1 that he was merely a civil officer, and as such was not embraced within the provisions of the law of the last session. In The office of paymaster was created under the act of the 8th of May, 1792, under which he received sixty dollars per month, and the rations and forage of a major. By the act of 1802, fixing the military peace establishment, the paymaster of the army was to be taken from the line of commissioned officers, and subjected to the rules and articles of war. 1814, a salary was substituted for the monthly pay, &c. By the act of the 24th of April, 1816, for organizing the general staff, the paymaster general is recognized as part of the general staff of the army, and subjected to martial law; and, by the law of the last session, a paymaster general is also provided for, as one of the officers of the military peace establishment. Your committee can, therefore, see no reasonable grounds for the opinion, that the paymaster general did not belong to the army of the United States. The office of colonel of artillery and adjutant general being original vacancies, it could not have been the intention of Congress to deprive the President of his constitutional right to fill those offices in such manner as he should think fit, subject to ratification or rejection by the Senate. Col. Gadsden was appointed to the office of adjutant general long after the time prescribed for the reduction of the army, and when the office was vacant, in consequence of the non-acceptance of the same by general Atkinson. The committee, therefore, cannot believe there was any violation of law, either in that appointment, or in filling the office of inspector general, made vacant thereby. The dismissal of the supernumerary officers was a matter of necessity, and expressly directed by the act. Whether the President has discreetly exercised the power vested in him by the constitution, in making the selections for these or other offices in the army, is a subject belonging exclusively to the Senate. It is but justice to the individuals selected, to say, your committee have heard no objection to the character or competency of either of the gentlemen, whose right to the appointment has been questioned. They were all highly esteemed and meritorious officers. Colonels Fenwick and Towson had been brevetted for most distinguished services during the late war. While the committee pay this just respect to officers retained in service, they wish not to detract from the merits of the many valuable officers who have been left out of the army, or reduced in rank. The only inquiry to which the attention of the committee has been directed, is, whether there has been a violation of law. Your committee are of the opinion, that the President had the constitutional right to leave out of service any officer of the army, and appoint another in his place. This construction of the constitution was distinctly adopted by the House of Representatives, at the first session, in 1789, by a very decisive vote, being in the proportion of five to three, and after a long and able discussion, in which Mr. Madison took a distinguished part. The late President Washington carried this construction into practical effect in the last year of his administration, by removing a distinguished individual from the office of minister to France, and the appointment of a successor, during the recess of the Senate. Although this removal produced considerable excitement in the public mind, your committee have not been able to learn that its legality was ever doubted, or that the constitutional right of the President to remove from office has been questioned, since the discussion and decision above mentioned. This forms a conclusive answer to the objections to the appointments called razees, and the dismissal of officers of the grade to which others were reduced. By the construction of the act given to it by the President, and which your committee believe correct, the intention of Congress is carried into effect, and the constitutional rights of the executive, and of the individuals concerned, are left unimpaired. Your committee are therefore of opinion, that the army has been reduced according to the provisions of the act, entitled "An act to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," passed the second day of March, 1821. REPORT Of the Commitee on Military Affairs on the petition of Peter Mills. FEBRUARY 14, 1822. Read, and ordered to lie on the table. MAY 8, 1822. Committed to a committee of the whole to-day. DECEMBER 12, 1822. Printed by order of the House of Representatives. The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Peter Mills, beg leave to REPORT: That the petitioner sets forth that he was a captain in the army of the United States during the late war; that at the battle of "Sone Creek" he was dangerously wounded, and left upon the field of battle; that the boats which conveyed the baggage of the army, in that expedition, were captured by the enemy, on board of which was the baggage, bedding, and other effects of the petitioner, of the value of six hundred dollars, all of which he lost. For this loss, as also for money advanced to his soldiers to procure necessaries when they were sick, and money advanced as premiums to eighteen soldiers whom he enlisted, but who were not found mustered, the petitioner prays for remuneration. The committee beg leave to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the petition of Peter Mills ought not to be granted. REPORT Of the Committee of Claims, on the petitions of John Anderson, Francis Navarre, and Francis Robert. JANUARY 17, 1822. Committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow. DECEMBER 12, 1822. Printed, by order of the House of Representatives. The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the report of the late Commissioner of Claims, in the case of John Anderson, Francis Navarre, and Francis Robert, REPORT: That the said John Anderson claims nine thousand dollars, the alleged value of a large dwelling house, and all his furniture, a large store of goods, and a large stable, situate on the River Raisin, in the territory of Michigan, and said to have been destroyed by the enemy, in consequence of a military occupation by the troops of the United States. James Witherel testifies in this case, that he was Major Commandant of four companies of infantry in the service of the United States, from the month of May, to the month of August, 1812; that one of the said companies, with a part of a troop of cavalry, were stationed at the River Raisin, and that, on the 8th day of June, 1812, he gave orders to James Abbot, Ensign, and acting Quartermaster to said detachment, to furnish barracks, stabling, &c. for the use of the men and horses. James Abbott states, that Duncan Reid was an Assistant Quartermaster; and the latter states, that, a short time before the surrender of Detroit, he took possession, in the capacity of Assistant Quartermaster, of a dwelling house and large stable, then in the occupancy of the claimant; and that the said house and stable were used as a place of deposite for military stores, and for barracks; that the house was well finished and furnished, in which the claimant had, also, a large assortment of goods. Several other witnesses testify to the occupation, as stated above; that the house was well finished and furnished, and that, on the 20th of August, 1812, the goods and furniture were destroyed and carried away, by the British and Indians, and the buildings burned. The witnesses express a belief that the destruction took place in consequence of the military occupation, and that the damage sustained by the owner was to the amount of nine thousand dollars. The Committee understand the rule to have been settled, that the government will not remunerate for property destroyed by an enemy, unless the destruction is such, as is authorized by the usages of civilized war |