The policy of the measure is likewise very objectionable. Government cannot insure property thus engaged in the public service. Volunteers, mounted gun-men, and every other species of troops, would become negligent in taking care of their horses, if it be once understood that they are to be paid for them when lost. It would, indeed, be the interest of owners to preserve them till near the close of a campaign, receiving forty cents a day for the use and risk, and then, just before quitting the service, let them die by neglect, even when forage was plenty, or destroy them by hard treatment. The policy of giving forty cents a day consists in this, that, while owners are allowed reasonable compensation, they also have an inducement sufficiently strong to take care of their horses. But this inducement would lose all its force and effect if the horses are to be paid for when lost. If forty cents is not adequate compensation, Congress should augment it to sixty, eighty, or a hundred cents, rather than pass laws holding out inducements to owners to neglect or destroy their property.

Experience forbids the passage of the bill. The act of the 9th of April, 1816, commonly called the claims law; the Canadian volunteer act, and the late act granting pensions to those who performed service in the revolutionary war, have all been productive of serious mischief. They have opened the door for immoralities so great, that the committee will forbear to name them more specifically. It is believed no law of the kind could be so guarded in its provisions, as not to be evaded in practice; and, if not absolutely required by the demands of justice, it should never be proposed.

Insurmountable difficulties are to be seen in administering the law. Who can tell whether a horse has died for the want of forage, on account of disease, or from the neglect and inattention of the owner? The only risk assumed by government in the act under which these troops were called into service, is, that if a horse be killed in battle, then the owner must be paid. The cause of this loss can be distinctly and definitely known, and, therefore, government may safely assume the responsibility. But the total negation of all other risks on the part of government, proves clearly that the framers of the law conceived it would be bad policy to take upon themselves responsibility for losses the cause of which could not be known; and which, perhaps, if properly understood, would, nine cases out of ten, be found to exist with the owner, rather than with government.

The injuries sustained by the claimants are depended on as a reason to induce the passage of a law for their relief. But the committee think no injuries have been sustained. Information has been received from the Second Auditor of the Treasury Department, by which it appears, that the rolls of four companies have reached that office; that the officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates, have received each 40 cents a day for the use and risk of their horses, arms, and accoutrements, from the commencement to the termination of their services. The committee, therefore, feel authorized to state, that the same rule was adopted in making payment to all the troops

for whom it is intended to provide. If, then, a horse died, when only one third or one half the campaign had expired, the owner received pay for him after his death, at the rate of forty cents a day. With out noticing the impropriety of paying for the use and risk of a horse after he was dead, the committee would remark, that, under the ope ration of this rule, the owners of horses have received a sum fully equal to their average value, and, in most cases, perhaps, greatly beyond it. There is, then, no real cause of complaint. Had govern ment purchased the horses, before they entered the service, the situa tion of the owners could have been no better than it now is; and, surely, there is not the least imaginable cause of complaint, provided they are placed on no worse footing than they would have been if their property had been purchased. At all events, if Congress should pass the bill, the committee would recommend that forty cents a day for the use and risk should be deducted, from the time of the death of any horse. The bill, itself, pre supposes and admits the fact, that the horses died during the campaign, and, consequently, before the end of the campaign. But it appears the owners have received pay up to the end of the campaign, and, therefore, have been paid for the use and risk of their horses after they had died. The committee have never before been made acquainted with any principle which would sanction the propriety of paying for the use and risk of property when that property did not exist, could not be used, and was at no risk; all of which must have happened in the present case. It seems, indeed, that the claim of government against these individuals is much more just than their claim against government. The com mittee recommend that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

REPORT

Of the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, on the petition of Moses White, executor of Moses Hazen.

FEBRUARY 28, 1820.

Read, and the resolution therein contained, concurred in by the House.

The Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred, on the 6th of January, 1820, the petition of Moses White, stating himself to be executor and representative of Moses Hazen, brigadier general in the late army of the revolutionary war, have had the same, and the documents accompanying it, under consideration, and

REPORT THEREON:

The petitioner states, that, on the 22d of January, 1776, the Congress appointed the said Moses Hazen a colonel in the army of the United States, who at that time was a lieutenant on the British establishment of half pay, and. subsequently, to wit: on the same day, "Resolved, That the United States will indemnify colonel Hazen for any loss of half pay he may sustain, in consequence of his entering into their service." That the said Hazen, as the petitioner states, was struck off the British half pay establishment, on the 25th of December, 1781, in consequence of his having served in arms against the British forces in North America. And he states that frequent application has been made during the life time of said Hazen, and since his death, for said indemnity, and although the claim has always been recognized, as he states, at the Treasury Department, yet it has been refused upon the plea, that no provision has been made for its payment; and the petitioner prays, that provision may now be made to indemnify the loss of both principal and interest, agreeably to the resolution of Congress aforesaid. And the petitioner has filed, with his said petition, a statement in writing, of principal and interest of said half pay, up to in February, 1803, amounting to ten thousand four hundred and fifty-four dollars, and sixty-five cents.

