VE S3 CC«C * cucr :. crc:: IL cc c c:ccc " cc c ^=* L ~ Sec i ?C333 CCjC CCO CjCjO CCC < ccc ■ tor.--.. ccc ccc i lCCCjC. « :ccc * cc :ccc cc IvCC CC ^c: ; cc "C cc ?c«c cc «C€T cc :«cgc^ | LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, S # $ @ [FORCE COLLECTION.] jp J ^/. vE-^3 J 2 ' ! UNITED STATES OP AMERICA.! CC«C etc _ «c - €m *~ «c _ CO . ^ ccc » ' c C cc cc enc <2 *cc.:c ac cc c c [ -CCjC c c msmz c «X3exc r «C <3^CC cxidc: c ■a83HEc« <~C«7" 3js«cjc ^c<^F i£&r (new t //./»^/ 4*Jtoe&t~ ^^V^, ^u. P/* V.' @®siB®i3?®sriDmsr@E BETWEEN CAPTAIN JOSEPH L. KUHN, OE THE U. S. MARINES, AND THE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. WASHINGTON : PRINTED BV PETER EORCE, CORNER OF ELEVENTH STREET AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENFE. 1830. TO THE PUBLIC. It is with unfeigned reluctance that the under- signed feels it incumbent upon him, to submit the following sheets to the judgment of the public. While determined to vindicate his character and conduct from aspersion, he has anxiously sought to avoid obtruding before the country the circumstan- ces upon which he rests his justification. Holding an important office, which imposed upon him the disbursement of large amounts of public moneys, it was a matter of paramount obligation to sustain his character against every allegation, which might affect his personal integrity. But while he was re- tained in office, he could not but feel that general and indirect charges did not require from him any special notice. He has therefore, not deemed it in- cumbent upon him, to reply to the insinuations with which he has been publicly assailed. When however, positive charges of delinquency are pre- ferred by the accounting officers of the government ; and when an investigation into the truth of these charges is followed up by a dismission from office, the aspect of the case is changed, and silence might fairly be construed into an admission of guilt. Pos- sessing ample means of rebutting these offensive assaults, feeling a proud sense of innocence, the undersigned can no longer withhold from the com- munity the means of forming a correct judgment upon the matters at issue between him and the ac- counting department. It is confidently believed, that a careful examination of the documents and correspondence will satisfy every impartial mind, that the undersigned has discharged liis duty with fidelity and zeal ; — that he has anxiously sought every opportunity to submit his case, in all its as- pects, to the most severe scrutiny of the competent authorities ; that he has fully sustained himself in all the points which he has assumed, whether of fact or principle, by testimony the most unquestionable and authority the most undoubted, and that, as well in the manner in which he has been assailed, as in the treatment he has experienced, he has great and u just cause of complaint." Whether or not he has correctly apprehended the case, is now submitted to the judgment of his country without further comment. JOSEPH L. KUHN. CORRESPONDENCE, $c. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4.1k Auditor's Office, 26th January, 1830. Sir : In the investigation of the accounts of Colonel Wainwright, the following facts appear : viz. In October, 1821, a remittance of $4,399 72 was made to Colonel Wainwright by Captain Grayson, as agent for R. M. Desha, then Paymaster, most of which was intended to pay off the Macedonian's Guard. On the 2dNovember, 1821, Col. Wainwright acknowledged the receipt of this money in a letter to Captain Grayson, in which he stated that there was a deficiency of the funds in- tended for that purpose of $223 72 on one roll, and $46 40 on another, and for the amount of these, $270 12, and the amount of other rolls $772 53, he asked a remittance of $1,042 65, which was made by you. You subsequently received from Colonel Wainwright another Macedonian roll amounting to $389 70. The whole amount paid on the rolls of the Macedonian Guard was $4,087 90. Of this the amount paid by you and credited to Colonel Wainwright, was $668 82, your first credit under that name including $772 53 paid on other rolls. The amount paid by Desha and credited to Colonel Wain- wright, was $2,989 02. Colonel Wainwright is, therefore, short credited $4 29 96. Although you have actually paid and have credited Colonel Wainwright with but $668 82 of these rolls, you have ob- tained a credit in this office on that account for $3,657 94, or $2,989 12 more than you have paid. On the other hand, Desha who advanced $3,419 08 of the money which was ac- tually applied to this object, has a credit for only $429 96. It seems to follow that you have an over credit for $2,989 12, and Dfsha an under credit for the same sum. I have therefore to request, that you will in reply state to me the grounds on which you have taken this credit, and in so doing shew cause why the over credit ; viz. $2?? 89 12, should not be re-charged to you on the books of this office. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, AMOS KENDALL. Captain Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster, Marine Corps, Present, PAYMASTER'S OFFICE MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 28th January, 1830. Sir: Your letter of the 26th inst. has been received, and as soon as I can have an interview with Mr. John Macdaniel the clerk who had the settlement of my accounts in the year 1822, a full reply will be given to the matters therein contained. I am respectfully, your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P M. M. C. Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor of the Treasury. PAYMASTER'S OFFICE MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 30/A January, 1830. Sir: Since the date of my letter of the 28th inst. I have had an interview with Mr John Macdaniel who had the settlement of my accounts at the Fourth Auditor's office in the year 1 822, and am now prepared to answer your letter of the 26th inst. Mr. Macdaniel has a perfect recollection that when my ac- counts were under examination, and in which was embraced the rolls of the Macedonian's Guard, now the subject of your letter, that Captain Grayson the Agent of Desha was sent for for the purpose of giving explanations in relation to those rolls, and after a full investigation of the matters, it was found that I was the proper person entitled to credit for them and that it was accordingly given to me. This I apprehend caBnot be doubt- ed when the circumstances are known under which this ex- amination took place, for had Desha have been entitled to the credit, Captain Grayson who was his agent and through whom the principal part of the transactions* took place in relation to these rolls, would have claimed them for him and would have insisted on the credit being given to Desha and not to me as Was the case after the investigation. The evidence presented at that time to the office showing the justice of my claim to the credit for these rolls, and the credit having been given me in consequence of such evidence, I must acknowledge that I am much at a loss now to account for being called upon to show cause why I should not be charged with moneys long since accounted for, and settled through the regular forms of office. I am respectfully, your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. To Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor of the Treasury, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditor'' s Office, 20th July, 1830. Sir: Upon a thorough investigation of your accounts, I have been led to a result somewhat different from that announced to you in my letter of the 26th January last. The grounds of the final opinion now formed, will be seen in my letter to the Se- cond Comptroller, a copy of which I enclose to enable you, if you think proper, to contest my decision and maintain what you may think to be your rights before him. Respectfully, your obedient Servant, AMOS KENDALL, Capt. Jos. L. Kuhn, Paymaster Marine Corps, Washington City. 8 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditor's Office, 20th July, 1830. Sir : In the accompanying account of Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster of the Marine Corps, you will find re-charged to him the sum of $3,657 94, which was passed to his credit in 1822, and 1823. It is due to the rights of the Paymaster, that a step so deeply affecting his interest, should not be taken without a clear conviction on the minds of the accounting officers, found- ed on a thorough investigation, that the amount has been er- roneously passed to his credit. To exhibit the grounds on which I have acted and aid you in your inquiries, I deem it proper to give a brief detail of facts accompanied by copies of the papers by which they are established. In the summer of 1821, the Frigate Macedonian, arrived at Boston, from a cruise, having on board a guard of Marines, to whom a large sum of money was due. They were transferr- ed to the command of Captain R D. Wainwright, of the Charlestown Station, who applied to the Paymaster for money to pay them. On the 18tb October, 1821, Captain A. Grayson, acting for R. M. Desha, Paymaster, who was then gone to the West- ern Country, made a requisition upon the Secretary of the Navy, for a remittance of $4,399 72, to Captain Wainwright, tc being for pay due the Detachment of Marines under his com] mand, transferred from the United States* Ship Macedonian." See (1.) This sum was remitted and charged to R. M. Desha, on the Books of the 4th Auditor. On the 2d November, 1821, Captain Wainwright acknow- ledged the receipt of this sum and asked a further remittance of $270 12»to makeup deficiences upon the Rolls of this Guard, and $772 23, to pay a Discharge and Subsistence Roll then in his possession, amounting in all to $1,042 65, See (2.) In the fall of 1821, R. M. Desha, resigned his office as Pay- master. The remittance of $1,042 65, asked for by Wain- wright, was never made by him or on his account. On the 21st November, 1821, Captain Joseph L. Kuhn was appointed Paymaster. On the 19th December, 1821, Captain Wainwright wrote to him calling his attention to the letter to Captain Grayson, dated 2d November. See (3.) On the 28th December, 1821, Captain Kuhn, made a requi- sition on the Navy Department lor $1,042 65, to be sent to Captain Wainwright, "being for Discharge and Subsistence Rolls." See (4.) There is no room to doubt, that this remit- tance was made in compliance with Captain Wainwright's let- ter of 2d November. Captain Wainwright acknowledged the receipt of this re- mittance on the 5th January, 1822. See (5.) On the 4th January, 1822, one day before the first remittance* from Captain Kuhn to Captain Wainwright was received , the latter wrote to former as follows: " I return you the Pay Roll of the Macedonian's late guard avouched for $3,169 74, to which you will add the amount signed for, on a small Roll, now with you by Page, Rogers, Rumford, and Gibson, for $487 96, makingthe whole amount paid $3,657 70, and leaving in my hands $569 81, to pay Plew, Sylvara. Miller, Watson, and Lord, yet under sentence of Court Martial, and withheld from them by the sanction of the Commandant." See (6.) The Rolls of the Macedonian's Guard mentioned in this, letter are sent herewith, and are of the following amounts : No. 1, in black ink, 1,627 66 No. 2, ditto and red, 559 49 No 3, ditto do. 494 It No 4, ditto do. 89 50 No. 5, in black ink — 6 red, 488 48 No. 6, ditto, 429 96 No. 7, ditto, 398 70 $4, On 7 90 No. 6, is the Roll of Page, Rogers, Rumford, and Gibson, which was before in 2 Captain Kuhn's possession. N*. 7, is 10 the RollofPlew, Sylvara, Miller, Watson, and Lord, which remained to be paid after the date of the above letter. Roll No. 6, was passed to the credit of R. M Desha, in the settlement of his account, dated 4th r ovember, 1822. Roils Nos. t, 2, 3, 4, and 5, were passed to the credit of Captain Kuhn in the settlement of his account, dated 22d May, 1822. Roll No. 7, was passed to his credit in a settlement dated May 1st, 1823. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, were paid, as appears by Cap- tain Wainwright's letter of 4th January, out of money for- warded by G ayson, and charged to Desha on the Books of this office, before he had received a dollar from Captain Kuhn. All of them ought, therefore, to have been credited to Desha, on the Books of this office. No. 7, was not paid until after Captain Wainwright had re- ceived remittances from Captain Kuhn, but the former stated to the latter in his letter of 4th January, that he had on hand $569 81, of Desha's money to pay it with. This was enough to pay that Roll, and leave a surplus of $171 11. The amount of that Roll also, it appears to me, ought to be credit- ed to Desha. The Rolls numbered 5 and 7, in red ink on the back of No. 1, are the Discharge and Subsistence Rolls, alluded to in- Captain Wainwright's letters of November 2d, 1821, and January 4th, 1822, for $772 53, which were paid out of Cap- tain Kuhn's first remittance and have been passed to his cre- dit. I can conceive of but one reason why these credits were given to Captain Kuhn. There appeared to be on Desha's books, a balance of upwards of $11,000 due to him from Captain Wainwright. Had Captain Kuhn been charged with this balance, or held responsible for it, then it would have been proper to credit him with the amount of these Rolls, but so far from being held responsible for it,he was excused from u stopping it. Not the slightest reason is therefore perceived why this credit should have been claimed or given. Very Respectfully, your obedient Servant, (Signed) AMOS KENDALL. J. B. Thornton, Second Comptroller of the Treasury, PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 23d July, 1830. Sir : I have this moment received a copy of the Fourth Auditor's letter to you of the 20th inst. on the subject of cer- tain pay rolls passed to my credit in the year 1822. Before any action takes place on the matter now presented to you, I beg to be permitted to put in such a reply to the Auditor's communication as I may deem necessary ; which reply shall not be delayed a moment longer than the nature of the busi- ness may require. I am respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant, JOS, L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. J. B. Thornton, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 26th July, 1830. Sir : On the 23d inst. I addressed you on the subject of a report made in relation to re-charges in my account by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, and requested permission to put in a reply before you should proceed to act upon that re- port. After mature reflection, I have arrived at the conclu- sion in my own mind, that it is my duty at this stage of the business to enter my solemn protest against the course pursu- ed by that officer. In January last I received a communication from the Audi- tor in relation to the matter now under consideration, calling upon me for explanations of certain items in my account, which, after a thorough investigation, he had thought not pro- perly admitted to my credit. I gave him such explanations 12 as the nature of the case appeared to require, and which I had reason to believe, from hearing nothing further upon the Subject, had proved satisfactory. On the 23d inst. however, I received a copy of a report made to you on the subject of these accounts, presenting results varying materially from those which had been ascertained in January preceding. I enclose for your examination copies of his letter and my reply. In the first place. I apprehend the Auditor has mistaken and tra ascended his duty as well as his authority in making the changes which he has done. My accounts, embracing the items in question, were settled by the proper officers of the Trea- sury in 1822. The Auditor, Constant Freeman, passed them, —the Comptroller sanctioned them. The present Auditor has no authority vested in him by law to revise and re-settle the accounts which have already been adjudicated upon by his superiors in office, or even by his predecessors. When an account has been finally passed upon by the Comptroller, it is upon every principle of justice, as well as law, removed beyond the control of the Auditor. With at least as much propriety may he revise decisions which you may have made yesterday, as those which your predecessor made eight years ago. The act of Congress gives the Comptroller power to revise and pass upon the acts of the Auditor, but where the latter can find the authority to subject to his review the pro- ceedings of the former, it will not, perhaps, be so easy to discover. If the items allowed in my accounts in 1822 are to be disallowed in 1830, then we shall have presented the singular anomaly of two decisions by equal authority in direct hostility to each other Which of them, let me ask, will be regarded as legal and obligatory ? The practice of the Gov- ernment, since its organization, has been in opposition to the principles now acted upon. Indeed, it must be obvious, from the very nature of things, that such must be the course which musf of necessity be pursued. If every officer of the Trea- sury is bound by his duty, or authorized by law, not merely 13 to act upon the business which from day to day is brought before him, but to re-examine, re-adjust, revise or approve of all that his predecessors have done, no. accounts can be finally closed, and no business finally adjusted. If the princi- ples now for the first time acted upon be adhered to, the time must soon arrive when the current business of the De- partments must be entirely suspended, for that which is prior in time is entitled to be first acted upon, and those transactions which have occurred thirty years since will be clearly entitled to the precedence. I would beg leave further to suggest, that nothing can ex- ceed the practical injustice of thus re opening accounts long since supposed to be settled, rejecting allowances formerly made, and reversing decisions emanating from the proper au- thority. It is weli known that all the evidence upon which the accounting officers act, is not reduced to writing. Verbal explanations are required and given, concurring statements are received from interested and indifferent parties, and properly weighed; but when the decision is made, this evi- dence, fleeting in its nature, disappears, and can never be re- covered. It therefore appears to me to be the height of in- justice to require of me to re-produce evidence in the matter now before you, or to be subject to a re charge for an ac- count long since decided by the proper officers to be my due* I therefore protest against the course pursued by the Auditor in this case, as being unjust in principle, unjust in practice, and totally at war with the established usage of the Govern- ment. I shall take occasion, in a few days, to address you on the subject of other claims disallowed by the Auditor, and special- ly provided for by a resolution of the two Houses of Con- gress, passed at the close of their late session. I am respectfully, Sir, Your obedient servant, (Signed) JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M. & To J. B Thornton, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 14 PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 30th July, 1830. Sir : In a communication which I addressed to you on the 26th inst. I took occasion to say, that in a few days I should again write you on the subject of some disallowances made in my accounts by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, and for which special provision had been made by a Resolution of the two Houses of Congress. Agreeably to the information thus given, I shall now proceed to make such a statement in rela- tion to the accounts in question, as is fully justified by the facts w the cases referred to, and which I trust will receive your deliberate consideration. Shortly after the present Auditor entered upon the duties of his office, he considered it proper to withhold certain pay and allowances made to the officers of the Marine Corps by the former Administrations of the Government. His reasons for adopting this course you will find fully stated in- a letter which he addressed to the Secretary of the Navy on the 28th May, 11329, and in which he enters fully into detail as to the pay and allowances which the officers were in receipt of prior to the 1st April 1829; and also gives his reasons for with- holding such parts of the pay and allowances as he considered unauthorized by law. This decision, although I believe in decided opposition to the opinion of the Attorney General, was approved of by higher authority, and the officers were compelled to subsist on a small pittance of pay from that time till the close of the last session of Congress. Previous, how- ever, to the adjournment of that body, the situation in which we were placed by the decision of the Auditor was brought to the notice of some of the members, who immediately in- troduced a resolution, giving to the officers of the Marine Corps the same pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances that they were in the receipt of prior to the 1st April, 1829. This resolution was opposed by a distinguished friend of the Auditor from Kentucky ; and among other grounds of his op- position, the letter of jMr, Kendall to the Secretary of the 15 Navy was read to the House, and obtained a conspicuous place in the United States Telegraph on the morning of the day that the resolution was to be called up for its final read- ing. Thus you will perceive that the full amount of pay and allowances which the officers received prior to the 1st April, 1829, was fully made known to the members by the Auditor himself, and with this knowledge they passed the Resolution by a large majority. In the Senate no opposition was made to it ; and after the regular course of legislation upon it, it received the signature of the President of the United States, and became a law of the land. You will perceive by the enclosed copies of vouchers re- jected by the Auditor, and marked No, 144, 143, 207,208, 211,213, 214,215, 219, and 220, that the pay, &c. therein claimed, is precisely the same as the Auditor in his report of the 28th May, 1829. says I was in the receipt of; but upon what ground the credit for them is withheld after the passage of the resolution above referred to, I must acknowledge to be beyond my capacity to explain. Similar disallowances to officers were, however, made by the Auditor, but on present- ing their claim to the Acting Comptroller, Mr Reynolds, he promptly directed the credits to be given, and the money paid to the individuals. Such, 1 am convinced, will also be your decision in the cases now under consideration, as they so fully come under the provisions of the Resolution, that I feel that I owe you an apology for thus long detaining you on the subject of them. The two vouchers marked 219 and 220 will, I apprehend, be fully admitted to be embraced in the resolution, as it provides, among other things, for the allowances made to the officers of the Marine Corps prior to the 1st April, 1829. As the justice and propriety of the claims now brought to your notice, in the cases referred to 7 cannot admit of a doubt, I shall now proceed to state my ob- jections to other charges and disallowances of credit made by the Auditor in the settlement of my account, on the first of May, 1823, and reopened by him in 1830. 16 Among other items charged to me. in the reconcilement of my account for expenditures in the year 1829, you will find the following : " To R. M. Desha, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, viz : For this sum improperly debited to said Desha in the settlement of Jos. L. Kahn's account, No. 3,961, reported 1st May, 1823, g7,564 13." Here again the question of right or authority on the part of the Auditor to re-open accounts long since settled by the proper officers arises, and which I so fully objected to in my letter to you of the 26th instant. It is not, I presume, ne- cessary for me to recapitulate the arguments therein used against the practice now adopted for the first time under the Government, as I am prepared to believe that you wHl fully agree with me that it cannot be sustained by any principle of law or justice. The credit given to me for the above sum was on the enclosed vouchers, marked No. 332 and 333j which have on them the approval of the then Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, Constant Freeman ; and to the disallowance of them at this time I must solemnly protest against. Ther is another item in the reconcilement of my account for ex- penditures in 1829, to which I object — it is as follows : " For Balances due from Marine Officers, and transferred from the books of said Desha to the books of Jos. L* Kuhn, his successor in office, for stoppage, more than credited by- said Kuhn, g3,455 44." Among the items which compose the above sum, is voucher No 280, paid by me, as you will perceive, by the authority of Smith Thompson, Esq. Secretary of the Navy, and admit- ted in the settlement of my account on the 1st May, 1823. Another item in the above sum, amounting to $220, is em- braced in vouchers No. 163, 165 and 166, and paid by me to Captain Thomas A. Linton, and admitted in the settlement of my account in 1825. To these disallowances I offer the same protest that I make in relation to vouchers No. 332 and 333. 1* There are two other items (in addition to an error of $ 100 in posting up my account with Desha) of disallowance which makes up the sum charged in the reconcilement of 1829, above slated. They are as follows : Amount overpaid Lieut. Col. R. D, Wainright, on account ofR. M. Desha, $1,093 68 Commissions on collecting and accounting for balances due from officers to R. M. Desha, 1,691 76 The item of $ 1,093 68 paid by me to Lieut. Col. Wain- wright, and disallowed by the Auditor, was charged to that officer as soon as it was discovered that the payment had been improperly made. His pay was stopped to cover this amount, from the 1st July, 1829, till some time in March, 1830, when I received a note in the hand writing of the Se- cretary of the Navy, a copy of which is enclosed, and mark- ed A, by which you will perceive that I was authorized to stop one-half of the monthly pay of Col. W., to cover the sum charged against him. This authority I understood verbally from the Secretary, was not to apply to the one-half of the pay then in my hands, but to take effect from the 3\st March, 1830. I consequently paid to Col. Wainwright, on the 8th of March last, the sum of eight hundred dollars, and shall continue to stop, by the authority of the Secretary, from the 1st of April, the designated portion of his pay until the amount charged against him is accounted for. But for the interposi- tion of the Secretary, the full amount charged against Col. W. would now be in my hands, and I would willingly have held myself accountable for it; but when the amount secured was paid over to the individual by the authority of the Head of the Department, and the mode of stoppage to cover the charge designated by that officer, 1 cannot but think it strange that I should now be charged with that sum, and held ac- countable for it. When a sufficient amount is stopped from the pay of Col. Wainwright to cover the charge against him, I Can then have no objection to accounting for it '; but till this 3 18 is the fact, a sense of justice to myself demands that I should protest against the charge, at this time, in my accounts. In relation to the charge for commissions, I beg leave to state, that at the death of my predecessor, R. M Desha, there appeared to be large balances due him by the various officers of the corps ; and as he was largely indebted to the United States, it became a matter of some moment to secure, as far as possible, for the Government, as much of those balances as practicable. Many modes of effecting that object were suggested at the time, to all of which some one or more ob- jections were started. It was at length decided that I should be desired to collect these balances as far as practicable : which duty I undertook and performed with good faith to the parties concerned. It will, I apprehend, strike you at once, that this duty was extra official, and not within the sphere of my office as Paymaster. In the management of this business I encountered much labor and perplexity for a space of eight years, and have put in the claim in question as compensation for it. Indeed, I am advised by the Judge of the Orphan's Court in this District, that if such an account was presented to that tribunal, that 1\ per centum, or perhaps ten, would foe awarded me. 1 have, as you will perceive, claimed the lowest per centum which the tribunal established here for the settlement of the estates of individuals deceased is authorized to allow : but if the matter was submitted to a court of law 9 I should claim, and should be fully authorized to do so, the highest premium allowed in such cases. With this view of the case, and when you take into consideration the extent ot my labors in performing a duty not properly devolving devolving upon me in my character as Paymaster, but wholly undertaken at the request of the Government, and from a desire to secure it, as far as possible, from a loss, I am in- clined to the belief that you will, without hesitation, direct the allowance claimed to be made to me. 1 enclose you the United States Telegraph alluded to in the first part of this communication, as also the resolution in 19 relation to the pay of the Marine Corps, passed and approved on the 29th May, 1830. I am, respectfully, your obd't servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. AT. C. J. B. Thornton, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. A NAVY DEPARTMENT, March 17, 1830. If Captain Kuhn thinks proper to collect the balance due him from Col. Wainwright, by a stoppage of one-half his pay and subsistence, the Secretary of the Navy will take no ex- ception to that course, nor hold him censurable for so doing. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 2d Comptroller' 1 s Office, August 12th, 1830. Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor. Sir : Major Jos. L. Kuhn Paymaster of the U. S. Marine Corps whose account for the first quarter of 1830 was repor- ted by you to this Office on the 23d ult. for re- examination and revision, and who, it appears, was furnished by you with a reconciling statement of his accounts as settled in your Of- fice, on an appeal from your decision, claims an allowance for the following items disallowed by you. Voucher No. 144, for the value of 51 cords 5 feet of wood less received than is claimed by the Paymaster for the years 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826 and 1827, inch amount- ing to the sum of $268 62 Voucher No. 144, for bills of medicine and medical attendance for the Paymaster and his family for the years 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827 and 1828 amounting to '432 70 Voucher 207, being a difference of house rent allowed and claimed by the Paymaster for six years ending 31 December, 1827, claimed $288, allowed $250, difference 232 26 29 Voucher 208, for difference of pay, &c. between a Major of Infantry allowed and a Major of the General Staff claimed, 412 20 Voucher 211, forage for 4 horses claimed, three allowed, difference, 96 00 Voucher 213, for four extra and undrawn rations per day, from 20th November, 1821 to 31st December, 1827, being 8,928 at 20 cents per ration, 1,785 69 Voucher 214, forage for an additional horse from 20th November, 1820 to 31st December, 1827, 73 months 1 1 days at $8 per month, 586 93 Voucher 21 5> for additional pay as Paymaster, from 20th November, 1821 to 31st Decem- ber, 1827, 73 months, 11 days, at $10 per month, 733 6# Voucher 219, for five per cent, commission of $43,188 35 disbursed by the Paymaster for subsistence of marines from 20th November, 1821, to 31st December, 1823, 2,159 41 Voucher 220, for a commission of 5 per cent claimed on disbursements in the Quarter Mas- ter's Department on the sum of $45,030 93 disbursed by the Paymaster, 2,251 53 The above recited items and vouchers from the records of this Office were contained in Major Kuhn's account reported in 1829, and formed the subject matter of an appeal to the decision of my predecessor in office Mr. Hill. After a full investigation of the facts relating to these charges, and a pa- tient hearing of explanations and arguments from Major Kuhn, the Comptroller on the 29th of December, 1829, decided against their admission. This decision Mr. Kuhn now asks me to reverse. However inconsistent this request of Major Kuhn's may appear when taken in connection with his argu- ment in relation to another part of his appeal, I have; neveis 21 theless, felt it my duty to go into an investigation- of this part of his case. As no facts have been adduced by Major Kuhn in support of these claims which were not laid before Mr. Hill in 1849, itjs unnecessary that I go into a detailed narration of them, but will respectfully refer to Mr. Hill's letter to you dated 26 December, 1829. Major Kuhn now urges the allowance of these claims as coming within the purview of a resolution of Congress, passed 29 May, 1830. The resolution provides that " the pay, sub- sistence, emoluments and allowances received by the Officers of the Marine Corps, previous to the 1st April, 1829, be and the same is hereby directed to be continued to them from that date up to the 28 February, 1831." Giving to this resolution the broadest construction of which the language will admit, to wit. to legalize all irregular allowances &c. received by the Officers of the Marine Corps previous to the 1st of April, 1829, and it will still be found too narrow to embrace these claims of Major Kuhn Major Kuhn, so far from having ever received such pay, subsistence, emoluments and allowances as above charged previous to the 1st of April, 1829, never even made a claim for them until the rendition of his accounts of expenditures for the year 1828, when they were disallowed in your Office, and such disallowance sanctioned by the Comp- troller on the 29th of December, 1829. These charges are un- authorized by law or regulation as is clearly shewn in the let- ter of my predecessor, Mr. Hill. They are not embraced within the broadest construction of the resolution of 29 May 1850. They cannot therefore be allowed upon any principle of law or equity. The next item of appeal is contained in the official statement of Major Kuhn's account for 1829, and is a re-charge to Major Kuhn of $1,564 13, in favour ofR. M. Desha, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps. Of this recharge it appears Major Kuhn was apprized by you, but suffered it to pass to his debit by the certificate of the acting Second Comptroller, Mr. Reynolds, without objecting. The re-charge is thus made. 22 *! To R. M. Desha late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, for this sum improperly debited to Desha and credited to J . V. Kuhn in the settlement of his account No 3,961, reported 1st May, 1823, $7564 13." It may be useful to guide in this investigation, here to re- mark, that R. M. Desha resigned the Office of Paymaster of the Marine Corps in the fall of 1821, leaving balances upon his books due him for over-payments made to the Officers of the Marine Corps amounting to $60,667 92. On the 21st of November, 1821, Captain Joseph L. Kuhn was appointed Pay- master of the Marine Corps and these balances transferred from the books of Desha to him. These balances were not however, charged to the account of Major Kuhn on the books of the government until the statement of his accounts in 1829. On recurring to the settlement of Major Kuhn's account in 1823, I find tins sum of $7,664 13 passed to the credit of Cap- tain Kuhn upon the following vouchers: " United States' Marine Corps To Major Samuel Miller, 1820, March 3d. To pay as acting Quarter Master of Marines from 1st May to 3d March, 1820, inclusive, ten months and three days (agreeably to the order of the Secretary of the Navy) at $30 per month, $*303. Received Washington, March 3d, 1820 of Lieutenant R. M. Desha the above amount in full SAMUEL MILLER. Acting Quarter Master Marines. United States' Navy Department, To Major Samuel Miller, 1820. To allowance for super- intending the armory at Head Quarters from 1st May, 1819 to 30 April, 1820, 12 months at $12 50, $150 Washington April 30th 1830. Received of R. M. Desha the above sum in full. (Signed) SAMUEL MILLER, Superintendent of the Armory." " Received of Vouchers from Major Miller amounting to seven thousand and one hundred and eleven dollars and thir- 23 teen cents, which vouchers were acquired during my visit to the Western Country and which were paid by him. Washington 31st July 1 820, (Signed) R. M. DESHA, Paymaster Marine Corps. Upon what principle Major Kuhn obtained a credit upon these vouchers in 1823, I am unable to perceive. To me it appears most evident, that as Major Kuhn did not at that time stand charged upon the books of the government with the bal- ances transferred from Desha's books to him, he was not en- titled to the credit. He could avail himself of these vouch- ers only as an offset against the balance due from Miller to Desha, amounting to $ 12,481 74, transferred from the books of Desha to Kuhn. Kuhn not being charged with this balance in 1823, the sum of $7,564 13 was erroneously passetl to his credit at that time. In the settlement of Major Kuhn's account as reported 21st May, 1830, he is for the first time charged with the balances transferred from the books of Desha to him. In this state- ment he is properly credited with the amount of $7,564 13, covered by Major Miiler's vouchers as above set forth To this credit Kuhn is entitled as an offset against the charge of balances. Thus it is evident that Major Kuhn has obtained a double credit for this sum on the books of the government and that justice and equity require that he should be charged with the credit improperly obtained in 1823. — To this re- charge, however, Major Kuhn objects, not, if I understand the tenor of his remarks, on the ground that such re-charge will operate unjustly, but that the credit having passed to him, no matter how erroneously, it is not competent for the accounting officers to rectify the mistake. He would seem, however, to admit the justice of the charge, for in his letter to the Secretary of the Navy dated 1st August 1829, speaking of this item of charge, he says " It must be re- collected that I made no charge of this sum, it was admitted to my credit in the Office of the Auditor." It would seem that at this time he had not determined to contest the charge, 24 feut rather to exculpate himself from the impropriety which might be attached to him in the mind of the Secretary for claiming the credit a second time. Indeed he suffered it to pass without objection to his debit by the decision of the act» ing Comptroller as late as June 9, 1830, although fully appri- zed of the nature of the charge as early as July 27, 1829. Being fully convinced of the justice of this charge in your statement of Major Kuhn's account, and believing that the ac- counting officers have not only the power, but that it is their imperative duty to correct gross and palpable mistakes in the settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers, I cheer- approve your decision therein. 1 have said nothing of Major Kuhn's apparent inconsistence, in requesting me in one breath to reverse the decision of Messrs. Hill and Reynolds, which are against his interest, and in the next objecting to my power to reverse the decisions of Messrs. Cutts and Watkins which are in his favour. It is sufficient for me that I believe I have the power to correct all gross errors in the accounts that pro- perly come under my supervision : The next item of charge to which Major Kuhn objects is contained in the statement of his account reported 21st May 1830, and is as follows. " For balances due from Marine Officers and transferred from the books of said Desha, the late Paymaster, to the books of J.L. Kuhn his successor in office, for stoppage more than credited by said Kuhn, g3,455 44." This is the difference between the whole amount of balan- ces transferred from the books of Desha and received by Kuhn and the amount accounted for by Kuhn on account of those balances. It is thus obtained : Major Kuhn is charged for these transferred balances as per list, by him rendered in the sum of $60,667 93. He is credited for balances accounted for as follows : Letter of credit dated 23 Sept. 1822, 2,989 02 ditto, 30 2,500 00 ditto, 3 Feb. 1823, 22,228 53 ditto 30 June 1829 1,936 32 25 Major R. Smith's acct. credited by direction of 4th Auditor Captain William Anderson, ditto Major S. Miller for Vouchers ofd. by him and credited by do. Lt. J. C. Hall 8301 35, Lt J. Harris $254 73, Lt R. T. Auchmuty $64 60, Lt C. Grymes $297 44 Lt. C. Betts $33 35, Lt. T. B. Barton $287 70 Sergeant Forrest $152 25, Lt, R. Richardson $200 16 Lt. G. R. Walker $9 60, Lt. H. E. Dix $200 Major R. D. Wainwright Colonel A. Gale Lt. H. Olcott Lt. C. Lord Captain A. Grayson Lt. S. B. Johnson $57,212 48 This latter sum of balances accounted for by Major Kuhn,, deducted from the balances received by him, leaves the un- accounted balance of $3,455 44, in his hands. Now there is no position more evidently correct than this, that Major Kuhn having received the balances due from the Officers of the Marine Corps, which were transferred from the books of R. M. Desha to him, he should be held to ac- count for them to the government, which amount so account- ed for, should be passed to the credit of R. M. Desha. To this position indeed, I do not understand Major Kuhn to ob- ject, but to contend that among the items which compose the sum of $3,455 44, is one item of $350 00, embraced in voucher 280, and admitted to his credit in 1823. One item of $220, embraced in vouchers 163, 1#5, and 166, admitted to his credit in 1825, making the sum of $570, which should be taken from the balance reported by the Auditor. The sum of $350 3,623 70 133 33 7,564 13 556 08 362 04 320 65 352 41 209 60 11,192 46 799 22 853 08 380 18 1.002 68 229 05 26 embraced in voucher 280, was- paid by Major Kuhn to Major Gamble to correct an overcharge made by Desha in Gamble's account, for which, in 1 823, Major Kuhn received a credit, and the same was charged to the account of R. M. Desha. Why then should Major Kuhn claim a credit for the same payment in 1829 ? The amount of this payment to Gamble was not taken from the balances in /Major Kuhn's hands — the sum of the balances amounting to $60,667 92, transferred from Desha's books to Sfajor Kuhn was not diminished in consequence of the pay- ment of $350 by Kuhn to Gamble. It is a transaction altoge- ther independent of and distinct from the subject of these bal- ances. For this payment. Major Kuhn admits he received a credit in 1823, he is not therefore entitled to a credit for the same payment in 1829. The two remaining items to which Major Kuhn considers himself entitled as comprised in the item of §3,445 44, are $1,093 68 overpaid to Lt. Colonel Wainwright, and $1 ,691 76 commissions for collecting the balances transferred from the books of Desha to him. The payment of $1,093 68, was made by Kuhn to Wain- wright with the full knowledge that Wainwright was indebted to the government to a large amount. If we consider the payment as an advance by Kuhn to Wainwright it contravenes the law of January 31st, 1823, which enacts that no advance of Public money shall be made in any case. If we consider the payment to be for services, it then contravenes the general stoppage enactment which is appended to all acts of appro- priation. So that in neither of these views is Major Kuhn entitled to the credit. But Major Kuhn insists upon a credit for this item, he having made the payments by the xlirection of the Secretary of the Navy. To this 1 have to reply, that "I am not aware of any power vested in the Secretary of the Navy which author- izes him to sanction a departure from the plain provisions of a positive statute ; nor do I give such a construction to the 27 note of the Secretary as set forth by Major Kuhn in his letter to the 2d Comptroller. But admitting the construction for which Major Kuhn contends, to wit, the sanction of an illegal procedure on his part, still he (Kuhn) was not bound to make an improper payment to Wainwnght, and having made it, he alone is responsible for the consequences, and not the Gov- ernment. The charge by Major Kuhn of $1,691 76 for commissions it appears by the correspondence, was submitted to the Sec- retary of the Navy as a contingent charge, for his allowance, ft was disallowed by the Secretary and afterwards by yourself and my predecessor Mr. Hill. This appears to me to be a charge for commissions, not for money paid by Paymaster Kuhn, but for money he did not pay. It has been submitted to the decision of the Secretary of the Navy as a contingent expense, and as I am not inclined to encroach upon the pre- rogatives of that office, I shall not attempt to reverse his de- cision. The remaining item of difference between Major Kuhn's own statement of his account and your official statement is the recharge of the rolls of payments made to the Marine guard of the Macedonian by Captain R. D. Wainwright in 1821, and passed to the credit of Major Kuhn in his accounts for 1822 and 1823. From the documents furnished upon this subject it is evident that these payments were made from funds advan- ced by Desha, and not from funds advanced by Kuhn. The receipts are to Desha and not to Kuhn ; it is matter of surprise therefore, that these rolls for payments made by Desha, should ever have passed to the credit of Kuhn. But as Major Kuhn does not deny the justice of the recharge of the rolls to him, but rests his case upon the want of power in the accounting Officers to correct the apparent error, it is unnecessary that I go into a detailed explanation of the circumstances attending the transaction. Having before decided in this letter that it is competent for the accounting Officers to rectify palpable mistakes in the accounts of disbursing Officers, I have now 28 only to add, that I am satisfied from a careful examination of the books, papers and vouchers accompanying the account of Major Kuhn that your official statement of the same is correct. Very respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant, [Signed] JAMES B. THORNTON. