sioners and others, but this was not done by order, direction, or even request of the board, or either of them, (I speak for the civil portion, and not for the military, not knowing what they did,) but as we then understood, and as I now believe by order of Colonel Ripley, the then "commandant" of the Springfield armory, and when enquired into, and even remonstrated against, we were answered that it was not only usual on such occassions, but that we had nothing to do with the matter. Thus this matter rested until our assembling at Washington, when we were not a little surprised at having Kinsley & Co.'s bill presented to us, not for us to pay, no such intimation was given, but for us to place in the schedule of expenditures incurred, and even this was at once objected to, first, because we had been assured that we had nothing to do with it; secondly, that we believed that the charges were too high, if not extravagant. For myself, I was so much disgusted at the attempt to force that account on us in any shape, or for any purpose, that I immediately penned a remonstrance, (a copy marked A enclosed,) which, in consequence of a majority of the board having agreed to permit that account, in a reduced and modified form, to be placed in the schedule of charges, &c., I withheld. The schedule thus made up, as I afterwards learned, was presented to the President, and by him that article was stricken out. Thus, so far as regards myself, or so far as my knowledge extends in relation to other members of the board, this matter rested until I received a letter from Kinsley & Co., dated June 15, 1854, (copy enclosed, marked B, and my reply thereto, dated June 19, 1854, marked C.) This I supposed would, so far as regards the commissioners, end the matter; but no, a a letter was received from the ordnance office, signed by Col. Craig, dated October 7, 1854, (a copy enclosed marked D, and my reply dated October 12, 1854, marked E.) The perusal of these papers, I cannot doubt, will go far to convince you that the various statements made by Mr. Ingersoll, or others for him, need at least a good deal of proving, and although I may not be able to prove, yet I have not a doubt that Mr. Ingersoll is not and should not be a sufferer, yet he should have stated the facts as they are, and not attempt to shield the real culprit behind the backs of the commissioners.

I leave it to you, sir, to make such use of this communication as your sense of justice and fair dealing prompts.

Yours, &c.,

Senator WILSON.

JNO. H. STEELE.

A.

I protest against the bill of Kinsley & Co. for carriage hire. First, on the ground that the commissioners neither ordered nor sanctioned the hire or use of carriages to or from the armory; on the contrary, when the carriages were furnished we were assured that it was usual to furnish them on such occasions, and that the commissioners had nothing to do with the matter; and secondly, because the charges are exorbitant, being, as I believe, twice as much as they should be. JNO. H. STEELE,

B.

DEAR SIR: We hear, from Captain William Maynadier, that our bill ($297 25) for carriages furnished the late United States armory commission was thrown out when the appropriation was made for your services. "Please inform us upon whom we shall draw for the

amount of said bill."

We have called upon E. Ingersoll, military storekeeper here, and he informed us that the carriages were ordered by your board through him, and can give us no further information upon the subject. Please give it your early attention, and oblige

Yours, with respect,

Hon. J. H. STEELE.

C.

E. L. KINSLEY, Bishop.

PETERBORO', NEW HAMPSHIRE,

June 19, 1854.

GENTLEMEN: I am unable to give you any information in regard to your inquiries of the 15th, except to say that if the use of your carriages were ordered by the late commission it was not only without my knowledge or consent, but contrary to my belief. By whom they were ordered I do not know; all I do know is, that whenever inquiries were made by me relative to the matter, they were met with the assurance that it was not a business of ours, but that of the commandants, and that we had nothing to do with it; and I was not a little surprised when your bill was presented before the commission at Washington. I then remonstrated against having anything to do with it and if Mr. Ingersoll was, as you say, the orderer, he undoubtedly did so either on his own or on some other authority than that of the commissioners.

Yours, &c.,

Messrs. KINSLEY & Co.

D.

JNO. H. STEELE.

ORDNANCE OFFICE, Washington, October 7, 1854.

SIR: Mr. Ingersoll, the paymaster of the Springfield armory, having written to me that he has been sued by Messrs. E. L. Kinsley & Co. for the hire of carriages used by the armory commission of 1853, of which you were a member, although the carriages had been hired and were used by the commission before he said anything to Messrs. Kinsley & Co. on the subject, and although, when he did speak to them, it was merely to fix upon a price.

The estimate for this expense having been stricken out of the appropriation for the compensation and expenses of the commission, Mr. Ingersoll cannot charge it in his accounts, and he protests against the injustice of being made personally responsible for it. Under these circumstances I submitted the matter to the Secretary of War, who

has decided as follows:

"The chief of the ordnance will communicate the within facts to the different numbers of the commission, in order that they may have an opportunity of settling the account of Messrs. Kinsley & Co. for hack hire while at Springfield.

"JEFFN. DAVIS, Secretary of War.

"WAR DEPARTMENT, October 4, 1854."

I therefore give you the information. The whole amount of Messrs. Kinsley's bill, it appears, is $297 25. If sent to Mr. Ingersoll it will be paid over by him.

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

E.

H. K. CRAIG,

Colonel of Ordnance.

PETERBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE,
October 12, 1854.

SIR In answering yours of the 7th, all the information I can at present give is, that the commissioners, as a body, did not order, direct, or request the hire of carriages, neither do I believe that they did so individually, but each can answer for himself. I know that I did not, and I also know that we were assured that we had nothing to do with the matter. The first intimation I had that the commissioners had or would have anything to do with their hire was near the close of our sittings at Washington, when Kinsley & Co.'s bill was presented, not for us to pay, but to audit, and even this was remonstrated against as being contrary to the assurances given at Springfield. I did not then and do not now doubt that, if it had been understood by the authorites at Springfield that the commissioners would report in favor of the continuance of military rule, that we would not have seen or heard of Kinsley & Co.'s bill.

Under these circumstances it will not be difficult to judge whether we will avail ourselves of the notice which the Secretary of War had the kindness to direct you to give, "in order," as he says, "that we may have an opportunity of settling the account," &c.

Yours, &c.,

JOHN H. STEELE.

Col. CRAIG.