It is certified by the adjutant general, State of Vermont, that this list is taken from the record book of the State and is supported by a copy of a certificate executed by the secretary of state November 7, 1856, at the time the list of vouchers was copied in the record book to the effect that the list was a true copy, in dates and amounts of the original vouchers for payments made for services in the War of 1812. Included in the above list, and indicated by the asterisk, are the items included in the claim allowed on March 30, 1820, in the amount of $4,421.18. The other expenditures are not supported by vouchers, it being stated that the original vouchers on which the payments were made were destroyed in the burning of the statehouse on January 6, 1857, and there is cited as authority for accepting the showing presented as evidence of the payments made the joint resolution of Congress in May 14, 1836 (5 Stat. 132), for the character of evidence to be accepted in settling claims of States against the United States arising out of the War of 1812-15. The evidence now available as to the items not supported by vouchers, etc., is not sufficient to support a proper audit. However, should it be accepted as establishing the validity of this additional claim which the State of Vermont presents, for incorporation in this report, it is believed the amount of $4,421.18 paid the State under date of March 30, 1820, should be deducted from the expenditures totaling $39,478.96 and the account should appear as follows: Balance due the State of Vermont for loans and interest.. Total.... $57, 811. 12 35, 057. 78 92, 868. 90 Correspondence between Governor Jonas Galusha and Congressman Charles Rich prior to the settlement of March 30, 1820, indicates that careful consideration was given the claim then presented by the State of Vermont and all amounts at that time supported by adequate proof appear to have been allowed. Sincerely yours, 1st Session No. 1025 CITY OF BALTIMORE, STATE OF MARYLAND MAY 27, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. HOEPPEL, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 672] The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 672) entitled "An act for the relief of the city of Baltimore," having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment. An identical bill was reported favorably in the previous Congress, passed the Senate, and was favorably reported by your committee to the House. This claim has been audited by the Comptroller General, who found the amount as carried in the bill to be correct. The facts in this case are fully set forth in Senate Report No. 445, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report. Senate Report 445-Seventy-fourth Congress, first session The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 672) for the relief of the city of Baltimore, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. Said bill reads as follows: That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the city of Baltimore the sum of $171,034.31, being the balance of the amount incurred and expended by said city of Baltimore to aid in the construction of works of national defense in 1863, at the request of Major General R. C. Schenck, United States Army, and as found and reported to the Senate on May 3, 1930, by the Comptroller General of the United States. An identical bill was reported favorably by your committee in the previous Congress, passed the Senate, and was favorably reported to the House. By virtue of Senate Resolution 246, which passed the Senate on May 28, 1928, the Comptroller General of the United States was directed to readjust the claim of the city of Baltimore for amounts advanced at the request of Maj. Gen. R. C. Schenck, dated June 20, 1863, to aid the United States in the construction of works of defense, as allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury and reimbursed pursuant to the Sundry Civil Act, approved March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 385), and to report the amount so ascertained to the Senate for consideration. On February 28, 1929, the Comptroller General of the United States submitted to the President of the Senate a preliminary report (S. Doc. 662, 70th Cong., 2d sess.), and on May 3, 1930, submitted a final report. These reports of the Comptroller General to the Senate disclose as follows: 1. That, to enable the city of Baltimore to provide funds called for by Maj. Gen. R. C. Schenck for the use of the Federal Government for the national defense, the amount of $96,152 was temporarily withdrawn from the general funds in the city treasury during the period from June to August 1863, and reimbursed by the city to said general funds in the city treasury from the proceeds of a bond issue, dated September 1, 1863. That said amount of $96,152 was reimbursed to the city in the Sundry Civil Act of March 3, 1879, as a certified claim. (See debate in the Senate Feb. 28, 1879, Congressional Record, pp. 2064-2065, and Mar. 3, 1879, Congressional Record, p. 2297; also 20 Stat. L. 385). 