perceive that one or any of them has the slightest merit as a claim upon the treasury of the United States. Vouchers 1, 2, 3, and 4, have only even a remote reference to the public service, amounting to the inconsiderable sum of $154; and if we consider the depreciated currency of the times in which these advances were paid, as evidenced by the vouchers themselves, then one-third of that sum would cover every expenditure therein named. But these vouchers afford no evidence that the money paid was at the instance of any competent authority, or even in behalf or for the use of the militia in actual service. Voucher 20 is in the form of an order, directing the delivery of a stated quantity of grain to the person named therein, whose receipt to Schonmaker, it is stated, would entitle him (Schonmaker) to payment; and from the fact that no such receipt is found among the papers, or its loss accounted for, the presumption is that it was presented and paid.

Of the remaining sum alleged to have been expended, amounting to over $48,000, there does not appear, from the vouchers produced, a single item that by any latitude of implication could be made a charge against the government. The name of no officer, commissary, or public agent, appears upon the face of these papers. Nor do they pretend to be anything other than evidences of individual transactions, which they undoubtedly were. It is hardly conceivable that the wants of the command intrusted to Captain Schonmaker, or the wants of the service with which he was connected, should, within two years, require an individual expenditure, even in continental money, of over $40,000 for the single article of rum, while less than $3,000 sufficed, as shown by the same vouchers, and in the same currency, for the more important articles of flour, salt, and meat.

The affidavits submitted and filed with the papers in this case have been examined care fully, and though they afford abundant traditionary testimony of the wealth of Captain Schonmaker before the war, and of his destitution after, and that that wealth was seriously impaired by advances made from time to time in the payment of troops and furnishing the continental line and militia with provisions and clothing, yet they fail to indicate to whom they were made, at what time, or in what quantities, or the value of the same. They are indeed but little else than a compilation of family and neighborhood legends-testimonials, we may say, of the virtues and patriotism of Captain Schonmaker, but far from being proofs of a well-founded claim against the United States. The several affiants state what they have heard from the lips of otherslittle, if anything, from their own knowledge; and, satisfied themselves of the truth of a common report, they inferred losses and sacrifices, without any just perception of the causes that produced them. These may have been improvidences, without occasion, or an overwrought zeal beyond the limits of ordinary prudence. It is enough for the purposes of this report that the records of the State of New York, and of the several departments of the national government, furnish no evidence of any expenditure by Captain Schonmaker for the public service. Nor is there anything among the voluminous papers and exhibits before the committee to show any money or other value advanced, that remains unliquidated and unpaid. True, the proof of payment is not disclosed any more than the proof of indebtedness; but in the absence of tes

timony to establish the latter, it is a fair presumption, at least, to infer the former.

The committee do not call in doubt the patriotism or public spirit, or the sacrifices, of Captain Schonmaker. They were the common attributes of the men of that age. He had very likely his full share of all, and more than his share of the misfortunes and calamities that embitter life. That the door of his ample mansion was ever open to the houseless and the fugitive, and that its hospitalities were dispensed with a liberal hand, are readily admitted, for such were of the virtues of the day and generation; but, with entire respect to the petitioners, we cannot withhold the remark, that to ask of their country the price of charities and generous deeds, is not of that day and generation. It is not material to the present inquiry to know how long Captain Schonmaker served in the revolutionary war, further than that service is connected with the claim we have been considering. The certificate of the comptroller of the State of New York affords proof of but two days' service, and then with his company, searching for disaffected persons in the woods, in 1777, and of his pay therefor. It would not be an unreasonable conclusion, that if in that instance he claimed pay in accordance with his rank, he would have also claimed for advances made for the public service at the same time, and at other periods of the war, if any were made.

The memorialists state that Captain Schonmaker became insane about the year 1803, and that the malady was mainly attributable to the losses he had sustained in consequence of the war. The State of New York-if the expenditure was made under the direction of its authorities, and for the benefit of her troops-was at all times liable, and no doubt willing to liquidate the claim. Certain it is, that from the passage of the ordinance of Congress of the 7th May, 1787, and especially of the acts approved August 5, 1790, and January 23, 1792, providing for the settlement of accounts between the United States and individual States, ample notice was given to all the public creditors of the several States to present their claims for adjudication; and the committee find it difficult to understand, as Captain Schonmaker was of sound mind up to the year 1803, that he should, from the close of the war until that period, an interval of more than nineteen years, and with such a notice before him, in the intermediate time seek no settlement with the accounting officers of the State, or in any other manner obtain a recognition of the justice and equity of his claim.

