1st Session. No. 54. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 15, 1850. Mr. YULEE made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 113.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of John Crosby, administrator of Andrew D. Crosby, report: It is alleged by the memorialist that he was commissioned as purser in the United States navy on the 13th September, 1841; and in the month of November following was ordered for duty on board the United States ship Ontario, then preparing at the New York navy yard for sea service. The officers and crew and a guard of marines were received on board during the months of January and February, 1842, and also the usual supply of stores in the various departments; after which, the ship proceeded to sea, bound for New Orleans, where she was to take her station as the receiving vessel of the recruits that were shipped for the naval service in that city. During the time the Ontario was preparing for sea, no forward officers had been ordered to the ship. The commanding officer, deeming it necessary to fill this deficiency, applied for and obtained permission from the commandant of the New York navy yard to select from the petty officers of the yard, or the receiving ship North Carolina, three persons to do the respective duties of boatswain, gunner, and carpenter, and who were assured to receive the pay as such. The selections were accordingly made, and the memorialist was directed to place on his books Joseph Reynolds, as acting carpenter, William Wilkerson, as acting gunner, and Charles Woodland, as acting boatswain, and pay them agreeably to their rates from the dates when they commenced their duties. The memorialist alleges that, when obeying this order, he was not aware that the vessel was considered otherwise than a sea-going ship, and it was only some time after her arrival at New Orleans that he was informed that no acting forward officers could be allowed, and their rate was, therefore, discontinued. One of these officers (William Wilkerson) had been discharged, however, on the 20th May, and two others were reduced to petty officers on the 1st September, 1842. Subsequent to this, Charles Woodland, by permission of the Navy Department, was again rated as acting boatswain on the 6th May, and continued to do duty until the 31st August, 1843, when the Ontario arrived at Norfolk, and her crew were discharged. Upon a settlement of his accounts, the sum of five hundred and fifty dollars and ninety-nine cents was disallowed, on account of the illegality of the employment of these warrant officers, and that sum was charged to the memorialist. Since the date of the original petition, Purser Crosby has fallen a victim to his patriotic efforts in the service of his country on the coast of Mexico, and his representatives have renewed the application. There cannot be the least question that Purser Crosby acted in perfect good faith, and his excuse is found in the fact that this transaction occurred immediately after entering the service as a purser, and while he supposed the order of his commanding officer in such cases required his obedience. Since that date, Congress has provided that all payments made by a purser under the order of his commanding officer shall be allowed in the settlement of his accounts, and the officer giving the order held responsible. Applying the principle of this legislation to the case of Purser Crosby, the committee report a bill for his relief. 1st Session. No. 55. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 15, 1850. Mr. YULEE made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 114.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of William A. Christian, report: It is alleged in the petition filed in this case by Purser Christian, that on assuming his duties on board the United States, steamer Princeton, a regular transfer was to him made, by Purser Upshur, of the accounts of the officers and crew of that vessel. Among these were the accounts of officers having acting appointments, namely: C. C. Bartling, acting sailmaker, William Taylor, acting boatswain, and James H. Conley, acting carpenter, to whom the memorialist continued to pay their salaries, as it had been done by his predecessors, Pursers McBlair and Upshur, on whose books they had previously been borne. The memorialist states that he knew the appointments of these officers had been made with the approbation of the Hon. Secretary of the Navy, and no orders had been received from the Navy Department or from Captain Stockton for their discharge from the service after the passage of the act of June 17, 1844, they being still continued in the performance of their respective duties. William Taylor, one of the above-named officers, was discharged on the 17th of July, 1844, and J. R. Fox appointed by Captain Stockton to succeed him as the acting boatswain of the ship. The memorialist states that having doubts whether this appointment would be approved by the department, he addressed the Fourth Auditor upon the subject, asking for information whether he could rightfully pay the salary of boatswain to Mr. Fox, under the existing law; that the Fourth Auditor referred this communication to the Hon. Secretary of the Navy, who returned it to the Auditor with the following