Page images
PDF
EPUB

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 4, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BAYARD submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of the democratic members of the legislature of the State of Ohio, have considered the same, and submit the following report:

The memorial recommends the increase of the salaries of the district judges, of both the districts in the State of Ohio, to thirty-five hundred dollars each.

The reasons assigned for this increase are the inadequacy, in the opinion of the memorialists, of the present salaries, and the increase within the last few years of the expenses of living in the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland.

The salaries of all the district judges of the United States were revised and increased, under a general law, approved February 17, 1855, and the committee are not aware that the cost of living has been increased since that time, either in Cincinnati or Cleveland. The revision of salaries made in 1855 was the result of full inquiry, and necessarily involved the concession of great differences of opinion amongst members of Congress; and no change of circumstances has since occurred which, in the opinion of the committee, renders it expedient that the general law then passed should, in so short a period, be modified or altered.

The conclusion therefore is, that the recommendation of the memorialists ought not to be adopted.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 4, 1858.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. JONES made the following

REPORT.

[Te accompany Bill S. 309.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of John B. Miller, beg leave to report:

That they have had the same under consideration, and find his case supported by the following facts, duly authenticated. Mr. Miller served as teamster under Quartermaster Sibley and others, from May, 1846, until some time after the battle of Monterey, and while in the actual performance of his duty as such teamster, and while on the road from Carmargo to Monterey with provisions, his mules became mired, together with others in other teams, and that during the efforts made to extract them from the mire he received a severe kick from one of them upon the leg, which produced long and severe suffering, and finally resulted in necrosis of the bone, making amputation necessary. That though he never was attached to any regularly organized military company and transferred therefrom for duty as a teamster in the Quartermaster's department, which would be necessary in order to give him a pension under existing laws, yet the committee are convinced that he has become totally disabled from an injury received while strictly in the line of his duty in the military service of his country, and they are, therefore, disposed to waive the technicality of the law, and to grant him a pension. The amputation was performed by Dr. Gibson, then surgeon of the San Francisco county hospital, in the year 1855, and he testifies to the extensive necrosis of the bone, but no evidence is produced to show under what medical treatment the patient was from the time of his discharge up to the time of his entering the hospital; but from the nature of the disease and the circumstantial evidence produced, and also from the established good character of the petitioner, the committee have the utmost confidence in his statements.

They accordingly herewith report a bill for his relief.

[blocks in formation]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred Senate Bill No. 234, for the remission of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:

The bill proposes to alter the existing law by authorizing the judges of the district courts of the United States, within their respective districts, to remit in all cases the fines, penalties, and forfeitures imposed by the district courts, where imprisonment forms no part of the sentence of the court, or where the time of imprisonment has been served

out.

The power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States is, by the Constitution, vested in the President, and the remission of a fine imposed as a part of the punishment of an offence is properly an executive duty, and, in the opinion of the committee, ought not to be transferred to the judiciary apart from any Constitutional objection.

The remaining effect of the proposed bill would be to extend the discretion of the courts in the remission of the penalties of recognizances taken in criminal causes, and remove the restrictions on the exercise of that discretion contained in the sixth section of the act approved February 28, 1839, entitled "An act in amendment of the acts respecting the judicial system of the United States." Considering the existing law as giving ample authority to the judges to remit the penalty of a recognizance in a criminal cause in all cases in which such authority ought properly to be exercised, the committee are of opinion that the further legislation proposed by the bill is unnecessary and inexpedient.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »