Revision of the act for the relief of Persons imprisoned for Debt. the act of 28th May, 1796, as containing some observations connected with the subject now under consideration. I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES LEE. TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON, Esq., Chairman Com. of Com. & Man. P. S. The foregoing I submitted to the District Attorney for Pennsylvania, whose opinion deserves much respect; and it becomes my duty to mention that we do not concur. By mandamus the law may be settled in February. trajudicial transaction, it is doubtful whether persons, other than the debtor, taking false oaths, before either the judge or commissioners, can be punished for perjury. These are not all the defects of this law, but they are sufficient to show that it wants revision and correction. REVISION OF THE ACT FOR THE RELIEF before the last Winter session of Congress. A OF PERSONS IMPRISONED FOR DEBT. [Communicated to Congress, January 18, 1798.] Gentlemen of the Senate, and There are some persons in the debtors' apartment of the city and county of Philadelphia confined under process of the District Court for debts to the United States. I have been (after due investigation at the time, as the liberty of a citizen was in question) and am now of opinion, that debtors to the United States are not relievable under the act before mentioned. These debtors have been a long time confined. One of them learned law officer conceives that I ought to consider them as objects of the law; but another, whose opinion he is reminded by his duty to mention as deserving respect, does not concur with Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: him. He proposes, instead of legislative explanaA representation has been made to me by the tions, that the question should be examined by Judge of the Pennsylvania District of the United mandamus. In the meantime these unhappy príStates, of certain inconveniences and disagreeable soners are the victims to a delay, which a few circumstances which have occurred in the execu- words in law would long ago have remedied, and tion of the law passed on the twenty-eighth day will now further prevent. I mention this barely of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- to show that the law is at least doubtful on this six, entitled "An act for the relief of persons im- point. In my motives for executing this law, I prisoned for debt," as well as of certain doubts choose to forget all questions about Constitutional which have been raised concerning its construc-authority to compel a judge to perform extrajudition. This representation, together with the recial authority. port of the Attorney General on the same subject, I now transmit to Congress for their consideration, that, if any amendments or explanations of that law should be thought advisable, they may be adopted. JOHN ADAMS. UNITED STATES, January 18, 1798. The marshal of the district represents to me that there is no provision made for fuel and other necessaries for poor debtors confined by process of the courts of the United States. Witnesses are also confined in jail, to insure their appearance to give testimony, and suffer for want of provision adequate to their support. I have deemed myself bound to make this representation to you, that no imputation may lie on me, if persons confined under the process of the courts of the United States suffer and continue in prison for want of provision for their release or support. I have the honor to be, with sincere respect, your obedient servant, RICHARD PETERS, PHILADELPHIA, January 10, 1798. PHILADELPHIA, January 8, 1798. SIR: From motives of humanity towards the objects of the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt," I have, under several disagreeable circumstances, endeavored to carry that law into effect; but I find it deficient in many essential provisions. It is doubtful whether the district judge is vested with judicial powers, or those of a bankrupt commissioner. It should seem that judicial authority was not intended, as I can hardly suppose Congress meant to commit any part of the judiciary authority of the United States into a situation so inefficient and degrading. The proceedings are to be had within the walls of a prison, and the judge is to certify them to the jailer. In this district, where contracts are numerous, complicated, and extensive, it is impracticable to do business 1. He states it as doubtful whether the act vestwith propriety and effect in a jail. No record of ed judicial power in the judge relative to the disthe transactions is directed when the judge him- charge of insolvents, and assigns for the reason of self acts, though the law requires the commission- the doubt that the law requires the proceedings ers appointed by him to return their doings to the to be had in the jail, and certified to the jailer. District Court. The judge has no authority to This reason creates no doubt in my mind, for juorder the prisoner to be brought into a more fit dicial authority may be exercised in any place and convenient place, nor to punish contempts or appointed by law, and the certificate to the jailer enforce orders; and if it be, as it appears, an ex-is requisite to inform him whether the prisoner SIR: I have attentively considered the letter of the Judge of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, dated the 8th instant, relative to the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt," which he thinks deficient in many particulars. Relief of Imprisoned Debtors-Revision of certain Acts. may be discharged as an insolvent, or is to remain in custody. RELIEF OF IMPRISONED DEBTORS. [Communicated to the House of Representatives, February 26, 1798.] Mr. N. SMITH, from the committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of making alterations in the