Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Meanwhile, the Commissioners, who had returned to Missouri, were of ficially advised that no arrangement was likely soon to be made between the two governments for the continuation of the road through the Mexican territory; and they consequently determined not to join Mr. Sibley in New Mexico, but wrote him by the Spring caravan, on the 19th of May, 1826, to urge his immediate return home. This communication was received by Mr. S. on the 1st day of August, who immediately made such preparations as were necessary for his return, determining to make a complete survey and examination of the route from San Fernando, in Taus, to the boundary line, and connect it with the survey recently made from Fort Osage to the same point.

Mr. Sibley adopted this course without the least hesitation, because it was authorized by the Mexican government, would be attended with little or no additional expense, and would, in effect, enable the Commissioners to complete the whole road from Missouri to Taus, as perfectly as it could be done under any arrangement, however formal, that the two governments might ever enter into on the subject. He accordingly commenced a survey at San Fernando, on the 24th of August, ran it through the Mexican territory, and, on the 16th of September, connected it with the former survey at the line, on the Arkansas river. On the journey from the boundary line to Fort Osage, Mr. Sibley made some necessary corrections of the first survey, but had not time, or indeed the means, to mark out the road," or, in fact, to complete all the necessary alterations in the survey of the first one hundred and sixty miles from Fort Osage, which, as has been already stated, was passed over at first, under circumstances that made a satisfactory survey it impossible.

of

Mr. Sibley went out in May last, with a small party, to make the last mentioned corrections of the survey, and to "mark out," by suitable mounds, so much of the road as extends from the Western boundary of Missouri, to the Buffalo Range, beyond which, it was entirely useless to incur any expense in setting up marks. This last object was effected in a very satisfactory manner, (no:withstanding the journey was extremely unpleasant) and was completely finished early in July.

The Commissioners had the honor, on the 10th of January last, to submit to the President the opinion (which they still entertain, and beg leave here to report) that it is unnecessary for the Government of the United States to do any thing further in relation to that section of the road that has been surveyed through the Mexican territory. Even if it were practicable to "mark out" that portion of the road, by permanent artificial "works," they would deem it a very useless expense of money and labor, for the reason already given in another part of this report.

In the belief, therefore, that they have effected all the objects proposed by the act of Congress, under the authority of which they were appointed, the Commissioners report.

That they have surveyed, located, and marked out, a road from the Western frontier of Missouri to the confines of New Mexico, and from thence to the frontier settlements of New Mexico. That they have located the read upon the best practicable route that exists; and that the whole is sufficiently marked out by natural and artificial conspicuous objects, and by the track of the numerous caravans that have passed on it, to prevent in future any the least difficulty in the commercial intercourse between the Western parts of the United States and New Mexico. Sonora, and Chihuahua, in so far as a

1st Session.

BENJAMIN PENDLETON.

MAY 31, 1830.

Mr. CAMPBELL P. WHITE, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, made the

following

REPORT:

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to which was referred the petition of Benjamin Pendleton, of Stonington, Connecticut, beg leave most respectfully to report:

That the petitioner represents that, in the month of November, 1828, being at New York with the brig Seraph, of Stonington, then having a cargo on board on freight for Malaga, he was applied to by Mr. J. N. Reynolds, as agent for the Navy Department, and requested by him to accept an appointment in the exploring expedition at that time preparing for the Pacific Ocean and South Sea, and also to dispose of his said vessel to Government for that expedition: that petitioner stated to said agent his vessel was chartered for the voyage already mentioned, and that, of course, he must conform to the agreement to which he was a party; but he was earnestly solicited by Mr. Reynolds to delay proceeding on the contemplated voyage until the pleasure of the Department could be known on the subject: that, soon afterwards, the petitioner received a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, communicating to him the determination of the Department, with the approbation of the President of the United States, that he would receive the vessel at such price as might be fixed upon by Mr. Hart, the Naval Constructor at Brooklyn, and Mr. Henry Eckford, of New York, provided these gentlemen should deem her well fitted for the expedition; and expressing, at the same time, distinctly, to the owner, that, should the purchase not be sanctioned by Congress, the vessel would be restored unimpaired. The Secretary, without any solicitation on his part, tendered to him the appointment of pilot for the expedition, with the compensation of a Lieutenant in the Navy. That, after the said proposition and appointment had been accepted, the Collector of the port of New York declined to grant a permit to reland the cargo without a special order from the Secretary of the Treasury; "and the owners of the cargo refused to release the vessel from the contract to carry the same unless a sum little short of $3,000 should be paid to them in consideration therefor. This information was duly communicated to the Secretary of the Navy, and, in the mean time, the petitioner was requested by the agent to make the necessary advance of the amount, in order to absolve the said vessel from the engagement. That, subsequently, an order was received by the Collector from the Secretary of the Treasury, to permit the relanding of the cargo, which having been accom

[ocr errors]

plished, the vessel was delivered over to Commodore Chauncey, pursuant to orders received by that officer from the Department. The vessel remained at the Navy Yard at Brooklyn, in possession of the authorities there, until the 23d March, 1829, when she was returned to the owners, by an order from the present Secretary of the Navy.

