1st Session.

HO. OF REPS.

JUDICIAL TERMS-SOUTHERN DISTRICT, NEW YOR

APRIL 12, 1830.

Read, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

Mr. BUCHANAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act increasing the terms of the Judicial Courts of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and adding to the compensation of several District Judges of the United States," reported the same with the following amendments:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill from the Senate "increasing the terms of the Judicial Courts of the United States, for the Southern District of New York, and adding to the compensation of several District Judges of the United States," report the said bill, with the following amendments:

Strike from the third section of the said bill the words "thirty-five hundred," and insert, in lieu thereof, three thousand; and strike from the said section all after the words "in quarterly payments.

Strike from the bill the fourth section, and insert, in lieu thereof, the following section:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That hereafter there shall be allowed to the District Judges of the United States, for the Districts of Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, each, the yearly compensation of two thousand dollars; to the District Judge of North Carolina, the yearly compensation of sixteen hundred dollars; and to the District Judge of Vermont, the yearly compensation of one thousand dollars; to be paid at the Treasury of the United States, in quarterly payments.

1st Session.

GEORGE JOHNSON.

APRIL 12, 1830.

Read, and committed, with the bill, to a Committe of the Whole House to-morrow.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of George Johnson," made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred a bill from the Senate for the relief of George Johnson, report:

That, while this committee concur in the correctness of the statement of facts, contained in the report of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which reported this bill, it is with regret they have felt themselves obliged to dissent from that committee in the conclusion at which they arrived. This committee deem it to be proper to state, explicitly, the grounds on which their opinion is formed, with the hope and belief, that, if it is erroneous, the House will promptly correct the error, and grant the relief contemplated by the bill.

The petitioner's right of relief may be examined under three heads: 1st, That he was not informed by the Government, when he executed the bond, on the 30th of April, 1817, of a previous defalcation. 2d. Mr. Bourne, the principal, was continued in the service without being called on to settle his accounts; and was transferred from one ship to another, without having settled his accounts, and was ordered from one ship to another, without producing a certificate from the Fourth Auditor, or other satisfactory evidence that he had settled up his accounts for the last ship to which he belonged, and that a balance against him did not exceed $1,000, contrary to the laws of the United States, and the rules and regulations of the Navy Department; and that he was not reported as a defaulter. 3d. The Government neglected to institute a suit against Mr. Bourne in his life time, or against his seeurities after his death, until the co-securities of Mr. Johnson had gone without the jurisdiction of the United States.

If the petitioner is entitled to relief under the first position, it is on the ground of fraud, which consists in the suppression of truth, or the suggestion of falsehood. It is not pretended, in this case, that the securities inquired of the officers of the Government as to the defalcations of Mr. Bourne, and, of course, there could not have been any suppression of truth; nor is it pretended that any measures whatever were used to induce the petitioner and the other securities to sign the bond.

The act of March 1, 1817, required the pursers to enter into bonds in the penal sum of twenty-five thousand dollars; the three securities were residents

of New York; and it is understood that the bond was executed there. The law does not contemplate that pursers' bonds should be executed at the seat of Government, for it provides that the "securities shall be approved by the judge or attorney of the United States for the district in which such pursers shall reside."

The officers of the Government, who had any knowledge of the existence of the defalcation of Mr. Bourne, on the 30th of May, 1816, had no means of ascertaining who he would offer as his securities; and could not, therefore, have given information of the defalcation, if it had been their duty to have giyen it. But the committee do not consider this duty was imposed on them, unless interrogated by those about to enter into the bond. The securities undertake that the principal shall faithfully perform his trust, and, if he does, it is immaterial whether he is solvent, or insolvent. They are supposed to know what are the circumstances of their principal; and they guaranty that they are good, and that confidence may be placed in his fidelity and ability to discharge the trust reposed in him; and they agree to respond all the damages the obligee may sustain by a breach of the trusts.

The second point involves more difficulty; and, in order to arrive at a correct conclusion, the committee have been led to examine the decisions of the courts in analogous cases, and the reports of several committees of this House.

Whether the officers of the Government can be guilty of such gross negligence by not enforcing the laws, and the regulations of the Departments, as to discharge securities, is a question deeply interesting to the finances of the country. It may be conceded by some, that, as an abstract question of law, laches are not imputable to the Government; and that, although courts cannot on this account afford relief, still that Congress may do it in the exercise of a sound discretion; and by adopting equitable principles to each case that shall be presented.

It is desirable that the decisions on this subject should be uniform, and the committee fear, that, if Congress shall grant relief on the grounds of the negligence of the accounting officers, that securities will not consider it as a part of their duty to look after the principal, and see that he performs his trust. The objects of requiring bail will be much lessened, if not rendered entirely nugatory,

If it is proper that Congress should grant relief, it appears to the committee that it is expedient to vest this power in the courts, that can investigate the cases with much less expense than they can he investigated here.

The petitioner relies on the 4th section of an act, passed 3d of March, 1809, vol. 4, page 220; and on the 13th and 14th sections of the act of March 3, 1817, vol. 6, page 199; and on the proviso of the 2d section of the act of 15th of May, 1820, vol. 6, page 520; and on the 1st, 3d, and 4th rule regarding pursers, under the rules and regulations prepared by the board of Navy Commissioners, according to the 2d section of an act, passed 7th February, 1815, vol. 4, page 792; in support of his position that he is discharged, by the continuance of Bourne in service while he was in arrear, and by the negligence of the accounting officers. The contract was substantially this. The bond was to be operative, if the principal did not regularly account, when thereunto required, for all public moneys received by him from time to time, and for all public property committed to his care; or if he did not pay over all sums of money due on settlement, or if he did not faithfully discharge, in every respect, the trust reposed in him; on the