REPORT Bf the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, on the petition of Joshua Rutledge. FEBRUARY 3, 1820. Read, and ordered to lie upon the table. The Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred, on the 4th of January, 1820, the petition of Joshua Rutledge, have had the same and the papers accompanying it, under consideration, and REPORT THEREON: The petitioner states, that Benjamin Biddle, deceased, late of the county of Hartford, and state of Maryland, by his last will and testament, bequeathed to his two daughters Augustine and Nancy, one thousand pounds between them, and directed the same to be put into the Continental Loan Office, to draw interest from thence, for their only sole and proper benefit and behoof, until the said Augustine and Nancy arrive at the age of sixteen years; and the petitioner states, that the said sum of one thousand pounds was put into the Loan Office as was directed, and, that a certificate was obtained therefor, which said certificate hath, as he states, since been accidentally lost. The petitioner further states, that, in pursuance of the act of Congress, of April, 1794, entitled "an act limiting the time for presenting claims for destroyed certificates of certain descriptions, to the 1st day of June, in the year 1795;" the evidence in support of said lost certificate was procured in due time, as required by the said act, and was entrusted with Jacob Rutledge, to present them at the treasury; and he states, that Jacob Rutledge neglected to present the said evidence, within the time limited by the said act of Congress; whereby, he states, that he has been deprived of the benefit of said certificate; and he states, that he hath married the said Augustine Biddle, daughter of the said Benjamin Biddle; and he prays, that such order may be made thereon, as will place him in the same situation as he would have been, had his claim, with the said evidence, been presented at the treasury in due time. The committee further report, that, on the 8th day of January, 1784, Congress resolved, that certificates made payable to bearer, and pro bably in circulation, were not renewable. And, on the nineteenth of August, 1785, Congress resolved, that, in all cases where certificates of the United States, payable to the bearer, have been lost, and no satisfactory evidence given of the same having been destroyed, it would be improper that any new certificates should issue to replace the same. The committee further report, that the act of Congress of April, 1794, is bottomed on the same principle that is contained in said resolutions alluded to, namely, that satisfactory evidence of the destruction of Loan Office Certificates, for renewal of which application may be made, shall be produced, to obtain new certificates, in place of those alleged to be destroyed, and that act, in conformity with a resolution of Congress, of the tenth of May, 1780, prescribes the particular kind of evidence necessary to be adduced, to obtain a new certificate, in place of that alleged to be destroyed. That the petitioner does not state the number, nor the date, of the said certificate, alleged to have been lost; neither does he state the name of the Loan Office Commissioner, who is presumed to have issued it, nor in whose name or names it was issued, neither does he state the time and place where, and the means by which, the same was destroyed. That he does not produce any evidence, satisfactory, of the destruction of the said certificate, and the said alleged Loan Office Certificate, is presumed, like other Loan Office Certificates, to have been payable to bearer. That, evidence of declarations made by the holder of such certificate, that he had lost the same, is not sufficient to obtain a renewal thereof; that evidence of the destruction thereof, and of the time and place where, and the means whereby, it was destroyed, is to be produced, as provided for by said act. That there is not any conclusive evidence of the issuing of the said alleged certificate, or, if there was such certificate, that it has been lost. The committee further report, that this claim of the petitioner, for the renewal of a certificate by him alleged to have been lost, is not supported. That it is long since barred by the statute of limitations, of which the petitioner appears to be informed. That there is not any law of the United States embracing this case of the petitioner; and, that it is inexpedient to provide by law for this case, or any other similar case, and therefore submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be not granted. REPORT Of the Committee of Claims, on the petition of Stephen Baxter. FEBRUARY 4, 1820. Read, and ordered to be printed. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Stephen Baxter, of the City of New York, REPORT: It appears, that the petitioner was appointed paymaster to the third regiment of New York volunteers, in the service of the United States, from May, 1813, to April, 1814; during which time, various sums of money, amounting to $58,676 60, were advanced to him. Being required, by a circular from the paymaster general, he forwarded his accounts and vouchers to the proper officer at Washington, and paid such balance, as was then in his hands, to the Mechanics' Bank, of New York, to the credit of the paymaster general. From some accident, the accounts and vouchers, the receipt of which at Washington had been acknowledged, have since been destroyed, and the petitioner rendered unable to settle with government. He therefore, prays the interference of Congress. The committee find, from the correspondence they have had with the Third Auditor of the Treasury Department, that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and, for that purpose, report a bill. REPORT of the Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom was referred the bill for the benefit of Thomas Carr, and others. FEBRUARY 7, 1820. Read, and committed to a committee of the whole house to-morrow, The Committee on Private Land Claims, to whom were referred the petitions and accompanying documents of Thomas Carr, and others, have had the same under consideration; and REPORT: Your committee have examined the case with attention, and think it not necessary to present anew the allegations and proofs of the petitioners. This has been done with much accuracy, in the report made by the Select Committee, on the 14th of December. As your committee are convinced the claim of the petitioners is just, the only question which remains for decision, is, whether the United States are under obligations to grant relief. To furnish an answer, it is necessary to advert to the language of the articles of agreement and cession. In this instrument there are sundry conditions, for the performance of which, Congress is solemnly pledged; they are absolute and indispensable. However, in the proviso to the third condition, Congress is, without doubt, permitted the exercise of discretion. The auxiliary verb "may" is always to be understood as importing this idea. It cannot be well doubted, that by the words "any claims," were meant those derived under the act of the legislature of Georgia, of the 7th of January, 1795. To satisfy these, Congress was at liberty to appropriate, not exceeding five millions of acres of land, or the proceeds thereof. This ability to appropriate, was limited to one year. If exercised thereafter, a forfeiture to the state of Georgia was to ensue; and, if not exercised at all, the five millions of acres were not to be known as distinct from the common fund, applicable to the purposes of the United States. It is well known in what light the Yazoo claims were viewed, at the time the cession was made. This may account for the shortness of the period, within which Congress might provide for them, and for the absence of a positive obligation to do so. Can it be imagined, Georgia, if it had been intended the cession should embrace |