act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt, made the following report: 20. The complaint against the law in requiring the judge to go to the jail, and there to execute the business, is well founded. It is unnecessarily degrading and troublesome, and must be very disagreeable. The act should be amended, by authorizing the judge to issue his warrant commanding the jailer to bring the prisoner before him, at That, in their opinion, the said act ought to be so some certain time and place to be named in the amended as to extend its provisions in express terms warrant, and authorizing any parties interested to to persons imprisoned in civil causes at the suit obtain subpoenas for witnesses from the clerk of of the United States; also, that the several District the court, requiring their attendance to give testi- Judges ought to be authorized to issue their warmony then and there. Also in the great cities of rants, commanding the jailors to bring the prisonPhiladelphia, New York. Boston, Baltimore, anders before them at such time and place as they shall Charleston, the judge of the district should have think proper to appoint, for the purpose of executing power to appoint two commissioners to do this the business assigned them by the said act; and in kind of business, when it shall be inconvenient to case of prisoners confined in the cities of Philadelthe district judge, by reason of other judicial oc- phia, New York, Boston, Baltimore, and Charlescupations, absence, sickness, or other inability, ton, the judges ought to be empowered to appoint two commissioners to do the business under the to act. 3d. It is objected that the act does not require said act, when it shall be inconvenient for the a record of the transactions when the judge him-judges to attend on the said business by reason self acts. Certainly the proceedings ought to be of other judicial duties, absence, sickness, or inabili recorded in the district court by the clerk of that ty. Your committee are also of opinion that procourt, whether done before the judge of the dis- vision ought to be made by law for the support of trict court or commissioners, and so I understand poor prisoners during their confinement, previous the law as it now is; for though it does not exto taking the oath provided for them by the said pressly direct the judge, when he acts, to return his doings to the district court, yet it is implied, from the nature of a court of record, that whatever is judicially done by the court shall be recorded. However, this may be made plainer by an amendment. 4th. It is doubted whether witnesses taking false oaths before the commissioners are punishable for perjury; and considering the expressions of the act of Congress respecting perjury, there seems good cause for this doubt. 5th. It is represented that no provision is made for supplying necessaries to poor persons confined under execution as debtors, or confined as witnesses, to insure their appearance to testify. This defect should be supplied. act. REVISION OF CERTAIN ACTS. [Communicated to the House of Representatives, April 25, 1798.] Mr. two resolutions of the 27th of March last, to consider if That, in the opinion of the committee, the relief afforded by law to persons imprisoned for debt, at the suit of individuals, should be extended to those who may be imprisoned for debts due to the United States; and, accordingly, submit the bill accompanying this report. Upon the second resolution the committee are of opinion that no debtor to the United States should be discharged from imprisonment upon any judgment but with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury; and they have inserted in the aforesaid bill a provision for this object. 6th. A difference of opinion is entertained whether the act before mentioned comprehends debtors to the United States or not. On this question, and on this alone, a committee of Congress applied lately to me for my opinion, which I sent, and of which I take the liberty to transmit the enclosed copy. As I think the fewer the laws the better, if competent to the purpose of society, I deem it advisable to avoid every unnecessary multiplication of legislative acts. If this was the only ob- This bill, if adopted, will embrace all the prijection or doubt in the law now under considera-vate petitions that were submitted to the committion, it might wait for a judicial decision in the Supreme Court; but, as in other respects the law is capable of essential amendments, it will be best that the attention of Congress be called to the whole subject. With perfect respect, I have the honor to remain, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, CHARLES LEE. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. tes, except that of James Greenleaf. This petitioner is confined upon mesne process, and prays that the benefit of the act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt may be extended to such persons prior to the recovery of final judgment; but the committee are of opinion that an innovation of this nature cannot be made with propriety or convenience, unless by means of a uniform system of bankruptcy; they therefore recommend that said Greenleaf have leave to withdraw his petition. Indemnity to the Estate of General Greene. INDEMNITY TO ESTATE OF GEN. GREENE. [Communicated to the House of Representatives, February 14, 1798.] The Committee of Claims, to whom were recommitted the petition of Henry Hill, and the several reports thereon, "with instructions to report a statement of the facts relative to the demands against which the United States have indemnified General Greene, as surety for John Banks," having investigated and had the same under consideration, now present, as the result of their inquiries, the following report: The transaction in which the claim in question originated took