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4lh Auditor** Office, 20lh August, 1830. Sir : I have the honour to state, that the accounts of Capt. Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster of the Marine Corps, embracing his expenditures to the 31st March, 1830, have been Audited at this Office, and revised by the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, and a balance is found to be due from him to the United States of $49,563 03 But from this sum may be deducted the amount of Requisitions on the Treasury, issued since the 1st of April, 1830, and embraced in this balance and which is applicable to his expendi- tures for the second quarter of this year - 29,825 76 g)9,737 27 And it may be proper also to state that this is made up as follows, viz— This sum being recharged to him on account of improper credits given to him, in settlement made of his accounts in 1822, and J823, .... $11,22207 This sum being the balance of his account with R. M Desha, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, for balances due from Marine Officers transferred to Kuhn, - - - - 3,455 44 And this sum being errors, disallowances and overpayments by Pursers to Marine Officers, charged to Paymaster, not yet credited by him, 5,059 76 $19.7.^7 xl I have the honour to be, with great respect, Sir, your obedient Servant, (Signed) AMOS KENDALL, Hon. John Branch, Secretary of the Navy. 29 PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 23d August, 1830. Sir : In a report made to you, on the 20th August, by the 4th Auditor of the Treasury, [ am represented as being in arrears to the United States, on the 31st March, 1830, in the sum of $19,737 27. As this representation of the state of my accounts is calculated to inflict upon me, a deep and serious injury in the eyes of the Government, I deem it but proper to expose to you, the gross injustice done to me by the accountant* Offi- cers of the Treasury and to call upon you in your o/fi Ct . "*• pacity, as I shall also do upon the President of the C/uited States, the moment he returns to the Seat of Government, to shield me from the injury which the Second Comptroller and 4th Auditor of the Treasury intend to inflict upon me. In making this appeal to you, it is proper that I should furnish for your better understanding of the matters in question, such documents and vouchers as are calculated to elucidate the case, and to show that the injustice of which I complain is not imaginary, but real. The first item of disallowance and recharge in my account is embraced in part in the vouchers herewith enclosed and marked No. 332 and 333, amounting to $7,564 13. These vouchers you will perceive, were paid by me on the authority of Constant Freeman, 4th Auditor of the Treasury, and ad- mitted in the settlement of my accounts for the year 1822. These accounts received the strict examination of the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, and, with the facts fresh in their minds they were passed to my credit ; and the account, as I had supposed finally and forever closed This now how- ever appears not to be the fact, for the Auditor has taken up- on himself to reopen these accounts long since settled, and to recharge me with money admitted to my credit by the proper officers of the Government. If this practice of the account- ing officers be sanctioned in the case of accounts, settled up- wards of eight years ago, it would apply with equal propriety,. 30 to accounts settled at the commencement of the (government. This I apprehend would involve the Government, in difficulties not at all desirable, and would even make the Auditor hesi- tate unless, indeed, he had some particular object in view. But as circumstances alter cases, it may be well lor me to re- mark here, that the Auditor appears to have changed his miud very suddenly on the power in question, for you will find in a publication made by him in the United States Tele- graph, in the case of Lt. Randolph, he distinctly denies that he rppnened his account, and says, he does not possess the * -iw'eT ' < c '^ J s0 * ^ ne ^ nGt P ossess tms power in that case, 1 should be glad to know how he became so suddenly possessed of it in mine. Indeed I am informed that during the last summer the President of the United States gave in- structions to the Second Comptroller, not to reopen, or read- just accounts settled by a former Administration. If this be a fact, and of which I apprehend there can be no doubt, the au- thority of the President, appears to have quite as little weight with the Auditor, as the uniform practice of all former Ad- ministrations have. The next item of recharge and which together with the sum of $7, 564 13, makes the first amount in the statement made by the Auditorto you the 20lh inst. (say $11 ? 222 07,) is the sum of 3,657 94, embraced in sundry pay rolls, passed to my credit also in 1822. As it is unnecessary after what I have said on the practice of reopening and readjusting accounts to recapitulate my arguments in the case, I shall confine my- self to some facts, connected with the settlements of these rolls, which I think will satisfy you of the injustice, of the recharge of them in my account, for the first quarter of 1830. When my accounts for the year 1822, in which these rolls were embraced, were under examination in the 4th Auditor's office, a question arose whether or not, I was the proper per- son entitled to credit for them To be satisfied on this subject, Captain Grayson, the Agent for R. M. Desha, was sent for to give the necessary explanations, and after a full examination 31 of the mutter, and the evidence being conclusive to the mintl of the Auditor, as well as the settling clerk, that I was the person entitled to credit for them, the credit was accordingly given, and my account closed. These facts can be now ob- tained by reference to the clerk who had the settlement of the account, as well as to one of the old clerks, now in the Auditor's office. But 1 am now required either to reproduce the evidence first given, and which is beyond my reach, or to submit to a recharge of the sum then placed to my credit. This Sir, is an injustice, which would make even an Algerine blush. In the next sum of recharge embraced in the statement made to you, on the 20th inst by the Auditor, viz : $3,455 44, is one item of $1,093 68, due from Lieutenant Colonel Wain- wright. Of the nature of this charge you are perfectly aware, for it cannot have escaped your recollection, that it was by your authority in March last, that I paid to Colonel W. the sum stopped by me, to cover this amount, and that I was au- thorized by you, to stop only one half of that officer's pay from the 1st of April, 1830, until the sum charged against him was liquidated. These facts were known to the Auditor. But I am not only now charged with the original sum against Colo- nel Wainwright, but am charged by the Second Comptroller, with a violation of the law, by making payments by your au- thority. I have ever considered the authority of the Head of the Navy Department, as a sufficient justification, for any of my acts, but it now seems his authority in the view of the Comptroller is worth nothing, and that the disbursing officers under his department must subject themselves to the charge of a violation of law, if they conform to his wishes or his instruc- tions. Indeed, Sir, I believe the officers of the service general- ly, look upon the orders or instructions they receive from the Head of the Department, as emanating from the President himself; but under the Comptroller's view of your powers, we shall be all guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, if we obey any of your orders touching pecuniary matters. 32 The next amount as a part of the $3,455 44, which comes under consideration as that of $1,691 76. This is an amount charged by me, for the collection of the various moneys, due to the estate of R. M. Desha, but disallowed to me by the Auditor, and (he Comptroller. In relation to this charge, I have only to say that I am advised by the Judge ©f the Or- phans' Court, in this City that if such an account as the one on which this commission is charged was presented to that tribunal that 7\ or perhaps 10 per centum would be allowed me, I am at a loss to know by what right the auditor or Comptroller has disallowed this charge, for it is not one against the United States, but against the estate of R. M. Desha, and properly chargeable to the money collected for that estate. But as the object in view, is to make me appear as a de- faulter to the the United States, they perhaps considered it as well to swell the apparent defalcation as much as possible, and truly they have not stopped at trifles to effect that object. The next recharge is $350 embraced in voucher No. 280, and paid by me as you will perceive to Major Gamble, by the authority of Smith Thompson, Esq. Sectretary ot the Navy. As this voucher comes under the reopening system I make the same objection to it, that I have made in the other cases referred to. There is also another item of charge of $220 which when added to the three foregoing sums makes the Auditor's charge of $3,455 44, and is embrnced in vouchers No. 163, 165, and 166. These vouchers were allowed by the 4th Auditor of the Treasury, and included in the settlement of my accounts for 1825. These accounts have also been reopened, and the recharge comes under the same objections as have been made in the other cases. I now come to the sum of $5,059 76, included in the Aud- itor's Report. You will perceive that this sum is made a positive charge against me in the following words :~- "And this sum being er- 33 rors, disallowances and overpayments by Pursers to Marine officers, charged to Paymaster, and not yet credited by him.'' $6,059 76 Of this sum there is $2, 196 1 1, in the hands of Josiah Col- ston, Purser at Pensacola, for the payment of Marines on that station, and $2,106 11, remitted by me to the various Ports for public purposes, and for which no return vouchers had been received when my account for the quarter ending the 31stofMarch, 1830, were sent to the Auditor. Yetforlhese two sums I am charged and arrayed as a Defaulter. The sum in the hands of Colston, was placed there, not by me, but by Samuel Hamblelon, Esq. who originally received from the Navy agent at Pensacola, three thousand dollars on account of Pay ofMarine Corps. When Mr. Hambleton was relieved on that station by Colston, he turned over to him the balance in his hands of the three thousand, viz. $2,196 11; and on the settlement of his account at the Auditor's office, I was charg- ed without my authority or consent, with the $3000. When Mr. Colston accounts to me for the $2,196 11,1 will then have no objection to the charge made against me, but before this is the fact, it is folly to suppose that I will hold myself accountable for money placed in another man's hands by the Government. These two sums of $2, 196 11, and $2,106 11, taken from the $5,059 76, charged to me by the Auditor, leaves a balance of $767 54, which arises from overpayments by Pursers to officers x>f the Marine Corps, and not stopped by me, when my accounts to the 31st March, 1830, were rendered. If the Auditor had taken the trouble to examine my ac- counts rendered to the 30th June, 1830, he would have found that the greater part of this $767 54, had been credited by me in my account current to that date, and which account cur- rent also shows a balance in my favour of $©,101 59. But strange and unaccountable as the Auditor's conduct must appear in relation to the foregoing cases, it is still more strange when you take into view, his course relative to my individual pay and allowances. On the 28th of May, 1829, 8720 00 584 00 356 16 . 288 00 168 00 384 00 82,500 16 72 00 34 this officer made a report to you, on the subject of the Pay, &c. received by the officers of the Marine Corps. Among the other items in that report, he states that the Paymaster, in 1828, was considered entitled to, and did receive, the following pay, subsistence, and emoluments — viz : Pay at g60 per month, 8 Rations per day, 2 Servants, House Rent, 24 Cords of Wood, at $7.00 Forage for 4 horses at 88 per month, 'Which add 12 cords of wood foran officer at §6 per cord, $2>?£ 16 These allowances he considered improper and contrary to law, and consequently reduced them with that of every offi- cer of the Corps, to nearly one half. Under this reduction we suffered till the 29th of May, 1830, when the Congress of the United States passed a Resolution directing that the offi- cers of the Marine Corps, be authorized t© receive the same pa^ , subsistence, emoluments and allowances that they were in the receipt of prior to the 1st of April, 1829. The benefits of this resolution have been applied to every officer in the Corps, save myself ; and the Comptroller now says, that I never did receive the pay, which the Auditor in his official report states I was in the receipt of in 1828. The Second Comptroller does not in this assertion appear to be aware how seriously he has impeached the veracity of his friend the Auditor. He should have curbed his zeal a little to make me appear in arrears to the United States, and he then would cot have laid himself liable to the charge of ingratitude. To the Auditor's report to you, as also to his report on Mr Wickliffe's resolution in relation to the Pay of the Navy, and Marine Corps, I beg leave to refer you. All I can ask for this communication is an attentive perusal of it, and a com- 35 parison of the assertiens I make with the documents an4 vouchers to which I refer. These, I think must convince you that the complaints I make are not are not without cause, But that they call loudly for redress. I am respectfully, your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. The Hon. John Branch, Secretary of the Navy. [Vouchers referred to in the foregoing Letter, ~J No. 332. United States Marine Corps, 1820. To Major Samuel Miller. March 3. To pay as Acting Quarter Master of Marines, from 1st May, 1815, to 3d March, 18.20, inclusive, ten months and three days, (agreeably to orders of Secretary of the Navy,) at $30 per month, g303 Received, Washington, March 3, 1820, of Lieut. R. M. Desha, Paymaster of Marines, the above amount in full. SAM. MILLER, $303 Acting Q M. Marines. The above has been carried to the credit of Capt. Grayson, Q. M. M. C. in settlement of his account, No. 2322. Sth February , 1821. Major Miller is allowed pay as Acting Quarter Master of the Marine Corps from 1st May, 1819, to 3d March, 1820, during the absence of Captain Grayson. If Captain Grayson has drawn pay as Quarter Master during that period, let him refund it, or be recharged with the amount. RICHARD CUTTS. Treasury Department, Second Comptroller's Office. February 20th ? 