We also quote a portion of the testimony that we find on the point that the companies believed that the bonds would not be enforced.

Col. F. J. Crilly, in charge of military railroads, under whose direction over twothirds of the property purchased was transferred, said in his report (see House Report 34, Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, page 154):

"If the companies are held to a strict compliance with the terms of their bonds.” And in his testimony (page 152):

"Q. Do you know any reason why these companies should not be held to their bonds?-A. I think it should be made the subject of careful examination."

Quartermaster-General Meigs, in his testimony (page 266), said:

"When this order went into operation I hoped the States would be soon restored to their original condition in the Union, and I thought it likely that if they made application to Congress they would be treated liberally, and might even be eventually released from their bonds. I did not suppose we would get much money from them, as I supposed that Congress, in its discretion, in order to aid in re-establishing trade and prosperity, might think fit to relieve them from these claims.

"Q. Was any intimation given to these companies that such would be the case?—A. I might have expressed the opinion, in discussing the case with them, that Congress would possibly or probably do so, but the executive branch of the government could not. That was my impression at the time, and I always talked frankly with them. I wished to know their sentiments, and had no desire to conceal my own views or opinions."

The Committee on the Judiciary of the Forty-first Congress, in their report, in alluding to the above testimony of Quartermaster-General Meigs, very properly and pertinently said (House Report 78, Forty-first Congress, second session, page 4):

"If an officer of the government, at the time he was executing the bonds, made the explanations and held the views which seem to have possessed General Meigs, and as he says he did not refrain from frankly expressing such views talking with the officers of the road, it may well be imagined that the company might have taken property, rolling and other stock, at a valuation much enhanced from the actual price, and that the appraisers might have been quite careless in the valuation affixed to property, they being officers of the government, when their chief believed that the property never was to be paid for, and the president of the road, in signing the bonds, believed they never would be exacted.”

The committee, in declining to recommend the passage of the present bill, do not express any opinion on the policy that has been adopted. Congress, by the adoption of numerous reports and the passage of three separate acts, has irrevocably established the principles that must now guide us. It has ceased to be a question of the original exuities between the government and these railway companies, and is now simply a question of existing equities. The total amount of purchases by all the railway companies was $7,556,033.95. Of this amount $5,139,907.30 of the purchases have been adjusted under the various acts of Congress. The committee cannot conceive any reasons under which the adjustment of the remaining amount can be refused or avoided. We report the accompanying bill as a substitute for House bill No. £51, and recommend its passage.

The House Committee on the Judiciary appear to have examined the case very thoroughly, and report an accompanying bill as a substitute for the original bill, providing that the Secretary of War and the AttorneyGeneral shall be authorized jointly to adjust and settle the accounts of such railway companies which received property from the United States in the years 1865–66, and have made full payment therefor, or who, upon adjustment of their accounts under provisions of the act, shall be found to have paid their indebtedness upon the plan of settlement adopted by the Secretary of War in the Western and Atlantic Railroad of Georgia, provided that the abatement in respect to valuation shall not exceed 25 per cent. of the valuation fixed by the boards of appraisement upon which the property was originally sold. The substitute also provides that such settlements when made shall be taken as an absolute release of all claims and demands against the United States.

Your committee are of opinion that the substitute is a better and more perfect bill, and concur in the report of the House Judiciary Committee. The facts have been examined heretofore by the Committee on Military Affairs of the Forty-fourth Congress in the case of the West

ern and Atlantic Railroad Company (see act March 3, 1877). The facts of overvaluation of this property are the same, and the report of the House Committee on the Judiciary states them clearly and succinctly. Your committee therefore adopt the views of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and report H. R. 5123 as a substitute for S. 457, and recommend the passage of the same.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER 10, 1878.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BURNSIDE, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill H. R. 409.]

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 409) for the relief of James Clift, late captain Fifth Tennessee Cavalry, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report:

This case was examined by the House Committee on Military Affairs, and reported favorably, as follows:

[Forty-fifth Congress, second session.-House report No. 39.]

Mr. Dibrell; from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following report (to accompany bill H. R. 409):

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the above bill, respectfully submit the following report:

James Clift, of Warren County, Tennessee, was commissioned by Andrew Johnson, military governor of Tennessee, on the 19th day of September, 1863, to raise a company of mounted men, known as Union Guards, to serve as State and United States troops. That he did raise a company of 44 mounted men under said commission, and acted as eaptain, being the only officer in said company, as shown by the proof; and did duty in scouting, picketing, and foraging for the United States Army, and under orders from its officers, until the 26th day of March, 1864, when he and his company of 44 men were regularly mustered as Company M, Fifth Tennessee Cavalry, with another detachment that had been previously mustered, with two lieutenants, thus completing the organization of the company. The proof shows that the men of said company were mustered to date of enlistment, and said Clift on the day of muster.

The proof also shows that said company was prevented from an earlier muster by reason of constant military service.

Your committee think that inasmuch as said Clift was commissioned by Governor Johnson a captain to raise a company, and did raise a company of 44 mounted men, and did duty with them, and being the only officer, was entitled, under General Orders No. 61, dated 19th August, 1861, to be mustered as a first lieutenant of cavalry. They therefore recommend that the bill be so amended as to allow the said James Clift the pay of a first lieutenant of cavalry from the 19th September, 1863, to the 26th March, 1864; and they thus recommend the passage of the bill.

Your committee, after examination of the proof, adopt the House report, and recommend passage of the act without amendment.