The committee therefore recommend that the claim be rejected.

33d CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 33d CONGRESS,

HENRY SMALLY.

FEBRUARY 3, 1855.-Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. FULLER, from the Committee on Commerce, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the memorial of Henry Smally, have considered the same, and report:

That, in their opinion, the claimant is not entitled to any relief. In the first place, serious doubts exist in the mind of the committee whether he has incurred any expense, or performed any services, for which he has not been amply remunerated. But even admitting that he has performed services for which he has received no remuneration, the committee cannot sanction the principle that any person may perform services for the government unauthorized by any proper officer, and subsequently make the service the foundation of a claim against the government. Such a practice will lead to great abuses. The committee append to this report the letter of the Secretary, and the report of the Lighthouse Board to him.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 27, 1855.

SIR: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 28th ult., enclosing a petition of Henry Smally, of Troy, N. Y., for compensation for setting buoys in the Hudson river, in the years 1852 and 1853, and requesting the recommendations of the department on the subject; and for reply, beg leave to enclose the report of the Light-house Board on the subject. The department considers that it would be inexpedient to grant the prayer of the petitioner, as it is obvious he acted, if he acted at all, without authority, and has wholly failed to establish any beneficial service.

I am, very respectfully,

Hon. T. J. D. FULLER,

JAMES GUTHRIE,
Secretary of the Treasury.

Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, H. R.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

Office of the Light-house Board, January 25, 1855.

SIR: I have the honor respectfully to report, in reply to the communication of Hon. T. J. D. Fuller, of the 28th ult., transmitting the petition of Henry Smally, for the passage of a law by which the petitioner shall be paid for services claimed to have been rendered by him in furnishing and setting buoys in the Hudson river, between Albany and Troy, from August 31, 1852, to June 24, 1853, referred to this office for a report.

That there is a clause in the bill making appropriations for lighthouses, &c., approved August 31, 1852, "for six spar-buoys in the Hudson river, between Albany and Troy, four hundred and eighty dollars."

That the necessary and usual instructions were given to the proper officers to make the necessary examinations, inquiries, &c., in conformity to the act of Congress, and for procuring and placing the buoys thus authorized, upon the opening of navigation the ensuing season.

That a contract was entered into with Henry Smally, "for furnishing six spar-buoys, with sinkers, &c., complete, and for placing them, and keeping them placed in the Hudson river, between the cities of Albany and Troy; that is, "Henry Smally, of the first part, agrees to furnish the buoys, sinkers, &c., complete, painted and marked as per directions of the Light-house Board hereto annexed, to set them and keep them set, to take them up at the closing of navigation of the present year (1853,) and to keep them in their places for one year from the date of this agreement, for the sum of $500," &c., &c.

That a petition addressed to the Hon. Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War, by H. Smally, dated June 2, 1854, was received at this office. from the Treasury Department, on the 26th of June, 1854, setting forth that the petitioner is informed, and believes, that a law was passed in June, 1852, for buoys in the Hudson river, between Albany and Troy; and the petitioner states he furnished and set buoys in the Hudson river, betwen Albany and Troy, from the time of the passage of the law, (June, 1852,) to the date of his contract with the United States, (June 24, 1853,) for which he received no compensation for his

services.

That Mr. Henry Smally was informed that no law had been passed at the time stated by him in his petition, for buoys in the Hudson river, but that a law had been passed on the 31st August, 1852, for six sparbuoys, and he was requested to explain the discrepancy, and to furnish evidence that he had at any time furnished and kept in place any buoys authorized by law, and the authority by which he performed the services for which he had submitted a claim.

Mr. Smally replies, under date of June 29, 1854, that "I do not claim that from August 31, 1852, (the time when the act was passed referred to in your communication,) to June 24, 1853,

in

pursuance of any contract or under the direction of any one who had authority to act in behalf of the government." Mr. Smally also states that he "set the buoys" because he knew that it was absolutely necessary for the safe navigation of the river, and that he supposed that when