Genealogy | Native American | DNA | About Us
Tell A Friend! Pre-Order Family Tree Maker 2012!!!

Genealogy Records

Genealogy
Biographies
Cemetery Records
Census Records
DNA
Family Tree Search
History Books Online
Military Records
Native American Records
Surnames
Vital Records
World Genealogy

Indian Genealogy

Proving Your Indian Heritage
Native American Rolls
Indian Tribal Histories
Indian Tribes by Location
Indian Books and Articles
Indian Genealogy Queries
Indian Census Records
Indian Cemetery Records

Indian Tribes

Abenaki Indians
Algonquian Indians
Apache Indians
Arapaho Indians
Blackfeet Indians
Caddo Indians
Cherokee Indians
Cheyenne Indians
Chickasaw Indians
Chinook Indians
Chippewa Indians
Choctaw Indians
Comanche Indians
Cree Indians
Creek Indians
Crow Indians
Dakota Indians
Delaware Indians
Fox Indians
Hopi Indians
Huron Indians
Illinois Indians
Iowa Indians
Iroquois Indians
Kansa Indians
Kickapoo Indians
Kiowa Indians
Menominee Indians
Miami Indians
Missouri Indians
Modoc Indians
Mohawk Indians
Mohegan Indians
Munsee Indians
Natchez Indians
Navajo Indians
Nex Percé Indians
Omaha Indians
Onondaga Indians
Osage Indians
Oto Indians
Ottawa Indians
Paiute Indians
Pawnee Indians
Pottawatomie Indians
Sauk Indians
Seminole Indians
Seneca Indians
Shawnee Indians
Siouan Indians
Sioux Indians
Stockbridge Indians
Tuscarora Indians
Winnebago Indians
Zuni Indians


 

Clothing and Other Goods Rejected at New York Warehouse

Clothing And Other Goods Rejected At New York Warehouse.

The failure of the Bay State Clothing Company, who had the contract for suits of clothing for the boys, to furnish garments equal in value to the samples submitted was an occasion of much difficulty at the New York warehouse, commencing in the month of September. The quality of the cloth used was, perhaps, up to the standard, but the goods lacked finish and were not equal in weight, while the material used for lining was inferior, and the garments were made in a slovenly and cheap manner. The inspector in charge, Mr. Dewitt C. Whiteman, passed the first delivery of clothing and also a very inferior article of cloth in the piece in fulfillment of the contract for "cadet gray ""cloth. The objections of Superintendent Robbing were unheeded and the goods were shipped. The superintendent wrote to Commissioner Jones at Washington and also informed Mr. James in New York, with whom he had an understanding that when another delivery was made he was to be notified. At the next delivery Mr. James examined the clothing, also the cloth sent to fill the contract for " cadet gray," all of which were found to be below standard.

Mr. James ordered that they be not accepted and that no shipment be made, and informed Commissioner Jones of what he had done, who, on coming to New York and examining for himself, approved the course taken and notified the contractor to take away the goods and furnish other goods equal to sample. He also dismissed the inspector, Whiteman, and upon his return to Washington detailed Inspector Nesler to the place of Superintendent Robbins, who was given indefinite leave of absence. As a compromise, the clothing was accepted at a later date and at a reduced price, the season being so far advanced that the garments would be needed before others could be got ready. It is said that the contracting company admits sustaining a loss of $10,000 to $12,000 upon the transaction, exclusive of the sum paid as penalty for nonfulfillment of contracts. The incident is much to be regretted because of the prejudice created in the minds of competitive bidders, there being a feeling that they were discriminated against in the first place, and that the delinquent contractor should not have been allowed to turn in the goods even at a large reduction. The contracts were fairly awarded and there is no occasion for fault finding under that head; probably there would have been less fault finding if the goods had all been rejected and fresh bids asked for, or the articles been purchased in open market. Such incidents are regrettable, although not always avoidable. Of the inspector who was dismissed it may be said that he was a weak man and unfitted for the place, if not dishonest, although his recommendations to Commissioner Jones were good.

Darwin R. James,
Chairman Board of Indian Commissioners.
New York, January 20, 1902.

Report of Board of Indian Commissioners


Notes About this Publication:

Source: Thirty-Third Annual Report Of The Board Of Indian Commissioners, 1901,  Government Printing Office.

Online Publication: The manuscript was scanned and then ocr'd. Minimal editing has been done, and readers can and should expect some errors in the textual output.

This site includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes implied.

Free Genealogy | Indian Genealogy | Report of Board of Indian Commissioners
 

Genealogy Websites

Other Websites

Disclaimer:

This site includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes implied.


Access Genealogy is the largest free genealogy website not owned by Ancestry. As such, it relies on the revenue from commercial genealogy companies such as Ancestry to pay for the server and other expenses related to producing and warehousing such a large collection of data. If you're considering joining either of these programs, why not join using the links above, and help support free genealogy online!

Copyright 1999-2011, by Access Genealogy.com
A project by Webified Development