Document relating to the claim of Littleton D. Teackle, for payment for materials for the public buildings in the city of Washington

27th CONGRESS, [ SENATE. ] [ 293 ] 2d Session.

[To be appended to Document No. 293.] DOCUMENT

Relating to the claim of Littleton D. Teackle, for payment for materials for the public buildings in the city of Washington.

MAY 18, 1842. Ordered to be printed.

BALTIMORE, May 16, 1842.

In support of a claim which Mr. Littleton D. Teackle is making upon the United States, there has been produced by him a bill for timbers, delivered between September 17th, and December 7th, 1805, at the foot of which is my father's name, signed "B. Henry Latrobe, surveyor of public buildings, United States, Washington, May 10, 1806."

The Committee of Claims of the Senate have made, through Mr. Wright, two reports, both adverse to this claim. The last of these reports, dated May 10, 1842, contains an affidavit made, on the 28th of April last, by Thomas Monroe, Esq., who was superintendent of the city of Washington from 1802 to 1817, including the time during which my father was architect of the capitol, that is from April, 1803, to August, 1812.

This affidavit alleges that a rumor existed, in 1806, "of some collusion between Mr. Teackle and Mr. Latrobe on the subject of the above bill," and although Mr. Munroe adds that, of such collusion, "he knows nothing of his own knowledge," yet the assertion that the rumor existed makes it as much the duty of my father's children to notice it, as it would have been had the charge of collusion been directly made as a matter within Mr. Munroe's own knowledge. This must be my apology for thus intruding upon your notice.

Mr. Munroe says in his affidavit “that, at some time in the early part of the year 1806, and, as he thinks, some time in the month of May, he distinctly remembers that John Lenthall called upon him, and told him that his business was to warn him, the witness, that a fraud was about to be attempted upon the public in a bill of timber, which had been made out at the navy-yard, but by whom the witness is unable to state, in favor of the claimant, Littleton Dennis Teackle; that it had been signed or certified by Latrobe, and that it would probably be presented to him, the witness, for payment, but that the timber mentioned in the bill was at the navy-yard and had not been delivered at the capitol. The witness understood that the lumber referred to was lumber which had been delivered by Mr. Teackle at the navy-yard, under contracts to deliver timber there, and which, upon inspection, had been rejected; but of this he knows nothing except upon report. He also heard rumors of some collusion between Mr. Teackle and Mr. Latrobe, on the subject of the bill of timber of which Mr. Lenthall spoke to him, as before stated, but of that, also, be knows nothing of his own knowledge."

Thomas Allen, print.

[ 293] 2

The evident purpose of this part of the affidavit is to produce the impression that Mr. Teackle and my father conspired to perpetrate a fraud on Government, by making it pay for what it had never received; the instrument in the perpetration of this fraud being my father's signature to the bill.

Now, if there was a fraud designed, my father's participation in it depended upon the fact, that, knowing the bill to be fraudulent, he gave his signature to secure its payment. But it so happens, as is sworn by Mr. Munroe himself, that, according to the course of business, my father's signature was, of itself, insufficient to authorize the payment of bills for materials.

Speaking of my father's employment as architect of the capitol, Mr. Munroe properly says: "It was no part of his duty to measure or ascertain the quantity of materials delivered for the use of the capitol; and had this bill been presented to him, in its present form, he should not have paid it. One John Lenthall was appointed and employed as an assistant architect, upon whom was devolved the entire duty of measuring and receiving materials, and certifying the accounts, and who kept regular books for that purpose; and without his certificate, or some satisfactory explanation of its not being given, witness should not have paid the bill."

Now, it would be absurd to suppose that, in 1806, when my father had been for three years the architect of the capitol, he was not acquainted with the course of business at the work under his charge, as the same is described by Mr. Munroe. And it would be equally absurd to suppose that, being acquainted with it, he would have attempted a fraud by signing his name to procure the payment of a bill, which he knew at the time could not be paid without the signature of Mr. Lenthall, or a satisfactory explanation why it was not given.

But, it may be asked, why then was my father's signature put to the bill at all.

It would seem, from the reports made to the Senate, that Mr. Teackle had no contract or order to supply lumber for the capitol, but only for the navy-yard. But this is a mistake. The following letter, of August 30, 1805, shows the relations which Mr. Teackle held with the construction of the capitol, and is important enough in other particulars to be inserted at length:

"WASHINGTON, August 30, 1805.

"SIR: Mr. Lenthall, clerk of the works of the public buildings, having given to you a considerable order for lumber for the use of the capitol, the first shallop load arrived here a few days ago. As there was much lumber on the top of the load, which did not answer to any of the dimensions stated in the bill, it was necessary to lay the greatest part of the stuff upon the wharf, in order to examine what part of the cargo was intended for our use. I am extremely sorry to say that, so little of what has been sent answers to the bill of scantling. I have thought it my duty, as well as Mr. Lenthall's, to decline receiving any part of it at present. I beg, at the same time, to assure you that this rejection of the lumber does not arise from anything like caprice on my part: or that of the clerk of the works, whose peculiar province it is to judge of this supply; for our anxiety to procure, as early as possible, the lumber we want, is such as would induce us rather to admit only a moderate compliance with terms than to be unreasonably rigid; and my respect for the personal character you bear, would certainly prevent my doing anything unpleasant toward you which could be avoided. In this

3 [ 293]

case, however, you appear to have been so grossly deceived by those whom you have intrusted to procure the lumber for you, that your loss can not but be heavy; for scarcely any part of the stuff, the dimensions of which are not objectionable, can be received on account of sap.

"On this occasion I can not render you a greater service than candidly to assure you that the motives which induced us to expect a rigid compliance with all our contracts, and which arise not only from a sense of duty on our part, but from a jealous watchfulness over our conduct on the part of the public, render it utterly impossible and entirely out of our discretion to receive anything at the public buildings but the exact description of materials which are stipulated for. And, in the present instance, the safety of the immense roof of the capitol depends upon our having the very best sort of lumber described, and no other. If you will, therefore, have the goodness to see, yourself, that the order is strictly complied with, I have no doubt but, that a very large permanent and profitable intercourse with you for the supply of lumber to the public will be the result, and that we shall not be obliged or tempted to resort elsewhere.

"I am, with much respect, yours faithfully,

"B. HENRY LATROBE, "Surveyor of Public Buildings, United States. "LITTLETON D. TEACKLE, Esq., "Princess Ann."

This is the only letter addressed to Mr. Teackle that I can find in my father's letter-books, except a few lines about the renting of a house.

In a letter from my father to Mr. Lenthall, dated September 24th, 1805, he says: "By yours of the 14th I understood that Teackle had sent you one good lot of roof stuff, for you say that if all are like it there will not be much complaint," and further on, speaking of the difficulty of shipping a lot of lumber; which he (my father) had engaged in Delaware, where he was at the date of his letter, he says: "I could have got all the yellow stuff at a moderate rate at Indian river, but our disappointments in your waters have occasioned these inquiries, and obtained the information, now it is too late. Still, if Teackle does not behave well, we have this string to our bow."

On the 20th of October he writes again to Lenthall; speaking of another shipment of lumber from Delaware, he says: "You will see how Teackle comes on, and if likely to be behind hand, Mr. Leonard [from whom the timber then shipped was obtained] will not disappoint you in any bargain he makes."

On the 6th of November my father again writes to Mr. Lenthall, Mr. Teackle is, no doubt, a clever fellow; but it is impossible for him to do his business with punctuality, as to quantity of lumber and time of delivery, for he does not attend to it himself. Leonard, on the contrary, will live at a saw-mill for a week, or stay a month in a swamp to see his stuff out, &c., &c. As to price, you have seen how the l¼-inch was charged in Leonard's bill, that is, superficially, at $50 per thousand for the best stuff (at the Bank of Pennsylvania, inpaid $48). Now, with all his insisting, I conceive $46 66 for rough heart is an unheard-of price; especially when compared with Clarke's [a partner of Leonard's,] which, freight included, is only $37.20. Therefore, I would clearly give my opinion decidedly, that superficial measure must be meant in your agreement, on the principle that no other meaning gives an equitable price. And that even this meaning gives a price at

[293] 4

from the Delaware, for it gives $37.30. This is my answer and my reason for Mr. Teackle's information. As to annihilating all contracts With Mr. Teackle, I wish it could be done, agreeing, if he sends good stuff, to take it if we want it."

It is clearly shown, from the foregoing, that there was a contract with Mr. Teackle to furnish lumber for the capitol. And, also, that the payments stated by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, in paper B, in the report of May 10th, must have been for lumber, although not so appearing on the books of the office. These letters show, further, that my father took an active part in procuring the lumber. It was his business, as the architect, to determine what lumber was required, and to see that it was fit for its purpose; and that he did so, appears by his letter to Mr. Teackle. It was Mr. Lenthall's business, as stated by Mr. Munroe, to measure and receive the materials and certify the accounts; but before the lumber could be paid for, it is evident that a joint action was required. The architect had to ascertain that the quality and character of the timber was suitable, and the clerk of the works to make the actual measurement of feet and inches. And in my father's letter to Mr. Teackle, this joint action of Mr. Lenthall and himself is spoken of; and in the letter to Lenthall, of the 6th of November, 1805, he directs the mode in which the measurement is to be made by the latter. That his signature alone was not sufficient to pass the account, was, no doubt, the fact; but that it should accompany Mr. Lenthall's was most natural and proper. The two proving that the lumber was not only fit for the purpose for which the architect intended it, but that it was full in quantity, had been actually received, and had not been paid for. The signing of the bill by one of them only, may therefore have been right, and the refusal of the other to sign right also. Mr. Munroe does not say, in his affidavit, that my father's signature never did accompany bills for materials, or that it was never required; he only says that it was no part of his duty to measure or ascertain the quantity of materials delivered for the use of the capitol; that this was Lenthall's duty; and that, without his certificate, he would not have paid the bill. That my father did sign bills for materials for the capitol, is fully proved by his letters to Mr. Munroe himself; copies of which are before me. In a letter to Mr. Munroe, dated Washington, July 17, 1807, he says: "I herewith enclose you an invoice of lead, ordered some time ago for the use of the north wing, which I have signed, and also send a draft in favor of Mr. Lenthall's order for the amount." Which would seem to show, clearly, that the signatures of both Lenthall and my father were necessary. My father, in this case, signing the bill, and Lenthall the order which was to pay it. And, again, in a letter to Mr. Munroe, dated Philadelphia, December 7, 1807, he says: "I have now separated the accounts of Mr. Rayner (for smith's work, partly for the capitol, and partly for the Treasury), and send on a separate bill to you, $242.87½, which I have signed."

If Mr. Munroe has preserved his official correspondence, the above dates will enable him to ascertain the accuracy of these quotations. I have made them to show that the actual course of public business, as well as a proper regard to the public interests, required my father's signature; and that its presence, without Lenthall's, was perfectly consistent with the performance by both of them, of their distinct and appropriate duties.

It is proper for me to add here, that between Mr. Lenthall and my father

[293]

there was, until the death of the former, the sincerest attachment on both sides. That Mr. Lenthall charged him with fraud, or collusion of any kind, it would be impossible for me to believe from the lips of any human being; nor does Mr. Munroe assert it. Still he has so framed his affidavit, that while it contains not a particle of testimony that ·would be admitted where a penny was in legal controversy, and when examined does not, in fact, make any direct charge against my father yet it is so framed that the author, by skillful inuendo, has made it most powerful to wound the feelings, and give profound mortification to those who never injured him, and whose only inheritance from their father has been the good name he left behind him. In what I have here said, I trust and believe that I have performed my duty to his memory.

Six and thirty years mow down witnesses; and few of the many who could, in 1806, have vindicated my father's fame, are now living. I can hardly believe that Mr. Munroe would not, then, himself have shielded him from such a charge as is now suggested; because all the numerous letters to Mr. Munroe, with which my father's letter-books are filled, after 1806, show the relations between them to have been of a kindly and respectful character - such as could not have existed with an honest man who believed my father guilty of any collusion to defraud. Even admitting the rumors to have existed, Mr. Munroe's failure to investigate their correctness may be taken as conclusive proof of his disbelief of them at the time.

My father held the situation of surveyor of the public buildings from April, 1803, to August, 1812, when the war suspended their prosecution. In 1815 he was called from Pittsburg, where he then resided, to rebuild the capitol, and remained in the service of Government until the close of Mr. Madison's administration, and for a short time afterward. He was the personal, and I may add intimate friend, of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. And I think it hardly possible that he could have occupied his station so long, and have had the confidence and esteem of the two Presidents under whom he served, had he been deemed capable of any such fraudulent collusion, as it seems to have been the purpose of Mr. Munroe to fix upon his memory; not because he knew of any fact to justify the charge, but because he remembers, at the end of six and thirty years, "rumors" to that effect.

The occasion, sir, of this communication, must be my apology for intru[d]ing it on your attention.

Since writing the above, with which I had intended that my letter should conclude, a friend to whom I showed it observed, what had escaped me, that the price (twenty-eight shillings), of the lot of lumber last named in the bill in question, was precisely the sum which, in his letter to Lenthall of November 6th, my father says is the highest that ought to be allowed; that is, $3 73 per hundred.

This coincidence in the price would seem to indicate that the lumber in the bill in question, stated therein to have been delivered between September and December, was the subject of a correspondence with Lenthall, and was the lumber, in fact, referred to in the letter of November 6th.

It would also seem, from this letter, that there was a dispute with regard to price between Teackle and Lenthall, in which the latter claimed $46 66 per thousand, and that Lenthall referred the matter to my father, who, so far from colluding with Teackle, actually refused to allow more than $3 73