Imatges de pàgina



ses under the following en

tes, called war claris

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

The next claim the committee will notice arises under the cumstances. Certain claims against the United States, called existed at New Orleans or Baton Rouge, and the subject became correspondence. The petitioner was directed to receive then them to the accounting officers at Washington for settlement, WI and, when adjusted, he was furnished with funds, and requested and for this service he was allowed a commission of 24 per cent ed a per diem compensation, the difference between which and per centage, up to June 1, 1821, was $985 36, at which time ganization took effect, and by his new appointment and pron ceived $20 per month additional pay to his pay in the line, certificates, he specially notices this fact, and says he makes diem charge after this period, but, on his final settlement, helic ditional charge of the same character, of $3,356 12, for dan collecting and paying these claims subsequent to June 1,10 per centage allowed, when bis whole disbursement, during en these old claims, amounted to $2,235 50 only. This claim, diem charge, exceeds the commissions received, in the whole;

The committee forbear to remark on the extravagance of w tion of this claim, and its inconsistency with his declarations that part of it which accrued previous to June 1, 1821. It acco what time the collection and payment of these claims, emplo, tioner. Indeed there is no proof on the subject. The comm mark, that, in these cases of extra compensation for extra si there is neither law nor regulation to guide, the heads of the and the chief of the bureau under whose direction such serpio ed, are better judges of what is a fair compensation than a jury tee of Congress can be. The committee, therefore, cannot for allowing the petitioner any further compensation for the he has received.

The next subject of claim is for double rations as senior o partment, at New Orleans and Baton Rouge-$2,041; name leans from August 1, 1818, to January 31, 1826, $1,647

receive them, andra

ement, which be
requested to me
2 per cent sur
which and the moment
nich time the site

and promotar kt
the line. la ore di Di

he makes no such
tement, he makes in a

y for daily services in
ne 1, 1821, above the

ring this period, ka
Claim, therefore, di pe
he whole, 84,341 2
ance of the later res
arations when hest
6. It does not ex

employed the 27
le committee troca

extra services, ads of the Departam

en services are per

a jury ora

annot see aortens

on for these semceso

senior officer at by
; namely: stellen

[ocr errors]

Rouge from March 24, 1822, to February 14, 1824, $396 40, being, in fact, not double rations for the latter period merely, but, as it is covered by the other charge, it amounts to quadruple instead of double rations. The pay and rations of officers of the army are fixed by law and regulations. With the wisdom and equal operation of the law and regulations, the committee, at present, have nothing to do. It is sufficient that such existed, and were understood by the accounting officers, and by them acted upon. It has been a subject of complaint that these regulations as to double rations have been too far extended, or too liberally construed. The committee can see no reason for extending the allowances under these regulations further than the several officers of the Department and accounting officers have; and they have decided, and decided correctly, as far as the committee can perceive, that the petitioner's case is not embraced by these regulations to give him his claim to double rations, much less to quadruple. The committee would here remark, that the petitioner has another portion of his claim in connexion with duties at Baton Rouge, which, from the course adopted in this investigation, will not be necessary to particularize: hence, it will not be necessary to be particular as to the manner in which this charge of double rations at that post arises. The petitioner claims another sum of $433 75 for extra services in the Quartermaster's and ordnance service, in 1816, two years before the residue of his claim accrued, or he was in the Quartermaster's Department under his appointment, and which claim was not made, as far as can be discovered, in his various accounts rendered, till after he was relieved from duties in his staff office; and no proof is adduced of having performed such service under circumstances to entitle him to extra pay. The committee can see no reason to allow that claim.

The last charge which the committee will notice is the sum of $1,352 91 or interest on the several sums by him claimed, from the time they were rejected to the time of service of process upon him, considering their reection as equivalent to non-acceptance of a bill of exchange by a drawee vhen in funds. It is unnecessary to notice this charge any further, if the ommittee be correct in its foregoing conclusions, because, in such case, there vould have been nothing due to the petitioner on which to raise this charge f interest, unless he makes it on those rejected, which constituted the baance for which he was sued, and which, by the verdict of the jury, has been djusted. The committee believe it to be unnecessary to.go into that quesion, or to investigate the other portions of the petitioner's claim, as those vould not, if all just, amount to the balance which has been cancelled by hat verdict. So far as is above investigated, the account would stand as ollows: Charge for per diem on paying war claims

