CITIZENS OF MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS. [To accompany Bill H. R. No. 546.] MAY 4, 1858. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of citizens of Marblehead, Massachusetts, and others, who served on board private armed vessels during the war of 1812, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully submit the following report: That, in the opinion of the committee, no valid reason exists which should operate against placing privateersmen on terms of perfect equality with soldiers and seamen enlisted in the regular service of the United States. Your committee find that, by the passage of the bounty land act of 1855, provision was made for the distribution of land among all who had served the country, either ashore or afloat, during any of the wars in which the United States had been engaged; and while the provisions of this act were extended so far as to benefit teamsters, who were employed by the army, it did not provide for privateersmen in any way. It would seem, therefore, that the failure to consider their claims might inferentially be regarded as an imputation upon their merits, or a deliberate manifestation of indifference thereto. In the opinion of the committee, either view of the case would be unjust, and they deem it unwise to allow this omission to pass without explanation or correction. The committee are disposed to recognize the private armed service as the legitimate offspring of our system of government; the authorities, of course, always keeping such control over it as strictly to guard against lawless adventure on the part of our citizens. We have no occasion for a large naval establishment in time of peace, and in time. of war we must, as heretofore, rely mainly upon our marine militia force, which experience has proved to be so reliable and effective in the conduct of all necessary marine adventure. The war of 1812 was brought to a speedy close by the pressure of public sentiment prevailing throughout Great Britain. The occasion of this sentiment was, that American privateers were rapidly destroying her commerce and affecting, directly and indirectly, every branch of business enterprize. The valor displayed by men on board our privateers was a subject of general commendation throughout the United States, as it was the theme of general complaint amongst those against whose interests it operated. Upon examination, the committee find that the United States government commissioned privateers and gave to this system of warfare its entire approval. The sale of prizes and prize goods was made under the supervision of United States officers, and large amounts of money were paid into the national treasury out of the proceeds of such sales. The committee would suggest, that if a few owners of vessels were well paid for the risk of their property in this species of enterprise, it is clear that the seamen were poorly paid in all cases, as would appear palpably if the mode of dealing with them and the plan of a privateer cruise were set forth in this report. Your committee also sulmit, that while seamen on board public armed vessels received prize money as well as monthly wages from the government, the privateersmen, with vastly greater risk to life and property, received a meagre proportion of prize money from sales of captured property, but no monthly wages at all from the govern ment. Your committee find that there were about fifteen thousand men and boys engaged in the private armed service during the war of 1812. Many of them were, from time to time, during the war, on board United States ships, and have consequently received bounty land under existing laws, and have, therefore, no claim under the provisions of this bill; many more have died, leaving no rightful claimants that can come under the proposed amendment to the law of 1855. It is, therefore, to be presumed that, by the lapse of time since the date of service, comparatively few can receive any benefit from its passage. In the opinion of your committee, these should be provided for, and they accordingly report the accompanying bill, with a recommendation that it do pass. 1st Session. No. 362. BENJAMIN WAKEFIELD. MAY 4, 1858. Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of Benjamin Wakefield, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report: The petition of the memorialist, Benjamin Wakefield, is, that he be allowed the difference of pay between that of a master's mate and boatswain, while performing the duties of the latter grade on board the United States ship "Preble." In an affidavit attached to his petition he deposeth that he entered the navy of the United States, at the navy-yard at Brooklyn, New York, on the 24th of June, 1846; that on the 15th of August following he was transferred from the said navy-yard to the United States ship "Preble," Commander W. F. Shields, and by him was ordered to perform the duties of boatswain of said ship, there being no officer of that grade attached to said ship, although the regulations of the Navy Department allowed such an officer; that at the request of Commodore Shields the memorialist wrote to Hon. George Bancroft, then Secretary of the Navy, asking that he should be appointed by the department a boatswain, or an increase of pay, should he be continued in the performance of the duties of that grade; that the Secretary of the Navy in his reply, directed to Commodore Shields, held forth inducements to the memorialist to hold on to the situation to which the said Commodore Shields had appointed him, until a vacancy should occur for promotion in that grade; that the memorialist proceeded to sea in said ship, and on arriving at the port of Callao he again applied, on the 29th of February, 1848, through Commodore Jones, commanding the Pacific squadron, to the Secretary of the Navy for an increase of pay or an appointment as boatswain; that the Secretary of the Navy, under date of 18th of May, 1848, issued an order to Commodore Jones to the following effect: "You are hereby authorized to give acting appointments to Benjamin Wakefield, &c., and drop his rate as master's mate on board the Preble, to take effect on the 1st of January last;" that subsequent to the receipt of said order the Preble sailed for San Francisco, thence to Monterey and Mazatlan, and thence to China, where, having cruised for a length of time, she returned to the Pacific station, communicating in September, 1849, with Commodore Jones at the Sandwich Islands, and subsequently, in December of the same year, proceeded to San Francisco, California; that on or about the 15th January, 1850, the above named order from the Navy Department to Commodore Jones was communicated to the memorialist for the first time, by Commander Glynn, then in command of the "Preble;" that the memorialist was at that time in bad health, and severely afflicted with rheumatism, induced, as he believes, by a continuous service of three years and seven months, in consequence of which he was compelled to decline said appointment, being entirely unfit for service, and to seek relief on shore; that he was discharged from the said ship on the 19th day of January, 1850. On the 29th of January last, when this memorial came up for consideration, the committee addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, asking for information as to the allegations of the memorialist in regard to inducements and promises held out to him by the department to retain his situation; in reply to which the following answer was received: "NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 3, 1858. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th ultimo, enclosing a memorial, with accompanying papers, of Benjamin Wakefield, praying to be allowed the difference of pay between that of a master's mate and boatswain in the navy, and requesting information in the case. "In July, 1846, the sloop-of-war Preble was fitting out at New York for the Pacific station, and there being no boatswain who could be ordered to her, Commander Shields, commanding the Preble, was authorized by the department, under date of July 6, 1846, to select a suitable person to perform the duties of boatswain, who was to be rated as boatswain's mate, and to be paid at the rate of $30 per month, during the cruise. Commander Shields, in his reply, July 15, expressed apprehensions that a suitable person to perform the duties of boatswain could not be obtained upon the terms prescribed, and suggested the propriety of assigning the rate proposed, and increasing pay to that allowed to a boatswain of a sloop-of-war. This the department, July 18, hesitated to do, and still hoped a suitable person could be obtained at $30 per month. "August 18, 1846, Benjamin Wakefield was rated as master's mate on board the Preble, the pay of which rate was $30 per month; and, in reply to an application from him to be appointed to the grade, (that of boatswain,) the duties of which he was temporarily performing, the department, September 18, 1846, stated that it was understood, at the time of his employment, that the department was under no engagement to appoint him, but that when a vacancy occurred his application would be considered. In May, 1846, in reply to a similar request from him, forwarded by Commodore Jones, commanding the Pacific squadron, the department stated to Commodore Jones that Benjamin Wakefield had no assurance from it of the appointment he claimed, but authorized him (Commodore Jones) to give him an acting appointment as boatswain, and to drop his rating as master's mate on board the Preble, to take effect on the 1st of January, 1848. "It appears from the memorialist's own statement that this appointment was never bestowed upon him. He was discharged from the Preble January 19, 1850. "The memorial and papers are herewith enclosed; also, copies of letters referred to in the foregoing statement. "I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, "Hon. THOMAS S. BOCOCK, "Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, "I. TOUCEY. Though the memorialist was not apprized of his appointment until more than two years after the date from which the department had ordered it to take effect, and as he had, during all this while, performed all the duties attaching to the said office of boatswain, the committee are unable to see any reasons why he should not be allowed the difference of pay between that of master's mate and boatswain, from the ordered date of his appointment to the time of his discharge, and accordingly report a bill for his relief and recommend its passage. |