single dollar be taken, intentionally or otherwise, from one appropriation and applied to another, it is a violation of law."* and fit her for sea, two hundred days, [it took three years,] cost $171,072 69."* "The hull of the Ohio was completed and The President now has power to transfer from launched under this appropriation [gradual incertain heads of appropriation, to certain others; crease] in 1820." I have sought in vain among but there never was an appropriation for "continu- former communications and official documents reing and completing the building of the Ohio," and lating to this ship, for any thing about 'continuing therefore he could not have transferred any money the building' of the Ohio in 1836-’38. under such a head. Nor did he. Congress was induced to order the building of The Report contains a note, and only a note, re-her, because the official estimates stated that lative to what is there stated of this ship. It is she could be built and equipped for sea, all for proper that that note too, should be considered, before you pass judgment concerning the enormous difference between the two statements at issue, relative to the cost of repairs for this vessel. So, from this statement it would appear, that something more than "the carpenters' work on her hull had been completed." $384,862. But had Congress been told in 1836, and after near $300,000 had been expended in the building alone, that it would take a further sum of $593,779 63 to complete the building of her, and fit her for sea, do you suppose that the winds of heaven would ever have blown that ship about the Mediterranean? or even out of the harbor of New-York? She would rather have been con "This ship," says the note, "was launched in 1920, as 800n as the carpenters' work on her hull was completed"In the Commissioners' statement of the 5th Sept. 1822, before alluded to, it is shown that the joiners' bill for labor alone, on this ship, had exceeded demned to rot, that a new one might have been the estimates for labor and stuff' together, by upbuilt in her place for less money. If this vast wards of $2000, or 27 per cent.-and that there amount of money were asked of Congress under had been paid for carved work, upwards of $1000, the general head of Repairs-if it were approor 144 per cent. more than the estimates allowed. priated for repairs—if it have been drawn from the The joiners and carvers put the finishing touch, Treasury under the pretence of repairing her—if except for painting, on a ship's hull. And her paintit were expended under the name of repairs,' then, ers' bill, exclusive of paints, oils, pots, brushes, &c., like the cooking apparatus which was furnished as but for labor alone, amounted to upwards of $1100. clothing for another vessel, the equipments of the Ohio ought to have been charged to Repairs,' or to the appropriation, whatever it may be, from which they were made. "This ship [Ohio]” observed the Commissioners of the Navy-Board, in an official communication to the Secretary of the Navy, dated 19th Nov. 1838-"This ship has recently been repaired and equipped from the ordiComplete, here refers to the building I suppose, otherwise it would have been said, "it was deter-nary appropriations, and is now about to sail from mined to equip, or fit her for sea service." Again that year, the Army and Navy Chronicle, whose I appeal to former official statements, showing editorials concerning what is done by the Navy and that it was determined to repair her.' War Departments, are considered throughout the repairs of the ship of the line Ohio have been country as official-as much so as any which are commencedt" "The Ohio ship of the line is comput forth by the official organ of the governmentpleting her repairs in dock, and is nearly finished." the Editor of that paper, speaking by authority on "Within the past year, the repairs of the Ohio that occasion, to correct a misstatement in the pubhave been completed." lic prints, said "The cost of the Ohio, since her equipment for sea was commenced, has been charged to the appropriation for Repairs of vessels,' because that under which she was built, is long since exhausted." "And [she] remained in ordinary at the Navy-Yard, at New-York, until 1836, when it was determined to complete her for sea service." "The "During the sixteen years which had elapsed from the time she was launched, her hull had become much decayed, and the cost of repairs of this part of the ship, is stated above [$233,012 16]; and the expense [$360,767 47] of completing the parts of the hull which were left unfinished in 1820, and of all the other parts of the ship, is charged to building the ship, or as what would have been her original cost, when ready for sea, supposing no 'repairs' had been necessary." I again appeal to former reports from the NavyBoard, &c. "This [the Ohio] is a new ship that has never been fitted out. Time required to repair Navy Commissioners to Sec. Navy, 23d Nov. 1829. + Sec. Navy, in his Annual Report, 1836. ‡ Navy Commissioners to Sec. Navy, Nov. 1837. Sec. Navy, in his Annual Report, 3d Dec. 1837. New-York." And the 8th of the same month of In the name then of the Constitution and the ers; on the contrary, the 'Lucky-Bag' endeavored to Guerriere, by the chivalry of that noble and glo- show that these officers were required to conduct rious fight, by the blunt honesty of a sailor, why, the operations of a “machine, the cogs and wheels for the credit and honor of the service, and to of which were rusted and broken;" and that they maintain the Navy where it has ever been-were not responsible for the heavy and expensive above suspicion—why, why could not this Report workings of a deranged system. Whether the have conformed to these straight-forward state- half a million of dollars spent upon this ship, came ments? For what purpose could upwards of from this or that appropriation, it alike shows the $360,000 have been here charged for building this extravagance and waste under the present system. ship, when Congress had been so often told, and Whether it went in part or in whole for 'Repairs,' the whole country knew, that she had been built the extravagant cost of getting that ship ready for more than twenty years before? There was no ap- her first cruise, was not lessened at all. I do lapropriation for any such purpose. Why then was ment, with feelings of humiliation and of wounded the charge made? Was it to falsify the statements pride, I do lament, that any statement in this Report of so obscure an individual as Harry Bluff, the should be at variance with what has been so often Scraps' from whose Lucky-Bag' had caused the before officially stated, and repeated, again and Resolution which drew forth this Report? But, sir, again, concerning this ship. The appearance is bad. it is not my object to search for motives; I know What security has the Navy for the faithful appliof none which ought to have operated, and I as- cation of the money voted to it, when the records cribe none. And above all, sir, I ascribe none to the of expenditure are misquoted, falsified, or officially officers who now are, or who have ever been seated misstated? The Report shows that the Commisat any time, around that Board. In peace and in sioners cannot tell where it goes; for it does not war, they have rendered their country yeoman's pass through their hands.* They are not disbursservice. Their gallantry brought the Navy into ing officers. And though the money be expended being-they fought its battles, gained its victo-on works performed by their direction, all that they ries, and made it what it now is. It was their deeds know of it, in many instances, is, that it is spent. that crowned it with laurels, and it is their blood But if the appearance of wrong be ever admitted that yet makes them green. Who then would in the manner of disbursing or of accounting for the ascribe motives of wrong to such men? Not I. public moneys, its actual and palpable form will soon The thrillings of pride with which the young be found there too. The doing of what is not officer can boast that he is of the Navy, are but right in one instance, blunts the moral sense in reflections from the lustre which the deeds of another, and paves the way to what is It those worthy veterans have given to it. And for changes the shadow into the substance, and serves that, they have, as they deserve, both the gratitude as a finger-board on the Treasury, pointing out and respect of the junior members of their corps. the way to abuse, and indicating that there are The 'Lucky-Bag' sought only to do what the means of peculation. As it was foretold in 1829, Commissioners themselves have done over and so it is in 1841: "By degrees the evils under over again—they have, times almost without num- this system have crept on, until the sluices of ber, represented the mal-organization of the Navy- the Treasury have been opened; and the people Board; they have pointed out to Congress the defects of the present system: they have from time to time, as the public documents and state-papers will show, suggested many judicious and excellent alterations in the present plan of conducting the business of the Navy. But their recommendations, from some cause, certainly from no fault of theirs, Building of the Ohio, continued and