1st Session.

No. 8.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER 21, 1853.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr, BRODHEAD made the following

REPORT:

[To accompany bill S. No. 51.]

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Cornelius McCaullay, report:

This case received the favorable action of the Committee of Claims, at the first session of the last Congress, The report then made, and which clearly sets forth the nature and grounds of the claim, and the principles of equity and justice upon which it is believed to rest, is adopted by this committee and made a part of this report.

The committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill:

IN SENATE-MARCH 9, 1852,

Mr. WADE made the following report:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Cornelius McCaullay, report:

The memorialist states that he was a manufacturer of fine marocco, in the city of Philadelphia. In 1834, he was called upon by one Isaac Hozier, representing himself, and believed to be, an agent of Walter Lowrie, esq., then Secretary of the United States Senate, who requested him to furnish a certain quantity of morocco, to be used for covering the chairs in the Senate Chamber. He says a Mr. Hozier exhibited a letter of Mr, Lowrie, authorizing him to make the purchase, and stated that he could draw on Mr. Lowrie for the amount. He accordingly furnished the goods and shipped them to Mr. Lowrie. When he was about to draw for the amount, Mr. Hozier again came to Philadelphia with another letter from Mr. Lowrie, and ordered an additional quantity of skins. Before he had completed this order he suspected fraud in Hozier, and went to Washington to get his pay, when he was informed by Mr. Lowrie "that it was a hard case that he should be wronged out of his just claim," or words to that effect; but that the price of the goods had already been paid to Mr. Hozier, who had disappeared.

Mr. Lowrie states that he engaged Hozier to furnish the morocco, and

paid him for it; that shortly afterwards Mr. McCaullay called and produced satisfactory evidence that he was an industrious and worthy man; that he had furnished the materials, and had not been paid for thembut that it was not then in his power to afford relief. Mr. Lowrie adds: "He was, perhaps, the only manufacturer in the United States at that time, who could make the article required; and after much labor, the fruits of his skill and industry were taken from him by the fraud of another." This statement is dated January 23, 1850.

Wm. Root swears, that he was the salesman of McCaullay at the time, and has continued to be so that Hozier represented himself as acting for Mr. Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate, and by such representation, obtained the goods.

John McMullen, book keeper, swears to the same facts, and that the goods have not been paid for.

In order to show that Mr. Lowrie was in the habit of authorizing the upholsterer to make purchases of materials, as his agent, Mr. McCaullay produces several original letters of Mr. J. K. Boyd, (who succeeded Mr. Hozier in doing the upholstery for the Senate Chamber,) in which Boyd distinctly claims to act under instructions of Mr. Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate., In one of these letters, addressed to J. B. Sutherland, esq., and dated 9th of September, 1836, Mr. Boyd says:

"We are under the necessity of troubling you with a small commission on the part of the Senate of the United States. Mr. Lowrie, the Secretary of the Senate, informs me you have some knowledge of the gentleman who furnished some printed leather skins, suitable for covering the Senate Chamber chairs, to a person at that time, (and from all the information I can derive, they never were paid for by the person who obtained them, yet they were paid for by the government to Hozier; I believe that was his name.) Mr. Lowrie requests me to write to the same gentleman, requesting him to forward one dozen of the same kind-a pattern is herewith enclosed; and on their arrival to him, Mr. Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate United States, the bill will be promptly paid." And on the 8th November, 1836, Mr. Boyd writes to Mr. McCaullay for the skins, "by particular desire of Mr. Lowrie, the Secretary of the Senate."

The petitioner states "that the reason he has not before this time petitioned for the amount of his bill, is that he was of the opinion that said Lowrie, your then Secretary, was dead, (a Walter Lowrie having been reported to be dead, which turned out to be his son;" but having discovered his mistake, he proceeded to obtain Mr. Lowrie's statement and to submit his claim. He deposes to the truth of the facts stated, and to the truth and justice of his account, which amounts to the sum of $751 13, to which he adds interest at six per cent, $720, and prays payment.

It seems to be clearly proved that the goods were of peculiar character and very difficult to be obtained; that they were furnished by Mr. McCaullay at the request of an individual in the employ of the Secretary of the Senate, and that McCaullay supposed the Secretary would be responsible for them; that they were received and applied to the use of the Senate, and that the petitioner has received no remuneration for them.

And the committee think it may be inferred from the letters of Mr. Boyd, that Mr. Lowrie, while Secretary, was in the habit of ordering

goods through the agency of other persons temporarily in his employment. These goods were obtained through such an agency; and the loss resulted, according to the statement of Mr. Lowrie himself, from the fraud of a person in his service. The goods do not appear to have been delivered to the agent, but to have been sent directly to the Secretary of the Senate. He received and used them. Did McCaullay act with "reasonable prudence" in sending the goods to Mr. Lowrie at the request of his employee, Hozier, who produced, according to McCaullay's affidavit, written authority to make the purchase? Was not the Secretary as much bound to look after the honesty of his employees, as strangers could be who were brought in connexion with them solely in consequence of their relation to him?

It appears that McCaullay applied to the Secretary for payment "soon after" the receipt of the goods, indeed before the entire completion of the delivery. What more could he have done? The property was beyond his reach and in the possession of the Senate; a person in the employ of the Secretary had obtained the money, and thus "the fruits of his skill and industry" were taken from the petitioner "by the fraud of another."

It does not appear to the committee that the petitioner was guilty of that degree of negligence which would justify the government in withholding equitable relief; they therefore report a bill.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Mary E. D. Blaney, report:

This case was fully investigated by the Committee at the first Session of the 32d Congress, and the Report then made, (No. 178) and which is hereto annexed and made a part of this report, is concurred in by this Committee. It sits forth the nature of the claim and the equitable grounds upon which it rests. The accompanying bill, which has once passed the Senate, is again submitted:

IN SENATE-APRIL 12, 1852.

Mr. PRATT made the following report:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Mary E. D Blaney, administratrix of the late Major George Blaney, deceased, have had the same under consideration, and report:

Major Blaney was an officer of the corps of United States topographical engineers, and for several years previously to his death, in 1835, he was employed in superintending the erection of the fortifications at Oak island and Cape Fear river in North Carolina, and was required to act as disbursing officer and as assistant commissary of subsistence at those points, for which he claimed commissions and compensation to the amount of $6,401 48, which was disallowed by the accounting officers of the treasury. It appears that at the time of his death, he had on deposite in the bank at Fayetteville, N. C., to his credit, $3,182 55, of which amount $2,438 12 was claimed as his private funds, and for which he gave a check to the petitioner. On presentation of the check, payment was declined until the department had been consulted. The acting Secretary of War directed that the money in the bank, standing to the credit of Major Blaney, should be carried to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, which was accordingly done.

After the decision in the parallel case of Major Delafield, in 1844,