectors who have escaped will be again " defaulters" rendering the inspection law by this assumption of" discretionary'' power, (no where granted to him even by construction,) a " dead letter" practi- cally. 5th. The Comptroller has winked or connived at the filing my oath No. 175, with the clerk of the Assembly, under the 185th section, (instead of his office,) by Mr Inspector Dumont (a nephew of Collector Swartwout,) by which finesse or evasion of the law, the oath is extra judicial ; and to show it is a designed evasion, Mr. Dumont dare not venture to file the same oath, word for word, in the Comptroller's office, under my 175lh section, as it would then be judicial or agreeable to the "general provi- sions" of the 17th chapter of the Revised Statutes. 6th. The attorney general has an imperative duty imposed on him by the 186th section, to prosecute all inspectors of '' provisions, produce and merchandise" who are " delinquents," under the 185th section ; although the journals of the Senate and Assembly show him that every inspector in the state, save one, are totally or partially "defaulters," (designedly so, as they knew they had only 200 dollars to pay for "neglect,") yet he has wil- fully avoided the performance of this important duty, maugre the 1 86th section, and my official letter and affidavit of 7th February last. Consequences. — If there are one hundred " defaulters" throughout the state ,the pecuniary loss to the treasury is ^20,000, which forfeitures not being exacted, no attention of course will be paid to the 185th section in future, further than suits the interest or convenience of the inspector. I 5(i specially refer to the suppressed parts of my report oi 24th January iasi. for important information on this very subject ; also the memorial which was supplementary to it. See also, the letter and affidavit to the attorney general, of 7th February last, for further details. 7th. The clerk of the senate has put into his hands an " official'^ report from me as inspector of pot and pearl ashes, enclosed in a letter dated 31st January, 1829, addressed to the president of the senate (alluding to the suppression of the original in the assembly) which letter with five half sheets containing the most important matter in the report, he suppresses, and substitutes in lieu of the letter the one written to the speaker of the assem- bly with its " address altered," so as to make the " duplicate" ostensibly ap- pear to be the '^orginal". Consider ;tion, not money, but to save the Hon. Truman Hart from expulsion (whose vote as in the case of Gen. Ward, the " Lobby" members could not dispense with) and Messrs. Enos Woodward and others, from a '• vote of censure" for having sanctioned the report and bill presented to the senate by Mr. flart as chairman (on 30th October, 1 828, journals of extra session 65) of the joint committee. 8th. The clerk of ihe assembly has put into his hands an '' official" report from me as inspector of pot and pearl ashes inclosed in a letter to the speak- er, dated January 24, 18:29. The clerk suppressed the letter (which it ap- pears he loans to have put in the journals of the senate) alters the caption of the report, and further suppresses five half sheets, containing the most important parts of the report, and he enters the residue on the journals as the entire report — see journals 389. Consideration, not money, but to save the Hon. Truman Hart from expulsion (oblige the " Lobby" members) and save the Hon. Messrs. Johnson, Hart, Belding Wallis, and P'enton, (also others) from a " vote of censure" for having sane tioned the report and bill above mentioned, and Messrs. Johnson, Hart, and Wallis a " special com- mittee," for their report of November 11, 1828, page 89, in which they say "that the committee have examined the bill, prepared certain amendments, with which they see no reason why the same should not be passed into a law." ^ No wonder, that after making the above report, that Messrs. Johnson, Hart, and Wallis, were alarmed on reading my report of 24th January last, and joined their influence with others to induce the clerk of the assembly to make the false and fraudulent entry on the journals p. 389, which your ex- cellency will perceive rendered the subsequent ones of 9th of February, 398. and of the 6th April, 960, indispensably necessary for his own and other's preservation ; but mark the finger of Providence in all this. The very attempts they have one and all been making to suppress reports, me- morials, letters, Uc. since 4th March, 1825, will have a tendency to bring all forward, for it is impossible that the next legislature can or will, direct- ly or indirectly, sanction acts, which "morally," if not ''technically," amount to forgeries. Public and private curiosity is and will be excited to see these " much dreaded" reports, memorials, &c. and the *' sovereign people'' must be gratified. In the 6th charge, (against the attorney general) I say " That every in- spector in the state (save one) are totally or parlia!ly defaulters ;" to prove which important assertion 1 appeal to the journals from which J have taken the following list (adding those " totally dehnquent" as far as my know- ledge extends, but unquestionably there are many others not mentioned,) from which your excellency will see the powerful interests brought to bear on the comptroller and attorney general, to prevent their doing their duty under the 177th and 186th sections, until an inspector general is appointed, when as ex-inspectors we will be freed from responsibilities. >i JOURNALS OF THE ASSEMBLY >.\lbany Flour and Meal Jasper Keeler 343 Noemoiumea^ Neiv-York Domest. Spirits A, Dally 306 ( cc John H. Remsen cc ^ No emolum't on the N Journals. Albany tc John Stoddart, 411 No emoluments. Hudson .c defaulter. Troy C( cc Utica (C cc Niagara c; 58 JOURNALS OF THE SENATE. New-York Flour & Meal Rich'd. M'Carthy 93 No emolum't. Troy " Defaulter Rensselaer Beef and Pork, D. D. Forest, jun. 422 No emo't. NewYork, JiUmber, James McNeilson, 433 No enriolum't. " Pot & P. A. R. R. Henry 153, 413 repor. hisemoPnts. " From which officially appears," that the " poor inspector" is the only one in the state of New-York who has rrpo' ted the "emoluments derived from his office," although imperatively required by the 185th section for wise purposes to be reported "independently" of : and separate) from the fees, as the section says " Every inspector acting- under any article of this title shall report annually to the legislature, and on or before the 1st day of Fe- bruary in each year the quantity, and as near as may be, the quality and value of the produce, provisions, or merchandise inspected during the year ending the first day of January next preceding the making of such report, together with the amount of fees and emoluments derived from his office, and shall also communicate in his report such information possessed by him as may tend to the improvement of the quality or increase in the quan- tity of the articles subject to his inspection." Section 186. " Every inspector who shall not comply with the provisions of the preceding section, shall forfeit for each offence the sum of two hundred dollars, to be recovered by the attorney general to the use of the people of this state." Inspector of flour and meal. — He reports to the Senate on 23d January, last page, 93, 634,363 barrels and hogsheads of (wheat, rye, buckwheat, and corn) " flour and meal," whi h, at the moder ite average of 2^ ounces per cask, gave of sample "flour and meal," 99,1 19 lbs. weight, equal to 506 casks, not an ounce of which is reported as " emolument'' by the said inspector. In speaking with a broker on the subject, he admitted the " sample flour and meal" had seldom been demanded by the owner or agent from the inspector, but that he gives it away. To whom? No doubt to his men, and perhaps in part payment of wages, or what is tantamount to it, obtains their services at reduced rates, the " flour and meal" being perquisite to their office. It equitably, I contend, belongs to neither the owner, agent or inspector, but to the purchaser, because he pays for 196 lbs. but gets only 195 lbs. 13 12 oz. ; consequently the " sample flour and meal" is justly his. Take the value of the 506 casks at ^4, nnd the " emolument" to some- body is ^2024. As 700,000 casks have t»o doubt been inspected the year ending 1st Jr»nuary 1829, (in '^ ew-York, Albany, and Troy) at least 1,000,000 barrels may be expected this year, which at an average of 2^ ozs., will give 156.250 lbs. weight, equal to 800 casks at ^4, equal ^3200, a handsome " emolument" this even if we estimate half the amount, and nobody the wiser that Mr. Somebody had perquisites to the amount of 16s per cent, on his " legal" fees Can any thing show more conclusively the wisdom of the 185lh section requiring the " emoluments" to be reported " independently of fees," and the reason mine was suppressed in the Assembly ? I have been threatened with personal consequences in case I interfered with the " emoluments" derived from the " offs and ends" of beef, pork, sample flour, &c. ; but I have jocosely said they unfortunately had got hold of the " wrong sow bv the ear:'' and I have ironically remarked, that as 1 59 Aui neither to have '• art or part" hereafter in the inspectiou of either «' provisions, produce, or merchandise," I must again become a dealer ia some shape; and as I was repeatedly cheated when a *' country merchant," I would protect myself and other absentees at home and abroad, by amend- ments, now that 1 personal!) know the modes and manner we had been fraudulently deprived of 1-33 part of all the potashes we had sent to this market, by the finesse of omitting the scrapings on the copies, a practice still m existence, 1 aver, and stand ready to prove. For the glass house in Ulster county only, one of the concern, Mr. Jared Peck, says he has purchased unmerchantable or damaged ashes (scrapings, crustiogs, &c.) to average 150 casks per annum, for 15 years past, and principally directly from inspectors and their men ; and that his total purchases from inspectors of beef, pork, and ashes, could not have been less than ^50,000 ! ! ! What " cribbing" from casks oi absentees ! ! ! ! Let the inspector be required to " give" the '' sample flour and meal" over to the '' overseers of the poor," or have it sold at stated periods, and the proceeds deposited as the legislature may direct ; but nothing should induce them to permit any of us inspectors of " provisions, produce, or merchandise," on any pretext whatsoever, (or any person in or out of ao office, but an auctioneer at public sale) to sell the least particle of the article we inspect ; if the} do, the comptroller, as trustee, will nave a " Flemish account" of the " unclaimed property ;" for '' give us an inch," and we " will take an ell;" and if any evidence is required of the postulate,! refer to the suppressed parts of my report of 21th January last, and the memorial of 9th February, (referred by the senate to ihe judiciary committee, on the 7th April last, by whom it was suppressed) but especially to the letters and affidavits suppressed by the comptrollers, in which the subject is discussed at large relative to the operation of Ihe " discretionary power" assumed by use of issuing "duplicate" bills to clerks, brokers, and other " convenient friends," on their mere averment they were "owners;" the practical re- sults of which most dangerous power is so fully made apparent in Mr- Nathaniel Conkling's letters of September last, as to render it unnecessary for me to give more cases ttian will be found in the suppressed documents, which will convince the most sceptical that the 64th, 76th, 171st, 174th, 175th, 176th sections, &c. require amendment. But if there should be any doubts, what follows will show what a " worth- less thing" the Revised Statute, Chapter 17, is practically, which I cannot show more strikingly, as to the 76th section, than by giving the I4th sec- tion of the act of 5th April 1822, and on the margin the 85th section, re- commended by the revisers as a substitute, which was adopted verbatim by the legislature, showing experimentally the danger of mere theorists' (al- though eminent lawyers) meddling with matters which they do not under- stand, without "advice" from practical men ; for, strange to tell, the Hon. John Duer assured me, on 23d March last, that he thought the words, " or any crustings or scrapings of the same, or shall knowingly suffer any per- son or persons in his employ to do the same," to be surplusage, the inspec- tor being prohibited from buying or selling directly or indirectly, being a sufficient guarantee against abuse. But Mr. Conkling's letters show the reverse. Section 14. " And be it further enacted, That if any inspector, during his continuance in office, shall directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person, buy or sell any pot or pearl ashes, or any crustings or scrapings of the same, or shall knowingly suffer any person or persons in his employ to do the same, he shall forfeit for each offence a sum not exceeding five hun- dred dollars, at the discretion of the court having cognizance of the same, one moiet) thereof to the use of the person or persons who shall prosecute for the same, and the other moiety to the use of the people of this state : ^^■hicb shall be paid to the treasurer thereof when collected; and Wd-J h^ 60 recovered in an action of debt in any court of competent jurisdiction, to- gether with costs of suit ; and such inspector, on conviction thereof, shall be disqualified from holding any office of honour or profit in this state." Revisors^ ii5th^ and Legislative 16th Section. — " Every inspector who, during his continuance in office, shall directly or indirectly buy or sell any pot or pearl ashes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable on convic- tion by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ; and every inspector so convicted shall be for ever thereafter incapable of holding an office of honour or profit in this state." It is scarcely to be credited that the Hon. James McCall should have given his sanction to the 76th section, after having written me what follows and holding in his hands my answer. The acceptance of Mr. Hart's report of 30th October, and Mr. Johnson's of 11 th November 1828 ; the report of Mr. Johnson of 9th February 1829, and the transactions on the 4th and > 6th February, and on 6th and 7th April last, show conclusively what two leading men, with the aid of clerks, &c. can do in the Houses and on com- mittees, owing to the lamentable want of attention on the part of members when their own immediate interests are not directly affected in the ques- tion at issue. Is it not "passing strange," sir, that no one, for instance, (in the Houses or joint or special committees) should have recollected on 30th October 1828, that Hart's 1st, 2d, Sd, and 4th sections were substantially copies of the 171st, 172d, 173d, and 1 74th sections of the Revised Statute, then in full operation, and consequently that there was no necessity for re-enacting them f Good, however, will ultimately result from these legislative " ne- glects" of duty, as well as from the "neglects" of duty on the part of the comptrollers, attorney general, clerks, &c. showing that the sooner careless and corrupt agents are discharged the better for the principals, (either in public or private life) as a careless agent may do as much injury as a corrupt one, and are almost equally to be dreaded when high trusts are confided to them, although the intention might be pure. Extract from Mr. McCalVs Letter. Albany, October 10, 1827. '* bince receiving the several communications from you, last winter, on the subject of the inspection of ashes, I have had much time for reflection, and have made many inquiries of country merchants and manufacturers, and in almost every instance your statements in relation to scrapings and pickings have been confirmed. The laws are now under revision, and 1 am determined to make an attempt to amend the inspection law, so as to enforce the observance of it if possible. Will you be so good as to enclose fo me such amendments as may iiave suggested themselves to you as soon as convenient, and no doubt you will render a further benefit to the public." Extracts from my reply. New- York, 16th October, 1827. 1 wish, sir, on behalf of your constituents, (many of whom have unknow- ingly been sufferers) to draw your attention to the clause which I wish to have added (o the inspection law, calling upon mc and tho other inspectors 61 (by a day to be fixed) to make a return to the comptroller, on oath, of all ashes which for 30 consecutive years past liave been directly or indirectly withheld from the absentee, (both fit and unfit for inspection) whether stored for inspection or otherwise, (which includes scrapings, pickings, and "fine" ashes) as I am desirous to ascertain the power of conscience in certain cases in which scrapings have been withheld from your immediate consti- tuents, (and others who can be named) and of which, at the present mo- ment, they are ignorant. " There are other amendments intended to cut up the frauds, (to speak in plain terms) on the absent country owner, the shipper and the consumer abroad injurious to them, and the inspector who does his duty according to law ; for particulars of which I refer again to the communications to the governor, to the report of the committee of the Chamber of Commerce, and the memorandums furnished you last winter." " Generally speaking, my impressions are, that to insure uniformity in in- spection, an inspector general should be appointed, if not, that it should be made a misdemeanor, (punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,) for any inspector to pass ashes as inspected or re-inspected, without first, in good faith, emptying out the entire contents of each and every cask, sepa- rating the fit from those unfit for inspection. For neglecting to register, (at the very time of actual inspection,) both kinds in his inspection book, (not a separate book which might be secreted.) For omitting to note the scrapings, (a most comprehensive term, by the by, as it includes fine ashes, pickings, sweeping, alias gold dust ) on the back of the copy of the bill from which they were actually taken, not at the bottom of the copy from which they may be cat off. For giving a false date to an inspection bill, (or leaving the date blank to be filled up by clerks, &c.) so as to give to old ashes a factitious character. For taking up old bills and issuing new ones, falsely certifying to are-inspection, whereas all actually done was shaving or dubbing off the year, say 1826 and 1827. To make it penal in any inspector, (clerk, foreman, cooper or labourer,) to falsify brands, they knowing the ashes had not, bona fide, been re-in- spected. To make it penal in any inspector to withhold the annual return, (required by the 17th section,) from those who unfortunately had lost or mislaid their bills, &c. To make it penal in any clerk, foreman, cooper or labourer selling or disposing of any scrapings or other ashes, or as sub- stitutes, (even under order of the inspector,) should it even be in part payment for wages.'' " Perhaps a quarterly abstract from our books (filed with the clerk of the city or county,) might be a salutary check, if we had to testify it was a just and true return of all ashes both fit and unfit for inspection. For other parti- culars, I refer to the notes on the inspection law furnished you last winter.'