« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
Hagner, Auditor, notices Colonel Russell's certificate at length, recapitulating it; and then he says, after mentioning “that the Committee of Claims had it:”
“Resort has been had to the rolls, which show that the company, consisting of three commissioned and thirty-seven non-commissioned officers and privates, (40,) commenced service October 21, 1813, and remained till April 20, 1814. As regards the hay or fodder, without vouchers, evincing the captain to have purchased, paid for, and supplied the same to the horses of his company, the claim would not be admissible either by the accounting officers or by any of the disbursing officers in the Quartermaster's department. He alleges, it is observed, in his petition, X to X, underlined; but this, in the material part, appears to be repugnant to that portion of Colonel Russell's certificate, in which, after mentioning that little or no long forage was issued, he says, “because it was not to be had.” In reality, therefore, the claim would seem to be for a money allowance in lieu of long forage; and this has never, within my knowledge, been authorized by law or regulation. By law, commissioned officers had, at the time in question, the option of receiving eight dollars per month for each horse they were entitled to keep, in lieu of forage, when not drawn in kind; and the non-commissioned officers and privates had the option of receiving twenty-five cents per day, in lieu of rations and forage, when they provided the same; but neither were entitled to draw a part of the forage in kind and to be paid for the remainder. That, as regards the horses of this company, both officers and men drew the grain portion of the forage during the whole term, is not denied. Had there been either law or regulation to justify a further allowance, it could not have been made to the captain, (except as to his share,) without evidence of his being duly authorized by the several members of his company to act for them.
"The charge of transportation is too inexplicit to be judged of. From the certificate of Colonel Russell, it would seem to be for an allowance for the transportation of the baggage of the officers.
“If the United States provided the means for transporting the baggage of the company—and there is no allegation that none were so provided the officers should have availed themselves thereof, and were not entitled to any money allowance on that account.
« PETER HAGNER. 66 Mr. WHITTLESEY,
“Chairman Committee of Claims."
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
JANUARY 16, 1850.
Mr. Jones made the following
[To accompany bill S. No. 48.]
The Committee on Pensions, to which were referred the petition ands paper in the case of Isaac Watts Griffith, an invalid pensioner, who prays for an increase of pension, make the following report, to wit:
That it appears from the certificate of the Secretary of War that the said 1. W. Griffith was inscribed on the pension list at the rate of eight dollars ur month, to commence on the 28th of October, 1847.
Several petitions very numerously signed by citizens of the State of luwa of high respectability, joint resolutions of the legislature of the same bate, and also a letter from Major McKane, set forth in strong terins the sailant conduct of the then Sergeant Griffith whilst in the service of his
untry in the war with Mexico. The petitioners and Major McKane, ne of Mr. Griffith's commanding officers, a graduate of the West Point Military Academy, of the highest respectability, bravery, and intelligence, istify to the general good conduct, bravery, and zeal of Sergeant Griffith; that his services in the battles of Mexico reflected the highest honor upon imself and the regiment to which he belonged; that, at the sanguinary *attle of Churubusco, he unfortunately lost his right arm, by which he is deprived of the means of making a subsistence for himself and his fam1v;" and therefore pray that his pension may be increased, as has been done by Congress for others in similar cases.
The gallant Major McKane, in speaking of Sergeant Griffith, says, in a letter to Hon. A. C. Dodge, “\ take great pleasure in bearing testimony, from my own knowledge, to his soldier-like conduct and gallant bearing throughout his campaign in Mexico. I had ample opportunities to notice the conduct of the non-commissioned officers; and I can justly say that Mr. Griffith was equalled by few, and excelled by none, in a prompt, enarzetic, and faithful performance of all his duties. He was frequently detailed (out of his regular tour,) when a trusty non-commissioned officer as required for important and dangerous service, and he always acquitted 1. mself to the satisfaction of his officers.
“Mr. Griffith deserves great credit, also, for his assistance in organizing and disciplining the new troops, (especially his own company, which Ieudered them so efficient in the face of the enemy. He bore a conspicu
ous part in the defence of the train when attacked by guerrillas at · Taloma,' the National Bridge, and other places on his march from Vera Cruz to Puebla. With his regiment he crossed the pedrigal in front of
Contreras,' on the 19th of August, and participated in the assault from the rear on the morning of the 20th, and finally fell wounded at Churubusco, where more than one-third of the regiment melted away
before the heat of the enemy's fire."
For these considerations, the committee herewith report a bill for the relief of the said Isaac Watts Griffith.
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
JANUARY 16, 1850.
Mr. Jones made the following
[To accompany bill S. No. 49.]
The Commitlee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of John B. Barton, in behalf of himself and the other surviving children of the late General William Barton, submit the following report:
The petitioner states, “ that he is one of the surviving children of General William Barton, late of Rhode Island, deceased, who was an officer of the war of the revolution, and during an engagement with the enemy he received a most serious wound, in consequence of which his name was placed on the United States invalid pension roll, at the rate of thirty dollars per month, and which he continued to receive until he made application for the benefit of the act of Congress, passed May 15, 1828. Under the second section of this law his invalid pension was not only discontinued, but the amount withheld or deducted from March 3, 1826, to the time the act of May 15, 1828, took effect. That by the act of May 31, 1830, it was declared the second section of the act of May 15, 1828, shall not be construed to embrace invalid pensions, and that the pension of invalids shall not be deducted, &c. Had General W. Barton made application for the act of May 15, 1828, after the passage of the act of 1830, no deduction of invalid pension would have been made. It would, therefore, seem but justice that the invalid pension so deducted in this case should be paid, as it was not contemplated by Congress that the invalid pension should be withheld.”
In a communication from the Commissioner of Pensions, hereto annexed as a part of this report, he says, “the statement contained in the petition is correct;” and he recommends a special act granting a pension to the petitioners, from March 3, 1826, 10 October 22, 1831, at the rate of thirty dollars per month.
The committee are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and accordingly report a bill.
PENSION OFFICE, December 29, 1848. Sir: The petition of the heirs of William Barton is herewith returned. The statement contained in the petition is correct. If Congress should, by a special act, grant the relief asked for, viz: the pension of William Barton, as an invalid pensioner from March 3, 1826, to October 22, 1831, at the rate of $30 per month, it would be in accordance with the acts for the relief of the heirs of Anderson and Gibbs. The acts were passed June 15, 1836, and will be found in the 6th volume of Peters's edition Laws United States, page 637. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,