1st Session. NATHANIEL CHILDERS. MARCH 29, 1830. Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, made the following REPORT: The Committee of Claims, to which was recommitted their report of January 26th last, in the case of Nathaniel Childers, with his petition and documents, report: was The committee refer to the report above mentioned, and make the same a part of this report as fully as if the same was here recited. The facts are so fully set forth in that report, and in one made at the 1st session of the 17th Congress, that the committee think it is unnecessary to review the testimony. In the report last made, the committee, "considering that the petitioner removed from Richmond to Norfolk, and the difficulty of travelling through the country, the committee entertain the opinion, that the compensation was not adequate to the expenses incurred, and the services performed." The report made at the 1st session of the 17th Congress, was based on the inexpe diency of reviewing or reversing the decision of the District Judge; and of establishing a precedent by special legislation, which might lead others to come here, and ask for increased compensations. It is to be noticed, that Mr. Childers appointed on the 1st of June, 1821. In looking into the correspondence between Mr. Pegram, the Marshal, and Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, it appears Mr. Pegram, in a letter, dated 17th of May, 1821, states, that "he had had a conversation with Judge Tucker, on the subject of tendering the additional pay allowed by law, but that he appeared decidedly opposed to making that allowance." The following provision among others is contained in the 4th section of the act of March 14th, 1820: "but where, from the dispersed situation of the inhabitants in some divisions, one dollar will be insufficient for one hundred persons, the Marshals, witl: the approbation of the Judges of their respective districts or territories, may make such further allowance to the assistants in such divisions, as shall be deemed an adequate compensation." It evidently was the intention of Congress that the decision of the Judge should be made after the services of the assistants were performed, when he would have a full knowledge of those services; the number of persons enumerated; and the dispersed situation of the inhabitants within his district; and also, that this decision should be made in each individual case, and the compensation varied to meet the justice and equity of each case. In this case it appears, when comparing the date of the letter of Mr. Pe ̃ gram with the appointment of Mr. Childers, that the decision of the Judge was made in reference to all of the districts in the Eastern section of Virginia, before the time these services were performed, and when it was impossible for the Judge to have known what amount of compensation would put the assistant in that district on a footing of equality with the other assistants. The different reports have considered the case as one of hardship. The committee adhere to the position heretofore taken, that the decision of a judge should not be reviewed or reversed on slight grounds; but, inasmuch as the attention of the judge does not appear to have been drawn to this particular case detached from others, the committee question whether the meaning of the law has been complied with, and under the circumstances of the case, have concluded to refer the question of compensation to the Circuit Court. By including the circuit judge, greater security will be insured against any improper allowance. JANUARY 26, 1830. The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Nathaniel Childers, report: That this case was examined at the 1st session of the 17th Congress, and a report was made adverse to the prayer of the petitioner, which may be found in the printed reports of that session, No. 35, vol. 1st, to which the committee refer, and make the same a part of this report. Subsequently to that time, several papers have been filed, containing the statements and certificates of different gentlemen of high standing for their moral integrity, generally designed to prove that the compensation allowed to Mr. Childers was inadequate to the services he performed, in taking the fourth census of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia. The statements and certificates mentioned, have not, with but few exceptions, been verified by the oaths of the persons who signed them, and would not, if now presented for the first time, be received by the committee to prove the statements of the petitioner; but, as they have remained on file from the year 1822, and no exceptions taken to them, and as it might subject the petitioner to much inconvenience (if they were rejected) to take his testimony anew, and as many of the persons may be dead, or removed to a distance, the committee have examined the papers presented, and attached to them the credit to which they would be entitled if sustained by the oaths of the persons who gave them. The petitioner presents the following account : 1821. UNITED STATES to NATHANIEL CHILDERS, To taking the census of Norfolk County. Number of persons 15,479, at $250 per 100, CR. By cash received of the Marshal, This sum asked for, DR. 386 971 232 184 $154 79 The committee cannot ascertain, with accuracy, from the papers, the number of days the petitioner was employed in performing the service, but it is believed the service commenced on the 1st of June, and ended the 1st September. Mr. Moore, the Marshal of the Eastern District of Virginia, commenced taking the 4th census, but there were several counties, and among them was the county of Norfolk, in which he could not obtain assistance to take it. Mr. Pegram was appointed marshal in April, 1821, and Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, was very solicitous that the census in Virginia sould be completed by the 1st of September, 1821, the limit to the extenson of the time given, under the act of March 3d, 1821, to the act of the 14th of March, 1890, and pressed on Mr. Pegram, in several of his communications, the necessity and importance of having the returns made within the period mentioned. Mr. Pegram could not procure any person in the County of Norfolk, competent to the business, who was willing to take the census. Mr. Childers, at the time, was residing at Richmond, and agreed to remove his family to Norfolk, and accept of the office of assistant, and take the census in Norfolk county. He performed the duty to the acceptance of the Marshal, and of the Secretary of State. By the 4th section of the act of 14th of March, 1820, he was entitled to one dollar for every 100 persons enumerated, and to such further allowance as the District Judge and Marshal thought proper to make. He was allowed by the Judge and Marshal twenty-five cents, in addition, for each 100 persons, and the Secretary of State allowed him 20 per cent. for taking the manufactures. The petitioner rests his claim on the inadequacy of his compensation, and on the understanding and condition, that he was to receive to the extent of what the law allowed, which was $1 25 for every fifty persons enumerated. In stating his account, the petitioner has evidently committed an error. He received, as it appears by Mr. Adam's statement, $197 474 cents, for taking the census, and for taking the manufactures, $39 49. If he is entitled to $2 50 for each 100 persons, the amount he received for taking the manufactures should not be deducted, as this amount was paid for a separate and distinct service; and he would therefore be entitled to $197 471, instead of $154 79, as he has stated in his account. As Mr. Adams stated the account, the petitioner received $236 964, instead of 232 184 credited by him. Considering that the petitioner removed from Richmond to Norfolk, and the difficulty of travelling through the county, the committee entertain the opinion that the compensation was not adequate to the expenses incurred, and the services performed; still they do not believe that Congress should interfere. The law very wisely submitted the question of extra compensation to the decision of the District Judge and Marshal, who must, necessarily, be better qualified to determine as to what allowance should be made, than Congress; and although they might not have been able, in every individual case, to do exact justice, it is believed they have approached nearer to it than is in the power of Congress to do. Decisions, made by competent authority, should not, on slight grounds, be reviewed, much less, reversed. Mr. Pegram states, there are other cases of great hardship in Virginia, and it is believed they are not confined to that State. The Norfolk district, from its inlets, morasses, and marshes, is more difficult of being traversed than most of the districts in the United States, and the committee would have been satisfied if the Judge and Marshal had extended the compensation of Mr. Childers to the amount now asked; but as they did not, the committee think, after a full consideration of the case, that, to make a farther allowance by special act, will necessarily bring numerous applicants to Congress, to review decisions long since made, in similar cases of hardship. Mr. Childers wholly fails to prove that there was any agreement made by the Marshal as to the amount of compensation he was to receive. The committee presents its views to the House, and will cheerfully acquiesce in any decision it may be the pleasure of the House to make. Resolved, That the petitioner is not entitled to relief. |