1822. $6 United States Navy Department, To Samuel Miller. To allowances for superintending the Armor) at Head Quar- ters, from 1st May, 1819, to 30th April, 1820, twelve months, at $12 50 $ 150 Washington, April 30, 1820. Received of R. M. Desha, Esq. the above sum in full. SAM. MILLER, Sup. of the Armory. Carried to the credit of Captain Grayson, in settlement of his account, No. 2322. 8th February, 1821. Major Miller is allowed the within amount for superin- tending the Armory at the Marine Barracks, from 1st May, 1819, to 30th April, 1820, during the absence of Captain Grayson. RICHARD CUTTS. Treasury Department, 2nd Comptroller's Office. February 20, 1822. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Fourth Auditors Office) 10th Jan. 1823. Sir : In the adjustment of the accounts at this office, of the late Paymaster, R. M. Desha, there was suspended from his credit, two sums paid, amounting to g453, (see copy of voucher herewith,) by him to Major Samuel Miller, for pay as Acting Quarter Master and superintending the Armory during the absence of Captain Grayson, who had charged and received a credit for the same in the settlement of his ac- counts. This decision has been reversed by the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, who directed that Captain Grayson should refund the amount of such credit ; and ac- cordingly, in a subsequent settlement made with him, he has been debited to Mr. Desha for $453. If, therefore, Major Miller has been recharged by Mr. Desha for the aforesaid payments, he should be again credited. I am. 6c CONST. FREEMAN, Auditor. Lieut. Jos. L. Kuhn, P M. M. Corps, Washington City. . 87 No. 333. Received vouchers from Major Miller, amounting to seven thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and thirteen cents, which vouchers were acquired during my visit to the West- tern country, and which were paid by him. R. M. DESHA, P. M M. Corps. Washington, 3\st Jan. 1820. Admitted, Signed C. F. No. 280. United States Marine Corps, 1822. To Major John M. Gamble, Dr. 13th July. To amount overcharged by the late Pay mas lex, as per statement of his accounts, $350 Received, Washington, 19th Dec. 1822, of Joseph L. Kuhn, Esq. Paymaster of the U. S. Marine Corps, three hun- dred and fifty dollars, in full of the above account. J. M. GAMBLE, Major Commanding. I certify, that on an examination of the books of R. M. Desha, late Paymaster of the corps, I find the above charge of $350 against Major Gamble, being an amount forwarded him for the use of Col. Henderson, and with which the said Col. Henderson stands charged. JOS. L. KUHN, 19th December, 1822. P. M. M. €. There can be no doubt but Major Gamble ought to have credit for the above sum. Signed S. T. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Fourth Auditor's Office, mh Dec. 1822. Sir : I return you the account of Major John M Gamble, which, having the sanction of the Secretary of the Navy, will be pass«d to your credit at this office when paid. I am, &c. CONST. FREEMAN, Auditor. Lieat. Jos. k. Kvhn, P. M.C. Washington City. 38 No. 16S. y. S. Marine Corps, To Lieut. Thos. A. Linton, Dr. To transportation from New Orleans to Philadelphia, as per order, herewith enclosed. g 100 00 Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn, Paymaster Marine Corpsi, the sum of one hundred dollars, in lull for the above account. THOS A.LINTON, Lieut. U. S. Marines. The above sum was received by Lieut. Linton from Cap- tain F. B. De Bellvue, of Marines, for which he gave his re- ceipt, which receipt was forwarded to Desha, and the amount of it placed to the credit of De Bellvue. Desha has also re- ceived credit at the Department for said receipt, but has never given Lieut. Linton credit for his transportation. JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M. C. No. 165. U. S. Marine Corps, To Lieut. Thomas A. Linton, Dr. To an overcharge on the books of Desha, g20 00 Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn, P. M. M. C. The sum of twenty dollars, in full of the above account. tl THOS. A. LINTON, Lieut. U. S. Marine Corps. On an examination of the books of R. M. Desha, I find Lieut. Linton charged with $20 paid Mr. Pool, as per Lt L.'s order, drawn on Desha. This order has not been paid by Desha, but has been paid by Lieut. Linton on his return to Head Quarters, Desha having refused to take it up. The above order was presented to me for payment, but was discharged hy Lieut. Linton JOS. L KUHN, P. M, M. Corps 39 No. 166. U. S. Marine Corps, To Lieut. Thos. A. Linton, &r. To an overcharge on the books of R. M. Desha, $100 00 Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn. the sum of one hundred dollars. THOS. A. LINTON, Lieut U. S. M. Corps. The above account is claimed in consequence of a charge having been made by Major Miller (acting for Desha,) against Lieut Linton, of $400, when only $300 was paid to Lt. L. It also appears from the books of Desha, that Lt. L 's draft, in favour of Capt. Anderson, was not paid by Desha, but that $100 has been charged by Desha to Major Miller as an over- charge against Lt. L. which $100 has never been placed to the credit of Lt. Linton, and for which purpose the above ac- count is now presented. JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. Corps. If Lieut. Desha charged Lieut. Linton with 400 dollars in April, 1819, as paid by me, and has not paid Captain Ander- son's draft for $100, drawn on that account, it appears to me that Lieut. Linton should be credited for 100 dollars, as 300 only was paid to him by me. The 100 dollars overcharged in the first instance, has been charged to my private account. (Signed) SAM. MILLER. April 22, 1822. PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, August 25, 1830. Sir : I have received a copy of your report on the various items of claim made by me on the Government of the United States, as well as your decision on items of disallowance made in my accounts by the 4th Auditor of the Treasury. If in reviewing this report, I shall be led into any strong and forci- 4a ble language of criticism upon it, you can east no censure en me for such a course, but must attribute it solely t© the very loose manner in which it is drawn up, and to the false and un- tenable positions which you have assumed for your justification in the decision you have made. In the remarks which I pro- pose to make, it is my purpose to stick to facts and not to in- dulge in assertions which are not borne out by the documents to which I shall refer. With these preliminary remarks, I shall now proceed to take up all your errors in the order in which they stand in the document now before me, and which, I presume, is the first of any consequence you have been called upon to concoct in your new, but highly important sta- tion. The first error appears in that part of your report, in which you say " The above recited items and vouchers [meaning the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances which by the 4th Auditor's own showing, I was in receipt of prior to the 1st of April 1829] it appears from the records of this office were contained in Major Kuhn's account reported in 1829, and formed the subject matter of an appeal to the decision of my predecessor in office, Mr. Hill. After a full investigation of the facts relating to these charges and a patient hearing of explanations and arguments from Major Kuhn.the Comptroll- er on the 2§th December, 1829, decided against their admis- sion." (t As no facts have been adduced by Major Kuhn in support of these claims which were not laid before Mr. Hill in 1829, it is unnecessary that I go into a detailed narrative of them, hut will respectfully refer to Mr. Hill's letter to you dated 26th December, 1829." -In reply to this part of your report, I must beg leave to state, that a fast has been adduced in relation to these claims, and which I think a very strong one too, which was not pre- sented to Mr. Hill in 1829 ; I allude to the Resolution passed by Congress on the 29th May, 1830, but which you think is feund " too narrow" to embrace my claim, but which has ex« 41 'ended in its operations, to every Officer of the Corps but myself. The mere exclusion of my claims since the passage of the Resolution of the 29th May, must be conclusive to every unprejudiced mind that there must be some object in view in withholding from me what the Auditor reports I was in the re- ceipt of prior to the 1st April, 1 829. This report was the guide for Congress in their action upon the Resolution, for as I be- fore stated, that for the purpose of preventing its passage, the report was read to the House the day before their final action was had on the Resolution, and received aconspciuous place in the United States Telegraph on the day it was to receive the final consideration of that body. Each and every member knew distinctly what I received prior to the appointment of Mr. Kendal to his present office, and with this knowledge they passed the Resolution by a large majority, and I am con- vinced there is not an individual among them that will not ex- press the same astonishment that all others have, at the with- holding of its operations in my case alone. You are also in error when you say that the Comptroller decided against the admission of these claims on the 29th of December, 1829. The vouchers 219 and 220 were not rejected by Mr. Hill in his report, but were merely suspended, and as you have decided to leave them where you found them, I can- not but express my astonishment that the Auditor should take upon himself to disallow jvhaf you and your immediate prede- cessor have merely suspended [see the reconciling statement of my account to 31st March, 1880.] You say again " Major Kuhn so far from having ever re- ceived such pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances as above charged previous to the 1st of April, 1829, never even made a claim of them until the rendition of his account of expen- ditures for the year 1828." As you profess to have examin- ed very minutely into the matters under discussion, but which I fear you have not, if you would have traced the ori- gin and nature of these claims, you would have found that the most important part of them were presented to the Government 6 42 in 1827, and not withheld until the " rendition" ot my accounts for expenditures for 1828. If my accounts were not settled in the Auditor's office, the the fault was not mine, for they were regularly rendered for settlement either quarterly or half yearly. But you say that I never received the pay, subsistence, emoluments and allow- ances claimed. To this 1 beg leave to remark, that the claims were made by me and embraced in my accounts for the years 1827 and 1828. These accounts were not finally acted upon till the early part of 1829, when the claims in question re- ceived the sanction of the proper officers of the Government, as will appear by the endorsements on the back of the vouch- ers. They were however rejected by the arbitrary will of those who succeeded them in the Government ; but how far this rejection is lawful and right, will perhaps be determined at some future day. I contend that the acts of one administra- tion, or of one officer of the government, legally appointed, cannot be reversed by their successors The nation is bound by such acts, be they right, or be they wrong. The persons succeeding to office, may adopt such rules as they may think proper for their own government, but they cannot annul the acts of their predecessors. But, Sir, in making the assertion that I never received such «* pay, subsistence, emoluments and allowances" you perhaps are not aware that you are making a very serious charge against your friend the 4th Auditor, for in his report to the Secretary of the Navy dated 28th May 1829, he says, that I did receive such pay, &c. 1 think you will also find in his elaborate report on Mr. WicklifTe's resolu- tion that he not only reiterates the assertion as regards the pay, &c, but makes his comments on the allowances made to me for the commissions charged in vouchers No, 219 and 220. But as I am not disposed to disturb the harmony existing be- tween you and your friend, it will be better perhaps to say no- thing more of your unkindness towards him in this instance. The next error in your report is in the following sentences. " The next item of appeal is contained in the official state- ment ot Major Kuhn's account for 1829, and is a re-charge to 43 Major Kuhn of $7,564 13, in favor of R. M. Desha, late Pay- master of the Marine Corps, of this re charge it appears Ma- jor Kuhn was apprized by you, but suffered it to pass to his debit by the certificate of the acting second Comptroller, Mr. . Reynolds, without objecting." In reply to this statement I have to say that I was not appri- zed by the Auditor oj the re-charge of this sum in my account until four days after the account was returned to his office by the acting Comptroller as being revised. My accounts were sent to the Comptroller's office and revised and returned to the Auditor on the 8th June 1830. On the 12th of June I received for the first time a reconciling statement of my ac- count, in which I discovered, that this among other charges, had been made against me by the 4th Auditor. I immediately called upon the acting Comptroller and Mr. Seaver the clerk who had the revisal of the account, and stated the fact of the discovery to them, and informed them, that I protesteJ against the charges, and that I should file a formal objection to them, when the next quarter's account came under consideration, and which was then in the course of preparation to be sub- mitted. I regret to say, Sir, that I have too much cause to doubt that you gave to this subject any part of your attention, for if you had, I can hardly believe that you would have made asser- tions not founded in fact. This and the foregoing errors are not however, the only instances in which I have cause to com- plain of your want**** attention to this subject ; other and perhaps more glaring facts will be developed in the course of this communication, tending to show that my doubts are cor- rect. But there is one piece of disingenousness displayed by you in that part of your communication in which you profess to give copies of the vouchers which have as you think, been properly disallowed. If in giving these copies, you had made them correspond with the originals, 1 should have had no cause to complain ; but when you have been so particular as $ 41 to take from them the endorsement of Constant Freeman and Smith Thompson, with their instructions for the payment of them, it is a difficult matter for me to believe that there was not something more than error connected with the transaction. What, let me ask has the Government to do with the ac- counts between R M. Desha and myself? Has any account been rendered by me as an account between me and the Uni- ted States for the moneys collected for Desha's estate ? The account between Desha and myself [marked No. 4 and filed with my accounts in the 4th Auditor's office] I hold to be a private concern between his estate and myself. 