« AnteriorContinua »
been delayed to be tried for so long a time for the want of judicial force.
The fact that the law authorizes the district judge in the city of New York to ask such aid, with the additional fact that the labors of the judges in the districts in the neighborhood of New York are not so arduous but that some one of them could generally be had to aid in the disposition of the business of this district, goes far to dispel the force of this argument. But the experience of every lawyer at all familiar with the practice of the district courts would seem to justify the conclusion that the successful prosecution of the business there may require the attendance, or perhaps more correctly speaking, the court should be able to command the attendance of the prosecuting officer of the government at all times. This could not be done if two courts were in session at the same time, and for this reason the court might be delayed in the disposition of its business and the government put to great expense, and defendants or claimants might be subjected to great inconvenience and expense. Delay often operates to deny justice, and it seems to your committee to be but just that if the government bring parties into court, that the government should provide the means reasonably necessary to bring those parties to trial, and in revenue causes, from the mode by which these causes are commenced, usually by seizure, this argument applies with extraordinary force.
Now it is impossible for the district attorney to attend to the business of the government before two tribunals, such as two district courts in session at the same time, or a district and a circuit court in session at the same time, without often disarranging and embarrassing the transaction of the business of both. But if the revenue causes were assigned for trial in one of the courts, and the government causes, other than revenue, were assigned to be tried in the other, by creating the office of solicitor of customs, the courts could be enabled to proceed in the discharge of their respective duties, each aided by the proper government officer, without embarrassment, and justice could be properly and speedily administered before each judge. From the general character of the evidence it is almost impossible for the gove ernment to obtain justice in a revenue cause, unless it is tried soon after the seizure, and experience has shown that the trial cannot be so bad under the present system. The delays under the present system have involved the government in large and unnecessary expenditures and losses. This evil ought to be remedied, and the creation of this office, in the judgment of your committee, will go far towards accomplishing this object; wherefore they unanimously recommend the passage of the accompanying bill with the amendments they have reported.
The sixth section of this bill your committee deem to be of importance to facilitate the adjustment of a class of cases arising under the revenye laws; the adjustment of which, under the existing laws, is surrounded with difficulties, and involves expenditures in costs and counsel fees which in most instances fall heavily and often unjustly upon a class of persons who are not well able to sustain their onerous burden. These fines, forfeitures, and penalties often, and perhaps your committee may say generally, arise from the defective execution of duties devolving upon the masters or owners of vessels, or upon persons other than those engaged in regular business, rather than from any design to defraud the government. It does not follow that because a man is competent to command a vessel, that he will necessarily be competent to have his crew lists, clearances, invoices, and even his register, enrollment or license, or some one of the numerous other things which are required of him in exact conformity to law. It is this class who bear the burdens of the present system, which involves seizures and trial with the prolific bills of costs which the exuberant fancies of the officers of the admiralty jurisdiction can alone conceive. And it is to ameliorate these burdens that this section is introduced into the bill.
W. J. GILBERT.
May 16, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. DUELL, from the Committee of Claims, made the following
The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of W. J.
Gilbert, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report:
That from the evidence before the committee it appears that the petitioner became connected with the Excelsior Brigade, New York volunteers, in May, 1861, and shortly thereafter, and during the same month, was assigned to duty as acting assistant adjutant general, and continued to discharge the duties of the position until the last of August, when he was granted a furlough for a few days, to report at Camp Scott, Staten Island, or at the headquarters of General Sickles, at Washington. That he did so report himself to General Sickles from time to time for over three months, but was not assigned to duty.
That he expected to be commissioned on the staff of General Sickles, but was never mustered into the service. Upon application to the War Department for pay for said services, it was decided that there was no authority, under existing laws, by which he could be paid, on account of his never having been mustered into service.
It appears that, for the time the petitioner was in actual and active service, he would be entitled, according to army regulations, to the sum of six hundred and five dollars. That this service was performed in good faith there is no reason to doubt; that it was faithfully and efficiently done we have the testimony of General Sickles, Colonels Graham and Hall, and more than forty other field and line officers of the brigade.
The act of Congress approved March 25, 1862, was designed to cover similar cases in the department of the west, and as your committee believe that the petitioner ought to be paid, at least for the time he was in active service, they report the accompanying bill for his relief, and recommend its passage.
WILLIAM B. MATCHETT.
May 16, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Olin, from the Committee on Military Affairs, made the following
The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial
of William B. Matchett, asking compensation for his services as chaplain of the 10th regiment of New York volunteers, and for other relief, make the following report :
The following are believed to be the material facts in this case :
Mr. Matchett was regularly appointed chaplain of the 10th regiment of New York volunteers, raised and called into service for two years, under and in pursuance of the act of the legislature of the State of New York, passed April 16, 1861.
He was appointed on the 30th day of April, 1861, and duly commissioned by the governor of New York on the 4th of July, which commission recites "that he is appointed chaplain of the 10th regi. ment of New York volunteers, with rank from May 15, 1861 ; "that immediately after his appointment on the 30th of April aforesaid, Mr. Matchett entered upon the discharge of his duties, and so continued to discharge his duties with fidelity and efficiency down to about the 12th of December last.
At the time of his appointment Mr. Matchett was a licensed preacher of the Baptist denomination. The rules and regulations of the Baptist denomination of Christians not requiring ordination to constitute a pastor or minister of the church, but only a license to preach, (See Hescox's Baptist Church Directory,) and Mr. Matchett having been regularly licensed as a pastor of the Baptist church, and officiated as pastor of such church for more than two years, to the satisfaction and edification of his congregation, your committee are inclined to believe Mr. Matchett was eligible to the office of chaplain under the act of August last, prescribing the qualifications for chaplains in the volunteer service.
After the passage of the law of August last, before referred to as prescribing the qualifications of chaplains in the volunteer service, Mr. Matchett, to relieve himself from all embarrassment in reference to the question whether he was eligible to the office of chaplain, being a licensed minister and distinguished from an ordained minister,