* Few persons, I opine, will doubt the necessity of instantly amending the 70 th section, and to show that the 179th section also requires it, I extract further from the letter to Mr. McCall, as that section is worse than a "dead letter,'' practically, as Major Cooper, as late as 26th Sept. last, gave Messrs.. Hart, Herrick, & Co. scrapings for patronage, (see Mr. Conkiing's letter) which practice I think it is full time should be put a stop to, although I have, (since 16th August, 1824,) been told it has become prescriptive from length of time and usage ; but in my humble opinion no- thing can legalize a wrong. The Harts appear to have a ".hankering" after scrapings. It appears to be a family failing. " On the 28th ult. 87 casks of your ashes were consigned to Mr. James N. Cobb, to obtain which I was compelled to stipulate not to charge stor- age till the 1st November next, which I acceded to because I was desir- ous to have the inspection on more accounts than one. In this way in- spectors have played off against each other, and have taken ashes free 9 62 from storage for such a length of time, that when inspected, they found their entire fees gone, and they indebted for storage, from Is. to 4s. per cask. It is needless to say that storage, (in whole or in part,) was indi- rectly obtained through scrapings, and in another way known to the trade. Some of your constituents were the sufferers. If any excuse can be plead- ed for withholding scrapings, it would be under such circumstances when the inspector is deprived of liis just dues, without which he cannot ho- nestly meet his engagements." To show also, the absolute necessity of amendments to the 64th section, I will extract from my letter to my brother, the late John V. Henry, Esq. of Albany, dated 12th June last, first premising that I stand ready to prove that every cask of ashes inspected in Albany, between 5th April, 1 822, and the 21st December inst. received here, have been unbranded and with private marks substituted. " Concealment of inspectors' names, places of inspection, quality, &c. what can all this mean ? On the very face of the transaction there is something radically wrong. See my letter to Dox & Stoddard, of 20th July, 1626, &g. in explanation. For disapproving of such like practices, I have been ruined in pecuniary matters, and been actually incarcerated in a jail, because I would not, under my construc- tion of the 3d, 5th, 14th and 17th sections of act of 5th April, 18Si2, do as Messrs. Snow, Coooper, Bogart, Remsen, Dumont, Dox & Stoddard did to obtain and retain patronage, and have done, since the Revised Statutes, chapter 17, went into operation on 1st May, 1828. " I wrote you on the 3d instant (from the debtor's apartment,) and gave it to a stranger, who promised to put it on board the steam boat, but from my having no reply, I am to pre^me it has miscarried. In it I made no request that you should incur any further responsibility, but merely that you would shorten my probation here, by giving me the benefit of the two third act, as the payment of my debts was (from fortuitous causes) entirely out of the question, consequently that the confinement of my person could answer no valuable purpose, excepting to the "rogues and speculators," spoken of by the joint committee in their report, (printed by order of the Assembly on 4th November last,) who " tempted" the "cupidity" of " In' specters," and made them their "pliant tools," which the " poor inspector" (having a spice of your principle and spirit,) would not condescend to be.'' No wonder that such a correct man as Colonel Varick should say in his letter : " I am much obliged to you for the information communicated to me by the perusal of the enclosed papers, which I have read with a degree of sur- prise and astonishment. I would not have supposed that such bare-faced peculation could have been practised without being exposed long since, and the authors displaced." Which governor Clinton, the honorable James McCall and the Joint committee, (see their report in the journals of the senate October 30, 1828 say, can only be done through the intervention of the grand jury ; the frauds charged not being "evasions, but palpable violations'' of the law and which it was my duty officially to put a stop to, as neither the execu- tive or legislative authorities would or should interfere, as " the law was sufficient" if put in force by me. " Every person, (man, woman and child) is directly concerned in every question relating to the accuracy of weights and measures. I did not move in this business until I had ocular evidence (in two months only) of 681 instances of actual fraud in the Albany weiglit and tare of ashes (putting quality out of the question) of which 1 will give a few instances known to myself and clerks, in "justification of my conduct as inspector," and will then dismiss this subject with this passing remark, that I may be compelled by circumstances to let the malpractices continue, but that 1 never should forgive myself, knowing the existence of the frauds on absentees, had I been silent, and voluntarily permitted them to continue for the time to 63 EXCESS. "i cwt. qrs. lbs. 100 casks 22 3 aver'g 5^^ per ct. \ Showing conclu- sively, that my 3_p_ weights and scales (j^ /or those in Alba- 23 jny, must' be false 100 17 1 15 132 22 1 8 140 40 2 22 91 11 2 12 42 22 1 21 16| / and fraudulent. 605 casks 138 22 aver'g 5i per ct. or 24 pr, ct. a cask " I presume Henry Wilkes will inform you that it was through his in- terference (after nine days confinement in jail) I have been bailed for the limits. He offered himself as special bail with Horace Wilkes, Esq. but was refused without they would justify, which they did not think fit or pro- per to submit to. The fact that such bail was refused, shows the vindictive spirit of my opponents, who I know secretly urged -^ to put me to all the inconvenience and expense he possibly could, in the hope and expectation that I would succumb to them when deprived of my per- sonal liberty at this unpropitious season of the year. They little know what privations a person can submit to when under the impression he is suffering for "conscience sake," no matter whether the sufferer is under a " delusion" or not ; perhaps he will endure the more should that be his actual condition. " My opponents have frequently declared, that they and their partizans would prevent me from getting into any employ here, and have taken the diabolical but most effectual way to accomplish it by circulating a report, that my intellects were deranged. 1 hope in a few days to be in possession of some documents which will convince both friends and enemies that I have been too much " compos mentis''' for all my opponents. If I get possession of the vouchers promised me, the warmest and most devoted friends of the inspectors will from the necessity of the case be compelled to abandon them in a body, take the " poor inspector" by the hand to save their own characters, as it will then be for their interests to say, " who would have thought such a state of things to have existed in the inspection offices here and in Albany ?" Your excellency will agree with me, I have no doubt, that the deceptive and fraudulent journal entries and returns under the 185th section, &c. bear me out in the averments I have made (putting aside what I have in reserve) and that the 64th section also requires amendment ; but if there should be any " doubts" on your mind, what folloAvs will remove them. From a requisition made on me by Messrs. William and John James for certified copies of copies of bills dated as far back as June 2, 1825, issued by me unsigned, it appears that one of the " country innocents" has, after a lapse of 45 years, begun to "• open his eyes" to the " self-evident" defect in the copies, he having no assurance whatsoever that those wljich have been forwarded to him were actually issued at my office, being neither verified by the signature of myself or clerk; and should the " country dupes" (now they begin to see) follow this up by an application to the next legislature to authorise them to demand that I and others should testify that the un- 64 signed copies we have issued to thom, and tlic certified copies they maj' call on us to issue arc both just and true returns of tlio wcij^lit of (ho ashes (both fit and unfit for inspection) vvliich the casks contained when received into store, my prediction in the memorial submitted to the judiciary com- mittee on the 7th April last (which was suppressed to save their friends from exposure) will bu fulfilled as I sny, " The result of a call on inspectors to account, on oath, will be, tliat every inspector in the state (cxce[)t your memorialist) will have to resign, at the urgent entreaty of their friends, the agents, to avoid disclosures of " secrets worth knowing," and accountability, both legally and equitably, with their country employers." The owner of the ashes marked diamond S, whoever he may be, deserves credit for the invention. It is a " simple remedy," which all the " country dupes" now hold in their "own hands," and which only requires the legis- lature to give them the authority to peremptorily demand, should be verified both by signature and oath. There was great trouble, sir, in the agency and inspection offices on this most appalling call of Mr. Diamond S, but what kind of returns were made by Messrs. Snow, Cooper, Ilemsen, and Dumont, to the requisitions on them, has been kept a profound secret from me, and to every application for his real name and residence, a " deaf car" has been lent. Requisition. New-York, 4th March, 1829. " Mr. Robert R. Henry will please to furnish us with certified copies of his inspection bill of 15 casks 1st sort and 3 do. second, marked diamond S, inspected about 2d June 1825, as the owner is not satisfied without it. Respectfully, yours, Sic. [Signed] " W. & S. JAMES. Dia. S, 15 casks 1 pot. 67 cwt. 3 qrs. 201bs. Insp. 5J^7 48 p 72 Do. 3 do. 2 do. To which requisition the following return was made by me the day it was received. New-York, 12th March, 1829. I hereby certify, that agreeably to the request, in writing, of Messrs. Wm. & John James, dated 4th March 1829, 1 have (in conformity to Ihe presumptive meaning of the r)4th and 81st sections of the Revised Statute, Chapter 17, passed 3d December 1827) issued this " duplicate" copy of *' weigh-note," and do oflicially aver that I liave this day exan)ined my inspection books, and find that the fifteen casks of first sort potashes, and three casks second sort potashes, marked diamond S, were inspciitcd on or about the 2d June 1825, by emptying out the entire contents and examin- ing th(;m agreeably to the 3d section of the act 5lh April 1822, and that th(! weight of all the ashes received was, to the best of my knowletlge and belief, accounted for in the bills and copies delivered to Messrs. James\ and that no separate or supjdemcnlary bill (or copy) for any scrapings has 65 ever been issued by or for mc to any person or persons whatsoever, winch I certify, as the owner, it apfjears, is not satisfied with the returns f have- made. (Signed) R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. As I wished to write to the owner of the ashes marked diamond S, to know " wliy and wherefore" he was " not satisfied" without " certified co- pies" of bills (so long after inspection) under my hand, and to request him to send me the copies he had received that I might ascertain whether my clerk had obeyed my positive orders, always to note the scrapings so high up on the margin of the copies as to prevent, the note being cut olf, (a trick which I had heard had been played, the scrapings haii^ing by accident or design been noted so low down as to admit the note being " cut off," and still leave the copies apparently perfect) I wrote the following letter to Messrs. James'. New- York, 16th March, 1829. Gentlemen, I will thank you to send me, by the bearer, the name and residence of the owner of the 18 casks marked diamond S, inspected 2d June 1825, for which "duplicate" copy was issued at your request on the 12th instant, as I wish to ascertain why he was dissatisfied with my former returns, ami whether it was not because the copy (or copies) were unsigned, a great oversight, by the by, in the legislature, which omission the owner (who no doubt is a practical man) has at last noticed and will join me in requesting his friends in the legislature to have rectified, together with the capital errors and omissions made by the revisers in their 85th section, and through inadvertence (no doubt) by the legislature in their 76th section, (and other sections) all which practically render the inspection laws as they now stand, worse than a " dead letter," in many important points. Yours respectfully, R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl ashes. Messrs. William & John James. Every attempt which has been made by me, since the 16th March last, to get the " name" and " residence" of the " real owner" of the diamond S ashes, has been abortive, although a " fictitious" name has been given me. On again reading Chadwick's certificate, a thought has struck me that the " requisition" was made in behalf of Messrs. Snow, Cooper, Remsen, or Dumont, on some of whom real requisitions were made, to draw from me, by finesse, the form of a return, and that by issuing the undermentioned circular, I might get at the real name of Mr. Diamond S indirectly, as I did the names of " delinquents" from the comptroller, the particulars of which will be found in my letter to the President of 29th October last, al- luded to at the commencement of this communication, a copy of which, 1 presume, is in Albanj', if not tlie original, and to which I now refer. As I cannot go to Albany till after the 2d February next, and know (if not present) that the memorial and affidavit will be suppressed, as usual, if 66 sent, and further know what a powerful combination of interests will bo brought to bear on your excellency, to prevent your laying this communi- tion before the legislature, I cannot, on reflection, devote the intermediate time to better purpose, (considering what I have in view) than by writing the following " circular,'' and distributing it among those for whom I have acted as agent, factor, or inspector, and it will be " passing strange" if some of them will not, from self-interested motives, be induced to aid me in ob- taining amendments so " self-evidently" necessary as those to the 12th, 64th, 76th, 80th, I71st, 174th, 175th, 176th, 177th, 179th, 181st, 182d, 185th, 186 th, sections, &c. of that " chapter of blunders," commonly called the Kevised Statute, Chapter 17, particularly the 76th section, by having the words, " or any crustings or scrapings of the same, or shall knowingly suffer any person or persons in his employ to do the same," inserted, (which, strange to tell, the Hon. John Duer told me he considered surplusage) or what would be far better, to repeal the whole section and re-enact the 14th section of the act of 5th April 1 822 ; but this I presume to be inadmissible, as Mr. Duer informed me it was a principle in the revised laws not to give any part of the penalty to the informer ; when I sarcastically remarked, " If so, we inspectors are safe," (meaning for the time to come) because the men in the office having the power to buy and sell, and the inspector, in- spector general, and deputies, the power to issue bills with the " mystical" word " duplicate" written on it, by giving our " Cerberuses" a sop out of the scraping and picking dish, the inspector general, &c. could violate the duties of his office for years and years, and escape detection, with the ex- ercise of common discretion. If the executive and legislative authorities (after having the " palpable defects"intheinspectionsystemasto "provisions, produce, or merchandise," made known to them) are willing their constituents should suffer under them, so be it, and I will then " throw up my cards," and join my children in Georgia, where I cannot be a sufferer directly or indirectly. See my letter of Uth September 1828, to the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, for my motives for action. I will mention one case more, to show you, sir, what a "worthless thing" the Revised Statute is, and then close with the copy of my contemplated circular, in case your excellency does not think fit or proper to lay this before the legislature immediately on their meeting. That Mr. Isaac Bogart, not having been one year in office, cannot have any unclaimed ashes to report to any auctioneer, under the 171st section, is certainly true ; (he having illegally made way with them ; see my report on the journals of the Assembly, extra session, 63) of course he has no " duplicates" to transmit to the comptroller under the 174th section ; con- sequently he will give my all-important I75th section the "go-by" on the 1st January or February next, and for ever afterwards as long as the right to issue " duplicate" bills on the mere averment of the person " claiming or demanding" that he is the owner, showing no " legal" title by the exhi- bition of original bills or receipts. All, therefore, he has, or will do, to escape the penalty under the 177th section, (6th and 1 1th of Hart's law, amended by Butler) is to file my oath under the 176th section, with the comptroller, "That there have been no articles, subject to inspection, stored with him, which have remained not claimed by the owner within one year from the time they have been inspected,'' which is literally true, because the property has been " converted" (from time to time) by him into cash, and he holds the proceeds directly or indirectly in abeyance, thus complying with the letter, but violating the spirit of the laws. This is precisely the situation of Messrs. Robert Snow, Samuel Cooper, William Dumont, and Robert R. Henry, who have legally or illegally made way with all the unclaimed property, and Iiave only to file the oath under 67 Ibe 176th section to escape the penalty of ^2500 and imprisonment. But even that will be unnecessary, as one of the partisans of tiie inspectors says, that when your excellency was last in this city, the inspector general was fixed upon, and that the first act after the 1st January will be his nomina- tion and appointment, which will supersede all our commissions ; when, as private citizens, it will be optional to make the reports for the ensuing- year under the 176th or IP.Sth sections, or not, which, with Hart's 5th section, will be a quietus to all acts of omission or commission done, or sutTered to be done ; consequently, that I might save myself the trouble of sending this communication, as it would be laid aside. But on the contrary, a friend of yours tells me to pay no attention to what they say, for, that constitutional duty out of the question, he has mistaken your character, if with this docu- ment on your hand you will make the nomination, and by such a finesse, allow the inspectors, &c. to escape from all responsibility, and pocket the proceeds of unclaimed property which justly belongs to the treasury, (when the real owners do not appear " legally" to claim) as escheats, placing us, in fact, in the situation Inspector Bogart placed himself in August KJ24, and Inspectors Remsen and Wilson in January or February 1829, by their re- signations ; on the contrary, that the rule of President Jackson in the case of the collector of Alexandria should be adopted by you, not to accept or cause resignations, when they give defaulters an undue advantage they otherwise would not have possessed. See also my letter to Benjamin F. Butler, Esq. of 11th September 1828, relative to the privilege of commut- ing with money for duties required to be performed (under the 174th, 175 th or 176th sections) under the 177th section. Contemplated Circular, Sir, On the 14th July 1824, I connected myself with Major Samuel Cooper, inspector of pot and pearl ashes, and found him practically a convert to the principle that scrapings and crustings were not " potashes,'' and that the withholding the " Bogart commixture" (which he in 1808 reprobated) from the absentee, and " converting" them by sale (or as largesses to his men, &c.) to his private uses, under "duplicate" bills, issued to JVlr. John H. Remsen and others, was not a violation of duty, particularly as Mr. Inspec- tor Snow's practice also was to omit to note the scrapings on the *' weigh- note, and to bestow them in whole or in part (with other " unclaimed" ashes- as largesses, on captains and other agents to obtain and retain patronage, and occasionally on clerks, &;c. to secnire their acquiescence. Deeming the " practice" both illegal and immoral, I separated from the major on the 16th October 1824, since which I have tried various ways (by circulars, letters, reports, memorials, &c.) to draw the attention of *' Absentees" to the omission of Scrapings, alias f*ickings, on their copies (which were unsigned, consequently no way "legally'' binding on us) but all my " well meant" efforts failed until the 12th March 1829, when I had the pleasure of receiving the following requisition from Messrs. William and John James, an agency house in this city. (Here I will give a copy of their requisition for certified copies — my return — the letter to Messrs. James, with Chadwick's note, and then say) The owner of the ashes marked [S,] whoever he may be, deserves credit for his discovery of a mode of " self protection'' for the time to come, being a " simple remedy which all the country innocents now bold in their own hands," and also for the past, provided they will join with me in 68 re(iucsting the Leg-islature to g'ivc them authority peremptorily to demand from me and others, that we should verify by signature, and should there be any doubts that the unsig-ned copies which have been issued were frau- dulent, that the inspector should be required to swear that the copies issued, (whether signed or unsigned) did contain the entire weight of all the ashes received, both fit and unfit for inspection, with the exception of what might have been " picked" or " cribbed," by the men (unknown to us,) the sample ashes, and what may have been given away in small quantities for domestic uses, but with no other exceptions whatsoever. My object in making this communication, is to get you, Sir, to co-ope- rate with me in obtaining amendments to that chapter of blunders, com- monly called the Revised Statute, chapter 17, the most effectual way to accomplish which, will be to transmit this circular to the representatives from your county, and request their concurrence. Asking for nothing but what is to be binding on myself in case I should be permitted to have " art or part" in the inspection of ashes, <' sinister motives" should not be imputed to me, in addition to which I wish amendments to protect myself (and indirectly absentees both at home and abroad,) in case I have again to become a dealer in the article, as I have made myself so unpopular with the " powers that be" that it is determined I am to be neither Inspector General, Deputy, Clerk, Foreman, in fact any office directly or indirectly appertaining to inspection of " Provisions, Produce or Merchandise," an event by the by, not much in favour of the absentee, which they will experience in case I conclude to become a Georgian. Any person not acquainted with the transactions in inspection offices, would suppose my return to Mr. S. was perfect in its kind, but to show you how many " loop holes" I have left myself to " creep through,'' I , exhibit them as " broad hints'' for legislators, from which additional disclaimers to the 175th section of the Revised Statute may be framed, until which is done, I contemplate adding some one or more of them to future requisitions after the word " whatsoever," as they embrace many of the covert mal-practices of the trade. 1st. Neither have I directly or indirectly given any merchantable or unmerchantable ashes (alias, " unclaimed" ashes, scrapings, crustings, fine ashes, gold dust, sweepings, alias pickings, alias the " Bogarf commix- luie) as largesses, to obtain or retain patronage. i2d. Nor the proceeds of such ashes in the shape of money, clothing, cartage, storage or otherwise, directly or indirectly. 3d. Nor to printers in lieu of money, for newspapers, or any other peri- odical production. 4th. Nor to clerks, foremen, coopers, or labourers (either in money or kind) to obtain or retain their " good will" or in part payment of wages or services, or as a compensation to agents, brokers, " convenient friends," or otherwise. 0th. Nor have I ever designedly omitted the entry of any scrapings or crustings, or fine ashes, or suffered them to be omitted by my clerks on the copies, (or in tlie' book to be kept for that purpose) on any pretext what- soever, such as that they did not amount to a " certain quantity," or under the hope or expectation that the "country innocents," (absentees) would not notice the omissions on the copies, and consequently would not " claim ordemand" them, they not having the " gift of divining" that 3 per cent, of their ashes was placed in a state of abeyance without their knowledge. Gth. Nor have I ever designedly noticed the scrapings so low down on llic copies, as to admit of their being " cut off," and still leave the copies appiircMitly perfect. 7th. That I liaye not directly or itndirccty, (by myself or any broker, clerk, or oilier agent or " convenient friend") sold or otherwise made way with illegally under " duplicate" bills, by substitution or otherwise, any 69 '* trust ashes" (or property) or as substitutes for other ashes (which cotild not be found) excepting as to one barrel of scrapings, whether fit or unfit for inspection, which had been stored with mc for inspection or otherwise, con- trary to the letter or spirit of the inspection laws, particularly those of 1822, 1827, and 1828. 8th. That I have not directly or indirectly admitted any " fictitious claims" to ashes (either fit or unfit for inspection,) or the proceeds of them to avoid depositing the proceeds in the treasury, agreeably to the above acts, consequently that no ashes or the proceeds are held or placed (direct- ly or indirectly) in abeyance, and that no reports or affidavits required by the laws, have been withheld by me from auctioneers, the comptroller) the real owners, or the legislature, as I aver has been done by the other Inspectors under the acts of 25th February 1813, the 5th April 1822, but particularly under the 64th, 171st, 174th, 175th, 176th, and 185th sections of Revised Statutes, chapter 17, of the 3d December 1827, and the 5th and 6th sections of the act of 14th November 1828, as the journals of the senate and assembly, the comptroller's files, the circular of the comptroller of the 11th July 1829, the treasury books, and the files of the Attorney General will conclusively show. I beg leave to draw your particular attention to the report of Mn Inspector Dumont, which you will find in the journals of the assembly, 2d February 1829, pages 340, 34l, &c. to which you will find attached the following extra judicial return, which " legally'' should have been filed with the comptroller under the 174th section of the Revised Statute, chap- ter 17, or the 4th section of Hart's law of 14th November 1828, when it would have been judicial. " The bills of the following marks, consisting of from 14 to 308 lbs. of scrapings or crusted ashes vyere inspected by Mr. William Dumont, previ- ous to the 1st of May last, appear not to have been claimed, will be sold at auction according to law by W. W. Whetmore on the 3d day of March next, unless " legally" claimed previous to the day of sale. 1826. June 7, C. Morris. " 10, A. Davenport. " 11, J. B. 18£6. 1826. Oct. 7. S. F. P. &: CO. July 10. E. S. Sterling. " 13, S. H. A. " * W. S. Ely. " ' S. & E. « < Hide & Richards 1827. " 26, J. J. BrinkerhofF. March 27, S. Pratt. Aug. 30, J. S. & T. M. *« * L. Wiley. " ' S. Fuller. " ' B. & Beebe. June 29, Merrilife Fink. " ' W. Russel. Sept. 1, M. Rowley. May 4, P. F. P. & Co. *♦ 8, S. F. P. & Co. June 1, S.J. Brickerhoff " 15, A. Dart.* O. Lee. " * G. Fislin. " 30, J. Smith. " ' B. Byington. " ' J. Osgood. July 3. J. Smith. " W.S.Ely. " O. Stone. ." E. S. Sterling. " J. Beals. ' Smith & Everts. ' Cyrus Smith. 12, C. Morris. 14, D. Collins. ' D. Baxter. 27, M. & Fink. 8, C. S. & Co. 1827. Sept. 12, D. L. Sayre. Oct. 9, H. & Bull. " 12, do. do. " * N. Foster, , " 26, J. Hill. 1828. March 14, J. H. & S. Leonard. April 19, R. B. «&, Co. " 28, J. S. '' ' R. S." There is something very remarkable m the wbrding, &c. of the above report, (see act of November 1828,) forty-eight different parcels of ashee, only " appear not to Lave been claimed.'' What is the probable reason 10 70 they have not been claimed ? Why, '* I guess" not eight out of the forty-eight have the scrapings noted *' on the copies of the bills from which they were taken,'' as is imperatively required by the 5th section of the act of 5th April 1B22 ; a *' bad precedent," which the junior inspectors had set them by the senior inspectors, to the great damage of the absentee. Those ashes having been sold by the auctioneer, and the proceeds deposi- ted in the treasury, how are the persons above named to shew legal title to the comptroller ? The unsigned copies should be no " legal'' or equita- ble vouchers in the eyes of the comptroller, because he can from them have no assurance that they are actually Mr. l3umont's, without the clause be passed authorising those persons (and all others) to call for copies verified by signature and oath, which is an all important amendment for the absen- tee, as it will with the other amendments which I shall propose, be effectual guards against abuses for the time to come. The efforts I shall make the ensuing session to obtain amendments, &c. are the last I shall attempt ; for if the country owners will not aid rae, and are contented with unsigned copies, &c. I should be. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, (Signed) R. R. HENRY. Inspector of Pot and Pearl ashes. To Mr. The fact tliat Mr. Dumont omitted to note the scrapings on his copies in 1825, (when his patrons, Keeler & Rogers and others requested it,) will not be denied by him, consequently it is fairly to be presumed he did the same in 1827 and 1G28. As I have from experience Found that " halfway measures," when prin- ciple is at issue, are the worst that can be pursued, I aver, and stand ready to prove, (if they dare put me to the proof,) that scrapings were omitted designedly by him, Robert Snow, Samuel Cooper, John H. Remsen, (and by Mr. Bogart till his resignation) down to the 30th April 1828, and by Messrs. Snow, Cooper and Remsen, certainly since the Revised Statute chapter 17, has been in operation. See Mr. Conkling's letter. As I will have as much to dread (as a buyer or seller of ashes) from inspectors general Snow, Dumont, Cooper, Bogart, Remsen, &c. and more, (as they have now the power under the 80lh section to appoint as many assistants as they think proper,) it is all important for me and others, to have the " legal" right to demand certified copies on oath, whenever we suppose we have been cheated. Every person will admit the 3d and 5th sections of the act of 5th April 1822, are plain and binding enough, but they were rendered a " dead letter" practically, the copies being unsigned. I will give two strong cases in point. When the act of 5th April 1822, was received, Mr. Inspector Bogart en- tered the scrapings on the copies, agreeably to the 5th section. An agency house inquired the reason for such an extraordinary entry on his or their copies, and was told, that as no mention was made of scrapings in the act of 1813, they were generally withheld, (and not noted on the copies) and fV'ven to them and others for their good will and patronage. That com- plaints had been made to the Hon. Ephraim Hart, (see my Memorial, sup- pressed by the Judiciary Committee of Senate, for particulars) who had introduced amendments into the 3d and 5th sections, requiring the scrapings to be noted on each and every copy. Mr. Bogart was told if he did not discontinue the practice of noting the scrapings on the copies, they would jminediately transfer their business to Mr. Snow ; and Mr. Bogart would 71 have yielded the point, maugre the lavr, had it not been for the advice of his coloHred man, Isaac Heddy. On his refusal, the business was transferred to Mr. Snow, who omitted to note the scrapings on the copies down to 30th April 1828, if not since then. Again. 1 had been frequently told that was Mr. Snow's practice, but I had no ocular evidence of the fact until 7th January 1825, when a quantity of ashes (marked J. W. Strong, W. Pixley, & Co. Hart & Lay or Saxton, C Cary, and Kimberly) were brought from Mill-strex3t, to the store in Stone-street, (where I then kept my office) the scrapings on which (nearly three large casks) were taken out and thrown into a common mass without any regard to individual rights, and they were set side (the foreman told me) for account of the agents. When I submitted my letter of 4th March 1825, (to Governor Clinton) to Mr. Snow, at his office, on the 7th or 8th March, he told me he had been compelled to give scrapings to captains and other agents, or lose their patronage, as Mr. Bogart gave. The complaint of agents against Maj. Cooper is, that he literally took all the scrapings, and would make no division of the " prize,'' (as Mr. Snow's men call it, see Mr. Conkling's letter) " share and share" alike, contrary to the 64th section, although not exactly to the 76th section, as he does not sell, only gives. I am well aware, sir, that the 5th section of Hart's law, and the highly reprehensible if not criminal neglect of the comptroller and attorney gene- ral, in not enforcing the 177th and 186th sections, releases all inspectors from responsibilities for all such acts done or suffered to be done; but these " cases in point" are given to show the necessity for certified copies on oath for the time to come ; if not, the inspection system will be a nominal thing. If I was in the place of agents, I would quickly render the operation of certified copies on oath as to their effects on past transactions a " dead letter," by requesting all my friends in and out of the legislature to have the amendment passed, and when requisitions came for "certified copies on oath," I would tell Messrs. Snow, Cooper, Bogart, and Dumont, *' Your safety and mine requires you to follow Henry's advice given in letters to Cornelius V. V. Leonard, Nathaniel Conkling, James Powers, and Isaac Heddy, (who are in your employ as clerks, foreman, and cooper) dated 25th and 26th July 1828. Resign in their favour, in case an inspector general is not appointed, when, as " deputies or private citizens," you can laugh at Henry's 174th, 175th, or 176th sections, and his amendments to Hart's 6th and 1 1th sections, and his " certified copies on oath." The public impression, sir, has been, that in the transactions at St. Mary's and here, I have been acting on my own mere motion and without advice. The letter to Lieutenant Governor Pitcher of the 1 1 th November 1828, contains a letter to me from Governor Clinton of 12th October 1823, showing that what appeared after that date from me relative to the St. Mary's affair, must have met with his approbation, and in fact my recent letters to President Jackson of 1st, 2d, and 7th July last, are predicated on his advice to avoid the " slave business," as far as possible, whenever I again brought the collector's affair forward, (which I told him I should do, on any change of administration, if it was 20 years afterwards, provided the collector was continued in office) and confine myself to the use and con- version of Bilbo's custom-house bond to private uses, vvliich every person would agree with me was fraudulent, and could I (without breach of faith) produce a letter dated 13th March 1827, marked '' private," it would show that some" advice" relative to the inspectors, and the course I should pur- sue with them, was given, which, by the by, I did not then follow, as vin- dictive motives would be imputed to me, although I acted ofiicially. Previously to my writing the letter of 4th March 1825, to Governo 72 Clinton, I consulted that luminary of the law, Chancellor Kent, relative to what I deemed illegal practices, under the act of 1822, who told me, if it was a fact that Snow, Cooper, and Bog-art, had withheld the returns re- quired by the 3d, 5th, and 17th sections, they were not evasions, but fla- grant violations of both the letter and spirit of the law. Fortified in my opinions and practice as an inspector, by the sanction of such men as De Witt Clinton, Chancellor Kent, Nicholas Devereaux & Co. the Hon. James McCall, the correspondent of De Rham & Moore, Samuel Corp, Esq. Col. Richard Varick, John I. Mumford, Esq. and Mr. Nameless, (whose name, if I was at liberty to give, would make agents and inspectors " tremble in their shoes," as his letter shows him to be no com- mon character) I ventured to differ in opinion with my esteemed brother and other friends, (who would not even look at my documents) who admitted I was right in principle ; but said the powerful combination of inspectors, agents, brokers, senators, clerks, chairmen of joint and special committees, who voted as they directed, aided by the comptroller and attorney general, was too much for me, standing alone and without a cent in my pocket. But he and they little thought that "journal entries," and '' circulars," which cannot be " yazoo'd," would place me on the " vantage ground," without the "constituted authorities" lay both law and justice aside, and allow their " constituents" to continue to suffer under the 17th chapter of blunders, rather than suffer a few corrupt public oflBcers from being ex- posed to merited punishment, and countenance the " barefaced pecula- tion," &c. spoken of by Col. Varick in his letter. I regret I did not take Chancellor Kent's opinion (and several others whom I consulted) in writing ; but those I have received are so much in point, that 1 beg leave to give them for your information and that of others, for to be candid with you, sir, nine sheets of this communication are already copied and in circulation, and the rest will be as soon as I can complete them, so that part of the contents will be known before your excellency receives the original. The clerks, &c. therefore, had better follow General Ward's plan, by complaining to tho Houses themselves against ray "libellous allegations," and get the " whip hand" of me, which would have a better appearance than to be brought up to the " ring bolt," by the " poor inspector," which they assuredly will be, (after the 2d February) life, health, &c. granted me by a benign Providence, as the entering " spurious reports" and letters on tho journals are certainly " bad precedents," and cannot be too soon checked. See my report on the journals of Assembly, 20th October 1828, relative to **bad precedents." Utica, September 8th, 1825. Dear Sir, We received some days since your inspection