scription of property which the rebels could make available; although it would seem next to impossible to collect in that disturbed region a sufficient body of men to operate the works.

Even as to the salt on hand, and which was destroyed by the troops, the claimants assume that this species of property would have been exempted from the common fate of all other in the neighborhood. While the very motive which prompted its destruction was the imminent danger that unless destroyed it would fall into the hands of the rebels and thus enable them to prolong the rebellion.

It becomes, therefore, an exceedingly complicated question to determine what should be the measure of reimbursement to the claimants. If it be assumed that their property would have escaped appropriation or destruction by the rebels, that result could only have occurred by reason of the respect shown them by the confederates as friends of their cause. In this view of the question they would be entitled to no compensation at all. If, on the other hand, it be assumed that their salt would have been appropriated by the enemy without compensation, then to that extent they have suffered no loss for which the Government should compensate them. We know that in point of fact the rebels had drawn their supplies of salt from these works, and were likely to continue to do so.

And then, again, we are not to lose sight of the main fact that all this destruction was committed not wantonly or unadvisedly, but as a means to an end, which end was the suppression of the rebellion, the restoration of peace, and the mild sway of law. The Government was spending two millions of money per day at that very time to bring around these desirable results for these claimants and all other citizens of the republic. Looking to these objects and to the end attained, may not the Government fairly interpose a claim of set-off to some extent, at least, for real benefits conferred? It is true these benefits may be said to be shared equally by others who were not losers; and, therefore, in this view, those who were exempt from similar losses could well afford to pay those who were so unfortunate as to have their property and business upon the theater of strife. And this seems to the committee the more reasonable view of the question. While, therefore, they reject all allowances as made by the commissioner for prospective profits, they are of opinion the petitioners should be paid for the injuries done the salt-works, and for the salt actually destroyed. They accordingly allow

These are the allowances made to the claimants in his report, and embrace all the items save that for the prospective yield and profits of the works.

The committee file herewith, for the information of the Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 29, 38th Congress, 1st session, which embraces all the papers to which the committee have had access in the examination of these claims, and which seems to be a correct copy of the papers on file in the War Department.

The order appointing the commissioner authorized him to investigate and report to the War Department "the value of the Goose Creek saltworks, destroyed by order of Major General Buell, in Kentucky."

The report goes beyond the letter of the authority, unless the accu mulated salt be regarded as part of the works. If that item be left out, the amount of damages found to have been done to the owners, by strict construction of the order, is as follows:

the

But the committee are of opinion that the same principle governs destruction of the salt on hand which governs the injuries done to the salt-works. If the petitioners are entitled to relief in the one case they are in the other. They should be paid the whole or nothing.

In relation to the question of the loyalty of the claimants, the com missioner found they were all believed to be loyal, except Colonel Daniel Garrard, (of the claimants White, Horton & Garrard.) He was 83 years of age and took no pains to conceal his southern proclivities. But as he was the father of Brigadier General T. T. Garrard, of the Federal Army, and of Colonel James H. Garrard, treasurer of the State of Kentucky, both true and loyal men, the commissioner was of opinion that the virtues of the sons should overshadow the follies of the father.

3d Session.

No. 366.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 16, 1871.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WILLEY made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany bill S. No. 1347.]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Messrs. Brott & Davis, praying payment for the model barge "Brott & Davis,” impressed by the military authorities of the United States, and lost during the late war of the rebellion, having duly considered the same, beg leave to submit the following report :

About the month of February, in the year 1864, George F. Brott and Isaac Davis, partners, doing business under the style and firm of Brott & Davis, purchased of one George M. Chapman, at New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, a model barge, thereafter called the "Brott & Davis," paying therefor the sum of $1,700. They had the same overhauled and repaired, and after being sed awhile, had the same again repaired, and fitted for being towed by steam-tugs. They procured a hog chain for the same, costing $150; and the other repairs and refitting thereof cost them, according to the account rendered and satisfactorily proven, the sum of $675.

On the 27th of June, 1864, whilst this barge was lying at the wharf in New Orleans, it was seized by Richard B. Locke, captain and assistant quartermaster, under written orders from S. B. Holabird, colonel and chief quartermaster. It was appraised in its condition then at the value of $3,000, by commissioners appointed for the purpose.

The said barge was used by the said military authorities in transporting horses on the Mississippi River; and while so in use, was sunk in said river in water ten feet deep, and abandoned and lost, in the month of July, 1864.

The cause and manner of the loss of said barge will appear in the following affidavits :

The undersigned, general superintendent under Captain Richard B. Locke, captain and assistant quartermaster United States volunteers, assigned to duty in the Department of the Gulf as master of transportation, does certify that, by order of Captain Locke, he took possession of the barge Brott & Davis, (in June, 1864,) and receipted therefor; had her taken to the general ship-yard and completely overhauled, and coupled with the barge Emma, securely, with heavy timbers and iron bolts.

The barges, as coupled, (Brott & Davis and Emma,) were loaded with horses and towed up the river under charge of Colonel Sherburne, United States Army. The barge Brott & Davis soon commenced leaking. The tow was taken to the bank, and the barge was unloaded and cut apart from the Emma, and left at the bank in a sinking

condition; the Emma was taken on up to Morganza. The barge Brott & Davis sunk in ten feet of water at the bank, and was never raised, but was a total loss.

I further certify that both barges were in good order, and had been thoroughly overhauled at the Government ship yard, at Algiers, before starting up the river.

N. H. ESLING.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT,

District of Louisiana.

Sworn to and subscribed by N. H. Esling, this 7th day of January, 1867, before me. CHAS. CLARBOURNE,

Clerk.

NEW ORLEANS, December 14, 1864.

I certify that on or about the day of July, 1864, I started from this city with the steamer Colonel Cowles, having one hundred and fifty horses on board, and three hundred on two barges, towed by said steamer. The next morning at daybreak, five miles from Donaldsonville, it was discovered that one of the barges had two and onehalf feet water, and was leaking badly; was obliged to go ashore at Ford's plantation. unloaded the horses, and cut the barge loose, which was attached to the second barge by strong braces. I left the barge and horses at the aforesaid plantation, and on my return from Morganza the next day, found the barge sunk in about ten feet of water. I directed the captain of the boat to report the fact to the quartermaster, and I did the same. The barge was unavoidably lost, and nearly caused the loss of three hundred horses. Everything was done to save the barge, but to no avail, being very badly worm-eaten. I was at the time chief of cavalry, Department of the Gulf.

JOHN P. SHERBURNE, Colonel Eleventh New York Cavalry.

Sworn to and subscribed to before me, this 15th day of December, 1864.

JOHN F. NOWELL,

Notary Public.

If the barge was, in fact, "badly worm-eaten," this fact would be material in estimating its value. But while Colonel Sherburne so testifies, Superintendent Esling, who seized said barge and had her ap praised, swears that it "was in good order and had been thoroughly overhauled at the Government ship-yard before starting up the river." The certificate of Colonel Sherburne shows gross neglect, or, at least, inexcusable indifference to the preservation of the boat. It is true, he says that "everything was done to save the barge," but states, at the same time, that he "left the barge" at the shore where they had landed her, and did not return until the next day, when she was "sunk in ten feet water." What had been done to save the barge, or by whom any thing was done, he does not state.

Several witnesses testify that the barge was comparatively new. Alonzo Demilt testifies that "said barge was, apparently, nearly new, was of large carrying capacity, built of oak, round-knuckled, sharp at both ends, and adapted for towing when fully laden." R. M. Harrison testifies that "she was a valuable barge, and of great advantage and carrying capacity in towing, he having at one time loaded her with 3,500 barrels of flour; that he had ample opportunity to know said barge was reasonably worth $3,000." Isaac Davis, one of the owners, testifies that "said barge was nearly new, built of oak, sharp at both ends, with a deck over the bow and stern, round-knuckled, and measured 126 feet in length." Brott swears to the same statement. George M. Chapman, from whom claimants purchased, swears that said "model barge was about 126 feet long, built of oak, round-knuckled, and sharp at both ends," and that the price paid ($1,700) was a low one, but that he sold her cheap, having no further use for her.

Several other witnesses corroborate all these statements as to the character and value of the barge.

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Messrs. Brott & Davis, praying payment for the model barge "Brott & Davis," impressed by the military authorities of the United States, and lost during the late war of the rebellion, having duly considered the same, beg leave to submit the following report :

About the month of February, in the year 1864, George F. Brott and Isaac Davis, partners, doing business under the style and firm of Brott & Davis, purchased of one George M. Chapman, at New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana, a model barge, thereafter called the "Brott & Davis," paying therefor the sum of $1,700. They had the same overhauled and repaired, and after being used awhile, had the same again repaired, and fitted for being towed by steam-tugs. They procured a hog chain for the same, costing $150; and the other repairs and refitting thereof cost them, according to the account rendered and satisfactorily proven, the sum of $675.

On the 27th of June, 1864, whilst this barge was lying at the wharf in New Orleans, it was seized by Richard B. Locke, captain and assistant quartermaster, under written orders from S. B. Holabird, colonel and chief quartermaster. It was appraised in its condition then at the value of $3,000, by commissioners appointed for the purpose.

The said barge was used by the said military authorities in transporting horses on the Mississippi River; and while so in use, was sunk in said river in water ten feet deep, and abandoned and lost, in the month of July, 1864.

The cause and manner of the loss of said barge will appear in the* following affidavits :

The undersigned, general superintendent under Captain Richard B. Locke, captain and assistant quartermaster United States volunteers, assigned to duty in the Department of the Gulf as master of transportation, does certify that, by order of Captain Locke, he took possession of the barge Brott & Davis, (in June, 1864,) and receipted therefor; had her taken to the general ship-yard and completely overhauled, and coupled with the barge Emma, securely, with heavy timbers and iron bolts.

The barges, as coupled, (Brott & Davis and Emma,) were loaded with horses and towed up the river under charge of Colonel Sherburne, United States Army. The barge Brott & Davis soon commenced leaking. The tow was taken to the bank, and the barge was unloaded and cut apart from the Emma, and left at the bank in a sinking