completed have failed to be adopted. To show the evils of the system which the whole Navy pronounces bad, facts were required for illustration-facts too were required to give point to the argument in favor of the amendments proposed; my object, and the object of the Lucky-Bag' was then, to state facts, as my object now is, to get at facts. Why then Repairs of Ohio-labor and materials, $593,978 51 the clashings of these official statements about the Difference in amount of two statements, $198 88 Ohio? Here, in this view of the subject, it matters *Their hands. When money is wanted for any work di little whether the money for getting this ship ready rected by the Navy-Board, the Navy-Agents make requisi for sea, was taken from the appropriation for medi- for which the money is wanted, are made known to the tions for it upon the Secretary of the Navy. The objects cines, pay, provisions or repairs; it had all been ex-Commissioners. The requisitions are sent to the Board for pended on the ship, and no one doubted that fact. approval. The Secretary of the Navy then issues his war rant for the money, and the Commissioners have no more No one sought to attach blame to the Commission- to do with the handling of it, than you have. wrong. are now looking in vain to their public offices and books in this, as in other departments, to find out how and for what, their money has been spent." Let us be done with this unpleasant affair. The two statements as they now stand, are: OF THE REPORT. Total cost of labor and materials of all OF THE LUCKY-BAG. $360,767 47 233,012 16 $593,779 63 There is also a difference between the two state- it costs more to build at Portsmouth, N. H. than ments as to the objects of expenditure. at any other Building-Yard in the United States. A sloop-of-war of 700 tons, cost, [exclusive of ordnance and stores,] At Philadelphia, $90,977 88 "Boston, [mean of three,] 95,466 53 102,461 95 "Norfolk, [mean of two,] 109,143 18 "New-York, [do. three,] 109,372 80 115,325 80 An officer, whose officer-like rectitude and principles of conduct make his word as binding in morals, as the Holy Evangely his oath in law, writes: "Some of the officers examined the expenditure books, and found the items you published [in the Lucky-Bag] exact to a cypher." That officer has given his certificate, setting forth that he copied from the New-York expenditure books themselves, the statements which appeared in the 'Lucky-Bag' These vessels were built about the same time. concerning the repairs of the Ohio at that place. The North-Carolina and Delaware, each of 2,633 That certificate is on file in the office of the Lite- tons, were both built in 1820-one at Philadelphia rary Messenger, where it may be seen by any one and the other at Norfolk. Not including 'ordnance who will call and ask for it. As an error of cents and stores,' the Philadelphia, cost less than the Norhas been detected in the statement of the Report, folk built ship, by upwards of $111,000. Such is and as I have never seen an 'expenditure book' of the showing of the Report. If the cost of ‘ordany sort myself, I leave you and your readers to nance and stores' were included, the proportions account as best you may, for the difference of above would be somewhat varied. But their cost $198 88 here presented. has not been included, because the returns in all cases are not complete for them. The difference in amount being settled, the difference as to the objects of expenditure, becomes a question of veracity between the 'Lucky-Bag' and the Official Report. I have already shown by am-of-war is about one-half the cost of the materials ple testimony from the Commissioners of the Navy, used-it is sometimes more, and sometimes a little that no such work, as finishing the building of the less: this is what it ought to be, though the rates Ohio, remained to be done in 1836-38-that no here exhibited, defy in this, as they do in other appropriation was made for any such purpose. On respects, all limits of rule or ratio. The labor for the contrary, I have shown from the Annual Re- the Boston, of seven hundred tons, cost 26,000 ports of the Secretary of the Navy, and the pub- dollars, and the materials 65,000 dollars; but for the lished Documents of Congress, that, in 1830 it was Lexington, a smaller ship, the labor cost $47,000, announced to Congress, "it will take 200 days, and and the materials $67,000. We have exhibited in $171,072 69 to repair and fit this ship for sea”— the Report the original cost of eleven sloops-of-war, in 1836, "the repairs on this ship have been com- and the cost of labor and materials in each case of renenced”—in 1837, "the Ohio is completing her pairs, for thirty-three times. As a general rule, the repairs in dock"-again, "within the past year labor should cost more in proportion to the matehe repairs of the Ohio have been completed"—rials used for repairs than for building; for in repairn 1838, "this ship has recently been repaired and ing, there is the additional labor of pulling to pieces quipped from the ordinary appropriations"—and to get at the defective parts. Something too deemi-officially from the prudent Editor of the Army pends upon the nature of the repairs themselves— nd Navy Chronicle-"The cost of the Ohio, since whether the materials used be mostly copper, as er equipment for sea was commenced, has been when a ship requires to be only re-coppered-or harged to the appropriation for 'REPAIRS OF VES- mostly pitch and oakum, as when she only requires ELS, because that under which she was built is to be calked. In the one case the price of materiong since exhausted." als would be much the greater, and in the other the What need is there of any more proof? Was it for cost of labor. Such great disparity though, one Repairs, as the 'Lucky-Bag' said, or was it for build- would expect to find only in cases where the reg, as the Report would have it, that these hundreds pairs were slight. I am thus particular, Mr. Edif thousands, were wasted on the Ohio? Judge be- tor, because the apologists of this repairing system ween the two. You have been assured by an offi- attempt to get over its enormities by a piece of er worthy of all credit, that he copied the ex-special pleading, with which they would mislead enditures on this ship, from the New-York books, one not informed on such subjects. 'Every one ad that there, the accounts were kept with Re- of common sense knows," say they, "that the commrs. Though a triumph, it is no cause of exul-parative cost of labor and materials for driving tion with me, no matter of gratulation among the oakum at 6 cents, and for driving copper-bolts at ends of the Navy. I am glad to take leave of 26 cents, a pound, must be very different." e subject. According to a well-established rule among shipbuilders, the cost proper of labor for building sloops 66 The thirty-three cases of repairs upon vessels of It appears from the Report, that ships built at the same class, and already alluded to, or the whole uston and Philadelphia cost much less than simi- seventy-five cases upon vessels of all classes, and rships built at New-York and Norfolk; and that quoted in this Report, ought in common reason, to constitute data sufficient for determining, at least | were launched; the Dolphin in 1821, as the Franklin's by approximation, something like the ratio which tender, for the Pacific-the Shark to the cost of Afshould exist between the cost of labor and materials, rica, or to the West Indies, with Com. Porter, after when applied to repairs. But, sir, so wild have been pirates. The Dolphin, placed in the Pacific be the workings of this system, so unaccountable and yond the reach of this repairing system, showed strange the results as here set forth, and so unlike what she could do if let alone. She remained from and unstable the apparent cost, when in fact there that time till 1837, continually in active servicewas no real change in prices, that the data before and during those sixteen years of constant cruising, us, present scarcely any, but extreme cases. The she was not repaired in her hull for the first time; Delaware 74 was built in 1820-the cost to repair unless the operation of calking be magnified into her the first time, was-for labor $48,000, and repairs-at any rate, if she were repaired, her $21,000 for materials. At the second time the repairs were very slight. labor cost $47,000, but the materials $79,000!— Not so with the less fortunate Shark. As soon as (hundreds are tedious in such large sums and are she came back from the West-Indies, they had her unimportant here; therefore they are omitted.) In up for repairs. She was repaired, so says the Re1836 and 1838, when this ship comes up for repairs port, in 1825 and 1826, in 1827 and 1828, in 1829— the last time, the materials cost less than $27,000, twice in 1830 and twice in 1831-continued over to but the labor goes beyond $129,000! The North- 1832, and again in 1833. Here by some means of Carolina, built at the same time, and repaired in other she appears to have escaped-for repairs are 1835 and 1836 at Norfolk, immediately before the not mentioned upon her again until 1838–39. And Delaware, cost less than 8 per cent. more for labor; now, as if they intended to make up for lost time, while for materials, she cost upwards of 