SENATE.] General Ripley. [JUNE 3, 1836. ticular case, from the very nature of the wound, al- gress. They were to make such an enactment in relathough General Ripley continued to discharge the du- tion to this matter as they might think just and proper. ties of his situation, he was not only exposed to great They have done it; and the whole matter is now partibodily suffering, but he was also subjected to great cularly regulated by acts of Congress. This class of additional expense in the performance of his public du- pensioners ought to have their pensions commence when ties, by rendering the assistance of others necessary to they shall bring themselves within the provisions of the do those offices about his person which, before the in- existing acts. These pensions may be regarded now in jury, he could perform for himself. It was a disability the nature of a debt, which the Government must be which commenced in 1814, but it increased with the in- presumed to be able and willing to pay whenever the crease of his years. The effects of a premature old age, creditor shall make out his claim. But the act of Januby reason of his severe sufferings, are now manifest to ary 11, 1812, declares what shall be done upon the hap. every observer. He is no longer that active, athletic, pening of particular events. It says to the officer, Join and vigorous man which he once was. He has become the service of your country; and, should you be wounddecrepit, disabled, disfigured. He is no longer full ofed in battle, you shall he compensated according to the health and of life; he is enfeebled, worn down; and how disability incurred. bas all this happened? The effect will find its cause in the disability which was incurred on the battle-field in September, 1814. It was the wound he then received, the suffering he then endured, the exposure to which he was unavoidably subjected, while in the way of his duty, that has brought all this upon him; and shall it now be said that he was not then disabled, because for many years he continued to perform the accustomed duties of his station? No, sir. It was wise and politic in the Government to retain General Ripley in the service; his presence, his example, his precepts, nerved the arm of the soldier, and gave energy and confidence in the hour of battle. General Ripley was, Mr. President, seriously disabled by the wound he then received, and his pension ought not to have been withheld on the ground that he continued in the employment of his country; and, as it was not then extended to him, it becomes our duty at this late day to do him justice, by carrying back his pension to the commencement of his disability. "When is the disabled officer to receive his pension, which the law so emphatically awards to him, if he does not receive it while in service? After he has resigned his commission and become a private citizen? Certainly not; because it must be borne in mind that, by the act of congress just cited, pensions are contingent and graduated, and that the highest rate of pension for the greatest disability cannot exceed half the monthly pay to which the disabled person was entitled at the date of his injury." The pension of General Ripley should, and it must, if the Government would be consistent with itself, commence on the day when the wound was received--at the time when the disability was incurred. And I am, and ever have been, unable to understand why the commencement of an invalid pension should be controlled by the circumstance of application and proof. When ever the physical disability takes place, then should the justice of Government be extended. "The act of January, 1812, was a compact, and cases Occurring under it were to be viewed as a compact, and they have no more right to cut off the pension than they would the pay or the lands which they had stipulated to give." With reference to pensions for individual services in the war of the Revolution, they were specially created by the act of March, 1818, and by the subsequent acts of Congress. The Government had not been able to perform the contract, in letter or in spirit, with the soldiers of the Revolution, and these annuities were granted to the surviving officers and soldiers of that day to make up for the deficiency. All this is the regulation by law. It was competent for Congress, in relation to this matter, to fix the amount as well as the commencement of the annuity. It was a legislative provision to reward for service rendered more than half a century before the adoption of the provision. That was a matter addressing itself to the high sense of the justice of Con Entirely different, then, is the case of an invalid pensioner; his claim arises under previous acts of Congress, and should commence with the commencement of the disability, for the best of all reasons-it was for that very disability which the legislation of the Government was intended to provide. The grant, then, should go back to the origin of the disability, and should continue while the disability continues. This, I contend, should be the policy and the practice of the Government; any thing short of this would work the most manifest wrong and injustice. If there is any title under the acts of Congress to an invalid pension, it results from the fact of having been disabled while in the actual military service of the country. And would it not be absurd to contend that the commencement of such a pension should be controlled by extraneous circumstances? It seems to me that any such practical construction would be wrong in principle, and in violation of the spirit, if not of the express letter, of the act of January, 1812. It was under this act "to raise an additional military force, that General Ripley entered the army of the United States. Those who knew him in early life felt a pride that so pure a patriot, and so gallant an officer, had joined the standard of his country in that day of her danger, when the most unhallowed sentiments were avowed, both as to the existing causes, and as to the probable effects of a war with England. It was when dismay had almost chilled the ardor, and broken down the force of popular feeling, that Ripley came forward and united his fate with the fate of his native country. And from the commencement of his public service to the time when he resigned his commission, a period of eight years, it is a fact worthy of all praise that he was never absent from the scene of his duty. A furlough, a temporary relief from the severe hardships of the camp, was a favor which he never sought, and which he never received. I know this man well. We were natives of the same State, and educated at the same institution. His early and unchanging principles, his habits of industry, his known character, his high and honorable feelings, gave the promise of his becoming a bold, a daring, a brave, and a humane officer; a pledge which has been most faithfully redeemed. He was first appointed a lieutenant colonel of the 21st regiment; a regiment which was enlisted by his untiring efforts; a regiment which was second to no other attached to the American army for the bravery of its officers and men during the period of the war. Its commander was rarely absent from the field of battle. He was by the side of Pike when that gallant officer fell at York. He led the advance, consisting of his own regiment, at Chrystlerfields, and repeatedly drove the enemy back with the bayonet. He was, without solicitation on his part, for this particular act of daring courage, advanced to the office of a brigadier general. He was present at the capture of Fort Erie, at the battle of Chippewa, and at Bridgewater, where his brigade stormed the heights; and with Miller, another son of the granite State, at the head of the 21st, carried the enemy's artillery. At a subsequent time, in September, 1814, at the battle at the sortie from Fort Erie, General Ripley was severely and dangerously wounded by a musket ball passing through his neck, while making a charge upon the reenforcement of the enemy; and thus terminating a siege of fifty-three days of constant cannonading, when every day was a battle. The enemy immediately after raised the siege, and retired to Chippewa. But General Ripley remained in military service, not only to the close of the late war, but to the period of 1820, when he surrendered his commission of brevet major general. Congress, on the 3d of November, 1814, passed a resolution "that the President of the United States be requested to cause a golden medal to be struck, with suitable emblems and devices, and presented to Brigadier General Ripley, in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his gallantry and good conduct in the several conflicts of Chippewa, Niagara, and Erie." [SENATE. Well, was unjustly withheld for the reason stated. I have, Mr. President, thus very briefly adverted to But another case which I will bring to the notice of the Senate, goes clearly to show that the position that an officer, while in public service, is not entitled to an invalid pension, is wholly untenable. The act for the relief of Thomas Ap C. Jones, grants him arrears of pension to which he was entitled on account of a permanent disability, occasioned by a wound received by him in battle with the enemy during the last war with Great Britain, commencing at the time he received the wound. This act was passed in May, 1834. Captain Jones had long been, and was then, and still is, in the service of the United States, and in the receipt of full pay for that service. This case, then, establishes, and rightfully establishes, the principle, that the invalid pension should commence with the commencement of the disability, and should be commensurate with the degree of disability. Upon principle, then, as well as in accordance with existing precedents, should General Ripley's pension, as an invalid, go back to the time when he was wounded. The bill, then, Mr. President, which I propose to offer, ought to be passed promptly; it is but an act of justice to General Ripley. I have said, sir, that no man has suffered more wrong, severer treatment, at the hands of his Government than General Ripley: I repeat it, and will attempt to make good my allegation. He was entitled to a pension under the act of 1812, for a disability incurred while in military service in September, 1814. Did he receive it? Was he placed upon the list of invalids, in accordance with the provisions of that act? No, sir. It was withheld, without right, upon the ground that he was continued in the service and was in the receipt of full pay as an officer. The reason is altogether unsatisfactory. The only question is, not how much money he may, by some good fortune, be able annually to earn, but what was the degree of physical disability created by the wound: and the pension should have been awarded immediately according to that degree of disability, in pursuance of the act of 1812. But this was not done; and the pension of General Ripley VOL. XII.