inspection was made by comparing them with the specifications in the contract made with Mr. Brown himself.

Captain Sawtelle himself urges the same explanation. Your committee, however, feel bound to say that the explanation is not satisfactory. Indeed, it seems not less extraordinary than the fact itself.

For Captain Sawtelle himself asserts that the difference between the specifications on which his first inspection was made and those of the second was in the following particulars, viz: the one required hubs to be of elm and felloes of yellow oak, while the other required hubs to be of gum and felloes to be of white oak. Your committee do not think these slight discrepancies imposed upon Captain Sawtelle the necessity for making a second inspection and a second report, and they are confirmed in that opinion by the fact that he has not, in either of his reports upon the wagons in controversy, informed us whether the hubs and felloes were of one material or the other.

If, therefore, the testimony of Captain Sawtelle was the only evidence in the case, it would be somewhat difficult to say that the wagons were unsuited to the purpose for which they were built, because that testimony is contradictory in itself.

But his testimony is also contradicted by the certificate of Mr. W. C. Patten, who certifies that the wagons were "made of good stock, and in accordance with the specifications laid down in the contract."

This evidence seems to your committee much more satisfactory than that of Captain Sawtelle; for even if it be not consistent with truth, it is, at least, consistent with itself, which the evidence of Captain Sawtelle is not. Besides, there is evidence in the case which shows that Mr. Patten is an experienced wagonbuilder. There is no evidence to show that Captain Sawtelle ever made one. Mr. Patten saw the wagons while they were building; he inspected them before they were painted. There is no evidence that Captain Sawtelle ever saw them until they were completed and painted and removed to Perryville.

The evidence shows that Mr. Patten was the agent of the government, specially appointed for the very purpose of inspecting and reporting upon the construction of these wagons. There is no evidence that Captain Sawtelle had any more authority to inspect and reject those wagons than any teamster would have had who might be hired to drive them.

There is evidence in the case to show that Mr. Patten is "a man of high moral character, and above the suspicion of practicing fraud in any capacity in which he may be placed." There is no such evidence in reference to Captain Sawtelle. Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Patten is corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. Robert Rowe made a part of the work, and sold a part of the material; he certifies to the good quality of both. He examined the first forty wagons, and he certifies to their good qualities.

J. R. Locke superintended the building of all the wagons. He certifies that they were "thoroughly made, of good stock, well seasoned, and in every particular agreeably to the specifications;" that he has had the experience of twenty years in building heavy wagons, and in that time has superintended several government jobs.

Edward Riddle, of Boston, swears that he has had an experience of twenty years in the carriage business; that he examined these wagons as they passed through Boston on their way to Perryville; that he had frequently examined wagons made for the government by other parties, and that these wagons were fully equal to any army wagons that he had seen made in that State.

There is, on the contrary, no evidence in the case corroborative of the testimony of Captain Sawtelle. Besides, the agent of the "Portland Company certifies that he sold to Mr. Brown the axles for those wagons; that the latter purchased the best quality of axles, when he might have purchased the same articles made of common iron two dollars per set less than he paid. There is

no evidence in the case to show that he purchased of any one inferior material for the sake of getting it at a reduced price.

And upon summing up the whole case, the simple question presented seems to be this: Whether, when the government of the United States has purchased goods, has received them, and removed them hundreds of miles from the former proprietor, it ought to pay for them?

In the opinion of your committee, it ought, and they accordingly report a bill for the payment of Mr. Brown.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 3, 1864.-Submitted and ordered to be printed.

Mr. ANTHONY submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany bill S. No. 94. ]

The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the "memorial of Edward C. Doran, paymaster in the United States navy, praying the legalization of certain payments and vouchers therefor, made from moneys realized from drafts surrendered by him at the Norfolk navy yard under coercion and duress in April, 1861, in order that the accounting officers of the treasury may be authorized to settle his accounts," have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:

By the papers and documents accompanying the memorial it appears that Edward C. Doran, the memorialist, being a paymaster in the United States navy, was stationed at the Norfolk navy yard in the month of April, 1861. In obedience to the orders of the commandant of the yard he proceeded to Washington to obtain instructions and advice touching his official duties from the Secretary of the Navy. He arrived at Washington on the 19th of April, 1861, and on the same day was ordered by the Secretary of the Navy to return to Norfolk and take charge of the vacant navy agency, and to pay the employés of the Norfolk navy yard the sums due them from the United States, under an arrangement approved by the Secretary of the Navy. On that day an expedition left Washington to maintain possession of, or destroy, the Norfolk navy yard and property, to prevent its falling into the hands of the insurrectionists; and said navy yard was partially burnt and abandoned by our naval forces on the night of April 20. 1861. Paymaster Doran arrived at Norfolk early the following morning, and found everything in full possession of the insurgents. He was immediately seized, with all his books, accounts, and rolls, (which were vouchers to him for upwards of $130,000,) by the rebel authorities there, and, after protesting and remonstrating in vain against the demands of the rebel officers, he was finally compelled to yield his checks to them, while he was under duress, for $29,381, under written protest, in the name and behalf of the United States government and his securities, and upon condition that if the money were realized upon them, (and he did not think it could be,) it should be appropriated to the payment of the claims of the workmen and employés of the navy yard for wages due them by the government to April 20, 1861.