bill of ashes, dated 25th July. For the future, the ashes you may inspect for us, you will please have tho name in full on the copy opposite to the number, and you will oblige us by being as exact and particular in this respect as possible. The barrels marked H, make out in a separate bill. In the bills received, there are four barrels of this mark included with them without. Very respectfully wo are Your obedient servants, NICHOLAS DEVEREAUX & Co. P. S. When ashes cannot be put back nito tbe barrel, we want a memo, or the copy of the; quantity, and should it be put in another bb). it is necessary 73 we should know it. Wc take ashes from different owners, and it is right wc should have the return of each barrel. N. D. & Co. Such should liavc been the instructions from every agent ; but, though " passing strange," they were the very reverse. vSee notes on tlie margin. For one of the reasons for Nicholas Devereaux &Co. being so particular, I refer to my letter to the Comptroller, of 21st January last, and for other reasons, t6 Mr. Alexander Black, and his friend, Mr. Milne, for " secrets worth knowing." New- York, 2d April, 1827. To Mr, Robert R. Henry. Dear Sir, I am indebted for your two letters of last week, accompanied by various statements and suggestions as to abuses in the inspection of ashes in this state ; and although I have been personally for many years out of the way of transactions in this important commodity, I feel persuaded, from my con- viction of the sincerity and accuracy of your character, (so long ascertained on ray part) that your observations cannot have been made without good grounds. Unhappily, however, I hare long since observed, that evils of this kind creeping in silently and by slow degrees and not growing to a great degree of atrocity, are with difficulty corrected, and that he who labours to repair the abuse, too often meets enmity and ill will in return for even distin- guished zeal. In the present case, personal benefit will be supposed to have some share in the discussion, and therefore your observations will be more exposed to scrutiny. For myself I cannot but imagine that your perseverance in the faithful and conscientious course which I am convinced you have always adopted, will secure you ultimately, if not a preference, yet at least a perfectly fair post of competition. A degree of interest, however, either with the owners or the consignees of ashes, I know is indispensable towards a fair chance for your celebrity, to which I most cordially wish that I could contribute. As you have introduced to my observation a few names to whom you have addressed yourself, I shall take occasion to subjoin a few more, of respectable and important standing with us, (especially in the line of busi- ness under consideration) whose judgment, if you can convince as to the subject of complaint, I have no doubt, from their personal candour, that you will secure their attachment. I remain, dear sir, with great esteem, Your faithful and obedient servant, [Signed] SAMUEL CORP. The names to which I would more immediately refer you are, Abraham Bell & Co. James McBride, John Flack, Samuel Hicks & Son, F. Thomp- son & Nephews, James Magee &, Co. Mackee, Lockhart & Co. John H. Ilowland. P. S. On perusing a second time your favour of 30th March, I observe iQ its conclusion an appeal to my opinion as a mercantile man, 74 '' Whether I should think you in error in refusinff to substitute new bills for old?" I should certainly not blame you for giving a new and clean bill in place of an old one which might have become defaced or mutilated. But if a person should require you to issue a new document, varying in date, quality, or other important circumstances, from the old, I trust you would unequivocally convince him on the spot of his mistake, in applying to you on the occasion. S. C. A " deaf ear" was lent to " all my suggestions," by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, the shippers, the printers, &c. owing to the supe- rior influence of agents, brokers, inspectors, &c. until 20th July 1827, from which period up to the 10th October 1827, advices from Antwerp, Havre, Liverpool, London, Belfast, &c. more than confirmed my mercantile and official predictions; consequently, the Chamber of Commerce, printers, senators. Governor, shippers, &c. moved simultaneously, and the Chamber of Commerce, Committee of the Houses, consulted the " poor inspector." Had they been so wise as to request him to attend at Albany, the *' sad mistakes" made by the revisers and the legislature in the 17th chapter of blunders (particularly in the sections 64, 76, 171, 174, 176, 179, &c. un- der which absentees have since been suffering) would not have happened, and the necessity for the present application would have been prevented. Previous to my giving the letter from Antwerp, I beg leave to extract from a memorandum I made, showing the state of things which existed up to the 1st of May, 1828, when the Revised Statutes, chapter 17, went into operation, since which the same practices have been continued, only more covertly, as I stand ready to prove, ashes having been " sherryed" as lately as the 24th of June last, to the great gain of the seller, but loss of the ship- per or consumer, at home or abroad. Is it anyway surprising, sir, that I should find fault with such unfair practices (to say the least of them) as I have and will now give, which were every-day transactions until I checked them ? How an inspector may bribe a broker, or agent, or owner, (without giving money) and get his patron- age ; and how an inspector by constant refusal may lose his patrons ? A broker holds in his hands new bills, which I told him had been issued for old ones : he said the practice was common (see the Morning Courier between the 19th of July and the 17th of August, 1827, in which Mr. Mumford, who had been a broker, also states the same fact) that some bills which he had purchased of 1827 inspection, he found on examination of the books, were inspected early in September, 1826. " I have in my possession a bill dated April 5, 1824, for which a new bill was obtained, dated on or about the 18th of February, 1825, (from an in- spector who had never seen the aslies) and they were palmed on John De Kuyter, Esq. as freshly inspected ashes, as was another parcel on April 13, 1827, on another house. I know of a case, in which old ashes (sent down by mistake unaltered to the vessel) had the old brands effaced and new ones substituted !" See my circular of March 19, 1828, in which I charge the fraudulent practice by name on Messrs. Snow, Cooper, Remsen, and Dumont ; but neither of them dare to bring me to account (although I offered to waive all forms of law) as they knew I would prove the fact by their clerks, &c. Say John Brower, Joseph Conkling, Nathaniel Conk- ling, William Anderson, Cornelius V". V. Leonard (putting the clerks of brokers and agents out of the question) : they pocketted the insult. Let us see what ex-broker Mumford says on the subject in his Morning Courier for Friday, July 20, 1827. 75 " Pot and Pearl Ashes. — We have been favoured with the following let- ter, with the liberty of using the name of the very respectable house to whom it was addressed. We have for some time been apprised that there were serious complaints against some of our inspectors; but as we were as- sured the subject would he brought before the grand jury, and were not in possession of all the facts, we have hitherto refrained from the comments which the subject now imperiously demands. " We have spoken in no measured terms of the frauds in cotton, and think no penalty too heavy for the perpetrators of them ; and now that similar frauds are brought down to our own doors, we pledge ourselves tliat our columns shall not be neutral on a topic of such vital interest to our merchants as the deception in ashes, of which the letter so strongly and justly complains." To Messrs, De Rham and Moore, Antwerp, May 29, 1827. " My letter of the 25th inst. was scarcely gone, when several of my best customers called and complained bitterly of the quality of the ashes re- ceived by the Alfred, Capt. Scule, and they have left the greatest part for my account. They say first : That the ashes are mixed with sand and dirt, for that after they are dissolved a very heavy sediment settles at the bottom of the tubs, which diminishes considerably the strength of the ley, which is found to be from 5 to 8 per cent, weaker than that proceeding from Rus- sian ashes. " 2d. That the strength of your ashes was formerly from 10 to 12 degrees more than Russian. Now, Russian are already 2 to 4 degrees better than yours; in consequence of which my customers have ordered a supply of Russian ashes, which come cheaper than yours. In consequence of which I am compelled to change my operations. "I give you the information in order that you may warn your inspectors ; and that measures may be taken, without which, America will eventually lose that branch of commerce ; and I am now compelled to annul my order of the 18th of this month for 500 barrels." I was going to extract further from Mr. M umford's " editorial remarks,'" (which will apply to the present slate of things as well as in 1827) ashes having been '' sherryed" (alias the old brands effaced and new ones substi- tuted as lately as 24th June last) which, under the Revised Statutes, as it now stands, can be done with perfect safety (with consideration) for who will assume voluntarily the odious office of informer even officially, when nothing but loss and obloquy can accrue to him personally on complaint to a grand jury ? To save trouble, I send your excellency my extracts from the Morning Courier. Something should be done to put a stop to unfair practices. I will suggest effectual remedies if I am sent for, without which, make any law, sir, you please, and I can give it the " go by," as I told the comptrol- ler in my letter of October 23, 1828, and the special committee of the se- nate on the 28th of October, 1828, (suppressed) which I would not commit to paper, but would impart verbally to the committee, as I am desirous the 76 hw should be called truly *•' Henry's law ;" (see my letter to the hon. Uenj, F. Butler, of Uth September, 1828, and my report on the journals of the assembly, October 1828, &c.) but I was not sent for as the Hon. Truman Hart, and tlie persons who assisted him in framing the report and bill, sup- posed it related to the income' his friends derived from scrapings, &c. As I was told so frequently that it was impossible that Maj. Cooper, a re- volutionary character and a member of the Cincinnati, and Mr. Inspector Snow, a religious man, could be guilty of such malpractices as I alleged against them,I was induced to send certain documents relative to the " af- fair" to Col. Rich'd Varick, President of the Cincinnati, (a friend and com- panion of the Major) and to Mr. Nameless, a friend of Mr. Snow (which he would acknowledge he had been, if I was at liberty to name him) which documents were returned with the following written opinion on the cases : Jersey City, 26th May, 1828. Dear Sir, I am much obliged to you for the information communicated to me by the perusal of the enclosed papers, which 1 have read with a degree of surprise and astonishment. I could not have supposed it possible that such bare-faced peculation could have been practised without being ex- posed long since, and the authors displaced. I am, dear Sir, very respectfully, yours, (Signed) RICHARD VARICK, Mr. ROBERT HENRY, Inspector of Pot Ashes, New-York. New- York, 23d November, 182'?. Dear Sir, I have read over the greater part of the papers you committed to my inspection. I have not gone into the whole, because I believe my previous acquaintance with the subject, the many conversations I have had with you thereon, and the charges which are repeated in several shapes", explained to different individuals, and supported by various appeals, are thoroughly understood by me, and may be briefly summed up thus. Alledged frauds on the makers of ashes : — scrapings not accounted for. Unclaimed ashes not advertised. Alledged frauds on shippers of ashes, being generally incompletely, and sometimes unfairly inspected. — False dates being assigned to inspection. — Pretended re-inspection, without examination. I am also sensible that the injuries I have placed in the second class, may concern those of the first, (I mean the makers,) not only as such frauds tend to affect the character of New-York ashes generally, but on the prin- ciple, that every fair dealer suffers when his article is placed on a level with that of the dishonest. But keeping this position in view, I think you have laid an undue stress on the maker's share of the evils that have ex- isted. That all men should act honestly is certain, and that those execut- ing a public trust are more especially bound to discharge its duties faith- fully, is equally true ; but while these axioms are undoubtedly correct, yet as a practical matter, a man who is defrauded will receive from the public but little commiseration if he has a simple remedy in his own hands. The charges against the present inspectors may also be considered as breaches of public duty ; first, in not complying strictly with the letter of the law, in whicii respect the offence is rather of a legal than a moral cha- racter ; and secondly, which is of far greater importance, they havo beet* 77 guilty of a CFimmal negligence and actual fraud on the public. Assuming this to be the fact, can past instances be dealt with in any way but by cri- minal prosecution, founded on individual cases ? In respect to these, there appears no other mode of proceeding-, and until adopted, public and private opinion must be suspended. Is there any remedy for the past, or security for the future to be expected from additional oaths ? Will the man who scruples not to cheat, after swearing to be faithful, refuse to take another oath, (if necessary) that he has been honest ? In a word, can a man who will rob, be deterred by the force of an oath ? I think not ; and it seems to me, that however proper it may be, to make and enforce general regulations, a man who cannot be kept by such guards from appropriating to his own use the scrapings, will (if dishonestly inclined,) transfer his attack upon the more valuable ashes. A multitude of legal enactments frequently entangle honest men, while they are mere cobwebs for rogues. The best security is to be found in the appointment to office of men of good character on the one hand, and the vigilant attention to the interest of those concerned, on the other. I do not think that persons generally will concur with you in presuming guilt from the determined silence of the parties. When a charge of a highly criminal nature is made against an individual, whether he be inno- cent or guilty, I consider him justified in refusing all reply, until brought into a court of justice. I wish you much success in your endeavours to benefit the public, and more to your individual advantage. With the hope that they may be brought to combine, I am, with esteem. Your sincere friend, (Signed) • R. R. Henry, Esq. I regret I am not at liberty to give the letter entire, with the name of the writer, for if so, it would cause the greatest alarm in the minds of both inspectors and ex-inspectors, agents and their partisans, that such a man should advise the course he evidently does, for we all know that the ".simple remedy'' which we have in our "own hands," means the "grand jury," which the "joint committee" subsequently (Journals of the Senate, Extra Session, October 30, 1828, 63,) also say is the proper forum, the practices charged being not " evasions, but palpable violations'' of the statute. Ry the by, this was also the opinion of governor Clinton and Mr. Mc Call in 1827. Happily for me, I now have nothing directly to do with inspectors, (un- less I choose voluntarily to act before a grand jury) as the imprudence and impolicy of my opponents in making fraudulunt entries upon the Journals of both Houses, fraudulent returns to the legislature, but above all, the imprudent letter of the honorable Mr. Johnson to his friend Colonel Stone, (exposing the deceptive nature of the entries made by the clerks, on the Journals, 6th and 7th April last, 960 and 413,) the unwise circular of (he comptroller, and the "neglects" of positive duty under the 177th and 1 86th sections, afford " Remedies," putting certified copies on oath out of the question. I wish, sir, on principles of public policy, to draw your particular atten- tion to the importance of the reports to the legislature, and (in a political and moral point of view,) to put the question home to you, (as conservator of the laws,) whether the deceptive reports of Messrs. Snow, Dumont, Mc Carthy, &c., are not more blameable than the total neglect to make any by Messrs. Cooper, Remsen, Lowerre, Howard, &c., (see list of de- faulters,) to report both " fees" and "emoluments derived from his office ;" 11 78 because they made no attempts to deceive the legislature, (by " or" or " and") as others have done. See the reports and tlie estimates predicated on them for particulars. The practical results from the " neglects" of duty on the part of the Comptroller and Attorney General, under the 177th and 186th sections, will be exemplified in a few days hence. No return having been made this year (preceding year) to auctioneers, under the 17 1st section, no duplicate can be transmitted to the comptroller under the 174th section, of course all of us inspectors of ashes give the all- important 175th section the " go by," and have only (with the inspectors of " provisions, produce, or merchandise,") to file the oath, No. 17G, (to es- cape the penalty of the 177th section.) " That there have been no arti- cles subject to inspection, stored with him, which have remained not claimed by the owner within one year from the time they shall have been inspected.'' How inspectors, who for thirty consecutive years past, have been selling the unclaimed property, (ashes, beef, pork, flour, &c.) illegally at private sale, and have not paid the proceeds to the owners nor into the treasury of the state, can conscientiously take the above oath, I cannot say, but I suppose that the comptroller will excuse them ; for I will be told by inspectors of ashes, that Hart's 5th section legalises all illegal sales, under the acts of 1813, 1822, 1827, and 1828, and that they paid the proceeds to the owners; which mere averment is prima facie evidence of the fact, that they have done so till the contrary is made " legally'' to appear. That the legislature having sanctioned the report of the joint committee, declaring the word *' LegaP^ to be " Unnecessary^'^'' they are the sole judges of title, and have the right to insist upon or dispense with the exhibition of " ori- ginal bills or receipts,'' and to issue "duplicate bills" when and to whom they please, without giving any account to any one. Did the legislatare in passing Hart's 5th section, and rejecting the word *■*■ IcgaP as '■'■unnecessary^'''' contemplate such results from their acts? Certainly not. I repeat that they have never been so deceived since the days of Col. Durr. Look, sir, at tlie dangerous nature of the " discretion ary power" vested in us of issuing duplicate bills uncontrolled. Suppose an inspector have a note to pay, and not to be in funds. He inspects (or orders his deputy to inspect) as many casks of the " trust ashes" as are necessary, (provided the " scrapings" and other " unclaimed ashes" with- held /rom absentees are not sufficient) puts on them a "fictitious mark," say Andrew Jackson, writes on the bill the " mystical word duplicate," hands the bill to his clerk, (or broker,) who converts the ashes into cash, and when the ashes used are called for by the " owner," he supplies their place from other " trust ashes,'' by substitution. See my letter to the president of the Chamber of Commerce, as far back as the 13lh of June, 1825, part of which will be found in the extracts from the Morning Courier herewith, to which I beg leave to draw your particular attention. As I shall probably have to become a dealer in ashes, 1 shall not deem myself safe should this " discretionary power" be left in the hands of inspectors general or depu- ties ; for as Governor Van Buren justly remarks, " Such power cannot b© entrusted to any one without danger of abuse.'' I put the question res- pectfully to your excellency, whether constitutionally this communication can be withheld from the legislature, although it implicates political friends directly or indirectly ? The proofs of their deviations from duty should be on file in the respective offices, and to them I appeal for the absolute truth of the charges. As my 175th section requires the inspector to swear that he had *' duly accounted with tlu; owner or agent for all the ashes delivered to his care as the law directs," and " that he had not by himself, or any other person or persons in his employ, made out any invoice, weigh-note, or bill of in- spection of a later date than the time such ashes were duly inspected, and 79 that the same were emptied out of the cask or casks, and duly examined, at the date of every such invoice, wcig-h-note, or bill of inspection :" As I knew that if I had in one instance violated the law, 1 must perjure myself in taking, it, I applied in writing, (on 25th and 26th July, 1028,) to my clerks, foreman, and cooper, (all in the employ of my opponents,) to ascertain from them whether they knew of one instance in which I had violated the duties of my office ; if so, I would deem it as a favour to make it known to me ; for as I would not sell the unclaimed property in my pos- session, (under "duplicate" bills, issued to " convenient friends," to pay the fine of ^250, under the 177th statute, as others were doing-,) I conse- quently would resign my commission, as I had no funds to pay the forfei- ture for "neglect" alluded to, without aid of friends, which I did not think fit and proper to ask under existing- circumstances. [No. 159.] New-York, 28th July, 1828. Dear Sir, In answer to your letter of the 25th instant, I have no hesitation in saying that according to my knowledge and belief, you always strictl}'^ complied with the inspection law ; and that you need not scruple to take the oath prescribed in its full force and meaning. This I will testify at any time, and under any circumstances. Yours, very respectfully, (Signed) N. CONKLTNG. R. R. Henry, Esq. [No. 160.] New- York, 18th August, 1828. Dear Sir, From all that I know during the three years that I was employed in your store as foreman and cooper, I fully believe that you always complied with the inspection law, and conscientiously fulfilled the duties of your office. Yours with respect, [Signed] J. POWERS. R. R. Henry, Esq. [No. 161.] New- York, 2Sd October, 1828. I was in Mr. R. R. Henry's employ from the first of May 1826, to the first of May 1828, except about six or eight weeks in December 1827 and January 1828, and in that time there never was a bbl. of ashes passed in Mr. H.'s office without emptying out the same, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that bills and brands were never altered without a strict compliance with the inspection law. [Signed] C. V. V. LEONARD. 80 As I found the coloured man, IsaSb, rather fearful that it might give offence to his employer, Mr. Inspector Snow, 1 did not urge him to give a written certificate, as he assured me he would swear to what Mr. Conkling certified (with whom he served) whenever I found it necessary. I took a pretty bold stand, by appealing to persons in the employ of my very enemies, one of whom intimated to me, if he knew of the least devia- tion he would have refused me the certificate ; but as he did not, he was constrained to give it. I shall conclude with the concluding words of the suppressed part of my report of 24th January last ; " The evidence that my allegations are true, will be exemplified in the attempts that will be made to smother inquiry into their truth or falsity, although the charges so deeply afiect character both public and private." I am, sir, very respectfully, in haste, Your most obedient servant. (Signed) R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. His Excellency Governor Throop, Albany. [NOTE.] If your Excellency will turn to pages 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, you will find Five specific charges against the Comptroller : One specific charge against the Attorney General : Two specific charges against the Clerk of the Senate: Two specific charges against the Clerk of the Assembly. Referring, for proofs, to the documents (by date, &c. ) in their own ofiices, by which they stand " self-convicted." I have no doubt, in my own mind, that if the legislature order an inquiry, that corruption may be brought home to some of the parties, for it is not to be supposed that such men would do such highly illegal acts as have been done without some kind of compensation. The charges are marked thus [4-]. The fraudulent returns of inspectors under the 1 85th section, I have marked [ X ]> including myself, in case the Clerk of the Assembly can pro- duce the report from me, (which he has entered on their journals) with the "emoluments" (derived from my office) omitted, and ending, *' AH which is respectfully submitted, by R. R. Henry." But that he cannot do, and therefore has committed a fraud on ma and the public. Who, sir, will have the confidence they have had in the journals, when the deceptive nature of the entries made by the procurement of the chairmen of the joint and special committees, (and their coadjutors) on the 4th and 6th February last, but especially on the Gth and 7th April last, are known ? Which latter entries are exposed in the imprudent letter, written by the Hon. Mr. Johnson to his friend Col. Stone, which I would not venture to make, was it possible to " yazoo" all the Commercial Advertisers of the 7th April last, to a file of which I now refer- you, and to Noah's Enquirer of 15th April, in which he says the Colonel's " Albany Correspondent" is the Hon, Mr. Johnson, without which authority I would not state it as a fact, as it is scarcely to be credited that after getting the clerks to make the deceptive entries relative to my memorial, he should deliberately sit down and ex- pose the Clerks and Speaker, as it will appear from the journals the im- portant letter of 0th February last was withheld from the Houses by him, 81 provided always that Mr. Johnson dehvercd it (with the memorial) enclosed open to him. R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. His Excellency Governor Throop. The following notes were written onthe margin of the preceding document, explaining each paragraph, and the page now given, refers to their place in this pamphlet. Page 44. No mention is made of this letter by the speaker or the clerks in the journals 960 and 413, nor by the Hon. Mr. Johnson in his disclosures of the real contents of the memorial to his friend col. Stone, at least the colonel does not mention it in his paper of 7th April last. Why the letter &c. were suppressed, should be a subject of legislative inquiry. See journals 960 and 413. Page 45. To the Hon. Mr. Johnson covering the letter to the speaker, enclosing memorial open for his perusal and delivery. — It was withheld from the assembly from 27th February till the 6th April, see journal 960 ; by somebody was smuggled through the house, sent to the senate, and was suppressed by the committee on the judiciary. See journals 413, &.c. Page 47. I have minutely examined the journals of the senate, and fmd that the " committee on manufactures," to whom my report was referred on the 4th February last, 153 ; and the " committee on the judi- ciary," to whom my memorial (supplementary to the report, and mention- ed as such in the suppressed part of it,) have both withheld their reports on their merits. Was there ever more unfair management in any public body? See the deceptive entries on the journals of the senate, 153 and 413, and of tlie assembly, 389, 398, and 960, rendered necessary by those made in the senate. Page Ad. Underrated. Mr. Brower, I understand, has j^600, and the contingent charges are more. Pa ""e 51. Mr. " William Dumont called on Mr. Henry for the purpose of jborrowing his brand of 1827 to affix to some casks of P. ashes stored with Mr. James Brown, which he said were inspected some time in Dec. 1826. He says he acts upon the principle that ashes inspected in cold weather will not deteriorate, and that the mere alteration of the brands from one year to another does not deceive the purchaser, but rather advknces his interests in the shipment and sale abroad. The principle assumed by Mr. D. was considered erroneous by Mr. Henry on the ground that the alteration even for a day, in a moral point of view, was as bad as for three months." April 13, 1827. (Signed) C. V. V. LEONARD. Page 52. Shewing fraudulent sale and conversion of " trust ashes,'' by Mr. inspector Snow's men, with his knowledge and consent under " duplicate" bills issued to foremen, &c. Page 52. Shewing fraudulent omission of scrapings (on the copies of the bills from which they were taken) by major Samuel Cooper, proving the necessity and propriety of authorising absentees who have reason to .suppose they have been cheated, to call for certified copies of copies on oath. Pag-e 53. "A document" received from the then ex-inspector Isaac Bogart, on the 1 1th April, 1827. " Abraham Hilton says that there were some ashes carried to C. Villie'o commission store, from Lent's store in Stone street, and that they were all seconds and thirds, and that he dubbed 82 off all the barrels by order of C. Sherry, which barrels were afterwards sent to Snow, White, Sz Brower's store, and they were passed as first sort ashes. (Signed) RICHARD FARRELL. New- York, 24th December, 1806. P. S. Nicholas Jeffries says that he saw the above A. Hilton shave the brands off the barrels " in the commission store of C. Villie.'' Note. The oral testimony of James W. Lent, and John B. Thorpe, Esqrs. (Isaac H. Bog-art and others,) will shew that such was the practice in 1806, and that it was the practice since then, can be made to appear ; ashes as I have reason to believe, having been " Sherryed'' as lately as 24th June last, if not since then. Page 54. A document also received from Mr. Bogart on 11th April, 1827. " I cannot take an oath for any man." The observation was made last fall, and inquiry was made by capt. Page, what the red D was on the barrels for ? The answer made by Mr. John Shumway, was, to take care of the scrapings. Capt. Page told Mr. Card of it — Mr. Card wanted to know the author. Capt. Page told Mr. Card he would tell him the author for a gallon of beer." Note. I can make it appear by oral testimony, that when the inspec- tor came to sign the bills, he asked the clerk " how he had made out his copies,'' and was told agreeably to order, (had omitted them on the copies) when the inspector remarked, " it was too bad to do so, but if he did not, he would lose his business." Note. There should no longer be " clerk's copies,'' they should be made " inspector's copies'' by requiring us to certify on the " Back of the copy," that they contained the entire weight of all the ashes which the casks contained, both fit and unfit for inspection, and if the owner or agent doubted the fact, that the inspector should be directed to verify the copies by oath. Page 55. Comptroller's office, Albany, January 8th, 1829. Sir — " I understand that doubts exist in the minds of some of the inspectors of pot and pearl ashes, as to the statutes now in force, relative to their official duties. Chapter 17 of the Revised Statutes, " of the regu- lation of trade in certain cases,'' which went into operation on the 1st day of May last, contains most of the provisions relative to the inspection of ashes. These will be found in articles 3 and 12 of title 2d of this chapter. There is another law passed at the recent session of the legislature on the same subject, now in force. The 17th cliapter has once been distributed to the several officers, to whose duties it has relation, and extensively pub- lished in a volume of Revised Statutes. All are, or can make themselves familiar with its provisions ; but as the statute recently enacted has only to be published in the state paper, I shall therefore subjoin a copy to this let- ter and solicit from inspectors a comphance with its requirements. The last act went into operation on the day of its enactment. I am with great respect, your obedient servant, (Signed) W. L. MARCY. To Robert R. Henry, Esq. Inspector of pot and pearl ashes. New- York.'' Page55. Circular. Comptroller's office, Albany, July 11, 1829. Sir — The following law, passed at the last November session of the legis- lature, not iiaving been circulated except in the ordinary manner of cir- culating the laws, 1 have thought proper to have copies sent to officers whose duties it importantly concerns, that they may not neglect its pro- visions from an ignorance of them. A careful attention to the provisions of the law will be important to inspectors and auctioneers, as the most rigid adherence to them will be recjuired. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, (Signed) SILAS WRIGHT, Jun. 83 Page 58. It evidently was the intention of the legislature in requiring' yearly reports from inspectors of " provisions, produce or merchandise,'' of the quantity, quality, value, &c. of the articles insqoected by them, (also separately the " fees" and " emoluments'') that at every meeting they might have correct official information on those most important sub- jects, not only for their own immediate uses but for that of the future historian or statistical writer, who could derive all the information they could desire relative to our staple articles, in the most authentic and com- pressed shape from the journals of the houses, and save them all the time and trouble of making personal application to individual inspectors who might find it for their interest to withhold correct information as to quality, &c. but particularly as to " fees" and " emoluments" frorti " contingent remainders," alias " droits," as such minutia might lead the legislature to curtail them in their income ; consequently, every inspector (but one) chose to run the risk of paying the fine of two hundred dollars, rather than let the legislature know their income from the " ofFs and ends" of beef, pork, sample flour, scrapings, unclaimed ashes, fish, oil, &c. &c. Page 60. Extracts from a letter from the hon. James McCall, dated Rushford, August 26, 1828. "Your favour of the 30th ult. has come to hand, and as usual I am glad to hear that some person in your station takes an interest in the inspection of ashes, so important an article for exporta- tion. I have looked at the 174th, 173th, and ITGth section of the Revised Statute, chapter 17, of which you speak, and cannot understand them as you do, neither the 177th, which was (if I mistake not,) drawn by Mr. Spencer, one of the revisers and senator, and the three first mentioned were drawn from your suggestions tome; and I do not presume the penalty in the 177th, will excuse you inspectors from doing your duty. It is like all other fines ; every officer is liable for each neglect of duty to the individual sustaining damage, and guilty of a misdemeanor for the viola- tion of the law in relation to' the duties of their ofdces, and nearly all the alterations, (lie should have said except in the 76th section ! I ! !) were in your suggestions. I shall send in a petition for the alteration in the size of barrels at the extra session, and if any other alterations are neces- sary, it would be well to attend to it at the same time ; and should your fears be realized in relation to the 177th section, I will be ready to use my influence for its repeal. I make it a point to send you my ashes for inspec- ti'in, and am in hopes you will be appointed the inspector for the city of New- York, as there is only one to be appointed, &c." You will find. Sir, the copies of letters to and from Mr. McCall entire, in the hands of Messrs. Spencer & Butler, and the joint committee, and the originals in my hands and Mr. McCall's, in case a legislative investigation takes place. Page 62. Certificate. — I certify, that from my books, it appears 65 casks of potashes were stored with me in No. 31 Washington street, ou 28th November 1826, which belonged to Mr. Wm. Dumont, or were stored by him, which ashes were never inspected while in my possession, but were delivered some time in April 1827, as the books of inspection and receipts will show. (Signed) JAMES BROWN. Page 62. Extract from a letter from John V. Henry, Esq. dated Alba- ny, 19th June, 1829. "I have received your letter of 12th inst., but that of the 3d to which you refer, has never been delivered. I have been out of town until this day, or I should have given you the assurance that I now do with utmost readiness, that 1 will become a petitioner for your discharge under the two-third act, (which is certainly the most expedient discharge) for whatever monies you may he indebted to me, (and the monies I have paid to Judge Yates as your surety) with interest." fSo that my letter of the 3d June, apprising him of my situation was intercepted, and I lay in jail iu consequence, until Ileury Wilkes, Esq. was apprised of my silua- 84 lion ; what think you of that, Sir?) the amount, g9250 62 was subscribed for by my brother, just previous to his sudden decease. Page 63. From the Morning- Courier of Saturday, Uth August, 1827. " The letters of Mr. Henry, already published, have, we find, attracted the notice of the dealers in ashes, more particularly on the subject of scra- pings. That the importance of this part of the ashes in a pecuniary view may be seen, we g-ive a statement furnished by Mr. Henry ; the great leng-th of the calculations prevent us from inserting them in full, but we ob- serve that from 4231 casks weighing 19025 9 there was taken 585 21 scrapings, (equal to 3 1-11 per cent, or 15^ lb. per cask) or 65541 lb. at 3i cts. g'i293 63, an amount exceeding the inspection fees on the whole quantity." Refer to the Courier for the other calculations and the rest of the editor's remarks, and my circular of 22d September 1826 entire, which contains " secrets worth knowing." Page 64. See my letter to the comptroller of the 18th June last, for some very interesting particulars on this subject, which the legislature should know. Page 64. Return to the requisition of Wm. & John James for certified copies 12th March 1829, which I have reason to believe has been suppres- sed, as they will not give the name of the real owner. Page 65. Note. — Instead of a compliance with my request, a verbal answer was given to the " bearer," which he certifies in writing as fol- lows: " Mr. James said in answer to the letter, that the papers were mis- laid and he could not find them, and further, that he knew nothing of the gentleman, and knew not where he lived, but if Mr. Henry would come down to the store, he would tell him about them, and why they were renewed." (Signed) JOHN CHADWICK. New-York, 16th March, 1829. Page 66. You will find by a letter of 22d and 23d October, 1828, and 18th June, 1829, to the Comptroller, that I oflfered to secure to the state from 30 to 50,000 dollars for the people's right to the "unclaimed proper- ty,'' held or placed directly or indirectly in abeyance. Page 67. Consequences of nominating and appointing an inspector general and withholding this communication from the legislature. Page 71, «Src. Extracts from letter to President Jackson, dated 1st Ju- ly, 1829. " In the letter to lieutenant governor Pitcher, of Uth Novem- ber, 1828, 1 alluded to one written to your excellency on 15th December, 1 823, with the approbation of governor Clinton, but Mr. Clinton did not think you would, under your then existing circumstances, act, as sinister motives might and would be imputed to you. In my letter to Mr. Pitcher I mention my intention of addressing you when seated in the presidential chair, (whicli I took it for granted would follow almost as a matter of course,) when it would become your duty to act as the " Executive." With- out Secretary Van Bureri has seen the original letter (and enclosures,) to lieutenant governor Pitcher, on the executive files, which I much doubt, (as they have also got into the habit in Albany, of suppressing documents when they contain disagreeable matter. See the proceedings of the Sen- ate and Assembly on 4th April, 30lh October and 4th November, 1828, and 4th and 9th February, and 6th April last,) the letter will be news to him and also to my brother, John V. Henry, Esq. neither of whom have the most distant conception that every act of mine in relation to this subject, which has appeared in the public prints since 12th October, 1823, met with governor Clinton's marked approbation, who took the trouble minute- ly to examine all the documents in the case which he returned to mo with tluiibljowing note : " Mr. Clinton's compliments to Mr. Henry, and returns the documents which he Iras read witii all the interest which such impor- tant developments will naturally inspire." October 1 2th, liJ23. " Hav ing the delibenitc opinion of such a man as De Wjtt Clinton that I was 85 right, I cared not if all the world (who had not seen the documents,) said 1 was wrong-.'' *' The fraud of the collector of St. Marys, which stood most prominent in governor Clinton's estimation, (on account of its practical and immoral effects,) was the absolute conversion of Bilbo Si. Haven's bond, for ^1588,12, (given for duties,) by the collector on 10th July, 1815, (who transferred it to the surety on the bond,) William Gibson, Esq. in part payment of negroes ; which fact Mr. Gibson testifies to before the govern- ment agent, Mr. Habersham, in March 1822, and, (I am told,) repeats it on his second examination at St. Marys in November and December 1823, consequently the governor was of opinion, (provided the president and sec- retary had no doubts of Mr. Gibson's veracity,) that the collector should be instantly removed, even if innocent of every other charge, as I held Sec- retary Crawford's written stipulation of 10th November, 1821, that one or any one of the charges proven would be sufficient, and that the collector bad admitted one relative to the negro inspectors, was stated by the dis- trict attorney, Mr. Habersham, to be a fact, in addition to which the sec- retary has admitted in his letter of 10th November, 1821, that upwards of six years after the use of the bond it was unpaid.'' " The mere use of Bil- bo's bond, satisfactorily proven, David Gelston, Esq, (the former collector of this port,) said should have caused collector Clark's removal, even if the principal and interest were found to be paid in, but emphatically so when absolutely converted, which I risk nothing in saying it has been, and so will be found, if inquiry is made at the treasury." " In either case, (use or conversion,) I take it for granted your excellency will order a superce- dias to be issued, and not allow the collector the honor of resigning." " If Mr. Bilbo's evidence has not been taken, it can (if deemed necessary,) be obtained, as he is living at Savannah ; but Mr. Havens, 1 am sorry to say, died some time ago, (on the Ohio, I think,) on his way from New Orleans, otherwise I would forward you his affidavit. He told me verbally the bond was given by their house for duties.'' " The landing of Admiral Cockburn at St. Marys in January, 1815, was a cover for every thing; for only to aver that Cockburn and his myrmidons have taken the property, settled many a public and private account. The fortuitous cir- cumstance of John Bessent's murder five months afterwards, showed to the persons present when the body was found, that ibetween 20 and 30,000 dollars of the public property had been withheld by the administrators on the settlement of 7th January, 1815. Has it been accounted for? — when ? — by whom? &c. are very important inquiries. One thing is certain, that Bilbo's bonds, (one of those found with the body,) has not, and the inference is a fair one, that the residue has not Perhaps they may be able to tell at the treasury without the aid of the documents in my hands; but I doubt the fact very much, as secretary Crawford, in his letter of 10th November, 1821, admits that it was a matter of total uncertainty what bonds collector Clark had received from the administrators. What a field was opened to him safely to substitute bad bonds for good ones, &;c." " In that respect Osborne's list would beof great importance to the treasury as a check on Clark and Crews." " It would gratifj' me much, sir, if you would order copies of the testimony to be forwarded to me, as I have a curiosity to know what was sworn to, (on the second examination particularly,) and all I can offer in return, being poor, is the list of bonds, &c. (obtained from Clark's agent,) which, by the by, are important papers, and which the treasury should have in possession in order to adjust their accounts under- standingly, not only with collector Clark but with Crews, the surviving administrator of Bessent, relative to bonds, treasury notes, bank paper, &c. which the administrator and collector '' Remembered to forget'' to ac- count to the treasury, as found with the murdered body of the junior Bessent, on the 11th June, 1815, the particulars of which will be found ia 12 86 my letters to the secretary of the treasury, dated 4th and 16th January, 1823, delivered by the honorable John D. Dickinson." Extracts from my letter to President Jackson, dated 29th October, 1829. " The case of the collector of St. Marys, and the inspectors here, on princi- ple is precisely the same. Tlie collector used and converted the public property in the shape of custom house bonds, &c. to private uses. The inspectors here in the shape of ashes, (fit and unfit for inspection,) the " offs and ends" of beef, pork, flour, meal, fish, &c." " This, sir, is an impor- tant question which I have been (here at St Marys and Washington,) contesting on principle, and I am persuaded neither the Executives of the general or state governments will blame me for taking every honorable step to get legislative decisions, fwhether collectors or inspectors, after having not only used, but absolutely converted the public property to pri- vate uses, should be allowed, not only to retain oflBce, but the proceeds," (and I might have added by " undue influence," in both places.) "My policy, (since June last,) has been to get into your Excellency's hands and that of the Executive powers of this state, all the documents in relation to the frauds, suppressions, &c. at St Marys, Washington, New-York and Albany, so that when I go personally I may have little or nothing to do when there, but to apply to the respective legislatures by memorial and to refer to the Executive files for the proofs." (Note — I put the Comptroller completely " off his guard" by the letter of loth June last, as I did the president on the 2d July last, to whom I say, " If however you Conscienti- ously think the practices of collector Clark and his abettors have not been illegal and only immoral, I of course must acquiesce and suppose I have been under a delusion. I have fairly "out generalled,'' all my opponents both at Washington and Albany." As the journals cannot be " yazood" they will bear me out at Albany, as I tell the president certain documents, which were put into my hands on 14th June, 1824, will at Washington. I seek no office, consequently as I have my opponents on the " hip," I will handle them " without gloves,'' as " half way measures" when principle is at issue, I have found from ex- perience to be the worst that can be pursued, consequently I tell the presi- dent, (in my letter of 29th October last,) '' I am determined before I die, (life and health granted me by a good providence,) to have a perusal of the suppressed testimony taken by Mr. Habersham, in 1822 and 1823, with the letters, &c. which have uniformly been refused me (by Messrs. Monroe, Crawford and Adams,) because as matters and things are now situated the removal of the collector of St. Marys, and the inspectors here will not fully satisfy me, as the question should be settled legislatively whether the Exec- utive powers should continue the persons in office of high trust after the fact is brought home to their personal knowledge (by undoubted testimony) that they had " abused their trustsy''^ not only by the use, but the absolute conversion of the public property to private uses, which has frequently been done by the collector of St. Marys and the inspectors (of provisions, produce and merchandise,) in New-York and Albany, and when it will ap- pear that in both places I have been sacrificing my interest to my principles. The eclat of bringing both Executives up to the " ring bolt" (unaided and unassisted) almost simultaneously on the same principles, will be another in- ducement to act, as "sinister motives" cannot well be imputed to me when " I oflend the powers that be," ask for nothing but common justice, and act in defence of character, which has been grossly vilified and abused for years past." " I had, sir, a high compliment paid me by a person on whose judgment I place great reliance, who has said I had displayed a greal deal of art but no artifice (or in other words, had had the art to conceal my art) in the ma- nagement of the St. Marys, Washington, and Albany business; for that it appeared 1 had uniformly told my opponents what I loould do, and if they 87 suffered eventually from not believing me, it was their own faults; for sup- posing- such an open enemy was not to be reg-arded, they one and all laid common prudence totally aside by putting- the means for their own convic- tion on record, both at St. Mary's, Washington, New-York, and Albany, which saves me all the trouble^of seeking for evidence : witness the acts of the clerks and Mr. Johnson, who should have burnt the memorial when he got possession of it, instead of sending it to the Judiciary Committee of the senate. The comptroller and attorney general may yet save their " BaconP by complying with the requirements of the 177th and 186th sections ; but Mr. Bacon of the senate will with difficulty save his " Bacon" if I choose to push the "affair," which I regret he has involved himself in, as I have a respect for him and Mr. Sager, but for Mr. Hart and Mr. Johnson who " lead ihem astray" from the line of official duty, they should be exposed. '< Trifling events, sir, you see may lead to " important results." " This communication will be particularly interesting to secretary Van Buren, as so many of his political friends are implicated in the " affair." Pa^6 78. Sir, Agreeably to your request, I hereby certify on one occasion Mr. came to your office for some inspection bills, and on giving him, amongst others, a small bill for scrapings, he asked you why you did not keep such small parcels,' as Mr. Snow did, until they filled a barrel, and then render a bill, as it was troublesome to make account of sales of such small parcels. Yours respectfully, [Signed] N. CONKLING. New-York, 18th September, 1829. Page 79. I hereby certify that in the summer of 1825, Mr. William Dumont came to Mr. R. R. Henry's inspection office, and in conversation with him and me, he said he was in the habit of rendering bills for scrap- ings without making the entry of the weigh-note copy required by law. I do not recollect the reason he gave for the omission. (Signed) N. CONKLING. New- York, 14th Novem. 1829. Page 80. Corruption suggested against the comptroller, attorney gene- ral, clerks, &;c. Page 80. Imprudent letter from the hon. Mr. Johnson to Col. Stone, published in the Commercial Advertiser of 7th April, 1829. [SUPPRESSED.] ^ To His Excellency Governor Throop. New-York, 1st Januart, 1830. Sir, I send your Excellency, herewith, (officially) " A communication, dated 31st December 1829, relative to illegal practices in some, and corrupt practices in other offices of the government, referring to documents in their own offices, by date, &c. for positive proofs of my allegations, and to other documents on the executive and legislative files, and in the hands of indi- viduals named, for other direct and collateral evidence of the substantial truth of the facts," to which I beg leave to draw your particular attention ; all which, with the extracts from the Morning Courier, (and notes) here- with, show conclusively the absolute necessity of amendments to the I7th 88 Chapter of the Revised Statute, (which may with propriety be called the " 17th chapter of blunders") to protect the absentee both at home and abroad, many of which sections would have been amended in the sessions of 1828 and 1829, had the members "not in the secret" been aware of the contents of my memorials of the 3d April and 8th October 1828, suppressed, the parts of ray report (forwarded 24th and Slst January last) referred to the committee on manufactures and the special committee, but especially to the memorial supplementary to the report, (and mentioned as such in the reports and letter to the Speaker of 9th February, also suppressed) which memorial was sent by the Assembly to the Senate on the 6th April, and was by them referred to the committee on the judiciary, which report, memorial, and letter were suppressed by their respective committees, as the journals of the Senate and Assembly will conclusively show. I take it for g-ranted your excellency will, from a sense of " constitutional duty," make the contents of this communication known to the legislature, under which impression I shall withhold the memorial and affidavit (alluded to) relative to the Clerks, as both the Houses (from a sense of justice to them, the public, and myself) will then be bound in " duty, honour, and conscience," to ascertain promptly, whether " spurious reports" and other deceptive entries had been made on their journals on the 4th and 6th Feb- ruary, and 6th and 7th April last, the truth or falsity of which allegations can be instantly settled merely by calling for the reports and memorial, and collating them with the "journal entries" made by the Clerks. The Hon. Mr. Johnson's letter of 6th April last, to his friend Colonel Stone, (an extract from which the Colonel was so obliging as to give me, and which [ stand ready to produce) will throw much light on this " mys- terious" subject. It may be found in the Commercial Advertiser of the 7th April last, a file of which, no doubt, can be found in Albany. I am very respectfully, Sir, Your most obedient servant, (Signed) R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. Forwarded 2d January 1830, per P. G. Hildreth, Esq. [SUPPRESSED.] The Hon. Silas Wright, jun. Comptroller, Albany. New- York, January 5, 1830. Sir, I transmit you herewith the affidavit required by my 176th section, introduced with the 174th and 175th sections into the "general provisions" of the Revised Statutes, chapter 17, by the Hon. James M'Call as a sub- stitute for the section I requested him (by letter of 16th October, 1827) to have introduced into the revised laws, which Mr. M'Call deemed a suffi- cient compliance with my wishes, it being made to operate retrospectively by the words, " That there have been, &c." Copies of my letters either to or from Mr. M'Call, you will find, sir, in the hands of the Hon. Truman Hart, and of Messrs. Spencer, Butler, Broughton, Maynard and Hayden, to which I refer for particulars. The following is the paragraph alluded to in my letter, on which the 175th section was predicated (as were other amendments) which will ap- pear from his letters of 27th October, 1827, and 26th August, 1828. 