1 never have admitted it to be a public account, and therefore the public have no control over it. In that account I have given him credit for the balances transferred to me, and have charged him with such offsets as I deemed just and equitable. Among the credits given are the amounts which I have from time to time authorized the 4th Auditor of the Treasury to place to the credit of Desha and to my debit on the books of his office. My last letter of credit was for $ 1,926 32 the balances which 1 considered to be due to Desha, which balance closed the account between him and myself, and I do not hold myself responsible to the Govern- ment for any amount for which I have not given authority to them to charge me with. The late as also the present Attor- ney General have decided that Desha's books are " private." [I respectfully refer you to their decisions on file in the office of the Secretary of the Navy or the 4tfhW\uditor.] Hence I will thank you to point me to the law authorizing the account- ing officers of the government to disallow a part of the charges in my private account, or to disallow a part of my public ac- count and to credit it to an individual with whom I have a pri- vate account, without my consent. But as I before observed the account between Desha and myself is settled, as you will find by a reference to a statement of it filed and referred to above. But in referring to the vouchers paid by me in 1822, and 45 1823, on the authority of the Secretary of the Navy and Con- stant Freeman the 4th Auditor of the Treasury, you say " upon what principle Major Kuhn obtained a credit upon these vouchers in 1823, I am unable to perceive. To me it appears most evident, that as Major Kuhn did not at that time stand charged upon the books of the Government with the bal- ances transferred from Desha's books to him. he was not enti- tled to the credit." Here, Sir, we have another proof that you did not examine, as you profess to have done, into the state of this account. What, let me ask you, was my letter of credit given to Desha for on the 30th of September 1822, amounting to §2,500 ? what also, let me ask you were my letters of credit given to y - him for on the 23 September 1822, and the 3d of Febfuary,'* *'£^ 1823, the first for §2,989 02 and the second for §22,218 53 ? Did not these sums become a charge against me on the books of the Government ? In this I presume you will say that you were also mistaken — So let it pass. You also, however, say that in my letter to the Secretary of the Navy on the 1st August 1829, that I seem to admit the justice of the charge of the §7,564 13, as I say that I made no charge of it, but that it was admitted to my credit in the office of the Auditor. If you had examined my letter to the Secretary, you would have found that I had reference in the remark which you have quoted, not to an account between the government and myself, but to the account current between me and Desha, which account was made out in the Auditor's office by his directions, and in which he gave me credit for this sum. It was to prove this fact, that the remark was made by me in that letter, and not to admit that I was not enti- tled to credit for it, for this I have always claimed as my cor- respondence will fully show. If you will examine the Auditor's report to the Secretary of the Navy, you will find that he distinctly says, that I am en- titled to this credit in my account with Desha, and which you confirm in your report of the 1 3th inst. If you will also refer to the remarks made by the clerk in dissecting my account fop J. >>%^ » > vV\ • i 5* 4 (J 1822, you will find that he says that 1 am charged with this sum, and am of course, entitled to a corresponding credit for it. I must quote you again. " I have said nothing of Major Kuhn's apparent inconsis- tency in requesting me in one breath to reverse the decisions of Messrs. Hill and Reynolds which are against his interest, and in the next objecting to my power to revise the decisions of Messrs. Cutts and Watkins, which are in his favour. It is sufficient for me that I believe I have the power to correct all gross errors in the accounts that properly come under my su- pervision." I have in this quotation from your report, for the first time perhaps, some evidence of a Comptroller of the Treasury ' laud i ng himself and the dignity of his office for some effect other than that for which the office was created. In the the name of common sense, tell me if you can, what T. Watkins had to do with the accounts passed in the Auditor's office in 1822 and 1823 ? If you had not ripened into man- hood at that time, it is to be presumed you have subsequently made yourself acquainted with the prominent occurrences of a national character, which were interesting to the country. Assuming this to be the fact, you must have known that T. Watkins during the years 1822 and 1823 was Secretary of the Board of Commissioners under the treaty of Ghent, [Spain] and therefore he could have had no agency or control over the ac- counts in question. You cannot plead ignorance to the fact, that he had no agency in the passing and adjusting of these ac- counts, for you had before you the vouchers on which the credits were allowed, and to which there was attached the signature of Constant Freeman, 4th Auditor of the Treasury. Is this honourable ? Is it proper for a gentleman filling an office oi so much dignity as the one you occupy, to descend to such tricks as these ? Sir, the nation will blush if these facts should be made known to them. But for the first part of this quotation. — Sir, I have demanded that the decision of Mr. Hill be re- 47 versed, because a subsequent act of Congress has made pro- v hi oji for the allozvance of the very claims he rejected. I have objected to the charges which were admitted by Mr. Rey- nolds, because I. never was informed that the charges were made against me, until he had acted on the account. I have objected, and do now most solemnly object to your power to reopen and disallow items in an account decided and acted upon by Richard Cults and Constant Freeman in 1822 and 182 3. But as you consider yourself possessed of this power, and have lugged T. Watkins into your report without reason or without cause, I will copy for your edification, Mr. Hill's testimony on the trial of that personage before the Circuit Court of this District. It is as follows : August 4th 1829. " I am second Comptroller of the Treasury. The ac- counts of Mr. Harris and Paulding have been settled as far as relates to the drafts of Dr. Watkins, referred to in the cases now before this Court. Credit has been given them in the Comptroller's office for the amount. I was absent at the time and Mr. Reynolds was the acting Comptroller. One account I think was settled on or about the 5th June, and the others were not far distant from that period. The items are finally and irrevocably settled." Now, Sir, without intending to express an opinion myself on the subject of the credits to Harris and Paulding, yet I can- not refrain from saying, that I have heard the opinion of the most experienced clerks, and officers of the Government ex- pressed in direct opposition to Mr. Hill and Mr. Reynolds. It has been contended that these credits have been improper- ly given, and that the officer who gave the credits, is proper- ly chargeable with the amount ? but, as I before said, on this point I shall express no opinion, it is sufficient for me that Mr. Hill says " The items are finally and irrevocably settled ," and I presume none of his successors in office will charge him with the amount, and as regards yourself particularly, he may rest perfectly safe on that score. 48 If then, Sir, the accounts of Harris and Paulding are " fi- lially and irrevocably settled," where do you find your au- thority to recharge me, with the amounts settled and passed to my credit, in 1822 ? It strikes me your friend Mr. Isaac Hill has placed you in rather an awkward dilemma by his testimony before a Court of Law. Now, Sir, as to the item of $1,093 68. You are here so directly at issue with the Secretary of the Navy, in relation to his powers, that I shall leave you to set- tle this matter with him. Having obeyed his instructions, and commenced the stoppage of the half pay of Wainwright to cover this sum, from the 1st of April last, I shall give myself no trouble about it, but advise you to wait patiently for it, for you may depend on it, not one dollar of it will be paid by me, except as the stoppages are made quarterly. I do not admit your right to reject the item of $1,691 76 for commissions. This I feel fully competent to settle with the representatives of Desha. You have discovered so fixed a determination to settle these matters in your own way, and without permitting me to have any thing to say to them, save as a matter of form, that you have left me no other alterna- tive than to tell you frankly, that you have nothing to do with them. There is one remark in your report in relation to this matter, which however requires a passing notice — it is where you say that the commission charged is " not for money paid by Paymaster Kuhn, but for moneys he did not pay." To this I have only to reply that, your asser- tion is not founded in fact. The commissions charged are only on such sums as proved effective and were realized to the es- tate of Desha. So much for another round assertion of yours. If you will look at my letters of credit in favour of Desha, you will find what these commissions were charged for. Now, Sir, for the rolls of the Macedonian's Guard. You say " from the documents furnished upon this subject, it is evident that the payments were made from funds advanc- ed by Desha, and not from funds advanced by Kuhn. The 49 receipts are to Desha, and not to Kuhn ; it is a matter of sur^ prise therefore that these rolls for payments, made by Desha ? should ever have passed to the credit of Kuhn. But as Ma- jor Kuhn does not deny the justice of the recharge of the rolls to him, but rests his case upon the want of power in the accounting officers to correct the apparent error, it is unne- cessary that I go into a detailed explanation of the circum- stances attending the transactions." In your very first posi- tion you are wrong in asserting that the payments were made by funds advanced by Desha. The funds were remitted by Captain Grayson for a portion of these rolls, and not by Desha, and for which I accounted to Grayson when the rolls were turned over to me. As a proof of this fact when these rolls were under examination in the 4th Auditor's Office in my ac- counts for 1822, the settling clerk sent for Captain Grayson, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not, I was the proper person entitled to credit for them. After obtaining from him the necessary evidence of that fact, which was not only satisfactory to him, but also to the Auditor, the rolls were passed to my credit, and my account closed. But you say the receipts are in the name of Desha, and not in my name, and express surprise how the rolls should ever have pas- sed to my credit. At this- 1 am not at all astonished, for if an officer entrusted with the examination of disputed ac- counts, takes a view of only one side of the question, he will not only be *« surprised," but will be very apt to be led into very gross error. I could have required no other evidence that you did not examine this case, than is given by this assertion. The receipts on the rolls are not in the name of Desha. There are two or three small discharge and trans? fer rolls which are headed as being received from Desha, hut the Macedonian's pay rolls are not so receipted. If you had made any enquiry into this matter, you would have been informed, that it is the practice for the sutler at many of tKe* p$ i Bta to commence a discharge roll, sometimes six or, nine months, before it is forwarded to the Paymaster ; and en yy^^&z^ 50 which he takes up from time to time, such men as are dis- charged, and pays them out of his own funds for the purpose of securing his advances to them. When this roll is forwarded to the Paymaster, he remits the amount to be repaid to the in- dividual who made the advances on the roll. Does it not ap- pear to you that this was the case in relation to these discharge rolls, and that although commenced in the name of Desha, that they were not paid by him, as they were not forwarded until sometime after my appointment as his successor in office ? If you would go back and examine all my accounts for 1822 and 1823, you would no doubt find large sums passed to my credit, in the very manner, you are noiv so much surprised at. Indeed if you would examine my accounts settled in 1824, you would find that I have received credit for a large sum on rolls receipted in the name of the Navy Agent at New- Orleans : and as one objection would be quite as good as the other, you could direct me to be re-charged with the whole amount so credited, and thus be enabled to make me out a defaulter in a round, handsome and imposing sum. But you say I do not deny the justice of the recharge of these rolls. This adds to my belief that you did not examine the case ; for if you had, you woukLnot have made such a state- ment. For what purpose, may I be permited to ask, did I en- close you the correspondence between the Auditor and my- self, bearing date in January last, if it was not for the express purpose of showing my objections to the recharge ? If my letter to that officer, dated on the 30th of that month, does not contain my objections to the recharge, I must confess I do not understand the language in which I now address you. I beg you to refer to the Auditor's letter to me dated the 26th January, 1830, and you will there find whether I made any remittances on the rolls in question or not. If, Sir, you had read my letter of the 30th of January, and have had any disposition to arrive at a proper understanding of this matter, you would have seen the propriety of sending for the clerk, who settled the account in which these rolls r>\ were embraced, and have got his testimony in relation to them. He is the only individual, save myself, now in existence, who has any knowledge of the transaction, and as he, as a matter of course, had no interest in the case, his evidence it strike? me should have been deemed as all important. But perhaps, it was not desirable to have it, as it would have altered the cha- racter of your report on this point very materially, as well as the Auditor's statement on this item in my account. I have thus, I believe, followed you through your report. It has been as painful to me, as it no doubt will be mortifying to you, to have been compelled to expose the inaccuracies which that document contains. It now remains for you, either to correct its errors, or to let it remain as a monument of your fame, as an accounting officer of the Treasury. I would, however, recommend to you, that when another account is submitted for your examination, that you critically investigate it yourself, and not to be too hasty to " cheerfully approve" the decisions of the Fourth Auditor. I am respectfully, Your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. .To J. B. Thornton, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, Navy Department, 27th Sept 1830. To the President of the United States : Sir : It is with great reluctance that I feel it incumbent upon me to trouble you again with concerns in which, as an individual, I feel so deeply interested. You were apprised about twelve months since, of the differences which subsist- ed between