CONGRESS JOSEPH MCCORMACK. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 669.], JANUARY 23, 1855. Mr. FAULKNER, from the Committee on Military Affairs, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of certain citizens of Virginia, praying Congress to grant to Joseph McCormack, a citizen of Berkeley county, in said State, for his military services in the war of 1812, as well as in the war with Mexico, a pension, have, according to order, had the same under consideration, and submit the following report: It appears that, in the war of 1812, the said McCormack served two tours-one to Norfolk as a draughted soldier, and the other to Baltimore as a substitute; that in the late Mexican war, although he had attained a very advanced age, he was prominent in his efforts to raise the company which was formed in Berkeley county, Virginia; that he went with said company to Richmond, and was rejected by the inspector general, for the reason that his teeth were too defective to enable him to bite off the end of a cartridge; that, anxious as he was to engage for the second time in the service of his country, and mortified by his rejection, he refused to remain behind, but persisted in going to the war on his own responsibility. His determined purpose excited the sympathy of the officers, and he was permitted to go along with the Berkeley company, which his efforts had contributed so much to raise. He remained in Mexico during the time that the company remained, supporting himself by honest toil; and although the Virginia regiment had no opportunity of engaging in action on the field of battle, yet the said McCormack always was ready to enter into action when the regiment with which he had gone to the seat of war should be called upon to do so. It appears that the said McCormack was injured by a fall in landing from the vessel at Brazos Santiago, in which the troops were transported, and that his health was entirely destroyed by the relaxing influence of the Mexican climate upon his aged system. It further appears that the said Joseph McCormack, now a very old man, is in a state of disability, incurred in the service of his country, unable to earn his daily bread, and is living upon the charity of a few patriotic citizens, who do not desire to see the old soldier consigned to the common asylum of the poor. The committee think this is a case strongly appealing to the justice and sympathy of the government, and with that view report a bill granting a pension to the said Joseph McCormack. ་་ 2d Session. No. 31. JAMES HUGHES. [To accompany J. R. No. 45.] JANUARY 24, 1855. Mr. ETHERIDGE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of James Hughes, a citizen of Madison county, Tennessee, praying compensation for clothing furnished by him to a company of volunteers in the service of the United States, in 1836, (commanded at the time by Captain Alexander B. Bradford,) have had the sume under consideration, and submit the following report : That about June, 1836, a company of volunteers commanded by Captain Alexander B. Bradford, was raised at Jackson, Tennessee, for the Seminole war; that said company did serve during the period of enlistment in the suppression of Indian hostilities in Florida, and were discharged at the expiration of that period. It appears that after said company was organized, the memorialist, at the request of the officers, furnished clothing for said company, which clothing was worn by those to whom it was furnished while in the service of the government in the Seminole war. It also appears that the memorialist has not been paid. The above facts are very fully established by the testimony of the officers of said company, from which, in the judgment of the committee, without submitting anything additional, in the way of argument, the claim of the petitioner to compensation very fully appears. The committee therefore report a joint resolution, directing the proper officers of the treasury to ascertain the value of the clothing furnished said company, and to pay the memorialist such amount as the clothing may be found to have been worth at the time it was delivered to said company of volunteers. 33d CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 2d Session. FREDERICK GRIFFING. JANUARY 26, 1855. Mr. F. P. STANTON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following REPORT. The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of Frederick Griffing, having had the same under consideration, submit the following report: The facts in this case are fully and correctly stated in the papers appended, being the statement of the memorialist and the explanations of the Navy Department. The only question for the consideration of the committee, is, whether upon the agreement made by the Secretary of the Navy with Mr. Griffing before the passage of the act of 3d August, 1847, the charges levied by the city of Brooklyn upon the property agreed to be sold, ought to fall upon the government or upon the memorialist. It is true, the Secretary of the Navy had no power to contract for the purchase of the property in question, and his agreement was conditional, depending upon the appropriation subsequently made by Congress. But, at the same time, it must be admitted that the property was important to the government, and the conditional arrangement pru ent and proper on the part of the Secretary. It is conceded, also, that the ground purchased is fully worth the amount which will be paid, even if the charges levied by the city of Brooklyn should be assumed by the United States. If this contract had been made between two individuals for the unconditional sale of real estate to be perfected at a future day, there would be no difficulty in determining which party would be bound to sustain the burden imposed in this case. The authorities are clear and uniform, to the effect that the purchaser is considered the owner in equity, and must bear any loss which accrues subsequently to the agreement, if such loss be not in consequence of any act of the vendor. "Equity looks upon that as done which is agreed to be done."Craig vs. Leslie, 3 Wheaton 577-8; 1 Story Eq. sec. 649. "A purchaser before conveyance is in equity owner of the estate almost to every purpose. If before conveyance a house should be burnt down, the loss would be his. If any acquisitions, as by lives |