89 ♦♦I wish, sir, on behalf of your constituents, many of whom have un- knowingly been sufferers, to draw your attention to the clause which I wish to have added to the inspection law, calling upon me and the other inspec- tors (by a day to be fixed) to make a return to the comptroller, on oath, of all ashes which for thirty consecutive years past, have been directly or indirectly withheld from the absentee, both fit and unfit for inspection, stor- ed for inspection and otherwise, (which includes scrapings, pickings, and fine ashes, as I am desirous to ascertain the power of conscience in cer- tain cases in which scrapings have been withheld from your immediate constituents, (and others who can be named) and of which, at the present, they are ignorant of." I was, sir, satisfied with the 174th 175th, and 176th sections, (the words " one year or more" being inserted in the 175th) until the 23d July, 1828, when I jocosely asked Mr. Inspector Remsen, how he would be able to swallow M'Call's bolus. No. 175, or the pills No. 170, when the fool let the " cat out of the bag" by intimating, that a friend in the legislature had got inspectors the privilege to commute for the returns (under sections 171, 174, 175, or 176) on the payment of a forfeiture for " neglect" of ^250, under the 177th section no report made under the 171st, rendering the transmission of "duplicates" under the 174tk impossible ; (of course the all important 175th section would be a nullity, when it was optional to take the oath 176, or suffer the forfeiture for " neglect" (which the proceeds of 12 casks would pay) consequently the Inspector Snow and others, were selling off their " stock" of unclaimed ashes fit and unfit for inspection ; and so he was, or would do also. On further investigation, 1 found that it was actually the fact, that Mr Snow had sold, through Mr. broker Van Wyck, and his foreman, Wright (and others I can name); and some time afterwards, I ascertained that Mr. Remsen had also sold of his " stock," through his clerk, Mr. Nath. Conk- ling, to Cornell «& Cooper, G. Merle, &c. The amendments which I had made to Hart's 6th and 1 1 sections (act 14th November, 1828) through the Hon. Benj. F. Butler, I apprised your predecessor of, on the 1st and 13th of January last, and yourself on the 21st January, 30th May, and 18th June last, by letters and afiidavits, for particulars of which I must beg leave to refer specially, and to my letter to Mr. Butler of 11th September, 1828, in which I give him my reasons why the penalty of the 177th section should be increased to two thousand five hundred, or three thousand dollars, or forfeiture of office. That gentleman (Mr. Butler) never did a wiser act in his life than in making the amendments alluded to ; and it was a providential thing for the public and myself that I thought of him, as the joint committee (generally) had rejected all my amendments on the plausible ground, that the malprac- tices complained of were not '' evasions but palpable violations of the sta- tute." See report on the journals of the senate, 1828, page 65. Having been so long absent from Albany, I was unaccLuainted with the superior merits and talents of Mr. Butler, until September last, when I happened to express my surprise to my brother, (the late John V. Henry) that so young a man as Mr. Butler should be his only associate in the great " will cause," when he told me, his clients could not well have made a wiser selection. Should I get into a " scrape'' in consequence of a communication made under date of 31st ult. to the governor, this "broad hint" from my brother, will show me where to look for "law advice," although I must confess for framing amendments to a potash law, I would prefer the "advice" of more practical men than Mr. Butler, or his equally " law learned" associates. I am, sir, your most obedient servant, R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes 90 Note. — I have come across a copy of my letter to Mr. M'Call, of 16tb October, and his reply of 27th October, 1827, to which I have subjoined a copy of his letter of the 10th October, 1827, w^hich I send for your inform- ation. T wish to draw your particular attention to the returns which have been, and which may be made under M'Call's (alias Henry's) 176th sect., which every inspector of " provisions, produce, and merchandise" through- out the state, must from necessity make this year (as well as myself) no one of us having made reports the " preceding year" under the 17ist sec- tion to " any auctioneer." I have reason to believe there will be some variations from the words of the statute, as " That there have been no articles," &c. is rather a puzzle to some of my coadjutors, who have been " dabbling" with " unclaimed property" under " duplicate" bills, the proceeds of which are held directly or indirectly in abeyance. See my letters to your predecessor of 22d and 23d Oct. 1828, and 1st and 13th January last, and to yourself of 21st Ja- nuary and 30th May last, but specially that of the 18th June last ; but per- haps the proceeds may have been paid into the treasury by inspectors Bo- gart, Snow, Cooper, and others, on your requisitions made since the date of mv last. [ENCLOSED.] City of New- York, ss. Personally appeared before me, Robert R. Henry, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes for the city of New-York, who being duly sworn, deposes and says, That by the 17th chapter of the Revised Statutes, title 2, article 12, sec- tion 176, " General Provisions," it is enacted, *' If no such bill or invoice shall have been delivered to any auctioneer during the preceding year, by any such inspector, he shall notwithstanding transmit to the comptroller on the first day of January, in each year, an affidavit, stating that there have been no articles subject to inspection stor- ed with him which have remained not claimed by the owners within one year from the time they shall have been inspected." And thisdepouent further testifies and says, that having delivered no in- voice or bill to any auctioneer the " preceding year," he does in conformity with the requirements of the statute declare. That there have been no articles subject to inspection stored with him which have remained not claimed by the owner within one year from the time they shall have been inspected. And further this deponent saith not. (signed) R. R. HENRY. Sworn the 5fh of January before me J. Hammond, Assistant Justice. To the Hon. Francis Granger. New-York, 13th January, 1830. Sir, The affidavit you have herewith, was begun under the impression that my old acquaintance, Silas Wood, Esq. would have been elected to the 91 Senate : and when apprised of the'defects in the Revised Statute, Chapter 17, and the " illegal" means made use of to prevent amendments, he would . no doubt have applied prompt corrections, had he been elected. Since then it has been laid aside, as I know no person in the Houses sufficiently independent to act in the business a^inst such powerful oppouents. I have, since the receipt of the Governor's message, added to it all after the words " Hints for additional amendments," with a view of sending- it to my family and friends in Georgia, as a '' clew" to the last paragraph in the message, showing that if " lobby" influence was on the decrease, that *' back stairs" influence had " increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished." On reflection it occurred to me, that the draft would answer all the purposes for my children, and to send the fair copy to you, sir, that in case death should remove me suddenly, (as he did my brother, John V. Henry) or other casualties should accrue to prevent my attending personally at Alban)^, you might have a manual in your hand, (from a practical man) showing what a " worthless thing" the 17 th Chapter of the Revised Statutes (which I call the chapter of blunders) is, when from a sense of duty to your constituents, (who are deeply interested) you will have the errors in it remedied ; for, without the aid of an efficient person, my individual exer- tions will, as heretofore, be counteracted by " back stairs" br " undue influence." See my letter on that subject to the " special committee," herewith. My situation at the present juncture (and that of all the other inspectors) will exemplify the fact, that the Revised Statute is a " worthless thing." Either legally or illegally I got rid of all the unclaimed ashes in my pos- session in 1828; so that I have had no report to make in 1829 to "any auctioneer," under the 171st section : of course, I had no " duplicates" to transmit to the Comptroller, under the 1 74th section, the " preceding year;" and as the filing of the all-important 175th section is made to depend on that contingency, 1 give the oaih the " go-by," and in order to escape the penalty of the 177th section, (6th and 11th of Hart's law) I have transmit- ted the affidavit required by the 176th section to the comptroller, (a copy of which and the letter I send herewith) so that if I have been in the habit of violating the duties enjoined positively (and prohibited negatively) in the 175th section, yet I go " scot free," and could in this way, from year to year, avoid filing that oath. No. 175, as long as the legislature allow the inspec- tors power to issue " duplicates" under the " discretionary" power without limitation, a power which Gov. Van Buren justly remarks cannot be en- trusted to any one without danger of abuse. By the by, sir, there can be little doubt that the Governor's message relative to " discretionary power" was predicated on my letter and affidavit of 1st January 1829 ; and there is a probability that what Governor Throop says relative to "lobby" influence, (in his last paragraph) was by way of " set-ofi"" to what I say of its existence, in my letters of 31st ult. and 1st instant (forwarded per P. G. Heldreth, Esq.) in my charges against the clerks, comptroller, and attorney general, which you will find marked on the margin, (of the document herewith) "specific charges," which if you read in connexion with the affidavit and letter to the attorney general, of 7th February last, I am inclined to think you will say that men in their situations, who will tamely submit to such charges, should not be allowed to fill such important and highly confidential stations, and because docu- ments in their own offices are referred to in proof of the charges. The 175th section out of the question, with the " sad mistakes" in the 76Lh section (made by recommendation of the revisers in their 85th section) unrepealed, with unsigned copies, what do the inspector and his men want more ? Nothing. For we can do as we please, the 171st and 176th sec- tions remaining as they now are leaving us the sole judges as to title, with 92 the power to issue " duplicates" to whom we please. Should unlimited powers be entrusted to us one moment longer ? I beg leave to draw your particular attention to the requisition of Messrs. Wm. & John James, for certified copies. Only give the absentee the power (whenever he thinks he has been cheated outjof his scrapings) peremptorily to demand that we should verify the copies (that have been issued signed or unsigned) by signature and oath, and they will be comparatively safe in future, with this " rod of correction" over us. See Conkling's letter in mine to Governor Throop, for other particulars, and the important amend- ments to the 64th and 176th sections (to protect the rights of individuals and the state) towards the close of the affidavit. Without the governor should lay my communications of the 31st ult. and 1st instant, before the legislature, and they raise a committee with power to send for persons and papers, I cannot go to Albany until Febru- ary, and consequently the absentee will continue to suffer under the 17th chapter of " blunders.'' If, jiowever, I find you country gentlemen are content with the law, imperfect as it is, I should be ; particularly if I con- clude to join my children in Georgia; because, then the "journal entries'' rectified, my individual purposes would be answered. Your constituents and friends in Ohio, &c. being so directly interested in this affair, will, I trust, plead my excuse for the liberty I have taken in addressing you. I am, in haste, very respectfully, sir, Your most obedient servant, (Signed) R. R. HENRY. Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. Hon. Francis Granger, In Assembly, Albany. Note. — I wish you to draw your particular attention to the extracts from a letter, dated 12th June last, to my brother John V. Henry, Esq. of Al- bany, which you will find in my communication of the 31st ult. to the governor, because every " man, woman, and child" in the state is inte- rested in every question relating to the accuracy of weights and measures ; and because since the 1st instant, on or about 200 casks of Albany inspect- ed ashes, unbranded, contrary to the 64th section, and with private marks in lieu of the brands prescribed by law, have been inspected in Bogart's office, (and some in Snow's marked A,) which is prima facie evidence of "Constructive, Legal, and Moral fraud.'' Theashes belonged to Messrs. W. Durant and Co. Mr. Bogart being in Albany, I appeal to him whether a single cask, (out of the great quantity of Albany inspected ashes) received by liim last season, was branded, and that if he and his foreman, Isaac Heddy, did not designate the qualities, &c. from them as quickly from the private marks, as I could have done if branded ? Concealment of inspectors' names, places of inspection, quality, &c. what can all tliis mean? For an explanation, refer to the letters to the governor of tiie 31st ult. and 1st instant, and to the comptroller of UUh June last; but especially to the documents accompanying it, dated lllh Novcm. 1826, 29th Oct., Island 3d Novcm., 1828, and others referred to in them,) which will disclose " secrets worth knowing.'' On the subject of omission of brands and substitution of private marks, 1 say to governor Clinton, in my letter of 29th September, 1827, "The fact is, I find myself bound in " duty, honour, and concience," to put a 93 stop to the omission of brands in Albany inspection offices, because sortie 16 or 18 years ag-o, I j^ave a sanction to the practice in the case of Mr." W. Gillespie, of Herkimer county, (who is probably still living, and may recollect the circumstance,) but until I became an inspector, I had no idea of the evil consequences which had grown out of the illegal practice, combined with private marks.'' The affidavit, (with the letter, &c. alluded to in it,) will be collateral evidence of that and other facts. Now is the time to put an end to all illegal practices, (by appropriate amendments,) or never. It is measures, and not men, I attack. Signed, R. R. HENRY, Inspector of Pot and Pearl Ashes. Hon. F. Granger, Albany. [Forwarded through Mr. Wheeler.] To Wm. L. Marcy, Esq. Comptroller, Albany* [SUPPRESSED.] Inspector's Office of Pot and Pearl AsheSj New-Yoi-k, 22d October, 1828. Sir, In the " general provisions" of the Revised Statutes for the regula- tion of the inspection of "provisions, produce, and merchandise," passed 3d December, 1827, (and which went into operation on the 1st May last) you will find the following enactment : " Section 177. Every inspector who shall neglect to make any report on affidavit required by either of the three preceding sections, shall forfeit two hundred and fifty dollars to the use of this state, and the comptroller shall direct the district attorney, where such inspector shall reside, to pro- secute for the same." Putting out of the question the motive for introducing the above section, which was to render the three sections in the " general provisions," No. 174, 175, and 176, introduced for me through the Hon. James M'Call (see copy of his letter, dated 26th August last, forwarded by me on the 11th ult. to the revisers, John C. Spencer, and Benj. F. Butler, Esqrs. ; and my letters to them explanatory of the business) a perfect " dead letter,'' I ask on general principles, was there ever a more mischievous section introdu- ced into a law ? as it has a direct tendency to render inspectors, their clerks, foreman, and coopers, not only careless but dishonest, and will eventually lead to perjury as you will have striking instances of on the 1st Jan. next, if my oaths to protect absentees, No. 175 and 17G are taken, w^hich the le- gislature however have benignly rendered unnecessary, provided we in- spectors will (out of the "contingent fund" accruing from ''unclaimed'' ashes both fit and unfit for inspection) spare two hundred and fifty dollars as consideration money, which will then vest the property withheld from the owners and the state for *' thirty consecutive years past" in us, as only three payments have been made into the treasury in that period, which I protest against as an inspector, and 1 protest against it as a merchant,(which I may be compelled again to become) as it places ever}' absentee at the mercy, not only of an inspector, but of his clerks, foremen, coopers, and labourers, who all know tliat for the petty sum of two hundred and fifty dollars all their blunders made during the year, whether accidental or de- signed, can be covered with the petty sum above mentioned, and also give my oath No. 175 and 176 the " go by" to boot. 13 94 If the legislature will appoint me an inspector general of pot and pearl ashes (or of beef and pork, which I vv^ould prefer) and let the law stand ex- actly as it now is, they may strike out one third of the fees, and I will pay into the treasury for the lease to do as I please from one to two thousand dollars, and I will make money by it, " remembering- to forget'' to correct any errors or omissions made by me, my clerks, foreman, &,c. when they happened not to be against me, as the oath No. 175 out of the question, 1 could act at discretion, having then, in fact, only Conscience for the regu- lator, which, too frequently "kicks the beam" when interest is in the question. The impolicy of granting any inspector such a dangerous privilege as commuting with money for a dispensation from any positive duty, strikes rae with surprise, having been an " eye witness^ to the modes and manner of giving the laws the " go by." Having a spare copy of my letter to IjIs excellency Governor Clinton, of 6th March, 1827, 1 forward it for your information, and for minute details of particulars refer to the executive files for my letters (with documents) dated 29th September, and 13th Octo- ber, 1827. To show you, sir, the absolute necessity of your immediate official inter- ference to have the law amended, and to save the state from heavy costs which they otherwise will incur, I beg leave to give you a copy of section 174, to show you how by two legislative blunders in six lines, delinquent inspectors will escape. The person who drew it was a theorist, and under- took to deviate in his limitation from a " practical man's" using the " pre- ceding year" instead of " thirty consecutive years," of which you will see the practical effects. " Every inspector shall annually, on the first day of January, transmit, on oath, to the comptroller a duplicate of every invoice or bill of such ar- ticles, which during the preceding year may have been delivered to any auctioneer, and the amount received by him on the sales of such articles from any auctioneer." Now, sir, on the 1st of January next, the only inspector in the state who can or will transmit to you " duplicates,'' accompanied with the oath re- quired by the 175th section, is myself, and for the most substantial reason, every other inspector in the state having within the " thirty consecutive years past" withheld original bills and reports required by laws of 1813 and 1822) to auctioneers, and mean to withhold them (up to the 1st of January next) under section 171, Revised laws, (to take advantage of the legisla- tive mistakes in the law) consequently you will have to report them as de- faulters to district attornies under the I77th section, without they take M'Call's (alias Henry's) oath. No. 176, which, if they do, one and all will be deep in guilt who have withheld from owners, auctioneers, and the public any return required by law (the 12th section of the act of February, 1813, and the sections 3, 5, and 17 of the act of 5th April, 1822); but happily for the defaulters (or delinquents) the legislature has released them from this " dire necessity" by agreeing to accept in lieu of oaths and reports two hun- dred and fifty dollars in money from each of them, consequently it will (on the first January) if paid, vest them, in fact, with the rights and property of unfortunate owners of unclaimed ashes, who by casualties, such as sudden death, fire, robbery, carelessness, &c. have lost or mislaid their original bills or receipts, or may not have taken any. Whether it is just or equita- ble, with the " stroke of a pen" comparatively to give away the property of others, without their consent, I will not undertake to say. There are two ways, sir, of taking the oath, No. 176, and to avoid pay- ing the penalty of the 177th section. On reading the laws of 1813, 1822, and 1 827, I find that in all of them the legislature have neglected to say, the person " claiming or demanding" ashes should show " satisfactory evi- dence of title" by exhibiting their bills or receipts, consequently the laws 95 of 1813 and 1822 have been rendered a "dead letter,'' merely by any clerk foreman, cooper, or other " convenient friend" saying, ' I claim or demand the unclaimed ashes or the proceeds ;' and further to cover the illeg-al trans- action, actually to give receipts or acknowledgments for the ashes or the proceeds, and then the inspector could say they have been " claimed or de- manded," which he could do with perfect safety, because no holder of a bill or receipt would ever think of calling in the first instance on the comptroller for his ashes or proceeds, but as a matter of course on the in- spector, -who by paying him the proceeds would smother inquiry ; but should he even be dissatisfied at not receiving interest on the money the inspector could with propriety say to him, I was authorised by the law of 181 3, to sell the ashes after they had been unclaimed for twenty-four months, giving two months notice in the public prints ; but the law out of the question, common prudence forbade me looking on and seeing the ashes