From Reports of Committees of the Fourteenth Congress.

The course heretofore pursued by Congress inculcates that indemnity is due to all those whose losses have arisen from the acts of our own government or those acting under its authority: while losses produced by the conduct of the enemy are to be classed under the unavoidable calamities of war, and do not entitle the sufferers to indemnification from government.-(State Papers, vol. Claims, p. 442 )

FROM REPORTS OF SENATE COMMITTEES.

The utmost extent to which Congress can safely go is to protect individuals against its own acts and their consequences. If a house be occupied by the troops of the country for military operations, it is thereby placed on a footing of any other military position, and may be justifiably destroyed by the enemy.-(23d Cong., 1st sess., Rep. No. 355.)

Where a building is occupied by our troops, who are dislodged by the enemy, and the latter take possession of it, and after occupying it for a time, on evacuating, destroy it, it comes within the principles established in similar cases.-(26th Cong., 1st sess., R. 146.)

The above opinion is reversed. The principles recognized in the general legislation of Congress for the adjustment of war claims and the regulations for carrying those laws into effect, should be adhered to.-(26th Cong., 1st sess., No. 350.)

The liability of the government in such cases was ably discussed by Mr. Silas Wright, on the presentation of the petition of-(see 27th Cong., 2d sess., Rep. 272.)

He says, "the rules of action in the decisions of these claims should be the general legislation and the allowances under it; to act otherwise would be to unsettle every case of a claim which has been heretofore settled under these laws, and by taking the most liberal and latitudinous private law which has been passed as the settled rule and established precedent, invite all those whose claims have been rejected or in whose favor partial awards have been made to come again to Congress for a further allowance.

The principles established in the general legislation of the country, and to which the committee have determined to adhere in reference to these "war claims" are the following:

1st. The building must have been in the actual occupancy of the United States.

2d. It must have been so occupied "as a place of deposit for military or naval stores," "or as barracks for the military forces of the United States."

3d. The occupancy must have been by an order of an officer or agent of the United States.

4th. The occupancy must have continued to the time of the destruction.

5th. Such occupation must have been the cause of the destruction. Each and every of these facts must be fully sustained, in order to

bring any case within the rule, the absence of any one of them being decisive against it.

These principles cannot be safely extended as general principles, applicable to a state of war. The great mass of the claims of this character, arising during the war of 1812, have been settled, and finally disposed of under these laws, and upon these principles; and now to extend the rules of allowance to those who have neglected to avail themselves of the general legislation, and choose to rest upon the sympathy of Congress and special favor, would be most manifestly unjust. Great and salutary principles of general legislation for the settlement of classes of claims, are not to be varied or construed by occasional acts of a private character, in which a strict adherence to them may have been relaxed."

Personal Property.

The general principles settled by the legislation of Congress allow compensation for buildings destroyed by the enemy, when their military occupation had drawn upon them the legitimate vengeance of the enemy, and caused their destruction; but these principles do not authorize compensation for personal property destroyed in them.

The reason is, that personal property could be removed to a place of safety, when not impressed or taken by public authority for the use or subsistence of the army; if so impressed or taken therefor, it was to be paid for, and not otherwise.

This is the rule laid down in the 5th section of the act of 1816, and it is the only provision of public law applicable to this class of cases. These are the principles upon which Congress has intended to act. Special instances of the relaxation of these principles, prescribed in the laws or special acts of Congress to cover a single claim, and based upon a particular state of facts, and referred to at the time of the passage of the special act, should neither be considered as an abandonment by the government of those general principles upon which its liability is to depend, nor as an evidence of an intention on the part of Congress to extend those principles of liability as to that class of claims generally.-(Senate, 27th Cong., 2d sess., R. No. 115.) Your committee have thus briefly adverted to the principles and practice which the government has uniformly adopted and pursued with regard to this class of claims, quoting from a few only of the numerous reports of committees of both Houses of Congress, wherin these principles have been announced.

At the first session of the twenty-third Congress, the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives appear to have been instructed by a resolution to inquire into the expediency of making further provision for extending, and the more effectually carrying into effect the provisions of the act of the 9th of April, 1816, before mentioned; and on the 16th of March, 1832, the committee made a report, (No. 386,) concluding with a resolution as follows:

"Resolved, That it is inexpedient to legislate on the matter contained in the resolution."

Other parties having tobacco in Magruder's warehouse, with that of

the petitioner, when it was destroyed have, from time to time (running back twenty-four years) appealed to Congress, as in this case, to pay for it; and the allegations and proofs by them presented in support of their claims, which rest upon the precise grounds maintained by the petitioner, may be considered in connexion with the proofs he presents.

With reference to these cases your committee will advert first to that of Charles J. Catlett, the most prominent, perhaps, of them all. This claim was for tobacco burnt by the British:

149 hogsheads at Nottingham.

115 hogsheads at Magruder's warehouse. 4 hogsheads at Cedar Point.

Total 268 hogsheads, at $96 903

$25,970 27.

No attempt to procure payment of this claim before the United States commissioner under the acts of 1816 and 1817, nor before the Third Auditor to whom such war claims were subsequently referred; nor does any movement to recover seem to have been made until the second session of the twenty-third Congress, (January 13, 1835,) when a bill for his relief was reported from the Committee on Finance of the Senate, accompanied by a report which was ordered to be printed. This report recognized and admitted that a party of Maryland troops found shelter behind Magruder's warehouse, from whence they fired upon the British advancing in boats; and that the Maryland troops also made a breatwork of some of the tobacco warehoused at Nottingham (seven miles from Magruder's) for their defence; that the burning of Magruder's warehouse, and the "abduction of the tobacco" by the British from Nottingham, seem to have resulted from these movements of the American troops.

