IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

FEBRUARY 28, 1821.

MR. PLEASANTS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs to whom was referred the memorial of Jane Baker, submitted the following REPORT:

The memorialist states that she is the widow of Thomas Baker, late a post captain in the navy of the United States; that her husband served his country in the navy during the Revolutionary war, and, also, during the quasi war with France; that, during the latter period he received an injury in his constitution which rendered him unfit for public service, in consequence of which a pension was granted him; that he is lately dead, leaving her poor and aged, with one child to support; she prays for the continuance of the pension.

The committee observe, that to grant the prayer of the petition would be to introduce a new principle into the laws on the subject of pensions, which they think inexpedient; they therefore recommend to the Senate the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,

FEBRUARY 28, 1821.

Mr. ROBERTS communicated the following letter:

WASHINGTON, February 28, 1821.

SIR: Since our conversation last evening, I have been furnished with the Report of the honorable the Committee of Claims of the Senate in the case of Mr. John H. Piatt, to which you referred me; and beg leave most respectfully to state, that, so far as the same regards the Third Auditor, the honorable committee have misconceived the grounds on which his decision is predicated, as well as the decision itself, in corroboration of which I refer you to his remarks with the documents No. 1, and to the statement made by the same officer of the account of Mr. Piatt, No. 2. The decision of the Auditor does not contemplate a final balance against Mr. Piatt of $34,705, under the act passed for his relief, as intimated by the honorable committee; on the contrary, he expressly states such to be the result as far as vouchers were produced under the rule laid down by him, and points out what vouchers, in his opinion, are necessary before further credits could be passed. There was no doubt with the Auditor that the law intended to allow Mr. Piatt credits, at least, to the amount for which suit was instituted against him, because the law says so in so many words; and, if vouchers had been produced to satisfy his mind to that extent, it would have been done: the balance, therefore, as reported by the Auditor, arises from the want of evidence, and not that the law did not allow more. It will, consequently, occur to you, that the question did not present itself to the Auditor, whether the act meant to allow Mr. Piatt more than the sum he was sued for, or not; it was only in case the credits to be passed exceeded that amount that the question could arise: these, it will be perceived, did not exceed $22,669 99, whereas the amount for which suit was instituted exceeded $48,000. The decision, therefore, to which the honorable committee refer, originated exclusively where it is defended, and in which the Auditor had no agency. The remarks of the committee as to the principles which ought to govern in cases under special statutes, I beg leave to state, have occurred to the Auditor, and have influenced his decisions in the settlement of such accounts.

Before closing this communication, let me ask your indulgence while I further remark, that I am entirely insensible of having de

[ 117 ]

served the remark of the honorable committee, where they say: "but "they cannot but think that the law ought to have engaged their at"tention (meaning the Second Comptroller and Third Auditor) more "than the correspondence and circumstances and merits of the claim"ant." Surely, sir, the documents do not establish any such preference over the law on the part of the Third Auditor; if they do, I can only say, they are in contradiction to every feeling of my heart when acting in the discharge of my public duties.

Your goodness will excuse the length and freedom of this communication, and I beg you to accept the assurance of my perfect regard. PETER HAGNER.

The Hon. JONATHAN ROBERTS.