perishing in my hands, and not to prevent a total loss (by converting them into mo- ney) would have been inexcusable, and he might add, had 1 not reason to conclude, that some accident had prevented your calling once at least, in twenty-six months, to inquire into the condition of a perishable article, and /the very circumstance of your not calling, shows at least, that you are de- void of common prudence and are not a careful man in your private affairs ? Thus indirectly compelling the owner to be silent, if not content, and of course by these finesses the comptroller was kept ignorant for years past, that a single cask of ashes remained unclaimed, merely by the inspector's silence and withholding notices in the state paper, and others from the own- ers, keeping, of course, clerks, foremen, kc. in good humour by largesses in ashes, or the proceeds at the expense of the owners and the state ; by the by, the largesses at times having been munificent in the extreme. If you examine the 171st and 176th sections of the revised laws, you will find the legislature have in both been silent as to title, consequently all the inspector has to do if he wishes to save the two hundred and fifty dol- lars, is to get the "convenient friend'' to " claim," and he can then swear, complying with the letter, but violating the spirit of the inspection law. The inspectors and their partisans (all who have not returned unclaim- ed ashes, fit and unfit for inspection agreeably to the laws of 1813, and 1822) contend, that as these laws have expired, no inquiry can now legally be made into any acts of omission or commission done or suffered to be done up to* the 30th April, 1828, which are buried in oblivion, and that they start anew on the 1st of May, under the revised laws, consequently on the 1st Jan. next, (although eight months only have elapsed) they will tender you the aflidavit under the l76th section, that they have no ashes which " Have remained not claimed within one year from the time they shall have been inspected." Aware of the finesse or evasion (as you now are made officially) you will no doubt say " one year" in the 176th section carries you "back to the 1st January, 1828, andthe words " or more," in the 175th section to the period when you first came into office. The reply will be, that is not my construction of the law, and you may take your course. The legislature has given me the option to make returns or not, under the penalty of two hundred and fifty dollars, under the 177th section, that is all you can recover ; I avoid the trouble of reporting, and I give Henry's I74th, 175th, and 176th sections the " go by," especially his positive and negative oath. No. 175, consequently the "contingent fund" accruing from " droits,'' held or placed directly or indirectly in abeyance, furnish ample " ways and means" to pay the forfeiture, and profit by laches of duty. If the most important sections in the whole law, (introduced by me to protect the rights of absentees, and my own, should I become again a deal- er m "provisions, produce, and merchandise,") can be thus defeated by finesse and management, both purchaser and seller are left at the mercy of the inspectors and deputies, (or servants) as the only security, I repeat, 96 which absentees have, is Conscience ; a very weak guarantee indeed when interest is in question, as I personally know, having been an eye-witness too frequently, since the 16th of August, 182 1, of the fact ; and in attempt- ing to check such practices, (deemed prescriptive fi'om length of time and usage) I liave rendered myself so unpopular, that the predictions made 7th, 8th, and lOlh March, 1825, (see letter to the hon. C. D. Coldeu, of 29th March, 1025,) has become prophetic, viz : " That if I attempted further to run counter to the old inspectors' mode of doing business, as to scrap- ings, pickings, and fine ashes, I might remain an inspector, but without patronage;'' because, forsooth, the right to withhold the "unclaimed" ashes (both fit and unfit for inspection) from the absent owners and the state, and to distribute them as " largesses,'' to friends and dependants, &c. have be- come prescriptive, in fact, by length of time, and uninterrupted usage. INIy question whether tiiey had had the consent of the country owners, and of the comptroller, as sole trustee for the owners and their represen- tatives, and the people of this state, to act as "sub-trustees," was very difficult to answer. You will find, sir, in my memorials of 3d of April and Cth instant, and in my report of the 16th instant, (printed by order of the assembly,) un- der the 135th section, that I have requested the legislature to authorise you officially, or as Trustee, to ask me and other inspectors, how much of such ashes, (fit and unfit for inspection,) or the proceeds we hold direct- ly or indirectly, in abeyance? and to make full disclosures to you on oath as trustee, and I will take the lead, and answer peremptorily and fully, and will account forthwith. I am, however, told that the influence of inspectors of " provisions, produce, and merchandise," both in and out of the houses, will be too powerful for me. I have admitted the fact, and to their astonishment, have said that I will call in your official aid as comptroller, on behalf of the state, and as sole trustee of owners, &c. which would constrain you, from a sense of " duty, honor, and conscience," to make the business known to the legislature in your official capacity ; for if the other inspec- tors are permitted to retain the " unclaimed" ashes or the proceeds, (fit or unfit for inspection,) which they now hold directly or indirectly in abey- ance, then the legislature should, in common justice, permit me to hold the unclaimed ashes, which I have still to report. I refer you for much infor- mation on this subject, to the editors of the Albany Argus, who published a part of my circular in September, 1826 ; but it will be necessary to read the whole to understand it properl)'. I will now, sir, as some excuse for inspectors, proceed to show you and the public, that the legislature have by their unwise enactments, actually led the -'old ones'' into " temptation," whose example has also lead the '' junior ones" to withhold returns required by law, of unclaimed ashes, (both fit and unfit for inspection,) as they have admitted they have on hand, ashes, or the proceeds of them, which 1 understand one of the "juniors"' solemnly avers he will not make returns of until the old inspectors and ex- inspectors do so. So much for their " bad precedents,'' for tiiey say, (I being poor and im- employed,) I am no " precedent'' at all, although tliey admit I act accord- ing to law, but say common usage is against me, which practice, if the legislature approve of, I wish to ascertain through you, sir. Act, 25th February, 1813, section 12. "That wlienever any pot or pearl ashes which now are or hereafter shall be stored with any inspector of pot and pearl ashes, for inspection or otherwise, and shall not be claimed or demanded by the owner or owners thereof, within two years from tlie time the same shall have been inspected, it shall be lawful for the inspector, at his discretion, to sell and dispose of the same at public auc- tion, giving two months public notice in one of the newspapers printed in 97 i\ye city of New- York, and the newspaper published by the printers of this state at Albany, describing- as nearly as may be the marks on the barrels containing the pot and pearl ashes, and the proceeds of such sales, after • deducting all costs and charg-es and expenses, and all claims of the said inspectors or otherwise, shall be paid into the treasury of this state, for the benefit of the owner; and he shall be entitled to receive the same on fur- nishing- satisfactory proof of ownership to the comptroller.'' One of three things is certain, either that the section was drawn by an inspector, and palmed on a member, or by a person deep in the secret practices of inspecting- officers, or by a mere theorist, who knew nothing about the routine of the business. Look at the section and its practical effects. 1st. It shall be lawful for the inspector, at his discretion, to sell the ashes at public auction, consequently if he did not think it ^t and proper to sell, he acted legally ; and of course, to withhold the proceeds from the treasury. Note. To put them into his own pocket at private sale, and the comptrol- ler not aware of it of course. 2d. He is only to advertise the ashes which now are or hereafter shall be stored with him for inspection or otherwise, and sell them at public auction. — Note. Having previously sold most of them at private sale, he had i^ew if any to advertise. 3d. If claimed or demanded even by a person pretending to be the owner, was sufficient ; and he might legally withhold the public notice, as the section does not say he is to furnish " satisfactory ^jroof of ownership" to the auctioneer, kc. (by the production of bills or receipts, the only ''le- gal" evidence of right) consequently a clerk, foreman, cooper, partner, or other " convenient friend" only '' claiming or demanding," the letter of the law was complied with, and no public notice of sale need be given, as all the inspector had to do to cover every thing, was to take a receipt or voucher, from the " fictitious" owner, for the ashes or proceeds. The in- spector ran no risk in doing this, for should the " real" owners ever ap- pear with the bills or receipts, settle with them ; and if none appeared, the ashes or the proceeds inured to the inspector, instead of escheating to the people of this state, as was undoubtedly the intention of the legislature. 4th. Not a word is said as to the proceeds of ashes which had previously to 1813 been sold, nor of scrapings not reported on the copies of absen- tees, consequently all vested in the inspector, until owners appeared, in propria persona. What remained on hand in 1814 of the " offs and ends" of ashes, were reported to Mr. Robert McMennomy out of the proceeds of which (between one and two hundred barrels,) only about ^230 was paid into the treasury, because the head marks were effaced by time and alkali. No other payments were made into the treasury under this act (which expired in 1822,) although frequent sales were made by private agents. I could mention three sales or conversions to the amount of between four and five thousand dollars; but I leave each inspector to make such disclo- sures to the trustee as Conscience may dictate to him, as that is the only regulator, the " statute of limitations," and this q,ct placing the owners and the state completely in subserviance to the " old" inspectors, the servant being literally in this case, the master. There is one simple way of compelling the " old" inspectors and ex- inspectors to account, viz : for the legislature to say to any one who refuses and will take the advantage of lapse of time, and our mistakes, and will withhold property not their own, are not trust-worthy persons, and shall not be employed either directly or indirectly in the highly confidential office of an inspector of "provisions, produce, or merchandise," for the time to come. This would be perfectly just, and equitable, under existing cir- cumstances. 98 5th. All claims of the inspector or otherwise, to be deducted from (ho proceeds. As the comptroller nor any other person was authorised to call an ipspcctor to account, this was a sweeper. He took all. " Lead us not into temptation," &c. If the law of 1822 had been as loosely worded, I do not know what would have been the consequence as to myself. The moment that such a shrewd, in tcllig-ent, and "longheaded" man as major Cooper cast his eye on the section, all its defects were apparent to him, and that he could act at discretion ; of course he kept himself per- fectly quiet — did not trouble auctioneers and printers — sold the ashes through the agency of his confidential clerks, brokers, &c. at private sale, and now holds the proceeds as '' sub trustee'' to the comptroller (without his knowledge or consent) either directly or indirectly in abeyance. As to Mr. Robert Snow not being so "quick sighted" as major Cooper, he published I haye reason to believe, one notice in a paper in this city, (but whether he did in the state paper is uncertain,) as ashes were actually sold under the hammer of Mr. McMennomy; but finding the head marks were effaced by time and alkali, on all but three casks (H, & W. and W. &L S.,) he did not pay the proceeds into the treasury, as they must from necessity escheat to the state. To cover the transaction, a receipt it is said was taken from a "convenient friend;'' but in what way he shewed the title I know not, as I have the original paper containing the weight, &c. in which ownership of only the above three casks are noticed. Frequent sales and conversions of ashes, both fit and unfit for inspection, were made both before and since the passage of the act of 1813, by private agents, but not a cent of the proceeds are in the treasury, being held or placed directly or indirectly in abeyance. The ex-inspector, Isaac H. Bogart, made a small sale of the " offs and ends'' of casks (which happened per chance to remain unsold) under Mr. McMennomy's hammer, which he actually (by mistake) paid to treasurer Piatt in 1814, supposing his coadjutor in office had deposited the proceeds of his previous sales, but finding he was in error, he also withholds the pro- ceeds of previous and subsequent sales as " sub trustee" to the comptroller, which "leaking out" before arbitrators (Gurdon S. Mumford, — Kearney and George Warner) was made known to the governor, and Mr. Hart then of the senate; in consequence of which, the law of 5th April 1822 was passed, materially altering the policy of the inspection system, as to unclaimed ashes and scrapings; but what is "passing strange,'' not a word is said in the law respecting (he proceeds of ashes sold at private sale, &c. by Bogart and others, and held directly or indirectly in abeyance ; and what is more so, not a syllable is said as to requiring owners or pre- tended owners to shew "satisfactory proof of ownership'' by producing bills or receipts, merely they must report the ashes they have on hand unclaimed. It has been ironically remarked that inspectors did not require the aid of auctioneers, having taken the trouble off their hands by private sales, through brokers, clerks, &c., and as they were not called upon to account for the proceeds, they would not voluntarily do so. Let the section speak for itself. " Section 17. That whenever any casks of pot or pearl ashes, or the scrapings or cruslings of pot or pearl ashes, which now are or hereafter shall be stored v^ith any inspector of pot or pearl ashes for his inspection, or otherwise, and which shall not be claimed or demanded by the owner or owners thereof within one year from the time they shall have been inspect- ed, it shall be the duty of such inspector to deliver an invoice or weigh note under his hand, of the inspection of such pot or pearl ashes, or of such scrapings or crustings as aforesaid, and describing the private marks as nearly as may be, or to the best of his knowledge, to some public auction- eer of the city or county where .'^uch inspector shall reside, and such auc- tioneer shall sell the same at public auction, first giving six weeks notice 99 of such sale in one of the newspapers printed in the city or coun(y where he shall reside, and in the newspaper pubhshcd by the printer of this state, describing- the marks and the owner or owners according- to the invoice or weig-h note of the inspection, and the time and place the same will be sold, and he shall pay the proceeds of such sales to the treasurer of this state, and render an account of the same to the comptroller after deducting and paying- to such inspector his legal fees and chaigX'S thereon, and ; ucli other customary and other charges and expenses of such sale, as in other cases, which sum so paid to the treasurer as aforesaid, shall be for the benefit of the owner, and he or they shall be entitled to receive the same on furnish- ing- satisfactory proof to the comptroller." Note. — This section might as well never have been passed, as Messrs. Robt. Snow, Isaac H. Bog-art, John H. Remsen, and Vv^illiam Dumorit have paid no attention to it, no notice having appeared from them under this act to auctioneers. I refer to my report to the assembly, dated Octo- ber, 1828, under section 185 for all notices which have appeared. Can languag-e be plainer and more positive than this ? notwithstanding which, six years have elapsed and but one report from the three " old" in- spectors to auctioneers has appeared (from Maj. Cooper) which is so full of omissions, that it were better he had withheld it. I refer to my report to tlie legislature of 16th inst. for copies of all the reports to auctioneers which have appeared under this act to which so little attention has been paid by inspectors (especially the 3d, 5th, and 17th sections) that it has al- most literally been a " dead letter," no more attention having been paid to it than suited the purposes of inspectors and their patrons. Revised Statutes, passed 3d December, 1827, " general provisions." Section 171. " If any articles subject to inspection, and stored with an inspector shall not be claimed by the owner within one year from the time they shall have been inspected, such inspector shall deliver to an auction- eer in the city or county where they shall reside, an invoice or bill of such articles, specifying the quantity and quality, and the brands and other marks thereon, and also the names and residence of the owner or person deliver- ing- the same for inspection, according to his information or belief." It was the intention of Messrs. Snow, Remsen, and Dumont, to defeat the intention of the leg-islature by withholding all returns under this sec- tion so as to enable them on the 1st of January next, to take advantag-e of the legislative mistakes in 174, and if possible, of you, in the I76th sec- tion, although they admit they have " unclaimed" ashes (or the proceeds) which have not been reported to auctioneers under the act of 1822. Should such systematic and daring violations of the law be countenanced when known ? My policy in this communication is officially to bring home to your per- sonal knowledge officially as comptroller and as sole trustee of the fund ac- cruing from "unclaimed" ashes, the fact that to say the least, they have for " thirty consecutive years past" been illegally withheld from your pre- decessor and yourself, and of course with the knowledge of the fact, that you will make it known to the legislature officially, and also the errors in the 174th section, which if not amended will subject the state to heavy costs; for inspectors who have not reported to auctioneers, can of course defeat the district attorney under the 177th section by pleading the impos- sibility of transmitting " duplicates'' when he never had furnished an auc- tioneer with an original, thus profiting by his own wilful and designed omis- sion of positive duty, arjd pocketting the property of the careless and un- fortunate for whom the legislature thought they had benignly provided by directing public notice to be given in the state paper, and one other once a year where their ashes might be found. It is no doubt known to you, sir, that the collector of this port is b} law required to give notice in the public prints every nine months, what articles 100 57cmain in the public stores unclaimed, giving head marks,