6

his certificate. The principle contended for, is simply this: Evidence is never complete until all objection to it is removed. Mr. Whittlesey says that this opinion was overruled. I do not think that it was. Attorney General discovered what had been the practice in Congress in cerWhen the tain cases of special legislation, he expressed a different opinion as to what might be considered necessary to complete the evidence, but he did not recede from the opinion, that evidence is never complete until all objection to it is removed. He had no where said, that this abstract proposition was erroneous, and no decision of the Department has ever proved that it was so considered. Congress declared, by the act of April 10, 1806, what should be received as evidence, and by a subsequent act it was declared that the pension should, in every case, commence at the time when such evidence was closed, i. e., when the last deposition was made. Reference being had to cases of special legislation, in order the better to determine what the intention of Congress was, it was found that the certificate of the clerk to authenticate the proceedings was not deemed essential to complete the evidence, and for this obvious reason: The act of April 10, 1806, did not require such a certificate, and it was only in some cases, where the evidence was taken before a State judge, that such a certificate was ever annexed. I agree with Mr. Whittlesey in all that he affirms respecting the act of 1806, which, however, has no bearing, I think, on the case of Moses Adams, because that law and the revolutionary pension laws direct very different rules of evidence to be observed. The act of March 1, 1823, under which Mr. Adams obtained a restoration to the pension roll, requires the evidence to be taken before a Court of Record, and makes the clerk's certificate a part of that evidence. That certificate being a part of the evidence, and which generally bears the last date, often determines the commencement of the pension. It was so in Mr. Adams's case. that I have used the word papers, which is not in the law, evidently to deMr. W. has been pleased to say, feat the claim. What motive I could have had for wishing to defeat the claim, no one can tell, I imagine. If that had been my object, it is not very likely that I would have written the sentence which immediately follows. I therein refer to the section and date of the law, and quote the precise words of the law. I never supposed that the use of words to explain the meaning of a law could be construed into false quotation, or I should have been more careful in the selection of suitable expressions. To me it cannot be a matter of any consequence when a pension commences. to discharge my duty faithfully. The laws and regulations are intricate and All that I desire is, perplexing in many instances, and if by them the Department should oc casionally be involved in apparent inconsistency, it ought not to cause surprise, and it certainly does not deserve censure.

I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

Hon. P. B. PORTER, Secretary of War.

JAMES L. EDWARDS.

RICHARD HARDESTY.

MAY 12, 1830.

Read, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Richard Hardesty, report:

That the petitioner asks to be paid for the damages he says he sustained, in the change made in the location of the Cumberland Road, at Wheeling Creek, by which his best land was occupied, and a valuable mill seat much injured, if not entirely destroyed, and for extra work done in the construction of a quantity of mason work, in making the road over his land.

It appears in his petition, that he gave liberty to the Commissioner who laid out the road, to pass over his land free of compensation; but he says he gave no liberty to alter the site of the road from where it was first located, nor were his mills to be injured. In a report made by the Commissioner to the Secretary of the Treasury, February 17, 1819, he says, the change of the road was opposed by the road makers, but not by the proprietors; and, that the contract vested him with the power, and he made the change. There is evidence among the papers to show, that his saw mill seat was injured by the change. Mr. Thompson, the superintendent, has given his deposition, but he is silent on this part of the case. To the full investigation of this subject, the committee would require of the petitioner the original or an authenticated copy of the conveyance made to the United States of the right of way over his land, and evidence that he objected to the change in the location of the road at the time, with reasons why the damages were not then assessed, and why his claim has lain dormant to this time. Without descending more into particulars, the committee will remark that the petitioner must establish his right by indubitable proof. There is proof that the petitioner performed extra labor on his mason work, which was not contemplated by the contract, but which gave permanency to it. It appears, however, by the deposition of Mr. Thompson, that Moses Shepherd was the original contractor, and that Mr. Skinner was a sub-contractor under him, and that the petitioner was a contractor under Mr. Skinner. There does not appear to have been any privity of contract between the petitioner and the United States, nor is there any evidence to show that the United States recognised him as a sub-contractor. An act was passed for the relief of Mr. Skinner, in May, 1824, which was understood at the time (and there is no evidence to prove the contrary) to include all the extra work performed

under his contract. The committee have examined among the printed reports, and the clerk's office, for the documents presented in the case of Mr. Skinner, without being able to find them. Before the committee would further investigate the case of Mr. Hardesty, they would require some evidence to show that there was a privity of contract between him and the United States, or that he was recognised as a sub-contractor, and thus dealt with, and that the compensation he now asks has not already been adjusted with Mr. Skinner. With this view of the case, the committee move the following resolution:

Resolved, That the petitioner is not entitled to relief.