2. That the bonds issued by the city of Baltimore to provide said $96,152 ran for a period of 30 years, and that the bonds were redeemed on September 1, 1893. That during the period September 1, 1863, to September 1, 1893, the city expended for interest payments on the bonds which yielded the said $96,152 advanced for the use of the Federal Government, the sum of $173,073.60, from which amount so expended as interest the Comptroller General deducted the sum of $2,039.29, being the amount of premium which the city received on the $96,152 in bonds at the time of selling the same in 1863; and in submitting his audit to the Senate on May 3, 1930, the Comptroller General therefore certified that there is due the city of Baltimore the sum of $171,034.31, in order to fully adjust the city's account_with the Government on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the State of New York, and of the decisions of the accounting officers of the Government in the cases of the State of Indiana and the other loyal States. At the time the above payment of $96,152 was made to the city of Baltimore, it was the declared policy of the accounting officers not to reimburse moneys paid out by the several States for interest paid on bonds issued by said States to raise funds to be advanced to the Federal Government for the national defense. January 6, 1896, this policy was changed by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the State of New York v. United States (160 U. S. 598), after which the settled accounts of the various other States which had issued bonds and paid interest thereon for the purpose of utilizing the proceeds in making advances to the Federal Government for the national defense during the Civil War, and which accounts had only been settled on the basis of the principal sum that had been advanced by said States to the Government, were, by special acts of Congress, reopened, and said States were refunded the amount of interest paid on so much of the proceeds of said bonds as the States had utilized by way of advances to the United States for the national defense. Inasmuch as the several States have been refunded the amount of interest paid by them on so much of the proceeds of said bonds as the States had utilized by way of advances to the United States for the national defense during the Civil War, your committee feel that the city of Baltimore should likewise be refunded the amount of interest paid out by the city for like purposes. The report of the Comptroller General of the United States to the Senate, dated May 3, 1930, certifying the balance due the city of Baltimore in the sum of $171,034.31, is hereto attached (exhibit A). Your committee also append the following exhibits: A memorandum setting forth in more detail the established precedents upon which the Comptroller General approved the claim of the city of Baltimore (exhibit B). A letter dated February 6, 1935, from the Comptroller General of the United States to Senator Tydings, author of the pending bill, wherein the Comptroller General points out that, if, instead of auditing the claim upon the precedents above cited, he had audited the same upon the commercial rate of interest, there would have been found due the city of Baltimore a sum equal to more than double the amount provided in the pending bill (exhibit C). A memorandum showing that, on the same basis on which it is now proposed to reimburse the city of Baltimore, the several States have been refunded an aggregate sum in excess of $10,000,000 (exhibit D). EXHIBIT A The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SIR: Reference is made to my report of February 28, 1929, under Senate Resolution No. 246, Seventieth Congress, first session, dated May 28, 1928, authorizing and directing the Comptroller General of the United States to readjust the claim of the City of Baltimore for amounts advanced to aid the United States in the construction of works of defense of the city in 1863 and to allow reimbursement for interest paid on its bonds issued to raise amounts advanced to the United States, adopting and applying for the purpose the rule established in the cases of the State of New York v. United States, 160 U. S. 598, and of the State of Indiana, 8 Comp. Dec. 714. In my report above referred to it was stated that as the city of Baltimore failed to show by competent evidence that it had incurred any expense for interest or otherwise to enable it to advance the funds in question to the United States, there appeared to be nothing due to the city for certification to the Senate for consideration under the resolution in question, but that in the event proper evidence should be furnished thereafter showing amounts due the city of Baltimore under the rule of the New York and Indiana cases, a further report under the resolution would be made. There has now been submitted to this office a report of April 1, 1930, by the chief, bureau of disbursements, city of Baltimore, to the comptroller of the city of Baltimore, containing the following statements: "It has been shown on the part of the city that expenditures for this work were practically all made between June and August of 1863, while the bonds issued for this purpose were dated September 1, 1863. The Comptroller General has taken the stand that the hiatus that existed between the expenditures and the issuance of the bonds precluded the possibility of using funds so obtained for this purpose. I had no doubt from the beginning that the city proceeded in this instance, as it now frequently does; that is, borrowed from the general funds of the city, the money necessary for this work and later reimbursing the general funds when the bonds were sold and paid for. A typical illustration of this practice is had in the case of harbor serial 1933-67 loan, with which you are familiar. It is against this loan that the charges for the erection of the McComas Street Terminal for the Western Maryland Railway are made, which to date aggregate approximately $8,250,000. The bonds for this so far issued only amount to $7,000,000, so that we are now carrying a debit or an overdraft in this account of approximately $1,250,000. The money for this purpose was taken from the general funds of the city, and as soon as it is determined what this project will cost, the city will issue bonds sufficient to cover the balance required, and the general funds will be reimbursed. My theory has proven entirely correct, for the ledger found in the old office of the comptroller on page 154 shows an account entitled 'City Defense No. 2', reproduction of which is appended hereto. The entries are in summary form and the numbers appearing in the folio column refer to the pages in the journal, which shows the details. You will observe that from June 30, 1863, to September H. Repts., 74-1, vol. 2——72 |