Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

and made the most liberal promises of encouragement, and indemnity against loss, and, if successful, the most generous reward from the government." If there were no other evidence of this fact, it is sufficiently proven by the letter of Mr. Paulding himself, who was then Secretary of the Navy. Speaking of the report of Mr. Holmes, in which this statement occurs, he says, it "coincides with my recollections as well as my intentions while in the department." In his letter of March 8, 1848, he also says: "Had I not been prevented by a political revolution, I would have fulfilled every pledge I made you to the very letter, and at least saved you from any loss after all the labor and risk you incurred." He further says "that Myerle devoted himself to the work industriously and energetically, and did sustain a heavy loss from the undertaking, without any fault of his own." Your committee are of opinion, from the evidence, that the experiment in its public aspect (and it was undertaken almost entirely for the public good) has been entirely successful.

At the time Myerle engaged in it, there was scarcely a pound of American hemp water-rotted in the United States, and the strongest prejudice prevailed against the process. That prejudice has been entirely dissipated, and the process has been established as practicable, and introduced into common use in the west. So completely has the American hemp taken possession of the market, that the annual importation of the Russian hemp has fallen from about 6,000 tons in 1839 to 1,200 in 1844. This important change, so beneficial to the interests of our own country, is primarily attributable to the persevering efforts of Mr. Myerle.

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the Senate, in a report made by them on this claim at the first session of the 30th Congress, not only sustain it on this ground, but also on the further ground that the hemp delivered by Myerle, under his contract of 1840, was improperly rejected, and he improperly subjected to loss by that means. That committee say further: "That the inducements and promises held out to the memorialist in case of success, impose a clear and unquestionable obligation under the United States to indemnify him for his losses, and grant him a proper remuneration for his services." They further concur with the committee of the House of Representatives in the opinion that the rejection of the memorialist's hemp was groundless, and a virtual breach of contract, which justly entitled him to relief on that ground also.

66

Waiving all claim to remuneration for his services, or to that " generous reward" promised by the Secretary of the Navy in case of success, Myerle will be content, as appears from his memorial, with indemnity against the actual loss which he has sustained. This he appears to your committee to be entitled to, whether his experiment be considered a successful one or not. His loss sprang from no fault of his own; for he clearly devoted himself to the work with all assiduity, and the Secretary of the Navy promised indemnity against loss if he would attempt the experiment, and, in addition, "a generous reward" if it proved successful.

In relation to the propriety of the rejection of Myerle's hemp, delivered under his contract in 1841 and subsequently, your committee do

not regard that question as one vital to this claim. If, however, that rejection was improper, it greatly strengthens the grounds on which the claim rests. And that it was improper, appears to be clear from the testimony submitted.

Mr. Paulding, in his letter of March 8, 1848, addressed to Mr. Myerle, and above referred to, says: "Had I been at the head of the Navy Department at the time your hemp was rejected, I would most assuredly have taken upon myself the responsibility of directing it to be received, notwithstanding it was reported as inferior, not in quality, I believe, but in cleanliness, or something of that sort.”

Now, Mr. Paulding was the author of the contract with Myerle, and, of course, understood all its terms and conditions. Occupying that position, his declaration is entitled to much weight, when he says that the hemp was "improperly rejected." In his letter of the 25th of March, 1846, addressed to the same, he says: "I never had the slightest doubt that you were the victim on the trial of your hemp at the Boston navy yard." And in his letter of February 28, 1849, he says: "I had been for some time very desirous to procure a supply of American water-rotted hemp for the navy, in order to render the United States independent of foreign nations for this indespensable article, especially in time of war; and when you first called on me at the department on business connected with your machinery for manufacturing hemp, I suggested the matter to you. You thought the thing practicable, but stated many objections, and declined the undertaking until I offered such encouragement as overcame your objections. You sought no contract; the proposal came from me; and I always believed that one of your leading motives was that by which I was myself governed—namely, a wish to confer a benefit on your country. You succeeded, and were ruined.

"A change of administration had occurred, and I left the department before I could redeem the engagement I had entered into with you, and which, as I said before, induced you, in some measure, to enter on this laborious and hazardous undertaking.

"Though the object I had in view has been completely attained, through your energy, perseverance, and sacrifices, and the country is now thoroughly supplied with water-rotted hemp of domestic production, I cannot but regret that it has been by the sacrifice of your own property, aggravated by repeated disappointments in seeking some little recompense for your labors, losses, and mortification.