400 per though the materials to build her in the first is cent. more than her sister-ship, the Delaware, was stance cost but $14,000, and the labor $9,000, she about to cost! is charged, for this once repairing, $18,000 for ma The Constitution, repaired in 1838 and 1839, terials, and $27,000 for labor! Three times as cost, for labor $29,000, and $44,000 for materials-much for labor to repair as to build! And for the but $79,000 for labor and $45,000 for materials, are satisfaction of the Senate, it is gravely stated in a the prices at which her sister-ship the United States note, that she was "nearly rebuilt." Schooners is repaired in 1839-'41. In the thirteenth year of were ever an unpleasant sort of craft, Mr. Editor, their age, the frigates Potomac and Brandywine, therefore let us leave them for the present, and each of 1708 tons, built at the Washington Navy-hasten to the repairing of the eleven sloops-of-war. Yard by the Commissioners, are both hauled up for The Warren and Natchez, each of 691 tons, repairs the Brandywine for the fourth time, and the Potomac for the second. The latter cost, for labor $14,000, and $49,000 for materials-but $114,000 for labor, and $77,000 only, for materials, are the charges in the other case. The schooner Boxer, of 194 tons, was built in 1831, and has been twice repaired. Cost of labor in building $11,050. Cost of labor for the first repair $4,000-for the second $11,450! and $6,000 for materials each time. The schooner Grampus, 211 tons, was built at $9,537 11,950 were built, one in 1826, the other in 1827. In the building, the ratio of labor to materials for the Warren was 10:23, and for the Natchez 10:14. By the Commissioners' estimates, the Natchez, co pletely equipped, would cost $85,000. Upon the faith of these estimates, Congress authorized the building of ten sloops-of-war, of the first class not one of which cost less than $113,000. The Natchez, one of them, cost $124,000; and the Concord, another, $141,000, or $56,000 more than in the opinion of the best judges (the Commissioners) she ought to have cost. The labor for bauding the Warren was $30,000: to repair her four years afterwards, was $23,000-being to the cost ef materials as 10:11; and to repair her in 1837-3. the ratio was as 10: 7-the labor costing $49.00) or $3,000 more than it ought to take to build and The materials used for repairs at each of four dif- launch her anew, exclusive of equipments. ferent times on this vessel, are set down at $5,000, Of these eleven sloops-of-war, one, (the Na(omitting hundreds)—the labor to work them up chez) after having been loaded with 72,000 dolas cost $3,000 at one time, $4,000 at another, $9,000 of fresh repairs, was sent to sea. She was gre at another, and $11,000 at the other! two years and eleven months-returned in a rotte The schooner Shark, 200 tons, is another Wash-condition, and was 'broken up-so says the Report ington built vessel, constructed under the eyes of Among the ten others, there are five cases-FIL the Navy-Board; and therefore, one would suppose, the Boston, when she was fifteen years old—the built of the best materials of their kind. Her sis- Vincennes, Warren and St. Louis, when they were ter-vessel, the Dolphin, was built the same year at eleven, and the John Adams when she was eig Philadelphia. They both went to sea soon after they in which the repairs in each case, have exceeded Do. Do. to repair 2d time, 66 4th time, Do. 66 5th time, Do. 6th time, 9,094 11,839 from $13,000 to $48,000, what ought to have been | terwards, the Fairfield, a ship of the same tonnage, the whole original cost of the ship and her equip- same class, same guns, and the same in all respects, ments, guns and all. In repairing the Lexington, was built at the same port, and there fitted out for the labor required to use up $9,484 of materials, cost only $1,994; but, for the Vincennes, $44,000 of materials required $80,000 of labor. If the difference in the labor and materials, as exhibited by the Report, in many other cases, depend for explanation on the relative cost of labor for 'driving oakum and copper bolts,' you ought to find in the bottom of some of our ships, copper bolts enough to sink them, and oakum enough to calk the English Navy. 6 her first cruise. She is bound on a delightful trip in the Mediterranean. The same regulations which obtained in furnishing' ordnance and warrant officers' stores' to the Vincennes, apply to the Fairfield. There is but one list of allowances for them all; yet the Fairfield is charged for ordnance and stores' in the sum of $31,515 34! You have heard the story of gold guns for the Exploring Expedition, and of silver