The bill to which this report refers directed the proper accounting officers of the treasury to settle and allow, upon just and equitable principles, the claim of Charles J. Catlett, for tobacco which belonged to him at Magruder's warehouse, Cedar Point warehouse and Nottingham warehouse, all in the State of Maryland, and was lost, captured or destroyed by the British or American troops during the last war between the United State and Great Britain; and prescribed that the allowance should be carried to the credit of the said Charles J. Catlett, on the books of the treasury.

On the 19th February, 1835, this bill appears to have been rejected, and on the following day a reconsideration of the vote was moved, and the motion was laid on the table.

At the succeeding session another bill for the relief of Catlett was reported from the Committee on Finance of the Senate, in precisely the same form as the one just noticed, unaccompanied by a written report.

On the 29th March, 1836, it was considered in Committee of the Whole and laid on the table, where it rested until the 24th June following, when it was taken up, amended and passed. The amendment consisted in substituting for the words "and allow upon just and equitable pinciples," these: "upon the principles of the acts of Congress of the 9th April, 1816 and 3d March, 1817."

With this bill Catlett went before the treasury officers with the proof of his losses, and they rejected his claim in toto. Mr. Hagner, Third Auditor, and Mr. Parris, Comptroller.

Mr. Catlett, however, obtained presidential interference, as will appear by the following

Order of the President.

Let Mr. Catleti procure a statement of the amount of his debt to the government. Let him have a conjectural statement made of the value of the tobacco

First, at the war price;

Second, at the peace price;

and let these be reported to me.

J. TYLER.

Mr. Hagner will make the statement as early as possible.

Endorsed: "Instructions of the President of the United States, September, 1841."

In obedience to this command the report was made, whereupon the l'resident issued the following:

No. 7.

SEPTEMBER 23, 1841.

The President has examined the claim of Charles J. Catlett, under the special act passed for his relief; and believing it to be a meritorious claim, directs the accounting officers to re-examine the case, and, if they cannot admit the claim, to report the case especially to him, with their reasons for their disallowance. It is desirable that their action should be had as soon as practicable.

Endorsed: "Additional instructions of the President of the United States, 23d September, 1841."

Upon this command the Third Auditor did re-examine and report upon the case, re-affirming his previous decision, and concluding as follows:

Unable to perceive that the accounting officers possess any power, under the special act for Mr. Catlett's relief, to settle his claim upon any other principles than those of the laws of the 9th April, 1816, and 3d March, 1817, therein mentioned; or that, upon the principles of those laws, as the same have been at all times construed in acting under them, any portion of the claim can be allowed by the accounting officers, I am constrained by a sense of duty, without making an allowance on it, to again report the case to the Second Comptroller for his decision thereon.

ALBION K. PARRIS, Esq.,

Second Comptroller.

PETER HAGNER, Auditor.

In his examination, the proof submitted by Catlett with reference to the burning of Magruder's warehouse is thus stated:

As to 115 hogsheads of tobacco at Magruder's, the statement in relation thereto, in General Biscoe's second letter to the claimant, is as follows: "You request information on the subject of the defence of Magruder's warehouse, in June, 1814, by a detachment of militia. acting under my orders. In reply, I have to state that the captain in command reported to me his rencounter with the enemy at that place. He stated that, on the near approach of the British barges (said to be) under the command of Commodore Barry and Colonel Malcomb, of marines, he posted his men behind the warehouses, situated within thirty yards of the shore; and that, so soon as his fire of musketry could be deemed effectual, he commenced, and continued to do so for an hour or two, being under cover of the warehouses. Finally his ammunition became expended, and he was compelled to retire. The enemy then landed and set fire to the warehouses, which were burnt." The remaining part of the statement has been previously cited.

Jesse Selby, in a deposition dated December 20, 1833, has testified that he was stationed at Magruder's warehouse, on the Patuxent river, in June, 1814, in a company of Maryland militia, commanded by Captain Joshua Naylor; and that the warehouse, he verily believes, was burnt in consequence of the said company being there, and the said warehouse affording protection, and being occupied by them; also, that Captain Naylor died in the year 1825. And, in the aforesaid deposition of James Baden, he has testified that Captain Naylor's company of Maryland militia was stationed behind Magruder's warehouse, and as soon as the British barges came within gunshot commenced firing upon them, and continued until the ammunition was expended; that they then retreated, and the enemy immediately landed, set fire to the warehouse, and burnt all the tobacco within it; that this was on the 17th June, 1814, the day the militia prevented them from coming to Nottingham, which probably prevented that warehouse from sharing the same fate; that the witness was inspector at Magruder's warehouse, but commanded a company on that day at Nottingham; that Charles J. Catlett was a large owner of tobacco, and a very heavy sufferer; that the witness was appointed inspector in January, 1813, at Magruder's warehouse; and that, previous to his appointment, James Naylor was the inspector.

Your committee will now state substantially the testimony filed in support of this claim, omitting such as has previously been referred to in considering the claim of Catlett.

Affidavit of General Biscoe.

General Biscoe says: "A company of militia acting under my orders as major of the 17th regiment, were posted at Magruder's warehouse for its defence, and when the British barges ascended the river, on or about the 17th of June, 1814, so soon as they were discovered by Captain Joshua Naylor (the captain in command,) to be in reach of his fire, he commenced firing upon them from behind said warehouse,