66

Having forever retired from public life, I am greatly disinclined to seeing my name connected with any species of discussion or controversy about past transactions in the department over which I presided. But as it was in a great degree through my encouragement and solicitations you were induced to enter on this hazardous enterprise, I have been, am, and always shall be, willing to lend my aid, so far as truth will sustain me, in placing your claim on the justice of your country on the footing it merits.

"After you had shown that the impression of its being a peculiarly unwholesome and dangerous occupation had no foundation in fact, there were not wanting a sufficient number of applicants to the department for contracts."

But, independently of this testimony of Mr. Paulding, there is other

testimony going to establish that the hemp was sufficiently strong, and indeed much stronger than that imported from Russia, and, according to tests actually made, proved its capacity to bear a weight of several hundred pounds more than that prescribed by the regulations of the department. Messrs. Lombard and Witmore, shippers, of Boston, to whom Myerle's hemp was consigned, in part, and who were privy to all the facts, clearly intimate that opinion; while Benjamin Sewall, who purchased a portion of the same hemp from them, says "that it was a perfect article, clean, free from tow, and of strong fibre."

The committee are unable to resist the conclusion that, looking to the nature, terms, and inducements of Myerle's contract with the government, and also to the character of his hemp, it should not have been rejected. The examination made by the inspectors was, probably, not sufficiently thorough. A few bales less thoroughly cleaned than the rest, by falling first under examination, were permitted to cause the whole to be condemned.

From this condemnation of Myerle's hemp at Boston in 1841, and subsequently, amounting in all to near two hundred tons, sprang his grievous loss. The manner of his loss is sufficiently explained by Mr. Holmes's report. Its extent it is difficult to determine. The actual loss in the reduced price of the hemp on hand could not have been less than fifteen thousand dollars; while the loss to his other property, resulting from a withdrawal of his personal attention during the time that he was engaged in this enterprise for the government, and more especially from the overthrow of his credit by the rejection of his hemp, must have amouted to fifty thousand dollars at the least. It is proper to bear in mind that Myerle was forced to incur heavy liabilities in the way of loans, in consequence of his failure to obtain the advances from the government which were promised him by Mr. Paulding. These liabilities, upon a failure of his credit, caused as above stated, fell with crushing weight upon him.

In the uncertainty that hangs about his actual loss, the committee have determined to report a bill so clearly within limits as to recommend itself for its moderation to the closest and most parsimonious. Additional evidence, filed in the case since the former reports, more than sustain the allowance made.

They report a bill for thirty thousand dollars, and recommend its passage.

2

1st Session.

No. 61.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JANUARY 23, 1854.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Foot made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of David P. Weeks, report:

That the petitioner claims a pension from the 4th of September, 1846, to the 4th of March, 1850. It is shown by a letter from the Commissioner of Pensions to the chairman of the committee, dated the 5th instant, that during the time for which the petitioner claims a pension he was serving under enlistment in the regular army, as a sergeant of ordnance, during which time his pension was withheld or discontinued by the Commissioner of Pensions, in conformity with the provisions of the act of the 30th of April, 1844; which provides "that no person in the army, navy, or marine corps, shall be allowed to draw both a pension, as an invalid, and the pay of his rank or station in the service, unless the alleged disability for which the pension was granted be such as to have occasioned his employment in a lower grade, or in some civil branch of the service." It appears from the letter of the Commissioner of Pensions that the petitioner was an invalid, having, while serving as a private in Florida, received a wound in action by which he lost his left fore-arm-that afterwards he re-enlisted "by special authority from the adjutant general," and under said re-enlistment performed the duties of ordnance sergeant until his discharge, made under special orders, dated at Washington, 14th of February, 1850, and at his own request.

The committee would further report that, at the last session of Congress, on the 11th of February, 1852, a favorable report was made on the petition of David P. Weeks, accompanied by a bill for his relief; the report is numbered 73, and the bill 203. That report was founded on an error contained in the letter of the Commissioner of Pensions to the chairman of the committee, dated December 30, 1851, which stated that, when employed in the Ordnance Department, "Weeks was not an enlisted soldier," but "held his appointment" by "authority vested in the Secretary of War." The committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution :

Resolved, That the said petition ought not to be granted.

« ZurückWeiter »