United States service, and had always good eyesight until sent home from duty on board the monitor Terror. In his present condition, from chronic retinitis, he is absolutely unable to use his eyes from the painfulness caused by this disease. DELAWARE COUNTY, 88: WILLIAM T. W. DICKESON, M. D. On this 4th day of May, A. D. 1876, personally appeared before me, a notary public of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in said county, William T. W. Dickeson, M. D., who being duly affirmed according to law, says that the above facts are true as he verily believes. Affirmed and subscribed before me the day and year above written. A. P. OTTEY, Notary Public. From the following letter of the former Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Robeson, to the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, it will be seen that it was the opinion of the Navy Department that the disease was incident to the service: NAVY DEPARTMENT, Washington, March 1, 1877. SIR: Upon a full review of all the facts in the case of Assistant Engineer Jabez Burchard, United States Navy, the department is of the opinion that the causes which incapacitated him for active duty were incident to the service, and that he should receive the higher rate of pay allowed to retired officers by section 1588 of the Revised Statutes. Very respectfully, &c., Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. Hon. S. J. W. TABOR, GEO. M. ROBESON, The following is a letter from the Secretary of the Navy to Hon. A. A. Sargent, former chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the Senate, which gives a concise history of the whole subject: NAVY DEPARTMENT, March 14, 1878. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date inquiring, on behalf of the Naval Committee of the Senate, what were the reasons for placing Second Assistant Engineer Jabez Burchard on the retired list on furlough pay, and why it is now desirable to change his status. January, 1874, Mr. Burchard was ordered before a retiring board, the finding of which was that he was affected with chronic inflammation of the retina and was consequently, at the time, unfit for duty, but "not incapacitated within the meaning of the law." In October, 1874, he was again ordered before the retiring board and found incapacitated for service, and that there was no evidence that the incapacity originated in the line of duty. The President concurred in opinion with the retiring board, and directed that Second Assistant Engineer Burchard be retired on "furlough pay," and he was so retired. In 1876, Mr. Burchard appealed to the Secretary of the Navy to examine into his case, which he regarded as one of peculiar hardship, and filed certain papers in support of his claim that his disease originated in the line of duty, and asked that the President be requested to nominate him for transfer from the furlough to the retired pay list. Copies of these papers are herewith inclosed. The Solicitor of the Navy, to whom these papers were referred, reported: "The evidence is so strong to prove that Burchard's loss of eyesight was caused by exposure in the performance of duty, that I respectfully advise that he be nominated for transfer from the furlough to the retired pay list." No nomination for a transfer was made, but instead thereof the Secretary of the Navy, March 1, 1877, informed the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury that, upon a full review of the case of Mr. Burchard, he was of opinion that the causes which incapacitated him for active duty were incident to the service, and that he should receive the higher rate of pay allowed to retired officers under section 1588 of the Revised Stat utes. It appears that this view was accepted by the Fourth Auditor, and that Mr. Burchard was paid for the time he had been on the retired list the difference between furlough pay and retired pay. On the 10th January, 1878, the Second Comptroller called on the department for a copy of so much of the decision of the retiring board in Mr. Burchard's case as related to the question whether or not the causes were incident to the service, and, it is understood, decided, quite properly it is thought, that Mr. Burchard could only receive the higher pay by transfer, under section 1588 of the Revised Statutes, and gave directions to check against him the difference of pay he had received. As he was getting only "furlough pay," or half of "leave of absence pay”-$500 a year-the checkage of this difference, which he had received, against this small sum of $500 per annum, was a peculiar hardship. Mr. Burchard therefore applied to the department for a recommendation to the President for his nomination from the furlough to the retired pay list. Under all the circumstances-that is, the probability that Mr. Burchard's disease might have been incident to the service; that the Secretary of the Navy had given him the benefit of this view; that he had received the difference of pay; that a checkage against his small pay of $500 per annum would be peculiary hard; that he is nearly blind, and was not charged with nor retired for immoral conduct-I consider the case as one calling for my favorable action, and his name was submitted to the President for nomination from the furlough pay to the retired pay list. A copy of the report of the medical officers on the retiring board is herewith inclosed; also a copy of a statement made by Burchard before the board. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. A. A. SARGENT, Chairman Committee on Naval Affairs, United States Senate. R. W. THOMPSON, Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Burchard was subsequently nominated for the retired list of the Navy, so that he could lawfully receive 75 per cent. of sea pay, and he was confirmed by the Senate. He was accordingly transferred from the furlough to the retired pay list April 1, 1878, to take effect from the date of his retirement, October 26, 1876. The Comptroller, however, still adhered to his former decision that Mr. Burchard could not receive that rate of pay without a special law of Congress allowing the same. Hence this bill. A bill for the relief of Mr. Burchard was reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives at the last session of Congress on the very last day of the session, but failed to receive the final action of that body for want of time. The report submitted by Mr. Frank Jones, on behalf of the committee, at that time, shows that that committee held the same views in relation to the justice of the bill that your committee do. The report is as follows: Mr. FRANK JONES, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, submitted the following report, to accompany bill H. R. 5642. The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5642) for the relief of Jabez Burchard, assistant engineer on the retired list of the United States Navy, having made diligent inquiry in reference to the merits of this bill, respectfully report: It appears from evidence furnished from the Navy Department that Assistant Engineer Burchard was retired in October, 1874, on account of defective vision, incapacitating him for active duty, and that a board of officers reported that his disability resulted from injuries received not in the line of duty; he was consequently placed upon furlough pay. In 1876 he appealed to the Secretary of the Navy for a re-examination of his case, and furnished evidence in support of his claim, that his disease resulted from injuries received in the line of his duty. The evidence was so strong in support of the fact that Mr. Burchard lost his eyesight by exposure in the performance of his duty that the Secretary considered it just that he should be transferred from furlough to the retired list of the Navy, and he ordered the accounting officer of the Treasury to allow him 75 per cent. of the sea pay of his grade, which he was accordingly paid. But a new Comptroller coming into office, ruled, under the opinion given by the Attorney-General, that having been retired by a report of a board of officers, stating that his disability was not the result of injuries incurred in line of duty, he was entitled to but 50 per cent. of sea pay. Afterward Secretary Thompson, with a view to give him 75 per cent. of sea pay, recommended that he be nominated for the retired list of the Navy, and the President so nominated him; and after an examination of all the papers in connection with the case the Senate confirmed the nomination. He was accordingly put on the retired pay list of the Navy. But the Comptroller still decided that such nomination and confirmation could not give him the 75 per cent. of sea pay without an act of Congress, and in this decision he was sustained by the Attorney-General. There was therefore no recourse left Mr. Burchard but to appeal to Congress. In his letter to the chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, Secretary Thompson said: "Under all the circumstances, and considering the probability that Mr. Burchard's disease might have been incident to the service; that the Secretary of the Navy had given him the benefit of this view, and that he had received the difference of pay; that a checkage against his small pay of $500 per annum would be peculiarly hard; that he is nearly blind, and was not charged with or retired for immoral conduct, Í consider the case as calling for my favorable action, and his name was submitted to the President for transfer from furlough pay to the retired pay list." Considering all the facts and circumstances in connection with this case, the committee report favorably thereon, and recommend that the bill ought to pass. Mr. Burchard is entirely incapacitated from pursuing any avocation that requires the use of his eyes, and