the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury and myself, in reference to my accounts as Paymaster of the Marine Corps. In the further prosecution of this business, I have again cause of complaint in acts of gross injustice and oppres- sion, inasmuch a9 some of the proceedings of the Audita* 5£ and Second Comptroller appear to me to involve a collision with directions which 1 have understood had been given by you, as well as others emanating from the Head of the Navy Department, much to my prejudice. In making my appeal to you, 1 take the liberty to enclose, for your better under- standing of the matters in question, such part of the corres- pondence between the officers of the Government and myself, as is calculated fully to elucidate the points on which I am at issue with the accounting officers of the Treasury, and trust that I may indulge the hope that you will give them a part of your attention, and" cause the numerous errors which fcave been committed to be rectified. The document enclosed, and marked No 1, is the report of the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Navy on the state of my accounts. The one marked No. 2, is a copy of my letter to the Secretary in reply to that report. The one marked No. 3, is the report of the Second Comptroller on particular items in my account, and that mark- ed No. 4, is my reply to it. I also enclose copies of all the vouchers referred to in my letter to the Secretary of the Navj'. I have the honour to be, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M.C. The letter of Captain Kuhn of the Marine Corps, dated September 27th, 1830, calling the attention of the President to the decision of the Second Comptroller upon his appeal from that of the Fourth Auditor, has had all the consideration the President could bestow upon it. He has reviewed the documents and vouchers rendered in the case, has read the several statements of the Fourth Auditor and Captain Kuhn, and the document referred to, with the report of the Second Comptroller thereon, and sincerely regrets the spirit and in- decorous language used by Captain Kuhn ; and still more, that he should deny in his statement, some facts admitted in October, 1829, when this subject was under discussion be- 53 fore the President, between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and Fourth Auditor. Captain Kuhn does not appear to complain of the injustice of the charges, but more particularly of the want of power in the accounting officers to transfer credits when entered by a previous officer, how- ever palpably unjust. Surely Captain Kuhn cannot be serious in this complaint of injustice. So long as accounts remain open and are presented for settlement, it is the imperious duty of the accounting officer to examine and correct the whole, and pass all credits to those to whom they justly be- long, before they are finally closed. Captain Kuhn would have had reason to complain if his accounts had been finally closed under the late and former Administrations, and if the Fourth Auditor had, of his own accord, taken them up, or reopened them for investigation. This is not the case. Captain Kuhn's accounts remained open and unsettled, and were presented for settlement ; credits due to others, and once admitted by him to be so, were transferred to those to whom they were due ; and in other cases palpable errors were corrected by the accounting officer, as it was his duty to do before he finally closed the account, and could strike a just balance : and surely Captain Kuhn would not have a credit passed to his account justly due to another, because it had been erroneously applied to his. Upon a full consideration of this case, the decision of the Second Comptroller is approved. October 7, 1830. ANDREW JACKSON. 8th October, 1830. Sir : I am directed by the President of the United States to inform you that your appointment as Paymaster of the Marine Corps is this day revoked. You will transfer all accounts, papers, &c belonging to your office, to Captain Charles R. Broom, and will then re« port yourself to Col. Henderson for duty, I am, respectfully, &c. JOHN BRANCH, Capt. Jos. L. Kufijf, U, & Marines, Washington, 54 Washington, l\th October, 1830. To the President of the United States : Sir: I have received the communication with which I have been honoured by the President, bearing date the 7th inst. and cannot but regret that any thing should have been perceived in the language employed by me which merited the rebuke which the President has thought proper to bestow. In every communication which I have addressed to the Exe- cutive, the respect which I have ever felt it my duty to evince towards the First Magistrate of my country, as well as a regard to my own character, would forbid the use of language to which the epithet of "indecorous" could be applied. If, therefore, any such has escaped me, I beg the President to believe that it has been wholly undesigned, and it would afford me much pleasure if the President would indicate the offen- sive expressions, in order that I may explain or apologize for them, in the manner which my feelings would dictate. If, however, the objectionable language is that which has been employed in relation to the officers of the Treasury who have had my accounts in their hands for settlement, I cannot but hope that the President will concur with me in the opinion, which a careful revision of the documents has confirmed, that in no one instance have I transgressed the bounds prescribed by a proper sense of decorum and self-respect. Upon one other point I would respectfully solicit of the President a further explanation of his views. The President expresses his " sincere regret," that " Captain Kuhn should deny, in his statement, some facts admitted in October, 1829, when this subject was under discussion before the President, between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Fourth Auditor." It will be recollected, that on the occasion referred to, I read from a written paper all that fell from me which affect- ed the business under consideration. A reference to that paper, since the receipt of the President's communication, has not enabled me to conjecture to what the President has 55 allusion, as it is not in my power to perceive the slightest in- congruity or inconsistency between my statements. I cannot therefore but indulge the hope that the President has, in the circumstances to which he refers, entirely misapprehended my language, and that this misapprehension alone has drawn down upon me his displeasure. In another particular, I feel assured that my language, or at least my meaning, has been misunderstood. It was cer- tainly my intention to " complain" of the 4 ' injustice of the charges" to which I excepted, and not ** to the want of power in the accounting officers to transfer credits when entered by a previous officer, however palpably unjust." The charges made by the Fourth Auditor appeared to me " palpably un- just," and this idea I had hoped was distinctly expressed. It is my misfortune if my language has not been sufficiently explicit. In addition to this objection, I urged, under the sanction of the uniform practice of the Department in all other cases, the solemn opinion given upon oath by the pre- ceding Second Comptroller, and your own positive instruc- tions, the illegality, as well as the oppression of the conduct of the accounting officers when " my accounts had been final- ly closed under the late and former Administrations," that " the Fourth Auditor had, of his own accord, taken them up and re-opened them for investigation." It affords me sincere pleasure to perceive that the President concurs with me in the opinion, that if my views of the facts are correct, this procedure does afford "reason to complain." That I had not misapprehended these facts, a reference to the report of the Fourth Auditor, of which I complain, showing that some of these items had passed in the settlement of my accounts in 1822 and 1823, and the positive testimony of Mr. Hill, to which I took the liberty of referring, that such a settlement, under the practice of the Treasury, and the law of the land, was a u final and irrevocable" settlement, left me no ground to doubt. Although it has been my misfortune to incur the displeasure of the President, so unequivocally indicated, as well by his 66 communication as by my removal from the honourable and responsible situation which I have so long, and 1 trust, so faithfully occupied ; I entertain the hope, that as import- ant relations still subsist between me and the Government, they will be thought sufficient to justify me in anxiously seek- ing an opportunity to relieve myself from the censure which it would afford me infinite pain to believe that my own mis- conduct had justly incurred. I have the honour to be, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, JOS. L. KUHN. It will be perceived by the President's letter, that he ex- presses his sincere regret " that Captain Kuhn should deny, in his statement, some facts admitted in October, 1829, when this subject was under discussion before the President, be- tween Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Fourth Auditor." As this is a charge of serious import, it becomes Captain Kuhn to submit, with the foregoing documents, the paper which he read " when this subject was under discussion be« fore the President, between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Fourth Auditor." The interview alluded to by the President took place on the 19th of October, 1829. On the 12th November following, Captain Kuhn transmitted to the Secretary of the Navy a copy of this paper, with a re- quest that it might become a matter of record in his office. As Captain Kuhn is unable to determine to what part of this paper the President has allusion in the remark he has made, he deems it but proper to present it to the public without comment, with the other documents. Having received a copy of the Fourth Auditor's letter, dated the 27th August, 1829, late on Saturday evening, the 17th October, and, by the President's desire, having to ap- pear before him on Monday morning, the 19th, at 9 o'clock, 0/ , I bad only time to draw up the following paper, in answer to that letter, which must account for any error in style, or for the neglect to answer any points which have been brought forward in that communication. By this I do not pretend to admit that any points worthy of notice have escaped me, but simply to say that I have replied to the general tenor of that letter in as full a manner as the time allowed me would ad- rait of. The following, therefore, is what I read to the Pre- sident of the United States in the presence of the Secretary of the Navy and the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. Monday Morning, 19th October, 1829. Sir : In all cases where Desha's books were sent for by me as a matter of reference, it was to ascertain whether or not certain vouchers had been credited to the different officers, and not to see whether the balances against them were correct. After the year 1822, or the early part of J 823, I had seldom or ever cause to refer to these books, and consequently had not my attention drawn to the credits given upon them. The credits claimed by Grayson 1 presumed to be correct, as he had been acting as Paymaster a considerable time before my appointment, aud I never knew, until recent- ly, that the moneys drawn by him for public purposes, had been charged to Desha, and not to himself. I knew that he had made a settlement of an account as Acting Paymaster, but what the nature of it was I did not know, nor do I to this moment. I would, as a matter of course, be governed by any instructions from him in relation to these balances ; and I can but again repeat, that the alterations made in them on my books were, first, to meet what would be the amount of them, deducting what he, Grayson, claimed ; and, secondly, to res- tore them to their original amount, at his own request. The fact that he declined reporting the balance due from himself, in the list furnished by him to the Department, and the Au- ditor finding his account sealed up in the books of Desha, would, I apprehend, be conclusive evidence to the minds of all honourable men, that if any impropriety had been commit' 8 58 ted, it was at least not attributable to me. These facts, in the Auditor's zeal to criminate me, are of but little import- ance ; but however regardless he maybe of the character and feelings of honourable men, he may yet be taught that there is a point beyond which he cannot go with impunity. At the time the Auditor's letter of the 27th July, was re- ceived, I was confined to my house by indisposition, and did not get to my office for ten or twelve days after its date. Feeling muck anxiety on the subject, I wrote to my clerk to send me all the letters from the Fourth Auditor in my office, which had reference in any manner to the balances on De- sha's books. The letter which the Auditor refers to, and in which. he says I was informed that the original list furnish- ed by me was lost, could not, after the most particular search, be found. The conclusion must therefore be, that no such letter was ever sent to me, for had it been so sent, it would have been found on file with the rest in my office. This con- clusion is strengthened by the fact, that the letter communi- cating to me this information is said to have been dated the 21st of January, 1826, and the list which he says it required, was sent on the 29th of March of the same year. Had such a letter been sent to me, is it probable that the Department would have remained quiet without an answer, or is it not more than probable that they would have sent me a duplicate of that letter, and required an answer to it without delay? Yet no such original or duplicate can be found, and I think it must be conclusive to the minds of all honourable men, devoid of prejudice, that no such letter was sent, or, as I said before, an answer would have been required to it without delay. Was it not reasonable, Sir, for me to believe, that Grayson was justly entitled to the balances he claimed, wjien I knew he had been acting as Paymaster, and had made considerable payments to the officers as such ? When the settlement of these balances first commenced with the. present Auditor, and I was informed that the moneys drawn by Grayson as Acting Paymaster, had been charged to Desha, and not b himself, as I had supposed, I could, of course, have no 59 objection to a settlement of the original balance ; as under these circumstances there could be nothing due to Grayson, or to his estate, on account of them This, in addition to finding he had given me credit at the Auditor's office for dif- ferent sums which I had paid him on account of these ba- lances, was my inducement for starting no objection to a settle- ment of the original balances when it was proposed. The Auditor, in his letter of the 27th August, says, that he was informed by his clerks that the credits given on Desha's books were in the hand- writing of Grayson, but of this he had his doubts. This degrading insinuation, as well as many others contained in that letter, / cast back upon their author as alone worthy of the sourcefrorn whence they emanated. This gentleman's memory is a very convenient one. He has a perfect recollection of matters