with a cargo of cotton, for Liverpool; that, pursuant to their orders, the proceeds of said cargo were invested in British merchandise; that the said merchandise was put on board the said vessel, and cleared out for Amelia Island on the 5th of June in the same year; that on her passage the captain was informed of the declaration of war, and proceeded to Bath, in the district of Maine, where the vessel arrived and was seized by the collector on the 22d of July.

It appears that the cargo consisted principally of articles which, at at the time of importation, were not subject to duty; that it cost in England $6,575.11; that the duties now authorized by law would amount to at least $2,500; and that the vessel and cargo have been restored to the claimants on their giving bonds for $1,857.60. It also appears that application has been made to the Treasury Department for relief, and that it has been refused. With this view of the case, the committee are of opinion that there are no peculiar circumstances which call for the interposition of Congress; and that generally it would be improper and impolitic to revise, by an act of legislation, a decision made by an established and a competent tribunal.

They therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the petitioners have leave to withdraw their petition and the accompanying documents.

[See below.]

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

March 6, 1822.

[Senate Report No. 55.]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Francis Henderson and family, report:

That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the petition, and that the same be referred to the Committee of Claims.

[See above.]

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

December 31, 1823.

[Senate Report No. 9.]

Mr. Barbour, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Francis Henderson, on behalf of himself and family, the legal representatives of the late Lieut. Col. John Laurens, of South Carolina, submitted the following report:

The facts set forth in the petition have been verified to the satisfaction of the committee, and are substantially as follows:

Lieut. Col. John Laurens, the ancestor whose services, civil and military, occupy a brilliant page in the history of the Revolution, entered the Army of the United States, as aid to the commander in

chief, in August, 1777. In this situation he displayed a zeal, courage, and devotedness not surpassed by any of his compatriots. He conciliated the esteem of his commander and of his brother soldiers, and for his distinguished services frequently received the thanks of Congress. In 1780 he had acquired so much of the confidence of his country as to induce Congress, unanimously, to appoint him a special minister to France on a most important service. Such was his success in this mission as again to call forth the public thanks of that body. He returned to this country in September, 1781, and at his special request Congress permitted him to join the Army, then conducting the siege of Yorktown, in Virginia, where fresh laurels awaited him. He finally fell, on the 27th of August, 1782, in the lap of honor, fighting the battles of his country. His death was a national misfortune. He left an orphan daughter to the gratitude and to the protection of his country. A disinterestedness, even to carelessness, was a distinguished trait among his other qualities. Hence, for his long and important services and the expenses attending the same, he seems neither to have kept an account nor to have received any advances, except a small sum, to which hereafter a more particular reference will be made.

The father dead, his only child an infant and an orphan, and the grandfather, Henry Laurens, in captivity in England, there was no one to assert her claims.

Eventually the grandfather returned from Europe, and in 1784, as the guardian of the child, presented her case to Congress, who came to the following resolution:

"Resolved, That in settling the accounts of the late Lieut. Col. John Laurens, as special minister to the Court of Versailles, he be allowed the same pay that was given at this period to the ministers plenipotentiary of the United States at foreign courts from the time of his appointment to that embassy until his return, and that the balance remaining due for his services as minister be paid to his representatives."

This resolution was not acted upon till 1790. The accounts of the father, Colonel Laurens, in both characters, as colonel and as minister, were settled. But it is objected by his legal representative, the petitioner (who intermarried with Francis Eleanor Laurens, the only child of Col. John Laurens), and, in the opinion of the committee, justly, that in the settlement no allowance was made for the expenses of Colonel Laurens while on his foreign mission, although at that time no advances being made our foreign ministers as an outfit, it was the usage of the Government to pay their expenses; and more especially, too, as Congress had expressly directed that in the adjustment of the account his compensation should be the same as that of other ministers. No account having been kept by Colonel Laurens of the expenses, the committee have, of course, no certain data by which to ascertain the amount, in the absence of which they have been compelled to resort to other circumstances for the purpose of arriving at any satisfactory result. These are, first, that it is in proof Colonel Laurens paid his own expenses as well as those of his suite. Second, he took up at Nantes, on the credit of his father, £1,000 sterling, equal to $4,444.44. Third, he received from Dr. Franklin, the then resident minister in France, $2,171.42; and, fourth, on his return to the United States he received, at Boston, where he landed, $720 from the superintendent of finance, to enable him to join the Army before Yorktown,

in Virginia. The committee therefore have assumed these sums as furnishing the probable amount of his expenses, in which they have the more readily acquiesced, as it was about equal to the sum, in proportion to the time, allowed Silas Deane, a contemporary minister at that court, for his expenses.

The claim for $101.85 results from the improper application of the scale of depreciation to the item for rations in the military account of Colonel Laurens, who, unconnected with any State regiment, would be deprived of the compensation which his brother officers received if it be not awarded by Congress, and therefore the committee deemed it reasonable to allow it. The claim for $104.70 is obviously just, as it arises from an omission in extending and adding up the account. Uniting these two sums with his diplomatic expenses produces an amount of $7,542.41, which, with interest at 5 per cent from the 5th of September, 1781, the day of his return from Europe, is equal to $23,500. In allowing the charge for interest from the above period the committee have been guided by the resolution of Congress above referred to and the report on which it was founded, which directs that the child of Colonel Laurens should receive whatever was in equity and justice due the father; and for the further reason that the grandfather, in fixing the portion of the daughter of John Laurens by his will, deducts therefrom the advances made the son, of which the sum taken up by him at Nantes is a part, with interest from the time of such advances. The committee, in reporting a bill directing the money to be paid to Francis Henderson, jr., the only grandchild of Colonel Laurens, has, independently of its fitness, conformed to the consent of Francis Henderson, the elder, signified by a letter from him and among the documents.

(Leg. Jour., pp. 66, 67).

TWENTIETH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

December 30, 1828.

On petition of George T. Beyer, Mr. Sanford reported:

That the petitioner in his said petition sets forth that he was the owner of 8 pipes of gin, a chest of cologne water, and of 14 boxes of Dutch cheese, of the value of $3,336, all of which articles, in the month of January, 1815, were taken from closet under the lock of the custom-house, at the port of St. Marys, in Georgia, by the British forces then at that place.

That conceiving himself entitled to compensation for this loss, under the first article of the treaty of Ghent and of the convention of London, he preferred a memorial setting forth all the facts of his case to the board of commissioners appointed under that treaty and convention for making that compensation, but that this board rejected his said memorial.

The petitioner therefore prays to be relieved in such way as Congress may deem meet.

The committee can not sanction the doctrine that a government is bound to indemnify its own citizens for all the losses that they may suffer from acts of the public enemy in the course of a flagrant war, nor are they prepared to admit that it would be either just or expedient to revise the proceedings of any forum regularly constituted

and fully authorized to decide finally all the questions duly brought before it for the purpose of reversing in effect such decisions. By the board of commissioners appointed under the treaty of Ghent and the convention of London the case of the petitioner was clearly cognizable. That the board has finally papered upon the case and rejected it. This committee would probably have concurred in that opinion, but they believe that it would be productive of much public mischief to reexamine it now. They therefore recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the petition of G. T. Beyer, of Pennsylvania, praying to be indemnified for certain goods taken from him by the British forces in January, 1815, at the port of St. Marys, in Georgia, be rejected."

(Annals, 20th Cong., 2d sess., p. 55.)

[See p. 372.]

TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

January 21, 1835.

[Senate Report No. 65.]