endorsement: "September 15, 1843, Captain Stockton was authorized to select and rate a carpenter, boatswain, &c., the department having none at its disposal-let him be paid as rated. J. Y. M.;" which was promptly communicated to him (the memorialist,) in reply by the Auditor. This appointment and the approval were both subsequent to the passage of the act of June 17, 1844, and the memorialist alleges that he therefore felt no longer doubt respecting the propriety of paying these officers. Nor did he think he could afterwards hesitate to pay E. A. Yorke, as boatswain, when he was appointed by Captain Stockton to succeed Mr. Fox, who was discharged on the 15th December, 1844, as he had every reason to suppose that the department had recognised, by its former endorsement of approval, the power of Captain Stockton to make the appointment. The memorialist says that he continued under these impressions until he received a communication from the Hon. Mr. Bancroft, in which he is informed that "Mr. Yorke cannot be paid as boatswain," for reasons therein assigned. At the time this letter was received, however, Mr. Yorke had been discharged from the service, and paid off in full. During his stay on board, no apprehension was felt by the memorialist, as he states, respecting the propriety of paying him. "A proviso in the navy appropriation act of August 4, 1842, prohibited any increase of the officers of the navy beyond the number in the respective grades that were in service on the 1st day of January, 1842." As the warrant officers paid by Purser Christian had been employed in violation of this restriction, the Fourth Auditor very properly refused to allow a credit for the items of disbursement covering their pay. But the committee regard this to be a very proper case for relief by the legislative interposition. The acting Secretary of the Navy, Mr. A. Thos. Smith, in a letter dated September 15, 1843, expressly authorized Captain Stockton to select and rate men for the places of carpenter, boatswain, &c. At the time Mr. Christian joined the ship he found these men enrolled and rated for pay by his predecessors, without intimation of objection from the department. When beatswain Taylor was discharged and a new appointment made by Captain Stockton, apprehending some possible diffi-. culty at the accounting offices, he wrote to know whether he should place the new appointec upon the roll, and received a reply which reiterated and confirmed the authority of Captain Stockton, and was well calculated to satisfy all doubts as to the propriety of the payments made to the several other warrant officers of the ship. This last letter is so explained by the Fourth Auditor, as to relieve that excellent officer from any imputation of carelessness, but the fact still stands that the letter which Purser Christian received was a reasonable ground for believing the payments he was making were approved at the department. The letters which are referred to are annexed. It is doubtful whether the proviso in the act of 1842 was intended to apply to warrant officers. Be that, however, as it may, so inconvenient was the operation of it found to be, that Congress, by the act of March 3, 1847, repealed the restriction so far as applied to the appointment of boatswains, gunners, carpenters, and sailmakers. The committee believe that Purser Christian made the payments under an honest belief, founded upon reasonable grounds, that he was bound to do so, and that the payments were legal. No other person than the Secretary of the Navy was authorized to determine when the complement of officers in any particular grade was full; and the fact of his authority to Captain Stockton to make these appointments, indicated to all the subordinates of the department that the list of the grade mentioned was not full, and that the appointments were legal. Whatever fault there was in the transaction was on the part of the acting Secretary of the Navy, who disregarded the existing law; and his fault ought not to be visited in judgment upon Mr. Christian. The committee report a bill for the relief of Purser Christian. 1st Session. No. 56. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 18, 1850. Mr. FELCH made the following REPORT: The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the petition of Thomas Webb and John Cookern, register and receiver of the land office at Greensburg, Louisiana, for an increase of compensation, respectfully report : That it appears, from information obtained at the General Land Office, that there have been no sales at the Greensburg office since 1837, and will not be again until the resurveys in that district are finished, which will probably be in the course of one or two years. When these are completed, it is very possible that it may be found expedient to merge that office into the Land Office at New Orleans, both as a matter of economy to the government and of convenience to the public. However that may be, the committee can see no propriety, while the petitioners are receiving a salary of five hundred dollars each, with no duties to perform, and none in immediate prospect, in increasing their compensation. They therefore recommend that the following resolution be adopted: Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners be denied. |