place as long ago as the month of December, 1780; at which time Joseph Clay, then paymaster for the Southern Army, paid to Major Burnett, aid-de-camp to General Greene. and by his orders, the sum of $37,200 in bills of exchange, for specie. Pursuant to General Greene's direction. Major Burnett lodged those bills in the hands of Charles Pettit, Esq, of Philadelphia, who was then assistant Quartermaster General under Gen. Greene. for completing the contract were purchased on credit by the contractors from certain British merchants in Charleston. Soon afterwards proposals were made by John Banks, on behalf of the same house, for the supply of provisions for the Southern Army, for which General Greene had also been authorized by the Superintendent of Finance to contract. These proposals, the urgent necessities of the service compelled General Greene to accept, and the new contract for this object was concluded on the 15th of February, 1783. In this contract Banks alone appeared, and the accounts at the Treasury were opened in his name, but it is fully understood that he acted on behalf of the house of Hunter, Banks, and Co. It soon appeared that the engagements of the house, under this last contract, were beyond their means. They were pressed for payment by the merchants from whom the goods for completing their first contract had been purchased, and who insisted that the funds of the house should be applied solely to the discharge of their demands, unless new and satisfactory security should be given. This security the house was unable to find, and the funds in question, the only means whereby they had the least chance of completing their second contract. were thus locked up. became surety for them to sundry persons, and in a large amount. The bonds whereby this security was given were executed about the 8th of April, 1783. A part of the bills, amounting to $9,800, Mr. Pettit delivered to Mr. Morris, then Superintendent of Finance, who accounted for that sum; the remaining $27.400 were sold by Mr. Pettit. They produced $19,516 18-90ths in money, of which he In the dilemma, they had recourse to General paid $10,903 84-90ths to Major Burnett for the Greene, who, in order to set free their funds, and use of General Greene, by whom it has been ac-enable them to furnish the Army with provisions, counted for. The balance, amounting to $8.612 24-90ths remained in the hands of Mr. Pettit, who retained it as public money, in payment of a balance which he alleged to be due to him from the public in the Quartermaster's department. In this manner he has always declared himself ready to account for it, and the committee find it actually charged to the Quartermaster General, in an account between that department and the United States, which was stated by Mr. Burrall, the late Commissioner, on the 1st of May, 1789, but has not yet been finally closed. The Treasury Department, at that time under the direction of Mr. Morris, viewed this transaction in a different light from Mr. Pettit; regarding Major Burnett as a principal in the business, they opened an account against him, in which he was charged with the whole amount of bills received from Mr. Clay, and credited, not for the whole amount as delivered by him to Mr. Pettit, but for the sum paid by Mr. Pettit to the Superintendent of Finance, and to General Greene; thus the balance of $8,612 24-90ths, retained by Mr. Pettit, stood on the books of the Treasury as a charge against Major Burnett. Not long afterwards Major Burnett formed a co-partnership in trade with John Banks, and sundry other persons, under the firm of Hunter, Banks, and Co. It was with John Banks, a partner in this house, that General Greene, in the Fall of the year 1782, and in pursuance of authority from the Department of War, concluded a contract for supplies of clothing for the troops under his command. "Banks contracted on behalf of the house, and the supplies 5th CoN.-116 As a counter security for himself, General Greene exacted from Banks, who represented the house throughout the whole transaction, an engagement that the moneys to become due from the United States, under the contract, should be applied solely and exclusively to the discharge of those debts for which he had thus become responsible; and the more effectually to insure the performance of this engagement, authority was given by Banks to James Warrington, one of those creditors, and agent for the others, to receive those moneys in Philadelphia, as they should become due. He accordingly did receive $27,000 under this authority from Mr. Pettit, in Philadelphia, who was the agent of Banks, and drew the money from the Treasury as it became due under the contract. Some payments, but to a much smaller amount, were likewise made in the same manner to other creditors of this description. It does not appear that the above-mentioned engagement was ever reduced to writing, or assumed the shape of a formal contract; nor is it known to have been made at the time when General Greene became security; but there is no doubt of its having been considered and represented by the house as a stipulation, not only with General Greene, but also with their creditors; and that they gave their agent, Mr. Pettit, instructions to conform to it by paying the contract money in discharge of those debts, with a statement of which they also furnished him. Banks, however, was far from observing Indemnity to the Estate of General Greene. this engagement; for a considerable part of the funds in question were diverted by him into other channels. When the account of Banks under this contract for the supply of provisions came to be settled with his agent, Mr. Pettit, at the Treasury of the United States, the Superintendent of Finance, Mr. Morris, considered Major Burnett as one of the contractors; and finding him charged in the books of the