Page images
PDF
EPUB

It appears by the letter of the Commissioner of Customs of the 13th day of February, 1850, addressed to the Hon. Joseph R. Chandler, of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives, that the said W. P. Wallace & Co. applied to the Secretary of the Treasury to refund to them the duties paid as aforesaid; but that the said Secretary was of opinion that, as the claim did not come within the provisions of the act of Congress approved the 3d of March, 1849, (in relation to military contributions collected in Mexico,) which limits the power of the Secre tary of the Treasury to cases where the duties were "improperly levied or imposed," he could not refund the said duties under that act.

The Commissioner of Customs, to whom the claim of the said W. P. Wallace & Co. was referred for examination by the Secretary of the Treasury, states in his letter aforesaid that the amount paid for duties as aforesaid by the said W. P. Wallace & Co. ought to be refunded to them. From the foregoing statement of facts, your committee are satisfied that the amount of duties paid as aforesaid by the said W. P. Wallace & Co. ought to be refunded to them by the United States, more especially as the council of administration who arranged and fixed the tariff of prices aforesaid did not take into consideration at the time, the fact that the said W. P. Wallace & Co. might be compelled to pay duties on goods which they might thereafter import into Mexico. They therefore report a bill in conformity to these views, and recommend the passage thereof.

1st Session.

No. 161.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 5, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. UNDERWOOD made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of U. B. Hill, administrator of Gilbert Stalker, deceased, respectfully report:

That this claim was reported upon favorably by the Committee of Claims during the 2d session of the 30th Congress, and the report then made was ordered to be printed on the 23d January, 1849. Since that time, additional documentary evidence has been obtained from the quartermaster's department, which, in the opinion of the committee, proves that the claim ought not to be allowed.

It clearly appears, from the documents furnished by General Jesup, Quartermaster General, and Major Thomas, quartermaster, that the steamer James Adams was chartered on the 28th April, 1841, and entered the service of the government under a stipulation to continue therein one month, and for "as much longer period as may be required by the party of the first part"-to wit, by the United States. Under this contract, reduced to writing in due form, the government was bound to pay for the services of the boat at the rate of $2,000 per month. It appears from an account filed, that the government paid at this rate for the services of the boat up to the 9th of July, 1842, when the boat was discharged. It appears from the statement of Major Thomas, that immediately preceding the date of the contract, the government had in its employment three steamers, to wit: the St. Matthews, James Adams, and T. Salmond, owned by private individuals; and that the public service did not require that more than one of them should be retained. Major Thomas therefore determined to discharge the whole of them, but at the same time to give notice that one of them would be retained. He accordingly made this public, and invited proposals from the whole as to the terins upon which they were willing thereafter to continue in the service of the government. The owners and agents of the boats made the same proposals, and Major Thomas selected the Thomas Salmond as the boat to be rechartered that boat being in his opinion best suited for the service. But he was ordered by General Armistead to recharter the James Adams, and did so at the price of $2,000 per month, as already stated. After the discharge of the James Adams on the 9th of July, the government again had use for the services of a steamer, and orders were given on the 24th September, 1842, to charter a boat as early as practicable: the James Ad

ams was accordingly chartered on the 28th of the month. By the contract she was to continue in the service of the government for one month, and as much longer as her services might be required, and to be paid at the rate of $1,800 per month. Under these contracts, regularly reduced to writing, the owners of the boat have been paid all that was promised. The claim of the memorialist is founded upon the promise of General Worth to allow an additional compensation of $500 per month. There is no pretext for making any such allowance for the time between the 9th of July and the 28th of September, 1842, because the boat was not then in the service of the government. There is as little reason for making any additional allowance for the time the boat was in service under the new charter dated 28th of September. Nor can the committee consent to make any additional allowance upon the mere promise of the commanding officer, never reported to the departinent, and when it does not appear that any extraordinary circumstances justified such a promise. It is much safer to rely on the written contract, remaining in full force; especially when it appears that another boat, (the T. Salmond,) and one preferred by the quartermaster, was ready and willing to engage in the service of the gov ernment at the price which has been paid the owners of the James Adams. It moreover appears that, during the thirteen months and more, during which the James Adams continued in the service of the govern. ment under the charter-party of April, 1842, and during which time her owners were from time to time paid for the services of the boat, no additional compensation was demanded. The committee, under all the cir umstances, consider it their duty to recommend an adherence to the written contract, and therefore propose that the following resolution be adopted: Resolved, That the claim of U. B. Hill, administrator of Gilbert Stalker, praying payment for the use of the steamboat James Adams, be rejected.

1st Session.

No. 162.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 9, 1850.

Submitted, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FELCH made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 136.]

The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a joint resolution of the legislature of Indiana relative to a marsh and wet tract of land in the counties of Jay and Adams, and also a bill directing a sale of marsh land in the counties of Jay and Adams, in the State of Indiana, respectfully report:

That they cannot recommend the granting of the above mentioned application, or the passage of the bill referred to them. The annexed letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office exhibits the facts in the case so far as they appear at that department; and the committee are of opinion that the case does not present facts which should take it out of the general rule applicable to swamp lands. The special legislation proposed is not only inconsistent with the general rule, but annexes to the sale conditions of reversion, which would bring trouble and expense to the department having charge of the public lands greatly above the amount which would be received from them. It would be much better to grant them at once to the State of Indiana; and, indeed, from the description given of them in the resolutions of the legislature, it would seem they must be within that class of lands for the ceding of which to the State a bill has passed the Senate at the present session of Congress. The committee therefore recommend that both the resolution and the bill be laid on the table.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
March 6, 1850.

SIR: I have the honor to return herewith a draught of a Senate bill "directing the sale of marsh lands in the counties of Jay and Adams, in the State of Indiana," left by you at this office for a report of facts in the case; and also for the expression of opinion as to the expediency of granting the prayer of the petitioners.

As to the facts in the case, you are advised that the quantity of land remaining vacant within the townships indicated in the body of the bill is

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »