cannot be relieved if they are innocent, and it is evident that he did not suppose there was any such difficulty, as has been suggested, at the department. If, then, we are right in supposing this to be a case in which the Secretary can exercise his discretion if the circumstances, in his opinion, justify it, the next question is, whether Coit & Farnham are entitled to the favorable consideration of the department. In the first place, their high respectability is vouched by papers on file in the department in such manner as will, we think, entirely justify the department in looking upon their case as favorably as possible, in relying upon ther sworn statements with entire confidence, and certainly in giving them every opportunity to present their case in the most favorable light, unembarrassed by any misunderstanding or technical objections; especially when it is seen that their interests were clearly and strongly opposed to any intentional participation in the fraud charged on others. Their positive statement under oath, and their deep interest in opposition to fraud, (which is only committed by men of less respectability when they suppose their interests are to be thereby promoted,) certainly present a strong case in their behalf; but it is claimed that there are some circumstances in the case, and the testimony of Hopkins and Marcy, two custom-house officers, or employés, which make against them. The proper place for commenting upon the testimony is doubtless before the judge, as he is to settle the facts before the Secretary decides the case, and in fact we desire to be permitted to go before him again for that purpose, as well as for the purpose of producing other proof. We suppose the Secretary can grant no relief in case the judge settles the fact that there was wilful negligence of fraud against us; but we think in this case the judge has not settled the facts as the law requires. The clerk has only returned an informal statement of the evidence given; and if the department shall come to the conclusion that they can grant relief to Coit & Farnham in case the judge shall finally settle the question of wilful negligence or intention to defraud in our favor, we desire that the petitions and statements in this case (as well as in that of Sutliff & Case) may be referred back to the judge. The petition in this case, when drawn up, was submitted to Mr. Rogers, the collector, and Mr. Clinton, the district attorney, with the view of stating all the circumstances and facts of the case and narrowing the questions to which testimony would be required, and several additions or changes were made at their suggestion. The testimony was taken under the impression that the statements in the petition, which were not controverted by the evidence, were to be regarded as conceded or established, and with the belief, too, that without any such understanding between the parties such was the rule the judge of this district had established. He had, as we understood it, laid down that rule in his book of practice, (Conkling's treatise,) and on the day the petition was presented he informed us that such was his practice. We were, therefore, surprised when we saw at Washington the meagre statements made by the judge, (or rather by his clerk, for it is understood that the judge refers these cases to his clerk instead of settling the statement of facts himself,) and, from the hasty examination we there gave them, and our present indistinct recollection, we regard them as statements of the most material parts of the testimony given, rather than such a statement of facts as the law requires. If the case is referred back we can go before the judge without any misunderstanding, and with all the testimony either side desires to produce, and can then secure a statement of facts from the judge himself, instead of a condensation of the evidence made by his clerk. In regard to the further evidence we should produce, we desire to say that we should expect to put the question of Clark's insolvency beyond doubt; to show the advance and the circumstances which made it clearly and strongly the interest of Coit & Farnham to secure the property against the slightest danger of forfeiture, to examine Smedley and Clark, to show that Farnham, so far as they know, was entirely innocent, and that Smedley himself supposed and believed Farnham supposed that the vendor in Canada might properly enter the wool at the amount it cost him, and that he told Smedley and Smedley believed it cost him only ten cents, and that Smedley and Farnham had been before informed by Canada manufacturers that their wool cost them from eight to ten and twelve cents. We shall probably wish to give proof to other points, but not having a copy of the petition we cannot now refer to them in detail. In regard to the testimony of Hopkins and Marcy, who swear that Hopkins once explained to Farnham the mode of making up the valuation at which property must be entered at the custom-house, we might before the judge argue upon the force and effect of this testimony. A brief and hasty general communication of that character made by the deputy collector, (if we are to regard it as settled that such an one was made,) though it might be perfectly understood and perhaps correctly remembered by him and another custom-house officer, (which is perhaps doubtful,) would not be likely to be very fully understood by one not