Изображения страниц

urgent and obvious cases. To say nothing of the doubtful propriety of the pension system, in any case, and to any extent, it is satisfied that the cases are few, not embraced by the general laws, to which it should be extended, and that the existence of such cases ought to be clearly proven. The committee, therefore, recommend that the bill for the relief of Samuel Warner do not pass."

The committee adopt the above report, and submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of Samuel Warner be denied.


JULY 8, 1856.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. FOSTER made the following


[To accompany Bill S. 362.]

The Committee on Revolutionarg Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Mrs. Catherine V. R. Cochrane, sole surviving child of General Philip Schuyler, having had the same under consideration, do now report:

That General Schuyler, the father of the petitioner, rendered most important services, and made great pecuniary sacrifices during the war of the revolution, are facts familiar to all who are acquainted with the history of that period. In the campaign of 1777, when General Burgoyne commenced his march with an army in Canada, intending to meet General Clinton at Albany, General Schuyler, for some time, had the command of the American forces collected to oppose his progress. He was the owner of a large estate in the line of General Burgoyne's march, and furnished from his mills in the neighborhood the lumber for building the bridge across the Hudson at Bemise Heights; it was a structure of much importance and cost, being about half a mile in length. The mansion house, horses, and out buildings of General Schuyler, were all burned and destroyed by order of General Burgoyne; and the value of the property, as estimated by General Burgoyne, which was thus destroyed, was not less than ten thousand pounds sterling. Whether any payment was made General Schuyler on account of the material furnished for the bridge. above mentioned, or any compensation made for the loss occasioned by the destruction of his property, your committee are unable to state. The books of the department make no mention of such payment or allowance.

In consequence, as the committee believe, of these severe losses, and the consequent embarrassment of his private affairs, General Schuyler tendered to Congress his resignation; it was not accepted, and he still retained his commission. Subsequently, he again tendered it, and in 1779 it was accepted. But for the embarrassment of his private affairs, resulting from the causes above specified, the committee have no doubt that General Schuyler would have remained in the service till the close of the war. In that event he would, of course, have

been entitled to five years' full pay, or to his commutation. In view of the causes which induced or compelled him to leave the service, the committee think that he and his representatives are entitled to the same consideration to which they would have been entitled had he remained in the service till the close of the war. They therefore report and recommend the passage of the accompanying bill, granting to the petitioner five years' pay. As the petitioner is the only surviving child-as she is aged and poor, the committee are of opinion that the payment should be made to her alone, instead of being divided among the heirs generally of General Schuyler.


JULY 8, 1856.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. PEARCE made the following


[To accompany Bill S. 363]

The Committee on the Library, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate directing them to inquire into the propriety of procuring a bust of the late Chief Justice John Rutledge, to be executed by an American artist of merit and reputation, to be placed in the room of the Supreme Court of the United States, report:

That Congress has thought fit to purchase busts of the Chief Justices as appropriate ornaments of the Supreme Court room and proper tributes of respect to the great men whose lives and services they commemorate. Accordingly these memorials of Jay, Ellsworth, and Marshall now adorn the hall of that tribunal. Of the Chief Justices who have passed from life John Rutledge is the only one whose memory has not been thus honored. In 1795 Mr. Rutledge was appointed by General Washington to succeed Mr. Jay, who had resigned the office. The new Chief Justice presided at the session of the Supreme Court which was held in the month of August succeeding his appointment. But two causes were argued and adjudged at this term, in one of which the Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court. In the other, the opinions of all the judges, save one, were pronounced seriatim. At the ensuing session of the Senate the appointment of Mr. Rutledge was rejected by that body, whether for political reasons or because of the approach of that sad infirmity which wrecked his fine intellect, does not appear. This seems to be the only reason, and the committee think it an insufficient one, for declining to place the bust of Mr. Rutledge with those of the Chief Justices who preceded or followed him in this place of eminent responsibility and dignity. Short though his term of service was, he was not the less Chief Justice of the highest tribunal of judicature known to the Constitution. And if his public and professional career be considered, we shall find so much to admire as to be unwilling to refuse that tribute which has been paid to all others who have occupied the distinguished place which was assigned to him by the Father of his country.

The circumstances attending his appointment clearly prove the high estimate in which his judicial abilities and great public services were

held by Washington, whose severe judgment of public men was seldom or never deceived. As a revolutionary patriot and leader Mr. Rutledge had no superior. At the age of twenty-five he appeared as a deputy from South Carolina in the Congress called by Massachusetts after the passage of the stamp act-South Carolina being the first southern province which responded to this call. In this Congress commenced the budding of those principles of popular rights which were developed in the continental Congress of 1774. At this early period, Mr. Rutledge, already known at home as an able lawyer and fine speaker, acquired high reputation for parliamentary eloquence and ability, which he maintained and increased when a member of that memorable Congress which declared our separation from Great Britain. Here he was the prompt, earnest, and able advocate of colonial independence; in oratory the rival of Patrick Henry-in boldness and energy the peer of John Adams.

Returning home from Congress in the spring of 1775, he became a member of the provincial congress of South Carolina, and as chairman. of a committee, raised for that purpose, reported a plan for an independent colonial government. Of this provisional government he was appointed president, and some years later, when the province was overrun by the troops of Great Britain, he was invested with dictatorial powers. History has recorded how well, wisely, and prudently he exercised these powers; how his activity and spirit had before contributed to the successful and glorious defence of Fort Moultrie; how gallantly he bore himself at the battle of Eutaw; and how fully, in every respect, he justified the liberal confidence reposed in him by his fellow citizens.

After the revolution, he was appointed a judge in chancery in his native State, which office he filled for seven years, when he became chief justice of the supreme court of South Carolina.

While he was one of the chancellors of South Carolina, he served in the convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and was a very active and influential member of that body. On the organization of the federal government he was appointed by General Washington, and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, one of the, associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The committee have thought it unnecessary to do more than thus to glance at the public services which Mr. Rutledge performed in various departments of the government, State and federal. They give him a high place among the founders of the republic; while his judicial abilities and labors, and the fact that he actually held and exercised the office of chief justice seem to demand that he should not be omitted from the list of those whose busts adorn the Supreme Court room; they therefore recommend the passage of the following bill.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »