IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 1, 1864.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. TRUMBULL, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT.

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a resolution instructing said committee "to inquire whether John P. Hale, a member of this body, in connexion with the case of one Hunt, charged with crime by direction of the War Department, has been guilty of any conduct inconsistent with his duty as a senator," report:

That they have examined a number of witnesses, and find the following to be the state of facts: That Mr. Hale, who is a lawyer by profession, being accidentally in the city of Boston some time in June last, was applied to by a friend of James M. Hunt, then in confinement in the Old Capitol prison at Washington, and offered the sum of two thousand dollars as a retaining fee to undertake his defence; that Mr. Hale, hesitating as to the propriety of his appearing for Hunt, in consequence of his position as a senator of the United States, took several days to consider the proposition, and on being advised by attorneys whom he consulted that there was no impropriety or indelicacy in his doing so, agreed to undertake his defence, and received from the friend of Hunt eight hundred dollars in money and a promise of twelve hundred more, which was subsequently paid as a retainer for so doing; that the retainer was general to defend Hunt, without specifying particularly what he was to do, or in what court he was to appear, it not then being known, or if known, not disclosed to Mr. Hale what the charges against Hunt were, or in what court, if any, he would be tried, the object of Hunt's friend being to get him out of prison and give him a speedy trial; that after accepting the retainer Mr. Hale came to Washington, and still having some hesitancy as to the delicacy or propriety of appearing for Hunt, applied to the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, a lawyer of eminence and distinction, for his opinion in the premises; that Mr. Johnson informed him that there was not only no impropriety, but that it was his duty, if applied to, to render his professional services to any person charged with crime; that thereupon Mr. Hale applied to the Secretary of War for Hunt's release from prison on parole, that he might look after his property and prepare for trial, which was granted on terms, the Secretary of War thinking the arrangement for the release of Hunt from close custody was a very proper one, in view of the fact that he was confined in the Old Capitol prison, and having great anxiety about the confinement of persons there during the hot weather, and regarding the parole as sufficient security for the government, that Hunt would be forthcoming when the department got ready for his trial, and it so turned out; that Mr. Hale, meeting Hunt in New York some time in July, received

from him another thousand dollars, as a further retainer in the case, it being then expected the trial would be brought on in a few weeks, Hunt in the meantime having also employed additional counsel; but for some cause Hunt was not brought to trial till since the meeting of Congress, and having other counsel, Mr. Hale has not attended his trial.

The employment of Mr. Hale was purely professional, and he violated no law by accepting a fee for defending Hunt either before the courts civil or military, or even for endeavoring to procure his discharge from prison, on parole, by the Secretary of War; still the relation of senators to the government and the heads of departments is such, that they have privileges and an influence in matters pending before them not possessed by mere attorneys as such, and to accept a compensation for services rendered in such matters would, in the opinion of your committee, be improper. For a member of Congress, for a compensation, to act as attorney for prosecuting any claim against the United States, or to receive compensation for aiding to procure contracts, offices, or places from the government, or any department thereof, is already made a penal offence by acts of Congress, and your committee are of opinion that these acts should be extended so as to prohibit the receipt of a consideration by a member of Congress for attending to any matter before any department of the government other than its judicial tribunals.

In this case Mr. Hale's employment was general, and the evidence before the committee showed that in his intercourse with the Secretary of War his chief desire was to obtain a speedy trial for Hunt, and that he neither asked of the Secretary, nor did the latter grant, anything which would not have been granted to any respectable attorney who might have made the application. There was not the slightest evidence before the committee that Mr. Hale undertook the defence of Hunt from any corrupt or improper motive; so far from it, he seems to have acted with peculiar caution, and took the advice of others before going to the Secretary. Still, the very fact of his hesitancy and first taking the advice of others, while it relieves him from all semblance of intentional wrong, is perhaps a good illustration of the questionable propriety of the act.

The facts disclosed before the committee not showing a violation of any law or official duty by Mr. Hale as a senator, they ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Albert Brown, report:

The petitioner claims pay for one hundred army wagons, manufactured for the government under a contract made with Messrs. Morris & Miller, of the quartermaster's department, which contract was entered into on the 1st of July, 1861. The wagons were to be built according to specifications contained in the contract, which are very full and minute.

The contract contains the following clauses :

The work may be inspected from time to time, as it progresses, by an officer or agent of the quartermaster's department, and none of it shall be painted until it shall have been inspected and approved by said officer or agent authorized to inspect it. When finished, painted, and accepted by an officer or agent of the quartermaster's department, and delivered as herein agreed, they shall be paid for. "The wagons, boxes, &c., are to be stored at Kingston, New Hampshire, at such place as the quartermaster or his agent may designate, and the contractor to assist in taking them apart for shipping. It is agreed that forty of the wagons, complete, shall be ready for delivery on or before the 31st day of July, 1861, and the remainder on the 31st day of August, 1861."

The evidence in the case shows that on the day of the date of the contract Major Miller appointed Mr. W. C. Patten, of Kingston, the agent of the department to inspect the wagons, instructing him, at the same time, in writing, how to inspect, and what sort of a certificate to give.

On the same day Major Miller addressed to Mr. Brown, the contractor, a note in the following terms:

"SIR: The wagons to be manufactured under your contract with the United States of this date should be shipped, when ordered by the quartermaster general, on bills of lading or railroad receipts taken in duplicate; one to be sent by you to the consignee, the other to be sent, with your certificates of inspection and bill of wagons, to the quartermaster general. The bill of lading is proof of delivery."

On the 13th of August, 1861, the quartermaster general, by letter of that date, directed the contractor to send the wagons to Perryville, Maryland, consigned to Captain C. G. Sawtelle, assistant quartermaster.

Forty of the wagons were thus shipped on the 17th of August, and the remaining sixty on the 28th of the same month.

The wagons were inspected by the agent, Mr. Patten, and approved by him in the very terms prescribed by Major Miller.

The wagons arrived at Perryville, where it seems they have been allowed to remain. The quartermaster general refused to use, to sell, or to pay for them.

On the 4th of January, 1862, the quartermaster general informed the agent of the railroad company at Perryville that the United States had "condemned and rejected the wagons," and that "the railroad company, having a lien upon them for charges of freight, is at liberty, as far as the United States is concerned, to do what it finds for its interest to secure itself."

Thus, through the action of the quartermaster's department, one hundred new wagons, purchased for one hundred and forty-one dollars each, to which a team had never been harnessed, have been squandered. This is the evident fact. Considered in connexion with the fact that the same department disburses about two hundred and fifty millions annually, that is erhaps the most significant fact in the case. It suggest this problem. If the expenditure of $14,100 produces nothing to the United States, how much is likely to be produced by the expenditure of two hundred and fifty millions?

The value of these wagons is lost. Whether the loss shall fall upon the government or upon the contractor is the question to be considered.

Your committee addressed a note to the quartermaster general on the 21st of June last, asking him to communicate any evidence in his possession or any reasons he might have to urge why the claim of Mr. Brown should not be allowed. His reply, dated July 17, after Congress had adjourned, was not received until the present session had commenced. In that reply he states that because these wagons were not made in accordance with the contract, and because they are of inferior quality and workmanship, and worthless for use as army wagons, they have not been received, and should not be paid for."

66

Your committee are of the opinion the quartermaster general is mistaken in saying the wagons had "not been received." The wagons had been shipped from Kingston, New Hampshire, to Perryville, Maryland, a distance of several hundred miles. They had been shipped upon the written order of the quartermaster general. They had been consigned to an officer of his department. They had reached Perryville. Bills of lading had been forwarded. The maker had been instructed by that department that such bills would constitute a delivery. Your committee are of the opinion that, after all these things had been done, it was too late for the maker to reclaim the wagons, or for the government to reject them. After having ordered the maker to send the wagons to Perryville, your committee do not think it becoming in a just government to order him to come to Perryville, to pay the charges for transportation, and to take them back again.

Whether the wagons were, in fact, of "inferior quality and workmanship, and useless as government wagons," is a question upon which the evidence is not entirely harmonious.

In support of his allegation against the quality of the wagons, the quartermaster general has submitted to your committee copies of the reports made by Captain C. G. Sawtelle, of that department, of two different inspections made by him. The one was dated on the 31st of August, 1861, and the other on the 10th of September following. According to those reports it is evident to your committee that the wagons did differ from the specifications contained in the contract, but it is equally evident that neither of those reports exhibits a greater difference between the wagons and the specifications than do the two reports exhibit to each other.

The fact of making two reports, and the discrepancies between them, is explained by the quartermaster general upon the ground that Captain Sawtelle made his first inspection of the wagons by comparing them with a copy of specifications upon which other contracts for army wagons had been made, whereas the second