Page images
PDF
EPUB

1st Session.

No. 80.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARCH 6, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. BALDWIN made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of a large number of the citizens of Michigan, praying that compensation be made to the widow and children of Herbert La Croix, for property destroyed by the enemy during the last war with Great Britain, having had the same under consideration, report:

That by an act of Congress approved April 7, 1830, the sum of $1,150 was directed to be paid out of the treasury to Herbert La Croix, in full satisfaction for the destruction of his dwelling-house by the British and Indians at Frenchtown, on the river Raisin, on the 23d of January, 1813, (the day specified by the memorialists,) and at the time of its destruction in the military occupation of the United States.

As no reason has been shown to the committee why any further grant should be made to the widow and children of said La Croix for the destruction of his property on that occasion, they recommend that the prayer of the memorialists be not granted.

[blocks in formation]

The Committee on Public Lands, in obedience to a resolution adopted by the Senate, instructing them to inquire whether an amendment to the act of February 11, 1847, so as to authorize the sale or assignment of land warrants before they are actually issued at the office, is necessary or expedient, and to whom also were referred certain documents on the same subject, submit the following report:

The ninth section of the act above referred to, entitled "An act to raise for a limited time an additional military force, and for other purposes," provides for the issuing of bounty land warrants to the soldiers serving in the war with Mexico; and further provides that "all sales, mortgages, powers, or other instruments of writing, going to affect the title or claim to any such bounty right, made or executed prior to the issue of such warrant or certificate, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever; nor shall any such claim to bounty right be in any wise affected by, or charged with, or subject to, the payment of any debt or claim incurred by the soldier prior to the issuing of such certificate or warrant." The same section also provides, in the event of the death of the soldier before his certificate or warrant is issued, that the same shall be issued to his family or relatives; first to his widow and to his children; second, his father; third, his mother.

The above recited provision making void every act designed to divest the soldier of his bounty land right until after the warrant was issued to him, was intended for his security and protection. The resolution referred to the committee contemplates the removal of the restriction, and enacting a provision authorizing a sale and assignment of the warrants before they are issued. This may, perhaps, be understood to apply only to assignments made after the law shall go into effect. The case stated in the documents submitted is one in which the assignment was made some time since, and the applicant desires to have such assignments made valid and effectual.

It is estimated at the proper departments that the whole number of soldiers entitled to bounty land under the law, was about ninety thousand; about eighty thousand of whom have already received their warrants. Of the remaining ten thousand, there are undoubtedly many who will feil to make application for warrants.

The number yet to be issued is so small that little or no delay in obtaining the warrants at the proper office is experienced. At one time the pressure of business, and consequent delay in acting upon applications for warrants, might have afforded some reason for desiring on the part of the soldier authority to sell before the issuing of the warrant. But at the present time, no such reason can justly be urged. The proof required is so simple, and the action upon such application so immediate, that there seems to be no good reason for changing the law on this account.

As to assignments of this character already made, an attempt by legislative enactment to give them validity would involve questions of right, as well as policy, not without difficulty. In many instances, the soldier has, since the assignment, obtained his warrant, and now holds it in his own right; in other instances, he has obtained his warrant and located his land under it. Can any legislation divest him of his present interest, and give validity to the prior assignment? In some cases, the warrant has been assigned to bona fide purchasers since it issued; in others, the soldier has located his land and conveyed it to third persons. In many instances, both the warrant before the location of it, and the land after location, have passed through several intermediate transfers to the present owners. It cannot be contended that any legislation could or should give validity to the prior assignments, to the destruction of present rights. Some cases there undoubtedly are where warrants have not yet issued, in which assignments have been made. But in some of these cases, the soldier has deceased since the assignment; and in that event, the right to the warrant is already vested by the law in the wife and children, the father or the mother, and cannot be divested by attempting to give validity to the prior assignment. Instances may also be found in which several assignments of the same right have been made, and a conflict among the claimants may be presented.

If validity is now to be given to such assignments, it is clear that a wide door will be opened to fraud both upon the soldier and the government. The department will be called upon to decide important and difficult questions as to the rights of parties, and to receive proofs and determine upon evidence, which will, almost necessarily, be of a loose, informal, and unsatisfactory character. It was evidently one object of the law in prohibiting such transfers, to avoid such a necessity. The numerous frauds which, under the present provisions of law, have been attempted, and in some instances effected, in connexion with the rights of the soldiers, admonish us to open the door no wider than necessity renders unavoidable to fraud and perjury.

The committee can see no reason, founded or any rights of the assignees of such warrants before issued, to require the proposed change in the law. The assignees purchased without authority of law, and knowing that by it the assignment was absolutely void. There is no hardship in leaving them to abide by the rule.

The committee are satisfied from a view of the whole subject that no good purpose can be subserved by the change proposed, and that legislation in regard to it is both unnecessary and inexpedient. They submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That legislation on the subject is inexpedient.

1st Session.

No. 82.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MARCH 6, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee on Commerce having considered the petition of D. P. Barhydt, of New York, report:

That the petitioner alleges he was a clerk in the custom-house of New York on the first day of July, 1849, and for a long time previous; that he was taken sick and unable to perform his duties early in that month, of which he gave notice to the collector; that, pursuant to medical advice, he removed to Saratoga Springs, where he had a physician who was of opinion that he could not be recruited for business short of a month, and on the 16th of July wrote to that effect to the family physician of the petitioner in New York, which letter was shown to the collector; that without any previous notice, the collector, on the 6th day of August, appointed a person to fill the place occupied by the petitioner, who entered upon the duties of his office; that the petitioner was first made acquainted with this proceeding when he returned to the custom-house to resume his duties on the 30th of the same August; that it was the duty of the collector to give him notice of the new appointment; and having failed so to do, the petitioner has a lawful right to compensation till he had information of that fact on the 30th of August. He claims on this ground ninety-six dollars twenty-seven cents, which has been refused to him, and he prays relief of Congress.

The petitioner, to sustain this claim, must maintain in the first place that, though sick and unable to perform any service, he is entitled to compensation; and secondly, that whether sick or well, and whether he performed or neglected his duties, he is entitled to compensation till notified of his dismissal from office.

The committee do not acquiesce in either of these positions. The performance of the service assigned to one entering upon such a duty is a condition precedent, and nothing short of such performance can raise any claim to compensation. The obligations of the government in this particular do not vary from those in private life, and it is a mistake to suppose that sickness gives a right to compensation without service. It is equally clear that when an officer voluntarily absents himself from duty from any cause, and the collector deems it to be his duty to appoint a

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »