1st Session. RAFAEL MADRAZO. No. 369. APRIL 3, 1874.-Committed to a Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed. Mr. JOHN B. HAWLEY, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill H. R. 2796.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Rafael Madrazo, for compensation for the wrongful capture by the United States of the bark Teresita, present the following report: That the bark Teresita was a Spanish vessel owned by Rafael Madrazo, the claimant, and was captured on the 16th of November, 1863, by the United States steamer Granite City, upon the supposition that she was lying in interdicted waters. She had sailed from Havana loaded with sugars and raisins, on a voyage to Matamoras and back, and had completed one-half of the voyage when taken. On the 16th day of December, 1863, she was libeled in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and upon the trial of said cause, and on the 30th day of March, 1864, judg ment was rendered against the United States and in favor of said claimant in said cause, upon the ground that at the time of capture said bark Teresita was in Mexican waters, or if in the waters of the United States it was without design, and solely by reason of the force of the winds and currents which had forced said vessel from her anchorage in Mexican waters. Said cause was appealed by the United States to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the judgment of the district court was affimed. Chief Justice Chase, in rendering the opinion of the Supreme Court, said: "The decree of restitution must be affirmed, and we shall direct the costs and expenses to be paid by the captors." (5 Wallace, p. 180.) It also appears from the proofs in this case that, during the pendency of said proceedings in court, said bark "Teresita" was sold by the order of said district court, and the proceeds of said sale, amounting to the sum of $10,359.20, were, by the order of said court, deposited by the marshal of said district in the First National Bank of New Orleans, and that shortly thereafter said bank failed. The committee find that said claimant received from said bank, on account of said sale, between three and four thousand dollars, and that the balance is still due him. A bill for his relief was unanimously reported from the Committee on Appropriations of this House in the last Congress, and passed the House, providing for the payment to said claimant of the amount of said sale, less the amount received by him from said bank; and your committee report the accompanying bill for the same purpose, and recommend its passage. 1st Session. No. 370. JAMES W. BOWEN. APRIL 3, 1874.-Committed to a Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed. Mr. SHOEMAKER, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the follow ing REPORT: [To accompany bill H. R. 1207.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1207) for the relief of James W. Bowen, late provost-marshal of the tenth congressional district of Pennsylvania, respectfully report: It appears, from the papers submitted in this case, that while peti tioner was acting as provost-marshal, in October, 1864, one Andrew B. Newgart was drafted to serve in the United States Army. The drafted man procured his brother Simon to go as his substitute. The said Simon was duly mustered into the service, and was granted a furlough of ten days before joining his regiment. The said Simon failed to make his appearance at the expiration of his furlough, and was marked as a deserter on the rolls. The petitioner caused Jacob Newgart, the father of said Simon, to be arrested on the charge of aiding and abetting the desertion, and detained him in the guard-house for one or two days. While thus under arrest Jacob Newgart paid petitioner $625 to procure a substitute for Simon. The said Jacob afterward brought suit in the court of common pleas in the tenth district of Pennsylvania against petitioner for the sum so paid under duress, and recovered judgment for $800 and costs. As it is presumed all the facts in the transaction were before the court on the trial of the case, and that defendant had a fair trial on the law and the facts, your committee fail to see any reason why the judgment and costs should be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. The committee therefore report back the bill, with the recommendation that the same do lie on the table. 1st Session. No. 371. WILLIAM PELHAM. APRIL 3, 1874.-Committed to a Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed. Mr. EDEN, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill H. R. 1370.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1370) for the relief of William Pelham, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report: That, according to the letter of the Commissioner of the General LandOffice, bearing date December 17, 1873, directed to Hon. John Hancock, which letter is made a part of the report, there is due claimant, as late surveyor-general of New Mexico, the "sum of $518.90, which covers all his expenditures for the quarter ending June 30, 1860. This amount was paid by him as appears from the suspended vouchers now on the files of this office. There being no fund, however, applicable to the payment of this claim, the only redress Mr. Pelham has is to apply to Congress for relief." Your committee therefore report back the bill with a recommendation that it do pass. |