As Paymaster Doran could not negotiate drafts in Norfolk on the 18th of April, which fact he made known to the Secretary of the Navy and the deputy depositary in Baltimore, he had great hopes that his checks, dated "Gosport Nary Yard, April 23, 1861," (three days after its abandonment and supposed destruction by our naval authorities-an event of such magnitude as to have

widespread notoriety-before the checks could be presented for payment,) could not then be negotiated in Norfolk, and that they might not be paid by the depositaries upon whom drawn.

The money was realized on those checks and paid to the employés of the Norfolk navy yard by one Wm. H. Peters, rebel paymaster, who forwarded to the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury duly receipted rolls therefor, amounting to $24,140 14; also, a schedule of other payments, amounting to $3,125 49, making together $27,265 63, leaving $115 37, to be accounted for.

A letter, of which the following is a copy, was transmitted with said rolls by Captain F. Forrest, of the rebel service, to the Secretary oft he Navy :

66

"PAY DEPARTMENT,

"Navy Yard, Gosport, May 26, 1861.

SIR: I have received from Paymaster E. C. Doran, of the federal navy, through Commander Thomas R. Rootes, of the Virginia navy, the net proceeds of two drafts on the sub-treasurer at New York-one of $18,750, and one of $10,631.

"Your explicit directions to me to apply this money to the purposes to which Paymaster Doran himself was instructed by the Navy Department at Washington to apply it, yiz: to the payment of arrears due the employés of this yard and station to the 20th of April, ultimo, have been strictly complied with.

"I hand you herewith pay-rolls of mechanics, &c., employed in this yard from the 1st to 15th of April, 1861, and from the 16th to 20th, amounting, in the aggregate, to $24,141 34. I also hand you a list of such officers on Mr. Doran's transfer roll to whom payment has been made by me, (with the sums paid to each,) amounting to $3,125 40. There is quite a number of officers on this transfer roll yet unpaid, and since, in its incomplete state, it would be useless to Paymaster Doran as a voucher in the settlement of his accounts, I have retained it until I can complete it, which I hope soon to accomplish.

66

Respectfully, your obedient servant,

"Flag-Officer F. FORREST,

66

· WM. H. PETERS, Paymaster.

"Commander of Naval Station, Norfolk."

The following letters, on the subject of said rolls, were addressed by the Fourth Auditor to Paymaster Doran, and the Hon. John Law, of the House of Representatives:

66

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

"Fourth Auditor's Office, December 16, 1861.

"SIR: In reply to your communication of the 14th instant, I desire to state that the rolls of the Norfolk yard, transmitted by yourself on the 15th of July last, are certified to by Mr. W. G. Webb, who was clerk of the yard to the 20th of April last. The official acknowledgment of their receipt bears the date of August 5.

"HOBART BERRIAN.

"I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, "Paymaster E. C. DORAN,

"Washington, D. C."

"TREASURY DEPARTMENT, "Fourth Auditor's Office, December 17, 1861.

"SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 15th instant.

"In compliance with the request therein contained, I beg to enclose the letter

of Paymaster Edward C. Doran, on the subject of the pay-rolls of the Norfolk navy yard.

"The sums disbursed on these rolls appear to have been for balances due for wages which had accrued prior to the abandonment of the yard, on the 20th of April last.

66

yard.

They are certified to by Mr. Webb, who was the authorized clerk of the

"I have the honor, sir, to be, respectfully, your obedient servant, "HOBART BERRIAN.

"Hon. JOHN LAW,

"House of Representatives."

The incomplete roll promised to be sent forward as soon as completed by said Wm. H. Peters has never been received, although Paymaster Doran, who made diligent inquiry by letter and in person, of parties in Norfolk, has been informed that all the rolls had been forwarded to Washington by said Peters. As that roll either failed to arrive or has been mislaid, the exact amount paid on it cannot be ascertained.

The accounts, rolls, and vouchers for over $130,000, which were restored to Paymaster Doran after the surrender of his checks, have been formally audited and settled by the Treasury Department; whilst the informality, to wit, the said Peters, rebel paymaster, being an unauthorized agent of the United States, and the non-receipt of the one roll alluded to, prevent the settlement of Paymaster Doran's accounts from the 1st to 20th of April, 1861.

Having been frustrated, by events beyond his control, in making the payments to the employés of the Norfolk navy yard, under the arrangement approved by the Secretary of the Navy, Paymaster Doran prays. Congress for relief, by legalizing the payments and rolls and vouchers of Wm. H. Peters for his benefit, and hopes that, in equity, under the general order of the Navy Department of April 26, 1861, relating to balances due resigned officers of the seceded States, (copy hereto annexed,) he is justified in asking for relief to the amount seized from him, believing that if the missing roll could be found, it would appear that a large portion of the balance unaccounted for ($2,115 37) was paid.

"NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 26, 1861.

SIR: The amounts found to be due to resigned officers from States which claim to have seceded will hereafter be paid them from the United States funds heretofore sent to or deposited in those States, except in cases where the department shall otherwise direct.

"I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

"The FOURTH AUDITOR of the Treasury."

"GIDEON WELLES.

The House bill No. 575 of last Congress, (a copy of which accompanies the papers referred to the Naval Committee,) authorizes the accounting officers of the treasury to credit Paymaster Doran, in the settlement of his accounts, with the sum of $29,381.

Herewith enclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to a resigned officer by the Fourth Auditor, showing that the above order of the Navy Department, of April 26, 1861, was adopted as a rule for the settlement of balances due by the United States to officers who joined the seceded States.

Paymaster Doran states that he sustained private losses to the amount of $12,000 to $15,000 by the secession of Virginia and the abandonment of the