Part 315

Mr. NICHOLAS said, with respect to the instability of their measures, he was ready to take his own share of it as well as that of the gentleman last up, for he never found him vary from one point; he was always desirous to keep up every office which had been once established. Mr. N. thought the conduct of gentlemen extraordinary. At one time they were to make our Establishment as large as possible, and when more favorable circumstances appeared, they were not to reduce it. Where were the benefits of peace, if they were still to keep up our War Establishments? Gentlemen tell you that the Army would be as large now as before the reduction, yet the same gentlemen were opposed to its being reduced to the number now contemplated. This appeared something like inconsistency. Mr. N. said, if they did not seize every favorable opportunity of lessening the expenses of Government, he believed their constituents would have good reason to complain of their want of attention to their duty.

Mr. MACON said, they ought to legislate on this subject as if there were no Army in existence. They had no permanent Establishment, as their men were discharged at the end of every three years. He believed our present commander was a very respectable officer, but he could not vote for a Major General in the Establishment, which he thought unnecessary, because he thought him a deserving man.

Mr. BOURNE believed it was not necessary to have any appropriate number of men for a Major General to command. It had often been thought that a Major General was necessary. He believed they had thought so on former occasions. If any necessity should arise for the militia to be called out to aid the Army, such an officer would be highly necessary. He did not think it would be true economy to reject him.

Mr. GALLATIN said it was not pleasing to give a vote which was in some degree of a personal nature like the present. He was unacquainted with the gentleman who now held the office of Major General in our Army, and, therefore, was under no personal influence, and his opinion on the subject was formed upon the information of those in whose judgment on military affairs, he must necessarily confide, as it was a subject he did not understand. It was supposed that a Major General was necessary for a War Establishment, but not for a Peace Establishment. He drew this conclusion from that grade ceasing with the war in 1783, and being again introduced in 1791, when the Indian war had commenced, and he understood it was more connected with the nature of the service than the number of men. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) said that the nature of the service of this summer, required the service of General Wayne; but as the act they were about to pass would not take place till the 31st of October, as it was the opinion of all gentlemen of military knowledge, that there was no necessity for retaining a Major General in our reduced Army Establishment after the posts had been taken possession of, and as the whole summer appeared sufficient for that service, he would vote against the amendment.

Mr. HARTLEY thought it best to have a Major General. The expense was but small, and in case of the militia being called out (as was mentioned by the gentleman from Rhode Island) a Major General would be necessary; besides, to reject him, would have the appearance of forcing this man out of office in an ungenerous manner.

On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the yeas and nays were then taken, and the Senate's amendment was lost, 49 to 34.

MONDAY, May 23.

Widow of General Greene.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the petition of Catharine Greene, widow of the late General Greene, for indemnity against the demands of Harris and Blachford, of London, merchants, on account of a certain bond which had been given to them by General Greene, as was said on account of the United States. The following was the report of the Committee of Claims:

"That this petitioner prays for indemnity against the demands of Messrs. Harris and Blachford, merchants, who have obtained a judgment against the estate of the late General Greene, for a large sum, in consequence of his being security to the said Harris and Blachford, for the debt of John Banks & Co., which debt, she states, was incurred for, and in behalf of the United States; and that General Greene gave security for no other purpose than to forward the interests of the public.

"On a strict investigation of this claim, the committee find, that in the fall of 1782, General Greene was authorized by the Department of War to obtain supplies of clothing for the Southern Army, then under his command; and, not long after, he contracted with John Banks, a partner in the house of Hunter, Banks & Co., for such supplies.

"In February, 1783, General Greene, under authority of the Superintendent of Finance, contracted with the same John Banks, to furnish such provisions as the same army were in want of; both of which contracts met the approbation of his employers.

"Both these contracts required greater funds than the contractors could command, and the last, which was to supply rations for the army, was near being defeated, because the creditors--for supplies on the former contract--were about to deprive the contractors of their means to fulfil the last. In this situation, Gen. Greene had before him the alternative of turning the army loose upon the inhabitants, to plunder for their necessary food, or support, by his own credit, that of the contractors. He preferred the latter, and gave, in addition to the security of John Banks & Co., his own bond to Harris and Blachford, to secure an eventual payment for articles which had gone to the use of the United States in clothing the army.

"John Banks received of the United States the whole sum of the contract, but diverted the money from its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum secured by the bond mentioned above, and another to Messrs. Newcomen and Collet. Banks & Co. became bankrupts, and, soon after, Banks died.

"The committee find that General Greene, as soon as he was apprised of any possible danger which might accrue to him, took measures to procure some security; but his attempts were ineffectual as to a complete indemnity. It appears he effected some payments, and obtained partial indemnity, but was left finally exposed to a large claim of Messrs. Newcomen and Collet, and this bond about which the present petition is conversant.

"Against the claim of Newcomen and Collet, Congress have indemnified the estate of General Greene, by an act passed April 27th, 1792.

"This act has served as a precedent to the committee, in deciding on the present petition, as there are the same reasons existing for the interference of Government now as then; to which may now be added the weight of precedent.

"For further particulars as to the merits of the claim, the committee ask leave to refer the House to a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress on this subject, the 26th December, 1791, and which is herewith laid before them. The bond given by Gen. Greene to Harris and Blachford for J. Banks & Co., is dated 8th April, 1783, for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d. South Carolina currency. This sum, by a variety of negotiations and payments, has been considerably reduced; the committee have not been able to ascertain with precision the sum now due, but suppose it to be between eleven and twelve thousand pounds.

"The committee are of opinion that General Greene gave this bond with the sole and honorable motive of serving, to his utmost ability, the then pressing interest of the United States: and that the salvation of the Southern Army, and success of our arms in that part of the Union, in a great measure depended upon this timely interference of his private credit.

"They think the honor and justice of Government is pledged to indemnify the estate of General Greene, and by paying the sum due to Harris and Blachford, save a deserving family from indigence and ruin. They therefore report, for the consideration of the House, the following resolution, viz:

"Resolved, That the United States ought to indemnify the estate of the late General Greene, for the sum due on a bond, given by the said General Greene to Harris and Blachford, bearing date April 8, 1783, for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d., South Carolina currency, as surety for John Banks & Co.: Provided, That it shall appear, upon due investigation, by the officers of the Treasury, that the said General Greene, in his lifetime, or his executors since his decease, have not already been indemnified, for the contents of the said bond: And provided, That the said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the Treasury, and his successors, for the United States, all mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by General Greene in his lifetime, from the said Banks & Co., or either of them, on account of his being surety for them, as aforesaid; to be sued for in the name of the said executors, for the use of the United States: And the officers of the Treasury are hereby authorized to liquidate and settle the sum due to the estate of the said General Greene, to indemnify the same as aforesaid, according to the true intent and meaning of this resolution; and to pay such sum as may be found due on the said bond, out of the Treasury of the United States, to the said executors, to be accounted for by them, as part of the said estate."

After some debate on this subject, in the course of which the SPEAKER read, in his place, a letter he had received from the Secretary of the War Department, in consequence of a resolution passed on Saturday, calling for a letter which had been written by the late Colonel Burnett to the late Secretary of War, declaring that no such letter could be found in the War Office; and Mr. COIT spoke at considerable length against the claim--at length the question was put and carried in favor of the report, there being 51 members in the affirmative. The committee then rose, and the House took up the consideration, when, on motion of Mr. BLOUNT, who said he had intended to have made some observations on this subject, but finding the majority so large in favor of the report, he could not believe what he should say would have any effect, the yeas and nays were taken and stood, yeas 56, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, William Hindman, George Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Read, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Absalom Tatom, and Richard Winn.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of Claims, to report a bill.

A little time before the evacuation of Charleston by the English, in the fall of the year 1782, a number of merchants who had settled there, under British authority, were under the necessity of leaving the city. Thus situated, these merchants were willing to dispose of their goods in a way that would secure their money, and enable them to leave the country immediately. John Banks knowing of this, and being, it is said, a man of a speculative disposition, determined to avail himself of this offer. He therefore went into Charleston, at a time when General Greene was lying not far from its walls, and there made a contract with Messrs. Harris & Blachford for goods to the amount of £50,000, which were delivered to him under the firm of Hunter, Banks & Co. After Banks had made this purchase, he entered into contract with General Greene to supply the Army with clothes. Some time after that contract had taken place, the Army was in want of provisions, and the supplies were cut off, and about to fail, when Banks came forward and made a contract to supply the Army with provisions; but the funds which were to enable him to fulfil this contract, were in the goods he had lately bought, and an interference of his partners and creditors took place. The creditors were afraid if these goods were disposed of for that purpose, their security would be lessened, and his partners were not willing that he should convert their joint property to his own particular benefit--for they, it seems, were to have nothing to do with the provision contract. To surmount these difficulties, security was required. The creditors of Banks would be satisfied, if security was given. In this state of things, General Greene became security for Banks, in his first purchase. Banks afterwards received the whole sum of the contract, but diverted the money from its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum secured by the bond to Harris & Blachford.

The question in the committee was, whether General Greene entered into this security with the sole view of obtaining provisions for his Army in a time of distress, or whether he had some concern or partnership in the transaction. The following particulars were mentioned, to prove that the security was given for no other purpose than that of obtaining food for his men. The first purchase of Banks was made in September, 1782; the evacuation of Charleston took place in December following. Banks's clothing contract was made a few days previous to the evacuation; his proposal for the provision contract was made about the same time, but not actually entered into till the 18th of February, 1783, and not completed till General Greene's security was given on the 8th of April. On the 7th of May, General Greene got a counter security. It could not be seen, as was observed, for what purpose General Greene entered into this contract, if it were not for the relief of his army. Had General Greene been a partner, would he have required security of Banks six months after the contract, when business was going on extremely well--when Banks was in good credit, and making money, and when no doubt could be entertained of him? It was insisted he would not: but, having no connection with him, he thought it prudent to obtain a counter security.

On the other hand, various suggestions were thrown out which had somewhat of a suspicious appearance--such as General Greene's forcing his men to buy clothing, &c., of Banks, at an exorbitant price, reports in the Army, a letter said to be written by the late Colonel Burnett, who, it appears, was a partner of John Banks, intimating that General Greene was a partner in the concern, though his name was never mentioned in it; but nothing like proof appeared to the committee upon which to ground any reliance. Indeed, if General Greene had any concern with Banks, it seemed to be a matter which could not be proved, as, in General Greene's lifetime, he brought an action against Mr. Ferry, one of the partners with Banks, which was tried at Charleston, when every thing in Mr. Ferry's cause depended on proving General Greene a partner; but he failed in doing it, and having failed, it was said to be pretty strong presumptive evidence that it could not be proved; because Mr. Ferry might have brought a cross bill against General Greene, and oblige him to declare on oath that he was in no way interested in the suit, which he did not think it proper to do.