1st Session. No. 153. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JUNE 17, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed. Mr. JONES made the following REPORT: The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of citizens of Clay county, Indiana, in behalf of the widow of Thomas West for a pension, report: That by existing provisions of law the widow of said West will be placed on the pension list on forwarding sufficient proof of the facts alluded to in the petition to the Commissioner of Pensions. The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of said petition. 1st Session. No. 154. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON THE MEMORIAL OF LOUISIANA ELIZABETH LEE ALICE RIPLEY, (NOW MRS. LAWSON,) THE ONLY SURVIVING CHILD OF THE LATE GENERAL ELEAZER W. RIPLEY: WITH THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY OF THAT COMMITTEE. JUNE 18, 1850. WASHINGTON: PRINTED FOR THE SENATE. 1850. 1st Session. No. 154. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JUNE 18, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed. Mr. BUTLER made the following REPORT: The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Louisiana Elizabeth Lee Alice Ripley, (now Mrs. Lawson,) the only surviving child of the late General Eleazer W. Ripley, have had the same under consideration, and ask leave to submit the following report: The memorial states that while General Ripley was employed in the military service of the country, as major general of the southwestern division, he had devolved upon him important duties, independent of his proper command: among other functions, he was required to discharge the duties of quartermaster and disbursing officer of his division; that, after his resignation, in 1822, the government instituted suits against him to have his accounts settled. These suits being consolidated, the General pleaded against the government a discount. The items of the set-off thus pleaded consisted of claims against the government for commissions on money disbursed as quartermaster, and for other services not falling within the proper sphere of his command as major general. The case was submitted to a jury; and, by their verdict, they found that the government was indebted to General Ripley $3,000. A second trial was had, in which General Ripley filed a claim, as part of his discount, of $6,000, alleged to be due him as a pension from the government. On the trial the jury found a verdict for General Ripley of $20,000. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, mainly to decide the question whether the $6,000 allowed as a pension was a proper item of discount. Before the court had decided the question, Congress allowed the pension to General Ripley; and thereupon the accounts of General Ripley were ordered to be balanced and settled at the treasury. His daughter, the memorialist before us, now comes and says that there are still $14,000 due her father's estate, and coming to her as his only heir. In no legal point of view can the verdict be regarded as valid against the government, so as to impose upon it an obligation to pay it as authorizing any judgment. This admitted that no judgment can be entered upon it; and then the question occurs, can or ought it be regarded as such evidence of a claim against the government as to call upon it to allow it? Such a verdict is not like the decision of auditors, setting forth the grounds upon which it was founded. If so, the committee would have felt bound to review the grounds of the decision, and, in passing |