IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 19, 1852. Ordered to be printed. Mr. BERRIEN made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. 429.] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the memorial of That the memorialist was in the year 1836, a second lieutenant in the regiment of dragoons--was in the performance of staff duties, as assistant commissary of subsistence and acting assistant quartermaster at the dragoon station at Fort des Moines, on the upper Mississippi river, and was in the receipt and disbursement of public moneys. That on the 23th May, 1837, he had in his hands between three and four thousand dollars of such moneys in notes of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, one of the Government deposite banks, which had been placed in his hands for disbursement at the aforesaid military post. That on that day intelligence was communicated to the memorialist, that the aforesaid bank had ceased to redeem its notes in specie, and by the provisions of the specie circular of 1836, which forbade all disbursing officers of the army to disburse, or use for any public debt, any bank notes not redeemable in specie, the notes so held by the memorialist became utterly seless to him as a disbursing officer. That the memorialist exchanged the notes of the said Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, which had become thus unavailable in his hands, for an accepted draft on the Des Moines Land Company, which was then of undoubted credit, and endorsed the same to Col. Mason, with a request that the proceeds should be deposited to the credit of the memorialist at St. Louis, the place where he had to pay over the balance which his accounts, when settled, should exhibit to be due to the Treasury. That in consequence of some disagreement between the members of the Des Moines Land Company at New York and their agents in the west, the acceptance of this draft was disavowed-its disavowal was followed by a protest, and thus the memorialist was deprived of the means of refunding to the treasury the amount of the notes which had become unavailable in his hands, and for which the aforesaid acceptance had been taken in exchange, in the hope of saving the amount to the United States. That these transactions were closed, after much labor and expense incurred by the memorialist by the interposition of Congress, to the satisfaction of the treasury, and the memorialist stands acquitted, and wholly fischarged from all claim against him by the United States. They are referred to as preparatory to the statement which forms the gist of the memorialist's case, and the foundation on which he rests his claim to the relief which he asks. The memorialist never was a defaulter in the injurious sense or interpretation of that term. He held an amount of public money, which, under the regulations prescribed by the Government to its disbursing officers, became unavailable in his hands. He sought to exchange them for available funds. He succeeded after much labor and expense to an extent which has been satisfactory to the Government, to whom the proceeds have been transferred, and by whom he has been discharged. But that while his accounts thus necessarily remained unsettled-while on the books of the treasury he appeared as a defaulter, although in fact he was not so certain proceedings were had by the commanding general of the army, which coerced the memorialist to surrender his commission, and drove him from the army; which proceedings were contrary to equity and justice, not authorized by law, nor taken in conformity with the provisions of the act of Congress on which they professed to be founded. The act of the 31st January, 1823, required the disbursing officers and agents of the United States to make quarterly returns, and in the event of their failure to do so, required the officer at the head of the department to which such agent or officer was responsible, promptly to report him to the President of the United States, to be by him dismissed from the service; but it also provided for the continuance in office of such defaulting agent or officer if he could account for his default to the satisfaction of the President. The subsequent act of 25th January, 1828, authorized the proper officer to withhold the compensation due to any defaulting officer, until he should have accounted for and paid into the treasury all sums for which he was liable; but provided that this should not extend to balances arising from the depreciation of treasury notes received by him for disbursement; and made it the duty of the accounting officer, on the demand of such defaulting agent, to report the balance due to the Treasury Department, and to order a suit to be commenced within sixty days thereafter against such delinquent and his sureties. Under this latter act proceedings were had against the memorialist. The balance appearing to be due by him was reported to the treasury, and his pay, emoluments and allowances were withheld. In this state of facts, the commanding general of the army, under the alleged authority of the Secretary of War, and, for aught that appears to the committee, without the intervention of the President of the United States, addressed to the memorialist the following communication: HEAD-QUARTERS OF THE ARMY, Washington, 2d January, 1839. SIR: I am sorry to be obliged to communicate to you that you have been reported by the accounting officer a defaulter, and that your name has been submitted to the Secretary of War as such. I have in consequence to say to you by authority of the War Department, that you will be permitted to resign your commission in the army; but if you do not do so, you will be dropped from the rolls of the army. I am not at all personally acquainted with the state of your accounts, and the permission to resign is offered to you rather as a matter of regard to your future prosperity, than any I am, sir, very respectfully your obedient servant, other consideration. ALEX. MACOMB, Major General Commanding-in-Chief. To Lieut. B. S. ROBERTS, Under the pressure of the menace contained in this letter-in this state of actual duress in which it placed the memorialist, by requiring his resignation, on pain of dismissal from the service, without affording him an opportunity of being heard in his defence-of accounting for his default to the satisfaction of the President, which the act of 1823 secured to him the right to do-to avoid the disgrace of that dismissal, a young, inexperienced, and as subsequent events have abundantly proved, a gallant and highly meritorious officer, was driven to the surrender of his commission. It seems to the committee that these proceedings were in every respect exceptionable. 