magnets for the Frenchman. The exhibits which have been made concerning In 1830, when the Vincennes returned from her the repairs that are put upon the hulls of our voyage of circumnavigation, she brought back her men-of-war, as astounding as they are, are never-iron guns, shot, and other implements of war, in theless tame in comparison with the repairs that good condition; perhaps the lock of a musket or a are put upon their ordnance. In the honesty of pistol might have required mending, but there were my heart, I had thought till now, that the guns many articles of stores in the boatswain's, gunner's, of a man-of-war were at least exempt from this sailmaker's and carpenter's* departments, which repairing system. But it appears I was mistaken; were sound and good, and fit to be turned over as for there is a column in the Report headed 'Ordnance stores for the next cruise; or, if sold or applied to and warrant officers' stores for a cruise'—in which other purposes, ought to have been credited to her you will frequently find charged as repairs, an for what they were worth. She is hauled up for amount exceeding by far, the whole first cost of repairs immediately, and is again fitted for sea the ordnance and stores together. These eleven sloops-same year; and with these offsets in her favor, her of-war are ships of the same size, within a few tons; warrant officers' stores,' which with her guns, &c. they are all of the same class, and carry the same cost but $6,453 in the first instance, amount now, number of guns-24 a-piece. Their class and ar- exclusive of guns, to $14,574 19. mament being the same, they are allowed exactly the same quantity of warrant officers' stores for a ruise-whether fitting for sea after being first ilt, or after being repaired, the list of stores alowed by regulation is the same in all cases: and inless regulations be set aside, the stores furnished o one are duplicates of the stores furnished to all he rest; whether they fit out from Boston, New-ordnance and warrant officers' stores;' and whenYork or Norfolk, regulations allow all the same, and only the same. This being the case, one would spect great uniformity of charges in this column These sloops-of-war all carry the same number t least. The plain ideas of common reason would of guns, and the cost of ordnance and stores' in adace us to suppose that the guns and stores for fitting them out for the first time, ought to cost the very one of these vessels, cost about the same in same or nearly the same for each one. At least he first instance, and that any subsequent charge so one would think-but such is not the case. Inder this head, could never be nearly as heavy as The Boston's cost $18,000, and the Concord's he first; because in the first, are included guns, $25,000. The Lexington's cost $13,000, and the attle-axes, shot, pistols, swords, muskets, board- St. Louis' $29,000. The Vincennes' $6,000, and g-pikes, and other articles as imperishable in heir nature as these, and which therefore being nee supplied, will last as long as the ship. But is not so. The first cost of' ordnance and warrant officers' stores' for the Falmouth-same class with the Vincennes-is stated at $19,932. But when she is repaired the second time, notwithstanding she has noordnance' to buy, and has many of her former stores which ought to be passed to her credit in the fresh supply, she is charged $20,444 for repairing, ever a charge is made of money expended, expended it must be, else books will not balance. the Fairfield's $31,000. The Concord's are repaired twice at $7,000, and the Boston's once at $16,000, and again at $17,000-others too are repaired at rates as wild as these, but there is in the Report no The Vincennes, of seven hundred tons, was built word nor note of explanation offered on the subject. t New-York in 1826, and was forthwith equipped In 1830 the Commissioners of the Navy-Board r sea: she was sent on a four years' cruise, and submitted estimates of the expense of building and uled around the world. She had a beautiful bat-equipping a 10 gun schooner. Upon the faith of ery, was fitted and found in the most substantial those estimates appropriations were made, and the janner, and was well provided in every respect. sohooners Boxer and Enterprise were built the speak here with marked confidence, for I served next year. According to these estimates, the cost that ship. Her ordnance, including the cost of of armament, including warrant officers' stores, warrant officers' stores' for this long cruise, is would be $4,820-the actual cost exceeded $6,000 tated in the Report at $6,453 00. Two years af *The warrant officers. |