The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the petition of Francis Barnes, praying compensation for services as inspector in the custom-house at New-Orleans, report: That from the information contained in the letters of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs, in the opinion of the committee said claim should not be allowed; said letters are hereunto annexed and made a part of this report. A letter is also on file from the late Secretary Walker, with other papers in the case, recommending the rejection of said claim. The committee, therefore, report the following resolution : Resolved, That the claim of Francis Barnes for compensation for services as inspector in the custom-house at New Orleans, while absent on leave, and for extra services, be rejected. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, January 17, 1854. SIR: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 4th instant, enclosing, by direction of the Committee on Commerce, the memorial of Francis Barnes, late inspector of the customs of New-Orleans, and asking the opinion of this department thereon. The case was referred to the Commissioner of Customs, and his report which embodies the facts thereof is herewith enclosed. The committee will perceive from this report that Mr. Barnes has already received all that he contracted for, and all that he could receive under the law and regulations. I see nothing in the case entitling it to exception from the general rule in such cases, and am of opinion that the claim could not be allowed without evoking a number of others of similar character. I am, very respectfully, Hon. H. HAMLIN, JAMES GUTHRIE, United States Senate. Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, January 9, 1853. SIR: In compliance with the directions endorsed on the papers which you referred to me, in the case of Francis Barnes, praying compensation for services and extra services, as inspector of the customs at the port of New Orleans, I have to report that I have examined the statement set forth in his petition, in connection with the accounts of the collectors of that district for the periods stated, and find that the sum of $183, being the amount charged by him for services in the third quarter of 1845, was disallowed by Collector Barrett, for the reason, as stated on the account, that he was "absent on leave, without pay," and that $114, being the amount charged by him for services in July and August, 1848, were disallowed for the same reason by Collector Prieur. Though it is customary, under circular instructions of the department, to allow compensation to inspectors while temporarily incapacitated by sickness contracted in the performance of their official duties, it is believed to be the uniform practice at all the ports not to allow pay to inspectors while on leave of absence, they being considered by law entitled to pay only for the time they are actually employed in aid of the customs. With reference to the claim for compensation for extra services, alledged to have been performed by the petitioner in the years 1846 and 1847, the department has no knowledge of the facts stated, but assuming them to be correct, still the accounting officers could not make any allowance therefor, without contravening the laws of 3d of March, 1799, and 26th April, 1816, which provide and limit the compensation of inspectors of the customs to a sum not exceeding three dollars per day; and the 2d section of the act of August 23, 1842, by which it is enacted, "that no officer in any branch of the public service, or any person whose salary, pay, or emolument is, or are fixed by law, or regulation, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any service or duty whatsoever, unless the same shall be authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly sets forth that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." The papers are herewith enclosed. All of which is respectfully submitted. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. JAMES GUTHRIE, Secretary of the Treasury. H. J. ANDERSON, Commissioner of Customs. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the documents in support of the claim of Richard Fitzpatrick, report : A favorable report on this claim was made at the first session of the last Congress, and the bill which accompanied it passed the Senate, but was not acted on by the House of Representatives. Upon a review of the case, the committee have agreed to adopt the previous report, and make it a part of this report, and to recommend the passage of the accompanying bill, being, with a slight verbal amendment, identical with that which has once received the sanction of the Senate. IN SENATE, MAY 25, 1852. The Committee on Claims, to whom were referred the documents in support of the claim of Richard Fitzpatrick, report: Colonel Fitzpatrick submits "an estimate of losses and damages sustained by him at his plantation on Miami river, near Cape Florida, by the Seminole Indians;" and an account for the occupation of his premises by United States troops, and for wood and other property taken by said troops, amounting in all to $60,320, for which he asks payment. Colonel Harney, U. S. A., certifies as follows, viz: "I certify that I was in command of the troops of the United States in the south of Florida for a considerable time during the Seminole war, and had my headquarters at Fort Dallas, which is located upon the property of Richard Fitzpatrick, who is a citizen of Florida, and that whatever was found useful on the lands of Mr. Fitzpatrick was freely used for the benefit of the United States. I do further certify that there was a considerable quantity of wood cut off the land of Fitzpatrick, and used on board of the steamboats in the service of the United States, it being more convenient to take wood at that place than any other on that part of the coast of Florida." General Jesup, in a letter addressed to the Secretary of War, dated January 13, 1841, says: "Fort Lauderdale, on New river, and Fort Dallas, on Miami river, were established by my orders some time in February or March, 1838. Both forts are said to be on the lands of Colonel Fitzpatrick. They are occupied at this time. "Timber for building and for fuel, for the use of the troops and for the steamboats in the public service, has been cut at both ports. Colonel Fitzpatrick is justly entitled to a reasonable rent for his land and compensation for the timber cut for the use of the public; but it would be difficult, without a careful examination of the premises, to determine what would be a fair compensation. "As he could make no use of the land himself, and as the fuel was cut and hauled by the troops, from two to three thousand dollars a year would, I should think, be ample compensation for both." General Jesup adds, that "the buildings and other property charged in the account were destroyed by the Indians before the lands were occupied by the troops." It appears from the affidavit of the petitioner that his plantation was abandoned to the Indians in January, 1836, two years before the occupation by the United States troops; and that they took his stock and destroyed his fruit trees and other improvements. The committee concur in opinion with General Jesup that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the use of his land and for the fuel, timber and other property, taken and used by the United States troops; but they are not prepared to sanction the principle that the government is to be held responsible to remunerate its citizens for losses sustained by the ravages and depredations of the savage tribes. There is no sufficient evidence before the committee by which a judgment can be formed of the amount and value of the property taken and used by the troops. The quantity of wood cut is estimated from one thousand two hundred to three thousand cords, and the price is fixed by one of the witnesses at six dollars per cord, the price charged in the account. This price appears to the committee to be evidently extravagant. The committee submit the accompanying bill. 1st Session. No. 50. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY 18, 1854.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. BRODHEAD made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 142.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition and papers in the case of Don B. Juan Domercq, report : This claim has heretofore been twice examined, by successive committees, and favorable reports made thereon; and in each instance the bill reported by the committees has passed the Senate, but has failed to receive any action in the other branch of Congress. Upon a review of the evidence, this committee concur in the report made by the Committee of Claims at the 1st session of the last Congress (No. 92) and adopt the same as a part of this report. They also submit the accompanying bill, being the same as that which previously passed the Senate. IN SENATE, FEBRUARY 24, 1852. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Don B. Juan Domercq, report: This claim was examined by the Committee of Claims of the last Congress, and a report setting forth the facts of the case was made, accompanied by a bill providing for the payment for so much of the tobacco taken as was not returned to the owner, at the rate of $24 per bale, but no compensation was allowed in that bill for the use and injury of the eight hundred and twenty-three bales which were returned. This committee adopt that report and bill as far as they go, and are further of opinion that a sum not exceeding one dollar per bale should be paid for the injury occasioned to that which was used for barricades, and subsequently returned; and they report a bill in conformity with these views, and recommend its passage. IN SENATE, JANUARY 28, 1851. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Don B. Juan Domercq, report: That General Worth, commanding the advance of the army under General Scott, entered Puebla, in Mexico, in May, 1847, and, finding |