Mr. Porter made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the petition of Mary O'Sullivan, report:

The petitioner claims remuneration from the United States for the acts of one of their consular agents in South America, on the following facts:

In the year 1822 the husband of the petitioner, John O'Sullivan, who, it is alleged, was a native citizen of the United States, made a voyage to the west coast of America, as master and supercargo of a ship called the Canton, of New York, in the cargo of which he was interested. During this voyage, and while at the port of Guyaquil, he met there the brig Dick, formerly of Baltimore, which had just reached the said port from that of Callao. This brig was owned by one Bela, a naturalized citizen of the United States, and commanded by a certain Coggershall, a native citizen. Her previous voyage had been from Cadiz and Gibraltar to Callao; and it is proved that Bela had given her that destination before he left New York, and that he sailed from thence to meet her at Callao.

O'Sullivan while at Guyaquil purchased the brig from Bela for the sum of $13,700, took a bill of sale of her, and possession, in pursuance thereof, was delivered to him; but it appearing that she had been registered at Baltimore as owned and commanded by one Furlong, and had been long absent from the United States, O'Sullivan deposited on board the United States ship the Franklin the purchase money; and by contract made the payment of it to Bela depend on the future approbation of a commercial house in New York, with which he (O'Sullivan) was connected.

Having, however, obtained possession of the vessel, he caused her to be refitted and repaired, and placing a new commander on board, he directed her to Rio Janeiro, and from thence to Buenos Ayres, to take a cargo of hides and proceed to Cadiz.

Pursuant to these directions, the brig sailed for and arrived at Buenos Ayres. On her arrival there she was seized by the commercial agent of the United States, Mr. Forbes, and the master and supercargo required to give bond that she should immediately, and by the most direct route, proceed to the United States. These persons appear to have resisted this demand of the agent as far as was practicable, and they endeavored if possible to procure such a modification of it as would enable them to proceed on the voyage to Cadiz; tendering his surety, to his satisfaction, that from thence the vessel should sail to some port of the United States, there to abide any prosecution which might be instituted. These attempts were, however, unavailing. Mr. Forbes remained inflexible in his decision. The vessel was ordered home by the most direct route, and the greater part of a cargo of hides, which had been purchased, were resold.

The agent of the United States retained the register, and forwarded it, together with his charges against the brig, to the Secretary of the Treasury by another vessel. No proceedings, however, on the part of the Government resulted from them. The brig, after remaining for some time in the port of New York, was libeled for seamen's wages and on a contract of bottomry and by a decree of a court of admiralty directed to be sold. O'Sullivan, who had proceeded to Cadiz in the ship Canton, and waited there for some time the arrival of the Dick with the cargo he had directed to be purchased, at last received information of the measures which the United States agent had adopted in relation to his vessel. On the receipt of this intelligence he returned to New York, and on reaching there found she was condemned and advertised to be sold. At the marshal's sale he again became her purchaser, and after some time and trouble obtained a register for her in his own name, by orders from the Comptroller of the Treasury.

After refitting the vessel, O'Sullivan made a voyage in her to Europe, and from thence sailed for the west coast of South America. On this voyage he was shipwrecked, and his life was lost, together with the ship and cargo.

The agent, Mr. Forbes, in his dispatch to the Department of State, assigns as his reasons for seizing the brig—

First. That several American citizens had told him that, two years previous, the brig Dick had come to Montevideo, destined for Buenos Ayres, and that it was matter of general notoriety there that she was "undoubtedly the property of a Spanish subject, although navigated under the documents and flag of the United States."

That six or eight weeks antecedent to the seizure, the chief of the police, by order of the Government, announced to the public that there were three well-armed piratical vessels cruising in the Pacific, and that one of them was the brig Dick.

That, on examining the register of the vessel, he discovered that E. Furlong appeared to be the only owner and master, and "that he could not find the link in the chain of ownership."

That there was a certificate from the captain of the port at Montevideo that an impediment of the owner and captain, William Furlong, made it necessary that Thomas Humphreys should take command of the brig; that this circumstance confirmed a story he had previously heard, of a quarrel between Furlong and the real owner.

That the supercargo at first refused to produce his bill of sale, but, when threatened with seizure, did present a singular one, by which it appeared that O'Sullivan, the pretended buyer, was so entirely

S. Doc. 231, pt 3-24