The committee, having given the subject the most deliberate examination, have arrived at the conclusion, that, although, in the inception of the arrangement with the petitioner, there was no agreement to indemnify him for his expenditures for the purposes of the expedition, yet, in the progress of the negotiation, your committee have reason to believe that such obligation may be reasonably inferred from the fact of its being brought forward as a specific charge against the Government, and not objected to by the offcer then at the head of the Navy Department. Under these circumstances, your committee are disposed to believe that it will be just and equitable to indemnify the petitioner for the actual expenses incurred by him in preparing for the contemplated voyage, for the demurrage of his vessel, and for his pay as a Lieutenant in the Navy, and accordingly report a bill to that effect.

1st Session.

THOMAS F. HUNT.

MAY 29, 1830.

Read, and laid upon the table.

Mr. McINTIRE, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the case of Thomas F. Hunt, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Tho mas F. Hunt, report:

That the petitioner being an officer in the line of the army on the 1st of April, 1818, commenced discharging the duties of the Quartermaster's Department at New Orleans, and on the 16th June following, he was regularly appointed an officer of that department, and discharged the duties thereof until February, 1826. Having failed to settle his accounts, he was relieved from his duties in the Quartermaster's Department, as he says, at his own request. On settlement of his accounts at the proper department, many of his claims were disallowed, and a balance was finally found against him of 5,142 93, in September, 1827. He alleges that thereupon, he solicited a suit against him, that his accounts might be settled by a jury, and a suit was commenced against him in November, 1827, in the District Court of Louisiana, which terminated by a verdict in his favor at the following May term of said court; and the jury certified a balance due him from the United States of $10,340 83. His accounts were accordingly balanced at the Department, and he now asks to be paid the balance which the jury certified was, in their opinion, due to him. As his accounts were balanced at the Department, by passing to his credit the sum before found against him, without applying it to any specific charges made by the petitioner, it has left open his whole claim against the United States, and disallowed by the accounting officers. The United States claimed of him $5,142 93, and he filed in set-off disallowed charges to the amount of $16,275 82. The committee has not deemed it necessary to go into a rigid examination of the justice of every item charged in his set-off, because, if he does not establish the justice of disallowed items beyond the sum of $5,142 93, he is not entitled to relief.

The first charge made by the petitioner, and disallowed by the accounting officers, which the committee will notice, is the sum of $1,307 14, as commissions of two and a half per cent. for disbursements in the Quartermaster's Department; but, as he alleges, not within the range of his

duties at his station at New Orleans. There is another similar charge subsequently made, of $2,338 18, both amounting to $3,645 32, which the committee will consider at the same time. These disbursements were of various kinds, partly were the mere transmission of funds through him to quartermasters at more remote or neighboring posts; some of them were in discharge of contracts made by his predecessor on that station, and left unpaid; and part in discharge of contracts made by quartermasters at other posts, such as for transportation of stores or troops from other posts to those at or near New Orleans, and paid by him where the goods, &c. were delivered-and perhaps some under some other circumstances. To ascertain whether these disbursements were made under circumstances entitling the petitioner to this extra allowance claimed by him, inquiry was made of the Quartermaster General, whether services of this character were considered as the ordinary duty of an officer situated as was the petitioner, or not; and his answer, dated April 16, 1830, is referred to, and made a part of this report, by which it appears it was no more than the ordinary duty of an officer situated as was the petitioner, and for which he is entitled to no extra compensation. The committee is well satisfied the petitioner is not entitled to this charge, nor any part of it.

The next claim the committee will notice arises under the following circumstances. Certain claims against the United States, called war claims, existed at New Orleans or Baton Rouge, and the subject became a matter of correspondence. The petitioner was directed to receive them, and send them to the accounting officers at Washington for settlement, which he did, and, when adjusted, he was furnished with funds, and requested to pay them; and for this service he was allowed a commission of 24 per cent. He charged a per diem compensation, the difference between which and the allowed. per centage, up to June 1, 1821, was $985 36, at which time the new or ganization took effect, and by his new appointment and promotion he received $20 per month additional pay to his pay in the line. In one of his certificates, he specially notices this fact, and says he makes no such per diem charge after this period, but, on his final settlement, he makes an additional charge of the same character, of $3,356 12, for daily services in collecting and paying these claims subsequent to June 1, 1821, above the per centage allowed, when his whole disbursement, during this period, for these old claims, amounted to $2,235 50 only. This claim, therefore, of per diem charge, exceeds the commissions received, in the whole, $4,341 48

The committee forbear to remark on the extravagance of the latter portion of this claim, and its inconsistency with his declarations when he made that part of it which accrued previous to June 1, 1821. It does not appear what time the collection and payment of these claims employed the petitioner. Indeed there is no proof on the subject. The committee would re mark, that, in these cases of extra compensation for extra services, whee there is neither law nor regulation to guide, the heads of the Departme and the chief of the bureau under whose direction such services are performed, are better judges of what is a fair compensation than a jury or a committee of Congress can be. The committee, therefore, cannot see any reason for allowing the petitioner any further compensation for these services than he has received.

The next subject of claim is for double rations as senior officer of his department, at New Orleans and Baton Rouge-$2,041; namely at New Or leans from August 1, 1818, to January 31, 1826, $1,644 60, and at Baton

« AnteriorContinua »