Treasury with the balance of $8,612 24, which Mr. Pettit had formerly retained out of the proceeds of the bills brought from the Southward by Burnett, in 1780, he insisted on placing that sum to the debit of the contract account. This he did upon the principle that this money was due to the United States by Burnett, one of the contractors, and ought, therefore, to be deducted out of the sums due from the United States under the contract of the house whereof Burnett was a partner. Mr. Pettit, on the other hand, contended that the bills placed in his hands by Major Burnett, in pursuance of General Greene's orders, were public property, in the transmission of which from Mr. Clay to him, Burnett ought to be regarded merely as the messenger of General Greene, and that the money arising from these bills being public money, he, as Assistant Quartermaster General, had a right to retain and account for them in that department ; so that no charge could justly be made on this account against Major Burnett; nor did he admit that if the charge against Burnett was just, his private debts to the public could be set off against the claims of Banks, who alone appeared in the contract, and in whose name, individually, the contract account had been opened and kept at the Treasury. However doubtful the last of these points may be, the committee, upon full consideration, are clearly of opinion that Mr. Pettit was right as to the first, and that the balance in question ought never to have been charged to Major Burnett. He manifestly acted as the mere agent of General Greene in transmitting those bills of exchange from the hands of Mr. Clay to Mr. Pettit; and if it was proper to open any account against him at the Treasury for this transaction, he ought to have been charged with the bills as received from Mr. Clay, and credited with them as delivered to Mr. Pettit, and then the account would have been bal. anced and closed. If the committee are right in supposing that Major Burnett ought not to have been charged with this balance, which Mr. Pettit had retained, and was willing to account for, it follows that no foundation existed for the charge against Banks in the contract account. The Superintendent of Finance, however, settled the account in his own way; and this balance. with interest, amounting in the whole to $9,786 81, was charged to Banks; but the propriety of this decision was never admitted, either by the latter or by his agent. The settlement took place, partially, on the 31st of December, 1783, and the above-mentioned charge was made; on the 30th of March following, the account was finally closed. Upon this settle ment, and after charging Banks with the balance in question, there was a balance against him of $2,715 88. From this statement it appears, in a manner satisfactory to the committee, that the United States have been twice credited with this sum of $8.768 81; first in the Quartermaster General's Department, and secondly in the contract account of John Banks, to whom, they are of opinion, it was improperly charged in the settlement of December, 1783. This error, they conceive, ought to be corrected by placing the sum in question to his credit on that day; so that, instead of a balance against him of $2.715 88, there would be a balance in his favor of $7,052 83. for which sum the United States must, of course, be considered as indebted to him on the 31st of December, 1783. But, as the account was closed at the Treasury under the former Government, and as the present Treasury Department have adopted a rule that no such accounts shall now be opened, this error cannot be corrected without the aid of Congress. It is this sum of $7,052 83, contended to have thus become due from the United States to John Banks on the 31st of December, 1783, that is now claimed by Henry Hill, as the attorney in fact of James Miller, who rests his claim on an assignment from Banks. The assignment, a copy of which is subjoined to this report, bears date on the 7th day of April, 1784. From the paper itself, as well as from an explanatory letter from Charles Pettit, Esq. to Mr. Hill, which is also subjoined, it appears clearly to include the above-mentioned sum. By a certificate from the late Auditor of the Treasury, which is also annexed, it appears that, in the Winter of 1789-90, this assignment was produced to him by Mr. Hill, in support of his claim against the United States for the bal ance in question. The reasons why the claim could not be admitted at the Treasury have already been stated. About the time of this assignment, the house of Hunter, Banks, & Co. failed, and Banks soon after died insolvent. Those creditors of the house to whom General Greene had given security brought suits against his estate, and his legal representatives applied to Congress for relief and indemnity. This application was made by the petition of General Greene's widow, on the 4th of March, 1790. A bill granting the indemnity was introduced and read a first time on the 5th day of April, 1792. On the 4th of April, 1792, while this measure was still depending, Mr. Hill presented a petition to Congress, stating his claim against the United States under John Banks, and praying that no act which might be passed for the relief of General Greene's estate might be so framed as to impair his claim. This petition was referred to a committee, who reported favorably on the 10th of April, 1792, and their report was referred to the Committee of the Whole House, who then had under consideration the bill above mentioned. With this matter thus before it, the House proceeded, on the same day, to pass the bill. This bill, which passed into a law on the 27th Indemnity to the Estate of General Greene. of the same month, contained the following clause: 'Provided, also, that the said executors shall make over and assign to the Comptroller of the Treasury and his successors, for the use of the United States, all mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities whatsoever, now due, which were obtained by the said General Greene, in his lifetime, from the said Banks & Co., on account of his being surety for them as aforesaid, to be paid for in the name of the said executors, for the use of the United States." On the 8th of November, 1792, James Warrington, as attorney in fact for Joseph Blachford, one of the creditors of John Banks, presented a petition to Congress, stating the balance due, as above mentioned, from the United States to Banks, and praying that it might be paid to him in satisfaction of the debt of his principal. This petition was referred to a committee, who reported on the 1st of February following. After reciting the circumstances of the case, they recommend the following resolution: "Resolved, That the accounting officers of the Treasury cause the sum of $9,768 81, charged to John Banks on the 31st day of December, 1783, to be credited to the said John Banks; and that the sum so credited be charged to such other person as, in their opinion, shall be justly chargeable therewith." This resolution was | adopted on the 20th of February, 1793. A bill was brought in and passed, and sent to the Senate, at the same session; but the Senate adjourned | without acting upon it, and, of course, it was lost. James Warrington took no further steps in the business; but, on the 16th of December, 1793, Henry Hill, in behalf of himself and other creditors of John Banks, presented a petition to the House, stating that such a bill had passed the House at a former session, and praying that a similar bill might be passed for the benefit of those entitled under Banks. This petition was referred to a committee, who reported favorably on the 7th of January, 1794. No proceedings, however, appear to have been had on the report till the 22d of January, 1795, when it was referred to the Committee of Claims. That committee made a favorable report on the 26th of May, 1796, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House, but not further acted upon during that session. On the 9th of December, 1796, the report last mentioned was again referred to a Committee of the Whole House, who, on the 14th of the same month, were discharged from the further consideration thereof, and it was recommitted to the Committee of Claims. On the 13th of January, 1797, that committee again made a favorable report, which was again the subject of the last recommitment. These various reports, which are to be found on the files of the House, uniformly recommend the passing of a law similar to the bill actually passed by the House on the petition of James Warrington, and the effect of which would be to correct the error committed by the Treasury in the settlement of Banks's contract account on the 31st of December, 1783, by placing the aforementioned balance to his credit on that day; those legally | | entitled to this balance under Banks might then obtain it, either by application at the Treasury, or by judicial decision, in case of controversy. On the 14th of March, 1796, while these proceedings on Mr. Hill's application were had, a second petition was presented to Congress, by the representatives of General Greene, praying for relief and indemnification against others of Banks's creditors, to whom he had become surety in the manner and for the purposes already stated. In cousequence of this petition, an act was passed on the 1st of June following, granting the relief prayed for, and containing the following proviso: "The said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the Treasury and his successors, for the United States, all property, mortgages, bonds, covenants, and other counter securities whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by General Greene, in his life-time, from the said John Banks and partners, or either of them, and causes of action on account of his being surety for them as aforesaid; to be paid for in the name of the said executors, for the use of the United States." It appears that, under these two acts, the following sums have been paid out of the Treasury of the United States, in discharge of debts originally contracted by Hunter, Banks, & Co., for which General Greene became surety: Under the first act, Under the second, Total, $27,504 15 20,000 00 $47,504 15 for which sum the committee apprehend there can be no doubt that the United States may justly consider themselves as the creditors of Hunter, Banks, & Co. The debt of Harris and Blachford having been one of those for which General Greene was bound, and against which his estate has been indemnified, it is to be remarked that, had the bill which was founded on the petition of James Warrington been enacted and the money contemplated by it been paid to Warrington, that money would have gone in discharge of so much of the debt due from Hunter, Banks, & Co. to Harris and Blachford, and, of course, would have reduced by so much the sum for which the United States became responsible by virtue of the second act of indemnity for General Greene's estate; but whether, in case that bill had passed into a law, the said money would have been paid to Warrington or to Henry Hill, by virtue of his assignment, the committee cannot decide. The facts here stated appear in the various reports and other documents, respecting this business, which are now on the files of the House; but as the papers are numerous and detached, the committee, instead of merely referring to them, have thought best to form a connected statement of those facts which appear to be material. This they now present, and hope it is so full as to avoid the necessity of any further research, and that it may furnish all the information requisite or guiding the House in its decision. |