The committee further report, that, on the 22d of January, 1776, Congress did appoint Moses Hazen, Esq. colonel for the second Canadian regiment; and, on that day, did resolve that the United States will indemnify colonel Hazen for any loss of half pay he may sustain, in consequence of his entering into their service. The question then, in this case, is, has Congress heretofore indemnified to Moses Hazen, in his life time, and to any other person claiming in consequence of his being in the service of the United States, since his death, for the loss of said half pay, which the petitioner states to have been that of a lieutenant, (whether first or second, is not stated,) on the British establishment? On the 23d of October, 1776, Congress took into consideration the report of the committee on the petition of colonel Hazen, and resolved, that the sum of nine hundred and sixty-six dollars and two thirds of a dollar, be paid to colonel Hazen, for articles said to be taken by, and appropriated to the use of, the army under general Montgomery; this case is incidentally mentioned, to manifest the justice of the United States to colonel Hazen. On the 25th of April, 1781, Congress "ordered, that the Board of Treasury place to the credit of colonel Moses Hazen the sum of thirteen thousand, three hundred and eighty-six dollars, and two ninetieths of a dollar, specie, being the principal and interest of the money due to him, to the first of May, 1781, and that the same bear an interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the first day of May next aforesaid, until paid." And the whole of this grant of money, both principal and interest, has been paid. On the 29th of June, 1781, Congress resolved, that colonel Moses Hazen be, and he hereby is, appointed a brigadier in the army of the United States, by brevet. On the report of a committee, to whom was referred a memorial of Moses Hazen, Esq. "who alleges, that sundry charges which have been rejected by the Commissioners of Army Accounts, are well founded; and that he is possessed of vouchers by which the same may be established, and prays that the same may be considered," Congress, on the twenty-sixth of April, 1785, resolv ed, that the claims of Moses Hazen, Esq. be referred to the Board of Treasury, together with the objections that have been made to those claims by the Commissioner of Army Accounts, and, that the Board examine the same and report thereon. On the 7th June, 1785, Congress resolved, that the claims of Moses Hazen, Esq. to pay, and half pay, above that of a colonel in the line, be referred to the Secretary of War to report: that the claims of Moses Hazen, Esq. to the immediate payment of money, be referred to the Board of Treasury, to report; and it is presumed, that all claims, of every description, of the said Moses Hazen, Esq. against the United States, were finally liquidated and settled, in pursuance of the said resolutions of Congress; or by the Paymaster General, or by the Commissioners of Army Accounts, to whom were attached the duties of Paymaster General, by a resolution of Congress of the 2sd March, 1787. The petitioner states, that Moses Hazen was struck

off the half pay British establishment, on the 25th of December, 1781. of that fact, no doubt, colonel Hazen had notice, previous to the final settlement of his claims against the United States, and if he had not been indemnified for the loss of his said half pay, by the United States, in pursuance of the said resolution of 22d January, 1776, previous to the final settlement of his claims against the United States, he would, at the settlement of his said claims, have presented his claim for indemnification for said loss of half pay; and would not have omitted to present a claim, bottomed on that resolution, and it may be fairly inferred, that Moses Hazen had been previously indemnified for the loss of his said half pay, or that he, in the settlement of his claims, was allowed therefor, if to allow him any thing therefor was judged proper at that time. That Moses Hazen did contend respecting some disputable claims is clear, from the resolution of 26th April, 1785, and this being so, there is not any reason to induce a belief that he would have omitted to exhibit a claim, bottomed on the resolution of the 22d January, 1776. That Moses Hazen continued to have the emoluments of subsistence until the same were withheld, by a resolution of Congress, of the 11th July, 1785.

The Committee further report, that, it appears that Moses White, and Charlotte Hazen, executor and executrix of Moses Hazen, heretofore had this case in the House of Representatives, and that, in February, 1804, the committee of claims reported favorably thereon; but that committee does not appear to have taken into consideration the various resolutions of Congress, providing for the promotion of the said Moses Hazen to several grades of high office in the American army, and for the settlement and payment of all his claims, as hath been stated in this report. That that report of the Committee of Claims does not take into consideration the difference existing between the rank and emoluments of a colonel, and of a brigadier-general in the army of the United States in the revolutionary war, and that of a lieutenant on the British half-pay establishment, which the petitioner states, the said Moses Hazen was at the time he entered into the service of the United States. That Moses Hazen was struck off the British half-pay establishment on the 25th of December, 1781, is stated by the petitioner, from which is inferred, that Moses Hazen was receiving the half-pay of a British officer until that time, and also, holding the rank, and receiving the pay and emoluments, of a colonel in the service of the United States, for which the resolution of the 25th of April, 1781, provided; and it seems, that that resolution, providing for the payment of so large a sum of money in specie, with interest thereon, contemplated a final settlement of all his claims up to the time limited in that resolution.

That an act of Congress, approved January 23d, 1805, provides that there shall be allowed to Charlotte Hazen, widow and relict of the late Brigadier-general Moses Hazen, for her support, the annual sum of two hundred dollars, during her life, to commence on the 4th day of February, 1803. That an act of Congress, of the 23d of A