Page images
PDF
EPUB

the papers in the case, and sustains the report of the committee in 1847 in favor of allowing the said sum of $550 99, and also an allowance of several other items in the heretofore rejected accounts o Purser Crosby, amounting to an additional sum of $218 97.

The committee concur in the opinion expressed by the committee of the 29th Congress in favor of the allowance of the $550 99 paid to the warrant officers of the Ontario, and with the Fourth Auditor, who thinks that, in addition to the above, a further sum of $218 97 on other items should be allowed.

There are amongst the papers lately filed by the agent of Mr. Judson several original vouchers for money paid out by Crosby, and which do not appear ever to have been allowed him, viz: First, one large table, March 5, 1843, $15. Second, for freight on specie, May 4, 1843, $30. Third, for beef, bread, and vegetables purchased for the United States ship Preble, April 12, 1845, $110 66. These vouchers and purchases appear to have been authorized and approved by the commanding officers of the ships in which Crosby was purser. These make up an additional sum of $155 66, which ought, in the opinion of the committee, to be allowed.

The Fourth Auditor, in his communication above referred to, admits the propriety of allowing the 26th, 27th, and 28th items of the suspended accounts of Crosby, if there was any evidence that he had ever received the drafts and treasury notes, which are the foundation of these items. Since that letter was received by the committee, the agent of the petitioner has filed the certificate of George Curtis, cashier of the Bank of Commerce, New York, in 1844, stating that Mr. Crosby, as purser of the Ontario, handed him $9,500 of treasury notes to sell for him, which Curtis sold at a discount of three-fourths per cent., the loss being $71 25, the identical amount charged in item No. 28, above referred to. There can be no doubt that this item ought to be allowed. In support of the 26th and 27th items, as above, letters of the then Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Upshur, are exhibited, of 9th May and 6th July, 1842, authorizing Mr. Crosby to draw on the department at thirty days' sight for such sums as he might want for the use of the ship, and to negotiate the drafts on the best terms that could be obtained in New Orleans. This is strong presumptive proof in support of these two items, and authorizes the committee to allow them. These three items make the sum of $271 25, and all added together make up an aggregate sum of $1,196 87. The committee have no hesitation in saying that, at least, the above sum ought to have been allowed Purser Crosby in the settlement of his accounts; and that as his surety, Mr. Judson, has been charged interest on the amount of Crosby's liability upon his official bond, it is reasonable and just that interest should be allowed on the above sum from the average period of the various expenditures, which would be about the first of January, 1843. The committee therefore report a bill for the said sum of $1,196 87, with interest at six per cent. from said date. There are several other items in Purser Crosby's suspended account which the committee have reason to think were just, but, as there is no proof to sustain them, they are reluctantly compelled to reject them.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 25, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. IVERSON submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Joseph G. Heaton, have considered the same and report:

The petitioner claims some balance of pay as an enlisted soldier during the late war with Great Britain, and also bounty land. No evidence is submitted by the claimant in support of his petition; the petition was, however, submitted to the Third Auditor for information. His letters, accompanied by one from the Second Auditor, show conclusively that the petitioner has long since been paid every dollar that was due to him, and that he has also received his land warrant and patent agreeably to law. He clearly has no claim against the government, and the committee therefore report adversely to his claim, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Third Auditor's Office, May 20, 1858.

SIR: The papers in the claim for pay alleged to be due Joseph G. Heaton, for services in the war of 1812, are herewith returned, and I have the honor to inform you that he enlisted in Captain Van Beuren's company, 29th infantry, on the 28th July, 1813, for one year; and before the expiration of the time for which he had enlisted, he re-enlisted for "during the war," and, as will be seen by the enclosed letter from the Second Auditor, was discharged on the 1st June, 1815, and was paid in full by Paymaster Gates.

Respectfully,

Hon. A. IVERSON,

United States Senate.

ROB. J. ATKINSON, Auditor.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Second Auditor's Office, May 17, 1858.

SIR Joseph G. Heaton, private in Captain Van Buren's company, 29th infantry, was discharged June 1, 1815. He had pay due from May 1, 1814. His pay (travelling allowances included) amounted to $111 40; additional pay, $20, and bounty, $50-making $181 40. From which was deducted $2 13 due United States for clothing, leaving the balance due $179 27, which was paid to him by Paymaster Gates.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ROBERT J. ATKINSON, Esq.,

Third Auditor, Present.

T. J. D. FULLER, Auditor.

. COM

278

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 26, 1858.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. CLAY made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Joint Resolution No. 45.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of Elizabeth Uber, who asks the amount of pension that her mother, who died in 1857, might have obtained under act of July 4, 1836, as widow of Philip Wirt, who was an ensign in the revolutionary army;

The petition of Andrew Chapman, who asks the amount of pension that his mother, who died in 1825, might obtain, if now living, as widow of his father, George Chapman, a revolutionary soldier, who died in 1798;

The petition of Dolly Lincoln, Margaret Smith, and Linda Sexton, who ask the amount of pension that their father, Noah Warriner, an officer of the revolution, might have received up to the time of his death, in 1849;

The petition of Cynthia Bishop, who asks the amount of pension that her father, Abram Foot, an officer of the revolution, might have received under the act of 7th June, 1832, up to the time of his death, in 1853;

The petition of James Hudgins, who, as son and administrator of Ruth Murphy, deceased, formerly widow of John Hudgins, deceased, a revolutionary officer, in behalf of himself and other heirs-at-law of said Ruth, asks the amount of pension that might have accrued to her under the act of 4th July, 1836, up to the time of her death, in 1847;

The petition of George Walters, asking amount of pension that his father, Michael Walters, and Elizabeth, his widow, might have obtained for said Michael's services as a revolutionary soldier;

The petition of the heirs of Thomas Stevens, asking the amount of pension that he might have obtained for his revolutionary services; The petition of the surviving children of Jerathmiel Doty, praying the amount of pension that he might have obtained for his revolutionary services;

The petition of Deborah Burlingham, asking the amount of pension which her father, James Dennison, might have obtained for his revolutionary services;

The petition of Charles T. Bruckner, as administrator of William White, asking the amount of pension he might have received as a revolutionary soldier, under the act of 7th June, 1832, for distribution among his heirs ;

The joint resolution directing the Secretary of the Interior to pay certain pension claims therein specified

Have had the same under consideration, and have instructed me to make an adverse report on each memorial and the resolution referred. Your committee report that, waiving all objection to the insufficiency of testimony in behalf of the claims preferred, they have not found in the acts cited by the petitioners, or in any other acts of Congress, any legal authority for the claim of a child, or grandchild, or personal representative of a soldier of the revolution, or of the child, grandchild, or personal representative of the widow of such soldier, to the amount of money that the father, grandfather, or mother might have gotten during life, if he or she had made the same or sufficient proof before the proper department of the government, except in a class of cases, within which none of these petitions are embraced. In the opinion of your committee, the laws make no distinction (except in the class of cases referred to) between the children, grandchildren, or heirs-at-law of deceased revolutionary soldiers or widows. If the annuity which a revolutionary soldier, or his widow, is authorized by law to receive, is property in which he or she has a vested right, by virtue of the law, even before he or she is enrolled as a pensioner, then it is descendable, according to the rules of the State of his or her domicil; then it is an inheritance which may be claimed by heirs, however remote, or it is subject to the payment of debts, and may be recovered by his or her creditor. Congress has never recognized this asserted vested right, although the Pension Office has, at different periods during the last twenty-five years, allowed many claims on the part of the children or grandchildren, or personal representatives, of such deceased soldiers or widows. On the contrary, Congress has always regarded and treated it as a mere bounty or gratuity, and has directed to whom it should go, after the death of the soldier or his widow, in every case where it was intended to be extended beyond the primary object of governmental favor. Thus, payment of the pension has been directed to be made to the widow, or, if no widow, to minor children under sixteen years of age, or to the children, or, if no child, to the legal representative, of the deceased, but not to be considered as assets of the estate, or liable to payment of its debts, regardless of the laws of domicil. As Congress has no constitutional power to regulate the descent or distribution of property in the States, it could not have passed such laws upon any other ground than that the patron may select and designate the beneficiaries of his bounty.

Besides, Congress has negatived this pretension of a vested right to pensions in virtue of the laws granting them, by declaring "that the right any person now has, or hereafter may acquire, to receive a pension, in virtue of any law of the United States, shall be construed to commence at the time of completing his testimony," &c.-(See sec. 2, act May 24, 1828, vol. 4, U. S. Statutes, p. 308.) Thereby denying the right of any person to a pension before or until he had made his

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »