IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 30, 1871.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. WILLEY made the following REPORT. [To accompany bill S. No. 944.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate bill No. 944, for the relief of Mrs. Lucy H. Carroll, administratrix of George W. Carroll, deceased, late of Conway County, State of Arkansas, and Mrs. Hibernia Armstrong, of the same county and State, have considered the same, and beg leave to submit the following report: The bill provides for the payment, out of the Treasury of the United States, to the administratrix aforesaid, of the sum of $112,141 21, on account of proceeds of three hundred and eighty-nine bales of cotton, alleged to have been taken by the troops of the United States, from the plantation of her decedent, and turned over to the United States Treasury agents, at Little Rock, Arkansas, and afterward converted into money and paid into the Treasury of the United States; and also provides for the payment out of the Treasury to Mrs. Armstrong of the sum of $26,500 92, proceeds of her cotton, in like manner taken, converted into money, and paid into the Treasury. Without having examined into the verity of the facts stated in said bill, the committee have ascertained that proceedings have been instituted in the United States Court of Claims for the recovery against the United States, respectively, of the amount specified in said bill; and that in the case of said administratrix, the said court finding that her decedent had given aid and comfort to the late rebellion, within the meaning and application of the provision in that behalf, in section 3 of "An act to provide for the collection of abandoned property, and for the prevention of frauds in insurrectionary districts within the United States," approved March 12, 1863, (see Stat. L. p. 820,) dismissed the suit of the claimant. The committee are informed that notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States has been made from this decision by the said administratrix. A similar decision, and on the same grounds, was rendered by said Court of Claims dismissing the suit of the said Hibernia Armstrong, In this latter case a motion for a new trial was made which said Court of Claims overruled, and so this case stands. Under these circumstances the committee think they ought to be dis. charged from the further consideration of said bill. 3d Session. NO. 326. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 30, 1871.-Ordered to be printed. : Mr. WILLEY made the following REPORT. [To accompany bill S. No. 1274.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of William J. Phillips, praying compensation for services as assessor of internal revenue for the second district of Texas, hariny duly considered the same, beg leave to submit the following report: The claimant served as such assessor from July 11, 1865, to 23d December, 1866. He presents the following account of his claim: The United States (Office of Internal Revenue) To Wm. J. Phillips, Assessor Second District, Texas, Dr. For salary from July 11, 1865, to December 31, 1865 less tax... Total Additional compensation under provision to section 22-law of March 2, 1867 $1,135 69 672 92 2,358 23 1,397 29 133 70 5,697 83 1,000 00 The following letter of the Comptroller will show how the matter stands at the Treasury Department, and also the reason why payment of claimant's salary, &c., is refused: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, SIR: The accounts passed by this office show that you received from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue internal revenue stamps to the amount of $2,674, and that you have not deposited any money on account of such stamps. It also appears that the necessary expenses incurred by you in administering the office of assessor have been paid; but that you have not been paid either salary or commissions as assessor, the same having been withheld for want of evidence that you had taken the prescribed oath. A qualified oath only was taken. Very respectfully, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Esq.. R. W. TAYLOR, Late Assessor Second District, Texas. The claimant alleges that he took the oath prescribed with a qualification, and was duly commissioned, and assigns as the reason why he could not take the oath prescribed by law that he was chief justice of his County during the early part of the war, which office he held to exempt him from military service, till he was forced to leave his county and go to Mexico." Similar claims have heretofore been presented to the Senate, and the Senate has hitherto refused to allow them. Acting on their own judg ment, the committee would feel no hesitation in reporting in favor of this claim, and all similar claims, when the services were faithfully ren dered to the satisfaction of the Department. How can the Government consistently decline to pay for services of such claimants, honestly rendered, on the plea that the Secretary of the Treasury had no rightful authority to appoint them? They were appointed. They were appointed, too, because the Secretary of the Treasury alleged that he found it difficult, if not impossible, under the circumstances then exist ing, to find men in that section of the country competent and trustworthy to discharge the duties of the position, who could take the oath prescribed by law. They did perform the very service, and all the service, which they would have performed if they had been appointed in conformity to law. Can we afford to avail ourselves of such value received without making compensation? If any just and conscientious man had created an agent to superintend the execution of any given trust, with instructions that he should only employ a certain class of men to do it, and the agent, finding it difficult to procure the class of men prescribed, had transcended his authority and employed another class to do it, who, nevertheless, had performed the duty required in a satisfactory manner, would such a man hesitate a moment to pay for the service thus rendered? Certainly not. The committee ought, perhaps, to consider themselves instructed by the aforesaid action of the Senate, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of said petition; but they are so impressed with a sense of the injustice of such a course that they venture to bring the matter again to the consideration of the Senate; and, therefore, report the accompanying bill, with a recommendation that it be passed.. |