and things which he hopes will have a tendency to criminate me, but he denies that he himself informed me that he was convinced that the credits given on Desha's books had been made by Grayson. He also denies that I called his attention to these balances, and expressed a desire that they should be settled. But with all his want of recollection, I again assert that I was the first to bring these accounts to his notice, and to desire a settlement of them without delay. This I now assert to you, Sir, and call upon him to deny it if he can. I am, however, indebted to the gentleman for one piece of information contained in his letter from Kentucky to the Se- cretary of the Navy, viz. That he had been repeatedly spoken to by Col. Henderson and Captain Freeman about these ba- lances. It is proper you should know the causes which ac- tuate both of these gentlemen in their dislike to me. It became necessary, about three years ago, for me to prefer charges against Col. Henderson for conduct " unbe- coming an officer and a gentleman." On these charges a Court of Inquiry was ordered, and after a full investigation of the matters, the Court found the charges fully sustained by the evidence. The specifications to these charges were for lying. The Government, however, for reasons which I could never 60 understand, restored him to duty, with a slight reprimand ; or, as the Colonel very classically expressed it, " by receiving thirty nine and let off?' The proceedings of this Court are now on file in the Navy Department, and to which I beg leave to refer you for the verity of what I say. The other gentleman, Captain Freeman, is an applicant for my office, as the Secretary of the Navy knows ; and if the representations of the Auditor be correct, would willingly ob- tain it« regardless of the means, however degrading to his char- acter. But to return to the state of the accounts in question. The list of 1826, which is the great bug bear with the Au- ditor, amounts to $46,182 87. The amount which he admits I am entitled to credit for, after deducting the $7,564 13, the commissions and the letter of credit in favor of Desha, dated 30th June, 1829, as also the sums disallowed as being paid by me to Gamble and Linton is $48,815 69, showing, that if I had settled by that list, that 1 had actually overpaid Desha $2,632 82. This is too ridiculous to require comment. The list of 1827, furnished to Col. Henderson, amounts to $48,587 22. li the amount which the Auditor says I am en- titled to credit for, after making all his deductions, is placed in opposition to this sum, it will then be found that by this list, I had overpaid Desha, $228 47. Can it for a moment be supposed by any reasonable man, that I would render two such lists with a view to defraud the Government, when the fact itself shows that I should have defrauded myself if I had consented to a settlement by either of them ? Comment is again unnecessary. The fact is, that these accounts were so complicated, and so blended with the various settlements made both by Desha and myself at the Auditor's office . that, as 1 have said before, an adjustment of them, other than in that office, was impossi- ble. Such, too, was the state of the accounts, that it was im- practicable for me to settle them ; nor do I believe there were more than two clerks in the Auditor's office who were com- petent to the task, and I so informed him when the account was about to be taken up. 61 On the subject of the $7,564 13, which the Auditor says I am not entitled to credit for, I would ask him if I am not charg- ed with the whole amount of the balance due from Col. Mil- ler to Desha, and whether I have not given Col. Miller credit on my books for this sum for which he held the receipt of Desha for vouchers turned over to him ? I would also ask him if Desha (which is the fact) has got credit for these identi- cal vouchers at his office, is he again entitled to credit for this sum; and if not, who is entitled to such credit? Desha hav- ing received credit for it once, is certainly not entitled to a second credit ; and if I am not entitled to the credit, it strikes me it will be a difficult matter for him to say who is entitled to it. If I am properly chargeable with it, I am prepared to account for it ; but before I admit it, I must be satisfied with the correctness of such a charge. In my communication to the Secretary of the Navy, I say I never made a charge of this sum. This I aver is the fact, notwithstanding the Auditor thinks he has a document, in my own hand writing, in which the charge is made. That docu- ment I made out when I was informed by the settling clerk that I was entitled to credit for it, and was laid on the clerk's table, not as a public document, for it has no such character, but to show what would be the state of the account if this credit was given to me* How the Auditor got it, he best knows, But admit that I had made the charge. Had I not good and ample cause to do so ? As a proof of this I beg to read the Auditor's letter to me dated 7th July, 1 829. In this letter you will observe no mention is made of this sum as forming an objec- tionable item in my account, and I repeat again, that every credit given to me in the account current drawn up in the Auditor's office, and a copy of which I sent him, was fully and minutely examined into and conclusively determined that I was entitled to them ; and it so remained till the receipt of his letter of the 27th July, when I was for the first time given to understand the change which had taken place in his opinion as to this and other credits. For this change I was at a loss to 62 account until yesterday, when I saw by his letter to the Sec- retary of the Navy from Kentucky in which he gives the names of two gentlemen who were so urgent in drawing his attention to these balances, both of whom were actuated by motives too obvious to be mistaken. If however I am proper- ly chargeable with this sum. I again repeat that I am prepared to account for it. In the letter which the Auditor did me the honour to address me on Saturday, after offering any papers or documents in his office necessary in the investigation of this affair, he says " for if I know myself I would not in any manner be instrumental in inflicting upon you any injustice." How far this declaration corresponds with his letter of the 27th July, as well as that of the 27th August, I leave to your: excellency to judge. The friendship of the Auditor I never courted and I do not think I ever shall. His enmity I had no cause to expect ; yet, with his mind poisoned by others, and believing me all that they represented me to be, he without further enquiry makes up his opinions to my prejudice and draws his inferences accordingly. If he had gone further and collected the opinions of the officers of my own Corps as well as of the Army and Navy, added to the respectable citizens of this District, he would have perhaps hesitated, and not in- dulged aspersions which he has given vent to on my character. Whether I am indebted to the Auditor as he says, for the honour of presenting myself before you at this time, or whether it is owing to my letter of the 16th inst. which I took the liber- ty to address you, your excellency will be best able to de- termine. Having, I believe, replied to all the objections which have been started to these accounts, it only remains for me to say in addition to what I have heretofore stated, that I have no knowledge whatever of the alterations and ere? dits made in the books of my predecessor as they were not finally in my possession until the early part of 1823. I also beg leave to call your attention to my letter of explanations 63 addressed to the Hon. Mr Branch, which I trust will fully elucidate the matters in question. After the interview at which the foregoing paper was read, Captain Kuhn heard nothing further from the 4th Auditor, until the 26th January, 1830, when he received the letter which will he found at the beginning of this correspondence, and which will show, the new ground taken by him. In conclusion, Captain Kuhn considers it proper to submit the following correspondence between the 4th Auditor and himself, after his appointment as Paymaster to the Marine Corps was revoked. It will be perceived that the Auditor, in his letter of the 1 2th of October, admits that Captain Kuhn's accounts for 1822 and 1823, were "settled" and in which were embraced the credits for the vouchers which he has re- charged to him in 1830. This admission, in addition to the testimony of Mr. Hill, in which he says, that items so admit- ted "are finally and irrevocably settled," will, Captain Kuhn trusts, fully show, that " the 4th Auditor had of his own ac- cord taken them up and re-opened them for investigation. 5) Captain Kuhn therefore cannot but again s'ay, that it afford? him great pleasure to find that the President fully concurs with him in opinion, that he has just "reason to complain." It may also be proper for Captain Kuhn to state (as a proof that the accounts settled in 1822 and 1823, were not adjusted without a proper investigation,) that, the original reports on the accounts of which the following are copies, were drawn up by Constant Freeman, then 4th Auditor, and now appear in his hand writing, on the files of the office. It may be proper further to state, that the apparent balances in these reports against Captain Kuhn, arise from the circumstance that he was charged with the various sums drawn by him for public purposes, between the time of the rendition of his ac- counts, and the settlement of them, in the Auditor's Office. This explanation is unnecessary to those who are conversant with the mode ©f adjusting the accounts of public agents in 64 the different departments, at the Seat of Government, and is only made to prevent a misunderstanding of the case by those who have never had business to transact at the public offices. Washington, 9th October, 1830. Sir : I have to request that I may be furnished with all the original vouchers embraced in the settlements of my ac- counts in 1822 and 1823, and which have been re-charged to me by you in the settlement of my accounts for the quarter ending31st March, 1830. I have also to requestyouto fur- nish me with a copy of the report of the 4th Auditor on the accounts in which these vouchers were embraced, as also with the decision of the 2d Comptroller upon them. I am respectfully your obedient servant, JOS L. KUHN. To Amos Kendall, Esq,. 4th Auditor of the Treasury. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditors office, 9th October, 1830. - Sm : I have received your letter of this date, requesting to be furnished with all the original vouchers, embraced in your accounts in 1822 and 1823, and which have been re- charged to you by me, in the settlement of your accounts for the quarter ending the 31st March, 1830 — also with a copy of the report of the 4th Auditor on the accounts, in which those vouchers were embraced, and a copy of the decision of the 2d Comptroller upon them. Copies of the Auditor's report, and the decision of the Comptroller, shall be furnished— ^as also, if required, copies of the original vouchers embraced in the settlement of your accounts for 1822 and 1823 — but, as not only the re-charge to you, but likewise the credit to your predecessor, Robert M. Desha, is founded on those vouchers, they must remain on file with the settlement in which such credit and re-charge have been made. I am, Sir, respectfully, your obedient ser- vant, AMOS KENDALL. Joseph L. KuHtf, Esq.. late Paymaster of Marines ^ Washingto 66 Washington, 11 th October, 1830. Sir :• Your letter of the 9th inst. has been received, inwhich your decline giving me the original vouchers, called for by my letter of the same date. Copies of these vouchers I do not desire, but have now to repeat my request that 1 may be furnished with official copies of the reports of the 4th Audi- tor and Second Comptroller, in 1822 and 1823, on the ac- counts in which those vouchers were embraced. I am, respectfully, your obd't Servt. JOS.L. KUHN. To Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor of the Treasury, Note — Captain Kuhn received official copies of the above vouchers on a former occasion. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditor's Office, 12th October, 1830. Sir : In Gompliance with the request contained in your letter of the 11th inst. I send to you, herewith, copies of the re- ports of the 4th Auditor and Second Comptroller, made on your accounts settled in 1822 and 1823. I am Sir, Respect'y, your obdt. Servt. AMOS KENDALL. Captain Joseph L. Kuhn, U. S. M. C. Washington. JVo. 3238. 40 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditors Office, 22 May, 1822. I certify, that 1 have examined and adjusted the account of Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster, Marina Corps, and find that there is due from him to the United States, on a settlement made this day ? of his expenditures from the 20th November, 15,390 T ff, 1821, to the 9th March, 1822, a balance of fif- teen thousand three hundred and ninety dollars, and eighty-two cents. 66 He is debited with amount charged against him on the books of this office, - - 76,956 25 The amount brought to his debit in this settlement, • - 1,484 18 78,440 43 He has credit for his expenditures, from 20th November, 1821, to 9 March, 1822, - 63,049 61 Appropriation , pay Marine Corps. — 15,390 82 There is due from Mr. Kuhn, under Pay, 18,969 27 Due to him under Quartermaster's stores, __ 3,578 45 Balance, 15,390 82 As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for the decision of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. (Signed) CONSTANT FREEMAN, Auditor. To Richard Cutts, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. Second Comptroller's Office. I admit and certify the above balance, this 1 1th day of July s 1822. (Signed) RICHARD CUTTS, Second Comptroller, JVo. 3961. 716. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 4th Auditors Office, 1st May, 1823. I certify, that I have examined and adjusted the account of Joseph L. Kuhn, paymaster of the Marine Corps, and find that there is due from him to the United States, on a settlement made this day of his payments to the 31st of Jan« 18,563, T J£ uary, 1823, a balance of eighteen thousand, five hundred and sixty-three dollars, and seventy- five cents 67 Balance due from him on the 22d May, 1822. Report No. 3238, - . - 15,390 82 Entered to his debit on the books, 146,409 81 Brought to his debit this settle- ment, - - - 31,745 69 193,546 82 Entered to his credit on the books, 10,814 70 Expenditures brought to his credit on this settlement, - - 164,167 87 174,982 57 Due the U. States under Pay, 43,745 14 > |ft - fi ,,. Due Mr. Kuhn, Qr. Mas.M. C. 25,181 39 J 18,00J 7 * As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for the decision of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. (Signed) CONSTANT FREEMAN, Auditor. To Richard Cutts, Esq. Second Comptroller of the Treasury. Second Comptroller's Ofeice. I admit und certify the above balance, this 20th day of June, 1823. (Signed) RICHARD CUTTS, Second Comptroller, ^ C7 ^ ^CC«C CXCc C< «C<3/:c; fc<3 C I cr T *T CC * CJ ^- c^< r^c€ ^ cc ex C&Cc < C C c ..< 3c cStrai c — ccc <^m ^*« — : C-Cc « cc* xc <- _ cc IL CLC :x c ccc_ cccc ^icc<: TCC dec _ d:cc<: cccc