That the process upon which said suits were commenced was never served upon said Joseph Ridgway, because of his aforesaid absence; and that judgments were, therefore, only docketed against the individual property of the other defendants (they having been regularly served with process) and the partnership property of the said Edward Andariese and Joseph Ridgway, who were, at the time of the execution of said bonds, partners in business. That no property of said partnership was remaining when said executions were issued, from the fact of the insolvency aforesaid; and the said Joseph Ridgway never derived any benefit from or concerning the said bonds for duties, or the merchandise on account of which said bonds were given. That the said Joseph Ridgway has no property in the United States subject to execution. And your petitioner humbly prays, that inasmuch as the said Joseph Ridgway received no benefit or advantage from the non-payment of said bonds, and is now, and has been since, prior to the commencement of said suits, a resident of a foreign country; and inasmuch as the United States has no claim by judgment against him, and can obtain none until he shall come to the United States and be served with process; and because that the said Joseph Ridgway has no property in this country which could be reached by legal proceedings, your honorable bodies would, therefore, afford him the means of relieving himself from such liability as aforesaid by empowering the Solicitor of the Treasury of the United States to compromise, release and discharge, upon such terms as he may deem most to the interests of the government, the indebtedness of the said Joseph Ridgway, leaving the judgments aforesaid to stand in their present condition as against all the other defendants, in no manner reversed, vacated, or satisfied. And your petitioner will ever pray, &c. F. H. WHITMORE, As Attorney for J. Ridgway. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Southern District of N. Y. SS. Frederick H. Whitmore being duly sworn, deposes and says, that the facts stated in the foregoing petition are true, except as to such as are upon his information, and as to those matters he believes them to be true. F. H. WHITMORE. Sworn to, before me, this 19th day of May, 1854. U. S. Commissioner. PHILADELPHIA, July 9, 1853. SIR: In the year 1839 Joseph Ridgway, together with William E. Andariese and Joseph H. Cunningham, signed, as surety, two custom house bonds, made by Edward Andariese to the United States, for the payment of duties in New York. The first bond, No. 8928, May 10, 1839, due November 10, 1839, was for $3,083; the second, No. 12404, July 10, 1839, due January 10, 1840, was for $657. These bonds not having been paid, suit was brought and judgment obtained against all the parties, except Joseph Ridgway, who was absent, and could not, therefore, be served with process. Judgment was rendered upon the first bond for $3,095 01 and costs, $59 59—total $3,154 60; and upon the second, for $689 86 and costs, $61 11-total, $750 97. It does not appear that either of these judgments were ever satisfied, and the fact of the existence of the aforesaid suits having come to the knowledge of Mr. Ridgway, he expressed a desire that, so far as he is concerned, the matter might be closed up. On behalf of Mr. Ridgway (who is the partner of the undersigned in the Island of St. Thomas, West Indies, where he has resided for the last ten or twelve years,) the undersigned begs leave, most respectfully, to offer the United Statesalthough no execution can be issued or judgment procured against the said Ridgway on account of his residence in a foreign country, and although the said Ridgway derived no pecuniary advantage from his association with said Edward Andariese, but rather suffered many losses thereby-twenty per cent. on the said bonds, judgments and costs, viz: 20 per cent. on $3,154 60 and $750 97, total $3,909 57the United States giving the said Ridgway, for the said twenty per cent., a full and complete discharge from all demands on said bonds, of balances, interest, expenses, &c. The undersigned requests an early reply; and is, very respectfully, your obedient servant, F. H. WHITMORE. F. B. STREETER, Esq., Solicitor of the Treasury, Washington. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, South rn District of New York, July 15, 1853. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 12th instant, enclosing copy of a letter from F. H. Whit more. I have carefully examined the matter therein mentioned, and believe the statements contained in Mr. Whitmore's letter are correct. I have also (as requested) inquired into and ascertained, as far as practicable, the present situation of William E. Andariese, Joseph Cunningham, and Edward Andariese, against whom the judgments (mentioned in Mr. Whitmore's letter) were entered, and find that William E. Andariese took the benefit of the bankrupt act, and that Joseph H. Cunningham is insolvent. Edward Andariese is in this city, engaged in business, and is thought to have the ability to pay the judgments. He has nothing, however, upon which an execution could be levied, and his property could only be reached by proceedings supplementary to execution, which I incline to think would be effectual. If deemed expedient by you, I will cause the necessary proceedings to be instituted immediately. In view of all the circumstances, I should think it wise to accept the proposition contained in Mr. Whitemore's letter. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, F. B. STREETER, Esq., United States Attorney. Solicitor of the Treasury, Washington. ROSWELL MINARD. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 620] JANUARY 5, 1855. Mr. WESTBROOK, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Roswell Minard, made the following report: That the committee have had the petition under consideration, and that they concur in the report made by a previous committee, hereto annexed, and concur in recommending the passage of the bill then reported by said committee. The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Roswell Minard, the father of Theodore Minard, deceased, submit the following report: It appears from the petition, that Theodore Minard enlisted in the army of the United States, at Governor's Island, N. Y., during the late war with Mexico, as a soldier; that he served during the war-was in several battles, and finally discharged at Jefferson barracks after the close of that war; that the said Theodore was a man of robust constitution and good habits; but was taken ill in Mexico at about the time when the capital of that republic was taken possession of by the army of the United States, and continued in ill health until he reached the residence of his father, in the county of Sullivan and State of New York, where he lingered until his death, which took place December 16, 1848; that said Theodore was never married. The petitioner being the father of the deceased, applied for the bounty land to which his son would have been entitled if living; in answer to this application the following letter was received from the Commissioner of Pensions : PENSION OFFICE, March 10, 1852. SIR: I have the honor to return herewith, the letter from the Adjutant General's office of the 1st instant, together with that of your correspondent, A. C. Nevins, esq., of the 25th ultimo, relative to the application for bounty land of Roswell Minard, father, &c., of Theodore Minard, of Captain Sheppard's company, Sth United States infantry, and to remark that, upon a more thorough examination of the papers, subsequently to your call in person this morning, I find that the death of the soldier did not occur until the 16th of December, 1848, some two months, nearly, after the issue, in the name of the soldier, of the warrant for 160 acres, numbered 34754, which had been by his direction addressed to him, in care of Ava Durrin, or Durvin, at Galena, Illinois. The certificate would, of course, be valueless, unless regularly assigned by the warrantee; and if it can be established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who is the appropriate judge of questions affecting the validity of transfers, that the assignment of the certificate in question is illegal or fraudulent, that officer will take such steps as will put the party properly entitled in possession of his rights. For further information as to the proper course to be observed under the circumstances, you are respectfully referred to that office. I may add that, the case having been disposed of in accordance with the law, the usage of the office, and the claimant's request, we have no further control in the matter. I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM MURRAY, House of Representatives. J. E. HEATH, Commissioner. Upon the receipt of this letter, application was made to the Commissioner of the General Land Office for the land to which the deceased soldier was entitled, and the following letter was received by Hon. William Murray, member of Congress representing the district in New York in which the petitioner resides, in answer to this application, to wit : GENERAL LAND OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have fully examined the case of Theodore Minard, late a private in the 8th regiment United States infantry, in the Mexican war, in whose name land warrant No. 34754 was issued. From the papers it appears that this warrant was issued and transmitted to Minard's agent, in accordance with his direction, at Galena, Illinois, on the 31st October, 1848, and that the patent was issued on the 10th July, 1851, to George W. Voris, as assignee, the assignment being endorsed on the warrant, and bearing date November 19, 1849. It is now alleged that the warrantee died about one year before the date of the assignment, to which his name appears signed in full, while to the papers in the Pension Office he makes his mark. In fact, it appears that the assignment is false and fraudulent. It also appears that, in a similar case, it was held by the Commissioner, that where the patent has issued, the case is beyond the control of this office, and that the only recourse of the claimant was against the land. In this opinion the Secretary of the Department of the Interior concurred, and therefore the decision is binding on this office. I regret the delay which has occurred in this case, notwithstanding |