is, therefore, debarred from the pursuit of any occupation by which he might earn a sufficient income for his support. Should the bill recommended by your committee pass, Mr. Burchard will receive pay at the rate of $1,275 per annum, or 75 per cent. of the sea pay of his grade, his pay at present being $850 per annum, or 50 per cent. of the sea pay of his grade. The following statement is incorporated in this report for the information of the Senate, which shows the rate at which Mr. Burchard has been paid since his retirement: Jabez Burchard retired October 26, 1874, and paid as follows: From October 26, 1874, to June 30, 1875, at $950 per annum (248 days) $645 48 From July 1, 1875, to March 31, 1877, at $500 per annum 875 36 From April 1, 1877, to June 30, 1877, at $1,275 per annum 317 28 From July 1, 1877, to September 30, 1877, at $1,275 per annum.. 321 37 From October 1, 1877, to December 31, 1877, at $1,275 per annum... $321 37 80 43 240 94 From January 1, 1878, to January 31, 1878, at $1,275 per annum. 108 29 80 33 $317 88 105 96 211 92 From July 1, 1878, to September 30, 1878, at $850 per annum. 214 25 214 25 209 59 211 92 214 25 214 25 Paid by certificate April, 1877, difference between 75 per cent. of $1,700 per annum ($1,275) and 50 per cent. of $1,900 per annum ($950) from October 26, 1874, to June 30, 1875.. 220 82 Difference between $1,275 and $500 per annum from July 1, 1875, to March 31, 1877, inclusive Paid by certificate April 15, 1879, difference between $500 and $1,275 per aunum from February 1, 1878, to March 31, 1878, and amount checked by paymaster first quarter 1878 ($80.43).......... 1,356 79 205 70 N. B.-This officer received the pay at $1,275, or 75 per cent. of the sea pay at $1,700 per annum from date of retirement, October 26, 1874, to March 31, 1878. April 1, 1878, it was changed to 50 per cent. of $1,700 ($850), and he is so paid to December 31, 1879, last return in. Your committee are of opinion that this is a very meritorious case, and one that appeals to the magnanimity and justice of Congress. The bill is, therefore, reported favorably, and its passage is earnestly recommended. S. Rep. 530-2 2d Session. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 28, 1880.-Ordered to be printed. No. 531. Mr. COCKRELL, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill.S. 1545.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1545) for the relief of J. W. Burbridge & Co. and Robert H. Montgomery, have carefully considered the same, and submit the following report: This bill directs that the claims of J. W. Burbridge & Co. and Robert H. Montgomery to the proceeds of certain sugars alleged to have been taken by the United States officers under General Orders No. 91, of General Butler, at New Orleans, amounting to $37,951.59, be referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication upon the evidence now in the records of said court, and such additional evidence as may be produced, and that said court shall determine whether said J. W. Burbridge & Co. had, at the time of the taking, a valid and subsisting lien which could have been enforced, and, if so, the nature and extent of that lien and for what amount, and whether J. W. Burbridge & Co. are entitled to said lien as against the United States; and that said court shall further determine whether the said lien was assignable, and was in fact assigned to said Montgomery, and is valid in the hands of said Montgomery against the United States; and if the said court, upon the facts, can lawfully render judgment against the proceeds of said property in the hands of the United States and claimed under said lien, the said court shall determine whether such judgment shall be in favor of said Montgomery or said Burbridge & Co., or both, having due regard to the equities between them. This bill is a very peculiar one, and by its terms the court is required to determine whether Burbridge & Co. had a valid, subsisting, and enforceable lien on the sugars, the nature, extent, and amount of the same, and whether said Burbridge & Co. are entitled to the advantages of said lien against the United States, and whether the lien was assignable, and was in fact assigned to said Montgomery, and is valid in his hands against the United States, and then, if the court can lawfully render a judgment against the proceeds of said sugars, to determine whether Montgomery or Burbridge & Co. shall get the proceeds, or both, and, if both, in what proportion. Robert H. Montgomery claims that he is a citizen of Great Britain, and that J. W. Burbridge & Co. were commission merchants in New Orleans, La., and were the factors of one Leo L. Johnson, the owner of the plantation known as the Webster plantation, on the line of the Opelousas Railroad, about 35 miles from New Orleans. It is claimed, and for the purposes of this report admitted, that claimants, Montgomery |