1. The memorialist was in no just sense of the term a defaulter. The balance appearing against him resulted from the fact that notes, which had been placed in his hands for disbursement, had become unavailable by the suspension of the bank which issued them; and that his honest and active efforts to exchange them for available funds were for a long time ineffectual. For the evidence of this, and of the integrity and fidelity of the memorialist throughout this transaction, the committee refer to the report of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, No. 572, at the first session of the 28th Congress; to the act of Congress founded on that report; to the documentary evidence herewith, to show that the memorialist has complied with the provisions of that act; and to the letter addressed by the members of that committee to the President of the United States. 2. The apparent default of the memorialist did not authorize the double proceeding which was taken against him. pay, Under the act of 1823, upon the report of his default to the treasury, it was competent to the Secretary of War to have reported him to the Presi dent, and for the President to have dismissed him from the service. If upon this fact being notified to him, he had failed to "account for his default to the satisfaction of the President," or under the act of 1828, on a like report to the treasury, it was competent to the proper officer to withhold his emoluments and allowances, until the sum due was reclaimed, giving him the right to demand a suit, if he contested his indebtedness. But it could not have been the intention of Congress to authorize this double proceedng-to suspend his pay and emoluments under the act of 1828, with the privilege of contesting the rightfulness of that suspension-and by another and cotemporaneous proceeding, under the act of 1823, to take from him forever all right to pay and emoluments, by dismissing him from the service. 3. But if a proceeding under the act of 1823, could have been allowed under the circumstances, it did not authorize a menace from the commandng general to coerce the resignation of the memorialist.. On his default being reported to the treasury, the Secretary of War was uthorized to report him to the President, and he was entitled to notice of this proceeding, that he might avail himself of the right which, the law secured to him, of accounting for his default to the satisfaction of the President. It was only after such notice and the failure so to account, that the President was authorized to dismiss him. But at no stage of this proceeding was the commanding general of the army authorized to demand resignation, ander a threat of dismissal from the service. Such a communication, however well intended, placed him in a state of duress, which so far impaired the validity of the resignation which it coerced, that it ought not to have been accepted. To restore to the army after a lapse of time, an officer thus unlawfully driven from the service, would be embarassing, because it would conflict with the rights of others. But the memorialist does not ask this. On the occurrence of the late war with Mexico, he was restored to the service by an appointment to a different regiment, and, as the evidence before the committee and his rapid promotion abundantly show, did gallant service; but the grant of his pay, emoluments, and allowances from the time of his com pulsory resignation to that of his re-appointment, while it will to that extent repair the injustice which has been done to him, will conflict with no existing rights of other persons. The committee accordingly report a bill for that purpose. let Session. No. 226. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 19, 1852. Mr. MALLORY made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 292.] The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was recommitted the "bill (8.292) for the relief of Richard W. Meade," have had the same under consideration, and report: That in April, 1849, the memorialist proceeded to San Francisco, Caliia, by the overland route, under orders from the Navy Department, to ake command of the steamer Edith, then attached to the United States quadron upon the Pacific station, accompanied by his clerk, who went out th him by authority of the department; that he arrived at San Francisco the 15th of July, and reported to Commander Long, the senior officer of e squadron present, who declined to place him in command of the steamer consequence of the absence of the commander-in-chief; that upon the star of Commodore Jones, the memorialist repeatedly applied to him to put upon the duty for which he was sent out by the department, but his plication was refused; that the memorialist was consequently detained on tore at a heavy expense from the 15th July to the 30th September, 1849, Then he returned to the United States; that he presented his accounts and achers for the expenses necessarily incurred for the subsistence of himself d clerk during the period above stated, to the Fourth Auditor, for settleent, who considered the allowance of the claim prohibited by the act of March, 1835, regulating the pay of the navy. În reference to this case, Auditor remarks as follows: "As Lieutenant Meade, with his clerk, proceeded to California under the asonable expectation, founded upon an express order of the Secretary of Navy, that, upon his arrival there, he would be placed in command of e United States steamer Edith, which expectation was disappointed by te omission of the commander of the United States squadron there to mply with the said order; and as, in consequence of such omission, he as compelled, without any fault of his own, to remain on shore, subject to ery extraordinary expenses, such as the pay allowed him by law was cernly never intended to cover, it seems to me equitable that Congress hould grant him the relief he asks. His claim was necessarily rejected by be accounting officers, as they are prohibited from making any allowance a naval officer beyond his pay and travelling expenses. If the cost of |