The petition is unaccompanied by any evidence; but assuming the facts stated to be true, your committee are of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief they seek.

By the resolve of Congress, of the 7th June, 1785, under which Willis Wilson was put upon the pension roll, and drew his pension, it is provided: "That no officer, who has accepted his commutation for halfpay, shall be entered on the list of invalids, unless he shall have first returned his commutation." This proviso shows it to have been the intention of Congress that no officer should be entitled to both pension and commutation. The resolution on its face presented to the officer a case of election, and the reception of the pension, by the terms of the law, was in itself a waiver of all claim to commutation. But in this case there seems to have been an actual surrender of the certificate; thus assenting formally to the terms of the law. The officer enjoyed his pension in contentment until his death, in 1822. Congress, during the life of him who had suffered in the cause of his country, hear no complaint from him; but twenty-four years after his death, they having rendered no service to the country, his grandsons become dissatisfied with the provision which had been made for him, and complain that injustice has been done to him, and they ask that the commutation which was denied to him may be paid to them, with interest; in other words, that the ancestor, who had rendered the service, should be content with the pension during his life, and that they, after his death, shall receive the commutation.

Were this an application by the officer himself, standing in need of the assistance of his government, all men would be disposed to be liberal towards him. But the question here is not one of liberality, but of strict justice. The government being under no legal obligation to the deceased officer, his grand-children can have no claim upon it. By the resolution of Congress, Willis Wilson had the option given him to take the pension or commutation. He elected to take the pension, and his heirs are concluded by his choice.

CLEMENT SEWALL.

FEBRUARY 2, 1855.-Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. EDDY, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the

following

REPORT.

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Clement Sewall, praying five years' full pay under the resolution of 22d March, 1783, report:

That the petitioner avers, that in March, 1777, he entered the military service of his country as a private in Capt. Ford's company of the 1st Maryland regiment, and that the day after the battle of Brandywine, in which he was engaged, he was promoted to ensign in the 3d Maryland regiment; that he received a severe wound in the leg at the battle of Germantown, which long disabled him for field service, and from which he had severely suffered up to the date of his petition; but that he continued in service with the rank of ensign to the close of the revolutionary war; and that being in such service when the several resolutions of 21st October, 1780, and 22d March, 1783, passed the Continental Congress, and the Maryland line, with which he was connected, having duly elected, in the manner prescribed by the latter resolution, to accept the "five years' full pay," he therefore asks that his full pay as ensign for that period be given him by act of Congress. Capt. Sewall has been dead for some years, and the claim is now prosecuted by the daughter and heir of the original petitioner.

Capt. Sewall presented his claim to Congress as early as 1813; and the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, on the 23d February, 1814, reported a resolution to the House recommending that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition, which was concurred in. The petition now before the committee, and of which a brief abstract has been given in this report, seems to have been first presented during the 2d session of the 20th Congress, and to have had two successive references to the Committee on Military Affairs, and commencing with the 24th Congress, an almost annual reference to this committee up to the present time, but without heretofore receiving action thereon.

The evidence before the committee, while it shows Capt. Sewall to have been a gallant officer and an estimable citizen, is insufficient, in its judgment, to entitle his heirs to the commutation pay claimed.

From a letter dated Third Auditor's Office, 28th July, 1828, over the signature of the Auditor thereof, it appears that Clement Sewall was at

that date on the pension list at $10 40 per month, and had been since the 3d March, 1826; but the revolutionary records of the office furnished no information whatever in relation to his services.

A certificate of the auditor of the State of Maryland shows that he enlisted as a sergeant in the 1st Maryland regiment on the 14th March, 1777, and on the 14th September, in the column of "remarks" upon the muster-roll is written the word "promoted," without stating the grade.

This rank is, however, recognised by the government in the pension given him in 1826; and the legislature of Maryland passed a joint resolution in 1823 directing the "treasurer of the Western Shore to pay annually, in quarter payments, to Clement Sewall, late an ensign in the Maryland line in the revolutionary war, a sum equal to the halfpay of an ensign, as a remuneration for the gallant services rendered his country during the struggle for our glorious independence."

Of the several affidavits filed in the proper office of the Department of the Interior, attested copies of which accompany the petition, two only-those of Ignatius Newton and Richard Forrest-speak from their own knowledge of the revolutionary services of Captain Sewall; and while both state that he belonged to the continental line, neither are able to say that he continued in it, or in other military service, until the close of the war. The remaining testimony in the case is principally of a traditional character, which, while it shows that among the neighbors and townsmen of the petitioner he was believed to have continued in service until the war closed, yet there are no facts evolved with sufficient distinctness to justify the committee in adopting like conclusions. Neither the official transcript of the records nor the depositions sustain the presumption. While the committee do not discredit the statement of Capt. Sewall, and cheerfully concede that he was a brave and meritorious man, yet, unsupported as it is by any corroborating facts, they think it would be alike impolitic and without precedent to recommend the legislation prayed for.

The committee, therefore, recommend that the legal representatives of the petitioner have leave to withdraw the papers in the case, and that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the

same.

2d Session.

No. 84.

FREDERICK SCHONMAKER-HEIRS OF.

FEBRUARY 2, 1855.-Laid upon the table, and ordered be printed.

Mr. EDDY, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the following REPORT.

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of the heirs of Frederick Schonmaker, submit the following report:

The petitioners claim reimbursement for alleged expenditures by Captain Frederick Schonmaker, in behalf of the United States, during the revolutionary war.

They state, in substance, that previous to that war he was the owner of a large property, real and personal, in the county of Ulster, New York; that as early as 1775 he was commissioned captain of a company of provincial militia, and again in 1778, of the State, and as such was in the service, with few intervals, from the commencement to the close of the war; often bearing the whole expense of his command upon its several tours of duty. But the memorialists ingenuously admit that they are unable to specify any particular services rendered by their ancestor as such officer.

Living near the frontier line, and therefore much exposed to the depredations of the tories and Indians, he enlarged and fortified his dwelling for the protection of himself and of the neighborhood. It became, in consequence, the refuge of the defenceless in times of alarm and danger, and was especially so to the inhabitants driven from Kingston when that town was burned by the enemy, who were provided with shelter and food through the munificent hospitality of its possessor. By reason of these expenditures and sacrifices, he was left at the close of the war largely in debt, which ultimately resulted in the entire loss of his property. These misfortunes so impaired his mind that, about the year 1803, he became insane, which continued until his death in 1819. The memorialists aver that the amount thus expended by Captain Schonmaker was not less than fifty thousand dollars; and that if the resulting loss of property is to be considered in the same connexion, then double that sum would scarcely be a remuneration.

Accompanying the petition are vouchers found herewith, and numbered from 1 to 23, inclusive. As the memorialists claim that they corroborate the allegations contained in their petition, the committee have examined them with care and with every disposition to give to the m a fair and just consideration. Of their genuineness they do not entertain a doubt. But after a diligent investigation of them, they are unable to