The testimony does not show the value of the property, but the prices fixed above are the minimum prices allowed by the Quartermaster's Department, and adopted by the Commissioners of Claims, for property taken or furnished for the Union Army at that period of the war.

Your committee respectfully report the accompanying bill, and recommend its passage.

And subsequently, on the 10th of May, 1878, the House of Repre sentatives passed the bill, appropriating in full payment of the claim the sum of $3,365.

The facts of the case are correctly stated in the House report, and the allowances made, or sought to be made, by that report are fully sustained and justified by the nature of the case. A glance at the footings and computations made in the report, however, will show three very impor tant mistakes. For instance, the first item of 1,700 bushels of corn, at 70 cents per bushel, is carried out at $1,900, whereas the amount should be $1,190. Again, in item five, 20 tons of wheat-straw, worth per ton $5, is carried out at $500, whereas it should be $100. Again, in the footing up of the main column of the House report, the total is set down at $3,365, for which amount the House appropriates, whereas that footing should have been $4,475.

It is a singular fact, however, that these three several mistakes equalize each other, and the amount appropriated, $3,365, is, after all, the correct amount. Your committee, therefore, recommend the passage of the House bill without amendment.

1

3d Session.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER 18, 1878.-Agreed to and ordered to be printed.

No. 562.

Mr. COCKRELL, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT:

The Committee on Claims, to which was referred the petition of Mary J. Padgett and husband, with accompanying papers, have duly considered the same, and submit the following report:

The petitioner, Mary J. Padgett, late Mary J. McReynolds, and now wife of her copetitioner, Moses Padgett, claims $1,599.50 for corn, horses, mules, harness, bacon, and sirup, supplies had and received by the United States Army, April 21, 22, and 23, 1865, in Alabama, under General Lucas, Colonel Marshall, Captain Steel, Lieutenant Ellis, and used by said army for its necessary purposes, and that she was at that time a widow, a non-combatant, and was not in favor of the war, and was loyal, and that she forwarded her claim to attorneys in Washington, Messrs. Pike & Johnson, and was advised that she was too late. She then forwarded her claim to J. Vance Lewis & Co., attorneys, who informed her she was too late, but thought Congress would extend the time. And she says: "Petitioner now proposes to take the shortest course, and petition Congress for relief."

The claim of petitioner was properly cognizable by the Southern Claims Commission, which had full jurisdiction to hear and decide her claim, if presented within the time provided by law.

She gives no excuse whatever for her failure, neglect, or refusal to so present her claim within the time provided by law, and Congress has not extended said time, and your committee do not feel willing to undertake to extend snch time, and therefore report back the petition with the recommendation that the prayer of the petitioner be not granted, and her claim be not allowed.

3d Session.

No. 563.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER 18, 1878.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. 1531.]

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Theophilus P. Chandler, late assistant treasurer at Boston, Mass., report:

The facts of this case are as follows:

The petitioner was assistant treasurer at Boston from June, A. D. 1863, to June, 1868. In December, January, and February, A. D. 1866-67, Julius F. Hartwell, disbursing clerk, secretly loaned Mellen, Ward & Co. several large amounts from the subtreasury, which were got in by him each month before monthly examination, and were finally got in by him on the last day of February, when he confessed the transaction.

The whole matter was immediately reported to the Treasury, at Washington, and Hartwell and other participants criminally punished. The transactions were largely in gold certificates, authorized by act of March 3, A. D. 1863, section 5, which then circulated as gold coin, but were so compact that, as the evidence shows, $580,000 of them were easily concealed in a side-pocket.

The evidence further shows that all the parties at the subtreasury, unless Hartwell, believed that the recovery of the funds was lawful and in good faith; but in A. D. 1877 the Supreme Court decided that $480,000 of gold certificates so turned in belonged to the State National Bank of Boston, and gave judgment against the United States for them; and other claims for smaller amounts are pending, so that the United States has suffered a loss for which, technically, Mr. Chandler may be liable.

The evidence further shows that Hartwell had been and was employed in the subtreasury before and at the time Chandler was appointed; that he had an unquestionable reputation for integrity and skill; that there was no reason to suspect him; that monthly and special examinations were made, at which his cash had always been correct; and that all his transactions with Mellen, Ward & Co. were within a period of three months, and none continued for a month, so that there was short time for detection.

The act of March 19, 1862 (Statutes at Large, volume 12, page 373), fixed the title of Hartwell's position as disbursing clerk, and that of July 13, 1866 (volume 14, page 202), fixed the number of clerks in the office, and their several salaries.

In the criminal proceedings against this same Hartwell (6 Wallace,

page 393), the Supreme Court declared that "the defendant was appointed by the head of a department" (i. e., the Secretary of the Treasury), "within the meaning of the Constitutional provision upon the subject of the appointing power," and was an officer of the government charged with the keeping of public money.

Whatever may be the legal consequence of such language of the Supreme Court, the evidence proves that the subtreasury at Boston was doing a very large and miscellaneous business; that the daily balances, consisting of gold, bills, gold certificates, coupons paid, and other assets. averaged over six millions of dollars; that the law provided for a limited number of clerks; that in order to transact business the office was necessarily subdivided into departments, of which handling the cash was one; that it was physically impossible for the assistant treasurer, consistent with his appropriate duties, to take the cash into his own custody and control; that for him to have personally and constantly interfered with the cash would necessarily have caused such confusion and division of responsibility as to have been intolerable; that necessarily some clerk had the custody of the cash; that there was every reason to believe Hartwell a suitable person for such custody, and that, as testified by Mr. Whittle, the chief clerk, Hartwell necessarily had charge of the above cash, and "the fraud could not have been prevented.”

A special commission appointed to examine the subtreasury at Boston reported to the Secretary of the Treasury, November 15, 1867, they were satisfied that "everything was correct, the books and accounts were found neatly and regularly kept, and all the business of the office appeared to be conducted with much fidelity and correctness"; and, again, that they cannot close their report "without again referring to the excellent management of the office."

The case of the State National Bank against the United States was thoroughly contested on each side by able counsel, and counsel on each side testify that throughout there was no claim, suggestion, nor evidence that Mr. Chandler was in fault.

Hon. Hugh McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury at the time of these occurrences, writes, under date of November 23, A. D. 1878, to Mr. Chandler, among other things: "I bear cheerful testimony to the admirable manner in which the business of the office of assistant treasurer at Boston was conducted when you were at the head of it; to your ability, uprightness, and carefulness as an officer. For the defalcation and criminal conduct of Hartwell you were in no wise responsible. It would be cruel injustice to hold you and your sureties legally liable for it. You found Hartwell in office when you were appointed. His ability was manifest, his integrity undoubted. No laches have been attributed to you. On the contrary, the reports of the manner in which your duties were performed, and the business of the office was conducted. reports made by the general and by especial examiners, were always creditable to you and satisfactory to the department at Washington. I heartily unite to the petition to Congress that an act be passed for the relief of yourself and sureties."

The result is, first, that there appears no question about Mr. Chandler's ability, uprightness, and carefulness; second, that the embezzlement was of funds not in Mr. Chandler's actual personal custody, but necessarily intrusted to the disbursing clerk.

Mr. Chandler himself is about seventy years of age, and possessed of but little property. Two of his sureties, now living, are insolvent, and of those who have died, one, Gov. John A. Andrew, left an estate of about $32,000; and the estate of Mr. Edmunds, another surety, is