$4,341 48 Per centage on disbursements in Quartermaster's Department

3,645 32 Extra rations -

2,041 00 Extra for services in 1816

433 75 Interest

• 1,352 91

Total, - $11,814 46

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Of the residue of his claim, $759 84 is for extra per diem arance superintending the erection of barracks at Baton Rouge; $2,70 tra as military storekeeper at New Orleans, for a time specified, new organization in 1821; $234 84 for transportation of baggae at the Department as not chargeable under the regulations; and DJ ! per centage for disbursements in the ordnance and medical deparinen amounting to the sum of $3,747 37, for extra services, while receiving of his rank in the line and additional pay in the staff, with all su extra allowances as the accounting officers and Secretary of Warch competent and within the laws and regulations The above amount, to the items considered by the committee, will make the sum of 313, claimed by the petitioner for extra services, including interest, tra tion of baggage over the amount deemed by the Secretary of 13 counting officers (and some of which have even been submitted to torney General) as equitable, lawful, and just.

The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the follo solution:

Resolved, That Thomas F. Hunt is not entitled to the relies he

day, and have the be


Washinglon City, April tolm, 1984. Sir: I have just received your letter dated yesterday, and he nor to reply to your several inquiries, as follows:

1. It is the practice to require the officers of the Quartermaster ment, at certain stations, such as Pensacola, New Orleans, St. Louis Bangor, &c. to receive and distribute the funds required for thes the Department at the posts depending upon those positions rest This is one of the duties which renders it necessary that there s officer constantly at each of those posts, whether troops be stat or not. The duty is not extra, but properly appertains to the Quartermaster; and no extra compensation is allowed or due to formance of it.

2. It is the duty of a Quartermaster to pay all outstanding, tracted by his predecessors, provided they be properly vouched, be an appropriation to pay them. This is not an extra, but an ap duty, for which extra compensation is not allowed nor due.

• 3. There are no permanent geographical limits assigned to posts, to which the duties of Quartermasters are confined. It is those officers to perform service at such post or posts as the War or the Quartermaster General may direct; and there is no googee

Vartermaster's Desert ins, St. Louis Dereito red for the serie

itions respectirer at there should be a

be stationed to

d or due for the most

landing debts, so

Uched, and 20

[ocr errors]

line, beyond which the performance of any duty appertaining to the Department could be considered extra duty, or as entitling an officer to extra pay. A particular service, however, performed by Captain Hunt, may be considered an exception. In addition to the laborious and responsible duties he was required to perform at New Orleans, he was required to superintend the erection of extensive works at Baton Rouge, about an hundred and twenty miles from New Orleans. I was authorized by the Secretary of War to inform the officer superintending that work, that he should be allowed the same extra compensation allowed to the officer of the Ordnance Department, performing similar duty at that post. Paper marked A will show what that officer received. If Captain Hunt has not already receiy. ed those allowances, he has as fair a claim as a positive understanding or contract can give him.

4. When officers of the Quartermaster's Department are required, in the performance of their duties, to travel from one post to another, the regulations secure to them, as well as to other officers, the usual travelling allowinces.

I am, Sir, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,


Quartermaster General. . | The Hon. R. McINTIRE,

House of Representatives, Washington City.


DEPARTMENT OF WAR, 27th February, 1818. Until it is otherwise directed, Lieutenants of the corps of ordnance shall be allowed for superintending and for disbursing moneys in the construction of arsenals, one dollar a day; Captains and all other officers one dollar and ifty cents a day, during the time such disbursements are making.

J. C. CALHOUN. Modification of the above order, made by the Secretary of War, July,1822.

Provided the allowance claimed shall, in no instance, exceed 24 per cent. on the amount disbursed.

Wm. LEE, Esq. Second Auditor.

Per diem as Commissioners to be settled annually-See Secretary of War's endorsement on Major Talcott's letter of 20th April, 1827.

Second Auditor's OFFICE, April 16, 1830.. While superintending and disbursing money in constructing the arsenal at Baton Rouge, Captain Richardson received a per diem of $1 50, and double rations,

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »