JANUARY 2, 1846. The Committee of Claims, to whom were referred the petition and accompanying papers of John S. Devlin, administrator of Major Elijah J. Weed, late quartermaster of marines, report: That this case was fully and carefully investigated by the Committee of Claims at the 2d session of the 28th Congress, and a favorable report made thereon, (see report of said session, No. 155) The committee, having again examined the petition and papers in this case, and concurring in the principles of the report of the former committee, and which they adopt and make part of this report, herewith report a bill in accordance with the opinions therein expressed, and recommend its passage by the House. FEBRUARY 25, 1845. The Committee of Claims, to whom were referred the petition and accompanying papers of John S. Devlin, administrator of Major E. J. Weed, late quartermaster of marines, report: The petition and accompanying papers, which appear to have been drawn up with much care, fully set forth the equities of the case, and, as a favorable exposition thereof, are attached hereto. The committee do not concur in sundry of the propositions set forth, but do concur in the propriety and justice of others. The committee have, therefore, after due consideration, thought it just at once to the claimant and to the government to refer the whole matter to the proper accounting officers of the treasury for settlement upon fair and equitable principles. It appears that the estate of the deceased quartermaster of marines is insolvent; and it would seem to be but just to his securities to empower the treasury offcers to credit Major Weed's account to the extent that is evidently equi table, before calling upon them for the payment of any balance that may be made manifest. The committee herewith report a bill in accordance with the foregoing opinion, and recommend its passage by the House. To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: Your petitioner, John S. Devlin, administrator of Elijah J. Weed, late quartermaster of marines, deceased, shows: That, at the time the office of quartermaster of marines was established, and for some years afterwards, the duties were only those which properly belonged to the office. Navy agents and others disbursed the principal appropriations for the marine corps, and for which they received a per centage. That system was found inconvenient by the government, and it was abandoned; and the disbursements were thrown upon the quartermaster. This greatly increased his labor and responsibility, as he was required to discharge those duties which, in the army, are divided among the several departments of a commissary general of purchases, a quartermaster general, and a commissary general of subsistence. For these new duties the quartermaster was paid one per cent. on moneys disbursed. This was allowed and paid to Major Weed, from the commencement of his duties in 1822, until it was refused, under the proviso of the act of 1835, in relation to the Delaware breakwater. Major Weed still continued to discharge these duties until his decease, in March, 1838; and his representatives now claim, as an offset to the balance. claimed by the government, from the sureties of the late quartermaster, one per cent. for disbursements during the above period; the same compensation having been paid to him for the same service thirteen years. The second section of the act establishing and organizing a marine corps, passed the 11th of July, 1798, gives "to the quartermaster of marines the same pay and emoluments, when doing duty on land, as an officer of the same rank in the infantry." And again, by the fifth section of the act for the better organization of the United States marine corps, passed the 30th of June, 1834, it is provided that the officers of the marine corps shall be entitled to and receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or may hereafter be, allowed to officers of similar grades in the infantry of the army." The Attorney General, Mr. Butler, decided that the proviso of the act of 1835, above referred to, was a permanent law, and cut off all extra allowances for extra services subsequently to its date. This was most clearly an erroneous decision, as the proviso was limited, in terms, to the disbursements of moneys "appropriated at that session of Congress;" and so the Supreme Court decided in the case of Minis vs. the United States(15 Peters, 447.) On the ground of the decision of the Attorney General, the War Department adopted and published the following regulation: "The proviso in the act of Congress passed March 3, 1835, entitled 'An act making additional appropriations for the Delaware break water, and for certain harbors,' &c., and which prohibits the allowance of all extra compensation to officers of the army, has been submitted to the Attorney General for his opinion; and that officer has decided that it extends to, and prohibits the allowance of, all extra compensation, of any kind whatever, for which provision is not made by law. Hereafter, therefore, no such compensation will be allowed." This regulation was dated the 14th of March, 1835. Although the proviso was erroneously construed by the Attorney General, and the regulation of the War Department was founded upon that construction, yet, as extra pay had been allowed for extra services under the usages of the War Department, it was held by the Supreme Court, in the case of the United States vs. administrators of Eliason, (16 Peters, 292,) that the usage was liable to be abolished by that department. Under this regulation, ail allowance to the quartermaster of marines was cut off, under the decision of the treasury, for disbursements which he had received for more than thirteen years. Your petitioner would most respectfully suggest that the usages of the War Department do not regulate the usages of the Navy Department; and that the marine corps is under the control of the latter, and not of the former. By the acts above cited, the pay of the officers of the marine corps is the same as the pay of officers of the same grade in the infantry of the army; but the pay here referred to, including emoluments, it is supposed, is the pay and emoluments fixed by law. The extra duties heretofore imposed by the heads of the War and Navy Departments were so dissimilar in their nature and responsibilities, that no common rule of compensation could, at all times, be justly established. The facts of the present case will illustrate the truth of this remark. The allowance of one per cent. for disbursements to the quartermaster of marines was a permanent arrangement, though not specially authorized by law. It did not increase the public expenditure. Navy agents and others made the same disbursements previously, and received the same compensation. The duties and the compensation were transferred to the quartermaster of marines. This arrangement was in operation, it is believed, several years before 1822, when Major Weed's services as quar termaster commenced; and it continued until 1835, as above stated. Now, it is submitted that such an arrangement should not be placed on the same footing as the temporary performance of an extra duty. These extra duties were not such as appropriately belonged to the quartermaster of marines. They were such as in the army pertained, as above stated, to a commissary general of purchases, a quartermaster general, and a commissary of subsistence. Now, these various duties are never performed by a quartermaster of the army; and