-106 I have before stated that General Ripley left the army in 1820, and I have also stated the cause which prevented his being placed upon the pension list. But the time had come when he was to be relieved from the cares, and no longer to be entitled to the profits of office. But with that event comes "the unkindest cut of all." He stands recorded, and is held out to the world, as a A large balance was struck against him at the Treasury office, and from this consideration he was prevented from then being placed on the list of invalids, and drawing his pension. On referring to the appropriation bills from 1821 to 1826, it will be found that in the acts of Congress making appropriations for the military service, which includes appropriations for every class of pensioners, it is in effect provided that no money shall be paid to any person who is in arrears to the United States, until such person shall have accounted for, and paid into the Treasury, all sums for which he may be liable. Such was the law, and such was the practice, at the different Departments. And in January, 1828, Congress passed a general act to prevent defalcations on the part of the disbursing agents of the Government; and that act contained the precise provisions which had been for many years incorporated into the public appropriation bills. No disbursing military officer ought to be discharged from the public service until his accounts were fully settled. This is a sound and safe principle; but in a total disregard of this principle, the resignation of General Ripley was accepted; and no sooner was it done, when one account was stated at the Treasury Department, whereby it appeared that the sum of thirteen thousand one hundred and sixty-three dollars and ten SENATE.] General Ripley. cents, as due by Eleazer W. Ripley, late major general in the army of the United States, was found against him on settlement of his accounts;" and in less than one month thereafter, another account was stated at the Treasury Department whereby it appeared that a further sum of four thousand one hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-five cents was found against him, making in all the sum of $17,318 05 as the balance due from General Ripley to the United States. These balances, thus struck, one in April, the other in May, 1821, at the Treasury Department, presented an insurmountable obstacle to his obtaining his long neglected but justly merited claim for an invalid pension. There cannot be well conceived an act of more flagrant injustice, of grosser wrong, than to strike these balances against General Ripley, after he had voluntarily resigned his commission, and then bring up those very balances in judgment against him, whenever he pressed his claim for a pension. It is highly creditable to the Committee on Pensions of the Senate, that they have done away this practice, by bringing forward at this very session a bill, and which has now become the law of the land: "That the act entitled an 'An act to prevent defalcations on the part of the disbursing agents of the Government, and for other purposes,' approved the twentyfifth of January, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall not be construed to authorize the pension of any pensioner of the United States to be withheld." It is not my purpose, standing here as the friend of General Ripley, to allude to the embarrassments and difficulties which attended every movement he made with a view to the adjustment of these accounts at the Treasury Department. I may, however, be permitted to say that no man feels more deeply the positive wrongs which have been inflicted upon him, the gross neglects which have been practised toward him by the Government of his country, than General Ripley. It cannot be otherwise. In November, 1814, Congress passed a highly complimentary resolution in favor of this distinguished officer; but until it was brought to the notice of the Senate, by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, at this very session, that resolution had been permitted to remain unnoticed and unobserved in the archives of the Government. But whatever may have been the feelings of General Ripley, they were the secret working of his own heart. The language of complaint against the justice of his country, for which he so long served, and so freely bled, has never escaped his lips. But in relation to those pretended Treasury balances, the United States, in September, 1822, commenced two suits against General Ripley in the district court of Louisiana, to enforce their collection. After the suits were consolidated, they were continued from term to term, until May, 1830, when the trial took place. The verdict of the jury was returned for the defendant. They allowed to General Ripley, for his account and for his extra service, $15,060 22❘ They deduct therefrom the balance due the United States, 11,929 32 Leaving due to General Ripley, $3,130 90 Whereupon the court ordered that the United States take nothing by these petitions. To the proceedings on trial in this case, and to the ruling of the judge, a bill of exceptions was filled by the attorney of the Gov ernment, and allowed by the court; and the defendant, in like manner, filed a bill of exceptions to a certain ruling of the court, which went to the exclusion from the consideration of the jury of so much of General Ripley's claim, in offset, as he made for arrearages of pension since 1814. There was one extraordinary fact, [JUNE 3, 1836. to which I refer as worthy of particular notice, and