above-named act, nor subject to its provisions. The committee have, however, a word to say as to the facts connected with this branch of the case. While it is true that Governor Ramsay received a draft on the Treasury for which he might have obtained gold, it is also true that he paid neither the Indians or traders in funds below par, or which the creditors themselves did not make choice of. For convenience and security he deposited the draft which he had received at the Treasury in New York, and took a certificate of deposit for it. Drafts on New York, and the notes on New York banks, were at a premium in Minnesota at the time the payments were made. The Indians were paid in gold, while most of the traders preferring paper were paid either by drafts on New York, or in par funds of New York banks. In making the deposit in New York, Governor Ramsay could have had in view nothing but the safety of the money and his own convenience. Commanding, as New York paper did, a premium in Minnesota, he could have derived no advantage from exchanging gold for paper; nor is it shown, or even pretended, that he ever realized or expected to realize, a cent of profit from the transaction. But he has been justified, if justification were necessary, by the uniform practice of government officers ever since the passage of the act of August 6, 1846. A year before, in another transaction, that excellent officer, Mr. Comptroller Whittlesey, authorized him to place funds intended to be paid out in Minnesota in such depositories as he might think proper; and the authority given him to do so then, no doubt led him to suppose that he would be justified in doing so in the instance now under consideration. The committee, therefore, see nothing blamable in his conduct in depositing the funds as he did, especially since it is evident from the testimony that he was actuated by none but proper prudential considerations in doing so. Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, and that the accounts of Governor Ramsay, growing out of the disbursement of the funds referred to in this report, be settled by the proper department. 1st. Session. No. 132. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 28, 1854.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. SHIELDS made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 240.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of James Edwards, of the administrator of Edward M. Wanton, and of the executors of Nehemiah Brush, having had the same under consideration, report: It appears, by an official copy of reports from Lieutenant Colonel B. K. Pierce, of the United States army, to his commanding officer, Colonel J. B. Crane, and from Colonel Crane to the War Department, that Micanopy, in Florida, was abandoned on the 24th August, 1836, in consequence of the inability of the force there to maintain itself against the enemy; and in pursuance of orders to that effect, Colonel Pierce states, in a certificate hereunto annexed, "that all the articles, both private and public, which he was compelled to leave for want of transportation, he ordered destroyed, to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy." A part of the property, thus destroyed, has been paid for by direction of acts of Congress for the relief of Charles Waldron, passed March 3, 1843, and of George Center, passed March 3, 1849. It is in evidence, and satisfactorily proved, by the affidavits of John H. McIntosh, Benjamin Harris, Isaac Lanier, and Charles Waldron, that James Edwards sustained heavy losses by the destruction of his property, consisting of houses, furniture, merchandise, &c., at Micanopy, on the 24th August, 1836, by order of the officer in command, to prevent the same from falling into the hands of the enemy. The amount of his damages is estimated at $2,482 32. Benjamin Harn, Isaac Lanier, John Dick, and Jesse A. Brush, all testify, under oath, that the houses, merchandise, tools, &c., &c., of Edward M. Wanton, were also destroyed, at the same time and place, by the same order, and for the same purpose. And his loss is estimated at $1,812 50. James Edwards' testimony, sustaining the claim of the late John M. Brush, is, "that the said Nehemiah Brush owned a house at Micanopy at the time of its abandonment; that this house was worth $800; that it was destroyed by order of Colonel B. K. Pierce on the 24th of August, 1836. The witness was a house-carpenter, and competent to judge of the value of the house, and his evidence is given in due form of law. He further testifies that this house, though it belonged to Nehemiah Brush, was in the occupancy-rented to George Center, who has been paid for the goods, &c., destroyed in the house. In the cases of Edwards and Wanton the witnesses testify that, by permission of the officers, their goods, furniture, &c., were removed from their houses to the fort for greater safety, and when the fort was destroyed, everything it contained was burnt with it. The principle is fully established by the legislation of Congress, that private property, destroyed by a commanding officer of the United States army in a period of war, should be paid for. The destruction being for the common good of the community, the loss should be borne in common. Accordingly a bill is reported for the relief of the petitioner. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, I certify, that on or about the 24th August, 1836, the post of Micanopy, East Florida, was abandoned, and, in pursuance of instructions, I caused the troops to be removed to Fort Heileman, at Garey's ferry, on Black creek. Horses, wagons, and all other means, were employed to transport the sick and the public property from Micanopy to Fort Heileman. The transportation was, however, insufficient to transport the whole of the public property, and no means existed to enable me to remove the private property of individuals who had been driven from the country. All the articles, both private and public, which I was compelled to leave for want of transportation, I ordered destroyed, to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. Among articles said to belong to citizens, I recollect eight or ten hogsheads of sugar. Some of the buildings were burnt, being on fire when we marched; others, at a little distance, were subsequently all burnt by the Indians after our departure. B. K. PIERCE, Brevet Lieut. Col. U. S. army. These cases being analogous, and passed upon the same principle as the two cases referred to above as having been paid by Congress, the committee beg leave to report a bill to embrace the three cases. 1st Session. No. 133. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 28, 1854.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. JONES, of Iowa, made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 241.] The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of James Wormsley, beg leave to report: That the petitioner was a soldier of the revolution, who enlisted for a term of six months, but was, with others, honorably discharged after the expiration of five months, and is thus precluded from a pension, as no existing law provides for any who served less than six months. There is abundant evidence of all the facts alleged, and the Commissioner of Pensions, in a letter of date January 8, 1850, recommends that a special act be passed for his relief. The case has been before this committee at the several sessions since 1847, and a favorable report and bill have been repeatedly presented by it. The committee append hereto a former report, which more fully sets forth the facts in the case, and report a bill which, in view of the age of the petitioner and past delays, they would respectfully urge upon the attention of the Senate. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.-JANUARY 3, 1849. The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of James Wormsley, report: The petitioner states that he enlisted into the service of the United States as a private soldier, in the State of Rhode Island, in June, 1780, for six months, under Lieutenant Johnson, who was attached to the regiment commanded by Colonel Christopher Green, and that he served the full term of six months, when he was discharged, and he claims a pension under the act of 7th June, 1832. Several witnesses have testified that they were well acquainted with the petitioner when he enlisted, and that they believe he served in said regiment six months, as stated by him. It appears, however, from the records on file in the Pension Office, that, although he was paid for six months' service, he was discharged before the expiration of six months; that the six months' |