would it be just to limit the compensa tion of the quartermaster of marines, for the performance of these extra duties, to the compensation of a quartermaster of the army, who performs no similar duties? Your petitioner would respectfully represent, that, equitably, and under the circumstances, the army regulation above stated ought not to prevent the allowance to Major Weed's representative of the per centage charged for disbursements, which had been paid to him for so many years. Yet the accounting officers of the treasury, on that ground alone, have refused to credit the items charged for disbursements. Your petitioner would further represent, that, in the accompanying paper marked A, there is a list of other items rejected by the accounting officers, with the reasons, as stated by those officers, for their rejection; and also reasons stated why they should be allowed. The allowance of the items on this account would amount to very near the balance charged against Major Weed. His sureties will have to pay whatever the balance shall be. Believing that the facts above stated afford ground for the equitable interference of Congress, your petitioner respectfully prays that your honorable bodies would pass a law authorizing the accounting officers of the Treasury Department to adjust and settle the accounts of Major Weed, deceased, late quartermaster of marines, on equitable principles. And your petitioner will, &c. JOHN S. DEVLIN, Administrator of Elijah J. Weed, Late Quartermaster Marine Corps. A Remarks on certain rejected items in the acconnt of the late quartermaster of marines. Vou. 188, 3d qr. 1827, E. J. Weed, quartermaster.-Additional fuel from 17th October, 1822, to 31st March, 1825.. $287 00 Remarks by the Fourth Auditor: "His accounts for the usual allowance of wood for the same period having been previously settled, the additional quantity claimed is disallowed.' This charge is placed upon the ground that the quartermaster had only drawn the amount of fuel to which a lieutenant was entitled for the time stated, whereas he was entitled to draw fuel as a quartermaster; and the difference constitutes the item charged. The act of 11th July, 1789, which establishes the marine corps, provides that the staff of that corps, which includes the quartermaster, shall "receive the same extra pay and emoluments which are allowed by law to officers acting in the same capacities in the infantry." And the 7th section of the act to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," approved 2d March, 1821, provides that "there shall be two quartermasters, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry." Now, it is only necessary to turn to the allowance made to the quartermaster during the above period, to ascertain whether he had drawn the amount of fuel he was entitled to. A quartermaster of the army is entitled to two cords of wood a month; and if this amount was not drawn by the late quartermaster of marines, through mistake or inadvertence, the full allowance may now be claimed. The lapse of time cannot operate against the claim, if urged by the quartermaster himself; and much less should it operate against it when set up by his securities. The second section of the act of the 16th April, 1814, provides that "the adjutant, paymaster, and quartermaster of the marine corps may be taken either from the line of captains or subalterns; and the said officers shall, respectively, receive thirty dollars per month, in addition to their pay in the line, in full of all emoluments." This was a temporary law to increase the marine force during the war. By the act of 3d March, 1817, the marine corps was reorganized, reducing the number to a peace establishment; and, consequently, the above act of 1814 was abolished. That it has not since been considered in force, in regard to the emoluments of the quartermaster of marines, is shown by the above item rejected. No additional allowance for fuel would be made, as the usual allowance had been made. Now, if the quartermaster received thirty dollars in lieu of all emoluments per month, the above reason would not have been assigned. (See, also, other items.) Vou. 189, 3d qr. 1828.-For forage for one horse from 17th $452 00 Remarks of Auditor: "This item is disallowed, because the Secretary of the Navy declined authorizing forage to the quartermaster."-(See letter of Secretary to Fourth Auditor, 11th November, 1831.) At the time this item was charged, the Auditor endorsed on the voucher: "This account seems according to the regulations which have heretofore governed in the settlement of the accounts of the marine staff, and will be allowed." The quartermaster of marines, as before remarked, is entitled to the same rank, pay, and emoluments as a quartermaster in the army, who has the same rank, pay, and emoluments as a major of cavalry; and this officer, by the general regulations of the army, is entitled to forage for three horses. It would seem, therefore, that this allowance does in no respect depend upon the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, but is fixed by the law and the general regulations of the army. The quartermaster, instead of charging for one horse, was entitled to charge for three, if this number were kept by him in the service. Major Weed, in some written memoranda found among his papers, observes, in reference to this item: "The Comptroller states that there was no estimate for forage prior to June, 1828. On reference to the estimate, it will be found that there was no estimate for forage for any officer of the marine corps previous to the year 1825. "Forage was estimated for under the head of contingencies in that year, without designating for what particular class of officers it was intended. The quartermaster was exactly situated, with regard to the esti mate, as all other officers of the corps who received an allowance for forage.' The quartermaster stated that "such was the nature of his duties as absolutely to require a horse or horses." The letter of the Secretary of the Navy, above referred to by the Auditor, dated 11th November, 1831, does not refuse the allowance for forage, but says: "As there is no specific estimate for forage, this voucher can only be allowed from 'contingent of marine corps,' and not from that, unless by computation or otherwise it appears to have been embraced for this officer. If it was, he ought to have it. If any usage appears to have allowed it formerly out of the general contingent, I would conform to it, under the resolution of Congress." The fact that allowance was made for forage to other officers of the marine corps, under the head of "contingencies," whose claims for this allowance were precisely the same as those of the quartermaster, should have given to him the item claimed under the letter of the Secretary of the Navy. It is too narrow a construction of this letter to say the usage referred to was intended to be restricted to the quartermaster. It must have been intended to embrace officers of the marine corps; and they, it is understood, did receive the allowance under the general appropriation for contingencies. The quartermaster may have been ignorant of his rights, and consequently did not claim this allowance. For whatever cause he may have omitted to set up the claim, the inquiry now is, whether he was entitled to it; and on this point, it is believed, there can be little or no doubt. The law, as above remarked, regulated his rank, pay, and cmoluments. A failure to include this item, or any other to which an |