which occurred during the trial, and is now matter of record. So entirely conscious were the jury that General Ripley ought to have been allowed his pension from the commencement of his disability, that the foreman of the jury, after handing the verdict to the court, stated that it was the unanimous wish of the jury to allow the claim for arrearages of pension, and requested information whether it would be legal to allow it." The court charged them that they could not, and their verdict was made up accordingly. But with the termination of this trial did not terminate the sufferings of General Ripley, growing out of this prosecution, if it may not well be called persecution, of his Government. A writ of error was sued out, and the case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. General Ripley could not and did not follow this case to Washington; he had nothing to fear from that quarter; nor had he any apprehensions that any jury of his country could ever be empannelled by any court of trial, to pass between him and his Government, which would return a verdict against him. He had entire confidence in the justice of his case, and he reposed with perfect security in that justice. The cause came before the Supreme Court, and after having been argued by Mr. Taney, the late attorney general for the United States, (no counsel appearing for the defendant,) was finally disposed of at the January term, 1833. In the trial below, General Ripley made claim--first, for certain extra disbursements made by him; and, second, for certain extra services performed by him. The Supreme Court decided, "that if the disbursements made for which compensation is claimed were not such as were ordinarily attached to the duties of the office held by the defendant, the fact should have been so stated, and also that the service was performed under the sanction of the Government, or under such circumstances as rendered the extra labor and responsibility assumed by the defendant in performing it, necessary. Should the accounting officer of the Treasury Department refuse to allow an officer the established compensation which be. longs to his station, the claim, having been rejected, should unquestionably be allowed by way of setoff to a demand of the Government, by a court and jury. "And it is equally clear that an equitable allowance should be made in the same manner for extra services performed by an officer, which did not come within the line of his official duty, and which had been performed under the sanction of the Government, or under circumstances of peculiar emergency. In such a case, the compensation should be graduated by the amount paid for like services under similar circumstances. Usage may safely be relied on in such cases, as fixing a just compensation." "The allowances claimed under the second head for services which did not come within the range of his official duties, should have been performed with the sanction of the Government, or under circumstances above stated." "The court, in conclusion, remarked that the distinguished services rendered by the defendant during the late war, are advantageously known to the country; but the claims set up in the case under consideration, must be brought within the established rules on the subject, before they can receive judicial sanction; and as, in the opinion of this court, the district court erred, as their instructions to the jury were given without qualification, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, for proceeding de novo. This interesting case is reported in detail in the seventh volume of Peters's Reports. The abstract made of the proceedings and decisions of the Supreme Court, satisfactorily establishes the positions taken by the defendant on the trial; and the only error committed by the judge below was, in giving un qualified instructions to the jury upon the points assumed. That the defendant was entitled to recover for disbursements made by him, not such as were ordinarily attached to the duties of his office, as well as for extraordinary services, admitted of no doubt; and notwithstanding the clear exposition of the principles made by the Supreme Court, which were to govern the district court in the trial of this cause, and notwithstanding those principles were most favorable to the rights of General Ripley, yet this same cause was a second time pressed on for trial by the United States, and the defendant was driven to the necessity of again preparing for trial, and of submitting to all the costs and charges which were thereby imposed upon him. All this was done. In 1833 the cause was remanded for a new trial in the district court of Louisiana, and in two years after, in May, 1835-making thirteen years since the commencement of this prosecution--the cause was tried anew by another jury of his country, and upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for the government of the case. Mark again the result-it is detailed in an official letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury to the Second Auditor, which I will read: "OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF THE TREASURY, November 25, 1835. "SIR: From official returns received at this office, in relation to the trial of the two suits directed to be instituted against General E. W. Ripley, late of the United States army, one as late Brevet Major General, exhibiting a balance of $9,449 70, standing against him on the books of the Second Auditor of the Treasury, the other as late Brigadier General, exhibiting a balance of $2,479 62, standing against him on the books of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, it appears that, at the late trial of these suits, they were ordered to be consolidated, and at May term, 1830, of the United States district court, for the eastern district of Louisiana, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant. "On the 15th October, 1830, the district attorney at New Orleans was instructed to take out a writ of error, that the principle involved in the case might be settled in the Supreme Court of the United States. "At January term, 1833, the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case remanded to the said district court by the Supreme Court of the United States, with directions to award a venire facias de novo. "In the clerk's report of the district court for May term, 1835, he states that a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant. In conformity with it, it was ordered by the court, that it be certified that the plaintiffs (the United States) are indebted to the defendant, E. W. Ripley, in the sum of $20,596 12. The account, therefore, against him should be closed. I am, very respectfully, sir, V. MAXCY, "TO WILLIAM B. LEWIS, Esq., Thus, at a second trial, under all the delays and disadvantages I have detailed, the verdict of his peers is, that instead of General Ripley being a debtor to the Government, he is its creditor upon the claims exhibited to them, and beyond all the claims of the Government, in the sum of $20,596 12. Such, Mr. President, is the origin, the progress, and the termination of these two suits commenced against General Ripley, with how much credit or honor to the country I, for one, leave others to say; but I will not besitate to declare that they originated in error, and have been carried forward in error that the Government [SENATE. in the commencement of these suits against General Ripley inflicted a deep wound upon his moral character, and committed a positive injury upon his credit and standing as a man and as a citizen. Upon the ground of this alleged indebtedness and defalcation, under a cover of a balance thus falsely arrayed against him upon the books of the Treasury, the pension to which he was honorably and honestly entitled from the Government, has been kept from him, and not a dollar has he realized from either the justice or bounty of his country. Such a Mr. President, I have now said all that I have to say; and, in conclusion, will only add that the Government ought not to take advantage of its own wrong. proceeding would not be tolerated by the most ordinary judicial tribunal in our land, with reference to the common dealings between man and man. The claim set up by the Government against General Ripley, had no foundation in truth or in justice. So say your own courts; and shall the Government take shelter under that false balance as stated, and deny to General Ripley that which would have been most readily granted to him in 1820, had it not been for this very fictitious balance? I cannot, I will not, believe it. General Ripley must inevitably suffer from this long neglect of his Government, for having for so long a period withheld from him his just right. Had he even received in 1820 the pension to which he was entitled, he would have had less cause of complaint; but, in addition to all the other wrongs which he has been obliged to suffer, I hope it may not be his fortune to experience further injustice at the hands of his Government. I hope he will not be obliged to admit that his Government made up a false balance against him, and, by reason of that pretended balance, withheld from him his pension; and when he had wiped away that balance, and satisfied his Government, that there was not at any period since he left the army, any just balance whatever against him, any indebtedness on his part, that his Government would not now extend to him rights which would not have been withheld, if this balance had not thus been stated. Mr. President, the bill which I have prepared is intended to give authority to one of the highest officers of the Government, to examine and scrutinize these claims, and to audit and settle the whole account. General Ripley asks no exercise of generosity towards himself, by the Government. He only asks justice, and that without further delay. He has but few years to survive the wrongs to which he has been exposed in this matter, as all who know him as I know him, can plainly foresee. But he asks to have the last essential correction applied to these wrongs, while he is yet alive. Sure 1 am, what he asks, or rather what is asked by me in his behalf, unsolicited by and unknown to himself, will not be deemed unreasonable by any member of this body, who is in the possession of the facts. Mr. President, I ask leave to present the bill; I wish it read, and I hope that there will be no objection to its second reading at this time, nor to its engrossment for a third reading. If objection be made, I shall not oppose, but should ask for its reference to the Committee on Pensions. When Mr. HUBBARD had concluded, after some remarks from Messrs. PRESTON, TOMLINSON, and HUBBARD, The bill was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Pensions. DISTRICT BANKS. The Senate took up for consideration, as the special order, the bill to extend the charters of certain banks in the District of Columbia. Mr. BENTON made some remarks in opposition to the bill, contending that the report of the committee recommending the recharter of the banks was not sustained by the evidence. With regard to two of these banks that had stopped payment, the Patriotic Bank of Washington and the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank of Georgetown, he insisted that they did not make proper exertions to avoid a suspension of specie payments; and that their stoppage, so far from being necessary, had every appearance of having been voluntary. In commenting on the various tables and statements furnished by the committee, he contended that the stoppage of the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank for the insignificant sum of $6,000, was of itself enough to render them unworthy of a recharter. Their stoppage was either compulsory, or it was voluntary. If the latter, it showed an unpar donable want of fidelity to their obligations to the public; and if, on the other hand, they were unable to avoid stopping for the insignificant sum of $6,000, it showed that their resources were too contemptible to render them worthy of credit. Mr. B., in the course of his remarks, read and commented on the following documents: HARPER'S FERRY, May 16, 1836. DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 12th instant, I received this morning. Early in April, 1834, we expected to pay off the roll for the month of March. Accordingly, on the 7th of April, I wrote to Colonel J. J. Stul', cashier of the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank, of George town, (the bank through which we were then directed to transact our business,) to send me, as soon as convenient, ten thousand dollars. The Friday following I expected to have commenced paying, but the money was not sent on until the 10th, and not received by me until the Saturday following; consequently, it arrived too late to pay that week. On Sunday following I received the news of the failure of the bank; and on Monday or Tuesday (I am not certain which) I set off for the District. When I reached Georgetown, I had with me thirteen thousand five hundred and sixty-five dollars of the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank paper. I called on the officers of the bank, and was told by them that the amount of their paper I had on hand should be exchang. ed for current funds, but it could not be done immediately. I deposited their paper, as they requested, in the Bank of the Metropolis, in Washington city, and some time after I received the same amount from the cashier of that bank, in notes of the Bank of the Metropolis. This is a brief, but correct statement of the facts you require. I enclose you a copy of the letter I received with the ten thousand dollars. APRIL 13, 1834. The board met, in pursuance of a call from the President, at his dwelling. Present: The President, Messrs. Hughes, Bradley, Ingle, Clarke, and Thompson. The President and Mr. Clarke were appointed a committee to meet committees of the other specie paying banks in the District, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, to decide upon such course as may be necessary in the present deranged state of the commercial affairs of the country. Adjourned to meet at 4 o'clock P. M. to-morrow. [JUNE 3, 1836. measures to protect the respective institutions against the present pressure of the times; that they had reason to believe that those banks would meet, but they did not, and, therefore, there is no alternative left but to act for ourselves. Wherefore, Resolved, At a special meeting of the president and directors of the Patriotic Bank, held this day, for the purpose of taking into consideration the alarming state of the commercial affairs of the District, it was unanimously Resolved, That, in the opinion of the board, the interest of the bank and its creditors requires that the payment of specie for its obligations ought to be for the present suspended. Resolved, That, in the opinion of the board, the report made by the committee of investigation in January last, showing that the bank had not only the ability to pay its obligations, but to pay the stockholders upwards of 110 per cent., was a true and correct statement of the affairs of the bank, and that nothing has occurred thus far to render the securities of the bank less safe than at that period. Resolved, That the creditors of the bank be requested not to sacrifice their claims, as the board feel authorized to assure them their claims will all be paid. hardly say, that nothing but the extraordinary juncture In making known this determination, the board need of affairs could have brought them to the painful necessity of this recommendation. They earnestly invite all persons to call and satisfy themselves of the condition of the bank, and the exertions of the board to sustain the institution, and that so far as discretion and prudence would authorize, they have personally gone. On motion, it was W. A. BRADLEY, President. THOMAS BLAGDEN, M. ST. C. CLARKE, the cash funds of the bank be placed in charge of the Resolved, That, in fulfilment of pledges already given, president and cashier for the purpose of paying off the balances due to the general depositors; that the remainder be returned to the Bank of the Metropolis in liquidation of the loan made to the bank on the 11th instant, and the balance secured by the transfer of discounted notes. Copies of letters from Richard Smith, Cashier of the Branch Bank of the United States, at Washington city, to W. A. Bradley, Esq., President of the Patriolic Bank of Washington. APRIL 2, 1834. |