The statements of the memorial are fully supported by the Secretary of State, in a letter under date of April 7, 1858, in which the Secretary adds: "Mr. Hyatt having rendered the services for which he claims compensation, presented on the 1st of January, 1857, an account for $2,500, dated at Amoy, for compensation for judicial services for one and a half years, namely, $1,500; and for loss in exchange thereon, amounting to $1,000. A copy of Mr. Hyatt's despatch, together with the account and voucher showing the rate of exchange, drawn in conformity with the consular regulations upon the subject, is herewith communicated. "The views entertained by Mr. Hyatt in regard to the question of the repeal of the provisions of the act of August 11, 1848, granting compensation for judicial services, are in conformity with those entertained by this department under the opinion of the Attorney General,” (dated June 2, 1855,) "a copy of which is also enclosed.-(See pages 18 and 19.") Concurring in opinion with the Secretary of State and the late Attorney General as to the proper construction of the act of March 1, 1855, the committee believe the memorialist entitled to the relief asked for so far as the compensation for judicial services are concerned, reserving the question of the propriety of granting the allowance claimed for losses on exchange for future consideration whenever that matter may be again brought before them. They report a bill in accordance with these views and recommend its passage. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 16, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. DOOLITTLE made the following REPORT [To accompany Bill S. 181.] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was recommitted the " Bill (S. 181) for the relief of Anson Dart," late superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon, respectfully report: That Mr. Dart was appointed such superintendent in the year A. D. 1850, and served in that capacity for the term of nearly three years; that during the period of his service he had under his superintendence the Indian affairs of all the country now included within the Territories of Oregon and Washington; that he was a faithful officer, and discharged his duties in a manner highly satisfactory to the government; and that during the whole of his superintendency peace and quiet were maintained amongst all the Indian tribes under his care, and also between them and their white neighbors; that at the time of his appointment the salary affixed to the office was twenty-five hundred dollars per annum; but he was assured by the Indian Bureau, and by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, that a bill, which was soon to be reported, establishing the office of superintendent of Indian affairs in California, should be made to include the superintendent of Indian affairs of Oregon; and that such provision had the sanction and approval of the Indian Bureau, but, by accident or oversight, the bill was not so reported as to provide for it, and the bill passed fixing the salary of the superintendent in California at four thousand dollars, without changing that of Oregon. The evidence before your committee shows that Mr. Dart would not have accepted of this office had it not been for assurances, that were entirely satisfactory to him, that he should receive the same compensation for his services in Oregon that should be given to the same grade of office in California; and there are other and peculiar reasons, in the opinion of your committee, why the pay of Mr. Dart should be increased. He was a pioneer in that business on the Pacific, and there was but little known as to the cost of living in that region of country until after his arrival there; and it appears to your committee that the cost of living there was almost as great as it was in California, during the time of Mr. Dart's service in Oregon. The service of Mr. Dart having been rendered to the government in an almost unknown country, he should be fully paid, and not be permitted to be the sufferer, as he undoubtedly is, under the pay he has received for his service. In ordinary cases your committee would deem it impolitic to increase the salaries of officers subsequent to the expiration of their term; but your committee would respectfully suggest that the case of Mr. Dart should, under all the circumstances, be an exception to the general rule, for the foregoing reason. Your committee would further report that, from an examination of the facts, they are satisfied that Mr. Dart has a just and equitable claim against the United States for monies paid and expenses incurred for the board of interpreters and hire of clerks employed by him as such superintendent, and are of the opinion that the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department should be authorized to settle with him upon principles of equity, so as to indemnify him for all monies expended and expenses reasonably incurred on that account. The committee therefore report a bill for his relief. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 19, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. MASON made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 273.1 The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the report from the Court of Claims in the case of the "claimants of the brig General Armstrong, against the United Slates," have had the same under consideration, and now report: That at the first session of the thirty-third Congress the Committee on Foreign relations of the Senate, to whom the petition was referred, made a report, accompanied by a bill for the relief of the petitioners, (report No. 157, Senate bill 268.) The case was subsequently referred to the Court of Claims, both by the Senate and House of Repre sentatives. The case now comes before this committee on the report of the Court of Claims, (Mis. Doc. No. 142, 1st session 35th Congress.) On examination of this report it appears that, at the first hearing, that Court sustained the claim of the petitioners as valid against the government, and directed that evidence should be taken to show the amount due, one of the judges dissenting. On a further hearing of the case on such evidence, one of the judges, theretofore in the majority, reconsidered and reversed his opinion, and judgment was then rendered adversely to the claim-the ground then assumed being, that on the proofs no claim in law was established against the United States, and that the claim could be addressed only to the liberality and equity of Congress. On examination of this report from the Court of Claims, it would appear that the Court assumed that certain proofs had been laid by the government of the United States before the arbitrator, which might materially have affected his award, but which it now clearly appears was a mistake, and that the proofs in question were not before him when the award was made. The facts appear to be these: By the convention with Portugal, pursuant to which this claim was referred to the arbitrament of the republic of France, it was stipulated that all the correspondence between the government of Portugal and the United States respecting this claim should, by the parties to the treaty, be laid before the arbitrator. In doing this it further appears that, by some misapprehension, a part of this correspondence, being that which first arose in the years 1814-'15, and conducted at Rio de Janeiro, (where the government of Portugal then resided,) was omitted, and in which the last named government admitted, by necessary implication, its liability to the claimants. It is now shown that the evidence of such omission had been communicated by the Secretary of State to the solicitor of the Court of Claims prior to the judgment of that Court in the case, but for some reason had not been laid before the Court; whilst both the existence of such proofs and the omission to adduce them before the arbitrator was necessarily unknown to the claimants, nor were these facts discovered until after the decision of the Court. In proof of this, the committee append to this report a copy of the letter of Mr. Marcy to Mr. Blair, solicitor of the Court of Claims, dated 20th November, 1855, with the papers accompanying it. There is a descriptive list of the correspondence that was laid before the arbitrator, and this correspondence of 1814 and 1815 is not amongst them. It was contended in the argument on the part of the government that, even conceding that this last named correspondence was not before the arbitrator, still no injury could have resulted to the claimants, because all the material facts contained in it were referred to or otherwise cited in so much of the correspondence as was exhibited. Still, the committee are of opinion that the failure to exhibit it, as required by the convention, is a matter of just complaint by the claimants, because, amongst other reasons, it cannot be known what inferences or conclusions might be drawn by the arbitrator by reason of its absence. Nor do the committee mean to say that, had that evidence been before the Court, it would have made a clear case of demand in law against the government; but they advert to it as a further equitable consideration in favor of the claimants. On the whole, the committee, on further examination, again concur in their report, before adverted to, of March 10, 1854, in favor of this claim, and make the same a part of this report; and on the proofs as to the amount due, established before the Court of Claims, and set forth in its report, pages 149 and 150, report a bill for the relief of the claimants. The proofs before the Court of Claims show: The value of the vessel at....... Loss of officers and men..... $43,000 27,739 From which is deducted— 70,739 Amount paid heretofore as prize money to officers and men.. 10,000 60,739 |