IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. AUGUST 7, 1856.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. BIGGS made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill H. R. 351.] The Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred House Bill 351, "to extend the rights granted by the act entitled 'an act authorizing certain soldiers of the late war with Great Britain to surrender the lands drawn by them and to locate others in lieu thereof," have had the same under consideration, and report: That the bill only extends to the wife and children of a deceased soldier the same rights and privileges accorded to the soldier himself by the act approved January 7, 1853. The committee believing it to be just and right that the benefits conferred by said act upon the soldier, who was then living, should enure to the widow and children of the deceased soldier; they therefore report back the bill, without amendment, and recommend its passage. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. AUGUST 8, 1856.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. WADE made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 437.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Ephraim Hunt, report: This claim is for bounty land and pay for service as a soldier during the war of 1812, of which he has been deprived by his failure to obtain a regular discharge, in consequence of a misunderstanding as to the terms of his enlistment. He served until the close of the war, and then, deeming himself entitled to a discharge, he left the army, and returned home, without his discharge. The circumstances are fully detailed in the report from this committee during the last Congress, hereto annexed. The bill accompanying that report passed the Senate, but was not acted on by the House of Representatives. It is again submitted to the Senate. CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. AUGUST 8, 1856.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. WADE made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 438.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the report of the Court of Claims in the case of Thomas H. Baird, report: This is a claim for half pay as a surgeon in the war of the revolution. The opinions of the court and the dissenting judge are hereto annexed as a part of this report. The committee, concurring in the favorable decision of the court, report the bill from the court, and recommend its passage. THOMAS H. BAIRD vs. THE UNITED STATES. Chief Justice Gilchrist delivered the opinion of the court. The petitioner alleges that his father, Dr. Absalom Baird, was a commissioned surgeon in the army of the revolution, and in that capacity was entitled by law to half pay for life and other emoluments. Whether this allegation be true is the first inquiry in the case. It is not denied that he was surgeon of a regiment of artificers, and was discharged from the service, upon the reduction of his regiment, on the 29th of March, 1781. Whether this corps constituted a part of the army, so as to entitle the surgeon, upon its reduction, to half pay for life, is a point to be determined by an examination into the manner in which it was considered by the legislative authority at the time, and into the language of the resolution upon the subject. The resolution of September 30, 1780, provides for "the pay and establishment of the officers of the hospital department and medical staff," and specifies the pay of the director, chief physicians, and surgeons of the army and hospitals, purveyor and apothecary, physicians and surgeons of the hospitals, assistant purveyors and apothecaries, regimental surgeons, surgeon's mates in the hospitals, surgeon's mates in the army, and steward and wardmaster for each hospital. As Dr. Baird rendered medical services to the United States, and in their employ, in a position, at least, connected with the army, and as this was the only provision for the payment for medical services, and as he was entitled to compensation, he would seem to be necessarily in |