conversant with the revenue law, or retained in the memory after the transaction to which it related was wholly closed, and, if misunderstood or forgotten, it would hardly furnish ground for refusing relief. Mr. Farnham says these witnesses are mistaken in their recollection, and, as it appears that most of the conversation in relation to the matter was had with Mr. Coit, it is probable that they have substituted Mr. Farnham for Mr. Coit in the particular conversation to which they alluded. Besides, we should desire to prove that this matter was investigated before the grand jury at the district court at Rochester, and that an effort was there made to indict Mr. Farnham for a misdemeanor for alleged participation in or knowledge of the fraud, but that the grand jury, while they indicted Clark, refused, even on the ex parte examination, to indict Mr. Farnham. The amount is so large and the case so hard a one that we are anxious that nothing should be lost by any misunderstanding of the practice or of the manner of making up these statements of facts, or by the failure to examine all the witnesses who could be called, and we therefore earnestly request the department, in case the objection first stated (that Coit & Farnham are not the general owners, and cannot, as third persons, have relief against the acts of the general owner) is not deemed insurmountable, will allow the petition to be again referred to the judge, with leave to the petitioners and the attorney for the United States, or the collector, on such notice or under such arrangement as they may agree upon or the judge prescribe, to take such further testimony as either may choose, to the end that the judge, when the testimony is closed, may himself determine the facts of the case and transmit a statement thereof, as required by the act of Congress. The department will, of course, impose any other conditions or restrictions they may deem just or proper. HALL & BOWEN, BUFFALO, June 27, 1849. E. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 22, 1849. SIR: The papers transmitted with your letter of the 27th June last, to Mr. Penrose, have been examined, and do not contain sufficient grounds to justify this department in referring back the cases of Coit & Farnham, and Sutliff & Case, to the United States district judge. I am, &c., W. M. MEREDITH, Secretary of the Treasury. N. K. HALL, Esq., Buffalo, New York. 2d Session. No. 139. WRECK OF STEAMER GOVERNOR AND SEARCH FOR UNITED STATES SHIP VERMONT. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, IN ANSWER TO Resolution of the House of 11th instant, transmitting reports of the wreck of the transport steamer Governor and search for United States ship Vermont by the frigate Sabine. JUNE 27, 1862.-Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. NAVY DEPARTMENT, June 20, 1862. SIR: In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th instant, I have the honor to furnish herewith "copies of the official reports and correspondence of the wreck of the transport steamer Governor and the rescue of the battalion of marines on board by the frigate Sabine, in November last; also the official reports of the search for, discovery of, and assistance rendered to the United States ship Vermont, in March last, by the frigate Sabine." I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. G. A. GROW, Speaker of the House of Representatives. GIDEON WELLES. UNITED STATES FRIGATE SABINE, Navy Yard, New York, May 20, 1862. SIR: It is proper for me to say that the accompanying report, &c., of the service rendered by the Sabine to the transport Governor, in November, 1861, although prepared in January last, was not engrossed until a day or two since. As expressed in the conclusion of my letter to you accompanying the report, my only object was to have the facts on file for future reference; and I therefore did not allow the subject to interfere with my more important public duties. I am, sir, with great respect, &c., Hon. GIDEON Welles, CADWALLADER RINGGOLD, Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C. Letters, &c., accompanying report of the rescue of the Governor. A.-Captain Ringgold's letter to Flag-Officer DuPont, reporting rescue, &c. C-Confidential letter of Flag-Officer DuPont to Captain Ringgold, to join his squadron off Port Royal. D.-Flag-Officer Goldsborough's letter to Captain Ringgold, transferring Sabine to Flag-Officer DuPont's squadron. E. Captain Litchfield's abandonment of the Governor to Captain Ringgold. UNITED STATES FRIGATE SABINE, SIR: I beg leave to inform you that on my arrival in the outer roads of Port Royal (8th November last) with the rescued marine battalion, under Major Reynolds, I despatched Lieutenant and Executive Officer Balch with a letter to Flag-Officer DuPont, simply reporting the nature of my special mission to him, (see my letter, copy hereto annexed, marked A,) intending, as was my duty after resuming my proper station, to forward to Flag-Officer Goldsborough, under whose orders I was serving, a detailed report of the circumstances of the rescue of Major Reynolds's battalion from the wreck of the transport steamer Governor by the frigate Sabine, under my command. On the return of Lieutenant Balch next day, I learned for the first time that my ship had been transferred to Flag-Officer DuPont's command, who, in a private note, acknowledges my letter, and says: "I have your report of having saved the marines, and until I can acknowledge your handsome services officially please receive my informal thanks;" directing me, at the same time, to resume the blockade of Georgetown, to which place I immediately proceeded. (Hereto annexed, marked A 2.) It was here, for the first time, while preparing my exact report of the transaction to him in consequence of my having been placed under his command, that I received his letter of 24th November, conveying his previous order of the 3d to me to join him off Port Royal, and the letter of Flag-Officer Goldsborough placing me under his orders. (Hereto annexed, marked B, C, D.) In his letter of the 24th he regrets that his order of 3d November had not reached me, and in the postscript, as you will perceive, he assigns the reason why he could not transmit it by the Curlew in time for me to join him and take active part in the bombardment of the forts. You will therefore perceive that it was no fault of mine that the noble ship under my command, with her powerful armament, did not participate and do her full share in the capture of the forts. The report of Flag-Officer DuPont to the department contains a remark touching the absence of the "heavy frigates" under his command during the attack, which, without explanation, would seem to apply to the Sabine. No censure can attach to her. Ignorant of the existence of any orders, she was on her station in the performance of the duty, as stated in the accompanying report. On returning to Port Royal in December last, no allusion was made by FlagOfficer DuPont (during several interviews) to the subject of the official notice of the "handsome services"-an omission to be ascribed, no doubt, to the pressure of important public cares. Under the circumstances, it becomes a duty to myself, as well as to the officers and men of the Sabine, to submit to you a faithful narrative of the event, and to request that, as an act of simple justice to all the parties concerned, my report and accompanying papers may be put on record upon the files of the Navy Department. I am, sir, with great respect, &c., Hon. GIDEON Welles, CADWALLADER RINGGOLD, Captain, commanding Sabine. Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C. UNITED STATES FRIGATE SABINE, SIR: I have the honor to report that on the morning of the 1st of November last, in consequence of indications of approaching stormy weather, and reluctance to jeopard the safety of my ship in an exposed roadstead like that off Georgetown, South Carolina, I weighed my anchor and put to sea. As the squadron under the command of Flag-Officer DuPont encountered the memorable gale of the succeeding night, you have, no doubt, been duly apprised by him of the disasters suffered and can judge of its terrors from his experience. On the following day at 1 p. m., Georgetown light-house bearing northwest thirty-five miles distant, the wind having veered to the westsouthwest, but still blowing very strong with a heavy sea, whilst the Sabine was returning to her former station two vessels in close company, bearing to the southward, were discovered from aloft. A rakish barque, in sight to windward since daylight, whose movements, in view of the blockade, made it proper to watch and chase her, was at this time nearly on the same line of bearing, and standing in their direction under a press of sail. I stood for the strangers immediately and very shortly after made them out to be two steamers in tow, one of which appeared to be crippled. The barque alluded to wore ship very suddenly and bore up, evidently with a desire to communicate with me, displaying flags union down as signals of distress. Perceiving that I was standing for the steamers, the barque again wore ship and stood back for the distressed vessels. Pressing on I soon joined company, when I found my worst fears painfully realized. A side-wheel steamer, rolling heavily, rudder gone, smoke-stack overboard, her decks crowded with human beings, lay before me a helpless wreck, and a small screw steamer, evidently much damaged and scarcely able to take care of herself, was nobly standing by her in her misfortune. The wind being high and the sea very heavy it was extremely doubtful whether any boat could live either to reach the wreck or to regain the ship. Notwithstanding the hazard, I promptly despatched Lieutenant Balch, executive officer, with Acting Master Beattie, to the scene of the disaster, for the purpose of assuring the officer in charge of our determination to stand by and succor them to the last extremity. Lieutenant Balch passed within hail--it being impossible to board-exhorting the vessel's company to rely upon our exertions and the power of the ship to save and provide for them. The encouragement thus given was responded to with a shout that rent the heavens. This fearless officer with great difficulty regained the ship and reported her to be the transport Governor, of Flag-Officer DuPont's squadron, in a badly leaking condition, having on board a battalion of marines, under command of the veteran Major Reynolds; the officers, rank and file, amounting to three hundred and eighty-five men, which, together with the officers and crew of the transport, comprised about four hundred souls. All hands had been engaged in pumping and baling, but the water was gaining rapidly upon them. The propeller in company proved to be the gunboat Isaac M. Smith, Lieutenant Commanding |